Talk:Nazism

Archives
Revolutionary not Reactionary Talk:Nazism and socialism 2002 – 2004 Aug 2004 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Apr 2006 roughly through July 2006 Talk page 5

Socialist or Conservative

NAZIS SUCK BALLS.That the Nazis resemble party X is not a question that can be addressed in an encyclopedia. What can be addressed is how parties and politicians in the Weimar Republic perceived themselves and each other, or claimed to perceive themselves and each other. The Nazis believed themselves socialists and revolutionaries. The conservative parties did not believe the Nazis to be conservatives. If you want to associate the Nazis with party X, find a Weimar Republic politician or think tank associating the Nazis with party X - not as evidence that they really were like party X, but as evidence of the politics happening at the time.

If we are going to revisit the edit war as to whether the Nazis supported capitalism or socialism, let us at least quote communists of the Weimar Republic calling them supporters of capitalism, and capitalists of the Weimar Republic calling them supporters of socialism - inserting actual evidence that tends to support the conclusions we desire, while leaving the conclusions unstated. James A. Donald 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Godwin's Law" and "Godwin's Tarpit"

Does this article breach godwin's law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbrownmonster (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Duh. 24.223.151.194 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What IS "Godwin's Law"??? I read Mike Godwin's article online (see summary in Wikipedia article) re his "Godwin's Law" which I understand to be Godwin's observation about dialogue: if differing people blog long enough about a controversial subject, someone will call someone else a "Nazi".

Thus, people NOW have this "magic phrase" to counter the 4-letter "N" word. You call me "Nazi" or my ideas "nazi like". Well, I need not refute you point by point. I merely speak BACK the new magic phrase "Godwin's Law'. The implication seems to be that it is NEVER fair to use the term "Nazi" or "Nazilike". Thus, true scholarly analysis is short circuited into name calling.

Also, some of the editorial battles over this article on Nazis/National Socialists reflect the societal ongoing battle to tar and feather one's opponents with any aspect (however individually harmless or tangential) with any portion of the word Nazi.

A kind of Godwin's Tar Pit, so to speak.

This article's discussions are interesting to read as a summary of the ideology wars on the 4 letter "N" word; but I would NOT use this article on National Socialists / Nazis as a solid major source. Because - I'm not sure how much of this article is truly objective scholarship and how much is part of "who can I tar - however lightly - with the 4-letter N word".Victorianezine (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazism vs. National Socialism

Shouldn't this article be called the latter? I mean, Nazism, is an informal abbreviation. Hitler and the rest of his party, never called themselves "Nazis". It was a pejorative slang used by the allies. The title of this article, is obviously wrong and misleading. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:00 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

See the move discussion above. The outcome was 25 to 5 against moving to National Socialism. --mav 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter the least as far as I'm concerned. The proper name for this ideology, is not Nazism. Its actual name, is National Socialism. Just to take an example here, Mohammedan is a name many Muslims are called, based on their religion, being followers of Muhammad. Yet, despite this, the article is called Muslim. The same rules should apply on this article. Be that as it may, that Nazism is colloquially more common in the English language, that is beside the point. We are trying to be encyclopaedic here, and we should call the ideology by its proper name, not after informal slang. Britannica Encyclopaedia calls it National Socialism.[1] You know my point is valid here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:48 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

The example you note, Muslim, follows our common names naming convention while this proposed move would not follow that convention. Exceptions are granted, but on a case-by-case basis that requires consensus building. So far, the consensus here is to not allow for an exception. I'm now off to other things. --mav 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You will not find one single political party, calling itself "Nazi". They are all called National Socialist. Basing the title of this article on the most common name in Hollywood films, is not encyclopaedic. The title of this article, clearly has NPOV issues, seeing as how many of the votes who opposed the National Socialism term in that vote for discussion, claimed that National Socialism has nothing to do with Socialism. Yeah right. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:35 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism and Nazism are not the same. National Socialism is a political ideology with nationalism and socialism as major principles, among others. Nazism is a specific incarnation of National Socialism (i.e. the incarnation that governed Germany from 1933-1945). This is obvious in the name itself, as the term “Nazi” and its derivatives (Nazism) stem from the formal German name “National Socialist German Workers Party” (NSDAP) – “German Workers Party”, obviously, indicating the specificity. To use an analogy, Volkswagen is to car as Nazism is to National Socialism. Not all cars are Volkswagens, not all National Socialists are Nazis. A National Socialist would be expected to believe that their nation/culture/race is superior to others, but that nation/culture/race need not be Germanic, as it would be with a Nazi.

