I open this topic, since it honestly interests me, and I'd like to open discussion on the nature of National Socialism and Fascism and their connection to Bolshevism, if there is one. I must say, I found myself thinking, first off, on the material presented by Nolte and found it lacking
Most people, who are at least basically versed in the subject, know, that the main idea of philosophers like Nolte, is that Fascism and National Socialism weren't an action, but a re-action to the onslaught of communism, hence a very simplistic logical chain: no Bolshevik revolution -> No social genocide in Russia -> No petite Bourgeoise fright in Germany -> no fascist and national socialist re-action, case closed.
But I believe, we can look at it from at least several angles: first off, socialism itself was a re-action to a Bourgeoise dominated society, and theoreticians like Trotsky or even Stalin himself viewed fascism as 'capitalism in state of emergency', after it already led to socialism in its decay. Thus the whole arguement of who caused what becomes somewhat strange: fascism was triggered by socialism, which was triggered by capitalism. I believe, it is safe to say, that socialism was impossible without preceeding capitalism, but if national socialism was triggered by socialism, can we safely argue the same - that national socialism was impossible without socialism ? Could it be caused if not by socialism, then by something else - by merely the logic of capitalist development at that era, for example?
An interesting explanation is derived from Trosky's work ' Bonapartism and fascism ', where he states, that the main reason why fascism appear is due to the height of social crisis, caused by overconcentration of means of production in the form of semi-oligopolic rule, which leads to failure of the market as an instrument of self-regulation for the economic life of a society, following WWI. Thus big government becomes a necessity to intervene and regulate the no longer economically self-regulated society - that is somewhat true from historical prospective, since we could see the same trends even in non-fascist governments, say, Roosevelt's new course, anti-trust laws, etc. And we still see the seeds of that policy everywhere, with government growing bigger and bigger since WWI non-stop. Government may change its official ideology from communist or fascist to democratic, but it has become much more total in nature, than the undemocratic monarchies of the pre-WWI past.
And so the fascist or national socialist party became in the post-WWI period that instrument, that political mechanism, that took economic regulation in its hands. From that point of view, Fascism is, first and foremost, Bonapartism in the era of capitalist decay . And its main raison d'etre in these terms, is not to counter external enemy, but to reign in the internal conflict of a society.
Second, The over-the-top imperialist fascist and national socialist ambition, which strives to conquer in years, what has been done by the British or French Empires of the past in centuries in search of new markets, is another embodiment of this glowing internal conflict, which the current elite feels the need to solve in years; national socialism indeed relies on, first off, on white collars, petite bourgeoise (as even the vote figures against class representation show in Germany) in their scare of being consumed by the proletarians, but that's an internal, not external scare. This scare is caused by the growth of revolutionary feelings among proletariat (as if its 1848 all over again) and scare of a revolution - with or without socialist revolution in Russia, the tension between proletarians and petite bourgeoise would have remained high anyway. The so-called 'social genocide' overemphasized by Nolte, is no more or less scary, than the idea of losing private property and accumulated wealth (I leave the weird stories about 'rat cage' tortures and Orwell-esque argument to Nolte as tragedy-mongering, rather than a serious historical argument -class is not a man, it can't have a collective psyche neurosis).
Third, if national socialism in Germany is a response to revolution in Russia, then what is fascism in Spain, fascism in Portugal, growth of fascism in Norway, France? Russia in that case, I believe, was merely 'a demonstration' of what could happen, had the proletariat remained unchecked, thus the fascist tendencies, which were already there, merely intensifed.