Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Nazi Germany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old discussion from 2001

Is this really needed? This should all be in Germany, World War II, etc.

I think it does have a need for separate treatment and should be linked appropriately. In much the same way as History of the Roman Empire is separated from History of Italy, it deals with a specific historical feature. sjc

My point is: These things absolutely have to be in History of Germany, so why repeat them here?

I see the special role of this era, but it is an integral part of the History of Germany. It would be better to categorize the History somewhat if you want to stress things like this. -- Yooden

I personally wouldn't have chosen to do it this way (I'm playing devil's advocate here, to an extent), but it does act as a useful link page and is almost certainly going to be a target for queries. These things should also be in History of Germany and/or World War II and if they aren't they soon will be.... sjc

Yes, it should be a link page, pointing to various parts of the History of Germany hierarchy. As it is, you find here more than there. --Yooden

Do you want to do it or shall I? sjc

We don't need to keep repeating ourselves - just link. You should find more detail about nazi gemrany in the specific nazi germany entry than in the general history of Germany entry. -rmhermen

No, we should definitely not repeat ourselves. The question is whether the History of Germany, 1933 - 1945 should be part of the History of Germany or not. I think it should.

If you want to keep this page as more than a link page, you should consequently divide History of Germany in German Empire, Weimarer Republic, Nazi Germany, German Post-War Era, BRD/DDR, Reunified Germany (this is only the 20th century). After that, follow the pattern with all other countries/regions.

While dedicated pages for important eras offer a good opportunity to collect some links, the overall picture should be in History of Germany.

sjc, if you want to do it, go right ahead, I will follow you. --Yooden

Another thing: You cannot cover WWII in [[History of <country>]], because it inherently involves more than one. This is not the case with Nazi Germany. --Yooden

History of Germany can easily include a general treatment of years 1933-1945 while Nazi Germany continues to be a highly detailed account. -rmhermen

That's redundant. History of Germany can easily include a highly detailed account. --Yooden

Yes I suppose it would be partially redundant. However as pages get increasingly detailed and complex, it gets hard to find basic (or introductory) information on them. Therefore less general (more specific) topic names are more useful, especially if tied together through a general page. It doesn't require the general page page to be only an outline (hierarchy) though. It can have basic information and links to the more specific pages. -rmhermen

I think we agree on most points. What I dislike about Nazi Germany is not its function to collect/organize facts and pointers. I only think it is more important to integrate this page into general German history.

What's needed is some structure in History of Germany, then all the pieces will fall into place. Whether this peculiar place is called Nazi Germany or 1933-1945 is secondary. --Yooden

This argument has many false claims:

First, there was no Polish army in 1944-45. There were Polish army units of Red Army, but they were completely controlled by Rusians.

Second, it wasn't just Germany but also Soviet actions (attack against Poland and Finland) that started WW2.

Third, Germans didn't declare war on UK, it was the opposite.

And last, Nuremberg was propaganda trial, what isn't clearly stated here. --[[User:|Taw|]]

Taw, it seems to me that you are using propaganda in a purely pejorative way, and I'm not sure why. Propaganda is not necessarily a bunch of lies -- sometimes it's just an overpublication of the views of one (generally winning) side. In the case of the Nuremberg trials, yes, they were show trials -- but was that bad? Since then, the world has taken more seriously the concept of "Crimes against Humanity" and there have been more and more attempts to prosecute those who are believed to have committed them.

Moreover, there is now a legal precedent for the punishment of those who walk the fine line between war crime and genocide. This has led to some very interesting court cases of late, and a new legal theory that any sovereign state can detain a citizen of another based on accusations of committing such crimes. Moreover, it is becoming ever more likely that even those who were on the winning side (of whatever conflict) will not avoid justified prosecution. (For example, I heard a very interesting interview with an ex-US Secretary of State who was asked, in the context of Pinochet's arrest, why he no longer traveled outside the US -- he was very irate about why he didn't have to answer that type of question...)

So, I guess I'm asking what your implied objection is -- unless it's that others, including the Soviets, got away with their actions? JHK

I disagree with the characterisation of the Nuremberg Trials as show trials or propaganda. Under customary international law going back centuries an occupying power has the right to try the troops, commanders or leaders of the defeated power for violations of the laws of war. The members of the Nazi regime were accused of serious violations of international law, and I don't think anyone can really argue that they were innocent of what they were accused of. The trial and punishment of the accused was fair and legal, under the standards of the time. -- SJK

I remember that some of those who were found gulity in the Nuremberg Trials were in fact not, or only partially. Don't quote me on this, I don't remember the source, maybe TV or newspaper. The Nuremberg Trials have a certain "guilty until proven otherwise" touch, though, again, I can't back this up right now. I think that's what Taw means. Do we have an article about Entnazifizierung ("De-Nazification")? It might be helpful in this context. --Magnus Manske

I'd argue that the trial and punishment of the accused was fair and legal under the standards of the current time. One should point out

that three of the Nuremberg defendants (von Papen, Frisch, and Schacht) were accquitted of all charges. -- Chenyu

Just look at these four "accusations": first two are completely absurd. War was completely legal means of politics then (and is still one now). How one can be accused of doing something legal and what was being done by every bigger country in the world ? These two accusations alone made this trial a parody. Speaking of the other two accusations, they were quite serious and about real issues, but nobody required that someone to be found "guilty" had to do something that wasn't standard in all other armies. And they weren't accused of breaking laws of war, they were accused of breaking something that never existed. --Taw

Sorry, Taw, but that's why they came up with the charge of Crimes against Humanity, I think -- no one had ever done anything remotely like the Holocaust (arguably, I know, but let's say, in the modern world) before -- special circumstances made this necessary. And I'm not sure what some of the accused being acquitted means, other than that there was sufficient evidence to indict, but not to convict -- that's why we have trials -- to make sure that the accused are PROVEN guilty before being punished. And by the way, the whole point of the Geneva Conventions was to establish some rules to modern warfare -- I think if you check your facts, you'll see that western warfare has, at least since the Middle Ages, had some rules. When killing technology outstripped the range of those rules, it became necessary to try to redefine those rules, hence the Geneva Conventions. JHK

First, Russians made things like Holocaust on much greater scale before WW2 even started.

Second I know how political show trials work, because I lived in communist country and we had lot of them here. They work this way: some of minor accused are usually acquitted (often those who agree to colaborate with secret police), many of the accused are found guilty of only some of accusations and majority is sentenced to less than attorney demanded. And that's all to make it look more like a real trial. Anyway I can't see much difference between Communist political show trials and Nuremberg show trial.

Third there was no rule of modern warfare that German Army broke that weren't being broken by everyone else.

Fourth, most of accused officials had little to do with Holocaust. --Taw

You have to look beyond the basic four charges at the more detailed evidence, the small version alone takes up about 40ft of library shelving.

12 year reich or 1000 year reich

(german: "Tausendjähriges Reich")

Regarding this article's following sentence:

Because of its relatively short lifespan, historians sometimes call it the "Twelve-Year Reich."

While the phrase "Twelve-Year Reich" is often used in a joking way, I don't believe any credible historian uses that term professionally. I think this is a case where one of this article's authors has let personal opinions skew his/her writing. Unless references can be quoted showing established historians using that phrase, I believe the sentence should be removed on the grounds that it's innacurrate. Spookfish 01:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the joke is not in using "12 year reich", but in using the phrase "1000 year reich". The powers that were used the phrase "1000 year reich" a lot, and the joke was on them when it turned out that it came crashing down after twelve years, luckily. So referring to the "1000 year reich" in conjunction with speaking of that period of time is used as a half-joking reference in exposing the lie that is behind the 1000-year claim.

focus

This article should focus more on the 1930’s and Nazi domestic policy during the WWII. --GeneralPatton 21:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree Sam [Spade] 22:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest starting with the chapters on the end of the Weinmar Republic and Gleichschaltung. The previous form of the article was plainly wrong, it focused 80% on world war II military history, and the rest where just links, but the links ought to be integrated with the text and chapters expanded with “see alsos” linking to articles that further elaborate on the topics. --GeneralPatton 23:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article should primarily deal with the political history of the Nazi regime, the German military history of WWII being dealt on a page of its own. Most of the Gleichschaltung article should also be moved here.--GeneralPatton 08:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And here's something for understanding the economy, another important chapter left out.

[1] [2] --GeneralPatton 12:00, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

civilian deaths

2004-01-09: "This persecution reached a peak in the last years of the regime, in which some 6 million Jews, *10 million Slavs*, and sundry others, were systematically killed. This genocide is referred to as the Holocaust..."

The article about the holocaust talks about "3.5–6 million Slavic civilians". Quite a difference. Someone with more expertise should try to clarify this...

There where far more than 10 million civilian casualties in the former Soviet Union (Slavs), the number is actually around 20 million, that died from starvation, disease, and maltreatment.

Combine that with about 10 million deaths in the Red Army, and you get to the staggering number of about 30 million dead, the reason why the WW2 is still quite remembered there.

--GeneralPatton 05:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

there is however no full documented proof that " 6 milion Jews" were killed. It is purely a propganda tool to shock the public & breed sympathy for the eternal whinging wandering Jew/Zionist movement, and it has been successful for 60 years.