That being said, however, this article should indeed be titled “Nazism”, as it is currently written about the aforementioned specific incarnation. It seems to me that this discussion should really be about whether a new article on “generic” National Socialism, so to speak, is needed. Given sparse historical examples, there would be obvious challenges to striping away uniquely NSDAP elements to describe “generic” National Socialism. Elcobbola 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article's name must be changed. "See the move discussion above. The outcome was 25 to 5 against moving to National Socialism". WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Mitsos 09:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a support for a move to "National Socialism", for the reasons cited below (in favor of support). Should be "National Socialism", not the sensationalistic "Nazism", which carries a negative connotation on behalf of those using "Nazi", implying biased POV. --Sasoriza 04:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe some historical movements deserve sensational appellation because they were, in fact, rather sensational. Nazism is one of them. There's no reason their own name for themselves is automatically any more appropriate or less POV than the name used by the Allies. You might as well change the title of an article on serial killers to reflect the fact that they prefer to be called "purveyors of the cool-aid."0nullbinary0 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosities sake, in your opinion should the word Nazism or National Socialism not carry a "negative connotation." We are talking about imperialistic, militaristic, murderous racists. --Anymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.192.65.5 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about imperialistic, militaristic, murderous racists — Yes, and the same applies on Islam, but its main article Islam doesn't have a slang title despite that. Why the double standard? Also, Nazism is not an NPOV title. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:38 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Semantics-- Most of the argument I see is centered around semantics. I think we can all agree on some basic premises: The NSDAP was a reaction to what it perceived as the failure of Weimar, the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, and the plight of the German economy during the Great Depression. I think a more relevant debate would focus less on what an individual chooses to call the movement (Nazism v. National Socialism), and more on the underpinnings of the movement itself. I am not a professional historian, but I recall as a history major in college seeing the terms used almost interchangeably, with very little attention paid to any distinction between the two. Just one opinion here. Wildcarrde (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt the name should be changed to "National Socialism". The most condemning evidence is the fact that the regime itself, (Third Reich per say) never called itself "Nazis" or referred to their policies as "Nazism". It was always referred to as the "National Socialist Party". "Nazi" is political shorthand and not the proper term. I believe it is safe to say that any learned individual with familiarity on the issue, would undoubtedly agree. If someone continues to disagree I challenge you to pour through records and speeches and find evidence that the regime ever referred to itself as "Nazis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apazdon (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that they didn't call themselves Nazis, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. We can't call them the National-Socialists either, because national-socialism evidently originated in Austro-Hungary in the 1890s and developed into both Czech and Austrian-German versions which coexisted for two entire decades before Adolf Hitler joined the Bavarian imitation. There was also the Black Front, a breakaway party within German national-socialism that opposed Hitler's NSDAP from a radically socialist position. I have no enthusiasm for the term "Nazi", but I concur with Elcobbola's observations above. We stand in need of some terminology — however artificial or unhistoric — which will differentiate Hitler's national-socialism from other sorts of national-socialism, and "Nazism" seems to be the available (and familiar) candidate. Gnostrat (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"National Socialist" has the appropriate negative connotations associated with that party's philosophies. "Nazism" is pejorative. There's a difference. Insistence on using a pejorative term over a historical term is one of the things that hurts Wikipedia's credibility in the eyes of many. Warren Dew (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Preferring a pejorative (but now more common) name over the self-chosen name isn't really the issue. We've discussed this further down the page — many times over — and with a consistent outcome. Wikipedia's credibility would also be hurt by the historical inaccuracy of naming this ideology National Socialism in a way which privileges it as the National Socialism, over and above all the others which have called themselves by that name, some of which have an earlier, more original (and arguably more accurate) claim to it. Gnostrat (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When there is a well established primary meaning of some term then the custom is to use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. -- Vision Thing -- 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That would apply only if there were no common(er) synonym for the term in its primary meaning. In this case the alternative, "Nazism", is the readily available, familiar way of differentiating Hitlerism from other national-socialisms. Why resort to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when WP:COMMONNAME gives us the simpler, unambiguous and straightforward solution? Put it another way: what you suggest would be like reserving Dinosaur for the primary, but incorrect, narrow usage (excluding birds) and relegating the scientifically correct broad usage (including birds) to Dinosaur (disambiguation). Gnostrat (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We can save a lot of time if we acknowledge that the term "National Socialism" is used by people promoting right-wing politics in the United States. Many people promote the term online. Having it here lends them the credibility they desire. 90.135.239.234 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Nazism → National Socialism — National Socialism is the accurate name, using an informal slang as the title of this article, is not Encyclopaedic. Britannica, a fairly respected Encyclopaedia, calls it National Socialism. Hitler himself, called it National Socialism. All Nazi parties, call themselves National Socialist. —EliasAlucard 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Precedent discussion concerning an identical requested move made in April 2005. Tazmaniacs 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose

• Strong Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME Reginmund 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose : if moved, it would have to be disambiguated to National Socialism (Nazism) or something similar anyways since Nazism isn't the only type of National Socialism. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 10:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rich Uncle Skelton just adds another layer to the problem; he's quite right, there have been several National Socialisms. But this name is unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- JHunterJ 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Tazmaniacs 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, also this article is more about the Nazis in Germany than National Socialism in my opinion. Tarret^talk 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The content of this article is about the German Nazi Party. The generic National Socialist Party should be distinguished. --Voidvector 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose : That Nazism is a form of National Socialism does not mean they're the same thing. Exactly as described in the wikipedia list of National Socialist parties. TerminusEst (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think this could go either way but I'm more opposed. If this does happen, I'd like the echo the comment below and please name it the REAL correct name "The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" and have Nazism direct to it. National Socialist is translated to english and overgeneralizes what the topic is actually referencing. "National Socialist" is a misleading translation to english. We can be more accurate then even brittanica.

