Jump to content

Talk:Nazism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

You are like the socialists

I remmember the socialist slogans " 9 September 1944 - the victory of the Bulgarian people against the nazism and capitalism " . Now you say - socialism and nazism. You propaganda is pretty trite.

Nazism, fascism, and socialism are all forms of collectivism. It makes perfect sense to lump them together in certain instances. It isn't contradictory in the least. --Jayson Virissimo 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Membership

The Nazi party started out with few people joining, with only 55 members, one of them being Hitler. However, to make the party seem big, the started out at 500. I think it would be worthwhile including this.

Membership

I agree, not least to emphasise that what ruled Germany at this time was often not "the Gestapo" so much as "fear of denunciation to the Gestapo" - the "World at War" video series narrated by Lord Olivier mentions the "start at 500" statistical trick and demonstrates the fear factor better than I can and I would refer interested readers to this source, which states that cities of hundreds of thousands of souls were terrorised by as few as 28 actual Gestapo, nobodies in and of themselves, bolstered by a publicised fearsome reputation. To US President Franklin D Roosevelt is attributed "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". This may still serve as a warning to us now. Dajwilkinson 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Nazism

This article is grossly biased against Nazism. For example

"It therefore consisted of a loose collection of incoherent positions focused on those held to blame for Germany's defeat and weakness"

There are lots of things wrong with Nazism, such as murdering millions, but incoherence was not one of them.

One might argue that because Nazism is an evil ideology, it deserves biased articles, but then we should also have biased articles against Communism and Islam and people will dispute where to draw the line.

No one reading this article is likely to get a clue as to why Nazism appealed to so many people, and, more dangerously, they are unlikely to recognize modern day parties which that appeal to the same forces as gave nazism its appeal. The article is not neutral in POV, nor neutral in substance. It stretches facts to make Nazism unappealing, leaving the reader entirely in the dark as to why it did appeal. Nazism appealed to people's altruism and desire for self sacrifice, not to greed and hatred. Do you see any hatred or violence in "Triumph of the Will"?

The correct approach is to report what makes Nazism appealing from the neutral POV, report the bad consequences from the neutral POV, and report that "critics of nazism" argue that these bad consequences were a predictable and unavoidable consequence of the seemingly attractive aspects of nazism. The article refuses to acknowledge that there was anything at all attractive or appealing about Nazism, which obviously silly.

James A. Donald 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that Communism or Islam are evil ideologies. Nazism is an ideology of evil since it supposes that races exist, and that they are of unequal value. Communism and Islam do not assume that people have unequal worth. Please note that, if you say in a Wikipedia discussion that Communism or Islam were evil, it could deter or exclude a Communist or a Muslim from participating in this discussion.--Schwalker 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am to understand Nazism and the ideology I must have all information available; "Good" and "Bad". Every distorted fact, deliberately withheld truth, or lie that makes place on Wikipedia is a threat. They say knowlegde is power. You may add that a lie is as powerful as the truth. Where lie is detrimental to us only the truth, the whole truth will make mankind prosper. OktoberStorm 12:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia is supposed to present neutral and unbiased information, yet as I look at the Nazism page, I see much information which is substantially inaccurate. The wording of it seems, as well, biased against Nazism.

Where's all the information about the "common interest before the individual interest?" That was the core of the Nazi program and decidedly the base of Nazism. What about the idea of a "race soul?" What about the SS Racial Theory? Where is all of this information? This is not just significant information in regards to this article, it is essential. These things are what comprised Nazism and defined it. All I'm seeing is "white power," "holocaust," and "Jews." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T20:37:54 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to present neutrally. The bias comes from a wide consensus within the historical and political communities which outweighs the far-right fringe’s propaganda and is unproblematic per WP:NPOV. The article certainly should be expanded and more thoroughly referenced, though. —xyzzyn 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, some of the points you mention are detailed in the article, just not in its opening summary. "Race soul" is a concept that could use expansion, but if you have something to contribute, especially if you are able to source your material, we welcome any improvements you make to the article.--72.92.8.6 14:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with it being biased against nazism? Who cares if this site is "supposed" to be "neutral"? Nazism is evil and wrong, a despicable ideology of racism that promulgated an era of slaughter and death. The article should be biased against Nazism, so as to help prevent its resurgence.--Alex, 74.133.188.197 09:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC).
Errr.... No it shouldn't. Yandman 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Errr.... Yes it should. This reminds me of those debates in the UK about the stated goal of the BBC to be neutral - there are some things you just can't be that neutral over. Unless maybe (for the sake of balance) people think it's a good idea to maybe have a pro-Nazi page detailing all the reasons why Hitler was right, the death camps were a terrific idea, etc, etc? After that, we can go on to reworking slavery and then get into a better position viz-a-vis Jo Stalin and Pol Pot. Or maybe just hand Wikipedia over the the neo-Nazis and forget the whole enlightenment?? MarkThomas 19:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Mr. Thomas; I rarely participate in discussion on the good ol' Wikipedia, but I suppose I feel "morally obligated" here. I think it's hard to be relative about Nazism; it requires one to adopt ideas that one could condone the horrors associated with Nazism. Could it be said that according to cliché judgements (every action has an opposite and equal reaction) that perhaps there was some motivation, even perhaps some justification (the doomed social situation set-up by the Allied Powers which preceded the Nazi regime, known as the Weimar Republic)? Maybe, but that doesn't mean we have to approve, nor should we encourage Nazism again, especially when we have ethics that have the potential to create a better world for *all* of us?? Just because there is a neutral perpetuity, does not mean that there is a lack of ethical perpetuity. Anyway, why should we stop at Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Enlightenment, Mark? Clearly, we can work our way back to the ignorance of Darfur, Milosevic, and while we're at it, centralize power in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church! Cheers. Steve 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"there are some things you just can't be that neutral over". Who are we to decide on what the "some things" are? All facts are equal, but some are more equal than others? Neutrality is what makes an encyclopaedia. Yandman 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean some kind of balance between pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi. It means letting the facts speak for themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. let the facts speak for themselves. I do think nazism is evil and wrong, but obviously the German people saw something good in it otherwise they wouldn't have been so complacent. It may be that all the "positive" aspects of nazism are propaganda but I think it would be good to include them in some fashion. Of course, if the official Nazi line doesn' square with reality this should be noted.
Is it just me, or has somebody edited out my last comments? Steve 02:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you hope to write a "neutral portrayal" that is not "piased against Nazis," which killed 11 million people. Having soldiers storm your home and threaten to kill you if you do not support them is the reason they enjoyed extremely high popularity. Wikipedia does not need to be "neutral on this issue"


Let the facts, not the bias, speak for themselves.
Why not discuss the unbearable depression Hitler ended in Germany or the way he united a people broken by the treaty of Versailles. Or anything else anyone can ‘prove’ was a positive factor to the Nazi Regime. Then describe the atrocities, genocide, war crimes, national aggression and the rest of the story.
Everytime I read anything on this topic, people are all afraid that speaking a positive word about this sensitive and hotly debated issue will raise Hitler from the dead or something. Let the history, all of it, speak for itself. History needs to be neutral on all issues. The history books written under the Nazi Regime weren't neutral either, remember.

Joliversc 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)joliversc

Well, then you have the other side of that coin. I just pulled out a paragraph that read: "A nazi is a stupid german prick who is sort of like a paccy and because you want to get rid of them all because they are stupid and follow the stupid prick hitler who was a gay wanker" Not really up to snuff, you know. Gerard Van Der Leun 14:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Vanderleun

I also agree. Nazism is one of the most frightening ideologies ever to exist on Earth, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should censor information about it. The Nazi party did do things that helped Germany, such as reducing unemployment, and they should be mentioned, as well as all the horrific crimes it committed. I think that actually people will come to a much stronger decision against Nazism if they have been presented with an unbiased collection of facts, without constant opinions telling them what to believe. Look at Michael Herr's Dispatches, on the Vietnam War, in which he hardly expresses an opinion in the whole book, and you come to a stronger conclusion for it. Wasn't it Socrates who said that all true understanding comes from within? It would be counter-productive to be biased here.
Anyway, being biased against Nazism is frankly ridiculous; surely this is the one article on Wikipedia in which the conclusion the reader will draw is so patently obvious that it DOESN'T need bias? That would be to admit that somehow there was an inadequacy to the arguments against Narzism that needed backing up.
Finally, there is a more idealistic reason not to censor information in this article. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a political magazine. Surely it's our job to give information and not opinions. We would be undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source of information if we accepted that we have to slant the facts to show everyone that Hitler was a bad guy.
So please, don't turn Wikipedia into a political lobbyist group. Let people have the truth and draw their own conclusions from it.
By the way, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and completely new to this article so if I've done something wrong then I apologise in advance. Phileosophian 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Phileosophian, honey, I'm afraid that's just not gonna happen. Hitler, National Socialism, the Holocaust, Holocaust Denial/Hitler Diaries hoaxes stir up a LOT of passions (rightfully) in a LOT of people. It's pretty much impossible to be entirely dispassionate about the systematic slaughter of 11 million plus people (saying that's a bad thing is not tantamount to being a "political magazine"). As for painting Hitler as a "bad guy," the facts don't even need to be slanted; empirically speaking, I think it's pretty safe to say the facts speak for themselves. Nobody's censoring information or going out of their way to say that Hitler and National Socialism was bad. You can see that on its face. As for the frequent mention of "Nazi efficiency," that concept is rather debatable. The upward bump in Germany's economy was quite probably a delayed reaction of the Weimar's economic policies, and when your primary output is military technology chances are your economy isn't going to be solvent after the war is over.68.33.6.116

A good journalist/history writer is able to be unbiased about any topic. Unbiased reports are necessary to maintain an accurate perspective on history. Reporting the facts will more effectively bring across any point a biased writer tries to make(Of course this is considering he is well justified.)

This article doesn't need to be biased. A perfectly unbiased, well-detailed article on Nazism will show how evil it is even better than a biased one. After covering all the mass murders and genocides and atrocities committed by the Nazis, it should be totally obvious that it's evil, whether the article states it or not. I mean, come on: if we say, roughly, "they killed millions of innocent people because they thought they were superior to everyone else," do we really need follow that with "and that is bad"? Because that's essentially what making the article biased would do. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
umm.....they don't ever really say that they going one side of the other, if fact they never really discriminate either side(Nazis or those who were persecuted by them). They merely talk about what what had happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.248.16.18 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The article is clearly neutral; if facts substantiated a positive portrayal of Nazis, they should certainly be included in the article. There are, however, no such facts. Neutrality and impartiality are distinct. The article appropriately presents facts without selectivity among events of equal historical weight and merely illustrates the topic of the article with accuracy and neutrality: as an atrocious ideology.

An "atrocious ideology"? Nonsense. Nazism is no more atrocious than Democratic Liberalism or Communism. It is simply what it is: An ideology. Those who are unwilling to provide an objective article which does not denigrate Nazism, but instead dispassionately presents the facts, lists the beliefs, practices, and other relevant information, should remove themselves from Wikipedia fully. Your political agenda and politically correct nonsense is the stuff of profound and willful ignorance and malice against knowledge.

Moreover, it should be noted that Wikipedia, or any other encylcopedia, is not meant as a platform for moralizing. Let us leave this "evil" nonsense at the door. I am also quite certain that the lot of you are not ethicists, nor even well versed in theories of ethics, and therefore are not fit to make even a remotely objective argument for why Nazism is "evil" beyond "oooh, they killed people!"24.239.162.211 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a student, I think it's vital that articles on Wikipedia (especially this one in particular) are neutral. Sure, if you were around during or shortly after the time of nazi Germany, you'll realise the good and bad points of Hitler's rule; but for those of us who were born a long time after, we MUST know the entire story of what actually happened. If we know only the bad things Hitler did, we are left naive and vulnerable to future movements of this kind - we may not recognize Nazism until it is too late. - Caitlin (Age 16)

Even the opening, referring to Nazism being based around a "conspiracy of Jews and Bolsheviks," is fairly weak. I don't recall the Nazis talking grassy knoll. I believe it was more like "Social Democrats," the dominant left-wing party of the Weimar, who had strong socialist sympathies, (incidentally correctly) may have espied the total insanity of WWI and seen no trouble tossing in the towel; Jews, who had massive influence in business and therefore politics, also may have been less than pumped for three more years of batshit-crazy and purposeless slaughter. Even in Hitler's craziest rantings, that's not exactly conspiracy. I agree with the near-consensus edits should allow maximal "emulation" of Nazi's contextual appeal...that is the superior way of understanding history. Idiotic emphasis is for idiots, the facts speak for themselves: Nazis were incredible, heartless, vicious morons.-Rick

Encyclopaedias are an essential form of scientific documentation. Science is only concerned with well-founded evidence. We must not inspire hatred toward the Nazis by the same method that the Nazis inspired hatred toward other human beings: through lies dressed as scientific facts. Nazism's racist ideas are unreasonable. Nazism endorsed morals based on an unreasonable account of reality. Encyclpaedia's are concered with making such facts clear. ---- (Sam, (Australia: June/2007)

That reminds me of the Soviet Encyclopedia, where every political article consisted of minor information on the subject, and a huge diatribe on the faults of Capitalism and the awesomeness of Communism and Socialism. It's absolutely the same in Wikipedia. Humanophage

I think your point is that we shouldn't get carried away with focusing of the racist aspects of Nazism because Nazism had significantly more components than just racism; just focusing on Nazism's racist components would not be neutral. I agree, so lets simply not have a disproportionate amount of this article on why Nazism's racist policies were unreasonable. But nonetheless, it is a very significant component which needs to presented clearly.(Sam, (Australia: July/2007)

As a graduate student in History I have yet to come across a neutral or unbiased account of anything in History except for a pure chronology. Anytime an analysis of any event is included into the content of an Historical account biases occur. What is important is to present the prevailing arguments (by scholars) that consider mainly primary sources and to cite these sources. Encyclopedias are secondary sources in the context of providing information to the general public and are therefore vulnerable to the prevailing theories important to the analysis of any historical event. Approaching the content from a critical and skeptical advantage is important in developing your own interpretation of the event. Wikipedia may have its faults but if I wanted a pure unbiased account of Nazism then I would probably never understand the component of human nature so important in the synthesis of political movementsEddd1966 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)eddd1966Eddd1966 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Having visited Quedlinburg during my holidays, I came aware of the so called "Heinrich Cult" (Heinrich Kultus). German Wikipedia says: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg Seit 1936 profanierte Heinrich Himmler die Wipertikirche und die Kirche St. Servatii auf dem Schlossberg. Diese wurde zur Weihestätte der SS. Hintergrund war der 1000. Todestag Heinrichs I., dessen Grablege sich dort befindet. Heinrich Himmler selbst betrachtete sich als Wiedergeburt König Heinrichs.

One of the Nazi heads (forgot who, sorry), according to the exposition at Quedlinburg, wrote in his diary that there actually was no more difference between Catholicism and Nazism. This should probably make a short link in the Theology part of the Nazism article (but I'm a bit wary of editing it myself). It could say something like:

"The mixing of politics and religion in Nazism can still be seen in the Wiperti church in Quedlinburg, where the Nazis organised a celebration of the 1000th day of death of king Heinrich_I. For this, they restructured the Gothic Wiperti church to have a Roman inside, with a great, round window with an eagle on it looking down on the sanctuary - so the visitors of the church would see the worldly eagle as their highest power.

The eagle has been deleted from the church in 1945, but the Roman inside in the Gothic outside, as well as the stones that fill up the former window, can still be seen."

Both Quedlinburg and the Wiperti church have links in the German Wikipedia, but not in the English equivalents.

Don't be afraid, go for it! Can you provide a link to a picture of the stones on the former window for your audience, by the way? Quedlinburg isn't well known, so maybe you are doing the small, yet important town a favor by promoting it at the same time? Sadly, it is likely to become a ghost town, though it is great shape right now.--72.92.0.83 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I have created Portal:Nazism but do not know enough to get it up and running, perhaps someone could help out or weigh in on whether or not such a portal is viable. I made a comment on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism about the fact that it may be cannibalizing the target audience, i.e. it will turn into one of those portals that sits on a shelf if the main person (me) stops contributing to it because no one else cares enough. Romperomperompe 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Long rambling lead

The lead of this article has become long and rambling. Obviously a controversial article, and I haven't been working on it, so I hesitate to wade in; if the problem really isn't self-evident, ping me and I'll make my comments more specific. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please make your comments. Roger 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic practice

The notion that hyperinflation was a problem in Germany in the 1930s dies hard. The hyperinflation of the early 1920s was overcome late in 1923 when the Mark was stabilized. The depression was charcterized by falling prices. So why does the article refer to the "elimination of hyperinflation"? It's a misleading irrelevance and perpetuates a myth first popularized in 1940 in the "The Great Dictator", though there were moderately inflationary tendencies arising from the rearmament programme. Also, sources are needed for all growth rates given, especially as these can be calculated in different ways and are controversial. Norvo 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, especially on hyperinflation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised the apparent claim that many German corporations didn't know that they were employing slave labour or that they had "lost control of their German branches (sic)". IG-Farben (mentioned here a supposedly unaware company) had a plant at Auschwitz and was tried after WWII - and some of its leading executives were jailed. It's a mystery why Kurt Schmitt and Allianz AG are singled for mention. -- Norvo 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to hyperinflation (following the Flammingo changes). Norvo 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps on reverting the reference to 'Elimination of hyperinflation', despite the fact that there was NO inflation in Germany in the early 1930s. The hyperinflation of the previous decade ended in 1923. Those who want to cling to the myth that just before Hitler came to power Germans were carrying cash around in suitcases might do well to look at postage-stamp catalgoues for the interwar period! Norvo 13:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. Norvo 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If one wants to include any reference to the Nazi allegation that the Great Depression was caused by an international cabal I'd suggest keeping it brief, and I don't see any case for taking it back to the 19th century or earlier. After all, it was Nazi propaganda. I'd like to repeat my earlier request that sources be given for those extremely high growth-rates in Germany in the 1930s, as these can be calculated in different ways. Norvo 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY disagree! The point is NOT that there was the existence of hyperinflation in the economy - but that elimination of such a thing, or keeping it from being created again WAS IN FACT a MAJOR point of Nazi economic theory. Additionally, their economic theory was tied up in their overall worldview - as I pointed out, their economic policies supported their ideology NOT the other way around. Missing this essential difference in how they approached economics (which is very different than modern concepts of economics) is vital to understanding Nazi economic theory.

I feel the former edit of this section is more to the point - and the discussion of collusion of big business is best left removed to another section. It should not be to critize what happened, only to discuss what it was. In this case, I feel it is quite pointless to bring up the 'Protocols' here as well.

My cite about their growth rates is from the book 'Nazi Economics Ideology, Theory, and Policy' ISBN# 0-300-04466-6 translated by Ruth Hadass-Vashitz for Yale University Press (if someone could figure out how to cite this for me, as I don't edit much - but this was one of my contributions). I am citing a PRIMARY source. If there are differing calculations - place them in!