Now that is holocaust denial. Contrast the above w what I said down @ Talk:Nazi_Germany#National_Socialism ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 08:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

linguistics

Notes by LA2: While holocaust as a phenomenon is certainly associated with Nazi Germany, this particular term is not a German word. On the other hand, there are other German non-Nazi words that are used in English language, and it could be worth while to explain them. Should this be done from a separate page? I'm thinking of angst (anxiety, feeling of despair) and schadenfreude (the joy over the failure of others). Then we have classes of loan words from other languages like ombudsman (a proxy official, from Swedish), and smorgasbord (an all-you-can-eat buffet of mostly cold dishes, also from Swedish).

By SoniC: I don't know if it makes sense to try and tell where all those different words came from. I mean, half of all English words are derived from Latin, French, even from Chinese (ketchup, for example) or Indian (shampoo, AFAIK). This is a science in and by itself. Maybe someone with far to much time on their hands can do such a page in the Linguistics section, but if you start something like that, you will end up having a complete dictionnary.

I propose to use this particular page for terms that are really related to Nazi Germany, i.e. terms you will find when reading reports, literature or whatever about the Third Reich. These can be German terms now also used in English or other terms used in the Nazi context.

But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It isn't a style guide, it isn't a collection of foreign borrowings, etc., etc. It is an encyclopedia. Of course, very many words borrowed from foreign languages are also names of topics about which enyclopedias might well want to have articles--e.g., schadenfreude might include not just a definition of the term but what some psychologists have to say about it (I don't know what psychologists do have to say about it, if anything, though). --LMS

2002-04-29: For the record, that page exists: List of German expressions in common English. I have added a link. I have also taken out

U-Boot -- (Unterseeboot) the infamous German submarines (Note that this word has been used since before World War I to the present day to refer to all submarines -- it has no unique connection to the Nazis. It is also unclear why German submarines are more "infamous" than the American submarines that were far more successful -- ie, deadly)

-- djmutex

england declared war? eastern armies?

Note two things: In the East there are mentioned Red army and Polish army, which, because i am Pole, suits me well, but there wer also other armies in the east, although much much smaller. Second, i thought that it was England who declared war on Germany, not the opposite? user:szopen

Currently it sounds like Germany suddenly attacked a range of countries including France and Britain. In reality Germany attacked only Poland, which then led to war declarations by Britain and France towards Germany (and interestingly enough NOT towards the Soviet Union though it also violated the Polish independence guarantee). Especially in case of Britain it is very doubtful that Hitler had ever originally planed to attack it, so the Battle of Britain was most probably triggered by the British war declaration itself. One can also argue that The French and British war declaration was the most important step to move a regionally confined conflict towards a world war.

user:217.255.124.138, 09:36, 2004 Dec 28

It's self-evident that non-involvement, non-commitment, or indirect support in the form of appeasement from Chamberlain would have been to prefer for the Third Reich. That doesn't change the facts that their policy aimed at a radical revision of the Versailles peace; a policy that already at the time of the declarations of War had put an end to the independence of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and through the Molotow-Ribbentrop Pact was about to make all of the six remaining border states either German or Soviet acquisitions. The power balance shifting thusly could not be expected to be passively noted by the Western Powers. Ultimately, it threatened them. --Ruhrjung 08:53, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

english spelling

Note to whomever corrected the spelling of "organisation" to "organization", both British and American spellings are acceptable on Wikipedia. Gratutitous edits to change from one to the other are unnecessary, unless the spelling changes in an annoying manner within the one article --Robert Merkel

wwII history

This should be an important article, but it has ended up being a brief history of World War 2, much of it not even about German involvement (e.g. North Africa). Shouldn't the pre-war years get at least as much space? DJ Clayworth 14:16, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Love to, but it will have to wait behind the dozens of other things I'd like to do. Maybe sometime. DJ Clayworth 14:31, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Panzer tanks

YA HISTORY PRETTY MUCH SUCKS..I REALLY DONT CARE FOR IT AT ALL..I WOULD JUST LOVE IT IF TABATHA HOFF WOULD JUST MAKE ME MY DINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mmmm, dinner --Hohns3 08:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Book of Odin

Removed Book of Odin reference and Norway Adam and Eve. Did Google search on "Book of Odin" AND "Nazi" and got nothing. Need references.Ark30inf 04:53, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pre-WWII history

Dear ohh dear. This article needs some serious work on pre-WWII. I've just remove a couple of recently contributed paragraphs that contained some classic ill-informed nonsense that Duffy would have blown his top at. I'm going to put this in Bad Jokes etc.. e.g.

Hitler "reannexxed" Austria in ?1938? in a military action he called "Liberstruam"(Living Room in german).Although it was essentially without any fatalities, it was in clear violation of the Versialle Treaty and Austrian right to self determination. England and the U.S.A. decided to negotiate with and finally appease Hitler through a English diplomat named Neville Chamberland.

Unfortunately I don't have time to sort this out myself right now.Mintguy 09:16, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I do not totally understand what you were writing here, but I guess that you mean Chamberlain and I can tell you that "Liberstruam" is definitely no German word and I do not know what it means, at least not living room.

Wilhelm Grimm

Wilhelm Grimm must be a mistake of some sort, as he died well before the NSDAP even existed. Kent Wang 11:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OLD TALK From Third Reich

"Third empire"?? Shouldn't we delete this? Führer, dictator, Reichskanzler yes, but Emperor? --KF 23:40 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

"Third Reich" is the usual way of referring to it in English, and yes, Reich does mean empire in one sense, but the article isn't referring to Hitler as an emperor. The word has some implications about referring to "the state", anyway -- even the communists called the East German Railways the Deutsche Reichsbahn. -- Arwel 23:47 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at. Empire is Kaiserreich, not just any Reich. --KF 23:56 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

In German, Reich has more connotations than a territory being ruled by an Emperor. It has a strong mythological background and is really not translatable to English; the Reich page therefore correctly mentions that the term is used in the German Lord's prayer (and throughout the Bible also) in a very transcendental meaning. See my new entry on Holy Roman Empire also. It is exactly this fuzzy warm feeling that the Nazis exploited with the creation of the expression Drittes Reich. -- djmutex 2003-04-30

What are you both talking about here? I've never doubted any of it (except maybe the statement that it was the Nazis who created the term Third Reich). All I'm wondering about is why anyone would want to translate Third Reich with "third empire". I'd just delete the latter -- ersatzlos. --KF 00:12 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Done. :-) I wasn't quite aware that we agreed. djmutex 2003-05-01

I've heard "Reich" translated as "realm" in English, this word has connotations of medieval Britain to me but perhaps it's more accurate than "empire".--Critic9328 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the German Eagle useful ? Ericd 18:32, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be useful with a caption indicating that it was an attempt to symbolize unification of Germany and Nazi Party. Just sitting there by itself it looks a little propaganda-ish. Ark30inf 18:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is propaganda-ish. Have a look at Wolfram's contributions. Ericd 18:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yuk. I see what you mean. I think the image can be saved if it is put in the proper context of a propagandistic image by associated text. Its an attempt to merge traditional German concepts together with Nazi Party concepts and to associate the two, which is a concept touched on briefly in the article. It might also be moved farther down in the text to de-emphasize it if this is done.Ark30inf 18:52, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sources made available after the collapse of the Soviet Union reveals the Kremlin strategy to provoke Europe's capitalist powers into war against each other to facilitate Communist revolutions by their war-ravaged proletarians.

I'd like to see sources for this statement and exactly how the Soviet Union provoked (or planned to provoke) the western powers into going into war. If nothing is forthcoming I'll remove it. Mintguy (T) 10:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Term "Third Reich"

There was no "Third Reich" de jure, the Weimar Republic's constitution from 1919 was valid until end of war 1945 (Well, mostly.) But the official name of the state was always "Deutsches Reich". "Third Reich" was invented by author Arthur Moeller van der Bruck in his book "Das Dritte Reich" in 1923. However, the term was officially banned since 1939.

Third paragraph should make clear "Third Reich" was just a nickname.

Some references:

Name of Reich: Wilhelm I of Germany: ...the North German Confederation (1867-1871) was transformed into the German Empire ("Deutsches Reich", 1871-1945)...

Reich: ...Later, Deutsches Reich was the official name of Germany from 1871 to 1945...

About van der Bruck, there are many references: Encyclopædia britannica: German cultural critic whose book Das Dritte Reich (1923; “The Third Empire,” or “Reich”) provided Nazi Germany with its dramatic name. [3], [4], [5]

Term "Das Dritte Reich" was banned "Im Juli1939 verbot das Propagandaministerium die weitere Verwendung des Begriffes "Drittes Reich" [6] also [7]

Mikko Paananen 17:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Third Reich translated as Third Empire

Although the German word Reich definitely can be translated as empire, in some contexts that is, in this case it is outright wrong. Hitler's Thousand Years Reich may well have become an empire, if the Anglo-Saxons had continued their passivity, but it seems as Churchill and Pearl Harbor put an end to that prospect.

In this context, the word Reich is rather the antonym of republic in Weimar Republic. User:Sam Spade's revert of my correction on this point seems highly surprising, unless it reveals an innsufficient grasp of the German language — although it may of course be me, who is lacking in my English.

The removal, at the same time, [8] of the qualification [...] the National Socialist German Workers' Party, [...] that however by most Europeans is held to have been Socialist by name only. May be accidental, or not, but the issue is sufficiently explained at the Socialism page.