Support

• Strong Support - Per WP:ENC, we are trying to be encyclopaedic here. That means, we have encyclopaedic standards to follow. Nazism, is what you call it on forums. On encyclopaedias, you call it National Socialism. Examples: [2][3] Also, National Socialism is more frequent amongst academic scholars.[4][5] — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:48 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Support per reasons given by EliasAlucard|Talk 03:48 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC). Here's another example of correct encyclopedia naming of this subject Britannica National Socialism article.--Paul 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support per >EliasAlucard|Talk. Mitsos 10:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support I used to be opposed to this, but I now think it should be National Socialism, partly because Wikipedia should use terms accurately when there is dispute, partly because "Nazi" is too informal and widely used in other contexts (eg, pejorative remarks, etc) to be really encyclopedic in this specific context. Note also that the German Wikipedia calls it Nationalsozialismus [6] and I think we could take the German view on what it should be called as reasonably definitive. All with the caveat that Nazi redirect to it. MarkThomas 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is immoral. We should really use a proper name, not the pejorative name (popularized by the enemies just before or during the war). --Kubanczyk 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - "Nazi" has entered the English vernacular, pejorative or not, and it is not necessarily used only by the "allies" either. Reginmund 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support I have no knowledge as to whther the term "Nazi" is perjorative or not, however while studying in Germany I have never seen a historical document from WWII era Germany referring to istelf as "Nazi". It is always written NS or NSDAP, when "National Socialist" is not used. Seems to be the proper name.--Patrick80639 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support i got this straight from wikipeida "

  The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP), also known as the Nazi Party,

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machetero150 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment - Anti-Slavism must be removed from the list of key elements, Nazi Germany didn't actually have the hatred of Slavs that people said they did. The Soviet government was detested, because of being "Jewish" Communism, however Nazi Germany did ally with Slavic countries, and there were even Ukrainian and Russian (later "Russian Liberation Army") divisions of the SS. Even though Poland was attacked it was only Jews and protesters who were persecuted, not collaborators. Himmler can even be quoted as saying "This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race". For this reason I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.114.8 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Wrong, as outlined in Mein Kampf Hitler wished for NAZISM to be strongly anti-slavic, in Mein Kampf Hitler proposes that the slavic race are either exterminated or used for slave labour for the Arayans, he describes them as Untersmench, as he does the Jews.... Himmler was not Hitler, and that quote was probably him being purposfully diplomatic in trying to placate slavic supporters.172.213.23.217 14:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - and what does WP:ENC have to do with this? Nazism is not slang in English. It is the most widely accepted term of use in the English lexicon for this ideology and not just by forums.[7][8] Reginmund 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Nazism" is the original National Socialism. It is not Nazism, it is National Socialism. Nazism is not its official name and never was. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - "Nazism" is used more often in English, not only vernaculary, but by Anglophonic nazi parties also. Vol. IV of the Author's Works Including Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts, by Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and Then a Captain of Several Ships is an official name also. It was originally published and written that way until it was shortened by further generations. The same applies to "Nazism". Reginmund 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• CommentThe term is relative to time, to usage, and to cultures. There should be a more clear differientiation between this. The ideals of the socilistic party, and the corruption of it, as denoted by North American reference to the term. ie Nazi, feminazi,...--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs)
• Comment - An editor has pointed out that "Nazism isn't the only type of National Socialism" which is true, but it is not an argument for having to disambiguate to "National Socialism (Nazism)." The Nazi version was the original, and is the most widely known, thus the other versions of National Socialism should be disambiguated, but not the original. Besides, this is more of a theoretical argument than a real one, as the only other "National Socialism" article is Austrian National Socialism. This article should be named "National Socialism" and "Nazism" should redirect here. I'm all for using the common names of things for article titles, but that suggestion most commonly pertains to scientific vs. common names, which is not the case here. In the name of common usage, do we want to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the name of this movement was not "National Socialism"? What is an encyclopedia for, if not to get things right? For an example more pertinent to this discussion: we don't have a Car article, but we do have an article about the Automobile. I urge the editors who oppose this move to carefully reconsider. --Paul 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do the opposing side have any other argument than WP:COMMONNAME? Because really, that doesn't apply in this situation. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:14 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Comment That doesn't apply in this situation? If you are going to make a subtle point, you can't ignore Wikipedia's policy just because you are biased. The common name rule is perfectly legitimate in this argument. Besides that, the article also discusses the evolution of Nazism today which is referred to by many neo-nazi parties as "nazism" and not only by them but it is a generic term. More common than National Socialism. It should also be consistent with Nazi Party. Reginmund 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Excuse me, biased? What are you trying to insinuate here? This is ad populum arguments. In colloquial speech, you call it Nazism. But Nazism is an abbreviation, not a title of an ideology. The official name of this ideology, has always been National Socialism. It doesn't matter if Neo-Nazis are being called Nazis by the media. They are also being called "right-wing extremist," yet there's nothing right-wing about their political ideology (Nazism is anti-Capitalism, anti-Liberalism, anti-Christianity, anti-Democracy, etcetera). Oh and by the way, "Nazi Party" should be called National Socialist German Workers Party. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:18 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. Other arguments have been lifted before, see archive 5#Requested move. When I read historians, not only media, they use as much if not more Nazism than "National Socialism". Perhaps we don't read the same books, nor the same newspapers... Tazmaniacs 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Disregarding an official policy on Wikipedia because it contradicts your views is biased. FYI "Nazi" is not an abbreviation. It is a contraction. Nor it is a colloquialism. When it is used in formal writing such as by the BBC, it is not a colloquialism. Reginmund 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply An offical policy on Wikipedia, is just a guideline. It is not the LAW. Exceptions are possible. We are after all going to provide information and knowledge to the world, not adjust Wikipedia articles (and title of the articles) by what it is called by people who know nothing about the subject. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:03 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment - ...and that guideline instructs us on how to name the article correctly. I don't see how that is relevant to a comic book. Or how it makes a difference that we are going to provide knowledge to the world. Do you have any arguments for proving an exception on this article? Reginmund 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Reply The "LAW" reference was just sarcasm meant to ridicule your blind fanaticism to WP:COMMONNAME (I take it you haven't seen Judge Dredd (film)). Look, this is clearly a case where an exception must be made. Proper and official names, are preferable, rather than common names. For instance, we have, PS1, PS2 and PS3 all redirecting to PlayStation 1/2/3 because it's the OFFICIAL NAME. Contraction, abbreviation, whatever, doesn't matter. If it's an official name, then the official name has precedence over an informal slang. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:23 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment - This is not the place for ridicule or sarcasm. That borders on civility. If you have a point, post it. Don't ridicule other users. You won't be taken seriously. Now your comparison to the game console is irrelevant because truely "Nazism" has no official name. It is a generic ideology. PlayStation however does. That is why it is where it is. Again, there is no incorporated organisation that names the ideology. When names become generic, we don't go by their "official" names. That is why we don't name Shakespeare's plays by their preambles but how they are generically known. FYI again "Nazism" is not informal. I have already proven that to you. Reginmund 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Reply What's the matter, can't take a joke? Nazism, has an official name. It has always been called Nationa Socialism. Why do you think the "Neo-Nazi" parties are all called National Socialist? Examples: National Socialist Front, National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party, National Socialist Party of America, Russian National Socialist Party, National Socialist Vanguard, etcetera. I know this is extremely difficult to understand, but this ideology's official name, is National Socialism. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:03 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Ridicule borders on civility. If you want to make jokes, go to a message board. FYI Just because many organisations use "National Socialism" doesn't make it an official name. There are other organisations that use "Nazism" such as the American Nazi Party. There is no official entity that defines "Nazism". That is why it isn't an official name and no organisation monitors the English language. Reginmund 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply So you can't take a joke. Anyway, National Socialism is the official name. You were only capable of finding one defunct group, that uses Nazi. Look, do you know ANYTHING at all about this ideology? If you do, you will understand that it is a nationalistic version of socialism. "Nazism," did not come before National Socialism. You are desperately grasping for straws here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:51 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The English language does not have an academy and nor can you prove that Nazism has an "official" name. Nazism doesn't have an "official" website or an "official" headquarters. The American Nazi Party, defunct or not just goes to prove that "National Socialism" is not used exclusively by neo-Nazis. This is the last filibuster that I am posting unless you cease that incivil tripe of yours or I will report you to an admin for incivility.