As an example from this book illustrating my point about hyperinflation being a primary concern:

..." "such a small increase in the volume of credit does in no way endanger the currency" bears evidence of the caution still prevalent at this juncture; following the experience of 1922-23, the fear of inflation was deeply embedded in public consciousness, and shared also by economists." pg. 42 Dobbs 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understood it, this is an article on Nazism, not neo-Nazism. So why are there external links to present-day neo-Nazi parties? - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

>> Simply because neo-nazism is nazism

Sean Russell

There is no evidence to support the claim that Sean Russell personally embraced Nazism as an ideology. What evidence there is, is that he sought an alliance with Germany against Britain to secure the full independence of his country. {{subst:unsigned|67.87.90.62|1 September 2006

Vandalism

I hate nazis as much as the next guy, but someone needs to lock this page, and revert the vadalism. Nazism is a 'penis'? Wikiwarlock 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism needs to be reverted, which, of course, you can do yourself; we don't usually lock pages over vandalism unless they are major vandal targets. This one was probably reaching the threshold for semi-protection (though no one seems to have gone for it). Now it seems to have calmed down, but people should keep that in mind as an option. - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism -- > Nationalsozialistische

All the "OMG commies" jokes aside, the Nazis spent most of their time complaining about how leftists, jews, scientists, the media, and socialists were ruining their country, etc, etc, nazi rant, more etc. How about we just call the Nazis what they called themselves, Nationalsozialistische, and just leave the interpretations to someone else?--64.12.117.14 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be an adjective, ie. they didn't: The term is Nationalsozialismus, the follower is a Nationalsozialist (plural:+en). In historiography, it is considered scientifically appropriate to use the political abbreviation for all three words, namely "Nazi" as the term, the follower and the adjective. --Flammingo 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Its "Nationalsozialist" (singular) and "Nationalsozialisten" (plural). "nationalsozialistische" is not really wrong, but commonly used only as adjective (plural, nominative). But whatever you call them: FUCK THEM-yes

Semiprotection

Could someone semi this article again, please? Large amount of IPvandalism (mainly from schools). Yandman 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all of us who care about ideological descriptions on WP are pretty sick of cutting in on IP no stupidity on this and related pages. I SP'ed it just now, let's hope that lasts for a bit. MarkThomas 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We're back to random IP-number defacing of the site every day following removal of the SP notice; is it true as the user who removed it (Casper2k3) said that this removal was correct because it was not listed at CAT:SEMI, I thought it was auto-listed there when the tag gets added? MarkThomas 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected, a non-admin who adds the tag won't actually protect the article. So when you added the tag in this edit the page wasn't protected (hence the IP vandalism after you added the tag). Go to WP:RPP to request a page to be protected. --Casper2k3 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated Comment on Kurt Schmitt

This paragraph didnt fit into the context, the guy is never mentioned again:
Kurt Schmitt (born 7 October 1886 in Heidelberg; died 2 November 1950 in Heidelberg) was a Board member of Allianz AG, Germany's largest insurance company, and was a German economic leader and the Reich Economy Minister from June 1933 until January 1935.
But maybe somewhere else? --[[User:Flammingo|Flammingo<sup>[[User talk:Flammingo|Parliament]]</sup>]] 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Changes

Wow, that was a big change made there by Flamingo. He seems to have removed a lot of content, and added some new stuff. While I'm not too sure about some of it ("When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism, and focus on their own nation" ? An important assertion such as this definetely needs a quote), I'm not the world's biggest expert on Nazism. Any opinions? Yandman 07:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly important set of changes. The first para in particular I feel is not as good now, as it does not give the panoramic view of Nazism one would expect on it's key page in WP. The rest of the changes are mostly focusing on historicist opinion but I think are rather livelier than what we had, and I don't see obvious mistakes or widely controversial opinions in there, although I will look more closely. I think this will need a lot of editing and thinking about though. Flammingo can you discuss it a bit more? You have made quite a change. Thanks. MarkThomas 08:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still modifying, and concerned about, the Flammingo change, which he has only discussed on my talk page and not here. If there is resolution to revert, do so, but I feel some of the changes were good, just very sweeping and undiscussed. MarkThomas 16:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for not discussing these changes first, with a crucial page like this it should have been; the reason was that there were at least two paragraphs with identical topics. I lately did some research on the rise of Nazism, and gave some reasons when this morning there was some concern on User talk:MarkThomas#Nazism; yes i agree the first paragraph is not finished and needs to be easier to read. Question is what should the first paragraph be used for, give an outline of the rest of the article or list events or be a moral introduction? The latter is necessary on the one hand but debatable for an encyclopaedia. My main reason was a more readable (?) structure. The rejection of Internationalism etc. is not mine but a quote from analyses like Mann, or leading historians Nolte and Arendt. Now I'll get some sources for that. Again, this was for structure, the content though needs more sources and probably additional perspectives. --FlammingoParliament 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Nazism

It is misleading to denounce the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) of being an advocate of Nazi-type racism. His book "Parerga und Paralipomena" section 92 is quoted to support this claim. The quotation ignores both the historical context of Schopenhauer`s remarks, and their context in his essay "On the Philosophy and Science of Nature" from which the quotation is taken. In his essay, Schopenhauer gives a matter-of-fact account of the development of humans, informed by the science of his time. He (correctly) acknowledges the origin of humans in Africa, then speculates on the processes which led to a white race. He makes clear that there is no such thing as a "natural white race" and that in fact using the term "white race" shows "prejudice and lack of thinking" (page 137 of the 1988 Haffmans edition, my translation). Schopenhauer takes the superiority of European civilization as a fact, arguing that climatic conditions were the driving force towards a superior creativity. There is nothing particularly Nazi-like in these views. They represent the mainstream opinion of educated Europeans in the 19th century. Schopenhauers views on race and civilization are the views of a moderate and highly educated conservative in the mid-19th century, in no way extremist, and would probably have found the thorough approval of, say, Queen Victoria or Florence Nightingale. You cannot judge a 19th century thinker using 21st century language and moral standards.Christophreisner 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Can it not be said that the original thought of the basic concept and symbolism of Nazism, the Aryan Race and its supposide competition with the Semite race can be traced back to Helena Blavatsky. Afterall, Blavatsky coined the term Aryan race and her personal symbol included a swastika at 45 degrees with a ring surrounding it. Look at Theosophical Society on Wikipedia to see Blavatsky's emblem preceding unsigned comment added at 01:00, 24 September 2006 by IP 65.95.171.76 Talk

Sounds very likely- i still suggest to base the statement on a published research in order to prevent internal myth-making. Do you have one? (Please remember to click "sign your name") --FlammingoParliament 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A darker shade of Green

A while back I read a "What if" article in New Scientist. A darker shade of Green. I just remembered it today, so I did a quick search of what I remembered, and it was amasing what I was able to dig up:

There are probably more litle known Nazi topics to dig up, but I haven't got the article anymore. I wonder if I will dare question the roots of the "green party".... --Stor stark7 Talk 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi hard sciences seems to have been doing well as well Operation paperclip --Stor stark7 Talk 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They were incredibly advanced on the green side of things. I don't really see this as a contradiction, as the Nazis didn't want to destroy the world or anything. They sincerely wanted to make it a better place. For anyone with blond hair and blue eyes, that is... Yandman 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a very false analogy, to be perfectly frank. For every parallel you can find with the Nazi Party and the left, you can find plenty with the right (laissez-faire capitalism, anti-gay initiatives, eugenics, etc. etc. etc). Yeah, Hitler was pretty green, but not so much in a tree hugging way as in an aesthetic way. And don't get me started on the whole "Hitler was a vegetarian" thing. Yes, he was, but only because his stomach couldn't digest meat properly and it gave him gas. Plus, he cheated on his diet plenty of times.

Capitalism? Hate to break it to you but Hitler was as anti-capitalist as the communists. --Jayson Virissimo 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why NPOV tag?

It's not clear to me why there is a dispute tag on this page. It's not the best treatment of the subject I have ever read, but it seems both reasonably balanced and comprehensive. Am I missing something? White Guard 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now removed. White Guard 00:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

German terms

I want to make a few corrections on the German terms used in this article. I am Austrian and so German's my mother tongue and I noticed some grammatical or orthographic errors, which I ask you to correct. The article's locked at the time, so I can't change it myself. The section "Introduction" mentions the German term "das Blut" as a translation for the English "race". This is incorrect, for "das Blut" means "the blood", while "the race" means "die Rasse". It is true, that the term "Blut" was sometimes used symbolically for "race" (for example: "Ich bin deutschen Blutes", literally "I am of German blood" meaning "I am of the German race"), but the most widespread translation for the English "race" is "Rasse". It should, however, be noted that in German the term "Rasse" (race) is sometimes frowned upon because of the possible racist connotations. Instead, the more neutral and scientific term "Ethnie" (ethnic group) is prefered.

The German word for "National Socialist" (referring to a person) is not "Nazionalsozialist", as the article claims, but "Nationalsozialist" (with "ti" instead of "zi"). It is, however, pronounced [nat​͡sjonˈaːlsot​͡sjalˌɪsmsʊs], with a t​͡s in "Nation...", which would normally be spelt in German as "z". However, in German "ti" whenn followed by another vowel is pronounced /t​͡si/ instead of /ti/, so "Nationalsozialisten" is the correct spelling.

The term "Dolchstoßlegende" in the section "Nazi theory" is also misspelled. It should have an "ß" instead of an "ss". "Dolchstoss" would be the Swiss spelling, which is not the most widespread standard spelling in the German speaking countries. The term "German Volk" used in the same section could be easily translated as "German people". The motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" should be spelled with only one capitalized "ein" at the beginning, with the other "ein" (an article meaning simply "a/an" or "one") being spelled with in lower case. The name of the Thule Society is spelled with a hyphen between the words "Thule" and "Gesellschaft" ("Thule-Gesellschaft", not "Thule Gesellschaft").

Besides: I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think that the opinion that "National Socialism" was a world-wide phenomenon, as expressed in the "Introduction"-section is wrong. There may of course have been movements, that combined nationalism and socialism, but they didn't call themselves "National Socialists". As far as I know, the German term "Nationalsozialismus" was a unique expression at the time, used by the National Socialists to attract members of the working classes. The opinion that "Nazism" is the distinct German form of National Socialism is almost certainly wrong. The term "Nazism" is almost never used in German-speaking countries, instead the terms "Nationalsozialismus" (National Socialism) or -- less frequently -- "Hitlerfaschismus" (Hitler fascism) or "Nazifaschismus" (Nazi fascism) are used.

The term "völkisch" used in the section "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" should not be capitalized, for it is a normal adjective, which are spelled in lower case letters even in German.

The term "Lumpenproletariat", however, should be capitalized, because it's a noun and all nouns are capitalized in German.

Furthermore, National Socialism is not only outlawed in Germany, as the article says in it's "Introduction" section, but also in Austria, which was occupied by the National Socialists in 1938.

The term "lebensunwertes Leben" included only disabled and mentally ill people and people suffering from hereditary diseases (and sometimes the so-called 'Asoziale'). The term "lebensunwertes Leben" was connected with the "Euthanasia" programmes the National Socialists committed. It did not include non-German people, homosexuals etc.

Phew, this was getting longer than I intended it to be. I hope I could help you. 62.46.181.60

Many good suggestions. I rewrote the lead. The term Nazism is widely used in most English-speaking countries. National socialist ideologues existed outside of Germany, but it was almost exclusively limited to Europe--not international. I hate opening entries with a cite to another encyclopedia. What's the point? The issue of fascism is dicely, I used the term nationalism in the primary clause, and mentioned fascism in a later sentence. I am intimidated by the idea of trying to fix the German language stuff.--Cberlet 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've heard about the fact that the term "Nazism" is very widespread outside the German-speaking countries. I didn't object the usage of that term, only the claim that "Nazism" is the specific German variant of National Socialism. I also appreciate that there were National Socialist ideologues outside of Germany, but I don't know any movement from the time before German National Socialism that called itself "national socialist" (using the term, you know). Unfortunately, I don't understand what you want to say when you're speaking about opening sentences citing other encyclopedias an the relationship between National Socialism and Fascism. Does it refer to something I said or to another discussion?

Oh, and about the German language stuff: that are only orthographic errors. Please just do the following:

- Change "Nazionalsozialisten" in paragraph 3 of the section "Introduction" to "Nationalsozialisten" or, even better, "Nationalsozialisten/Nationalsozialistinnen" (thus mentioning both genders -- strictly speaking, "Nationalsozialisten" refers only to male Nazis). - Change "Dolchstosslegende" in paragraph 2 of the section "Nazi theory" to "Dolchstoßlegende". - Change "German Volk" in the "Nationalism" paragraph of the section "Nazi theory" to "German people". - Change "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" in the same paragraph to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". - Change "Thule Gesellschaft" in the first "Racism" paragraph of the section "Nazi theory" to "Thule-Gesellschaft". - Change "Völkisch movement" in the first "Nazism and mysticism" paragraph in the section "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" - Change "lumpenproletariat" in the third paragraph of the section "Ideological competition" to "Lumpenproletariat"

I hope that I could help you. 62.46.181.60

Yes, helpful, thanks, I made the changes. My remarks about encyclopedias and the relationship between National Socialism and Fascism are my pet complaints from another discussion--nothing you said.--Cberlet 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
When I wrote "das Blut, la razza", it was a quote from Paxton, Blut is of course blood (in the sense of race). Still, it is easier to read this way, and ok, i guess. What I do not understand is why Cberlet deleted the Britannica reference[1] They call it totalitarian, btw. Because it is another encyclopaedia? Is that it?
@IP: strictly speaking, yes. For people who do not know German I would like to add that "-istinnen" refers to women only, while the "-isten" usually does not explicitly exclude women, it only does not stress that both are referred to. I agree with the way it is now, though, it shows the term exists.
Citing another encyclopedia in the lead of an entry is, frankly, pathetic. We can do better. And there is more recent research on fascism that makes the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry look sophomoric.--Cberlet 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do think that the term "-innen" which today would be used was not in common use in the term refered to. Agathoclea 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with the comment on '-innen'. Incidentally, the term lumpenproletariat is sometimes used in English, in which case it starts with a small 'l-' in accordance with standard English usage. Norvo 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
And agree on keeping lumpenproletariat lowercase. It has passed into English. In fact, I think even the adjective lumpen has passed into English, at least educated English. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I am clueless about the spelling issues, so folks should make corrections as needed.--Cberlet 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made the necessary spelling changes. Norvo 00:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections. It's much better this way. About the "-innen" issue. OK, that's disputable. For myself, I think that a female Nazi would have called herself Nationalsozialistin in most cases, not Nationalsozialist. Of course, to that time PC wasn't that common (and certainly not among the Nazis), so a group of female and male Nazis called themselves Nationalsozialisten. But, I think, we don't have to go back to the usage of gender suffixes of that time. In an article about slavery in America we also don't speak about "niggers", do we? 62.46.177.2

Unsatifactory introduction

At the moment the first two sentences of the introduction are irrelevant and very largely inaccurate:

National Socialism is an ideology that was developed in the last decades of the 19th century. When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, especially the Syndicalists as opposed to the Bolshevists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism,[1] and focus on their own nation, which was then referring to the "race" (die Rasse, la razza)[2].

In Germany there was no syndicalist movement, and the notion that the roots of Nazi ideology can be found in impatient, restless socialists is naive nonsense. Clearly, someone has lifted something on the origins of Fascism in some other country and transposed a very garbled piece of text to Germany. The key early elements in the forerunners of Nazism were extreme nationalism, racial anti-Semitism and Social Darwinism, which is the antithesis of socialism. The populist elements came later, after WW1. Moreover, the core ideology arose in the first decade or so of the 20th century (c. 1900-1914). The reference to Bolshevists (!) in a late 19th century contexts is bizarre. Politically and socially, the key ideological antecedents of Nazism lay in German conservatism.

It is worth adding that Nazism never had a well aticulated ideology. Much of the discussion on this page seems to assume that Nazism had something akin to Marxist ideology, with its claim to provide a theory of history, but it never sought to offer anything remotely like that. Norvo 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opening statement is garbled and misplaced. However, I think you perhaps underestimate the importance of the contribution of 'socialism' to the evolution of Nazi ideology. Quite far back into the ninteenth century you will find attempts to synthesize socialism and nationalism. One obvious example of this is Adolf Stoecker's Christian Socialist Workers Party, conceived as an attempt to win the working-class away from the SPD. Later in both Austria and the Sudetan areas of Bohemia parties with the specific National-Socialist label began to make an appearance. You have to remember, too, that the Nazis began life as the German Workers Party, emphasising the constituency they wished to attract, underlined still further by the addition of the Socialist label. You are also making too much of the kinship between Nazism and traditional conservatism, ignoring the socialist and radical contribution to its intellectual make-up. In this regard you may wish to contrast the NSDAP with the DNVP. which should help you to understand the true difference between the the new radicalism and traditional conservatism. There are those, moreover, who see both Facism and Communism essentially as movements of the left, with their emphasis on state intervention at all levels of social, political and economuc life. Anyway, they have more in common than you would allow.White Guard 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Norvo, just look at the Werner Sombart article. Intangible 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Adolf Stöcker's party was called the 'Christlich-Soziale Partei' ('Christian Social Party'). It was - deliberately - not called 'sozialistisch' ('socialist') and it dropped the refence to itself as a 'Workers' Party' as a liability within three years of its foundation. The 'social' bit suggested some kind of social conscience, but in Central Europe in the period c.1875-1918ff 'Christian Social' was largely a code-word for anti-Jewish.
As for state intervention being a form of socialism, this sounds like libertarian dogma. In Germany and some other countries in WWI there was extensive state intervention in the economy, but that didn't make any of these countries socialist. What these countries had - like later the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (and various other countries) - was a planned economy. Incidentally, I don't deny that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had many featues in common, but socialism wasn't among hem. Norvo 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The claim that Nazism evolved from socialism is one thing. Beyond that, it is a marginal POV that has been discussed on this page endlessly. The lead needs a rewrite, but not from a marginal POV. We have been here before. Several modern scholars of Nazism argue that it did, indeed have a coherent ideology. Material added here in a rewrite had better be cited to reputable published scholarship. Intangible is currently on probation in part for POV editing on entries related to fascism. I think Norvo has a better grasp of the issues.--Cberlet 03:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on Stöcker, though I do not think it invalidates my point that he specifically set up a 'social' alternative to attract German workers away from the SPD-the anti-semitism came as a later addition.
With regard to the latter contribution, yes, of course, my grasp of the issues is very weak, no more than a 'marginal POV'-but one sadly, with all due allowance for ignorance and stupidity, that will not be silenced, no matter how many times 'you' have been here before. I will repeat my chief point in the face of the orthodox consensus (please forgive my stubborn persistence) that National Socialism was fundamentally different from traditional forms of German Conservatism, and to try to obscure this-or airbrush it out altogether-comes close to being dangerously misleading: Adolf Hitler was not Alfred Hugenberg. We might consider in this regard some remarks of Hitler to Hermann Rauschning;
I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit...The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the worker's sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specifically for the comprehension of the masses; all these new methods of struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do was to take these methods and adapt them to our purpose. I only had to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempts to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its artificial ties with a democratic order.
Or what Bolshevism, it might be said, became. I do myself take the libertarian view; but the whole question should not be dismissed so lightly. There is more to the Nazi intellectual and political universe than Social Darwinism and Anti-semitism, my 'marginal POV' notwithstanding White Guard 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement that there is more to the relation of Nazism to Socialism than that they opposed another (Nazism = Antisocialism) was not meant as a challenge or marginal POV, but like WhiteGuard said there are some arguments that try to understand where the term socialist appears in national socialism. For fun (mocking) or delusion (misleading)? The public and private speeches sound more serious than that, and in order to analyse the threat no argument should be ignored without good (ie. quoted) reasoning. That is why the passage

'''National Socialism''' is an [[ideology]] that was developed in the last decades of the 19th century. When [[Socialism]] was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, especially the [[Syndicalist]]s as opposed to the Bolshevists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism,<ref>see Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism 2004,p.55f: One way to achieve that was taking only "enemy", internal and external, property rights to protect the workers from being exploited by a feared universal enemy - probably meaning the Jews.</ref> and focus on their own nation, which was then referring to the "race" (die Rasse, la razza)<ref>Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism 2004</ref>. Hitler (and the Italian fascist Mussolini) started by working within socialist groups organizing workers, and while there is still no consensus among historians over the character of National Socialism, it is generally considerd to have allied with the political right.