--Ruhrjung 15:21, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

The word "Reich" is not a big thing in German.

The German names for France, UK and Austria are Frankreich, Vereinigtes Königreich and Österreich.

I think it can be translated into Empire (Roman Empire = Römisches Reich) but it does not necessarily mean a country with an Emperor as a head of state. But definitely it is not the antonym of republic. "Weimar Republic" is just a political term. The official name of the Weimar Republic was "Deutsches Reich", like the predecessing monarchy. It´s rather to be translated simply with country or state. All in all, in "Third Reich" the "Third" is more fascist propaganda than the "Reich".

It is a quite old word, probably by the same root like the Indian "raj".

frapowierski

See Talk:Nazi Germany#Socialist in name only. The socialism in name only bit is unacceptable. As far as the empire distinction, I find it questionable, but will trust your judgement if you insist, and no one else steps in. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fun that you trust me! I think you can do that quite confidentially also with respect to how Europeans view the degree of Socialism within NSDAP. Please note that I did word it carefully, considering both Talk:Nazi Germany#Socialist in name only and Nazism#Nazism and socialism. --Ruhrjung 19:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have read that academics view 'reich' usage nearly approximates that of realm in english. However I think it is a specific german word without an exact equivalent - user:max rspct 01.39 2nd Jan 2004 (UTC)

Socialist in name only

This is POV. The reader can decide for themselves what they want to define as socialism, its a subjective term with a flexable definition. The Nazi's called themselves socialist, and thats a counter opinion, enough to give it a neutral stance in this article. Please keep your opinions in thye talk pages, and out of the article name space. Sam [Spade] 02:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, no, the Nazi most definitely didn't call themselves Socialists but National Socialists, which they considered to be quite something else than Communism and Social Democracy (which is what generally is understood by the term Socialism). The idea that the Nazis were or are somehow Socialist is a misunderstanding. There must be limits to Wikipedia's reluctance to differentiate truths and facts from misconceptions and propaganda. --Johan Magnus 10:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your 1/2 right (almost exactly ;)

No, no, the Nazi most definitely didn't call themselves Socialists but National Socialists, which they considered to be quite something else than Communism and Social Democracy

That is correct.

(which is what generally is understood by the term Socialism). The idea that the Nazis were or are somehow Socialist is a misunderstanding. There must be limits to Wikipedia's reluctance to differentiate truths and facts from misconceptions and propaganda.

That is not correct. The limits are based on facts, cite's, and verifiable expert sources, not editorial POV. Sam [Spade] 15:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There has been rather extensive debates on other talk pages on this issue. I wonder if maybe Sam Spade was a participant also of this debates, and if he could sumarize those?
--Ruhrjung 18:58, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

My summary is that commies are rude and sassy, and more interested in hearing their own rhetoric and high-fiving one another than intellegibly discussing the particulars. Oh, and communists/socialists think "communism" or "socialism" never happened, and yet we should keep trying, no matter how many people die (apparently all the dying and human rights abuses are due to capitalists). Anarchism somehow gets tied in as well, I'm not sure how or why, but maybe thats the cause of the police states communists are so fond of? As far as proof of Nazi's being socialist, I can provide a bit of that (I happen to like proof, myself). Chip chip cheerio, Sam [Spade] 20:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I'm fine w pointing out that Hitler opposed Social democracy, which is completely different from totalitarianism. Sam [Spade] 20:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitler didn't just oppose social democracy, he opposed socialism and supported capitalism. Sam, we've had this debate before and you always lose only to pop up a few months later in another article pushing the same ignorant POV. In future, please try to learn about the topic you are writing about. AndyL 22:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

complete nonsense, Hitler did not support capitalism, he merely used it. Hitler was an opportunist pur-sang. Whatever means could help him to power would do. And people with money could help him faster, however do remember that industrialists who did not want to support him had their property seized or were intimidated by his brownshirts. I would compare it to a shakedown operation (like Jesse Jackson does, go to businesses and threaten retaliation or boycott or in Hitler's case seizure of property if they did not pay up). Also, Hitler was no socialist either, he was someone who wanted power for one thing only, to expand Germany at others expense. --Marcel1975 11:04:19, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

The debate over whether National Socialism was really "socialism" is much ado about nothing. Basically, "socialism" has moved into the public domain (much like "shredded wheat [9]" for example) and can be used by anyone to describe their product. The Socialist International doesn't hold a copyright on it, so it isn't a proprietary name that is strictly controlled in its use. The important fact is that Nazism was a form of collectivism (see my other posts) and is different from other collectivist ideologies only in superficial ways. Paul 21:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The important fact is that Nazism was a form of collectivism (see my other posts) and is different from other collectivist ideologies only in superficial ways"

Except that Nazism WASN'T a form of collectivism. Not in the least. See AG Farben, the Fricks and other industrialists who made a killing (literally and figuratively)AndyL 16:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Except that it was, see Talk:Nazi_Germany#National_Labour_Law_of_January_20.2C_1934. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

facts

Dr. Goebbels said, "Germany is a republican Fuhrer-state". He also said, "Besides, I pay homage to the French Revolution for all the possiblities fo life and development that it brought the people. In that sense one could say, if you like, that I am a democrat."

Nazism is called the "Brown Creed". (brown refering to the brownshirt SA, the working class)

Hitler said, the Third Reich was a "people's republic"; (eine volkische Republik).

...which demonstrates a lack of understanding for the concept of völkisch.
--Ruhrjung 08:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hitler said, "I am not only the conqueror but also the executor of Marxism--of that part that is essential and justified, stripped of its Jewish Talmudic dogma.". He also said, "This revolution of ours is the exact counterpart of the French Revolution."

And Dr. Goebbels was known for a) telling the truth? b) being a propagandist? AndyL 16:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

False dichotomy, Goebbels is known for producing Nazi ideology, and is arguably the best source of such. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not a "false dichotomy" at all. Goebbels is also "known" for being a professional liar, thus any claims he makes, particularly public cliams about the goals of Nazism, are unreliable. AndyL 17:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Care to cite that POV? Not that it matters, this whole Goebbels track is a red herring. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Goebbels "producing" Nazi-ideology — give us a break — what about Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg? In our days' language usage, Goebbels was a spin doctor rather than an ideologue.
--Ruhrjung 08:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

National Labour Law of January 20, 1934

[10] "National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government." Large public works projects, 100% employment, these sorts of things are socialist. Sam [Spade] 20:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the key thing to note is that the Nazis did not agree with the philosophy or political theory of Marx, or the German Democratic Socialist Workers Party. Defining "socialist" as "large public works projects" is not a useful definition (what country is NOT socialist, then?) and is not what people generally mean by socialist. I think a proper handling of this question would be to say that the name is a deliberate plagiarism of the Marxist party in Germany, and that the Nazis differed very greatly in their philosophy and political theory than the Marxists, even though many of their ultimate political outcomes look very similar to, say, the Leninists (anti-democratic state, state control of many resources of production, single-party rule, etc.). They are only "socialist" in the vaguest, most general sense, and it seems quite clear, Sam, that the main reason you are insisting on not providing any sort of distinction between them and Marxist versions of socialism is that you are fond of lumping "left-wing" socialism in the same category as fascism. Whether that is a valid judgment or not, it certainly would be more useful for the reader to note that there are some distinctions, and I think perhaps to give a little history of the name which indicates that it is not identical to Marxist socialism (which is what is generally meant by "socialism" in my familiarity with the term, not just a vague sense of state control, a usage only used by pundits), and is more in tune with the spirit of Wikipedia NPOV policies. --Fastfission 15:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scroll up and see

"BTW, I'm fine w pointing out that Hitler opposed Social democracy, which is completely different from totalitarianism."

Alot of the rest of what you are saying is either wrong, or not relevant, but I would be ok with you presenting information on how Marxism or Social democracy were repugnant to Nazi's. Sam [Spade] 16:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Your seemingly refusal to address his points is interesting, though largely irrelevant - We should at least put that some people believe that Hitler was not a socialist, perhaps without stating the view as fact until this dispute is sorted out? Comrade Tassadar 21:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can add that many contemporary socialists don't think he's a socialist w/o my objecting, anything more than that and you'll need a cite. As far as whatever else Fastfission alluded to, discuss it in my talk page or something, its off topic here. I'd say my summary was sufficient . [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Corporativism is not the same as Socialism.
--Ruhrjung 08:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

National Socialism

Nowhere at the beginning of the article does it mention that "National Socialism" wasn't really socialism ala Soviet Union or Utopian Communism, but something COMPLETLY different. It leaves the reader with the impression that Hitler was a socialist (or, Hitler was a communist!) when, in truth, he was not. Perhaps it should be clarified? Comrade Tassadar 22:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps not. See Talk:Nazi_Germany#facts. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nazis not socialist? Well read this [11], sounds pretty socialist to me. GeneralPatton 16:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the deal with posting a link to a Holocaust revisionism website? This is pretty inappropriate and in awful taste, much less casting a bit of doubt on your ability to be NPOV, in my opinion. --Fastfission 20:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to illustrate that Nazis DID in fact view themselves as socialists. GeneralPatton 03:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Historical revisionism must be a part of any neutral discussion of past events. Your comments make it clear that NPOV has no place in your conception of a "tasteful" encyclopedia article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]]