You are desperately grasping for straws here

Reginmund 00:05, 12 September 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.

Sentence about Sparta removed

I've removed a sentence which used an anonymous web-site as its source. This article should cite what renowned historians have to say about Nazism, rather than let Hitler present his (in this case unpublished during Nazi-Germany) views in wikipedia.

--Schwalker 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just re-added it with a better source: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1484488 This is hardly an anonymous website. So give me another one. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:49 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give nazis a stage by quoting them directly in the article; cite what renowned historians say about Nazism; if and only if the historians use a nazi-quote to prove a point, than wikipedia can document this. Also please don't format my contributions on the talk-page.

--Schwalker 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please knock this off? Here's a scholarly source corroborating the fact that Hitler admired Sparta. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:45 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Please be polite. Hitler may, or may not, have admired Sparta, that is not the matter at discussion here. It is simply not a relevant add to an article about Nazism in general, not about Nazi eugenics. Furthermore, if you do add it to the latter entry, please change the formulation as it currently lead one to think that Sparta was indeed following eugenics policy, which can only be an anachronism. Finally, please review Primary sources, secondary sources & tertiary sources. Thanks, Tazmaniacs 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What Sparta did, was in fact, eugenics. Hitler, regarded it very accurately, as eugenics. It was an early form of eugenics, simple as that. By the way, it's just a one line sentence, it's not like it's three sections about Hitler's view of Sparta. That said, it belongs here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:02 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. And you might want to keep your anachronist interpretation of Sparta out of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is now already included in Nazi eugenics, that's enough. Tazmaniacs 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I took Evola out from the Exoteric Hitlerist, because he never was one. His philosophical thought is better described as Traditionalist or Perennialist. He was not "fascinated" by National Socialism, he more properly appreciated some aspects of National Socialism. Andrea Virga 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this page for 1 week, or until you achieve some kind of consensus. This is not an endorsement of the current version, nor does it mean you should stop the lively discussion you have going on. Discuss, don't edit war. --Haemo 18:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep it protected. The actual argument between the sides makes me wonder if something darker is going on here.--Mokru 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mokru, care to explain what you're trying to insinuate by "darker"? Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:27 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Walk up to any U.S. citizen and ask them "What do you think about the German National Socialist movement?" They won't know you're asking them about Nazism under Hitler. This might reflect poorly on U.S. citizens, but you'll atleast get something back if you ask about "Nazism." So if both terms are accurate and one has greater recognition, it should be generally acceptible, right? Unless there is a desire to obscure the history and past, and there is a desire to uplift the perception of nazism... Someone interested in pure history would accept either or both labels, but someone rejecting the more recognizable form seems worthy of scrutiny.---- Mokru (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Mokru. Of course, Wikipedia can't be based on what the average American knows (I hear some of them don't even know where to place Iraq on the map). I'm personally Someone interested in pure history would accept either or both labels, I don't reject the more recognizable form, which is Nazism, but I am of the opinion that the article should state very clearly, that National Socialism is the ideology's name in the lead, just as it highlights Nazism as its more common name in the lead. Here's a good example of how it should be done: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/National_Socialism — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally uncalled for

