A lot of this is really trying to work out terminology. This can be difficult. You can look at what German National Socialists said to explain themselves, conventional meanings or what it was in practice. I tend to lean toward what things are and what they're supposed to be rather than interpretations.

For me national socialism is an abstract concept that's very broad. I could create my own variant of it which would still be national socialism but differ in all the conventional ways from other manifestations. You can only fit so much into a name. I know two people called Bob but they're very different people.

I know two people who are firefighters but they do not have identical philosophies of firefighting or on matters loosely related or unrelated. On things smoking should be banned, one thinks otherwise. It's a mistake to think when you see one that supports the extreme preventative measure is representative of all manifestations of firefighting.

National socialism in its most basic form simply means socialism on a national basis. It's like the National Health System. It means one socialist system for the nation, one society, run by people applying sociological speculation. It is monopolistic and holistic.

National socialism, whether it's on a national scale because that's the maximum extent of its ability to expend or because of some ideological notion is secondary to what really makes a national socialist, it's not truly at the core of the ideology though those with their own specific take would like to make arguments for why it is. They all like to say they're the one true national socialists but to really understand it you have to understand what they fundamentally have in common which can be hard without enough permutations to see what is variable and what isn't.

The Germans were a funny lot because ideologically they wanted it for their own country and wanted to run things their own way with lesser concern for other ideologies globally yet when it came down to it they still did not respect the independence and sovereignty of other nations. Though for different reasons they still converged on the same evil.

Most people today don't really understand what nations are or how they work and the notion that the Germans were bad simply because they were nationalist is nonsense. All nations were nationalist and if you're going to carry that argument then you would have to question whether the Germans were the wrong party in ignoring Poland, France and Russia's among others sense of entitlement to a national status as nations inherently nationalist.

Leaders of nations that lead socialist nations might also believe that model best for the world but they're not world leaders in a literal sense, they're not leaders of the world. There are however a branch of them working in that direction.

As we see modern national socialism it's not as strictly global as you think and it still follows the same underlying principle of the German version. It still picks favourite peoples, races, etc. It's really only different in that it's knocked Germans down in the rankings over other groups. It's very much otherwise the same thing.

One of the reasons that National Socialism was able to rise in Germany is because they at least hit one nail on the head. People in their own country take precedence. The elite at the time one way or another were complicit in effectively policies of German's last stemming from the great war.

Taking on a more global perspective has a lot more to do with simply that they can. If the world were as connected when national socialists were running Germany they then too probably would have further pushed for global reach.

A lot of this is really trying to work out terminology. This can be difficult. You can look at what German National Socialists said to explain themselves, conventional meanings or what it was in practice. I tend to lean toward what things are and what they're supposed to be rather than interpretations.

For me national socialism is an abstract concept that's very broad. I could create my own variant of it which would still be national socialism but differ in all the conventional ways from other manifestations. You can only fit so much into a name. I know two people called Bob but they're very different people.

I know two people who are firefighters but they do not have identical philosophies of firefighting or on matters loosely related or unrelated. On things smoking should be banned, one thinks otherwise. It's a mistake to think when you see one that supports the extreme preventative measure is representative of all manifestations of firefighting.

National socialism in its most basic form simply means socialism on a national basis. It's like the National Health System. It means one socialist system for the nation, one society, run by people applying sociological speculation. It is monopolistic and holistic.

National socialism, whether it's on a national scale because that's the maximum extent of its ability to expend or because of some ideological notion is secondary to what really makes a national socialist, it's not truly at the core of the ideology though those with their own specific take would like to make arguments for why it is. They all like to say they're the one true national socialists but to really understand it you have to understand what they fundamentally have in common which can be hard without enough permutations to see what is variable and what isn't.

The Germans were a funny lot because ideologically they wanted it for their own country and wanted to run things their own way with lesser concern for other ideologies globally yet when it came down to it they still did not respect the independence and sovereignty of other nations. Though for different reasons they still converged on the same evil.

Most people today don't really understand what nations are or how they work and the notion that the Germans were bad simply because they were nationalist is nonsense. All nations were nationalist and if you're going to carry that argument then you would have to question whether the Germans were the wrong party in ignoring Poland, France and Russia's among others sense of entitlement to a national status as nations inherently nationalist.

Leaders of nations that lead socialist nations might also believe that model best for the world but they're not world leaders in a literal sense, they're not leaders of the world. There are however a branch of them working in that direction.

As we see modern national socialism it's not as strictly global as you think and it still follows the same underlying principle of the German version. It still picks favourite peoples, races, etc. It's really only different in that it's knocked Germans down in the rankings over other groups. It's very much otherwise the same thing.

Taking on a more global perspective has a lot more to do with simply that they can. If the world were as connected when national socialists were running Germany they then too probably would have further pushed for global reach.