Strasserism (German:Strasserismus orGerman:Straßerismus) refers to a dissident,far-right ideology named after brothersGregor andOtto Strasser, who were associated with theearly Nazi movement. It sharesNazism's core rhetoric ofrevolutionary nationalism,anti-capitalism,antisemitism, andanti-communism, as well as its populist tactics. Fundamentally, it fits into a broader "Third Positionist" pattern of strategically appropriating socialist-sounding rhetoric to advance anultranationalist agenda, a tactic it shares with foundational historicalfascist movements, including those ofHitler andMussolini.
The ideology is primarily the creation of Otto Strasser, who promoted what he claimed was a more "authentic" and revolutionary "German Socialism"[1] in opposition to Hitler. His vision called for a radical restructuring of society based on a romantic, anti-modernist rejection of urban industrialism, aiming for a "de-proletarianized" agrarian society structured around medieval-stylefiefs (Erblehen) andtrade guilds.
In contrast, his brother Gregor Strasser remained within the Nazi leadership until his resignation in 1932. Characterized by historians as a pragmatic party organizer rather than a committed ideologue. Gregor's strategy was not revolutionary schism but internal persuasion; he sought to gain power by convincingHitler to accept pragmatic coalitions and compromises with the existing state.[2] He never joined Otto's dissident movement[3] and was ultimately murdered during the 1934Night of the Long Knives.[4]
Despite its "anti-capitalist" and "revolutionary" self-portrayal, the historical credibility and originality of Strasserism are subjects of significant scholarly debate. Otto Strasser's accounts of his conflict with Hitler are considered unreliable by historians,[5][6] the originality of the foundational programs is also highly questionable. Most notably, the 1932Sofortprogramm, a key economic platform promoted by Gregor, was largelyplagiarized fromRobert Friedländer-Prechtl, an economist of partial Jewish descent—a program whose core policies were ironically later implemented by theHitler regime after its nominal author, Gregor, had been murdered.[7] Politically, Otto's 1930 split from the Nazi party is noted as having had minimal impact,[8] despite at times receiving material support from figures as diverse as British intelligence[9] and, according to his own claims, certain German industrialists.[10]
In the post-war era, the "Strasserist" label itself was repurposed as a strategic guise for various far-right groups. In an era where overt Nazism was legally proscribed, both Strasser's own followers and figures with direct continuities to Hitlerite Nazism co-opted the "Strasserist" framework. According to historian Christoph Hendrik Müller, this allowed them to use its nominally "anti-capitalist" and anti-liberal rhetoric as a publicly acceptable vehicle for coded antisemitism, while tactically distancing themselves from theHitler regime.[11]
Like mainstream Nazism, Strasserism posited thenation and its "nature", rather thanclass, as the central organizing principle of society.[11] However, Strasserism's primary distinction from mainstream Nazism lay in its detailed and unique ideological framework for a radical, total restructuring of society. Otto Strasser advocated for what he claimed was a more authentically socialist alternative to what he condemned as Hitler'sstate-managed capitalism, which he labeled "German Socialism."[1] He contrasted his vision with what he considered Hitler's deviation from the movement's original path, particularly the party's dealings with capitalist interests, as well as Hitler's specific strategies for seizing power.
To further frame this distinction in left-right terms, Strasser consistently portrayed his own faction as the genuine "left-wing" of the Nazi movement. In his 1943 memoirFlight from Terror, he claimed that the Nazi Party was only perceived as the "Rightest" party due to Hitler's "pro-monarchist statements and industrial support," while asserting his own Prussian membership was "far more left than right". In the same passage, he presented GeneralErich Ludendorff—a key figure in theBeer Hall Putsch, icon of themilitarist right—as his faction's own candidate, meant as an alternative to the mainstream conservative candidate, and depicts him as a heroic figure.[12][13] Although in his bookGermany Tomorrow, published three years prior to this memoir, Strasser portrayed the rejection of Prussian militarism as one of his key political objectives, going so far as to condemn Prussia itself as an "appendage to Russia" in order to justify its partition.[14]
Strasser frequently equatedHitler's regime with bothMussolini'sFascism andStalin'sBolshevism, dismissing all three as forms oftotalitarian "State Capitalism" defined by oppressive bureaucracy. He explicitly repudiated "State Socialism" as well, which he considered merely a euphemism for the same system. In contrast to what he condemned as "bureaucracy," he presented his own model as the realization of a true "people's State" (Volksstaat). By reserving the specific label of "fascism" for his rivals Hitler and Mussolini, and consistently presenting his own ideology as the only genuine "National Socialism," he sought to carve out a unique ideological space for his movement.[15][16]
To articulate his opposition to theFührerprinzip, Strasser claimed to have challenged the very idea of human agency in history during his debate with Hitler. He reportedly dismissed the role of "great men", and indeed of humanity itself ("Men"), as creators of historical epochs. Instead, he argued, they were all merely "the emissaries, the instruments of destiny."[17]
The key proposals of Strasser's ideological system revolved around three interconnected goals: de-proletarianization, re-agrarianization, and de-urbanization. To achieve these, he advocated for decentralizing industry and population away from major urban centers in favor of a network of smaller towns and rural communities, a goal he believed was made practical by modern technologies like long-distance electricity transmission.[18] As a core part of his "re-agrarianization" policy, Strasser called for the complete breakup of all large landed estates, with their ultimate ownership transferred to the nation in perpetuity. This policy was aimed squarely at the traditional PrussianJunker aristocracy, whom he identified not as a class to be liberated from, but as the social pillar of the militarism and reaction he sought to replace with his own system.
This new order was to be realized through a socioeconomic model of nationalfiefs (Erblehen) andtrade guilds. Under this system, all working citizens were to becomeLehensträger (vassals) of the state, granted inheritable tenure intended to secure a family's livelihood for generations. The conditionality of these grants, however, was absolute: the state could reclaim any fief for "bad farming" or inefficient management, stripping any holder of their inherited position. His framework also outlined the transition, stipulating that existing enterprise owners could become the fief-holders of their properties, provided they were deemed "effective managers" and a proper "attitude towards the German Revolution."[19]
Strasser's economic model was presented as a form of "planned economy," grounded in the state's control over foreign trade and raw materials. However, this "plan" explicitly rejected direct state management of enterprises. Instead, Strasser envisioned a system where the state's role was limited to supervision and the issuing of licenses.[20] Within this framework, he stressed that individual income, for both workers and managers, should be directly linked to performance and the success of their enterprise through a system of profit-sharing. This incentive structure was designed to fuel what he termed "wholesome rivalry" between firms, as each sought to outperform the other for greater reward. The nation, as the ultimate owner, would merely collect a fixed "tithe" in kind from all landholders.[19]
Strasser argued that his system, by eliminating private ownership of productive monopolies and reorganizing society alongvocational rather than class lines, would truly eliminate the basis forclass conflict and restore an "organic" national community. However, this reorganization did not seek to eliminate hierarchy. On the contrary, grounded in his stated principle of the "inequality of men," it sought to replace the economically-defined classes of capitalism with a permanent and formally institutionalized system ofestates (Stände). This principle was most clearly articulated in his vision for "factory fellowships," where the division between management and labor was to be cemented not as a mere difference in role, but as a state-sanctioned distinction in rank. This would create a lasting separation between a new 'estate' of managers—what he termed a "functional aristocracy"—and a subordinate 'estate' of workers. This structure was embedded in the system's design from the moment of transition: while a worker received his new status through a share in the enterprise, the factory's original owner could retain control if he was deemed both an "effective manager" and politically reliable, now as its state-sanctioned manager.[19]
This entire framework, however, was not grounded in economic pragmatism, but in a deep-seated, romantic anti-modernism that sought to restore an idealized, pre-industrial social order. A core tenet of this worldview was a rejection not just of material progress, but of the very idea of human progress itself. He compared the stages of human evolution to the life of a man, arguing that any sense of progress is merely a youthful "illusion" that fades with age. Strasser questioned the cultural and spiritual value of modern inventions like the automobile and the radio, arguing that human nature remains fundamentally unchanged.[17] This rejection extended to the modern industrial city itself, which he condemned as a "nerve-destroying" and "murderous" environment, even proposing that the national capital be moved from Berlin to a smaller, historic town.[18]
Central to Strasser's concept of the state was the conviction that the state itself was not sacred, but merely an organizational tool—a "suit of clothes" for the organic nation.[21] Consequently, his vision was grounded in a system designed to permanently insulate what he considered the sacrosanct essence—freedom, religion, and, above all, the nation—from the fluctuations of parliamentary debate. The state's duty, in his view, was merely to protect this essence, not to alter it.[11]
This vision was to be realized through what he termed "authoritarian democracy."[22] While claiming to be building a "people's State" in contrast to bureaucracy, the apex of his system was a president (or non-hereditary monarch) elected for life, concentrating executive power in a single, unaccountable figure. To supposedly "balance" this concentrated power, Strasser designed what he considered a sophisticated system of checks and balances. Power was to be shared between three bodies: the president, a Great Council (composed of provincial presidents and ministers), and a Reich Chamber of Estates. Legislation would require the assent of any two of these three bodies. However, a critical detail rendered this balance largely theoretical: the president himself appointed the provincial presidents and ministers who constituted the majority of the Great Council, thus giving him a built-in majority in any legislative contest. Strasser argued that this convoluted design was necessary to prevent the rise of an individual dictator while simultaneously transcending the instability of mutable popular favor.[22] This revealed a vision where the state's duty was to protect the "nation's essence" not only from parliament, but from the people themselves.[11]
Strasser's relationship with religion evolved to fit his political needs. In his early revolutionary phase, as outlined in his "Fourteen Theses," he adopted a staunchly anti-clerical stance, targeting "Ultramontanism" (Catholicism's loyalty to the Pope) as a "supra-national power" colluding withJews andFreemasons.