I honestly don't know what Schwalker's problem is, but he seems to have NPOV-issues as far as this topic goes. He removed the quote becase he thought the website was some kind of anonymous blog. I subsequently provided two other websites, one of which is a governmental one, where the quote is listed, which to me, complies with WP:RS. Why Schwalker wants the quote removed, is totally beyond me, but banning me from editing the article when I've done nothing wrong, seems like a very severe approach. Look, it's a Hitler quote, all right? If you can disprove this quote's validity, then it has nothing to do in the article (perhaps it should be in Adolf Hitler's Wikiquote misquoted section). However, so far, you haven't proven jackshit (excuse my French) as far as this quote being false goes. Why are you opposed to including this quote in the article? I just don't get it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:55 18 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a problem with this quote? It seems a fundamentally neutral thing to say that does not present any real problems of undue weight or POV. Hitler liked the Spartans. And? There shouldn't be one, unless you're an ardent Greek nationalist (general comment, not a personal attack). Moreschi ^Talk 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• First, because in accordance to Cite sources, the one legitimate source used is not "Hitler, Adolf (1961). Hitler's Secret Book (1961)", as User:EliasAlucard claims, but Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006; on-line on March 14, 2006), who cites Hitler.
• Second, because User:EliasAlucard has deformed Dónal P O'Mathúna's citation of Hitler, not only by claiming immediate access and references to Hitler, but also by claiming Hitler had said that Sparta was the first National-Socialist State. If you verify this source, you will only read that Hitler said: "Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state."
• Third, because on all there is to say about Nazi eugenics, this quote, deformed by User:EliasAlucard, is given undue weight. If that subsection should be enlarged, than it would be more important to speak about the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, Action T4 (euthanasia program) and Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics. Tazmaniacs 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, now you're completely making things up and this is basically slander. I did not deform anything, nor did I misattribute any quotes. I cited the sources verbatim in the {{cite web}} and gave my own completely NPOV summary of that quote. If you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the book. And yes, if it's a genuine Hitler quote, then it should be attributed to Hitler, because he said it. Doesn't matter if it's published in a book. If the originating source is reliable, then it should be attributed to Hitler. Period. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:14 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can stop writing User:EliasAlucard every time you mention my nick. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:21 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CITE#HOW: Say where you got it: It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.. Tazmaniacs 14:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting lame. Look here: [9] It's in the actual book, alright? I am not going to waste hours by going to the library and search for a quote. You can find this on the internet if you want it verified. Do you have something else to pester me about this? The quote is valid, and a genuine Hitler quote, as far as I'm concerned. The quote, should stay in the article because it's only a sentence. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:26 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Taz, do you have any actual reason to remove this sentence? It seems you're removing it because you dislike it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:02 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

The reasons have been exposed before. Your formulation is incorrect, one of the source used is not reliable for this matter (New Republic) and you do not attribute to the original article, claiming you directly read Hitler. Finally, this is giving undue weight to a detail about Nazi eugenics, and the only relevant entry for this "quote" is Nazi eugenics, not Nazism nor Eugenics. Tazmaniacs 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is: Hitler's Secret Book, page 8-9 and 17-18, also confirmed by this source. Adolf Hitler himself, wrote this stuff. And my summary of it is correct. It's even written in the book Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945 that it was Eugenics in Sparta. Your attribution to "quoted by Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006" is a joke; where are you getting this from? Also, have you even looked at how you've messed up that article? Two references sections? Do you have any idea of how Wikipedia works? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:57 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks and do not reverse history. Your first source was Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006, this is easy to verify by looking on history of the article (your dif). Do not change the debate on content on attacks against me, thank you. Tazmaniacs 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You see, now you're making up lies. I have never cited any "Dónal P O'Mathúna." I cited from the very beginning, Hitler's Secret Book. As for you, it's a fact, you have screwed up the Nazi eugenics article by making two reflists on it. You are not cooperating here. You are doing things your way without even knowing what you're doing. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:20 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

The point is precisely this: you claimed to cite Hitler when you were actually refering to Mathuna's article. Please remain civil. Tazmaniacs 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I referred to this source from the very beginning. After constant complaining from you and Schwalker, about it not being a reliable source (needless to say, that first source is very reliable), I subsequently provided a link to Mathuna's article where this quote was listed as something published by Hitler. After that, I decided to cite directly from the original source, because that's even more reliable. It never was about some obscure dude named "Mathuna", it was Hitler who said it from the very beginning. And by the way, when you attribute this quote to Mathuna, you are spreading lies. This quote, did not originate from Mathuna. And other editors agree that this quote is relevant, so please, leave it there. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:12 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Page protected, again