is not as much a personal point of view but a historiographical theory that is just as justified (and based on sources) as any, and its arguments should be considered.--FlammingoParliament 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a view widely held amongst historians of the period. Most believe that the words "worker" and "socialist" were cynically introduced into the party name at a time when the main ideological rival was communism, so as to increase support and pose as sympathetic to worker's rights and causes, something the Nazis continued to falsely maintain into the second world war and in captured territories. False because despite these claims, no effort was made to nationalise the means of production - major capitalists were if anything enriched. Corrupt members of the Nazi elite like Gauleiters and organisations like the SS also enriched themselves with war production profits. Some efforts were made to increase worker participation in factories, but in a strictly nationalistic and war-aims context. However, despite all this, as a matter of record the embryo Nazi party did learn from, and imitate, much of the paraphernalia of the Stalinist state and methods such as an omnipresent secret police, informing, labour camps, arbitrary detention and fake trials, etc. This does not make the Nazis of socialist origin, but shows that within a totalitarian system, similar forms evolve. In addition, quite a number of early Nazi leaders were originally communists. The social democrats in Germany argued that both communists and Nazis were aiming for a dictatorship and were attacked and deported to concentration camps when the Nazis came to power. MarkThomas 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalise the means of production? If they had done that they would have been Communists, not Nazis. There are-and have been-plenty of governemts in the world with the Socialist label who have fallen well short of that perverse and economically destructive ideal. In Nazi Germany there was, however, a degree of state interference in the national economy that would be inconceivable in a free society: the only real contemporary parallel is that of Stalin's Russia. Might I suggest that you examine the mass observation studies for Germany's working-classes in the 1930s and 1940s; they make very interesting reading. Where life was uncertain, as it was in the late Weimar period and the final months of WWII, 'history', so to speak, intrudes on ordinary daily life; but in the middle period-after Hitler came to power and before he started losing the war-the record is largely personal, a fully-employed work force focused on domestic concerns alone.
The Nazis were always very careful to nurture the working class, and socialism, as they understood it, was not marginal to their ideology. As a penance for my ignorance on this whole subject I once read through several years worth of Völkischer Beobachter and Der Angriff, and saw just how close at points the Nazis and Communists were in both style and technique, and in the constituency they appealed to; they even collaborated during the Berlin transport strike of 1932. By 1930, according to the Nazi party's own records, 28% of the membership were drawn from the industrial working class, a figure that rose to 34% in 1934. These are people who would never have been attracted to-or welcomed by-the DNVP. 'Most historians' are therefore wrong. Socialism, in whatever fashion you care to define this, from state intervention to the regulation of social life, was a fundamental part of Nazism. To contend otherwise comes close to complete misunderstanding. White Guard 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating point of view. I hope you write an essay some day. In the meantime, it has no relationship to editing this page unless you can find several substantial reputable sources to counter the large number of scholars who do not agree with you. See WP:NOR.--Cberlet 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of what I have written is not, in fact, 'original research', as you put it. Sadly, it simply does not correspond to your way of seeing things-or the way you would like things to be seen; but, well, I will just have to live with that. I will work in the figures-which I did not collect or invent-and the argument with appropriate citations. Sorry to spoil the consensus. But thank you so much for sharing. White Guard 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That the Nazis were not traditional conservatives (a fact which I doubt that anybody would dispute) does not make them socialists either. There was a great deal of government interference with the economy, but this largely came in the form of a massive military build-up. There was considerably more central planning going on during the war in Churchill's Britain than in Hitler's Germany. Collaboration between big business and government is hardly a socialistic feature, and this is essentially what Nazi interference with the German economy amounted to. The Berlin transport strike was a an extraordinary occurrence, and, in fact, hurt the Nazis, sending many of their more conservative supporters back to the DNVP for the November 1932 elections (at least, this was arguably one of the main reasons for that shift). But, again, I don't think anyone disagrees that fascism is not the same thing as conservatism. Fascism is populist in a way that a party like the DNVP never could be (although Hugenberg certainly tried). It was attractive to segments of society that never voted conservative. But I don't see what that has to do with socialism. Nazism was also strongly attractive to conservative elites whose principle political belief was hatred of socialism. These people saw a careful use of the Nazis' popular appeal as the best way to end the hated Weimar Republic, defeat the Marxists, and restore Germany to national greatness, even if the Nazi leaders themselves were grubby upstarts (the same thing can be seen in Italy, with the King's appointment of Mussolini in 1922). Beyond that, "most historians are wrong" is simply a worthless statement in the kind of debate we are engaged in. We are not arguing about whether nazism was a form of socialism. In such a context, it would be perfectly appropriate to say that most historians are wrong. We are, in fact, arguing about how to deal with the relationship between Nazism and Socialism in a wikipedia article about Nazism. Wikipedia's policies state that we are to present an article based on the views of the consensus of scholars in the relevant field. If you are indeed accepting the most historians disagree with your position, then you are, in fact, conceding the case. If no historians agree with you, it is original research and doesn't belong in wikipedia. john k 11:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with john k. I realize it must be frustrating, but the goal here is to edit the entry, not dispute the views of "the consensus of scholars in the relevant field."--Cberlet 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Lots of authors consider Nazism a form of collectivism. Sources for that view are presented above; however article doesn't even mention collectivism. Also, according to WP:NPOV, all significant points of view must be represented, and view that Nazism originated from Socialism, or that it is its form, is not represented.
On a related note, I think that Collectivism would be a better title for a subsection currently called Nationalism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
John k, I agree expressions like 'most historians' say this or think that are intellectually worthless, but I was usiing this for polemical effect, merely rephrasing some modes argument-and forms of language-put forward in some of the above responses. What disturbs me most is the attempt to silence both debate and analysis by references to some bogus consensus, which I consider to be both shallow and dangerous. I was particularly annoyed by the dismissive response of Cberlet. Read back over what I have written. My intention was to underline the contribution that socialism-both as a system of ideas and as a form of political practice-made to the evolution of Nazism, whether in a positive or a negative sense. It was always a question of degree. Both Nazism and Fascism-unlike traditional forms of Conservatism-are 'children', so to speak, of the Bolshevik Revolution, and both responded to the challege this represented by appeals to social radicalism, and not simply for cynical effect. There were those like Gregor Strasser and, for a time, Joseph Goebbels, who wished to move the NSDAP in a more 'left-wing' direction; and although Hitler vetoed this strategy, the radical appeals to the working-class remained, reflected in party membership figures. Now, on the question of scholarly consensus, here at least is one dissenting view;
This is all true, and worth discussing. But it's not worth having discussions with simple-minded fans of Hayek who have decided that "Statism" and "Socialism" are the same thing. These people come again and again to these pages, and it's incredibly trying to have to explain again and again that they are wrong. We should discuss the ways in which socialism influenced National Socialism, but we shouldn't present libertarian propaganda as fact. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The Nazis at first had little success in attracting workers, and their ranks were dominated by the "petty bourgeois" elements. But toward the end of the 1920s, their socialist appeals began to have an effect. When unemployment struck in 1929-30, workers joined en masse. (Richard Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, London, 1994, p. 261).
Pipes is a history of Russia, not of Germany. I don't think he should be considered a reliable source for the history of Nazi Germany. Most reviewers found the book in question to be highly marred by Pipes's obsession with tying the sins of Nazism to Bolshevism. At any rate, Pipes is at one extreme on this particular issue, and is well outside the mainstream. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, I took up this challenge to question the contention that Nazism was all anti-semitism and Social Darwinism. Traditional Conservatives, in Germany anyway, embraced both of these things; so what makes Nazism different? You say that you don't think anyone disagrees that fascism is not the same thing as conservatism? Well, read again Norvo's opening contribution where he says "Politically and socially, the key ideological antecedents of Nazism lay in German conservatism." Is this not to say that is the product of Conservatism, and if we scratch Hitler we will find Hugenberg? All I am asking for is intellectual clarity and a proper understanding of all of the political and intellectual sources of National Socialism.
Fair enough. But we shouldn't deny the conservative roots of National Socialism either, nor deny that it was widely perceived, including by conservatives, as being a right-wing movement. Beyond that, it's misleading to cast Hugenberg as the paradigm for German conservatism. He was not. He was a radical figure, whose early leadership led to massive splits within the DNVP, with many of its old, traditionally conservative leadership resigning. Hugenberg's DNVP opposed the re-election of President Hindenburg, who, if anything, by 1932 represented the old face of German conservatism. Brüning's government represented the truly "conservative" strain of German conservatism much better than Hugenberg's radicalized, Nazi-imitating post-1928 DNVP. Even so, there are differences - Hitler was able to gain a broad-based popular appeal that Hugenburg could never compete with, and the DNVP was always tainted by the spectre of old school elitist conservatism and Prussian junkers - but Hugenberg really is a halfway point between traditional conservatism and Nazism. Payne actually does a good discussion of this, where he distinguished between the "traditional right" (in Germany, this would be represented by Brüning, Hindenburg, and so forth - possibly Papen as well), the "radical right" (Hugenberg), and the "fascist right" (Hitler, obviously). The general conclusion was that the radical right is no less radical than the fascists, it's just a lot more right wing (in the traditional sense). We should certainly be careful about all this, but libertarian claptrap isn't the best way to do that. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I will, of course, be happy to clarify any of the points I have made here or above in further discussion with you. There are some people I can take seriously.White Guard 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

<-----------The claim that Nazism or Fascism is a form of collectivism or socialism is a minority view of scholars, and it is discussed in far too much detail at Fascism and ideology. We have had this debate here before. Again and again. Please, please, please, let's not have another struggle over this. Once a year is plenty. --Cberlet 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That Nazism is a form of Socialism is a minority view, however that view has prominent adherents and it should be represented in this article if it is going to follow NPOV policy. As for Collectivism, that view is not a minority view, which can be seen from its acceptance by Britannica and by a number of different authors. Until these views are included this article doesn't confirm to NPOV. -- Vision Thing -- 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion. It has repeatedly been rejected by the majority of editors here, as you are well aware.--Cberlet 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Friedrich Hayek has a chapter on "The Socialist Roots of Nazism" in his 1945 work The Road to Serfdom. Maybe that can be used? Intangible 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How many times do we have to go over exactly the same arguments? (And didn't we end up agreeing to take this up in Fascism and ideology rather than here?)
There are topics on which Hayek is expert and citable. He is not particularly citable on Nazism or facsism, which he wrote about mainly to use them as a stick with which to beat socialism. He was not particularly an expert scholar of this topic.
White Guard, I've crossed paths with you on a lot of articles; we are obviously light years apart on politics, but I've seen you do a lot of good work, and ask a lot of good questions. In this case, though, I think Cberlet is almost certainly on the mark in his remark above that begins "Fascinating point of view." It's not that your ideas on this are not interesting, it's that they are well outside the mainstream scholarly view. I also have a lot of places where, left to my own devices, I would dissent from the mainstream scholarly view, but on the whole I keep them out of Wikipedia, except in articles on the people who hold those views. This is an encyclopedia. People who look up Nazism in an encyclopedia are entitled to an article that will coincide with mainstream scholarship, not a polemic in favor any of a number of possible dissenting views. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I really agree with Jmabel on this. There is already a page where Hayek's views are discussed in detail. I have views about Nazism that depart from current mainstream scholarship (I like the work of David Redles, for example), but our work as Wiki editors measns that we need to present the majority mainstream scholarship here, with appropriate mentions of significant minority views that are published. We mention and link to the "Nazism as socialism" debate discussed over on Fascism and ideology. Redles is mentioned only once in this entry, as "further reading." That's about a proper note. We already have:
" For further information on national socialism and socialism, and Nazism and fascism, see Fascism and ideology."
That's about a proper mention.--Cberlet 15:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hayek is not only economist; he is also one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century and his views should get a prominent place. -- Vision Thing -- 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree that Hayek was in any way an important political philosopher. But, in any case, you are correct that his views should get a prominent place - in libertarianism-related articles, where they belong. Even the most important political philosophers do not have a claim on being featured prominently on every single politics-related article. Hayek was not a scholar of Nazism. -- Nikodemos 19:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be the case if his most renowned work wasn't The Road to Serfdom which talks about Nazism. As for Hayek's credentials, they can be easily verified. -- Vision Thing -- 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between publishing one major work that talks about Nazism in passing (while focusing on other issues) and dedicating the bulk of your professional career to studying Nazism. It is the latter that makes one a scholar of Nazism. -- Nikodemos 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Scholar who specializes in one narrow area can often miss a "big picture", which can be better captured by someone with a broader scope of expertise. -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of term 'nazi'

Nowhere in this article does it say when the term 'Nazi' first appeared - reading the 'terminology'-paragraph and the article Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, one would assume that it originated in or after 1920. However, the Library of Congress-website contains a document from 1897 that sheds a different light. [9] gives access to a transcript of a stage performance by the notorious Barrison Sisters (famous for their song 'Would You Like to See my Pussy?'), in which they perform, among others, their 'Nazi, Nazi Song", wherein the word 'Nazi' is used to describe a certain type of German-speaking gentleman. So could someone more knowledgeable than me look into this and add a bit of nazi pre-history to the article?

As far as I can ascertain, there's no linguistic 'pre-history', though I note that the 4th volume of Muret-Sanders (published in 1900) gives Naz, Nazi as a familiar (that is, colloquial), regional short form of the name Ignatius - obviously not of much relevance to Nazism. It looks to me as if the Barrison sisters are either making fun of the name Ignatius or may have made up a nonsense word that happens to have taken on a real meaning long after the song was written. In other words, I think it's an amusing coincidence, nothing more. Norvo 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so "Nazi" could be the German equivalent of "Nacho" (short for Ignacio). Interesting! I don't imagine it's used much anymore... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. The more common form of the given name in German was in fact "Ignaz", which is now almost as unpopular as "Adolf". Norvo 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I did find this (Online Etymology) source - do people think this is citable? Seems fairly authoritative and we could improve the origin bit and remove the uncited tag...? MarkThomas 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime I've also found that. I'm trying to get clarification on a couple of points, but it could be cited. Norvo 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

About this line in the article: "The term Nazi is derived from the first two syllables, as pronounced in German, of the official name of the German Nazi Party, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei." That's fine, except aren't the wrong parts of "Nationalsozialistische" in bold? Didn't 'Nazi' arise because it's the phonetic equivalent of the first two syllables in 'National' (which in German is pronounced NAH-TSEE-OH-NAL)? Apantomimehorse 11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly correct, so I've put "Nati" in bold.4granite 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Vatican and the Nazi party

This is more of an inquiry than anything, but I've seen shows on the television documenting the Vatican's involvement with helping Nazis flee to South American countries, and was wondering if there was a wikipedia article focusing on this subject. 152.163.101.6 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

Hitler was not a social Darwinist and even banned Darwin's book from Germany. The Nazi philosophy was of racial purity and the Great Chain of Being,' with the Aryans at the top. None of which had anything to do with natural selection or Darwin. If anything, it was artificial selection and animal husbandry. The link to social darwinism needs removal. 4.152.129.90 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC) wildlifer

There is a significant difference between the Theory of Evolution and Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism does not even have to be based on Darwin's writings - it is simply the view that human society is improved by unrestrained competition and by the survival of the strong at the expense of the weak. -- Nikodemos 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the claim that the Nazi régime banned the Origin of the Species ... is novel, indeed puzzling, a source should be given. For at least fifty years plus the weight of opinion has been that Nazism was Social Darwinist in outlook and, moreover, at a very fundamental level. That said, it is possible that in some cases the term has been used too loosely. Norvo 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The question of the role of Darwinian thought in Nazi ideology is a complicated one (and the banning of Origin doesn't really settle it). The intellectual geneaology does not flow directly from Darwin's writings to Hitler's brain — it is mediated by the German evolutionists (i.e. Haekel), and the German racial hygienists (i.e. Alfred Ploetz), both of which are very different than Darwin's original work. But even with that the Nazis were more eugenicists than they were Social Darwinists, strictly speaking — they believed intervention was needed, not just laissez faire, though that distinction is not always as strict as it is made out to be. Many of the German race theorists were both eugenicists and social Darwinists, depending on the issues in question (similar to Madison Grant, an explicitly "evolutionary" writer who they published in Germany as well). (It should go without saying that Creationist attempts to link Nazism with Darwinism are obviously simplistic and really needs no consideration here)--Fastfission 19:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And the problem was of course that Richard Hofstadter wrote a highly polemic book just at the end of the second world war. The term "Social Darwinism" was almost never used in North America before that book came out. The free marketeer Sumner, who was described as a "Social Darwinst" by Hofstadter, actually never applied Darwinism to the social sciences. If anyone is to blame for the current confusion, it is Hofstafter. Intangible 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The longest template in the world

If you think {{Nazism sidebar}} has gotten a bit out of hand (longer than some of the articles it references), help us figure out a way to cut it down (a few options are being floated) at Template talk:Nazism. --Fastfission 20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism and the 'Volksgemeischaft

At present there's a section of this that reads as follows:

The Nazi relationship between the Volk and the state was called the Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community"), a neologism that defined a communal duty of citizens in service to the Reich (opposed to a simple "society"). The term "National Socialism", derives from this citizen-nation relationship, whereby the term socialism is invoked and is meant to be realized through the common duty of the individuals to the German people; all actions are to be in service of the Reich.

The term Volksgemeinschaft wasn't a Nazi neologism but went back to at least 1900. It was a popular, romantic buzzword in Weimar Germany, used (with different meanings) by quite a range of political parties. The above comments seem to give it more coherence than it had in Nazi ideology. Another view is that it sought to recreate the cameraderie of the trenches and justify something akin to military discipline or at least the Führerprinzip in society at large. More generally I'm not impressed by a certain zest for injecting meaning into rather empty slogans and buzzwords as if they were of key ideological significance. Norvo 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Norvo. I've clarified that the word Volksgemeinschaft is a late 19th or early 20th century neologism. I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss whether the word is simply a German compound word or an important ideological concept, so I will leave that discussion to you and the other editors. Justin Eiler 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Justin Eiler. However, I don't think the concept was as central as is suggested. On some views Volksgemeinschaft was primarily concerned with who 'belonged' to the community and who didn't. Norvo 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

get rid of article

We dont need this article what the nazis did was so STUPID, why teach people iddiotic things??/?//

Simple, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Also, this is easily encyclopediac and useful for researching early 20th century history. Wildthing61476 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NAZIS are bad very bad mmmkay

We have an obligation to display the facts, If we decided to censor things, no matter how horrible, then where would we be? Some sort of horrible authoritatarian...Encyclopedia. And who wants to be called that? Not me!--87.192.59.145 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

how could an encycolopedia not have a section on Nazism. It is one of the most significant Events in the 20th century.

Dude, you are an idiot. Just cause you don't like an article doesn't mean it shoudl be deleted. This website is to teach people about stuff, it's not like it is supporting nazism. Grow up.

Wikipedia is not censored, for minors or otherwise. Besides, isn't millions of innocents slaughtered significant enough to have a mention? That's pretty npov there, but still. The subject needs to be taught, because as wildthing said, history is doomed to repeat itself if we don't learn. I don't think anyone you talk to will call this subject idiotic. Also, it's not just about the Holocaust, it's about Nazis in general. To be quite frank, NOT having this article is idiotic. I feel I've made my point and rambled enough. Mattbash 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Jewish and I see no problem with this article and am not offended in any way. In fact, I know even more about Nazis than I did before thanks to this article. Lemmy12 13:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because "idiotic things" are part of what make history you moron. This website, just like any other knowledge database, has an obligation to report significant occurances. If this article is not significant to history, I don't know what is.

Nazi wordy

04-November-2006: Split into sub-articles. The article seems OK as a broad overview of all Nazi aspects; however, the length seems excessive and parts are long-winded. Large articles are prone to hidden vandalism and obscured errors, such as the "Nazi Theory" section beginning as "theory of fascism" (which I changed to "...Nazism"). (I also trimmed some flowery phrases in a few sections.) In general, I approve of overview-type articles; however, for a controversial subject (like Nazism), I would favor writing less as being more accurate, long term. I think spin-off articles would not be in danger of typical "AfD" deletion, because the general Nazi-based topic would allow many spin-off articles to be easily considered notable, such as a "list of notable Nazi figures" etc. Large articles, with daily updates, are difficult to keep accurate, such as the "Hurricane Katrina" article, which had the landfall time reset to a bogus hour for 11 days (which I eventually fixed). If an article gets daily updates, try to keep it small for checking & overall proofing: IMHO, I vote to roll-out Nazi detailed sections to spin-off articles. -Wikid77 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

English composition 101

In the second paragraph, the referent of the phrase "and working undercover" is completely unclear: Drexler, or Hitler? And "undercover" in what sense? Overtly presenting as what while actually being what else? - Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lacking explanation after six days, I am removing this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

'Volksgemeinschaft'

I've already said that I think much of this (in the section on 'Nationalism and Socialism') is unsatisfactory. I'd add that it seems to me that a lot of this is also over sophisticated and will just mystify most readers. It's very obvious that some people are determined to 'put the socialism into National Socialism' - on present-day ideological grounds, irrelevant to Nazism. I wonder if something can be done about this stuff on the 'Volksgemeinschaft'? Norvo 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning to vandals, please read

I found this hidden message in the Wikipedia Nazi Germany article.