By the time of his exile, however, his public positioning had become far more complex. In his 1940 memoirHitler and I, he constructed an elaborate narrative of ideological opposition. As part of this, he claimed that Hitler had opportunistically condemned General Ludendorff's "atheism" to appease Catholic leaders, while asserting that Hitler himself was more of a "German pagan."[23] Later, he retrospectively framed his 1930 split with Hitler as a principled, "German Protestant" stand against a "Roman Catholic, Italian fascist" demand for absolute loyalty, even casting his own defiance in aMartin Luther-like role. Elsewhere in the same book, Strasser also condemned Hitler's persecution of the churches. This self-portrayal as a protector of Christian interests culminated in his other major work from that year,Germany Tomorrow, where he presented Christian values as the "fundamental bond of the unity of the West,"[24] and speculated positively on the "Germanization of Catholicism" and the "Catholicization of Protestantism" as signs of a coming religious renewal in Europe.[25] In his later polemics, he would go even further, framing the conflict as a struggle against Hitler's alleged "atheism."[26] Ironically, despite his public posturing, Strasser, a Catholic by birth, relied on the charity of the CatholicBenedictine Order during his years of exile in Canada. Following his return to West Germany in 1955, one of his first political projects was an attempt to found a "Catholic People's Party" (katholische Volkspartei).[27]
Otto Strasser's antisemitism evolved in its rhetorical presentation over time, but remained consistent in its core goal ofracial segregation. In his later years, he primarily focused on a form of "economic antisemitism."
However, this represented a shift in tactics, not a moderation of his foundational views. The early 1925/26 Strasser Program, a platform for which he was the primary ideologue, laid out a systematic plan for segregation. It called not only for the expulsion of all Jewish immigrants who arrived after 1914, but also for the stripping of citizenship from allGerman Jews, who were to be legally reclassified as "foreigners" with the designation "Palestinians," thereby losing all political rights.[28]
By 1940, in his bookGermany Tomorrow, this same objective of physical separation was presented in a more sophisticated guise. Strasser now advocated for the support ofZionism, which he framed as a "genuine endeavour for the renovation of Judaism" that should be "supported by all 'nation-conscious' peoples."[29]
Ultimately, whether presented as the stripping of rights or the promotion of a separate state, Strasser's policy was consistently one of segregation, rather than extermination. This stance, while distinguishing him from thegenocidal policies of the Hitler regime, remained firmly grounded in foundationalvölkisch concepts of racial purity.
As an ideological theory, Strasserism is primarily associated with Otto Strasser, whose writings and political activities developed the doctrine in opposition toAdolf Hitler. Although the name evokes both brothers, this association is largely the result of Otto's later efforts to posthumously link his dissident movement to Gregor's earlier prominence within the party. Unlike his brother, Gregor Strasser never articulated a distinct ideological system and remained within the Nazi party leadership until he resigned his party offices in 1932, never joining the opposition.[3][30]
In the mid-1920s, a bloc often retrospectively labeled the "Nazi Left" or "Strasser Wing" emerged within the NSDAP out of strategic necessity. Led by Gregor Strasser, who had been tasked by Hitler with building the party in North Germany, this group of northern and westernGauleiter quickly realized that the völkisch and agrarian appeals effective in rural Bavaria were ill-suited for the industrial, heavily unionized north. To compete with the established Marxist parties for the loyalty of the working class, they deliberately amplified the so-called "socialist" aspects of the Nazi program. Organized as theWorking Community Northwest (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Nord-West), this internal bloc sought to elaborate on the party's vague economic promises by proposing a more structured socioeconomic framework.[31] Otto Strasser joined the party in 1925 and immediately became the bloc's primary ideologue. In his later writings, he would portray this northern bloc as a principled, "socialist" opposition to Hitler'sMunich-based leadership, promoting his early ideas in publications like theNationalsozialistische Briefe (National Socialist Letters).
Their efforts culminated in the 1925/26 "Strasser Program" draft. While Gregor was the political face, the program's radical formulations were primarily Otto's work. It called for acorporatist economic system under strong state supervision, which included the breakup of large agricultural estates and their redistribution as hereditary fiefs (Erblehen), compulsory guilds, and a system of corporate chambers to replace parliament. It also contained a detailed section on the "Jewish Question," which called for the stripping of citizenship from all German Jews, who were to be reclassified as "foreigners" ("Palestinians") under a system of legal segregation.[28]
This narrative of a principled "Strasserist" opposition, particularly as constructed by Otto in his post-war writings, is a subject of significant scholarly debate. Historians likePeter D. Stachura andUdo Kissenkoetter have systematically deconstructed Strasser's accounts, identifying them as apologetic works filled with factual errors, internal contradictions, and self-serving fabrications, all designed to establish the anti-Hitler and "socialist" credentials of his brother and himself.[5][32][6] Furthermore, even Strasser's most dramatic political act, his 1930 split from the party, is noted by historians likeRobert Gellately as having been politically insignificant.[8] Going even further,Stachura have challenged the very existence of a coherent "Strasser Wing," arguing that no such faction meaningfully existed and that it was little more than an expression ofpetty-bourgeois panic in theWeimar Republic.[30]
The confusion is further compounded by the complex authorship and originality of the various "Strasserist" platforms. The early 1925/26 program draft, which emerged from the northern bloc led by Gregor Strasser, contained radical antisemitic policies, such as strippingGerman Jews of their citizenship.[28] While historical consensus points to Otto Strasser as its primary ideologue—a role complicated by his systematicghostwriting for his brother—Gregor's own commitment to these radical ideas was questionable. Contemporaries likeJoseph Goebbels noted his hesitant defense of the draft at the 1926 Bamberg Conference, suggesting he was more of a political front than a true believer.[3]
This division of labor became clearer in the early 1930s. Gregor, pivoting towards a more "realpolitisch" approach. His own later economic platform, the 1932Sofortprogramm, reflected this shift. It was a technocratic, state-dirigiste program focused on job creation, a stark departure from the radical but romantic, agrarian utopianism of the earlier draft authored by Otto. However, its originality has been thoroughly debunked by historians like Gerhard Kroll, who demonstrated that it was largely plagiarized from the work ofRobert Friedländer-Prechtl, an economist of partial Jewish descent.[7] In a final, bitter irony, many of the core policies of Gregor's plagiarized program were later implemented by the Hitler regime after Gregor's murder in 1934.
