Details are indeed important here.
The 1920 Nazi program is vague on some things.
The NSDAP in 1928 felt it necessary to include an explanatory note on point 17.
The 1920 Nazi program is vague on some things.
The NSDAP in 1928 felt it necessary to include an explanatory note on point 17.
This note matters because it demonstrates how the party wanted its program interpreted closer to the time it actually became successful around 1928/29.
It took over power in Germany in 1933.
It took over power in Germany in 1933.
Here's point 17, translated (via GHI):
"We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
"We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
This is a good example. "Expropriation of land for communal purposes" could easily be taken to mean something very close to socialism.
Hence this clarification:
Hence this clarification:
(The formatting incl. italics etc. is from books.google.de/books?id=ifMkF…, the source for that is documentarchiv.de/wr/1920/nsdap-…). 
Translation: "Against the lying interpretations of point 17 made by enemies of the party the following statement is necessary: since the NSDAP stands on the ground of private property, it goes without saying that the phrase 'expropriation without recompense' is only to be seen…
…in connection with the creation of legal means to expropriate, if necessary, land that has been acquired illegally, or is not administered according to the public [Volks] weal. This is therefore directed primarily against Jewish real estate speculation companies."
If you don't like my translation, another one is available, along with the whole program, here: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/25points.a…
Now, what kind of party emphasizes "it goes without saying" that they are believers in private property, while reassuring voters that what might sound like socialism is meant only as creating legal cover for taking land from Jews?
History is about detail, as the @AuschwitzMuseum wrote above.
It is about acknowledging complexity, and not about reading one source—the 25 point program as written in 1920—to explain an ideology across decades.
It is about acknowledging complexity, and not about reading one source—the 25 point program as written in 1920—to explain an ideology across decades.
Yes, there are hints of what sounds like socialism to us today in the Nazi program. They're also in statements by prominent Nazis, and in their propaganda.
But then there are also these other statements.
But then there are also these other statements.
How do we deal with this?
At the basic level, historians make sure not to confuse a term in a primary source (like someone saying/writing "I'm a socialist") with an analytical term— one that has a meaning that's been arrived at by studying many sources ("socialism").
At the basic level, historians make sure not to confuse a term in a primary source (like someone saying/writing "I'm a socialist") with an analytical term— one that has a meaning that's been arrived at by studying many sources ("socialism").
A lot of problems stem from throwing these together.
What someone (a person, an organization, etc.) says they are (do, want, etc.) can only mean something if it is taken in context.
What someone (a person, an organization, etc.) says they are (do, want, etc.) can only mean something if it is taken in context.
If the Nazis call themselves national socialists here, and insist on respecting property there, we're not supposed to take either at face value.
We're supposed to figure out what was said on the one hand, and what was done on the other. And then make a coherent argument about the past.
That's sometimes quite tricky.
History is making sense of what happened.
That's sometimes quite tricky.
History is making sense of what happened.
So, how do we make sense of what happened in this case?
Here's a clue:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Here's a clue:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
From the abstract:
"[T]he last governments in the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. …
"[T]he last governments in the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. …
In doing so, they went against the mainstream in the Western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. …
Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the production of public services previously delivered by government."
That means: Not only did the Nazis not transfer ownership to the state, but, in contrast to both their predecessor governments in Germany and to other European countries, they did the opposite, even privatizing things formerly in government hands.