I'm hoping you've just misinterpretted what has been said here and are not actually arguing that "evidence" from a Holocaust denial website to support the notion that the Nazis were "socialist" makes sense. The first thing a historian does is consult the reputation/veracity of their sources, you know. Why don't you spend a few minutes thinking about whether or not you agree with me on this one before replying with another smartass comment. --Fastfission 00:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe in compiling information from a variety of sources, AND consulting the veracity of the sources. What I don't do is buy into the "everybody of POV X is evil, so we'll label them as revisionist and ignore them". Also, who better than a nazi to give info on Nazi economics? Have you seen my facts I've already compiled? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you look at the site in question? The main page of it says "Welcome to the World's largest website for Historical Revisionism!" The point about sources stands no matter what: if the source isn't trustworthy, find another. If it is so clear that the Nazis thought of themselves as socialist then it should be present in mainstream historical literature. There is no grand conspiracy here, Spade, except in the eyes of those with the worst of intentions. You are showing yourself to be a grade-A jackass. And yes, I've seen the "facts", i.e. that Hitler called himself Volkisch, as if that is a significant fact in this debate (if you'd like to get into the ramifications of National Socialist reactionary modernism, we could, but what we're really talking here are layman's understandings of typical economic terms). If those are your ideas of compelling historical facts, I'm going to have to say that, as a historian, I'm not impressed. --Fastfission 00:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some extreme left-wing writers have worked tirelessly since 1945 to detach National Socialism from Socialism and instead, with ulterior political motives, attach it compleatley to the right-wing. These same left-wingers ignored Stalin’s Gulags and Mao’s death camps until the late 1970’s; again, because of politics. However, many historians have put the record straight and managed to show that National Socialism is in fact a sub branch of Totalitarian Socialism just like Stalinism or Maoism is. GeneralPatton 15:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Degrelle, who always stayed a Nazi said here “It is a fact that the newly rich classes emerging from the industrial revolution had enormously abused their privileges and it was for this reason that the National Socialists were socialists.” So it shows Nazis did in fact view themselves as socialists. In fact, Nazis were populist socialists in their domestic politics, at least when it came to ethnic Germans. GeneralPatton 03:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the Nazis opposed socialism. How can you be a socialist if you are against socialism?

They opposed communism, communism is not the same as socialism. Its just a sub branch. In the same way Soviet communists opposed the Western European Social Democrats, and the communist Chinese denounced the Soviet communists.GeneralPatton 16:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, they opposed any form of workers control of the economy whether democratic socialism, social democracy or Communism, they opposed trade union rights and all facets of socialism. They just misappropriated the term as a means of appealing to the working class but, in practice, the Nazis were entirely for capitalism and were bankrolled by industrialists and major capitalists as a bulwark against socialism. AndyL 22:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Historical revisionism must be a part of any neutral discussion of past events. Your comments make it clear that NPOV has no place in your conception of a "tasteful" encyclopedia article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]]"

Why do you keep using the euphemism "historical revisionism" instead of holocaust denial? And no, a neutral discussion would reject holocaust denial out of hand. Do you also believe that those who believe the universe revolves around the earth must be party of any neutral discussion on astronomy?AndyL 22:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe because I'm not using a euphemism, and am actually talking about Historical revisionism? Holocaust denial would suggest denial of the holocaust, not an interpretation of nazi political practices as Totalitarian socialism. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm just going to jump right into this...

...and stick my nose where it may not belong. The following are my thoughts, which I offer with the hope that they can clear up the debate over "socialism."

1) Socialism generally defines a hodgepodge of ideologies that can seem to be radically different from one another, however 2) All forms of socialism are based on a collectivist ideology. 3) These ideologies can favor differing groups, such as "workers," a "master race," or whatever the stated purpose is.

Economic planning, abrogation of private property, conscription, and quite a few other things are clear examples of subjecting the individual to the state or the "greater good." Whatever this state claims to advocate, and whose "greater good" is in question, are only cosmetic differences. Aside from the damage done by association with National Socialism, there is no reason why this brand of socialism should be set apart from any other.

Paul 16:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thank you for your wise and agreeable statements. While I understand the motivation of Socialists who wish to distance themselves from unpopular variations of their ideology, the category is incredibly broad and inclusive. IMO Nazism was significant among other totalitarian socialisms in its economic successes (until its impatience for territorial expansion undid it), and relative religious tolerance (compared to Communist states). Mass killings seem to be pretty standard in authoritarian states, and don't strike me as being so unique to Nazism as popular culture makes them out to be. People are often horrible, and I sympathize with Germans who feel they have been particularly maligned, while human rights abuses came long before Nazism, and continue to this day. In conclusion, we can learn from their mistakes without soiling the "good name" of socialism, and most importantly, while maintaining perspective. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, under Mao and Stalin, millions of people were either killed in Gulags/Camps off or deliberately starved into death. Even in smaller states like Cambodia, the Marxist Khmer Rouge deliberately killed a few million people, same thing went on in North Korea, communist Vietnam,... Just like the Jews, all these other people were also killed because they were called the "enemies of the people/revolution/ideology/proletariat,...". GeneralPatton 18:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great points Paul, it’s a really precise assessment. GeneralPatton 18:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An interesting assesment, though one I must disagree with. First off, you at first define "socialist" as a "collectivist ideololgy" favouring possibly different groups. However if we use this definition, every nation in the world is socialist for with nationalism comes a sort of collectivism that favours the people within the nation. You could go into any nation and find favoured groups, and thus we find this is a too broad definition of socialism. Next, you go on to define socialism as the state subjegating the individual. Again, with this definition many many nations in the world are socialist including the US. Your specific examples of "economic planning, abrogation of private property, conscription" have too occured in many nations around the world including the United States especially during wartime. I think you have the correct idea, but the specifics I believe are flawed. With this definition in hand, I could classify anyone and anything as socialist. Comrade Tassadar 19:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comrade:

Addressing the points you mentioned: 1) I agree 2) I agree 3) I almost agree.

Paul 05:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm just going to jump right into this 2...

There is a major fail in your reasoning: socialists do NOT support one group over another. To say this is totally ignoring the basis of socialism. They support equality, and to some that looks like they are favoring a group, the worse off group. Really all they want is to be equal. So how can the Nazis be socialists when they make no clame of equality and made no attempt to bring it about (other then killing everyone that wasn't “equal” already). So before you start filling the WP with POV nonsense, read a book on the thing you hate. --Bky1701 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bky1701, you make a very good point about equality but in your conclusion you miss key points. Nazi Germany was a flavor of socialism in that its Volk were given equal footing and the class system was seriously uprooted. The fact that NS Germany excluded others is simply irrelevant, for they didn't want the Jews to be there to begin with, with the exception of the few that were overlooked (some war veterans, etc.) I see what you are suggesting: a persecuted minority remained in Germany from the moment the Nazi regime took power up until its collapse. However, to undermine your theory, the "Final Solution" is the last of a long line of initiatives to rid Germany of this minority. In theory, national socialism is a regional interpretation of socialism, just as International Communism is another. You're not going to gain ground by arguing that this minority was not completely done away with and national equality was, therefore, not attained. In the same sense, the Soviet Union was never truly "socialist" simply because party members were hoisted above everyone else and the peasantry was trampled upon in favor of the factory hand. The facts remain that the Germans wanted an empire solely for the German Volk, which led to a nationalized culture-indentity.

--Hohns3 01:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was never truly socialist. Even if the goal of the Nazis may have been partly socialist (be equal), the means wasn't, and they never reached the goal. Therefore, only their intentions could even be considered socialist (at best), and even still they were not socialist is the sense it is used. Socialism lowers the higher and rises the lower; it doesn't eliminate the lower. Though it may in the end reach the same goal, it is not the socialist way the goal is accomplished. It really depends on how socialism is defined, and still calling the Nazis socialist even if there is a little socialist in them is deceptive. The US is no less socialist then the Nazis if you start extending it's meaning. --Bky1701 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Socialist as a universal, international concept it was not. However, the nation was pushed towards "socialization" - whether this was in accordance with some Marxist theory that never intended to hoist cultural and pseudo-biological identity to the forefront and instead focused almost exclusively on a supposed universal struggle between commoner and oppressor is besides the point. If your definition of socialism maintains the same worker-obsessive focus, than you will be at odds with any real-world manifestation, as it is almost delusional. However, bits and pieces deserve our attention for the same reason some people would prefer to live in the USSR than their contemporary "democracy". As for NS Germany, the facts remain that initial Nazi anti-Semitism - and not that which involved wartime factors or the wishes of the extremist fringe - targeted Jewish capitalists for "exploiting the German country" and encouraged those of the Fat Cat legacy to flee. Sounds like a flavor of socialism to me. In theory, all is for the nation AND the nation is for the German. Corporate monopolies increased after 1933, but it was under the thumb of the Party (and it is unclear how many of these decisions were concessions to financiers). It would have been interesting to see where Germany would have headed (besides war) since in the USSR, all the leftist griping about class led to its recreation through an ironic role reversal once the dust settled. It seems that National Socialism may be completely reliant on the presence of an outside "other" or at the very least, an external rival. Still, I invite you to name a civilization that has not thrived while castigating the outsider and promoting its own self-identity. Marxists are no stranger to this philosophy, but instead resort to ideological classifications rather than ethnic. I cannot agree with your statement that "socialists do NOT support one group over another" because they merely redefined their us and them world view.