<< All new edits/entries must be factual and in good taste. Please don't try to be "funny" (Nazism caused harm to millions of people, no need for sick humor or black comedy in an encyclopediac article) and never type anthing that is offensive or inflammatory to ANY group of people. Do not type ethnic slurs or comments about ones' race or creed. Nazism is a painful subject to many people, but an article on Nazism is meant for educational purposes and neutral it may be, any reader will understand the dangers of Nazism. >> Maybe it should be included in Nazism and the Holocaust articles. 207.200.116.204 10:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


A Couple of Problems

"Fundamental to the Nazi goal was the unification of all German-speaking peoples". It was not language that defined being German for the Nazis. Assimilated, German speaking Jews were still liquidated. The Nazi's had a racial, not linguistic, definition.

"Also, Aryanism was not an attractive idea for Italians that had neither blond hair nor blue eyes, but still there was a strong racism and also genocide in concentration camps long before either was in place in Germany."

That sentence does not make sense.

"However, a number of people believed that this was part of an ongoing plot by the Jewish people, as a whole, to achieve global domination."

As is, there is no citation so its an assertion and does not clarify who "a number of people is"

On a side note, homosexuals found at holacuast sites were not freed but jailed elesewhere. I can't remember what book I found it in though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.153.96.166 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

On this last point (homosexuals), see Paragraph 175. - Jmabel | Talk 08:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Racism section. It should be 'led' not 'lead'. God I wish I could just edit that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.12.164 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Nazism in other coutrys

Where is the article(s) about Nazism in other coutrys (like France, USA, Uk Prince William)? Or doesn't it exist? Then it doesn't exist this article is to exact on one thing. (sorry for the bad english, i'm german) --88.64.56.138 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Neo-Nazism. Incidentally, why do that silly young royal the favour of taking him seriously? Norvo 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Lunny

In the section entitled Historical Background someone presents the laughable notion that the stab in the back theory started in Britain:

Historian John Erickson claimed that this sentiment began in England with the publication of several essays by Shawn Lunny, the son of a German immigrant and a private in the German army during World War I.

(Who is this John Erickson, and how come we haven't already heard all this before? If this is an accurate account of his views it doesn't make sense: we're told that the the theory originated in England with essays by a private in the German army. I wonder if he wrote from the vantage point of a POW camp in Britain? Moreover, this Shawn Lunny is so well known that if one does a Google search for the name one is immediately asked if one means Shawn Looney. What a famous essayist!)

When Ludendorff came to the conclusion in September 1918 that Germany couldn't carry on fighting he claimed that the war had been lost by critics in the Reichstag and resolved that they (the civilian critics who'd allegedly caused the defeat) would have to ask for peace and sign the armistice. That is the recognized start of the theory, not some obscure 'son of an immigrant called Shawn'. See, for example, Heiber, Die Republik von Weimar. Unless people object, this should be deleted. Norvo 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Utterly. With extreme prejudice. And a possible trip to WP:BJAODN. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary National Socialist Parties, Orgs, etc.

Perhaps it would be good to have a short list of links:

American National Socialist Workers' Party "The National Socialist Movement of America" http://www.nsmamerica.com/

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party http://www.nazi.org/

etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SnarfMeister (talk • contribs)

They belong to Neo-Nazism article. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Marginal view on Nazism Socialism

Here we go again. How many times in a year do we have to engage in endless discussions on Wikipedia about the relationship between Nazism and socialism, and fascism and socialism, and corporatism and the New Deal, and fascism and the New Deal, and Fascism and the U.S. government?

Vision Thing, it is not a personal attack to point out that you have engaged in a longstanding relentless campaign to push your minority view on this issue. Your views have repeatedly been rejected by a majority of other editors on this topic. And yet here you are again, starting the process over. Please stop.--Cberlet 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Section in question talks about nationalism and socialism, and because of that it should be titled Nationalism and socialism. That is standard practice when it comes to section titles, they describe the content of sections. Except for the generic, bad faith, POV accusations you haven't presented any reason for not naming it in such way. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, socialism is only mentioned in two sentences in that paragraph (and the second sentence is the one advising the reader to read fascism and ideology for more information). -- Nikodemos 06:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If you and Cberlet think that this section doesn't deal with socialism in large enough measure to deserve addition of socialism in its title, then new section that will appropriately cover discussion on socialism and nazism should be added. Btw, nationalism is also only mentioned in two sentences in that paragraph.-- Vision Thing -- 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue of socialism and nazism is discussed in fascism and ideology. But here is a proposal to eliminate this dispute: Let us get rid of all the section titles under "Nazi theory", since most of those "sections" are limited to one or two paragraphs. Giving them separate titles only serves to clog the table of contents. -- Nikodemos 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not a good solution, since titles have navigational purpose. Anyway, neither you nor Cberlet have given any actual reason for not naming this section Nationalism and socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a patently false claim. The issue, Vision Thing, is that you refuse to accept the majority position, and you go from page to page trying to insert your marginal right-wing POV.--Cberlet 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Classy argument.-- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Vision Thing is right. Mitsos 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Right about what? We've been through all this before. This is part of a well-known and sustained revisionist attempt to falsely claim that Nazism was essentially a socialist ideology. Since Hitler had a well-known and profound loathing of all things communist, and imprisoned and murdered people identified as vaguely socialist in any way, it's difficult to see how the revisionists hope to make this absurd claim stick. They rest their entire case on the party name, which was of course part of a deliberate campaign of lies to try to trick working people into supporting the NSDAP during the period when it's brownshirt thugs were out in the city streets attacking Jews and socialists alike. It's a travesty to allow this absurd "viewpoint" of Vision Thing and his fellow travellors to persist on Wikipedia and I for one will thwart it at every pathetic attempt. I encourage other editors to do likewise. 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Communism is different from Socialism. He is not right about Nazism being a form of Socialism, but Nazism did had socialist elements. You must study Hitler's social policies. Nazism was also anti-capitalist, therefore it had some things common wiht Socialism. It is true that socialists (member of the German Socialist Part - was it called SPD then?) were imprisoned and some were killed during the period of Nazi Germany, but this was due to something else, which is very important. Hitler gave a different meaning to "Socialism" (as in National Socialism), from all the other left-wing Socialist movements. I definetely dissagree with Nazism being a form of Socialism, but Nazism had socialist elements. I agree with what Vision Thing said about Nazism being Nationalism and Socialism, but what the Nazis mean with "Socialism" is different from real Socialism. Mitsos 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently I'm not claiming anything except that current section about nationalism talks about socialism too, and thus it should be named Nationalism and socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Mitsos, Nazism was not anti-capitalist. Hitler was fully supported financially by leading German and international capitalists, bankers and the like. He maintained and assisted private capital to grow during his rule and established new types of massive state capitalist businesses like the SS where private profit became part of the corrupt activities of Nazi leaders. He allowed makor German capitalist families like Krupp and Thyssen to flourish so long as they supported Nazism. He maintained healthy relations with Swiss and other international banking institutions. He only opposed "Jewish" capitalists and then only as part of propaganda; he was often willing for example to do business with foriegn Jewish companies. There were aspects of socialist and anarchist philosophy incorporated into Nazism such as the emphasis on mass-action and the irrelevance of the individual, but this did not make the Nazis any kind of socialists in the accepted sense. MarkThomas 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, some of the things you say are complete nonsense (I 'm sorry). The emphasis on mass-action and the irrelevance of the individual is a fascist/nazi theme and has nothing to do with anarchism, which emphasises on individual liberty. The SS were not a "massive state capitalist business" and private profit was certainly not one of the goals of the Nazis. The SS were an army, responsible for internal security and were in charge of the concentration camps. No "corrupt activity" took place in the SS. "he was often willing for example to do business with foriegn Jewish companies" This is blatantly not true. Please use arguments that are based on something, don't pull them out of your head. Nazism was indeed anti-capitalist. Hitler limited the profits of big businesses and helped the small ones. He only supported the big military industries, and that's why the Krupps flourished during Nazi Germany. Nazism had socialist elements. Check out Hitler's social policies. For exampe, the Nazis established the 1st of May holiday in Germany. Btw, Thyssen was exiled from Germany in 1943. Mitsos 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsos, the SS were not solely an army. They ran the death camps and concentration camps and labour camps as a business, selling prisoners to arms factories and corruptly circulating the profits amongst their leadership and other Nazi leaders. There are numerous well-attested sources to this effect, and even during the war there was an internal SS unit that actively prosecuted SS officers guilty of such acts. You really need to do some more reading on the subject before you keep mouthing off. MarkThomas 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The profits the SS made from the stolen Jewish properties, were not circulated among Nazi leaders. They were used to strengthen Germany's war ecconomy. ave you got a source for the opposite? Mitsos 09:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish involvement in war profiteering during WWI?

I find the sentence "Jewish involvement in war profiteering during WWI" under the cause of rise of nazism to be balantaly antisemetic. There is no evidence for such claims. 65.110.31.18 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for noticing and mentioning it. Since the statement was not associated with any citation, I’ve removed it for now. Actually, I tried to rewrite the section, but I’m very confused about its purpose. Can somebody help? —xyzzyn 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think it is "antisemitic", you cannot remove it. Mitsos 08:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can remove it because I think it’s false and whoever put it there didn’t bother to add a ref. WP:V means that unsubstantiated stuff gets out, not tagged. {{fact}} is a nice thing for casual statements that need to be backed, but in the case of something extremely disputable—and the statement does, in fact, assert the profiteering and not just an accusation of it—it’s better to remove the statement. (It’s still in the article history, so whoever has a reference can easily put it back.)
Please add a reference that fully substantiates the statement, or change the statement and add a reference to substantiate it, or let me remove it. —xyzzyn 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If that line gets re-inserted I will also RV it, thanks for monitoring the page xyzzy_n. Indeed we can remove it if it's presented as some sort of fact as opposed to something the Nazis falsely believed. Many profiteered incidentally from WW1, most notably US, British and German arms manufacturers, only a few of whom were also Jews. MarkThomas 23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Economics

Why doesn't anyone talk about the economics of National Socialism? The racial stuff is common knowledge, what isnt common knowledge is the economic system which the nazis employed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Many people do not like discussing Nazi economics because it is very similar to economic socialism. Some socialists believe it sheds a bad light on socialism to be associated with Hitler. Don't expect to see it discussed accurately on Wikipedia anytime soon. --Jayson Virissimo 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For information on how Martin Luther's teachings affected the anti-semitic Nazi laws governing the jews • [[10]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClassA (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Statement reverted. —xyzzyn 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement should not be reverted. It is correct. If in doubt read "The jews and their lies" by Martin Luther, 1543 • [The Jews and their Lies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.143.76 (talk • contribs).

Very long copy of something removed since there’s a link anyway. —xyzzyn 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Remember Nazi laws governing the movements of the Jews, ghettos, the setting up of work camps, the removal of possessions. In addition Hitler was anti-catholic and pro-Luther) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClassA (talk • contribs).

This is insufficient. You have to cite a source that actually says something about the resemblance. Otherwise, this is original research. —xyzzyn 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See The Holy Reich 1919-1945 by Richard Steigmann-Gall

'Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.") Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."

Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther's influence on Nazi Germany:


When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind "on the Jews and their Lies" for posterity. -cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held.... From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds. -"Geist und Kampf" (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture said:


Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. -cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich

Erich Koch, the Reich Commissioner for Ukraine and President of the East Prussian Protestant Church Synod wrote:


Only we can enter into Luther's spirit.... Human cults do not set us free from all sin, but faith alone. With us the church shall become a serving member of the state.... There is a deep sense that our celebration is not attended by superficiality, but rather by thanks to a man who saved German cultural values. -Konigsberg-Hartungsche Zeitung, 20 Nov. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Bernhard Rust served as Minister of Education in Nazi Germany. He wrote:


Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]. -Volkischer Beobachter, 25 Aug. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Hans Schemm became Bavarian Minister of Education and Culture. Throughout the Reich, Germans particularly knew Schemm for his slogan, "Our religion is Christ, our politics Fatherland!" He writes:


His engagement against the decomposing Jewish spirit is clearly evident not only from his writing against the Jews; his life too was idealistically, philosophically antisemitic. Now we Germans of today have the duty to recognize and acknowledge this. -"Luther und das Deutschtum," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (19 Nov. 1933: Berlin), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Our confession to God is a confession of a doctrine of totality.... To give ultimate significance to the totalities of race, resistance and personality there is added the supreme totalitarian slogan of our Volk: "Religion and God." God is the greatest totality and extends over all else. -(Gertrud Kahl-Furthmann (ed.), Hans Schemm spricht: Seine Reden und sein Werk (Bayreuth, 1935), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich] Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher put it well:

"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."

This proves a passing resemblance between the views of many leading Nazis and those of Martin Luther. I therefore intend to revert this once again.

This is still not sufficient evidence for the claim you inserted. It works for the second part, but not the claim about the laws. By the way, for citing the book, consider using the {{cite book}} template. (There’s some documentation on the template page.) —xyzzyn 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is some more evidence for the claim I have inserted - Holocaust Part 4: Catholic Reaction To The Nazi Holocaust ClassA 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn’t find anything on ‘laws […] bear[ing] a striking resemblance to the teachings of Martin Luther’. Can you give a (brief) quote? —xyzzyn 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I suggest, given the fact that a disproportionate number of leading Nazis claimed to belong to the Lutheran church that it might be worth setting up a whole section devoted to Martin Luther's influence on the development of Nazism. What do people think? ClassA 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly among the Nazis do you consider leading? Which number would be disproportionate? How are you going to do this without violating the policies of NPOV, no original research and verifiability? —xyzzyn 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Julius Streicher could be considered a leading Nazi. He was editor of Der sturmer, an anti-semitic weekly newspaper with a supposed circulation of 350,000 at its height. He was executed at Nuremburg. It could be argued that being a minister in the German government, eg Bernard Rust or Hans Schem, would be sufficient to be considered a leading Nazi. Hitler himself is described as "Fuhrer". Surely he could be considered a leading Nazi. All of them acknowledge a debt to martin Luther (see above). Arguing about the proportion of Nazis who were members of the Lutheran church seems irrelevant to our topic but it would surely make sense that catholics were less inclined to join the party given the fact that the Nazi regime was fundamentally more pro-Lutheran than pro-catholic. Anyway, this is beside the point. There is plenty of evidence above that Martin Luther had an influence on Hitler as early as 1918 and from the sources above it would seem reasonable to deduce that Hitler's/ Nazi policies towards the Jews, if not directly influenced by Martin Luther's writings, at any rate, bear an uncanny resemblance.

What I’m trying to tell you is that you need to substantiate the statements you insert into the article. If you wish to say that ‘a disproportionate number of leading Nazis claimed to belong to the Luteran church’, then you need solid evidence of ‘disproportionate’ in relation to ‘leading’. Giving a few examples is definitely not enough. The same goes for the resemblance between those laws and Luther’s writings—if it’s documented, cite whoever documented it. If not, you can’t claim it. —xyzzyn 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It's common knowledge that Luther ranted and raved like crazy against the Jews and peasants, too. However, his amazing outbursts never became part of Lutheran theology. The Lutheran lands in Germany had a long-standing reputation up to about 1930(?) for being tolerant towards their Jewish populations. (The same is true of Scandinavia, which was/is also Lutheran). If one looks at the Nazi leadership one of the very few people at the top who was born a Protestant was Goering. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and, for that matter Heydrich, were all lapsed Roman Catholics. One could easily argue that Roman Catholicism was 'disproportionately' respresented at the top of the Party. Norvo 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Socialism?

Why doesn't anyone talk about the socialist aspect of national socialist? Nazis were as much socialists as they were extreme nationalists... Tullie 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's talked about quite a bit. Please see the archives of this talk page. --FOo 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename the article from "Nazism" to "National Socialism"?