Going even further in his pivot away from the party's earlier anti-capitalist rhetoric, by late 1932 Gregor Strasser was actively cultivating contacts within industrial circles, accepting their financial support, and, in a widely publicized interview, publicly affirmed a pro-business platform that rejected nationalization and advocated for tax cuts for the wealthy.[33] This entire historical complexity reflects Gregor's ultimate characterization by historians: a pragmatic party organizer and power broker, rather than a committed ideologue.[34][35]
In the early 1930s, a different strain of radicalism emerged within the Nazi movement, primarily from the ranks of theSturmabteilung (SA). Led byErnst Röhm, some SA members began calling for a "second revolution" to enact further social and economic transformation. While this anti-capitalist rhetoric superficially echoed some themes associated with the "Strasserist" label, its motivations and organizational base were distinct from both Gregor's pragmatic state-capitalism and Otto's agrarian utopianism. This distinction is underscored by historianIan Kershaw's broader judgment on the party's "revolutionary" wing, noting that even its most vocal elements "did not have another vision of the future of Germany or another politic to propose."[36] This highlights the severe limitations of the SA's dissent, which lacked the kind of systematic alternative that Otto Strasser would later attempt to develop. Gregor Strasser, for his part, held a very low opinion of Röhm, whom he disparagingly referred to as a "pervert."[37]
In July 1934, Adolf Hitler ordered theNight of the Long Knives, a political purge targeting the SA leadership and other perceived rivals. Among those killed wereErnst Röhm, the head of the SA, and Gregor Strasser.
Otto Strasser had been active in theNazi Party but broke with it in 1930 over fundamental disagreements about economic policy and the structure of the state. While the party leadership emphasized centralized authority and sought to harmonize labor and capital under state oversight, Strasser advocated breaking up industrial monopolies, placing key industries under public control, and reorganizing society through vocational representation and the partial inclusion of workers in a tripartite model of co-management. Central to his long-term vision, most systematically outlined in his 1940 workGermany Tomorrow. Strasser called for a "re-agrarianization" of the country, involving large-scale de-urbanization and the re-establishment of a peasant society grounded in his principle of abolishing private property in land and means of production. His alternative was not direct state ownership, but a system of hereditary entails where the nation retained ultimate ownership while granting usage rights to individuals and groups.
Following his expulsion in 1930, Otto Strasser immediately founded the Combat League of Revolutionary National Socialists (theBlack Front), a dissident organization which opposed Hitler's leadership and the direction it was moving the Nazi movement towards.[38] However, his departure ultimately did little to alter the Nazi Party's course; mainstream Nazism continued its strategic appropriation of socialist-sounding rhetoric, and his dissident group quickly faded to political insignificance in Germany.[8] Despite its anti-capitalist rhetoric, Strasser's movement at times received material support from British intelligence services and, according to his own claims, from certain German industrialists as well. Due to his growing opposition to Hitler, Otto Strasser fled Germany in 1933 and spent the following years in exile inCzechoslovakia,Switzerland,France, and finallyCanada, only returning toWest Germany only afterWorld War II in 1953.
Following his return to West Germany, Otto Strasser's post-war ideology, known as "Solidarism" (Solidarismus), served as a significant ideological tool in the new political climate. According to historian Christoph Hendrik Müller, in an era where overt Nazism was legally proscribed, Strasser's framework provided a publicly acceptable vehicle for attacking theFederal Republic's new democratic order and its Western alignment. Its anti-capitalist and anti-liberal rhetoric functioned as a form of coded economic antisemitism, allowing oldervölkisch ideas to persist under a new guise. Müller notes that this strategic guise was adopted not only by Strasser's followers but was also utilized by figures with direct continuities to Hitler's formerNazi regime and its ideology of Hitlerite Nazism. These groups sought a legitimate way to express opposition to the post-war system, whether by co-opting the Strasserist label or utilizing other nationalist facades.[11]
Gregor and Otto Strasser were the sons of a Catholic judicial officer fromUpper Bavaria, and were influenced by their father's ideals, which sought to combine nationalism, socialism, and Christianity while opposing both hereditary monarchy and unrestrained capitalism. Forged by their shared experience in World War I, the brothers began their political careers fighting side-by-side in theFreikorps to crush theBavarian Soviet Republic in 1919. They subsequently joined the early Nazi Party, where they formed a potent political partnership: Gregor as the charismatic organizer and political leader of the northern party bloc, and Otto as the primary ideologue who provided the theoretical substance for their bloc.[31] They were both associated with theKampfverlag press in the late 1920s. However, according to historianUdo Kissenkoetter, Gregor had already withdrawn from the publisher's affairs by 1928 at the latest, even though many of the radical articles published there were still being written by Otto under Gregor's name. This practice exploited Gregor's reputation and parliamentary immunity to shield Otto from prosecution, but in turn subjected Gregor to a persistent wave of libel lawsuits. After Otto's formal split from the party in 1930—announced with the headline "The Socialists are leaving the NSDAP!" in theKampfverlag media—Gregor quickly adopted a critical stance. He expressed his personal bitterness over the situation, noting in a private letter how his brother had taken over the newspaper he had founded through a "series of disloyal chess moves" that had "completely destroyed" their personal relationship.[3]
Gregor Strasser (1892–1934) began hisultranationalist political career after serving inWorld War I. Along with his brother Otto, he joined theFreikorps and participated in crushing theBavarian Soviet Republic in 1919. He then took part in the right-wingKapp Putsch in 1920 and formed his ownvölkischer Wehrverband ("popular defense union"), which he later merged into the Nazi Party in 1921. Initially a loyal supporter of Hitler, Strasser participated in theBeer Hall Putsch and held high-level offices in the Nazi Party.[31]
In the mid-1920s, Strasser, as the leader of the northern German party organization, formed an internal bloc known as the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Nord-West (Working Community Northwest). This group advocated for radical economic policies, most notably supporting the expropriation of the estates of the formerroyalty and aristocracy. Seeking to elaborate a more detailed party program to assert its own direction within the party, they drafted the so-called "Strasser Program" of 1925-26. While Gregor was the political face of this program, its detailed economic and ideological formulations are believed by historians to have been heavily influenced, if not primarily drafted, by his brother Otto.[3] The program called for the nationalization of key industries with a profit-sharing model (workers receiving 10% of shares), the breakup of large agricultural estates and their redistribution as hereditary fiefs (Erblehen), and the establishment of acorporatist chamber system to replace the parliamentary republic. On foreign policy, it advocated for a "Greater German Reich" includingAustria and the creation of a Central African colonial empire, as well as a "United States of Europe." It also contained a detailed section on the "Jewish Question," which called for the expulsion of Jewish immigrants and the stripping of citizenship from allGerman Jews, who were to be reclassified as foreigners ("Palestinians") under a system of legal segregation.[28]
However, by the early 1930s, reflecting Strasser's pragmatic approach, he began cultivating contacts within industrial circles, appealing to industrialists who saw him as a figure capable of "taming" the Nazi Party by integrating it into a coalition government. This pivot was made clear in his new "Economic Construction Program" of October 1932, which significantly toned down the anticapitalist rhetoric of his earlier "Emergency Program." He now called for tax cuts for the wealthy instead of hikes and advocated for price liberalization over controls. In a 1932 interview with American journalistH.R. Knickerbocker, he explicitly affirmed his new course:
"We recognize private property. We recognize private initiative. We recognize our debts and our obligation to pay them. We are against the nationalization of industry. We are against the nationalization of trade. We are against a planned economy in the Soviet sense."[33]
Correspondingly, Strasser received direct financial support from several industrialists, including monthly payments fromRuhr mining interests organized by lobbyistAugust Heinrichsbauer,[39] as well as funds fromPaul Silverberg andOtto Wolff.