United States!? Are you kidding? That is the antithesis of socialism compared to NS Germany and the rest of the more modern world. As I mentioned further below, I think part of the problem is this tendency to put "real socialism" on a pedestal of infallibility. --Hohns3 08:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union and Maoist China were socialist. And horrible. Nazi Germany was horrible, but not socialist. See how hard that was? I have no desire to put "real socialism" on a pedestal, but I do have a desire to define it in a fashion that approaches the scholarly consensus, and not right-wing polemic. Nazism made no effort to nationalize the means of production, or to end private property, or really to promote any kind of economic equality whatsoever. It did not arise from the politics of the left, but from the right-wing soup of Volkisch nationalism and anti-semitism. Its presidential candidate in 1925 was the ultra-right-wing WWI general Erich Ludendorff, and prior to coming to power it was a member in good standing of several right wing coalitions with mainstream right wing groups like the DNVP and the Stahlhelm, most notably the Anti-Young Plan movement and the Harzburg Front. The Nazis were brought to power by an intrigue within the extremely right-wing coterie of President Paul von Hindenburg. They consciously modeled themselves on Mussolini's Fascists, who explicitly described themselves as right wing, and were violently opposed to the self-described parties of the left - the KPD and the SPD. Only with a bizarrely idiosyncratic definition of "socialism," which you seem to have, can one describe the Nazis as socialist, in general. It is true that there was a quasi-left-wing element within the party, who actually did support some Socialistic ideas. However, these elements of the party never achieved any real power, and were largely purged in 1934. The Nazi regime was founded on an alliance with the reactionary right, and, as such, any radical Nazi economic policies, except for the anti-semitic ones, did not actually come to pass. I'm getting tired of this nonsense coming up again and again. (I'm also tired of people who say things like "the Soviet Union was never truly socialist" being on my side...) john k 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my comments were directed towards bky1701, but I appreciate your input. Always good to hear more than one voice, even you sound pained by your "obligation" to write. I'd bet the house that you were in a fit of procrastination, seeing as you're a grad student. :) --Hohns3 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you were responded to bky, but you were also making the general comment that opposition to the idea that the Nazis were socialist comes out of an idealization of socialism. I wanted to take issue with this, because, while perhaps this is occasionally true, it is not always the case. john k 00:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Socialist in name only 2

please read the talk page. This has been discussed ad infinitum. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and is perfectly clear and correct with the current wording. Leaving that out, and Wikipedia propagates one political view that is neither mainstream nor considered correct. As far as I understand, this is exactly what Wikipedia should not do. --Johan Magnus 17:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Failing to provide the reader w uncited nonsense does a disservice to no one, other than perhaps yourself. Cite your sources, buck-o.Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any history book, any memoires, this is not in any way a contested issue — on this side of the Atlantic, at least. It's possible that you, if you search carefully, can find some dissertations covering even this axiomatic issue.
--Ruhrjung 08:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

You know, Nazis are commonly refered as socialists by many of people I know (and at least equal people refers to them as rightist, but that's not important). I am not sure if "most europeans" will correctly reflect the reality. Szopen 08:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You traitor! ;-)) If the ignorance is harboured already on the other side of Oder, how can we expect the Americans to learn?
--Ruhrjung 08:24, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Communist East Germany

The article currently states:

West Germany recovered by the 1960s, but East was not so lucky; it had to endure communist oppression until 1990.

The phrase "endure communist oppression" is rather editorial. Anyone got a good idea for replacing it with something more neutral and in keeping with an encyclopedia? MatthewWilcox 15:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They felt they were being oppressed. Is that not enough? Joseph (Talk) 16:02, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

No. If a person in the US feels as if they are being oppressed, does that give them permission to go around Wikipedia editing articles that make the US look like an evil totalitarian state? Wikipedia should strive to be neutral, and while it should offer viewpoints, it shouldn't push them. Comrade Tassadar 22:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So according to you DDR communists were not oppressive? FBI is as oppressive as Stasi was? GeneralPatton 16:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. My personal belief is that the DDR was an oppressive dictatorship. However, labelling a nation as an "oppressive dictatorship" doesn't quite fit in with the Wikipedia policy of NPOV, now does it? If we allow it for DDR, we must allow it for all nations (including the US), and I'm sure that many here would have difficulties with that. It is, in my opinion, NPOV to put that SOME think that the East was oppressive (which is true, without taking sides on the issue). Comrade Tassadar 02:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well according to that reasoning, even Nazi Germany wasn't oppressive. So go ahead, change the article according to that. In fact DDR was based on Soviet style oppression that was as bad or even worse than the one in Nazi Germany. Millions died in gulags and because of Stalinist oppression. In Nazi German it was more of an ethnic thing, although also fueled by ideology. GeneralPatton 16:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, *I* don't dispute this either, however I just think we should refrain from emotionally charged comments presented as fact in an encyclopedia of any sort. Even "It is commonly accepted that X nation is totalitarian" is much better than "X nation is an evil dictatorship!", wouldn't you agree? Comrade Tassadar 18:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most Political Scientists think JFK is a Jelly Donut...

Care to cite that? I'm done reverting for today, but tomorrow, tomorrow, is only... a d-a-y a-w-a-y... Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evil Web Vandal

A web vandal apparently got a hold of my password and posted some pretty nasty messages then proceeded to attack my user page. Looks like they were blocked. Anyone know how to change a Wikipedia password? In any event, the article was restored. -Husnock 05:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reichstag Fire

Present discription should be rewritten. There's a distinct lack of evidence as too whether or not the Nazi's lit it. And there's no consensus among the historical community whether or not they're guilty of this crime or not. And I'm talking about serious Historians, not the idiot Holocaust deniers.

--203.17.44.84 08:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a common Wikipedia problem. A briefer text here must somehow summarize the more throughout and more npov-ish text of a more specific article.

I admit my relative ignorance, but I do so far interpret the text in the article specifically on the Reichstag fire to indicate Goering's involvement to be most likely.

I hope you can find a shorter wording!

--Johan Magnus 10:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I just had a read of the Reichstag fire page and it doesn't seem to pass judgement (it refers to Halder implicating Goering, but also to a historian who argued against it).

How does, "It is unclear whether the Nazi party was involved in the fire, but they undoubtedly took advantage of it"?

--210.8.216.82 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That has too much of a revisionist sound to it. I would suggest something like: It's commonly held... or Goering is reported to have... The Reichstag fire article then does the closer examination.

--Ruhrjung 18:43, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

a prominent general mentioned (I forgot who it was) that Goering had boasted to him that he had personally set fire to the Reichstag. --Marcel1975 11:08:05, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

I read somewhere (I don't remember, but it was reputable) that recent evidence indicates that it was in fact a mildly retarded Dutch Communist named van der Lubbe who set the fire, bragging about something he didn't do sounds like Goering but it's indisputable that the Nazis took advantage of it so ultimately I don't know if it's really relevant who started it.--Critic9328 23:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Other Prominent persons in Nazi Germany

User:Punkmorten, why did you remove Schindler and Wallenberg from the list?--AI 14:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New section

"Nazi" is partisan, juvenile and pejorative. 'National Socialist Germany' or 'Germany under Hitler' is much more appropriate. -- unsigned comment by 157.157.79.109 (talk · contribs)

"Nazi" is the standard term in English, for the party and the regime and for persons adhering to them. It is not "juvenile", and it is not considered a colloquialism or an abbreviation, it is simply the standard word used in English and far more commonly used than "National Socialist". The Wikipedia:Use common names policy applies. It is not pejorative except in the sense that, well, the Nazis don't exactly have a very good reputation. -- Curps 01:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

But then again, neither do the communists, and we don't call them 'commies' in the wiki. -- unsigned comment by User:Andrelvis

"Commie" is a slang, colloquial term in English, and a pejorative term. "Nazi" is simply the standard English word, nothing more and nothing less. Please consult any standard English dictionary. And as I mentioned to you on your talk page, "Nazist" is not an English word... you won't find it in the dictionary. Perhaps English is not your mother tongue? This may be a cause of misunderstanding. -- Curps 02:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

sparta and nazi germany article

i created this article when i was in year 12 for an assignment, it cannot be inside the encyclopedia as it is not biased nor make no conclusions, but it is a very good look at how each seem simila -- User:Whatsup_will

Your message seems to have gotten truncated. Please note Wikipedia:No original research. If you have an essay or original theory based on your own research, unfortunately an encyclopedia isn't the place for it (see the link to understand why). -- Curps 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"I am not a NAZI"

why does it say this at the bottom of the page -- unsigned comment by User:81.231.226.58

Anyone can edit, and sometimes they do. It's not there anymore. -- Curps 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Dormancy change in Procedure etc

Boringly , I say WP needs to get to the bottom of the above title, namely the vaunted(in WP) "changes of procedure" that allowed not only the loss of civil liberties (and I do not refer to the omission of the habeas corpus protectin left off by Hindenburg at the Fire Act ).That was an omission,. I mean the decree/procedure change that is so far un-sourced , which procedure enabled the arrest of Deputies . I point always to article two of the Enabling Act and the contradiction between that and such "procedura" change. Vital , Str1977, so please please find it for the WP . EffK 11:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

See Also [[12]] relevant discussion of dubious from Centre Party Germany .