Why don't we call the article National Socialism? It would be be more accurate. In Germany (and there especially in the Eastern part) the word Nazismus was and is only used by Socialists or Communists (to hide that Socialism has something to do with their so-called adversary ideology National Socialism). This event took also part in nearly every country of the former Eastern Block. --Pletet 12:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Because in most English-speaking countries the term "Nazism" is usually used by both scholars and the public media.--Cberlet 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The official wikipedia policy on naming conventions states the following:
  • "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."
And Nazism is the most common name for this ideology in English. Google count: 3,350,000 hits for Nazism [11] versus 1,010,000 hits for National Socialism. [12] An over 3:1 ratio. -- Nikodemos 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of correctness, Nazism has 1,230,000 hits when search is limited to English pages, and "National Socialism" 867,000 hits. That's 1,4:1 ratio, and Nazism is used as a meaningless epithet much more than National Socialism. Btw, I didn't notice that you were acting on Wikipedia's policy when you renamed "Social fascism" article to "Social fascism theory"... -- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so fond of google battles, sorry, especially in this article it is misleading. Isn't the guideline Naming Convention: Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form more appropriate? Though this might not help answering the question. I know you don't really embrace it, Cberlet, but since it does have some authority (and way more than google's private homepages), Britannica prefers the extended term: NATIONAL SOCIALISM, German Nationalsozialismus , also called Nazism or Naziism; totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. FIRST full term, THEN origin, THEN SHORT FORM. Or is Nazism not derived from the other? (Alternative: National Socialism, usually shortened to "Nazism", ...)--FlammingoHey 14:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter? Either way, one term redirects to the other. —xyzzyn 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Cberlet is currently trying to change that. -- Vision Thing -- 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It matters. This is an absurd POV crusade. There are several forms of national socialism, of which the German Nazi Party is simply the best known. Vision Thing for many months has tried to rewrite several pages to reflect marginal right-wing contentions about fascism, collectivism, and socialism. In the real world of scholarly research, these POV assertions are considered so marginal as to seldom garner any attention at all. Every few months, Vision Thing launches another round of edits assuming no one will notice that this discussion has happened repeatedly, and eventually after thousands of words of discussion, the position staked out by Vision Thing is rejected by a majority of other editors. How is this constructive and collaborative? National Socialism should be a redirect to a disambiguation page, and the term National Socialism should not be declared in the opening sentence to be anything other than a tendency under which Nazism is but one example.--Cberlet 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That is completely POV view. "Nazism" is shortened for "National socialism" and "National socialism" is most commonly used for description of the subject of this article. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Your were warned several times for that by different editors.-- Vision Thing -- 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to point out what you have done repeatedly on several articles for many nmonths. I suggest mediation. Do you accept?--Cberlet 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I will accept mediation on the use of "National Socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 21:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Some past incidents:
  • There are only two criterions for listing some regime as fascist. It must be authoritarian and called by that name by someone. Soviet Union and China satisfy both. And paragraph is talking about the scope of the word "fascism"... -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Far right" is also "right wing", and if one disputes that fascism was "right wing" it also disputes that it was "far right". -- Vision Thing -- 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (Fascism discussion: Archive 18)
See also discussions at: Talk:Fascism_and_ideology/Archive_1#On_what_page_does_section_on_socialism_belong.3F
I will compile a few examples above.--Cberlet 16:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, National Socialism should redirect to Nazism (or vice versa), and the article should have a dab link to National Socialism (disambiguation). This article is the one for that the vast majority of people will be looking. —xyzzyn 10:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the article should be moved to National Socialism. Mitsos 10:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing, you must surely realize that there is nothing in the term "national socialism" to suggest the German-centric and racialist ideology of the Nazis. At face value, a "national socialist" sounds like someone who is both a nationalist and a socialist. Even if you really believe that the Nazis were socialists, you must still recognize that they were much more than merely nationalist socialists. Moving this article to "National Socialism" could easily give the mistaken impression that anyone who is a National Socialist must (a) endorse the superiority of the German nation and (b) hold racist views. That does not follow from the name of the ideology. Technically, the Nazis were German Racist National Socialists. -- Nikodemos 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of such cases custom is to place a disambiguation link at the top of the page. -- Vision Thing -- 21:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I still do not understand your objection to having this article stay at Nazism and using National socialism as a redirect. The argument that "Nazism" is not the official name does not hold water, unless you wish to concede that North Korea should be moved to Democratic People's Republic of Korea. -- Nikodemos 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not discussing page move right know (no one has placed request for move as far as I know). National socialism redirect was changed from Nazism to disambiguation page. -- Vision Thing -- 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly do not object to having National socialism redirect here (as long as there is a link to the disambig page at the top of this page). -- Nikodemos 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And, in any case, Wikipedia has numerous articles that do not use the official names of things, because shorter names are more common in the English language. Thus we have a main article called Nazi Germany rather than Great German Reich; we have Soviet Union rather than Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; we have North Korea instead of Democratic People's Republic of Korea; we have Conservative Party (UK) rather than Conservative and Unionist Party (UK); and so on. -- Nikodemos 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A national socialist isn't someone who is both nationalist and socialist. It's much more than that. National Socialism is the same as Nazism. That's because the term National Socialism was used only by the Nazis and those who espoused the Nazi ideology. "Racism" is a main part of the National Socialist ideology. Also a Nazi doesn't have to "endorse the superiority of the German nation", because as you can see here there are Nazis all around the globe. A Nazi believes in the superiority of the White Race and, of course, respects and promotes the culture of his own Nation, not the German Nation. Nazism=National Socialism. If you have any proof that non-nazis used the term National Socialism, I will admit that I 'm wrong. Also, the article should be moved to National Socialism not only because it is the official name, but because it is the correct name. Mitsos 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mitsos, as Xyzzy pointed out, the Czech National Socialist Party used the term "national socialism" before the Nazis, and without being racist in any way. -- Nikodemos 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the very next sentence, this doesn’t matter because the subject of the article is the ideology, not the party, and there doesn’t seem to be another ideology by this name. —xyzzyn 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Logically, wouldn't you refer to members of the Czech National Socialist Party as national socialists or Czech national socialists? Any adjective naturally requires a noun. If a party calls itself "national socialist", the corresponding noun is "national socialism".-- Nikodemos 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I wouldn’t, and I’m strongly inclined to assume that this party didn’t have an ideology of ‘Czech national socialism’. (Do you have sources saying otherwise?) —xyzzyn 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see. I googled "Czech national socialism", and the very first result was an amazon.com page about a book called "Without Remorse: Czech National Socialism in Late-Habsburg Austria". [13] I daresay yes, I do have sources about Czech national socialism. -- Nikodemos 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That monograph hasn’t even been properly published yet. From the description, the term seems to be used for the political movement, not for an ideology, but I’d have to read it to be sure. —xyzzyn 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the publication date is March 31, 2007. That doesn't seem like a very long wait. But, in any case, that was the first reference I found after less than a minute of searching. I can go to a local library and look through a history book of Czech lands if I really have to. -- Nikodemos 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
An interesting topic, certainly. However, one or even several works on this don’t make such a meaning of ‘national socialism’ an alternative to the one that is commonly known. If you do find something interesting, please put it in the Czech party’s article (for an organisation with more than a century of history, it currently badly lacks information on the party’s programmes), but even then it makes sense to use ‘national socialism’ and ‘nazism’ as synonyms here and point to less known alternative meanings in the usual way. —xyzzyn 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite true that it's (almost) the "correct" name, although not quite - NSDAP is of course the correct party name. But Wikipedia has to also consider what most people know something as, and as umpteen people have pointed out to you multiple times Mitsos, this is "Nazi" or "Nazism" or "the Nazis". Now for some strange POV reason you don't like this, perhaps because you consider the very name Nazi to be derogatory of Nazis? I think the problem for the Nazi-philes who haunt this sad article is that people so loathe the Nazis that the very name is a haunting one. Perhaps we should change the page name to "Perfectly decent people who very sensibly aligned with the glorious and much misunderstood Fuhrer and accidently raped Europe?" Would you be happier with that? MarkThomas 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Czech National Socialist Party? However, there are no other ideologies called National Socialism. Now, can somebody answer my question from above about why it matters whether this article is at Nazism and National Socialism redirects here or the article is at National Socialism and Nazism redirects there if the article describes both terms? I just don’t see how this is a worthwhile issue (until somebody is aiming for inclusion in WP:LAME…). —xyzzyn 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think its because people hostile to socialism like to emphasise the fact that the Nazis called themselves National Socialists, despite being a far-right organisation. It's an important point for people still fighting the cold war, and the wish to besmirch socialism by association leads some to overlook the fact that the ideology of the NSDAP is generally referred to as Nazism. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Quite true that it's (almost) the "correct" name, although not quite - NSDAP is of course the correct party name. But Wikipedia has to also consider what most people know something as, and as umpteen people have pointed out to you multiple times Mitsos, this is "Nazi" or "Nazism" or "the Nazis". Now for some strange POV reason you don't like this, perhaps because you consider the very name Nazi to be derogatory of Nazis? I think the problem for the Nazi-philes who haunt this sad article is that people so loathe the Nazis that the very name is a haunting one. Perhaps we should change the page name to "Perfectly decent people who very sensibly aligned with the glorious and much misunderstood Fuhrer and accidently raped Europe?" Would you be happier with that" Shall we move Communism to Commie? If not, then why are nazis called nazis instead of the correct National Socialists, when commies are called (correclty) Communists??? Mitsos 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh?? What does your comment mean Mitsos? MarkThomas 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As we say in Greek, "o noon noito" (the one who has a mind can think). Mitsos 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We shouldnt be using abbrev. in titles of articles. The Wikipedia policy is clear on this: Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. National Socialism is not "almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation," thus we need to use the full form. There are other arguments for using National Socialism as article name, but they are secondary here to the Wikipedia policy. Intangible2.0 08:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropraiteness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Nazism → National Socialism — We shouldnt be using abbrev. in titles of articles. The Wikipedia policy is clear on this: Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. National Socialism is not "almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation," thus we need to use the full form. There are other arguments for using National Socialism as article name, but they are secondary here to the Wikipedia policy. Intangible2.0 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support Per request. Intangible2.0 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Vision Thing -- 10:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Somewhat Support,The change would bring the article into accord with wiki policy. A search for Nazi should still redirect here, but it is appropriate to title the article by the name they called themselves. (JoeCarson 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
    I would just like to point out that they never called themselves "National Socialists". They spoke German. Whatever they called themselves would have to be translated, and "Nazi" is the translation that most modern English-speakers would understand. rewinn 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Translated? Nazi is a pejorative German term used by opponents of the National Socialists. Intangible2.0 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    In German it may well be a pejorative; in English it is descriptive. It is true that, due to well-earned animosity toward Nazis, it is also pejorative in English, but particularly as applied to actual Nazis, its first meaning when applied to actual Nazis is descriptive, e.g. the sentence "Adolf Hitler was a Nazi" is descriptive whereas "Joe Schmoe is a Nazi" is pejorative. rewinn 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    yeah, in that sense, "national socialist" is just as pejorative, as well as "conservative", "idiot", any name with a negative connotation can be used pejoratively, no matter how subjective a term as "negative connotation" is· Lygophile has spoken 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support The complete name is the long one, even though Nazism has nothing to do with classical Socialism. Dpotop 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Doing a search on Google, subtracting the Wikipedia results, "National socialism" gets 2,030,000 hits.[14] "Nazism", subtracting Wikipedia hits, gets 2,080,000. [15] The difference is insignificant. Since the policy says to avoid using acronyms, it's clear that is should be renamed to National socialism. Billy Ego 04:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember that we should restrict the search to English-language pages (since this is the English wikipedia after all), and don't leave out the adjective forms. A search for "Nazism" or "Nazi" among English-language pages minus wikipedia yields 5,710,000 results. [16] A search for "National Socialism" or "National socialism" or "National Socialist" or "National socialist" among English-language pages minus wikipedia yields 1,190,000 results. [17] The difference is quite significant, despite the fact that the "National socialist" side had 4 word forms stacked together and the "Nazism" side had only 2. -- Nikodemos 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this is weird. I just did the same above searches again, and now Nazism has 11,100,000 hits while National socialism has 2,590,000 hits. Either millions of new pages just got created in a minute, or there's something going on with Google. -- Nikodemos 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL, as you are surly aware, adjective forms of Nazism, like Nazi, are widely used in context not related with the ideology of NSDAP. And that is only one more reason to use National Socialism instead of Nazism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In Google Scholar, "Nazism" finds ~33,000 articles, "National socialism" finds ~15,400.JoeCarson 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
i think one gets different results if your ip adress places you in a different area. at any rate, we should not forget the people that refere to it as "naziism", or, most commonly, "nazi ideology". and furthermore the article relates to the works of NSDAP, not to the group of ideologies describable as 'national socialism', a term that predates NSDAP· Lygophile has spoken 10:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It is more commonly referred to as Nazism then National Socialism. In fact the usage has become so common place in the vernacular that the word has developed meaning above and apart from being just an abbreviation like scuba and radar. I would even wager that the average Wikipedia reader would not even be aware that Nazism is an abbreviation. The word is so common that most people think that it has always been coined as such. 205.157.110.11 14:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- Nazism is the common name and refers specifically to the German right wing ideology and methodology carried out by the party. National Socialism has a wider meaning. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, since the dab page at National Socialism would suggest that the term does not exclusively refer to what is commonly known as "Nazism". Chris cheese whine 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    National Socialism redirected to a disambiguation page and not to Nazism only because Cberlet unilaterally, despite opposite view by majority of editors on this page, change it. Also, "National Socialism" almost exclusively refers to ideology of NSDAP, which is easily determined by Google search. -- Vision Thing -- 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Evidently, the existence of the dab page demonstrates that this is not so (the entries being subtly different, except for one which is directly opposed), as you would know if you'd read my comment before replying to it. Chris cheese whine 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, Nazism is now considered only one form of national socialism by many contemporary scholars.--Cberlet 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    It would be nice if you would provide some sources for that since there is no mention of that anywhere, including Wikipiedia and all others reputable encyclopedias. -- Vision Thing -- 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    See cites below Talk:Nazism#Varieties_of_National_Socialism to Wiki articles and scholarly articles. Thanks for asking.
  5. Oppose, Nazism is the most common term by far and those unfamiliar with the subject are unlikely to know that it is an abbreviation of National Socialism. Also per precedents for similar cases, such as scuba. ~Switch t c g 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose This is common terminology, and not treated as an abbreviation or acronym in English usage. Furthermore, the terms have diverged somewhat in meaning as pointed out above. Gene Nygaard 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Gene Nygaard and Cberlet's fine points. Dahn 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. "Nazism" is the most common name. I suspect that most people don't even know the full form "National Socialism". —Psychonaut 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. "Nazism" is the most common name, both in English and in the original German. Most people withoug expertise will never even have heard of "National Socialism". While I will assume the good faith from the particular people who are proposing this, in my experience, most people today who prefer to call it "National Socialism" do so primarily for ideological reasons, as a stick with which to beat socialism, and we should no more do this than call the inheritance tax "the death tax". - Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Jmabel.HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    So the many academic authors who use the term National Socialism (see Google Scholar) do so for ideological reasons??? Intangible2.0 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Jmabel.-- Zleitzen(talk) 18:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Jmabel and cberlet. also, if you got that much of an averse for abbreviation, 'national socialism' wouldnt suffice either· Lygophile has spoken 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Amusedly oppose. Google Fight Nazism v. "National Socialsm" = yields 3 times hits as many for the former. Also, if proposal were adopted, wouldn't we have to change Neo-Nazism to neo-National Socialism? rewinn 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe you should have left out the results from Wikipedia itself? Intangible2.0 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    You're right. If we remove Wikipedia from the search, Nazism only wins by more than one third of National Socialism's results. Which is to say, it only gets 370,000 more hits. ~Switch t c g 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    3 times as many is the same as more than one third? lol. Intangible2.0 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Did I say that? (Hint: the answer is no.) With or without Wikipedia - and take into account that a lot of the pages removed would not have been on, mirroring or affiliated with Wikipedia - Nazism gets hundreds of thousands more results than National Socialism. ~Switch t c g 09:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    yeah but only because there are millions of pages on the subject. its not really a fair point switch, since it is about relative comparison. 33+% isnt a huge difference· Lygophile has spoken 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for improving the methodology. Let us go one step further:
    Pages with "Nazi" but not "National Socialism" about 6,750,000
    Pages with "National Socialism" but not "Nazi" about 544,000
    It seems hardly worth arguing that "Nazi" is a more commonly understood term than "National Socialism". Go into any bar and ask. rewinn 15:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    That web service is flawed. "National socialism" -wikipedia actally gets 2,030,000 hits. [18] Billy Ego 04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    May I assume you mean "That web search is flawed"? Let me add the "-wikipedia" restriction and see which term appears more often without the other:
  14. Oppose - mainly as per #1. Wikipedia exists for the benefit of its users, not its contributors. In the English-speaking countries the well established term is Nazism. Norvo 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Cberlet. Tazmaniacs 00:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose National Socialsm also described two other unrelated ideologies - Bellamy's Nationalism and Stalin's (and Bukharin's) Socialism in One Country. Besides which Nazism was never considered socialist by socialists. 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose as per above. "Nazism" is the most common name, and we have plenty of articles whose names are abbreviations. For instance, the article on the Soviet Union is not called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the article on North Korea is not called Democratic People's Republic of Korea. -- Nikodemos 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, per Chris. - DNewhall 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, most common name. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - per common names policy. FCYTravis 06:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Cberlet and Jmabel. -- WGee 08:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Vigorously oppose Naziism is the common name and what we should use. Anyway, we have gone over this before. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - Socialism was the dominant ideology in the first half of the 20th century. No wonder the right wanted to jump on the bandwagon and share on socialism's legitimacy by sharing its name without adopting its ideology. This move attempt on the other hand seems to be related to a modern attempt to equate Communism and Nazism, and thus criminalize Socialism. -- Petri Krohn 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Surely more users would be looking up Nazism than looking up National Socialism? Plus the current National Socialism disambiguation page is extremely useful. 158.223.71.65 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose everyone will search for nazism, not "national socialism"

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
Please join the [[19]]discussion below. There is disagreement over all of these issues.--Cberlet 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* We can examine this issue experimentally. Go to a bar and call the biggest, drunkest guy a "National Socialist". I predict that 99% of the time you will get a blank look. Then call him a "Nazi". I predict that you will get a response so different as to indicate that the latter is much more than merely a more commonly understood term. I await your report on the experiement. rewinn 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see you have the utmost respect for the even most basic Wikipedia policy of attribution. I can further make some culturally insensitive remark about NA schooling, but I'll let you have that one. Intangible2.0 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the German National Socialists ever use a term similar to Nazi to refer to themselves? If so, then it would be fine to keep this title. Was the term Nazi originally a pejorative? If so, then it behooves us to change the title. If newer groups like the Neo-Nazis actually refer to themselves as such, then the titles of those articles should remain the same. JoeCarson 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

not if that is the term in use throughout the world for it. if nazi is the term in use, then nazi is the term in use. them using a different term themselves is a fair point, but there are many more articles about something where the affiliated people would not use that term. psychopathy for instence, extremism would be another one. there are many more. if i start enslaving everyone and i call the ideology behind my actions "freedom", are you gonna explane "freedom" as enslaving everyone?· Lygophile has spoken 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Extremism is a blanket term for many ideologies differing significantly from the norm. Wikipedia has many articles for ideologies that would be considered extremism, but they are titled by what their adherents call themselves, Marxism, and Libertarianism for example. Psychopaths do not have any organized groups or names for themselves, despite what Democrats and Republicans may claim about each other. If you start a new ideology of slavery and call it freedom, Wikipedia should call it lygophilian freedom. American liberalism is a good example of a related scenario.
JoeCarson 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"despite what Democrats and Republicans may claim about each other". lol! "lygophilian freedom". lol. but in that case, it should be called "NSDAP national socialism"· Lygophile has spoken 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. National Socialism may be too broad. German National Socialism, or something more specific would be preferable. But only if Nazism was considered offensive; Wikipedia should avoid offending anyone if it can do so without compromising scholarship. If they did not consider it offensive, keep the name.JoeCarson 11:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • it seems pretty simple to me. if the article is about the germans that under hitlers rule did all those things around the time of WW2, under the banner of what is well known as nazism around the entire planet then you call it nazism. if the article is about putting the people of your own nationality first, and treating them socially, but screwing everyone else, then you call it national socialism· Lygophile has spoken 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nazism is the most common terms o it is what we should use. There should be redirects from National Socialism and NSDAP that go to NAzism article (or a disambiguation page) but Nazism should be the main article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

homophobia

There were indeed detrimental policies agains homosexuals in Nazi Germany. However, this kind of neglects the homophilic "male bonding" concepts abound in the German youth movements, making the matter much more complex than saying homophobia was essential to Nazi policies or ideology. Intangible2.0 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From the article on masculinity: "In many societies, masculinity is understood to include open displays of same-sex non-sexual affection and physical contact." So "male bonding" is perfectly compatible with homophobia. Plus, homophobia refers to hostility towards gay people primarily. -- WGee 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only refer you the work of Harry Oosterhuis (for example, "Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany"). Intangible2.0 12:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is Harry Oosterhuis and why do his opinions derserve to be accepted as fact? At the least, you should state that those are merely the opinions of Mr. Oosterhuis, unless you can demonstrate that his views are those of the consensus (e.g., by referecing a general textbook). -- WGee 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparantly Oosterhuis's views do not reflect the academic consensus: the reputable United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says, "Drawing on the 'science' of eugenics—the study of improving heredity through selective breeding—Nazi authorities claimed a legitimate right to take action against those they believed to debilitate the 'Aryan' Volk" [20]. Since Mr. Oosterhuis's opinion that homosexuals were not persecuted in the name genetic purity is not acknowledged by the Museum, whose exhibits reflect maninstream academic opinion, it might not be worthy of mention per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- WGee 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Those "views" of Harry Oosterhuis were published in a reputable academic journal. An exhibit of the USHMM is not held to standards of academic review. Intangible2.0 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed academic journals, such as the Journal of Contemporary History, however reputable, publish creative, critical original research, not commonly accepted facts. Although the peer-review system ensures that articles in a journal meet the discipline's standard for research and methodology, the authors' conclusions may not reflect the academic consensus. The only way to gauge the influence of an author's work in academica is to refer to citation indices, and the essay in question, Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany, has only been cited 5 times according to Google Scholar. The USHMM, meanwhile, is an internationally renown Holocaust museum that is bound by its nature to propagate only commonly accepted views on the Holocaust. Exibits are guided and reviewed by historians of the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies and are subject to immense public and academic scrutiny due to the museum's fame. So do you honestly think the USHMM could get away with propagating information that conflicts with mainstream opinion? -- WGee 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, if you're truly interested in expanding the section, you would do well to incorporate some of the information found on the USHMM's website, which is much more general, comprehensive, and impartial than Oosterhuis's essay. -- WGee 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See also History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Tazmaniacs 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to rewrite the section, but as it stands currently, the section on Homosexuality seems almost defensive of Nazi persecution of homosexuality (perceived and actual). It also seems to contrast sharply with the aforementioned History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust article, which not only doesn't mention anything about Oosterhuis's opinion that it was "merely" political (note, I'm scare-quoting myself, not the article), but rather states pretty clearly that homosexuals were, if anything, more strongly persecuted than the average political prisoner. Furthermore, the paragraph is badly-written. It doesn't tell us who this Oosterhuis is or why we should care what he thinks, and it relies on bad reasoning--it's irrelevant that the Nazis were (seemingly) hypocritical and encouraged "male bonding" or the like. And the statement that Rohm was killed for political reasons appears no more than simple juxtaposition to imply a relationship--so he was more both gay and politically dangerous, but maybe more politically dangerous than he was dangerous as a homosexual--it says nothing about nazi policies against homosexuality. I don't see that any of this about Oosterhuis belongs in the paragraph at all, certainly not in its current state.202.95.37.69 15:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism

We need to have a discussion about the continuous redirect of National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism instead of National Socialism (disambiguation); and the continuous insertion of claims concerning the term and its use, especially in the lead, but also elsewhere. This discussion is best held at Nazism so we can all, literally, be on the same page. Thanks. --Cberlet 14:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is redirecting? It seems natural that the link should point to a disambiguation page.(JoeCarson 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Both Intangible2.0 and -- Vision Thing -- who support this vote have redirected.--Cberlet 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What has this to do with the above vote? And why do you start rewriting things if you want to have a discussion? Intangible2.0 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Using semi-German terms

Please reconsider the use of NSDAP and DAP instead of Nazi Party and German Workers' Party. It's a rather pointless use of German acronyms and is so much less clearer than just using the English terms. Especially when their respective articles are under the English terms.

