Surely it amplifies their public image of anti-Semitism? It also implies they believed that this clarification would find a receptive audience.
Or, and more likely, it amplified their public image as not being anti-landowners. No doubt because they were more worried about upsetting landowners than upsetting the non antisemites. It merely reinforces my point that when the Nazis were striving for respectability they were downplaying the more extreme aspects of their programme much as the modern neo-nazis do. Or I could just repeat what I wrote the first time around: which is that the public face of Nazism was trying to clothe its policies in anodyne pseudo-rationalism. Only when this backfired,
in this case the demand for the ability of the state to expropriate land worried farmers, was Hitler forced to expose his true intent. You will undoubtedly find similar tactics employed by some if not most modern Neo Nazi parties."
I can find no reference to either in the 25 Point Programme. Nor do the Gypsies/Romanies appear to be mentioned under either of those names in Mein Kampf which, I confess, rather surprised me. "Negroes" are mentioned 24 times in Mein Kampf and Blacks four times, which doesn't really equate with the 705 times the Jews are mentioned. So, while I have no doubt the Roma and Black people were, as you say, also targets of the Nazis, neither were perceived as such direct and immediate competitive threats and so were not the same focus of Nazi fixation in coming to power as were the Jews.
I think you may be conflating Hitler with 'the Nazis'. They are not the same. And I think you will find a great deal more animus towards the 'Bastards of the Rhineland' in the relevant parts of Germany than towards the Jews - for the obvious reason that they were a very visible living, breathing reminder of Germany's humliation after WW1. Finally, as far as I can make out, the Jews were the biggest minority while all the others were very small. It makes sense that if you feel the need to quote an example you will quote one that most people could identify with. No doubt that is why Enoch Powell mentions Blacks and not, say, Lithuanians in his speech.
You are aware of the rising tide of brutality, murder and genocide that the Nazis later inflicted on the Jews and yet you ask of the Nazis' early and continuous fixation with them, "So what"? I am sure that you did not intend to leave an impression of callous indifference to this, so I would ask you to clarify what you actually meant.
Again, so what? How does any of this negate my point that the 25 points were soft-peddling the extreme aspects of the Nazi 'faith'? On the contrary, where do the 25 Points demand the Jews be subjected to brutality, murder ands genocide? In fact in the only Point which demands killing (Point 18) it goes out of it's way to pretend it is not racially motivated (Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race
Nope, but you do have to be anti-Semitic to be anti-Semitic. Your sentence referred specifically to the Nazi 25 Point Programme, and this was the context in which I was writing.
But you do not have to be anti-Semitic to be a racist, which is the point I
am making. A Russian Communist would be against the Tsar, an English communist would be against the Queen. In much the same way just because a German National Socialist will be anti-Slavic (among many other antis, no doubt) does not mean a Russian or Japanese one has to be to be a National Socialist. They will have their own set of 'antis'.
rivers of blood" reference
Actually there was no 'rivers of blood' reference. That was made up by the press. EP quoted Virgil's 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'
. But, damn, I am clearly falling into the trap of following irrelevancies down various rabbit holes, so will desist.