Some small clarity is provided by str1977 , saying that frick seems to have persuaded a 'council of reichstag elders ?) to allow for procedural amendment of the Reichstag , perhaps on the 23 march , a concoction to overcome a Socialist boycott of the sitting and Enabling Act vote. the dormancy is still separtae and undated, and seems quite illegal viz section 2 Eact and the Empire Constitution .

Industrialists

I note that Consolidation of Power contains nil reference to the above . Indeed this subject is hard to find anywher in the german history pages, very hard . Str1977 rejects this below as off topic to Enabling Act (consequences) so I bring it here where it should form a small part of an 'Industrialists' section.This is brought in by John Toland as immediate consequence of Hitler's rigged success .The subject of the magnates bank-rolling Hitler prior to the rigged success is completely absent here , and so is their link to his supposed economic miracle, concerning which this sheds light.

The Reichstag success also brought into the open a number of industrialists who had supported Hitler , and unlimited credit was extended to the regime in the form of Mefo bills ( Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G.) which could be drawn by Government contractors , that acted as a form of promissary notes and which allowed Hitler to re-arm on a large scale.

With a link to Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. Why this blind-spot ? Why are we behaving as if the Nuremburg Trials , and their American lessor trials concerning Trading with The Enemy , never happened?

EffK 11:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

National Socialism

"Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically-loaded term, it remains strongly-related to the establishment of an organized working class; created through either revolution or by social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. Socialism had its origins in the ideals of the Enlightenment, during the Industrial Age/Age of Industrialization, amid yearnings for a more egalitarian society. It has also increasingly become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist may refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed." The definition of Socialism given by the Wikipedia article of what Socialism is. If we accept this to be true then National Socialism is NOT socialism. Nowhere in Nazism is there a belief society should exist with popular collectives controlling the means of power/production. Even if we use the De-Facto meaning of Socialism, Nazi Germany never had any intention of producing a class-less society (according to Wikipedia's articles on Nazism and National Socialism) or an egalitarian society.--GinAndTonic 01:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Then apparently neither was the Soviet Union, but it should be acknowledged that both build off of this egalitarian theory while combining elements that are foreign to the virtual definition of socialism. Practical application of the theory being turned into policy must be considered. Where is the "popular collective" in the Soviet system? It was left powerless as a wing of the Party, yet this is as close to "socialism" in that private property was (largely) nationalized, "predatory" capitalism ended and so on and so forth. Again, if we hold socialism up on a pedestal, no, this utopia was not achieved. There are few reservations to throwing around terms such as "democracy" and the like, so what gives with socialism?--Hohns3 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was socialist, because its official ideology said that the people should control the means of production. In practice, the USSR was run rather differently, but that's a different issue. john k 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Description of tide turning a little too simplistic

The article states: "By February 1943 the Soviets had defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad and began the push westward, winning the tank battle at Kursk-Orel in July."

This makes it sound like the Germans were essentially defeated for good at Stalingrad, and that all the Soviets did after that was advance westwards. Kursk was a massive offensive launched by the Germans, which nevertheless did end badly for them.

Also why do people always have to use the word "Nazis"? The Axis forces on the Eastern Front included hundreds of thousands of troops from Italy, Romania, and Hungary each, as well as co-belligerent Finland and tens of thousands of Waffen-SS volunteers from all over Europe, as well as the Spanish Division Azul and a quarter million Soviet "volunteers" (Cossacks, Tsarists, POWs, etc.). --Critic9328 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should not refer to "Nazi" defeats. We should refer to German or Axis defeats. john k 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a "Nazi war flag"

I believe the flag depicted as the "Nazi war flag" was simply the flag of the German navy during World War II, perhaps it is a misinterpretation due to the German word for navy--"Kriegsmarine" (people may know that Krieg means war in German).--Critic9328 23:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Too much credit given to Marshall Plan?

The article states:

"West Germany recovered economically by the 1960s, being called the economic miracle (German term Wirtschaftswunder) due to economic aid by the United States of America (Marshall Plan),..."

This sounds a little to straightforward and self-congraulatory to me, other factors have been cited such as hard work and financial discipline of the Germans, along with the boom in manufacturing as a result of the Korean War.--Critic9328 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Article title

I do not know if this has been brought up as an issue in the past, but this seems like something that should be fixed. The term Nazi, as most of you probably know, is a portmanteau of the German words National and Socialist (Nationalsozialistische). I do not know this for certain, but I do not believe the term "Nazi" was used in Germany until sometime after the fall of the Third Reich, which makes the term "Nazi Germany" a questionably accurate name. This article doesn't even seem to mention the actual title of the party in the first few paragraphs. My suggestion: anywhere the term Nazi appears, replace its first mention in an article with "National Socialist (or Nazi)." Yes, 99% of the world says "Nazi," but our readers deserve accuracy and some background on what they are reading. Not to stick my hand into a hornet's nest here (and not to start an argument over whether they were "real socialists" or not) but omitting the term "socialist" when discussing the Third Reich is like omitting "Neocon" when talking about today's United States. (Although, "Neocon America," while maybe destined for use in future encyclopedias when discussing the U.S. 2001-present, would itself be an incorrect title.) Anyways, thank you all and I'd love to hear your comments on my talk page. Paul 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Paul, "Nazi" was used as early as the 1920s as a short name for the NSDAP and its adherents. It was formed in imitation of the earlier "Sozi", which is short for Sozialist or Sozialdemokrat. I agree that the title Nazi Germany is a bit casual but then again it's also very descriptive. Str1977 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Coalition decree issuance

I refer any editors concerned with changes I make to sources povided through my recent history button , prior to any necessary absolute repetition; ie this is done after source in good Faith. The source was Alfred Rosenberg, 1936 A History of the German Republic, a foundational historian in the subject. EffK 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Prominent persons in Nazi Germany

There are some problematic "members" in that section, especially in the sub-section "Others". Some have not actually lived in or during the Third Reich, though they were connected or had influence to Nazism.

Richard Wagner
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, died in 1927
Arthur de Gobineau, died in 1882
Guido von List, died in 1919
Karl Lueger, died in 1910
Lanz von Liebenfels, actually lived in Austria during the time it was annexed by Nazi Germany, but as a figure of obscurity

Under the circumstances the best solution probably would be to rename or split up the "Others" section. Any suggestions? Str1977 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Civil Liberties are not the point

The inclusion of civil liberies is a means to avoid the truth - the truth is that un-constitutional arrest gave Hitler the chance to subvert the remaining catholic Centre Party Germany bloc. The truth is not acceptable here on WP , viz even the removal from Adolf Hitler of the half-way truth of John Kenney's Atkins and Tallet conclusion, that the kick-back scheme with the Centre started on 9 April 1933. I refer you to my response of a few days ago at final diffs 15 December [[13]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

The kick-back did not, of course start then, as Hitler's speech proves , and sources attest and was not limited to the Centre but inculpates the Holy See. However, even that limited aspect is forbidden, naturally. Naturally because even that post-Enabling Act scurrilous barter is shocking scandal, which leads into the Hitler's Pope literature (multiple books exist). What about Wikipedia civil liberties? We are under constant revisionist attack, and that is why this article repeats the civil liberties nonsense . The 11000 arrests of activists did not affect the vote in the Enabling Act. This article could be put right, in one short sentence but as revisionism is so powerful here on WP, I cannot expect to repair this article-it would last 5 minutes. I am, naturally enough, -blocked . The kick-back with the church is not a subject for inclusion on WP, not on Adolf Hitler and not anywhere. Some digital advance....Oh I forgot to say that the revisor of Hitler was the User immediately above. He is the subject of the link 'diffs', as he contradicted himself from his much earlier agreement with Atkins and Tallet. This is enough to short-circuit any editing. I at any rate, am prevented, but you can try ... EffK 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In continuation of this point see Pope Pius XII/talk [[14]] which will become Archive 7 doubtless very soon, and see where I expand and quote William L.Shirer re the legality of the takeover: "Thus was parliamentary democracy finally interred in Germany, except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social Democrat deputies, it was done quite legally,though accompanied by terror."page 249, fair use, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pan Books 1959.

I came thru here to check , and no there is still no link out of here, Weimar not the central AHitler, towards the Reichskonkordat, thus the puzzle is still strangely incomplete. We are basically asked to believe, by the editing line preventing its inclusion, that although indeed the Centre Party's dissolution was on the Vatican's bargaining table ( ! ), that the coincidence of a prelate of the Church negotiating a crucial persuasive but indelieverd Letter of Guarantee, up-ending the Reichstag , and instituting Dictatorship, that this is not reasonable to mention in the same breath as him being also a close friend and associate of the relevant Vatican power. And that the Reichskonkordat isn't relevant to the change in Germany in 1933.

Inclusion of this would be a massive bigoted impius POV, it is written. And decided at AHitler, where last attempted inclusion was immediately wiped. Conveniently in both the real world history and in Wikipedia it is possible to obfuscate the events of the Reichskonkordat. However important at the time to Hitler, to the Church, to the German public and to International opinion, the events and their affect are not linked, not mentioned. Yes kaas is put under the banner of Cornwell at Weimar Republic because that was the only way i could link him, but as another reason for the failure of Weimar-you see nought .Eventually you come across it in an Articles text,was it at National Socialist Doctrine, ie nowhere. From the Church side it is now visible via Pius XII, but heavily massaged into the dominating hagiography and certainly not including the words Adolf Hitler.