Peter Isotalo 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Varieties of National Socialism

It has been claimed in error that Wikipedia does not refer to a variety of contemporary national socialist movements as forms of contemporary Nazism. Here are sopme examples:

See: National Socialist Movement:
There have been several neo-Nazi organizations known as the National Socialist Movement.
[see also]

Another entry:

National Socialist Vanguard:
The National Socialist Vanguard is a Nazi group based in The Dalles, Oregon. It has focused its efforts on recruiting high school students.

There are also cites in recent scholarly publications:

B. A. Dobratz and S. L. Shanks-Meile. (2006, Summer). "The Strategy of White Separatism"Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 49-79. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, edited by B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner):
Text describes Rick Cooper, leader of National Socialist Vanguard, as stating that he considers himself part of a "white nationalist" movement that is "a movement based on love of--preserving what you love--your race." p. 67
C. Berlet and S. Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). "Overview of U.S. White Supremacist Groups." Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, edited by B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner):
Text discusses various contemporary national socialist groups and movements:
"We mention WAR here because it pioneered the spread of a particular revolutionary 'national socialist' ideology, which Metzger summarized at the 1987 Aryan Nations Congress....This type of rhetoric is associated with a national socialist form of neo-Nazi ideology called the 'Third Position,' a political tendency that challenges globalization as part of a call for organic, localized, cooperative economic systems-rejecting both capitalism and communism (Gardell 2003; Berlet and Lyons 2000; Coogan 1999). This form of neo-Nazism has been carried forward by groups such as White Revolution, the National Socialist Movement, and Volksfront." pp. 23-24.

There are neo-Nazis who do not describe themselves as national socialists and are not accurately described as national socialists. We may find this curious, but it is a fact. There are also contemporary national socialists who reject Hitler's "Nazism" because it betrayed the movement in the Night of the Long Knives.

National Socialism therefore, is not a synonym for Nazism, which refers solely to Hitler's German ideology.

I hope this helps clarify matters for the vote above and the continuing discussion.--Cberlet 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you search for "National Socialism" in Google Scholar, are any other academic journal search engine, you would be hard pressed to find references not dealing with Hitler Germany / NSDAP ideology. The fact that a generic term "national socialism" can also be used in a different way, is neither here nor now, since its use is not common at all. Furthermore, the claim above in the move is that Nazism is an abbreviation of National Socialism, so your last point does not apply. When will editors start adhering to Wikipedia policy? Intangible2.0 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is based on claim that National Socialism is a special ideology of which Nazism is only one form. You haven't presented any evidence that there is any ideology beside Nazism that has named itself National Socialism. Those National Socialist Movements are all basing their ideology on the ideology of NSDAP. -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a distinction between the two. The term "National socialism" is used to refer, essentially, to Strasserism during the rise of the Nazis (the term "Strasserism" itself was only used afterwards to refer to new movements basing themselves off of their works), "Nazism" refers to the ideologies and actions of the NSDAP. The two are very closely related most of the time but a distinction is often made when needed. - DNewhall 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? It's like saying that whatever Rudolf Jung wrote, is not relevant for this article, while he was a National Socialist even before Hitler was (he was the one who convinced Hitler to change the name of the German Workers' Party). Intangible2.0 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, National Socialism is used to refer to the whole ideology, before and after Night of the Long Knifes. Articles in other, unbiased encyclopedias are pretty clear on that subject. -- Vision Thing -- 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Vision Thing, if Nazism (or National Socialism) is defined as the ideology of the NSDAP, as this article claims, then obviously it cannot at the same time be the ideology of other movements. This is particularly true given the fact that Hitler repeatedly insisted that Nazism was not for export. -- Nikodemos 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Those other movements subscribe to the ideology of NSDAP. Also, if we are going to look what Hitler said, then this article should be called National Socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of logic, a movement and the ideology of that movement are different things. For a non-controversial example, let us paraphrase Gandhi, "I like your Christianity, but not some Christians". rewinn 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism - majority view

It is clear that most editors oppose renaming this page to National Socialism. It is also clear that most editors also would support making National Socialism and National socialism redirect to the National Socialism (disambiguation). I have restored both pages to the proper redirect rather than this entry on Nazism. I assume that restoring the NPOV revisions to the lead and body of this Nazism page to remove the marginal POV contentions that highlight National Socialism can now be accomplished without a revert war. Looking froward to more constructive editing.--Cberlet 23:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? The poll was only about the name of this article, which is guided by a different Wikipedia policy than what should happen with disambig pages. I will revert your contentious changes. Intangible2.0 09:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you got those ideas. You misrepresented issues at request for mediation and now you are still continuing to go down that road. -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This dispute goes back several years. Every time we have the debate, the view that Intangible2.0 and -- Vision Thing -- claim are important are shown to be marginal. They deserve a mention, but should not be in the lead or comprise a significant portion of the entry. I do not see any evidence that either Intangible2.0 and -- Vision Thing -- are seeking a collaborative solution to their obviously marginal viewpoints, and instead continue to rewrite and revert as if they have demonstrated that their views are the views of the majority when the opposite is true. I invite comments on this situation below.--Cberlet 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, Collectivism

  • Should National Socialism redirect to Nazism or National Socialism (disambiguation)?
  • Is anyone who publishes a book or article on Fascism, Nazism, or Collectivism to be considered a major scholar on the subject, or is it appropriate for a majority of editors active on a page to agree on which scholars are considered the leading scholars and highlight their views over more marginal views?
  • Do the majority of major scholars of Nazism consider Nazism a "far-right" form or usually allied with the political far right?
  • Do the majority of major scholars of Fascism consider Fascism a "far-right" form or usually allied with the political far right?
  • Do the majority of major scholars of Nazism consider Nazism a representative form of socialism?
  • Do the majority of major scholars of Fascism consider Nazism a representative form of socialism?
  • Should the libertarian/Austrian School analysis of National Socialism, Nazism, and Fascism as forms of "collectivism" and thus related to all forms of socialism (and even the New Deal of Roosevelt) be considered not marginal but so important and major a school of scholarship as to be placed in various entry leads and occupy a relatively major part of various entries?

Please comment below.--Cberlet 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I see the same arguments and disputes at a number of pages, with only a small handful of editors pursuing the argument that National Socialism, Nazism, and Fascism are forms of "collectivism" and thus related to all forms of socialism. These are the pages. Nazism, National Socialism, National socialism, [[[National Socialism (disambiguation)]], Socialism, Anti-capitalism, New Deal, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. I think there aer only a tiny handful of libertarian/Austrian School editors and an even smaller fraction of left/anarchist editors who pursue this POV. I think this POV is highly marginal. In some entries this marginal POV is becomming the dominant POV of the text, as on the pages on The New Deal and corporatism, and Economics of fascism. This violates several Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to our article on collectivism, it is defined as "any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals." By this definition, all those political ideologies that you list are "collectivist." I should note too that this isn't a WP:NOR-violating synthesis as fascism and socialism are both described in numerous notable sources as "collectivist" (if such a source is not noted in a particular instance where the label is applied, I would find that questionable). Now, it is true that the collectivism article also states (albeit without a source) that the term "often carries pejorative connotations." We should certainly be careful that the term is being used in a literal sense and not in a pejorative sense, at least when we are writing in the encyclopedic voice rather than using a direct quotation. However, it seems prima facie evident that National Socialism was/is a type of socialism. The same concern should exist when considering the usage of words like individualist, isolationist, etc. DickClarkMises 14:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think User:Cberlet is confusing point of view of Wikipedia editors, with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, which are Wikipedia policies. Intangible2.0 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment


Comment

Sunday Express

Please stop removing the quote from Hitler with the claim that the Sunday Express did not exist at that time. The Sunday Express was launched on December 12, 1918. [21] [22] You should be more sure of yourself before you delete information that is cited. Billy Ego 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation is not easy to check, but anyway, it isn't just about the Sunday Express issue. I have reported this on 3RR. The introduction is not for re-introducing ramblings about the Socialism/Nazism debate and we've been here before. Reverted. MarkThomas 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the citation is not easy to check? Go to the library and look in the book. I'm going to put it back in then when I able to because it is certainly relevant. People need to know that though it's called "national socialism," it is not Marxian socialism which is what people usually think of when they think of socialism. This a blatant act of censorship on your part and few others here. Billy Ego 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For anyone interested, here is the information that is being censored: "Hitler was careful to distinguish national socialism as non-Marxian socialism. He said, "Our adopted term "Socialist" has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." Francis Ludwig Carsten, The Rise of Fascism. University of California Press, 1982, p. 137, quote from British newspaper The Sunday Express, on December 28, 1938 However, Hitler said the condition for property was "common good takes precedence over self-interest...the state must retain control and each property owner should consider himself an agent of the state." Richard Allen Epstein. Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty With the Common Good. Da Capo Press, 2002, p. 3 Billy Ego 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't censorship for multiple editors to decide this is not part of the introduction. MarkThomas 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The information wasn't moved. It was deleted. Billy Ego 20:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Does not belong in the intro. Tazmaniacs 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Billy Ego is just trying to make a point in the introduction, just as he's been doing at the socialism article. -- WGee 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm trying to make a point. The point is that fascism is opposed to Marxian socialism. The point is that that needs to be stated. The question is, what is your point? Billy Ego 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the quote is true and/or the point should be made, it certainly shouldn't be in the intro. BobFromBrockley 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I reverted the POV tag; Billy Ego, if you want to make changes to the article, I suggest you discuss them first here rather than just editing, on an important and always-controversial article like this, that would be the best approach; you have also been asked to do that as a condition of not having a 3RR sanction placed on you. Thanks. MarkThomas 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. There is no condition placed on me that I can't put anything in the article without talking about it here first. You're being super disruptive. First you delete information that is cited in a book. Then you delete a POV tag that I put there to express legitimate concerns I have. The POV tag is going to go back up until this is resolved. Billy Ego 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no condition, but it's sensible to do that and you are showing a tendancy not to be interested in the opinions of other editors which doesn't help. MarkThomas 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I respond to yours and the other guy's opinion that the Sunday express did not exist in 1938. That is showing regard for the opinions of others. If I had no such interest I would simply revert without explaining anything. You're the one being disruptive, not me. Billy Ego 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that a handful of editors are pushing their marginal POV over the objections of a majority of editors. Unless constructive discussion takes place, this dispute is heading towards a time-consuming mediation or arbitration. This will waste all of our editing time. Constructive collaboration (majority view featured, minority view mentioned) is a better option.--Cberlet 12:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Claims that fascism and related ideologies are collectivistic are not coming from sources which promote marginal views. -- Vision Thing -- 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As discussed at WP:NPOVD, it *is* appropriate for an editor to add the POV tag when he or she thinks the article violates NPOV. It is generally *not* appropriate for another editor to remove the tag until the dispute is resolved on the talk page. I quote from WP:NPOVD Gnixon 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC):

In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Cberlet's concept of "marginal view"

Since Cberlet keeps reverting things saying they are a "marginal view" I should point out what he said in Fascism. He said "Marginal views and original research are not acceptable in the lead or as a significant portion of the text in an entry, no matter how many obscure and marginal cites one can find.--Cberlet 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)" Well, if many sources can be found, then it is by definition not a marginal view. A marginal view would be one with few sources. Maybe he thinks views are "marginal" just because he says they are. Billy Ego 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find thousands of cites from the Marxist left on the nature of fascism, probably far more than you can find cites for your marginal views. In neither case would this justify adding this to the lead, or making it a disproportionate part of the entry. Even for fascists, size isn't everything...--Cberlet 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
We're just supposed to take your word for it that there are more sources for your view than the views you are calling "marginal"? There is no reason to believe you. Billy Ego 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are reasons to believe him. Cberlet is himself a recognized scholar in the field, and is quite capable of distinguishing his own views from mainstream consensus where they differ. I would say with pretty high confidence that, of the two of you, he has much wider knowledge of the literature, and I've never seen any sign that he distorts what he's read.
Something can be much-reproduced and still marginal. For example, there are an enormous number of web sites claiming that Bush was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks, but I'd still comfortably call that a marginal view, at least outside of the Muslim world (where it seems to me that it amounts to wishful thinking). It's just one of those things where a disproportionate number of the people who hold the marginal view are inclined to write about it.
The Austrian School (and related) views certainly deserve mention here, but they don't deserve focus. To put it bluntly: Hayek, von Mises, et. al. were not scholars of fascism or of Nazism, nor did they claim to be. They were economists. They represent an important (though not dominant) current of thinking about economics, but a marginal current of thinking about Nazism and fascism. For the most part, they tried to use discussion of Nazism and fascism as a rhetorical stick with which to beat communism, which meant they would stress every similarity and ignore every difference. The fact that someone is a scholar in one field does not necessarily lend them special credence as a polemical writer in another, and as far as I can tell, that is what is mostly going on here.
There are resemblances (and also differences) between fascism and communism, and the theorists of totalitarianism—who are, for the most part, scholar of Nazism and fascism—have done a fairly good job of pointing up both the similarities and differences. Also, there are certainly elements of left-wing thinking that went into the early stages of Nazism (and many other fascist movements), but the fact remains that, once in power, the more "left-wing" elements of Europe's fascist and quasi-fascist movements were inevitably marginalized or even (as with the Night of the Long Knives) killed outright. At most they were co-opted, as when acts that were simply anti-Semitic or etatist were presented as anti-capitalist. - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Recognized scholar or not, I don't recognize him as one. Credentials don't mean anything here. He's held to the same standards and as anyone else. He must provide sources. No one can be trusted. Billy Ego 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So-called "anti-capitalism" of Nazis

We have a fairly sustained offensive going on again to try to define the Nazis as "anti-capitalist". As usual, this circulates around various rehashes of the anti-semitic concept that because of the so-called "control" of capitalism by the "Jewish conspiracy" which the Nazis believed in, and the Nazis fervent opposition to their fantasy conspiracy, that this somehow made them "anti-capitalist". Whereas in fact they were deeply obedient to the concept of large-scale capitalism as practised by _German_ capitalists such as Krupp. So it's really just nonsense and I ask other editors to be vigilant about it. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fascist and I resent you telling me I'm not anti-capitalist. Fascism is anti-capitalist. I don't know how you are defining "capitalism." I just put in the article that fascists were opposed to "laissez-faire capitalism." That's how I understand capitalism. It is is where private ownership of the mean of production have free reign to produce what they want, what they don't want, free reign to pay any wage they want no matter how exploitative, usury, the lack of a welfare system. That's that we are opposed to. I specifically put in there "laissez-faire" and it was still deleted. Anyone who doesn't know that fascists do not trust the market to distribute good equitably does know anything about fascism. That is what fascism is all about. It's about having a leader direct a nations resources for the common good instead of letting laissez-faire and capitalists do whatever they want. Private ownership under social control is facism. It is not laissez-faire capitalism and it is not Marxian socialism. It is a third way. Billy Ego 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Italian fascism insists that the interests of the nation must be placed before those of the individual or his property. Thus an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable. It may well be that the limitations upon the laborers are more onerous than those upon property owners. But the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group. The paramount interest for German national socialists is the race rather than the nation, but from the economic point of view this difference is of small moment." Calvin B. Hoover, The Paths of Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World, The American Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (Mar., 1935), pp. 13-20 Billy Ego 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If a group opposes free-market capitalism in favor of social control, that is a socialist position. I don't see how the definition hinges on whether they are taking the position because of anti-semitism or for other reasons. It doesn't mean either that all socialists are National Socialists any more than all coins have to be nickels just because nickels are coins. I'm not sure I understand the objection to using the term "socialist" to describe the Nazi ideology. DickClarkMises 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That definition of socialism is not supported by evidence, leads to absurd results, e.g. defining monarchism as a form of socialism, and ignores the historic alliance between Nazis and (some, not all) German capitalists in Hitler's times. These are three objections; surely there are more. rewinn 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You need to be careful how you use terms. You said there was an alliance between "NAZI's and German capitalists." Yes there was. But "capitalist" doesn't mean a supporter of the economic system of capitalism but simply an owner of capital. Billy Ego 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And by the same logic, "National Socialist" does not mean a support of "Socialism" but merely someone who put the word Socialist in their ideology's name. It's sort of like Lyndon LaRouche calling himself a Democrat, or George W Bush calling himself a Conservative. rewinn 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point. "Capitalist" simply means an owner of capital. A capitalist is not necessarily one who supports the system of "capitalism." All a capitalist has to support is the right to own capital. That's not all that capitalism is. A capitalist may or may not support capitalism. Capitalist: "1: a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat." [23] Now let's look at the definition of capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." See? To say that there was an alliance between capitalists and NAZI's is simply saying there was an alliance between people who owned capital and the state. That doesn't mean the system was capitalism. It's different for the term "socialist." A "socialist" is literally a person who supports a socialist system. Billy Ego 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
What is most relevant here, a supporter of "National Socialism" is not a necessarily, and not usually, a supporter of Socialism ... even though the word "Socialism" is included in the phrase "National Socialism".
And .... you are arguing about a point I didn't make. It is a fact that some capitalists allied with German Nazis and these were for the most part supporters of capitalism, not socialism; indeed they generally expressed opposition to socialism. That it may in theory be possible to be an anti-capitalist capitalist is irrelevant. rewinn 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You're still not getting the point. Let's try again. Supporting the allying of business with government is not support of capitalism but of corporatism. A "capitalist" that supports that is only a capitalist in the sense of being an owner of capital. It's not a capitalist in the sense of a supporter of capitalism. Billy Ego 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that my definition isn't supported by the evidence sort of begs the question doesn't it? Which evidence? The Socialism article seems to support my definition, especially where it states that Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Your reductio ad absurdum isn't as clear to me as it may be to you regarding monarchism. To your second point, I would ask you whether or not it is possible for an anti-war activist to also be a soldier, or for a capitalist (in the functional sense) to also be a socialist. Surely you wouldn't say that someone who has accrued wealth through capitalism may not hold socialist views, right? DickClarkMises 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
By elementary rules of logic, the assertion that some socialists may oppose free-market capitalism does not prove the proposition "If a group opposes free-market capitalism in favor of social control, that is a socialist position" rewinn 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thinking in class terms clearly states your POV. Assuming that only big business has interest in capitalism, or that big business speaks in the name of capitalism is Marxists line of thinking. Capitalism benefits all "classes", and big business sometimes works together with the state and uses state's coercive power in order to annihilate competition. That is not capitalism by any standard definition of the word. Also, did you know that fascist Italy had the highest percentage of state owned enterprises after Soviet Union? -- Vision Thing -- 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the free-marketers here on many things they are absolutely right that Nazism is opposed to capitalism. That does not mean that they opposed the ownership of capital but they oppose the system of capitalism. They did not believe that owners of industries should be allowed to do whatever they wanted with their property. The property was regulated by the state to make sure that it was used for social good rather than simply to line the pockets of the usurers and profiteers. It was not capitalism, unless you have some strange definition of capitalism. It was not socialism in the sense of Marxian socialism. It was socialism in that property was made sure to be used in the interests of the common good. You could also call it dirigisme. You might even be able to call it "planned capitalism." But above all do not deny that Nazi's and all other facists are oppose to laissez-faire capitalism. Billy Ego 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about that. However, not all opponents of capitalism are socialists. Some were royalists, and there are religious opponents as well. rewinn 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey: redirecting National Socialism

To what page should the pages National Socialism and National socialism be redirected?