The originality of Gregor Strasser's economic later platform has been seriously questioned by historians. German historian Gerhard Kroll, in his study of the period, concluded that the 1932Sofortprogramm under Gregor's name was almost a verbatim copy of the work of Robert Friedländer-Prechtl, a contemporary economic commentator of partial Jewish descent. According to Kroll, Strasser's primary contribution was to skillfully adapt Friedländer-Prechtl's ideas into the language of a political emergency program.[7] This assessment was conveniently corroborated by Otto Strasser, who admitted in a 1974 interview that Friedländer-Prechtl's thought had "decisively influenced Gregor."[40] This late-life statement specifically addressed the 1932 program, for which Gregor was politically responsible. However, it stands in stark contrast to numerous earlier accounts, including Otto's own, which identified Otto as the primary ideologue and author behind the more radical 1925/26 program draft. Beyond the issue of originality, Gregor's own grasp of the radical ideology attributed to him was questioned even at the time. During a 1928Reichstag debate over lifting his immunity for one such libel case, an opposing deputy publicly suggested that Strasser lent his name to newspapers whose content he was likely in no position to review. This aligns with private observations, such as that ofJoseph Goebbels, who noted with surprise in his diary that during the crucial 1926 Bamberg Conference, Strasser defended the radical program draft 'falteringly, trembling, clumsily' (stockend, zitternd, ungeschickt), as if he could not fully identify with the words he was speaking.[3]
Having demonstrated little personal conviction for these programmatic ideas, Strasser effectively abandoned any pretense of ideological leadership from the late 1920s onward. Instead, he strategically ceded the role of the movement's ideological arbiter entirely to Hitler, whom he publicly praised for articulating the essence of National Socialism with "magnificent, philosophically compelling logic." Strasser pivoted to what he knew best: party organization and power politics. This shift allowed him to consolidate his influence as a practical organizer, a role he believed was separate from and reserved for Hitler's lieutenants, while leaving the ideological domain to the Führer himself.[3]
In the early 1930s, Gregor Strasser remained active in the NSDAP leadership. The 1930 split with his brother Otto, who left the party to form a dissident organization, publicly distanced Gregor from more explicit ideological opposition to Hitler. This break was the culmination of long-standing personal friction, as Otto had systematically published his most inflammatory articles under Gregor's name. This practice exploited Gregor's reputation and parliamentary immunity to shield Otto from prosecution, but in turn subjected Gregor to a persistent wave of libel lawsuits that pursued him until a general amnesty in late 1932. The legal battles became a constant drain on his time and resources, forcing him to resort to legalistic maneuvers such as changing his residence, obtaining medical certificates of unfitness to travel, and even notarizing the transfer of his household assets to his wife's name to protect them from seizure.[3] Gregor sharply condemned his brother's actions, denouncing his departure as "pure madness." In letters to party members, he complained that Otto had treated him in a "humiliating fashion and the party in a treacherous way," and ridiculed his brother's ideological constructs as the product of "rational, abstract deductions from his work at his desk, enlarged by an extraordinarily strong assessment of his own ability." To further dissociate himself from Otto, Gregor, in his role as Organization Leader, actively participated in purging the party of suspicious elements.[41]The animosity between the brothers intensified after Gregor's resignation in 1932, when Otto attempted to exploit the situation for his own political gain. In their first contact since 1930, Gregor sent a sharply worded letter rebuking his brother, stating: "You are highly dangerous for your friends and a tonic for your enemies... keep me out of your game in 1933!"[42] While Gregor continued to hold senior roles in the party, internal tensions over strategy and political direction became increasingly apparent.
In 1932, as the Nazi Party's electoral momentum began to stall, Strasser became convinced that the party could not gain power by itself. His strategy shifted towards forming a broad coalition to gain a parliamentary majority, viewing an alliance with theCentre Party and trade unions as a viable path. Later, he entered into discussions with ChancellorKurt von Schleicher, who reportedly considered him for a role in a proposedQuerfront (cross-front) government. This strategic disagreement became the core of his conflict with Hitler. While Strasser advocated for a pragmatic coalition to secure power and avert the party's decline, Hitler adamantly refused to accept any position other than Chancellor, viewing any compromise as a betrayal of the movement's goal of absolute power.[2]
Although historical consensus, based on Strasser's own statements, indicates he never intended to split the Nazi Party,[6] his openness to compromise was denounced by Hitler's inner circle as disloyalty.[43] Despite his strategic disagreements with Hitler, Strasser retained a remarkable personal loyalty to him. His goal was to persuade Hitler to accept what he saw as the only realistic path to power. Stachura notes that Strasser, while dismissing the quasi-mysticalFührer-cult, appeared to have been captivated by Hitler's personality, becoming one of the "most unsuspecting victims of the Führer-myth."[44]
Propaganda ministerJoseph Goebbels, who had once been a supporter of Strasser, now publicly accused Strasser of plotting with Schleicher to divide the party, and Strasser found himself politically isolated.[45][46] After a final, decisive confrontation in which Hitler rejected his strategic proposals, a disillusioned Strasser resigned from all party positions in December 1932. He withdrew from active politics, and, with Hitler's consent, accepted a well-paid directorship at the chemical-pharmaceutical companySchering-Kahlbaum. He subsequently became the chairman of the National Association of the German Pharmacology Industry, reportedly finding his new corporate life "interesting and stimulating."[47] He was killed during theNight of the Long Knives in July 1934[4].
Ultimately, Gregor Strasser's ideological legacy is one of shallowness and contradiction, a conclusion supported by historians likePeter D. Stachura who characterize his thought as "intellectually mediocre." His so-called "socialism," never systematically defined, remained a collection of emotional anti-capitalist slogans, derivative concepts (as seen in the plagiarized 1932Sofortprogramm), and a romanticized praise for Prussian virtues. This lack of a coherent ideological core allowed him to subordinate his professed beliefs to pragmatic political goals with remarkable flexibility. For instance, his fiery denunciations of "Roman-Jewish fascism" quickly gave way to advocating for a coalition with the very sameCatholic Centre Party when power seemed within reach. Similarly, his supposedly pro-worker stance coexisted with deeply reactionary social views, such as his endorsement of the party's anti-feminist doctrine. But the ultimate expression of this opportunism was his complete reversal on economic policy. Despite his long-standing reputation as an anti-capitalist, by 1932 he was actively courting industrialists, accepting their financial support, and publicly pivoting to a pro-business platform that explicitly rejected nationalization and called for tax cuts for the wealthy. While never calling for extermination, his committed antisemitism, which aimed at the legal and social exclusion of Jews, remained a constant. This pattern suggests that despite the "left-wing" label often applied to him, Strasser is better understood not as a committed ideologue, but as a "realpolitisch" opportunist who used ideological rhetoric primarily as a tool to broaden his appeal and secure his own power base within the Nazi movement.[34][35]
Otto Strasser (1897–1974), like his elder brother Gregor, began his political involvement after serving inWorld War I. The brothers first acted together in theFreikorps to crush theBavarian Soviet Republic in 1919, but early ideological differences soon emerged. Unlike Gregor, who participated in the right-wingKapp Putsch in 1920, Otto opposed the coup and initially joined theSocial Democratic Party (SPD), supporting theWeimar Republic before growing disillusioned with parliamentary politics.[31]
Otto Strasser joined the Nazi Party in 1925, where he soon developed his own unique vision of Nazism. Rooted in a romantic anti-modernism, his ideology rejected both industrial capitalism and Marxist internationalism. Instead, he advocated for a radical restructuring of society modeled on a romanticized vision of the Middle Ages: a "de-proletarianized," agrarian society structured around national fiefs (Erblehen) and trade guilds, with political power exercised through a system of corporate estates (Stände) rather than parliamentary democracy.