I have always suspected a clear reason for this absence-which draws accusation of 'original research'- As far as my experience here, this is something which certain otherwise extremely well informed editors prefer to leave as a puzzle. A question or a contradiction, can be un-noticeable. For example Ludwig Kaas can be un-linked within text, even though sources are given repeatedly to show his importance. Oh he gets the sanitised safe mention-and his page is massaged, but no link and above all no mention of his being a prelate of the RC Church at the time, nor that he was personally arranging the crucial Letter of Guarantee, and privately met Hitler in a shuttle back from Rome.

This is not all the history, but it is absent history and as I say conveniently sits at the threshold of the Third Reich. The end of Weimar set at the barrier of 23 March 1933 ,at the Enabling Act folds Weimar prior to the subsequent and intrinsically so , because sourced, Reichskonkordat. The beginning of the Third Reich, well, under changes or culture or alliances-no mention and no link. Again, I have always suspected in the curious absence that reference to the Reichskonkordat is not desired. That the clear illegality of the 23 (per Shirer and everyone after the Nuremberg Trials-) which led to Hitler himself, in effect, negotiating by this illegally effected 23 Act, a legal Internatinal treaty on behalf of Germany with the Holy See, is an embarrassment. Because even though apparently Germany still qualifies this treaty as legal, the Government which made it is in all other respects considered illegal. There is an anomaly, equivalent to the anomaly that I have had to correct in WP, that Hitler came to power legally. If you care see what Shirer says here about that see that other conversation[[15]] and note the trouble it caused. I claim that when there is clear WP error and omission, as with legality, the research is to the source, and to the correction therefrom. If there is a historical anomaly, it appears to me that whatever means are necessary to find the source and the truth, are reasonable necessity. If in fact the clearest and most final source is the Nuremburg Trials or, some day, the vatican Archive for 1930-1933, and if Shirer passes on to the more stark following history, leaving only clear allusion and quotations of approbation, and leaves question hanging, if other historians build on this and leave questions hanging, and if then Cornwell et al, leave questions hanging- I see no reason not to relate what sourced questions are left hanging. EffK 19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

international relations

This seccion is missing, there is no metion here of third reich relations here with Italy, Japan, Spain; Finland, Romania o USA before and during the war

German Wiki Notice Board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Life for the ordinary people in this time

I have found this article to be extremely useful thus far but I really think that it should contain information about life for the ordinary people in Nazi Germany. That information is hard to find and I believe that if we included that in this article then it would be used alot more for research in assignments etc. I may had a little go and add some of that myself later on today if I have time Banana.girl 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Geography/Administrative organization of Third Reich

This section is badly missing. What was administrative status of occupied lands? Terminology? Satellites/protectorates? mikka (t) 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a complaint, it has to do with the map of "Germany and its allies", which shows the entire Europe besides Britain and Soviet Union colored in blue (Axis colour on the map). Britain and Russia were not the only Allies in Europe, so I suggest that you at least change that subtitle!!! What about Poland, that was invaded and has suffered trumendeous casualties during the war?? What about Belgium and Holland, that were trying to remain neutral but the Nazis wouldn't respect it? What about Yugoslavia, that had coup d'etat in the eve of Nazi invasion, and has rejected to collaborate with the Nazis and was punished for it with bombardment and invasion, same happening in Greece as well??? Today it is well known what countries were pro-Axis and what countries were Allies. Pro-axis were (at least during the most of the course of the war): Germany (including Sudetenland, Austria, Prussia, nazi puppet of Slovakia), Italy and its dominions like Albania and Croatia (Independent State of Croatia), Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, nazi Finland and Norway. Allies were: Great Britain and Ireland with dominions, Soviet Union, France, Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Greece, Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Czech Republic etc....for some time these states (most) were absorbed by Germany but they largely opposed the war and have had significant resistance movements even during occupation, which is the basic criteria for its Allied- enrollment.

Yes, but if you actually look at the key at the top of the map it says it's for the period '41-'42 and during that period the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and parts of France were occupied, Vichy France was a german satellite, Greece was divied up between Italy and Bulgaria, Albania (including parts of Kosovo IIRC), bits of Dalmatia, and Montenegro (including bits of the Sandzak) were under Italian occupation or influence, Slovenia was divided between Italy (Carniola), Germany (southern Styria) and Hungary. Serbia and the ICS were Nazi puppets. Also please refrain from referring to Finland as being 'Nazi Finland' during WWII, they were co-belligerents and nothing more, they were just trying to recover what the Soviets stole from them during the winter war and maybe some of the ethnically-related Karelia. The map is accurate for the time-period. By you logic Italy could count as an ally as they had a resistance movement and the King Vittorio Emmanuelle III and some generals overthrew Mussolini and were eventually allowed to contribute to the allied war effort against the Germans in the balkans (though the King was reduced to 'ruling' a few scraps of land in Puglia).

Problems with the term "Nazi"

As has been said by someone else above - the beginning of the article doesn't say that the term "Nazi" is slang for "National Socialist" (a compound of the German "NAtional SoZIalist"). The fact that this (important) bit of information is missing from the beginning of the article doesn't bother me as much as that it's simply bad style - slang should have no place in an encyclopedia (as far as I'm concerned, at least... ). An encyclopedia should educate it's readers and not feed them with crude knowledge of history. I therefore suggest replacing "Nazi" with "National Socialist" - at least in the article's title and in the first few paragraphs. Maybe some of the rest of you might like to comment below. 22nd February, 2006

I think we should keep the title, specially since Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is a big assignment topic in High School. We need to make it clearer what Nazi comes from as its quite unclear. We could/should bold out the letteres so it looks like this : Nationalsozialistische. I did this for my recent assignment. I do agree with you that the purpose of Wikipedia and any encyclopedia is to educate but we have to keep in mind what the reader will more than likely look up.Banana.girl 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about people looking up terms they already know. Since you refer to "High School" I suppose you're from the US and it may be that the term "Nazi" is more easily understood there. Please keep in mind however that this encyclopedia is meant for anyone anywhere in the world speaking English and should therefore stay as linguistically neutral and accurate as possible. How about getting "Nazi Germany" to redirect to "National Socialist Germany"? Anyone else? 25th February 2006

High school is an international concept. I am, in fact, from Australia and no one referes to Nazi Germany as "National Socialist Germany", except for history teachers. I see that redirecting would be the right thing to do and we would have to make sure that it is made clear in the introduction that the article is about "Nazi Germany"Banana.girl 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use common names, not more "correct" ones. A quick Google search shows that "Nazi Germany" gets a hundred times the hits of "National Socialist Germany." In my experience pretty much all historians also prefer "Nazi." - SimonP 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the Nazi faction wins then... I still think it's worrying however for an encyclopedia to pander to a sort of general level of knowledge - after all, people look things up in an encyclopedia to learn more about them. The fact that Google returns more search results for "Nazi" illustrates exactly what I've said above: it's a slang term, used by everyone anyway. 26th February 2006

Seriously, take a chill pill! Look up an encyclopedia. *Goes and looks* MY encyclopedia does not have anything on National Socialist, except for in the NAzi Germany article. When doing an assignment, someone is more likely to look up NAzi Germany. Who will benefit more - the person who already knows its National Socialist or the one who knows it as NAzi. Also, they were really only NAtional Socialist in name, not in practise. Nazi fits better. IT also makes it less confusing.

Ok - I don't want to carry on one of those pointless Wikipedia discussions - I just want to say this: see above for what the term "National Socialist" meant. The "Nazis" WERE socialists in the sense that they sought to achieve a form of social justice within German society. At the same time they were nationalists and racists. I don't see this being in any way contradictory - they were not communists. Goebbels went so far as to suggest in his diaries that the only difference between National Socialism and communism was that NS wanted communism only for Germany and national independence from the rest of the world. There is a long tradition in German intellectual history of dreaming about "national socialism" - read for instance Fichte's 'Geschloßner Handelsstaat', a fascinating text that also influenced communist thought. In the Weimar republic some fantasised about "national Bolshevism" - read Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Jünger on all that. Hitler's speeches were full of ranting against the apparently blood-sucking capitalist allied nations of the West. In reality there may not have been much difference between economic pratice in Germany and other Western countries - but Hitler & Co. certainly insisted at least on an ethos of socialism. An ideology of social equality remains in Germany to this day - top managers there generally earn less than their counterparts in, for instance, the UK or the US (and have to pay higher taxes). So long. 1st March 2006

Ughh

This article is disgustingly simple and riddled with errors. Considering the article's importance in indoctrinating younglings - as well their ability to add what they have learned(!) in High School - such an unbalanced and undereducated analysis of the regime is hardly unexpected. Even if you are going to resort to a single point of view, at least make an attempt to pass it off as legitimate by working on grammar. ---Okay, I added what I could. Hope my contributions are beneficial to the Wiki community. Cheers.