Read carefully because there are two choices with different outcomes, and bot require a "Support" prefix for the vote to be tabulated properly.

Add  # '''Support'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Alternatively (who knew?) place Oppose in both sections. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Support redirecting National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism

  1. Support, actually. nazism is by far the best known form of 'national socialism', and i think its standart policy to redirect it to the most often sought article by that term. it should read (something like): "this article relates to the selfproclaimed national socialist ideology of NSDAP, the german political party known for initiating WW2 under the rule of Adolf Hitler. if you were looking for other forms of national socialism, see national socialism (disambiguation)". its a bit long, but thats the way its done right. also nazi party should be named NSDAP, but since this discussion about nazism has actually only ever been about the opportunity to blacken socialism, nobody argues that probably more pressing matter of NSDAP· Lygophile has spoken 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, "national socialism" in English almost always means Nazism, but Nazism is the common name. --Trovatore 05:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Almost everybody that's looking for National Socialism is looking for the NAZI's. Billy Ego 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


  1. Oppose. Nazism is shorthand for National Socialism, and the redirect should be Nazism => National Socialism. Αργυριου (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Argyriou above. DickClarkMises 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Argyriou. Mitsos 12:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Note: That proposal was already discussed and rejected in another poll. -- Nikodemos 20:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Nazism may be the most known form of National socialism, but that is not a reason to redirect there - any more than we should redirect Communist to Soviet Union or soccer to Manchester United Football Club. National Socialism should redirect to the disamb page and people can decide for themselves where they want to go. If you're looking for Nazis you look up Nazis. BobFromBrockley 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose but I don't agree with Argyriou. The article on Nazism should remain at Nazism (no redirect). JamesMLane t c 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Support redirecting National Socialism and National socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation)

  1. Support Because the term "National Socialism" encompasses more than the German Nazi Party.--Cberlet 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support National Socialism is a broader term in English usage. Gene Nygaard 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. This was covered already in the tens of polls and votes we had on this issue. Dahn 09:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Per Cberlet. The ultra-minority of users pushing their POV are attracting attention towards themselves. Tazmaniacs 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Somewhat Support. There is more than one "National Socialism", though the vast majority of people searching for that term are probably looking for the German variety.JoeCarson 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, bearing in mind that at least one entry on the dab page is opposed to the ideology of the German variant, and is similar in name only. The dab page should probably be moved and lose its suffix. Chris cheese whine 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Nazism is the most common form of National Socialism, but the term also refers to other movements and their ideologies, and anyone looking for Nazism specifically will search for that, not for "National Socialism." (This was removed at some point (I did mess up the signature), I've readded it) ~Switch t c g 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    actually it is still there under #3, without the signature. now your comment and your oppose support seem to be added twice to the survey· Lygophile has spoken 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Oh drat. Fixed now, I think. Thanks for pointing that out. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per ~Switch t c g rewinn 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support There are a number of entities called "National Socialism", one of which is not a fascist movement but belongs to Soviet history. There were/are other neo-Nazi movements called something like "National Socialism" that were/are not part of the NSDAP. MarkThomas 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Not only were there several different movements in several different countries calling themselves "national socialism", but logically speaking there is no reason why everyone calling themselves "national socialists" would need to agree with the views of German Nazis. Redirecting National socialism to Nazism is a bit like redirecting Communism to Marxism. Yes, the vast majority of people calling themselves "National socialists" are Nazis, just like the vast majority of people calling themselves Communists are Marxists. But that does not abolish the difference between the concepts. -- Nikodemos 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    There is no other National Socialism topic on Wikipedia. Austrian National Socialism is not a separate subject, it also part of National Socialism. As a primary topic, one should just redirect here, with a disambiguation link at the top, per WP:DAB. Intangible2.0 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support as per Cberlet. Owen 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support as per previous comments. BobFromBrockley 10:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support as previously. -- WGee 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support as per cberlet. In English Nazism is the standard term and the one that English-speaking users will be looking for. Norvo 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, per previous arguments. - DNewhall 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, per previous arguments.--Caranorn 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. The dab page is the best way to accommodate different readers' interests. JamesMLane t c 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


  1. Oppose. There should be a disambiguation tag at the top of the National Socialism article. Most people looking for National Socialism are looking for the German Nat'l Socialist movement; people looking for something else can click on a link to the redirect page. Αργυριου (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Argyriou. He's absolutely right that most people searching "National Socialism" are looking for the German National Socialists. DickClarkMises 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    so then what? you put on top of the national socialism page "if you were looking for 'national socialism' go to a different page"? lygophile 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, {{otheruses}} would work just fine, I think. DickClarkMises 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Argyriou. Mitsos 12:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Come on, the overwhelmingly primary meaning in English of "national socialism" is the ideology of the Nazi party. I'm sorry, some obscure Czech party just doesn't compare. This is completely independent of whether you think "national socialism" is an accurate designation for Nazism; that's not even relevant. Put a dablink at the top saying "national socialism redirects here; for other uses, see national socialism (disambiguation). --Trovatore 05:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Per User:Trovatore and per WP:DAB. I don't like the setup of this poll though, especially since there was a soliciting for votes going on. Intangible2.0 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    I was notifying participants of the previous poll that another poll was being conducted, even though the outcome of the previous poll seemed obvious. I did not finish that notification. Thanks for reminding me.--Cberlet 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sure. Who in their right mind would doubt your good intentions with postings like these: [24]. Intangible2.0 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've never quite understood what's supposed to be so wrong with asking other editors to go to a discussion and comment, but even if it is wrong in theory I don't see what's so bad about Cberlet's comments in the above reference - he is just describing the arguments. Intangible2.0, weren't you in fact recently blocked for arguing about this anyway? MarkThomas 10:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    If this were a AFD or CFD vote, he would have been reprimanded over it. Intangible2.0 12:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    To quote from Wikipedia:Canvassing, what Cbartlet is doing is at beast "unwiki". -- Vision Thing -- 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    I notified the editors who had previously voted in a poll that most of us thought had clear results. You two are skating on thin ice. Some of the people I notified voted for the proposition I oppose. That's called democracy. What you two are doing is called POV pushing. I propose that Intangible2.0 and -- Vision Thing -- join me in a mediation. Do you two agree?--Cberlet 13:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    You were already campaigning during the first poll [25], [26], [27]. Anyway, you don't seem to be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that straw polls are not binding. As for meditation, I already said I'm willing to participate in it, just try to keep issues list condensed and don't misrepresent issues. -- Vision Thing -- 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I believe this has been discussed many times and very adequately. There is no major need to change it apart from POV-pushing by a few editors and I suggest people don't participate in this "survey". To my mind, there is no chance whatever of the suggested moves actually remaining. Nazism is what most people call national socialism and it's standard on Wikipedia to call articles by their most widely known name. MarkThomas 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with MarkThomas. BobFromBrockley 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We just finished a vote on this, and the result was very clear. ~Switch t c g 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
A separate policy applies to disambiguation pages (WP:DAB vs. WP:NAME). Furthermore, voting is not a substitute of and to Wikipedia policy. Intangible2.0 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I also thought the result was clear, but note that several editors simply ignore our sentiments and continuously redirect National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism. I could use some advice and help here.--Cberlet 13:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Request for move from Nazism to National Socialism is a separate issue from where National Socialism should redirect. We already had discussion on that before request for move, and sentiment was clearly for keeping redirect to this article. -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I just re-read this entire talk page and have no idea how you can make this claim, -- Vision Thing --. The opposite is true.--Cberlet 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably Nazism is the most common meaning of National Socialism (especially when capitalized). I'd have no problem with National Socialism redirecting straight to this article, as long as we have "hat text" that indicates that it can mave other meanings, and that would send them to a disambiguation page for those other meanings. - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I need to reverse my earlier comment above - having now had time to read through the previous discussions properly, I now believe that Cberlet is right to call for this survey and we should all comment. The problem will persist unless we get all views and come to a conclusion. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I just added the option of opposing both suggestions, as one editor already did.--Cberlet 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
why are there several 'votes' in the servey without an arguement nor a signature? lygophile 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault, I was just setting up the vote and left some blanks for people to fill in. I will remove them.--Cberlet 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree with that, as i had allready put in the survey. you should add it there as well, though its proabbly of no avail, the result it will have seems allready evident· Lygophile has spoken 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We probably need a little clean up if there are multiple votes from one user. Note sure how to proceed on that. I assumed that there would be more disagreement with this second poll, but really did want to see what other editors thought. I have no problem with honest disagreements. Still, I think the results are modestly clear so far. How long do we leave it up before asking an Admin to close it?--Cberlet 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not democracy, because some of the editors here are preferring redirect to disambiguation page I propose that we redirect National socialism to disambiguation page, and National Socialism to this article. Will that satisfy both sides? -- Vision Thing -- 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Certainly not! You lose two votes and you are still trying to push you marginal POV? Outrageous.--Cberlet 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:DAB

When will editors actual start to follow Wikipedia policy? Specifically: When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Intangible2.0 13:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop attracting attention to yourself, Intangible. Tazmaniacs 13:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't be making personal attacks. I above quoted Wikipedia policy which needs to be followed. Intangible2.0 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: Following an Admin review based on the terms of a previous arbcom remedy, Intangible2.0 was "banned for one week from National socialism, National Socialism, and National Socialism (disambiguation)." This notice posted by --Cberlet 20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Is that passage really a commandment? May and must are vastly different. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Further note I have protected the dab pages for one week. Intangible is not the only person making disruptive edits. What both sides need to do here is to put aside ideology and think about the end users of the encyclopedia. Dab pages are supposed to make it easier for readers to find information. The question to be asked is, when someone types "National socialism" into the search box, are they probably looking for Nazism or probably looking for something else? As I editor I would suggest "something else," since anyone looking for Nazism would probably type in Nazism or Nazi. As an admin I would like to point all parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for the consequences of disruptive editing over rather minor points. Again I ask you to put aside ideology and think about this from the persective of the end user. Thatcher131 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with this discussion, but I disagree. I would think almost everyone looking up "National socialism" is looking for the Nazis. I think very few people are aware that it may apply to anything other than Nazism. Billy Ego 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think anyone looking for Nazism would search for that. Few people would bother with National Socialism. However, if someone was searching for one of the other national socialisms, then they would use that term. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Usage

The article contains this statement:

"In Soviet usage (which has carried forward into post-Soviet Russian usage), the epithet fascist is synonymous with Nazi Germans. This came to be only after Hitler's invasion of the USSR. Several historians and authors, such as dissident Valery Senderov, have claimed that the "fascist" epithet for Nazi Germans was created by Stalin who did not want to use the term Nazi, fearing it would cast a negative spin on the word socialism (National Socialism).

In fact the term "Fascist" was already very widely used by the Soviets in the 1920s and applied to countries as diverse as Italy, Poland and Hungary. Norvo 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Norvo. The term "fascist" was certainly used, for example, by Communists in Britain in the early 1920s. Obviously, Nazism is a variant of fascism, so it is hardly some Stalinist plot to call the Nazis fascists. I am also skeptical about this supposed Soviet usage.BobFromBrockley 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (I don't know who Senderov. Is he a good source? BobFromBrockley 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"Hitlerites" was also a term much used by Stalin. Anyways, this material here is properly attributed, and should not be removed unless you can show with other sources that this claim is doubtful. Intangible2.0 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Senderov was exiled/jailed in the 1980s for his study in which he accused the Soviet authorities of having committed an "intellectual genocide" of Jews. Intangible2.0 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Mussolini faschists in Italy invented the term after the Roman fasces? This is described further on Benito Mussolini. I believe the term dates from around 1914. The soviet usage passage above is nonsense. MarkThomas 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This about the use of the term fascist as pejorative, which is different use of the term altogether. Do you have sources disclaiming that there was this kind of Stalinist censorship? Intangible2.0 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalin-era communists bandied about the term fascism quite lightly, as when they called social democrats "social fascists" (which also, by the way, suggests that the juxtaposition with "socialism" didn't particularly bother them). - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"productive industrial capitalism"

Someone wrote in the introduction that the sources says that Nazis "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Where in these sources does it say that? I don't see it. I'm challenging this. If it can't be verified that the sources say this then it needs to be removed. Billy Ego 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am out of reverts; could other editors please review the nonsense version currently created by Billy Ego and adapt to something more intelligent? Thanks. MarkThomas 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? You think that this small change [28] is something to worry about and edit war over? The reason for that change is because it looked like it was saying that Nazi's invented the term "finance capitalism" because it said "what they called finance capitalism." They didn't call it "parasitic finance capitalism." They called finance capitalism parasitic. Billy Ego 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BobfromBrockley, why did you take out that they opposed laissez-faire capitalism? The source by Hoover says that they did. They didn't just opposed finance capitalism. They opposed laissez-faire. Billy Ego 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Billy Ego, let me know what you could not find in the cite: Moishe Postone. 1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier There is a detailed discussion of the artifical and antisemitic division of capitalism into productive industrial capitalism v. parasitic finance capitalism. The Nazis did not invent the consept, but they built their ideology around it. Do you think this cite is just a dollop of chopped liver? I think it is a full meal! --Cberlet 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
On what page does it say that they embraced what "they considered industrial capitalism"? Billy Ego 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
My summary of a brilliant article by Moishe. Go to a library and go look for yourself and tell me when you have done that and why you disagree. Thanks.--Cberlet 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you afraid of? Why won't you give a page number. Remember the warning message I left on your userpage? I'm not going to let this go. Billy Ego 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This latter comment of Billy Ego's appears to me to be a very clear personal threat against Cberlet. MarkThomas 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well isn't that something? Billy Ego 00:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction of "finance capitalism" vs. "industrial capitalism" was originally made by Marxist Rudolf Hilferding, so it is important that we be clear that it is not of Nazi origin. But, as far as I know, this is one of the points on which the Nazis had at least rhetorical agreement with Marxist-Leninists. - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. Whatever this article says, it CANNOT say "which they called parasitic (eg, Jewish-owned or controlled)." This is flawed (a) because it is a misuse of eg (which anyway should be e.g.), and (b) it implicitly accepts that parasitic MEANS Jewish-owned or controlled. That is absolutely unacceptable.
  2. When reverting unreflexively, please check what you are reverting. I spent a fair amount of time tidying up the footnotes and the placing of punctuation, all now gone.
  3. As a good indicator of what is and isn't marginal, google scholar gives 67 citations for Postone's article, 2 for Hoover's.
  4. Finally, whatever the article finally says about this issue, is the first paragraph the place for it? Wouldn't it be better to leave the issue until a later section, where a more balanced account can be given that doesn't scew the opening paragraph? BobFromBrockley 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The Road to Serfdom has more than 800+ cites. I guess that clears it then? Intangible2.0 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you say that Postone article is cited a lot, how about we cite it then? Postone says that Nazism was anti-capitalist. It doesn't say what Cberlet claims it to say which is that Nazis embraced "what they considered industrial capitalism." Postone says, "The Left once made the mistake of thinking that it had the monopoly on anti-capitalism or, conversely, that all forms of anti-capitalism are, at least potentially progressive. That mistake was fatal, not least of all for the Left." Billy Ego 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just read the Postone article. He DOES NOT say Nazism was anti-capitalist. He says that Nazism was NOT opposed to industrial capitalism. What he says is that the Nazis articulated a form of anti-capitalism that was not actually against capitalism but only against some of its forms, i.e. "abstract" finance capital. Here is an example from the text: "as is well known, industrial capital was precisely not an object of anti‑Semitic attacks, even in a period of rapid industrialization... The affirmation by modern anti‑Semitism of industrial capital indicates that an approach is required that can distinguish between what modern capitalism is and the way it manifests itself, between its essence and its appearance." (http://www.gentheoryrubbish.com/archives/images/Moishe.pdf p.8 emphasis added) "Forms of anticapitalist thought that remain bound within the immediacy of this antinomy tend to perceive capitalism, and that which is specific to that social formation, only in terms of the manifestations of the abstract dimension of the antinomy; so, for instance, money is considered the "root of all evil."" (ibid p.12) From then on in the text, all uses of the word "anticapitalist" are put in scare quotes, to indicate that Postone does not consider this actually anti-capitalist. It's a good article - read it, if you haven't! BobFromBrockley 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
He does say they were "anti-capitalist." Being opposed to finance capitalism makes one an anti-capitalist. Isn't that usually the main objection to capitalism, that someone is controlling the means of production through mere investment and loans and therefore earning without labor? That's a main problem NAZI's had with capitalism. But the objection I had was the it was being used by Cberlet as a source for saying that Nazi's embraced "what they considered industrial capitalism." Where in that source does it say that NAZI's considered what they supported to be "industrial capitalism""? That is Postone's term, not the NAZI's term. Billy Ego 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia we consider reputable published secondary sources to trump original research based on primary sources. The post by BobFromBrockley above summarizes the thesis of Postone very well. Feel free to set up your own pro-fascist web page where you can post your original research. Let a thousand websites flourish. Here at Wikipedia, however, we pull up the weeds.--Cberlet 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Next time you cite a source be sure not to make up things that it didn't say. Billy Ego 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"Industrial capitalism" is not Postone's term. It is a common term in the Marxian tradition (e.g. Rudolf Hilferding) and more widely (e.g. Max Weber, Werner Sombart). Their distinction between productive, industrial capitalism (good) and abstract, parasitic finance capitalism (bad) was not anti-semitic as such, or unique to the Nazis, but it passed from respectable political economy to become a mainstay of the anti-semitic repertoire in early twentieth century Germany. As Postone argues, opposing finance capital, and supporting industrial capital (as the Nazis did) might allow a movement to paint itself as anti-capitalist, but is not anti-capitalist, hence his scare quotes.BobFromBrockley 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok it's a Marxist term, whatever. The point is, it's not the Nazi's term. The paper was wrongly being used as a source to say that it was the Nazi's term, that they considered what they supported to be "industrial capitalism." They did not consider it to be capitalism but socialism. Billy Ego 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Bob has just underlined that the term is used more widely than in the Marxist tradition, and you claim it's a Marxist term. Unless you consider Max Weber as the archetype of a Marxist thinker, your arguments are clearly irrelevant. Furthermore, it's been said ten thousand times that you can't define Nazism as they defined themselves: we don't use subjective definitions here, but objective definitions based on serious historians' works. When Bush says he's going to bring democracy to the Middle-East, nobody takes that at faces value (even the neocons who used to make these claims have since withdrew this ideological discourse). One needs not be a Marxist to distinguish between speech & acts, discourse and reality - read Machiavel if you haven't yet. If Nazis made the outlandish claim that industrial capitalism was socialism, so be it. That doesn't makes it socialism. I'll finally underline that this criticisms of finance capitalism is not restricted to the far-right, and continues to exist today, not only in leftist circles - even people from the MEDEF, French employers' union which definitely consider that "capitalism is moral" have criticized the tendency to privilege financial sectors over productive industrial sectors, as they fear that it will bring a new economic bubble & crash. It was also the main aspect of Lula's electoral program for his first term (I'll let you judge if he succeeded in shifting the economic emphasis on productive, instead of financial, capitalism.) Tazmaniacs 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Postone and Critical Theory

I am delighted that the libertarians and the fascist all dislike the work of Postone. It confirms my respect for Postone's work. Postone has published a serious analytical work. When Billy Ego, Intangible2.0, and -- Vision Thing -- publish their studies on fascism and capitalism, I am sure they will alert us so we can consider citing them. In the meantime their views remain marginal minority positions peddled in an aggressive and disruptive manor. POV pushing is a form of tendentious editing. This has gone on long enough. The minority position has had its say. It is time to move forward.--Cberlet 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said I disliked Postone's essay. I've just been asking for something specific like a page number or quote so we can verify what you claim it to say because I don't see it. Why won't you cooperate? Billy Ego 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW. --Cberlet 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "marginal view" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? Billy Ego 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW.--Cberlet 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "marginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? Furthermore, prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume that a work that has more than 800+ academic cites is not marginal? Maybe I do need to start quoting Hayek. At least he will be using an analytical concept of capitalism. Intangible2.0 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Postone is considered so important that his article is about 3 sentences and even has an orphan tag because sadly not enough pages link to it! Enough already. MarkThomas 13:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "finance capitalism" in the intro