Throughout the late 1920s, he systematically authored many of the radical articles and speeches published under his more prominent brother's name. This practice was a deliberate tactic to exploit Gregor's reputation and parliamentary immunity, which shielded Otto from prosecution but subjected Gregor to a persistent wave of libel lawsuits that became a constant drain on his resources. This parasitic relationship culminated in their 1930 split.[2]
His rejection of theFührerprinzip and insistence on breaking up large industries brought him into conflict with the party's leadership, culminating in his expulsion in 1930. Strasser's vision for the so-called "German Revolution" was outlined in his 1930 "Fourteen Theses." The program called for a "Greater German Reich" stretching "fromMemel toStrasbourg, fromEupen toVienna" and the establishment of a "strong central power" to counter all "unity-destroying" forces. It specifically called for opposition to what he termed "supra-national forces" such asJudaism andUltramontanism, further proposing resistance against the "rule of the Jewish-Roman Empire." In a manifesto titled "The Socialists Leave the NSDAP!", Strasser framed his departure as an act of ideological principle, declaring that any political compromise with the existing capitalist system was a betrayal of the German Revolution. He condemned the party leadership's increasing "bourgeoisification," where the pursuit of power had superseded core tenets. Citing foreign policy, he ostensibly opposed all forms ofimperialism, denouncing any potential "war of intervention againstSoviet Russia" and criticizing the leadership's support for "British imperialism" against theIndian independence movement, arguing that the weakening of anyVersailles power would aid Germany. On domestic issues, he accused the party of abandoning its commitment to a "Greater German Reich" by tolerating existing state borders. However, the immediate impact of his secession proved to be minimal. As historian Robert Gellately notes, Strasser took "remarkably few prominent members with them, no district leaders or members of the Reichstag," and his opposition quickly "faded to insignificance." Shortly thereafter, he unknowingly confided in an undercover policeinformer that the NSDAP "was no longer revolutionary" and that Hitler was betraying the party's socialism. Ultimately, his departure did little to alter the Nazi Party's course, which continued its strategic appropriation of socialist-sounding rhetoric.[8] Nevertheless, in contrast to his brother Gregor, who favored pragmatic alliances, Otto presented himself as an uncompromising revolutionary.
To justify this split, Strasser immediately published a polemical tract titledMinistersessel oder Revolution? (Minister's Chair or Revolution?), detailing a dramatic confrontation he claimed to have had with Hitler. In this highly self-serving account, he cast Hitler as a traitor to the "socialist" cause. The confrontation was framed as a clash of worldviews: Hitler was depicted as a vulgar proponent of material progress and a defender of a "Roman Catholic, fascist" style of personal loyalty, while Strasser portrayed himself as a profound philosopher and a principled German Protestant. EvokingMartin Luther's famous declaration, he claimed to have challenged Hitler's demand for absolute obedience by asserting the primacy of the "Idea" over the "Leader," before reportedly declaring his anti-modernist creed: "I do not believe in this progress... man has not changed in 1,000 years." However, historians have systematically deconstructed this account, identifying it as a largely unreliable polemic rather than an accurate historical record. The narrative's credibility is undermined by what historian Peter D. Stachura describes as Otto's lifelong pattern of fabricating historical events, such as the invented 1920 meeting between Gregor, Hitler, and Ludendorff.[5][32]Robert Gellately notes that Strasser's colorful retelling of the event undoubtedly added "an anti-Hitler twist or two."[48] This unreliability is compounded by the fact that Strasser continuously altered the details of his conversation with Hitler in his later retellings, with the narrative growing increasingly dramatic and philosophical in subsequent works like his 1940 memoirHitler and I and his final 1969 autobiography, provocatively titledMein Kampf. German historianUdo Kissenkoetter, has demonstrated that Otto was the primaryghostwriter for Gregor's public statements, making his entire portrayal of their fraternal dynamic suspect.[3] More pointedly,Rainer Zitelmann argues that Strasser's depiction of Hitler's views on key issues such as autarky, racial theory, and his alleged praise for Rosenberg's book "diametrically contradicts" Hitler's own documented statements from the period. Zitelmann and other scholars conclude that Strasser's report must be treated with extreme skepticism, as it was crafted with the clear political aim of portraying Hitler as a traitor to Nazi's so-called "socialism" in order to attract followers to his new movement.[49]
A few months following his departure, Otto founded the Combat League of Revolutionary National Socialists, better known as theBlack Front, a small dissident group formed in opposition to Hitler's leadership. Strasser's Black Front attempted to create instability within the Nazi Party, most notably by supporting the 1931Stennes Revolt, an uprising of the Berlin SA led byWalther Stennes. In his memoirs, Strasser would portray Stennes not merely as an ally, but as an idealized revolutionary figure, praising him as a "typical son of a Junker family, rich in the tradition of that military caste."[50] In the wake of the revolt, several hundred of Stennes's expelled SA members joined the Black Front, and the two groups briefly merged into a unified organization called the "National Socialist Combat Community of Germany (Nationalsozialistischen Kampfgemeinschaft Deutschlands)".
In Strasser's own memoir,Flight From Terror, he claimed that the rebellion, which he had involved to orchestrate, was primarily financed by prominent industrialists, who sought to remove Hitler from power. He specifically named the steel magnateOtto Wolff—whom Strasser takes care to describe as "a Jew converted to Christianity"—andPaul Silverberg (who was of Jewish descent), portraying them as key backers. According to Strasser's account, Wolff's motivation was partly to undermine his industrial rival,Fritz Thyssen, whom Strasser perceived as a key backer of Hitler. Strasser portrayed the arrangement as a "seemingly heaven-sent offer", a "miracle" that empowered his faction with "more money than Hitler had offered." He claimed that in accepting the deal, he would now be "beholden to a privileged group much the same as Hitler was," yet justified the decision as a pragmatic necessity. This funding, he wrote, enabled him to offer cash incentives to wavering party members, leading to a brief moment of what he described as "jubilant" success before the revolt ultimately failed due to Hitler's personal intervention.[10]
Strasser fled Germany in 1933 to live firstly inCzechoslovakia and thenCanada before returning toWest Germany in later life, all the while writing prolifically about Hitler and what he saw as his betrayal of Nazism's ideals. During his exile, Strasser presented himself as a potential leader of a future German revolution and was briefly considered by British and Canadian officials as a possible asset. Strasser's collaboration with British intelligence services began in the 1930s, when he was utilized byMI6 to operate a black propaganda radio station from Czechoslovakia. This project, which disseminated rumors against the Nazi regime, drew on Strasser's insider status, though the strategic use of such methods was already a developed concept within British intelligence.[51]
In January 1935, for security reasons, Strasser sent his pregnant wife and their three-year-old daughter to the Greek island ofSamos, where their son, Gregor Peter Demosthenes, was born in May. In a telegram to Hitler, Strasser referred to his newborn son as "Gregor II."[52]
It was during this period of exile, in 1940, that Strasser publishedGermany Tomorrow, his most systematic attempt to present his ideology to a Western audience. In this book, he now prominently advocated for Christian values as the "fundamental bond of the unity of the West," and rejected Prussian militarism and centralization, citing theBritish Commonwealth as a model for a future "European Federation." At the same time, he began to publicly recount an earlier conversation he claimed to have had with his brother Gregor, who had been killed in 1934. According to Strasser's account, he had told his brother Gregor:
"We are Christians; without Christianity Europe is lost. Hitler is an atheist."[26]
To this Western audience, he also presented his vision for a new European order, which included a plan for the "liberation" ofUkraine andBelarus to serve as an "internal colonial' market" for Europe and a buffer againstBolshevism. As his proposed solution to the "Jewish problem," he advocated for the support ofZionism, arguing it offered the ideal path to achieving a physical separation of Jews from Germany by categorizing them as "foreigners" belonging to their own nation.