Third Reich

this article does not say who coined the term Third Reich. was it Hitler? was it an English speaking historian? please give details. Kingturtle 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am almost certain it was the Nazis themselves. The spiritual value of three was part of Nazi mysticism, drawn from the movement's occult influences. One can see this manifested in many areas, such as the Nazi mantra "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer", quite similar to the Christian Trinity. --68.81.242.37 06:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1923 the author Arthur Moeller van den Bruck wrote the influential book Das Dritte Reich in which he fantasised about some Deutscher Sozialismus. He belonged to an obscure and heterogenous movement of elitist-bohème right wing intellectuals called the Conservative Revolution and founded the infamous Juniklub in 1919. He heavily infleunced people like Otto Strasser or Ernst Niekisch. Moeller was an early mentor of the Nazi movement, but he dismissed Hitler whom he thought primitive. Goebbels forbade the book in 1939. Teodorico 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

what were the first two reiches?

what were the first two? Kingturtle 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. The Second Reich was the German Empire of 1871-1918. john k 19:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is also in the article.--68.81.242.37 06:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The eagle doesn't show the "coat of arms" but the "Party eagle". The coat-of-arms-eagle displayed the head turned to the left side.--Gomeira 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Social Policy

The sentence reading "The German community was nationalized and both labor and entertainment, from festivals, to vacation trips to traveling cinemas, as part of the "Strength through Joy" program." is nonsensical in English. Enzedrail 07:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

fixed. a few words appeared to be missing beforehand.--68.81.242.37 04:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

	This is an Archive. See Talk:Nazi Germany for current talk

Was the Nazi ideology really right wing?

The article refers to the Nazi ideology as a right-wing one. Economically, the left wing supports a government-run economy and the right wing supports a free market. Social politics gets murkier, but I don't know of any compelling arguments that would prove the Nazis were socially right-wing (conservative). ^[1]

Nazi is actually shorthand for 'National Socialist' which is 'Nationalsozialistische' in German. The Nazis controlled businesses, healthcare, and education.

If the Nazis were the extreme tip of the right-wing of political ideology, they would have favored the weakest of government power, not the strongest. The extreme right wing is manifested by libertarian (and at the climax of the right wing, anarchist) ideology in which individuals have all of the power and the government has none.

The Nazi ideology was, therefore, a left-wing one and not a right-wing one unless I am severely mistaken. Branding the Nazi ideology in the same manner as conservatives in the US are branded could appear disingenuous to some readers. Aluaxelman (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

You are severely mistaken. This is a common trope of the right-wing, and is counter-factual. See this article for a couple of academics deconstructing this nonsense and explaining the facts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

We go by what the vast majority of reliable sources have to say. Evans 2003 page 170 describes the party as far-right; Shirer 1960 page 51 says right-wing. In the section "No Second Revolution" starting on page 204 Shirer describes how left-wing members of the party were seriously disappointed that the socialist part of the platform would not be carried out; he says on page 205 that Hitler never had any intention of fulfilling these campaign promises; "the Nazi socialist slogans had been merely propaganda" to win over the electorate.

Nazi Party has three sources describing the party as far-right. This article describes it as "an anti-socialist, anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business party"; this article notes that "While Hitler’s party carried the word “socialist” in its name, only a few of the policies pursued by him were left-wing or indeed socialist." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

And Democratic People's Republic of Korea is clearly Democratic by that logic. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa is correct. Some European history is needed here. In the USA, libertarianism is currently on the right. (It used to be on the left in the US). In Europe, libertarians were always on the left. Monarchy was the main right-wing position in Europe until 1918 (when Germany, Russia, Austria & others) lost their monarchy). Then "right" in Europe shifted to fascism in many countgries & naziism in Germany. Nazis were never libertarian. As for "socialist" in NSDAP that refers not to Marxism but to the primacy of society over the individual (ie anti-libertarian). Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also I think you will find that most European sources call it right wing as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa is correct. BTW - the Talk:Nazi Party talk page has a nice little capsule of frequently asked questions, which Aluaxelman you may want to read on this subject. Kierzek (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless I am badly mistaken, no one has even been able to come up with a neutral reliable source which labels the Nazi Party as anything other than right-wing. (The citation above is most definitely not a neutral reliable source.) This is a non-issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Per the Neutrality Policy source reliability refers to accuracy of sourcing, not the point of view. Wikipedia presents a balanced view not the correct one. It is not our job as editors to censor views and sources that offer an opinion that Nazi Germany was a socialist program. It's also not our job to decide what opinion is correct or criticize other editors asking to include the "wrong" opinion, it is merely to present balanced views with full references. Since the above editors are obviously a) aware of this point of view exists and b) aware references exist to support it, it's more than a reasonable request. Wikipedia is not censored. Lexlex (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Lexlex, you linked to a mere essay, not a policy. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Where are the reliable sources describing Nazi Germany as a socialist state? Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

why no Germany wikilink???

Why is Germany not wikilinked at all, preferably at the earliest mention in the article? It seems like a very basic thing to miss off a Wikipedia entry! 2.24.71.140 (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Added. People are constantly editing the lead; it probably just got accidentally removed at some point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Flag in info box ....

I noticed this on a number of historic battle articles, including one linked on the main page of Wikipedia; the flag is not rendering properly. Here or anywhere else. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 05:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. On this page, it appears to be so. On a ton of history pages (e.g., Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Kasserine Pass, et al.), it is not, but that is a subject for those dozens (or hundreds) of other articles. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 05:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe someone changed a hyphen in the title to an ndash, or something like that. The answer is to replace the current file name with:

File:Flag of Germany (1935–1945).svg

which links to the current name of the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going through hundreds of articles to fix someone else's screw up. But it is at least good to know what went down. And I left a message on the Commons page. Thanks again. Cheers. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should ask a question about this situation at WP:VPT, because it may have something to do with how the system is handling hyphens and ndashes, or something like that. In any case it's beyond my technical abilities to figure out what's going on, and the folks at VPT are likely to be helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm not entirely sure of the technical aspects either, though I can look at it again tomorrow. My patience with the technical and bureaucratic aspect with this project are pretty much up, but that is another story. Thanks for the update to this page and for the assistance. I do appreciate it. Best of wishes. :) --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 06:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've posted a section on VPT. Hopefully they can figure it out. Thanks again. :) --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 06:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be fixed now via VPT. Thanks much!--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 07:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, double redirects, that explains it. Glad it's straightened out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppression of ethnic Poles

Diannaa, I find the argument that "here's no room" to be extremely questionable, fist when I just added one image you removed it saying "here's not room for another image here" yet there is no image in the entire article which highlights Polish suffering — yet, some section have a double image in a thumb frame just to get the point across. What I also find disingenuous that the issue of Poland is minimized, yet this was a country which was fully annexed into the German Reich, making millions of Poles stateless, and in effect what was happening in occupied-Poland was happening in the Greater German Reich (which happens to be the subject of this article). I find this type of omissions very shameful, and the constant removal on new materiel no matter how small very questionable (Btw, the secton on Poland had an image until some more took it down). --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa's assessment. I have about 6' of books about Nazi Germany, a good portion of which is about the suffering of various peoples under the Nazi regime. It cannot all be put into this article, which is already very, very, long. It's a survey article in an encyclopedia, not a place to stuff in everyone's chosen information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, as late as 1 Oct, 18[16] this image[17] was in the section on Poland not causing clutter or anything, it got removed, when I tried to re-added today all of a sudden there is "no room" which just sounds like a bogus argument.--E-960 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

My removing the addition is not related to the subject matter you chose to add, but is based on best practices as outlined in ~~your~~ the guidelines. Regarding the image I removed: There's really not room for more images; excessive images makes the page difficult to view for those reading the article on their phone, laptop, or tablet, and a tiny section like that one is too small to host an image, as it overlaps with the following section. Regarding the prose I removed: Articles should not be above a certain size - see the recommendations at Wikipedia:Article size. This is an overview of the topic. Additional material is present at sub-articles. In fact you copied some of the material from the sub-articles Nazi crimes against the Polish nation and General Government. The sub-articles are linked in the navigation templates and section hatnotes for those interested in exploring different aspects of the topic in more detail. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa the Soviet Union has the following images in this article [18], [19], and [20] but we can't have one of Poland? The one image of Poland gets removed after 1 Oct, 18 [21], but not for example the one showing Soviet POW which was in the section right below Poland? That's why I find some of the editing choices a bit questionable. Btw, in Germany there are monument to all different groups which were targeted by the Nazis, the one that missing is for the Poles. --E-960 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course we can have an image of Poland, just not in that tiny section. (At one time there were about 15 images of Poland in the article, which was excessive, but now it seems it's gone too far the other way!). I don't think we should use the one you added though, as the sourcing is not the best, and it's not clear who is being shot. How do we know for sure (given the sketchy source) that they're even Polish? Better to choose a different photo. How about we replace File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-031-2436-03A, Russland, Hinrichtung von Partisanen-2.jpg with File:Public execution of 54 Poles in Rożki (1942).jpg? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That would be a good option that I can definitely support. --E-960 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

E-960, as stated this is only an overview article and given the subject matter one could pour in everything and throw in the kitchen sink. But, that is not practical and the fact is for the section mentioned, besides the links to other articles, including Expulsion of Poles by Nazi Germany, Polish culture during World War II and operation AB-Aktion, there is a further reading link to a main article: Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) (Nazi crimes against the Polish nation). As for additions and work done since the timeframe of October you mention, that had to do with the ACR review. The article is already over the recommended byte limit and we just cannot include everything in large detail; that is what links to other articles is for, which is available to the reader. Kierzek (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

As for adding photos, I am sure something can be worked out; exchange as Diannaa mentions seems like a good idea. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the change. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I retoractively agree with swapping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

[1] ttps://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

[1]