Okay, that's enough of this. I protected this, and immediately another edit war started up as soon as it was over. I'm tired of seeing this show up on my watchlist, and the fallout on WP:ANI, so I'm going rouge and putting some guidelines down for all of you:

• No more edit warring. I'm serious — it's totally unacceptable, and repeated page protections don't seem to be encouraging you to discuss, rather than edit war. As such, I'm imposing a 1 revert rule on this page; if you see an edit you disagree with, remove it once. If they user re-inserts it, then discuss, don't edit war. I will block you if you don't heed this warning.
• File a request for comment. I'm serious — get some outside views here on the inclusion, and quickly. Abide by consensus, when it's reached.
• 'Stop edit warring.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. --Haemo 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that it's getting ridiculous. To understand the Nazi ideology, you have to understand its Indo-European roots. The sentence about Sparta, is just about that: the Indo-European roots of Nazism. The Eugenics section, needs to be expanded upon; the part about Sparta is in my honest opinion, an important part of the Nazi eugenics, and the tiny excerpt about Sparta should be here as well. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:50 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

The "Indo-European roots of Nazism". Sic. And you claim to make Wikipedia NPOV? Tazmaniacs 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is totally uncalled for; be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors. --Haemo 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including the information about Adolf Hitlers views on Sparta, it is totally relevant to this article, by the way, killing deformed children was probably common in other ancient cultures, but it's a fact Hitler admired sparta in particular. Atomsgive 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do us a favour and stop calling children "deformed" on this page, thanks.--Schwalker 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you believe the term is offensive because it is analytically correct, maybe it could be reworded to disabled children, the only reason someone would have to keep this information out of this article is either they like Hitler so much as not to want to associate infanticide with him or they are somewhat ignorant supporters of ancient sparta Atomsgive 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Indo-European roots. I have to ask, since this is becoming more and more blatantly obvious: do you know anything at all about Nazism? What do you think Hitler based his ideology on? Why do you think they call it Aryan race? Why do you think Hitler praised Sparta and the use of the Swastika? Unbelievable. Perhaps you shouldn't try to be an expert on this topic when you have no clue or knowledge about it? — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:29 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your history lessons, Elias. Again, this is given undue weight, and should only be stated, in an appropriate manner (i.e. without claiming that Sparta was really following eugenic policies, an obvious anachronism), in the entry Nazi eugenics. The debate concerning the relevancy, or not, of citing Hitler and his (mis)interpretation of Sparta can be continued on Talk:Nazi eugenics#This article must not rely on primary nazi sources. Tazmaniacs 15:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartans killing and sacrificing deformed/disabled infants is an accepted fact is indeed a form of eugenics, it's not undue weight unless you can find some spartans that spoke out against the practice, and it is a fact that Adolf Hitler justified the later nazi practise of killing the old and disabled by saying the spartans had done the same. The information EliasAlucard added should be in this article, and we need more information like this, not less. Atomsgive 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, since it's clear now that you know NOTHING at all about Nazism, let me teach you one or two things about this ideology: it is an ideology more or less entirely based on the "Aryan race", which in this case, is the German people. This ideology, puts all the focus on improving the Aryan race. One way of doing that according to the Nazis, is eugenics. The section about Sparta is not given "undue weight", in fact, it belongs here because it's a crucial part of this ideology. Your last censorship of the quote on Nazi eugenics is just a way of trying to hide for the casual user what Hitler said about Sparta. You have basically everyone against you about this on the talk pages (except of course, Schwalker), and now you're resorting to just putting it in the footnotes because you don't want people to read what Hitler wrote. It seems like you two have some sort of POV-agenda behind this. I'm not the only one pointing this out. Dachannien and Atomsgive are also concerned about this. With good reason. This quote by Hitler, is obviously, offending you for some reason, only God knows why. I just cannot comprehend how and why this quote is so objectionable to you two. Hitler is dead and Nazism is defeated, get over it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:52 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, your well indented efforts are appreciated, but, please, help us converge here. Concede that the quote about Sparta (while possibly disturbing) is accurate and relevant. Also, everybody: please make an even bigger effort to keep calm. Mtarini 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This source confirms that Spartans were practising eugenics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:34 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

The quote about Sparta is highly relevant and should remain. It is not being given undue weight, eugenics was a strong component of the nazi ideology, anyone who denies this is simply being ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.106.7 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, particularly when participating in such a heated debate - you run the risk of making it look like "EliasAlucard" is logging out to support himself anonymously. Drewson99 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What is all the ‘passionate debate’ about? The city-state of Sparta indeed left newborn children failing their physical standards for infants to die. This is documented in plenty of places to settle this debate. (Please go Google as I won’t introduce more debate fodder.) Many other cultures did the exact same with newborns (kindly Google again). It’s been put forth here that Hitler admired the Spartan culture, including the policies regarding (excuse the term) substandard Spartan children and sources have been cited. Perhaps someone can educate me as to why this hasn’t satisfied the needed criteria and halted the apparent editwar. Thanks in advance. Joliver375 (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondary and primary sources