In 1941, elements of his Black Front contributed to the foundation of theFree-Germany Movement, modeled onFree France and based largely in Latin America. It called for a democratic constitution, federalism and regional autonomy, peace between democracies andGod-fearing policies. The movement was politically broader than his earlier group, uniting Christian,national-conservative, and social democratic exiles whose only shared stance wasanti-communism. However, this ideological heterogeneity soon led to fragmentation.[53] While Strasser's initial utility to theAllies was acknowledged, it did not last, as deep-seated distrust and conflicting interests emerged among the Allied powers. TheSoviet Union disliked his strident anti-Bolshevism, and the Americans were never fully convinced of his usefulness. William Donovan, head of the USOffice of Strategic Services (OSS), warned PresidentRoosevelt that Strasser "is by no means so much anti-Nazi as anti-Hitler ... At heart he subscribes to the principles of National Socialism...." Despite this skepticism, it was evident that British and Canadian governments considered using him as a potential leader of an underground intelligence network, and his claims to control a powerful internal group like the Black Front were taken seriously by some officials. However, Strasser's claims of controlling a vast underground network in Germany were vastly exaggerated, with little evidence of a significant Black Front presence. Ultimately, concerns regarding his strong anti-communist stance, unclear political positioning, and limited verifiable influence led Allied officials to view him with caution, and he was not considered a viable long-term political partner.[9] As the war progressed, Canadian authorities came to view him as a political liability rather than an asset. They placed him under surveillance and severely restricted his political activities, including his ability to publish, which was his primary means of income. Consequently, he spent the latter part of the war in relative isolation and financial difficulty on a farm inNova Scotia, at times relying on support from his brotherBernhard Paul Strasser, aBenedictine monk living in the United States.
According to a 1950 report based on his own statements, Otto Strasser publicly positioning himself as being opposed to alliances with either the Eastern or Western blocs by claiming he had rejected an invitation fromEast Germany's "National Front."[54] However, this claimed neutrality did not prevent deep divisions among his few remaining followers. A bitter feud erupted between his long-time deputy, Bruno Fricke, who favored an Eastern orientation, and other functionaries who sought alignment with the West. The conflict culminated in 1951 with Fricke's departure, who publicly broke with Strasser, accusing his former leader of abandoning ideals for "business politics for the sake of earning a living" (Geschäftspolitik zum „Brotwerb“).
Strasser was permitted to return toWest Germany in 1955 after a lengthy legal battle and settled in Munich.[55] Among his projects was an effort, with the help of his brother Bernard, to found a "Catholic People's Party" (katholische Volkspartei), reflecting the final evolution of his opportunistic use of religious identity.[27] His most notable post-war organization, theGerman Social Union (Deutsch-Soziale Union), founded in 1956, also failed to gain any significant support.[56] He subsequently withdrew into private life, though he remained a prolific and ideologically committed writer. According to his son, who recalled their relationship as distant, Strasser was singularly focused on "politics and history, but little interested in anything else,"[57] living in an apartment crammed with "files, books, and newspaper clippings."[58][59]
In his later works, Strasser continued to defend and systematize his ideological vision. In his 1962 bookFascism(Der Faschismus), he sought to distinguish his own brand of "socialism" from thefascism ofHitler andMussolini. This effort culminated in 1969 with the publication of a political autobiography pointedly titledMein Kampf (My Struggle), a revised version of an earlier work.[58]
Far from retreating into obscurity, Strasser remained an active propagandist for his cause. In 1971, he conducted a speaking tour across the United States, where he addressed an estimated 10,000 people and attracted considerable media attention. He died inMunich in August 1974.[60] In its obituary,The New York Times described Strasser as "Hitler'sTrotsky".[61]
The ideological framework of Strasserism was grounded in a deep-seated, romantic anti-modernism, which culminated in a rejection not just of material progress, but of the very idea of human progress and human agency in history. This was starkly revealed in Strasser's account of a debate with Hitler. According to Strasser, when Hitler praised the role of "great men," he retorted that humanity itself ("Men"), were not the creators of historical epochs but merely "the emissaries, the instruments of destiny." Similarly, when confronted with the "marvels of technology," he claimed to have declared he "had to deny the so-called progress of mankind to begin with, because I was unable to regard the invention of thetoilet as a work of culture," before reportedly continuing:
"I don't believe in the progress of humanity, Herr Hitler. Men have not changed in the last thousand years.... Do you think that Goethe would have been happier if he had been able to ride in a motor car or Napoleon if he had been able to broadcast?"[17][62]
This belief that history was a predetermined biological cycle, rather than a linear process of development shaped by human action, formed the foundation of his "Conservative Revolution" philosophy, explicitly citingOswald Spengler's theories on the organic nature of cultures and the rhythm of history. Building upon Spengler's macro-historical cycle, Strasser developed his own cyclical theory of history, the "Law of Triune Polarity," which he compared to the Earth's rotation on its axis. He posited that history oscillates in approximately 150-year rhythms between two fundamental poles: a "we-idea" (conservatism, community, socialism) and an "ego-idea" (liberalism, individualism, capitalism). He argued that the liberal epoch inaugurated by the French Revolution was ending, and the world, beginning with the "German Revolution" of 1914, was entering a new conservative, socialist era.[63]
This philosophy of a new era extended to his vision for cultural and spiritual life, where he attempted to blend principles of freedom with authoritarian controls. Strasser called for the "freedom of faith and conscience" and advocated for the separation of church and state. He championed the independence of art, science, and the press from what he termed the "rule of the average man." However, he immediately qualified this vision by asserting that "liberty does not mean libertinage." To enforce this, he demanded that all press contributions be signed, making writers personally and legally responsible, and proposed an advertisement monopoly to sever the link between news and commerce, creating a press accountable not to the market, but to a different set of controls.[64]
Grounded in his philosophy of "conservative realism,"[65] it rejected both liberalindividualism and Marxistmaterialism, he argued that a valid economic system must be deduced from what he defined as the innate "German nature", a character marked by a "longing for his own peculiar style, for independence, for delight in responsibility and joy in creation."[66] Crowning this entire worldview was the principle, laid out in his "Fourteen Theses," of consciously affirming and valuing the "inequality of men" (Ungleichheit der Menschen), a belief that provided the philosophical justification for his hierarchical social and political order.
Drawing on this foundation, alongside influences fromguild socialism and Catholicdistributism, Strasser called for a vocationally organized economy structured around three elements: the state, workers, and managers. Each was assigned a distinct functional role. Industrial enterprises would be reorganized asjoint-stock companies under state supervision. Strasser specified this supervision would be limited to regulation and the issuing of licenses, rather than direct state management, thereby creating a framework for what he termed "wholesomerivalry" between enterprises. Non-transferable shares would be granted to workers and managers according to merit and position, linking their income directly to the success of the enterprise. These shares were to be held infief, not as private property but as conditional tenure. This conditionality was central, as the state, typically acting on the advice of self-governing vocational bodies, retained the power to reclaim a fief for "bad farming" or inefficient management, ensuring production aligned with the national economy. Under Strasser's model, possession and profits were tripartite, assigned in thirds to the manager, the staff of workers, and the state. This meant the state retained both partial ownership and a one-third share of all factory profits, in addition to collecting a fixed "tithe" in kind from agriculture.[19]
Strasser's vision for social renewal was rooted in a radical policy of de-urbanization and re-agrarianization, which he saw as essential to reviving Germany's agricultural base and restoring the moral foundations of rural life, and to what he perceived as the spiritual crisis of the modern German worker—their "homelessness, discontent, and purposelessness." He believed that urban concentration was both a symptom and a driver of capitalist decay—undermining social cohesion, weakening personal responsibility, and accelerating cultural decline.[18] For Strasser, these policies were central to the primary task of German Socialism: the "de-proletarianization" of the German people.