I don't think much of the phrase "finance capitalism" - I know it's listed with an article in WP, but it seems rather a technical term and I think it also slightly over-intellectualises what was (on the part of the Nazis) more a confused, anti-semitic and paranoid ragbag of opposition to "Jew-controlled" stockmarkets, foreigners they didn't like owning capital and people they blamed for the WW1 defeat. Given that many capitalists in Nazi Germany became incredibly rich and many leading Nazis and SS people invested their money in Swiss international banks, it seems rather a gloss to leave this wording in. I think it is already covered in "anti-Semitism". MarkThomas 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I changed it to "liberal capitalism". What do you think? -- Nikodemos 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MarkThomas. But liberal capitalism, which redirects to economic liberalism is not really better, as that opens up a whole new can of worms. And it was not really the language they used. I feel the whole issue should be moved out of an intro, to a section further down. BobFromBrockley 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a real problem without an easy answer. Perhaps vague in the intro and discussed more in detail later on?--Cberlet 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that is the best solution. Something so contentious should not be in the intro. BobFromBrockley 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Bobfrom and therefore I have removed it from the lead. Can other editors who have bothered to read this discussion please help defend this position against what will be inevitable undiscussed reverts? Thanks for your help. MarkThomas 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't remove properly sourced statements. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As you know perfectly well Vision Thing, there has been a huge debate about this and the consensus is to remove it. The flimsy source you suggest is a basis for non-removal is irrelevant, as this is being included to give a POV view of the Nazis as latter-day green anti-capitalists and is in any event not true, as a host of other sources could counter-verify. MarkThomas 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
There was never any consensus to remove it. Even if there was it would be an unjustified removal because it's sourced. Anyway it's well known that Nazi's opposed finance capitalism. Billy Ego 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That is way, way too simplistic, and partisan. Nazi political economy was, generally, centrist and opportunistic. In front of workers, Hitler would argue against the evils of [Jewish] capitalists while around capitalists, he'd be against the evils of [Jewish] communists. El_C 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That section of the intro is not about Nazi political economy. It's about "ideas and positions." Any movement is going to have difficult implementing their ideas according to their ideal. Compromises are made. But it's well known that the ideology was opposed to capitalism, especially finance capitalism. Billy Ego 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And yes indeed Nazism was opposed both capitalism and communism. It is mostly private ownership but with extensive control of that ownership for the public good. It's a "third way." Billy Ego 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a play on semantics: Nazis self-contradictory anti finance capitalism, pro-big business srance, was [political-economic] "ideas and positions." It is well-known Nazi ideology was in favour of capitalism. That's why they retained private property, millionaires, megacorporations, hunting down all socialists, including within their own party, etc. They just lied in their rhetoric a lot, and this article is not going to reflect those lies without qualifying the historical facts and historiographical consensus in the scholarship. El_C 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. You're not aware that not all forms of socialism are opposed to private property. Not all socialism is Marxian socialism. It seems like you're defining capitalism simply as private ownership of the means of production. That's not how third way socialists, such as Hitler and Proudhon define it. There is no "lie." Nazism truly opposed capitalism, meaning private CONTROL over the means of production. They favored private ownership but state control over it, so that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." Billy Ego 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Third way is supposed to be an alternative between capitalism and socialism, but above all other things, it is pro-capitalism, for reasons which go beyod the scope of this. El_C 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well known or not, the Nazis favored extensive centralized controls on the market. That is not characteristic of capitalism. Keep in mind that mercantilism favors the retention of megacorporations but is also not capitalist. It is pov-pushing to insist that any system that allows some private property is automatically capitalist. Noting that the Nazis favored some socialist policies isn't necessarily the result of just buying Nazi propaganda. Please note that many anti-fascists, such as those that Chip Berlet frequently criticizes as marginal (which, btw, makes them more notable, since Mr. Berlet is notable himself), criticize the Nazis for their socialist policies. In an article in Reason, Michael McMenamin argues that the centralized, highly regulatory economic environment was arguably weakening the German economy over time, and that this was not unknown to Hitler's advisors: According to Kershaw, Goerdeler "favored a return to market economy, a renewed emphasis upon exports, and a corresponding reduction in the rearmament drive--in his view at the root of the economic problems....If things carried on as they were, only a hand-to-mouth existence would be possible after January 1936."[29] Saying that the Nazis were capitalist is misleading. It is certainly true that the Nazis also sought out communists with a vengeance, but that doesn't disprove the assertion that they themselves favored some socialist policies. DickClarkMises 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also note that other editors are correct that Hitler's own economic understanding seemed to be quite muddled. From the same source that I quote above:
Hitler himself apparently never had a clue that the economic policies he had followed for the first three years of his regime were responsible for his production problems. By 1936, Kershaw makes clear, Hitler believed his own press clippings regarding his economic acumen. Thus, for Hitler, the food crisis only confirmed his preconceptions. In the secret memorandum on which Göring's Four Year Plan was based, Hitler wrote, "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. The solution ultimately lies in extending the living space of our people, that is, in extending the sources of its raw materials and foodstuffs." That is, the problem is not my fault and the answer is war, not economic reform. DickClarkMises 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascism is indeed a third way between capitalism and socialism, but only if you mean by "socialism" Marxian socialism. I quote: "Nonetheless, much of fascism's bid for greatness depended on a battle of ideas, not only with Communism but with liberal democracy as well. This was especially evident in the claim that fascist movements represented a 'Third Way' between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism." Peter Davies and Dereck Lynch. Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge 2003, p. 101. When fascists speak against "socialism" they're talking about Marxian socialism. As Hitler said, Nazism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." Billy Ego 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's stay focused. It is imbalanced to only show the [would be] anti-capitalist without touching on its pro-capitalist side; and otherwise, I am perfectly entitled to my opinion. El_C 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "pro-capitalist." Bring pro-capitalist is not the same thing as being pro capitalISM. A capitalist is simply a private owner of a means of production. Yes, they supported that but they didn't suppor capitalism which is defined, according to Wikipedia, "as an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately[1] owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market." Nazism is opposed to free market. Economic liberalism is an enemy. Nazism is for a controlled market, not a free one. So what exactly do you mean? Billy Ego 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A controlled market that has major capitalists in it is pro-capitalist just the same. El_C 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Capitalism is understood to be a "largely free market" system of private ownership. A controlled market is not a free market. In Nazi economy, business is controlled by the government which sets many prices, tell how much of what to produce etc. It is also called "planned economy." In a capitalist economy, the owners of the means of production are left to do whatever they want with their property and exploit people. Billy Ego 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This is becoming elliptical. They defended [non-Jewish] capitalists, therefore, they were pro-capitalist. El_C 02:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not the same thing. I defend capitalists (business owners) but I don't defend capitalism. Capitalism is a generally laissez-faire economic system. Being a capitalist is simply being an owner of a means of production. How are you defining "capitalism" and how are you defining "capitalists"? Billy Ego 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before. The Nazis pretended to be socialists when it suited them, and this pretense is evidently still working. They were totally pro-capitalist in practise. They were capitalist to the extent that they actually regarded many human beings as mere goods that could be stripped of their clothes, hair and teeth for profit. MarkThomas 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? The argument you offer above is pure pov-pushing. "They were capitalist to the extent that they actually regarded many human beings as mere goods that could be stripped of their clothes, hair and teeth for profit." Wow. I hope you realize that this is clearly not in keeping with WP:NPOV since it offers a bald-faced demonization of capitalism. Are you here to actually use descriptive terms as they are put into sentences in common usage, or are you here to pov-push your own anti-capitalist perspective? Let's write an encyclopedia, eh? DickClarkMises 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is another notable author, Leonard Peikoff, who describes Nazi economic policies:
Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property - so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.[30]
And in his Road to Serfdom, Hayek, a Nobel prize-winning economist, argued that,
The rise of fascism and naziism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the proceeding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.
DickClarkMises 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Charges of pov-pushing go both ways, DickClarkMises. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric. El_C 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I just don't want one side of the debate being afforded undue weight. Again from Hayek, a Nobel winner: Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary — in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the antiliberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to "socialism of the chair" and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. (Memorandum on Nazi-Socialism, spring of 1933). (Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 March 2007. Temporarily available here: [31]). This seems pretty straightforward to me. A clearly notable economist who has been recognized by the mainstream for his theoretical contributions stated in no uncertain terms that Nazis were socialists. DickClarkMises 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Totally agreed and for this reason I am reverting Billy Ego's campaign - can other editors please be vigilant about this as well? Thanks. MarkThomas 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

<----------------Hayek, Flynn, and von Mises are not considered serious scholars of Nazism or Fascism. Hayek and von Mises are notable sources of theories of capitalist economics, but what they wrote about Nazism or Fascism were dubious political polemics designed to link collectivism to both Fascism and Soviet Communism. Few major scholars of Nazism or Fascism cite the of Hayek, Flynn, and von Mises in a way that supports their views, or take their work seriously at all. This is one reason I filed for mediation. This circular debate is tiresome. Please join the mediation. See below.--Cberlet 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article appears to be duplicated in places. e.g. two references/notes sections. - Francis Tyers · 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a citation for the part about Econimic policy where it just says "some economists argue..." that Weimar policies were responsible for the betterment of the German econmy in 1932/33. Buchheim, Christoph. Die Wirtschaftsentwicklung im Dritten Reich-Mehr Desaster Als Wunder. in Vierteljahresheft fur Zeitgeschichte. 49(2001). 653-664. On p. 655: "Zum zweiten wurden 1933 im wesentlichen erst die Effekte der Arbeitsbeschaffungsprogramme der Vorgängerregierungen wirksam, aber noch nicht in großem Umfang die Maßnahmen des NS-Regimes."

Discussion going in circles

Please join in the mediation.--Cberlet 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


I can't see anything in the article that shows anything different in Germany than in the US and the resr of Europe - at that time. Euthanasia, sterilizations, anti-Jewish, authoritarian, etc etc. Seems to be alot of effort of differentiate the Germans from the rest of the world - the good guys. Sorry there were no good guys in the rest of the world. 159.105.80.141 15:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to be edited so that it doesn't show bias. While much of the world disagrees with Nazi ideology and nationalism, there are some who agree and respecting their opinions is critical. If the article cannot be edited as is, delete it and start anew. This is not a difficult decision to make. Freedom of speech is protected even on the internet, thus, leaving the article as is will lead to someone writing another Nazism article in the reverse light. It is better to have one unbiased article that presents facts as they are. Tell the people what Nazism is, what the party believes in, but stay away from wording that condemns or praises those beliefs.74.138.89.115 03:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)heather

Sumarry (portion at the top)

This portion is exceedingly biased. The term " propaganda boss" must be removed. Wording in the following paragraph should be revised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crimson nite (talk • contribs) 00:25, April , 2007 (UTC).

In the German language wikipedia I find Hitler's post within the DAP post defined as "Werbeobmann". I'm not sure how exactly to translate it, though "propaganda boss" seems to at least represent the actual role he played. I have no clue what you find problematic in the following section, so you'd have to explain some more.--Caranorn 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

I think the interwiki should be updated, you can look here for interwikies that should be added. Tomer T 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Capitalization and style

Why is "Nazi" capitalized? Did the capitalizing originate from the Nazi party itself?

    • No, there was no Nazi party. They called themselves 'National Socialists'. Actually, the full name was "The National Socialist German Worker's Party". The term 'Nazi' was coined by opponents of National Socialism. AFAIK, the term 'Nazi' was never used by the National Socialists in Germany, although there maybe some modern day neo-Nazi movements that use the term 'Nazi'.

For humorous purposes?

Huh, what's up with this:

"This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwedishPsycho (talk • contribs)

I have no idea, but that template is not appropriate for the article namespace. I've removed it. -- MisterHand 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

German Inferiority Complex?

That section needs to be removed... it talks about the German "race" as having an inferiority complex which magically explains everything that happened... it's a pretty bogus theory at that.... totally POV, doesn't belong in a serious article. Stick to facts kids.. there are plenty of them to use.


For God's sake, what kind of people are participating in this article! If that section does something is present its references very clearly. The tag should go, it is ridiculous. The books, pages, articles and authors are clearly stated!. 70.156.139.188 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

citation problems

I have tagged much of the article with {{fact}} where paragraphs are unsourced, and {{unreferencedsect}} if most of a section was unreferenced. These sections of this article are unsourced.--Sefringle 03:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Then in some cases you do not know what you are doing or you know it too well (manipulation). To begin with, the inferiority complex section cites sources, authors, articles, books and even pages. How can you say there is no source! Such behavior of manipulating information in the face, without blinking is absolutely unacceptable. 70.156.139.188 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Master race"

Is there any part of Mein Kampf or any valid proof where Hitler used this phrase "Master race"? There is no reference whatsoever in the article that this term was used by Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.32.9 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2007

Hitler would have presumably said it in German, where it would be Herrenrasse or Herrenvolk. See master race for a history of the concept, which certainly was embraced by the Nazis, though they didn't invent it. Mein Kampf uses the term on pages 320, 422 and 438. Not speaking German, I couldn't tell you the context. You might also want to look into transcripts of his speeches. grendel|khan 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Title of page

The first line of the artice reads, "Nazism or Naziism, officially called National Socialism". So if the subject is officially called "Nationa Socialism", should the page not be called "National Socialism" as opposed to "Nazism"?

I concur, the move has to be made. The current National Socialism page should be changed to a disambiguation. Gavin Scott 08:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It would also mean following Wikipedia policy. Intangible2.0 01:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
We have been through this repeatedly. There is a dispute over the phrase "Nazism or Naziism, officially called National Socialism". It is currently part of a mediation. This marginal POV attempt to go against consensus is improper. We already voted on this. No name change is appropriate.--Cberlet 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are aware that there is a dispute over that phrase please refrain from changing it to your preferred version until we can reach some kind of agreement as a part of meditation case. -- Vision Thing -- 08:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The dispute for most editors was resolved with the agreement to create the National Socialism (disambiguation) page. The continued refusal to abide by the majority decision of other editors is tendentious.--Cberlet 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, by opening up this issue again while mediation case is still open you are being tedious and disruptive. -- Vision Thing -- 17:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree to the name change. The ideology is called National Socialism, which means a welfare society based on national values. Anyway who are the editors of this page? Prejudiced people should not edit this page!!! If they think this is the page to get even for their real or imaginary pains (holocaust), then they are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Religionishate (talk • contribs) 00:04, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is HORRIBLE...and horribly incoherent, but the rest of the article seems to have held up well over time. Ahh, wikipedia....the land where ::gulp:: anyone can become an editor. It shows in the intro.--172.166.106.90 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Nazism or National Socialism

IIRC, wasn't the term "Nazi" a slang term that the National Socialists acquired over time? Shouldn't it all be called "National Socialism"

And it's kind've weird, NAzxism proclaims militant anti-communism but is socialist in many ways

-SWF


They're anto-Communist because they dislike the egalitarianist stance of Communism. They support Socialism but reject the concept of equality between races and that peoples problems are caused by environmental factors. They believe in the Darwinist philospohy that it's genetic.

consisted of a loose collection of incoherent positions

Why does it say that they're incoherent? That sounds rather POV.

It might sounds to you POV. But it's a common statement among historians, see for ex. Ian Kershaw. Tazmaniacs 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavs

From what I've read of Mein Kampf, especially chapter 11, it seems that Hitler and the Nazis used Aryan as their synonym for any white person that wasn't Jewish. There were Slavs in the Waffen SS, there was Glasov's militia that sided with Hitler against Stalin and Croatia and Slovakia were German allies. The great writer Solzhenitsyn documented how many Russians actually viewed Nazis as liberators so it makes sense that the Soviets made up the claim that Nazis wanted to exterminate them in order to manipulate Russians to fight for them.

  • An Aryan (originally "Arier") was used for blond, tall, white and blue eyed people. Others, who had e.g. dark hair were called to be mixed with unaryan blood in former times, but still Aryans. Hitler wouldn't have said this, if he was Aryan him selves. But he's been this little black-haired dwarf. (Sorry for my english, I'm from Germany). --77.132.221.60 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Other new elements"

I am inclined to delete the "other new elements" section. What do people think? The things listed are neither "new" nor distinctive of nazi ideology. Although the German Nazi regime may have liked them, they are not defining features of nazism. This section threatens to become a dumping ground for everything Nazi Germany did such as banning abortion, supporting atheletics, conducting rocket research, and building automobile highways. What do other people think? -Fagles 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I've deleted it. -Fagles 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored it. Perhaps the other points you have mentioned could be included in the article, too. However, since this is supposed to become an encyclopaedic text, the article should avoid to have the form of a list of apparently unrelated bullet points, but rather say how historians explain why, and to what extent these different Nazi laws are in accordance with, and realizations of Nazi-ideology.--Schwalker 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is a persuasive argument for deleting this section: it is a list of apparently unrelated bullet points that fails to say why or how the listed Nazi laws are in accordance with, and realizations of Nazi ideology. Why, then, was it restored? Where is the evidence that historians consider the listed items "new elements" never seen before? -Fagles 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure these things are not that "new", although you could certainly argue that they did not specifically belong to Nazi ideology — but they were a part of Nazi Germany. The autobahns certainly were a new thing at the time, and also made for transport of tanks; and environmentalism wasn't so frequent then than now — and it was a specific trait of German culture. Public health is also an important issue, not at all uninteresting (see Michel Foucault's work on that issue). Kraft durch Freude probably shouldn't be listed there, but elsewhere: it is another form of taking control of the masses, akin to Mussolini's Balilla and the Hitlerjugend. Tazmaniacs 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you said. My concern is to distinguish between "new things that Nazi Germany did" and "new ideas first created as part of the ideology of Nazism." This article currently suggests that the concept of "public health" was a "new element," first invented as a part of "Nazi ideology." That is, of course, incorrect -- public health significantly predated the invention of Nazism. The autobahns were a new thing that Nazi Germany did, not parts of Nazi ideology. The environmental policies of Nazi Germany were largely continuations of pre-Nazi efforts. At the same time, autobahns, public health, and environmental policy were interesting and important aspects of Nazi Germany, and their implementation was affected by the government's Nazi ideology. A good discussion of them belongs in the "Nazi Germany" article -- where, indeed, most of them are already discussed in the "social policy" subsection. -Fagles 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

It seems to me that one should use the name they chose for themselves instead of the apparently insulting term Nazi. This might help a little bit with the accusations of bias. AThousandYoung 12:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern Nazism in Germany

Hey there! I have not found any part of the article where it is written, that Nazism is absolutely hated in Germany today. There are lots of organizations against Nazis / the NPD or other racism / fashism (if this word exists in english). Today this Land is a free land for every race, religion or culture. And this should be part of this article. -- 77.132.221.60 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither racism nor fascism (yes, we have the word—stole it from the Italians) were unique to Germany at the time, nor are strong anti-racist and anti-fascist sentiments unique to Germany today. If either were untrue, this might well be worth noting, but as it stands I don't really think it is. Where the movement continues today—not where it is opposed—is much more relevant. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be a part of the article, cause the german opinion has hardly changed about that. Sure it's not unique to germany, but its one of the biggest cultural changes in the world. and that should really be said (not at last, cause too many people think that nearly every german is still a nazi.) --77.132.168.104 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 how come theres nothing at all about prescott bush:

WASHINGTON — President Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show.

Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp. , a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.2.187 (talk) 16:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Project

Hi! The {{LGBTProject}} banner was removed with the edit summary "this has nothing to do with Nazism". The contrary viewpoint is that the article is in the Category:Homophobia, and there's even a section of the article titled Homosexuality. I'm re-adding the banner, but welcome comments on the subject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

npov

the "25 points"should be moved to the intro section. this allows the nazis {national socialists} to descibe themselves and their belife system in their own words.Comparisons to other social political or economic systems, while interesting,do not realy belong in an encyclopedia.J8079s 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ cf. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2004.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism/Archive_5&oldid=1092041903"