There has been back and forth editing recently in this article concerning the use and inclusion of some quotes from primary sources by J. Goebbels and A. Hitler. In order to describe and explain the ideology and politics of National Socialism, should primary source texts by Nazi politicians be used for the article, or should the article rely on scholary secondary sources on the subject? 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the light of rules such as WP:RS#Scholarship, WP:RS#Extremist_sources, and WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion this article should use "established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers", but (when possible) avoid to take quotes directly from primary Nazi sources. --Schwalker 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what the quotes are used for. If they are used illustratively, that is, to provide color and further detail for factual claims that are also cited to secondary sources, then they're fine. If they are used to establish facts that are not documented in secondary sources, then the interpretation of those quotes may be an original research problem.

In short: If a scholar says "The Nazis did thus-and-so" and we quote Hitler as saying "Thus-and-so is good for the Volk!" then that's fine. But if our only evidence of a more subtle or disputed proposition is a quote from Hitler, that's not so fine. --FOo 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good arguments. I agree. Hitler's words should not be used to establish facts. That being said, Hitler can be quoted.EconomistBR 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well put. While Hitler's words should never be used to establish facts, they can be efficaciously used to establish what nazism said about itself and what it meant to the nazists (however much this wicked theory goes against our principles). Am I right?

For example: if the Nazism took (imagined or factual) Sparta eugenetic practices as a model, quoting Hitler saying so can be used, not to say anything about Sparta, but to inform the reader about one (horrible) aspect of nazism. Mtarini 12:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article deals not just with material actions, but also with the ideology of nazism. So the ideology itself belongs to the facts, too. The ideology of Nazism is not just what the one man Hitler said, but also includes what the different parts of the German population, and what the precursors of Nazism thought. Thus I think, the article can't leave it to Hitler to explain "what nazism said about itself and what it meant to the nazists", but has to go back to scholary sources.

I think I can agree with FOo's interpretation of the thus-and-so example, but only if there really is a causal relationship between what Hitler said and what the Nazis did. The problem with the Second Book is, that it was kept secret during Nazi-Germany. Thus nobody except Hitler himself could know its contents. So wouldn't it (to say the least) be misleading to use this book as a primary source in this article?

--Schwalker 18:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments about conservatism

I had removed two sentences which had been inserted and now have been re-inserted by IP 69.137.184.101 (this page's rules don't allow me an immediate revert):

• It (Nazism) is certainly anti-liberal and pro-conservative in modern politics.
• The strong sense of nationalism (of historical fascists) can now be found in the Republican Party and other conservative parties in the world.

These are political attacks on modern conservative parties. There is no source given for who makes these claims. --Schwalker 11:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about National Socialism, knows that it is anti-liberal, and pro-conservative. I wouldn't call the Republican Party nationalist though. Schwalker, your POV is getting more and more obvious. You consider it an attack if someone points that that there is a correlation between Nazism's conservative and anti-liberal features, and the conservative features found in "Right-Wing" parties. You are not being NPOV here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:49 17 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Two leading scholars on fascism (in which they include Nazism) Roger Griffin and Stanley Payne see it as an anti-conservative movement. -- Vision Thing -- 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Source please? By the way, Fascism and Nazism, are not the same thing. Nazism, is not a subcategory of Fascism. If these so called scholars are of the opinion that Nazism is a type of Fascism, then we should disregard their opinion altogether. However, if you by "conservative" mean right-wing, then yes, these scholars are right about that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:44 18 Oct, 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)

Response to RfC

Just a quick comment on your RfC about primary and secondary sources. There is an abundance of scholarly material on Nazism, so in this case it really should not be necessary to go beyond that. Couldn't you just cite the primary sources as examples when a secondary source cites them? You might want to have a look at the article Islam, where some editors could not understand that there was a problem with quoting the Qu'ran directly. The article is now written up from a variety of secondary sources and has reached FA status. HTH. Itsmejudith 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just undid a three word bit of vandalism. I don't understand why people do these things. Wowest 06:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. We have vandalism and counter-vandalism now. Pro-Nazi, Anti-Nazi. I don't know how to revert this that many revisions. Would someone who knows how to please handle it? Wowest 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I had this article added to my watchlist two weeks ago and the Vandalism is terrible. Has it always been this way? To handle those amounts of Vandalism one has to look through the edit history and find the last correct version, revert to that and add all honest changes that were done later back in. But I don't have the time to do this now, probably tomorrow. If this vandalism continues, I will ask this article to be semi-protected, see: Wikipedia:Protection policy. Zara1709 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialism and homophobia as categories?