He argued that the modern industrial worker, alienated and propertyless, represented a source of instability andMarxist influence. His solution was to transform theproletariat into a new class of property-holding small producers, thereby restoring their connection to the nation, a sacred bond with the soil, and eliminating the basis forclass conflict. Strasser's hostility towards industrial society was absolute; he called for the "disintegration of titanic enterprises" and an end to the "tyranny of technique," viewing the modern factory with its "murderous monotony" as an "unmitigated curse." In Strasser's ideal Germany, the "nerve-destroying giant towns" would be abandoned, and even the capital of the Reich would be relocated fromBerlin to a smaller, historical town likeGoslar orRatisbon, symbolizing a definitive break with the industrial, centralized state.[67]
For Strasser, true possession was not a matter of legal ownership, but of spiritual connection. The cornerstone of this imagined pre-industrial society was a new system of land tenure explicitly modeled on medieval feudalism. This required the complete overthrow of the existing land ownership structure, particularly that of the traditional Prussian aristocracy, to be replace with his own system. The expropriated land was to be reassigned by the nation to individual farmers as non-transferable but inheritablefiefs (Erblehen). Strasser obsessively distinguished this from private property by defining it asBesitz (possession or usufruct) rather thanEigentum (absolute ownership), meaning the holder could use and profit from the land but could not sell, damage, or neglect it. Consequently, the individual farmer or industrial manager was not an owner in the liberal sense, but aLehensträger—a fief-holder of the nation, whose right to possession was conditional upon fulfilling their duty to the national community. This form of possession was tied to productive use, family responsibility, and community welfare. This system, grounded in the overthrow of the old aristocracy to establish a new, nationalized feudalism, was, in his view, essential to restoring rural autonomy, ensuring national food security as a core component of his goal ofautarky, and the only way to restore a moral counterpoint to the fragmentation of modern industrial society.[67] Building on this foundation, he also called for the preservation of individual initiative within a regulated economic order and a political structure grounded infederalism, local autonomy, andindirect democratic mechanisms inspired by the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
Strasser's wider political program also reflected a marked rejection of Prussian militarism and authoritarianism. He criticized what he called "Prusso-German imperialism," which he equated with the "Asiatic power of Russia"[68] by labeling Prussia an "appendage to Russia,"[14] and sought to dismantle its institutional legacy by abolishing conscription and replacing it with a fully voluntary military. In his view, the traditions of centralized command and compulsory military service had distorted Germany's political development and moral character. He believed that a true cultural shift away from militarism would only be achieved when the German people embraced different values, once writing that the "spirit of militarism will have been definitively overcome" only when people grasp that "schools of cookery are much more important than schools of politics." His opposition to these structures extended beyond the military, shaping his broader critique of authoritarian systems and centralized rule.[15]
InGermany Tomorrow, Otto Strasser rejected bothfascism andcommunism as forms oftotalitarianism, explicitly identifyingAdolf Hitler andJoseph Stalin as parallel embodiments of centralized authority and bureaucratic control.[15] He condemned both systems as forms of "State Capitalism," arguing that the direct management of enterprises by the state was a "blight of bureaucracy" that crushed individuality and created a new "official class" even more oppressive than private capitalists.[16] As a safeguard against totalitarianism, Strasser argued for the "rejection of party democracy," viewing the abolition of all political parties as the only way to prevent the revival of "the Nazi and Bolshevik party movements."[69] Though framed as a democratic alternative to theFührerprinzip, his model concentrated executive power in a president (or non-hereditary monarch) elected for life, reflecting a blend of authoritarian structure and indirect popular representation, which he described as "authoritarian democracy."[22]
Otto Strasser outlined a detailed solution to the "colonial problem", which he reframed primarily as a problem of securing raw materials for Europe. He proposed the formation of a corporate entity, the "European Colonial Company" (E.C.C.), to take over and administer a portfolio of African territories. The structure of the E.C.C. resembled a joint-stock company where European "have-not" nations (like Germany and Poland) would subscribe funds and receive shares and administrative posts on a pro rata basis. The plan was strategically designed to not challenge the interests of the dominant colonial empires; therefore, it deliberately excluded Great Britain and France from its framework, targeting instead the possessions of weaker states like Belgium and Portugal, alongside Germany's former colonies. For the existing owners (Belgium and Portugal), Strasser's plan included detailed buyout terms, such as guaranteeing their flags could continue to fly and offering a ninety-nine year right to financial returns based on previous yields. Strasser justified the project on two fronts. For Europe, he argued it would prevent future wars over colonies and provide a "great civilizing work" that would be "most beneficial to the youths of Europe." For the native populations, he defined the company's role as that of a "guardian," tasked with their advancement and eventual, partial inclusion in the administration.[70]
Otto Strasser also supported a nationalist form ofPan-European unity, expressing admiration forRichard von Coudenhove-Kalergi.[71] InGermany Tomorrow, he advocated for a "European Federation," explicitly citing the British Commonwealth as a model for its "minimum of coercion, a maximum of freedom." In this context, he called for policies such as "the gradual abolition of all customs barriers upon free trade," the "discontinuance of...passports," and "unified currency systems."[72] However, he explicitly excluded Russia from this federation, declaring it "never has belonged, and never will belong" to Europe.[73] He further envisioned a postwar European framework in which Western Slavic nations, particularly Poles and Czechs, would take the lead in integrating Ukraine and Belarus into a wider European system. He described these regions as economically backward and politically disconnected. The "liberation" ofUkraine andBelarus was presented by Strasser as a fraternal duty that would primarily serve to supply Europe with an "'internal colonial' market for their wares," furnish "western capital with lucrative opportunities for investment," and serve as a buffer againstBolshevism. Strasser also suggested collaborating with Japan to advance this anti-Bolshevik vision.[74] Furthermore, his proposal for a "composite European army" conveniently assigned the core fighting roles—light artillery and infantry—to Germany, while allocating aviation to Britain and heavy armor to France, reflecting a carefully calculated division of military power that would benefit a resurgent Germany.[75]
Although Strasser professed to oppose Nazi racial policies,Germany Tomorrow nevertheless reflected enduring ethnonationalist assumptions. He rejected the violent, biological antisemitism of the Hitler regime, instead proposing what he presented as a rational solution to the "Jewish problem." Central to this was his vocal support forZionism. In Strasser's own words:
"The category of foreigners emerges from the fact that of late years there has been a widespread development of the movement known as Zionism, which should be supported by all ‘nation-conscious’ persons and peoples as a genuine endeavour for the renovation of Judaism."
