Were the nazis far right?

1. Why many historians place Nazism on the far right — core features

The mainstream historical definitions emphasize intense nationalism, anti‑democratic rule, and racialist ideology as central to Nazism, which are canonical markers of far‑right politics; Britannica describes Nazism as sharing “intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule” with Italian fascism ^[5], and the Holocaust Memorial’s encapsulation and Britannica’s profiles both call antisemitism and ultranationalism fundamental to Nazi ideology ^{[1] [2]}. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum explicitly labels the party “far‑right, racist and antisemitic” and notes its anti‑Marxist and anti‑democratic orientation ^{[2] [3]}.

2. The party’s economics: why some point to left‑leaning language

The Nazi 25‑point program included anti‑capitalist and social‑welfare demands in its early public platform, and the movement at times employed rhetoric that criticized certain capitalist practices to win workers from socialists and communists ^[3]. The Holocaust Encyclopedia notes that in practice the Nazis emphasized different points of the platform for political gain and that after winning power they largely collaborated with industrial and business elites rather than pursuing systemic socialism ^[3].

3. How scholars reconcile nationalist fascism with “socialist” in the name

Scholars and reference works explain that “National Socialism” combined radical ethnic nationalism and state control over many aspects of life with selective social policies; Britannica and Holocaust sources place Nazism within the family of interwar fascisms — sharing anti‑liberal, anti‑communist and paramilitary features — rather than in the democratic socialist or Marxist left ^{[5] [1] [3]}. The label “socialist” in the party name reflected tactical appeals and certain program items, not alignment with internationalist or worker‑controlled socialism as understood by Marxist movements ^[3].

4. Political practice — what the regime actually did once in power

Once Hitler obtained dictatorial authority the regime abolished trade unions, banned other parties, imprisoned opponents, and implemented totalitarian control — actions that contemporaneous and retrospective accounts associate with far‑right authoritarianism rather than leftist rule ^{[6] [4]}. Britannica documents the Enabling Act’s role in giving Hitler dictatorial powers and the subsequent repression of political opponents ^{[6] [4]}.

5. The modern debate and political uses of the label

Contemporary political debates sometimes invoke “Nazi” or “fascist” as polemical labels; some commentators emphasize continuities between historic Nazism and current far‑right parties, while others warn against facile analogies ^{[7] [8]}. Reporting on Germany’s AfD notes that mainstream observers and security services characterize AfD as far‑right and sometimes linked rhetorically or ideologically to radical right and neo‑Nazi currents, underscoring how the “far‑right” designation remains a live political category today ^{[9] [10] [8]}.

6. Where sources diverge or add nuance

Sources agree on Nazism’s core brutality, antisemitism, and ultranationalism ^{[1] [2]}, but they add nuance regarding economic policy: the party contained anti‑capitalist language early on yet chose cooperation with industrial elites in government ^[3]. Some critiques emphasize that comparing contemporary movements to the Nazis can be historically simplistic; others stress the importance of recognizing ideological and rhetorical continuities between historic Nazism and today’s far‑right actors ^{[7] [8]}.

7. What these facts mean for the original question

Available scholarly and museum sources classify the Nazi Party as far‑right because its defining elements were ethnonationalism, anti‑democracy, racism and organized political violence — despite selective early programmatic references to social measures ^{[2] [1] [3]}. For readers, the most defensible conclusion from the cited materials is that Nazism belongs to the far‑right/fascist tradition, with important caveats about economic rhetoric vs. governing practice ^{[3] [4]}.

Limitations: the materials provided are summaries and encyclopedic accounts; detailed historiographical debates and primary‑source archival evidence are not included in the set of sources furnished here, so more fine‑grained scholarly disagreement is not fully represented (not found in current reporting).