For Strasser, Zionism offered the ideal path to achieving a physical separation of Jews from Germany, categorizing them as "foreigners" belonging to their own nation. For those Jews who wished to remain, he proposed the status of a protected "national minority," a framework that would grant them communal rights but formally exclude them from the German national body; or assimilation, which required them to "abandon Judaism as a national religion" and provide "other guarantees of their determination to become Germans in every respect."[29]
A foundational principle of Strasser's ideology was his clear distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable spheres of public life. He posited that the truly essential issues concerning mankind—what he termed fundamental matters of freedom, religion, and, above all, the nation—were sacrosanct. In his view, these were not political questions to be settled by majority vote or parliamentary debate, but were timeless principles that defined a people's existence. Consequently, Strasser argued that such matters must be placed entirely beyond the authority of any legislative body. While he argued that the nation, not class or even religion, was the ultimate driving force of history, his primary structural innovation was to create a political system where this "national essence" was permanently insulated from democratic processes.[11]
This hierarchical view of reality, where abstract ideals are placed above the material and social spheres, has been characterized by historian Christoph Hendrik Müller as "German Idealism in its crudest form." In this framework, the abstract "idea" of the nation is considered the primary historical force, overriding the concrete economic or social interests of class. This idealist foundation explains why Strasser believed parliament could be relegated to merely administrative tasks concerning the economy; in his view, the truly important questions of national destiny were not matters of political compromise but of metaphysical principle. By insulating these "sacrosanct" issues from democratic processes, his system aimed to protect the nation's perceived eternal essence from the fluctuations of popular opinion.[11]
Finnish politicianYrjö Ruutu founded theNational Socialist Union of Finland (SKSL) in 1932, which was one of severalFinnish Nazi parties at the time. Ruutu's ideas included the nationalization of large companies and other assets vital for national interests, a self-sufficient planned economy, a parliament controlled by trade unions and the appointment of technocrats as ministers.[76] Ruutu's party remained on the fringes of Finnish politics and never gained any seats in parliament, but it is considered to have had a considerable influence on the ideology of theAcademic Karelia Society and presidentUrho Kekkonen.[77] In 1944, all Nazi parties in Finland were dissolved as contrary to Article 21 of theMoscow Armistice, which forbade fascist parties.[78] Some former members of Ruutu's party, such asYrjö Kilpeläinen andUnto Varjonen, became prominent figures in the right-wing faction of the post-warSocial Democratic Party of Finland.[77][79] Another prominent former member,Vietti Nykänen, became the vice chairman of theRadical People's Party. Early SKSL memberEnsio Uoti was a presidential candidate in 1956 elections. He gained some support and was endorsed byYleisö newspaper.[80][81] Member of the board of the party Heikki Waris later became Minister of Social Affairs in theVon Fieandt Cabinet in 1957.[82] Ruutu himself became the head of the National Board of Education after the war.[83]
The modern Strasserist current has been represented in Finland by a group calledMusta Sydän (Black Heart) led by Ali Kaurila. The group was allegedly behind a stabbing attack on left-wing activists.[84]Musta Sydän has also organized neo-NaziHardcore concerts attended by bands from Germany and Italy on the anniversary of theKristallnacht inTurku.[85]
In the immediate post-war period and throughout the "long 1950s," Strasserist ideas provided a crucial framework for far-right groups navigating the new political landscape of West Germany. In a climate where overt Nazism was legally and socially unacceptable, Strasser's "Third Position" ideology, particularly his slogan "Neither Moscow nor Wall Street," offered a strategic veneer for nationalist and anti-liberal activities. Christoph Hendrik Müller argues that this rhetoric was frequently co-opted by figures with direct ties to the orthodox Nazi regime, who used its anti-capitalist and anti-Western positions to attack the Federal Republic's democratic foundations without openly invoking the Nazi past. This early post-war adoption of Strasserism as a "legitimizing mask" laid the groundwork for its more visible re-emergence in later decades.[11]
During the 1970s, the ideas of Strasserism began to be mentioned more in European far-right groups as younger members with no ties to Hitler and a stronger sense of economic antisemitism came to the fore. Strasserite thought in Germany began to emerge as a tendency within theNational Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) during the late 1960s. These Strasserites played a leading role in securing the removal ofAdolf von Thadden from the leadership and after his departure the party became stronger in condemning Hitler for what it saw as his move away from socialism in order to court business and army leaders.[86]
Although initially adopted by the NPD, Strasserism soon became associated with more peripheral extremist figures, notablyMichael Kühnen, who produced a 1982 pamphletFarewell to Hitler which included a strong endorsement of the idea. ThePeople's Socialist Movement of Germany/Labour Party, a minor extremist movement that was outlawed in 1982, adopted the policy. Its successor movement, theNationalist Front, did likewise, with its ten-point programme calling for an "anti-materialist cultural revolution" and an "anti-capitalist social revolution" to underline its support for the idea.[87] TheFree German Workers' Party also moved towards these ideas under the leadership ofFriedhelm Busse in the late 1980s.[88]
The flag of the Strasserite movementBlack Front and its symbol of a crossed hammer and a sword has been used by German and other Europeanneo-Nazis abroad as a substitute for the more infamousNazi flag which is banned in some countries such as Germany.
Strasserism emerged in the United Kingdom in the early 1970s and centred on theNational Front (NF) publicationBritain First, the main writers of which wereDavid McCalden,Richard Lawson andDenis Pirie. Opposing the leadership ofJohn Tyndall, they formed an alliance withJohn Kingsley Read and ultimately followed him into theNational Party (NP).[89] The NP called for British workers to seize the right to work and offered a fairly Strasserite economic policy.[90] Nonetheless, the NP was short-lived. Due in part to Read's lack of enthusiasm for Strasserism, the main exponents of the idea drifted away.[citation needed]
The idea was reintroduced to the NF byAndrew Brons in the early 1980s when he decided to make the party's ideology clearer.[91] However, Strasserism was soon to become the province of the radicals in theOfficial National Front, with Richard Lawson brought in a behind-the-scenes role to help direct policy.[92] ThisPolitical Soldier wing ultimately opted for the indigenous alternative ofdistributism, but their strong anti-capitalist rhetoric as well as that of theirInternational Third Position successor demonstrated influences from Strasserism. From this background emergedTroy Southgate, whose own ideology and those of related groups such as the English Nationalist Movement andNational Revolutionary Faction were influenced by Strasserism.
Third Position groups, whose inspiration is generally more Italian in derivation, have often looked to Strasserism, owing to their strong opposition to capitalism based on economic antisemitic grounds. This was noted in France, where the student groupGroupe Union Défense and the more recentRenouveau français both extolled Strasserite economic platforms.[93]
In the United States,Tom Metzger, a white supremacist, had some affiliation to Strasserism, having been influenced by Kühnen's pamphlet.[94] Also in the United States,Matthew Heimbach of the formerTraditionalist Worker Party identifies as a Strasserist.[95] Heimbach often engages primarily inanti-capitalist rhetoric during public speeches instead of overtantisemitism,anti-Masonry oranti-communist rhetoric. Heimbach was expelled from theNational Socialist Movement due to his economic views being seen by the group as too left-wing.[96] Heimbach stated that the NSM "essentially want it to remain a politically impotentwhite supremacist gang".[97]
Über die "Eurorechte" hinaus gibt es Verbindungen zwischen militanz- und gewaltorientrierten, nationalrevolutionären Gruppen wie dem "Movimento des Accao National" (Bewegung der Nationalen Aktion) (MAN) in Portugal, die, angelehnt an der auch als "Strasserismus" bezeichneten italienischen "terza Positione" nationalrevolutionär orientiert ist. Die MAN hat Kontakte zu "Troisieme Voie" (Frankreich), zur "National Front" (Großbritannien) und spanischen Nationalrevolutionären "Basista Nacional Revolucionario Espanol". Im neonazistischen Organisationsbereich gibt es die "Europäische Bewegung", bei der über das sogenannte "Führerthing" NS-Aktivisten aus der Bundesrepublik, Frankreich, Belgien, Dänemark und den Niederlanden Verbindungen haben. An dem von Belgien ausgehenden "Euroring" sind darüber hinaus Neonazis aus Großbritannien beteiligt. Ein für August 1988 geplanter "Euroring"-Kongreß wurde verboten.
Der Unterschied zwischen [Rechtsextremismus] und Rechtspopulismus liegt vor allem auf ideologischem Gebiet: [Rechtsextremismus] vertritt eine holistische Ideologie, in deren Zentrum die ethnisch-kulturell homogene Volksgemeinschaft steht. Daraus folgt eine antipluralistische, antiliberale Staats- und Gesellschaftskonzeption, die unterhalb dieser Ebene Spielraum für verschiedene Richtungen lässt, für völkische nationalsozialistische Traditionalisten, Deutschnationale beziehungsweise die "klassische" Rechte in anderen Ländern und Nationalrevolutionäre. Diese sind zwar eine Minderheit im [Rechtsextremismus], aber europaweit unter verschiedenen Bezeichnungen (Strasserismus, Solidarismus,Dritte Position) vernetzt.
.svg)