O.K. -- I can see deleting socialism, as the Nazis were socialist in name only, but there was definite homophobia at work. Jews, Gypsies and homosexual men were routinely murdered. Or so the History Channel tells us. Hmm. Any other comments on homophobia? Wowest 09:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Socialists in name only"? Communism doesn't have a copyright on Socialism, the Nazis were just as much Socialists as Stalin was. See, biased POV statements like this is exactly why this article isn't called National Socialism, because some who favour Socialism just cannot handle that Nazism was a form of Socialism. Who deleted Socialism? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:32 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Huh, slow down a litte. Both Nazism and Stalin's version of Socialism can be described as Totalitarianism, but if you want to debate whether Nazism was a form of Socialism, we would have to take an in-depth look on the economic policy of Nazi Germany. Zara1709 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was an anti-Capitalist economy, it was strictly regulated, and it was Socialistic economy. In fact, Sweden, after World War II, applied the exact same welfare system as Nazi Germany had. And no one argues that Sweden wasn't a Socialist country at the time. Did I mention that Sweden also applied eugenics at the time, and forced sterilization? Look, Nazi Germany was a Socialist country, combined with extreme Nationalism. This is very easy to understand if you are objective. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:42 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Nazism is very Homophobic, this is because it goes against their ideal, the nuclear family. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:47 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Well, currently this article doesn't list any specific anti-capitalist measures that the Nazis did IMPLEMENT. There surely was no massive disappropriation of capitalist similar what happened in the Sovjet Union. Unless of course you want to claim the measures against the Jews (including the Jewish capitalists), where anti-capitalist. But then I think it would make no use to discuss this further. Anyway, I have no intention of sorting this question out in the article at the moment. Zara1709 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But it may mean there are no sources for that information. --Neon white 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because this article doesn't list that much about its Socialist economy, or anti-Capitalist economy, it doesn't mean Nazism isn't Socialism. I mean, you don't define Nazism after the current revision of this poor article. And the Soviet Union isn't the only authority on what is and what isn't Socialism. Look, it's not like the Third Reich had a Capitalist economy, I think we can agree on that much, no? — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:43 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand your notion of socialism correctly. You would call both the swedish welfare state and the Soviet Union under Stalin socialist? Zara1709 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You misinterpreted me when I wrote, Communism doesn't have a copyright on Socialism, the Nazis were just as much Socialists as Stalin was. I wrote that because no one accuses Stalin of not being a Socialist. Anyway, Nazi Germany and Sweden both had similar Socialist economy, it wasn't Communism Socialism, but Socialism nonetheless. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:47 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Even thought the german nazi party emerged from a socialist workers movement they were socialist in name only. State ownership of production was never a priority or stated ideal and they did not further such an interest while in power. Companies like porsche and volkswagon were never state owned. All the left wing socialist members who would have such ideals were removed by 1934. It is even less an ideal of modern neo-nazism. Whilst the state did have strict controls over industry and production whether that can be called socialism is very contentious. Almost all definitions of socialism cite the state ownership of property and industry as a key principle. --Neon white 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Neon white said. Please explain the differences between Socialism and Communism, in your view! Because I would describe Stalin's economic policy as socalist and the swedish welfare state as social-democratic, and I am sure this is the common usage of terms. Zara1709 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very true that the USSR (Union of soviet socialist republics), whilst often erroneous called so, was never communist. Modern centre-left parties with social policies are often mislabeled 'socialist' because of the perceived origins of the policies in socialism. --Neon white 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Socialism? (continued)

All these points are irelavant anyway, being in the wikipedia category of 'socialism' doesn't mean the subject of the article is defined as socialist, it merely means that an article is linked to socialism which the nazi party were even if only in origin. --Neon white 17:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the German article is titled "Nationalsozialismus", not "Nazismus", but they don't use the category "Socialismus". I would say that the catory "socialism" is not justified because of Nazism is linked to Socialism, but I, for my part, won't bother with the discussion about this. Zara1709 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly would that not justify it? --Neon white 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

State ownership is not mandatory for Socialist states. It was a Socialist economy in Nazi Germany, though of course, not as extreme Socialism as in the USSR. It's not like Nazi Germany was a Capitalist state, it was exactly what the name implies: National Socialist. As for state ownership of just about everything, class struggle, and typical Marxist Socialism, that's Marx' view of Socialism. He did not create Socialism and it's actually inaccurate to use his Socialism as the de facto standard of all things Socialism. You have to remember, Nazism is not a Marxist Socialism; it differs in many ways from Marxism, but it's still Socialism. By the way, it wasn't Socialist in name only, it was Socialism, but a Nationalist version. There were other elements, like Strasserism which advocated a greater emphasis on Nazism's Socialist aspects, but Hitlerism was the more Nationalist version. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:54 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

State ownership of production is the primary principle of socialism. Without that your economy isnt socialist. There were many companies and individuals that did make money out of the war suggesting the ability to raise capital still existed which it wouldnt in a socialist state. The name is derived from the origins of the party and as i pointed out all of the original left wing party members were removed by 1934. Socialism was essentially created by Marx. There may have been other socio-ecomonic movements but the term 'socialism' refers to his ideas. I believe he coined the term to refer to his particular economic system therefore that is it's meaning. --Neon white 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

State ownership of production is the primary principle of socialism. — False. That may be a primary principle in Marxist Socialism, but not Socialism in general. Without that your economy isnt socialist. — Yeah? How so? There are other aspects that define a Socialist economy, like for instance welfare, the rich pay higher taxes, etcetera. State ownership isn't mandatory. And of course, needless to say, anti-Capitalism, which Hitler obviously was. Socialism was essentially created by Marx. — Not true. Socialism has its roots in the French Revolution, which occurred around a century or so before the ideas of Marx began circulating and gaining ground amongst intellectuals. It's true however that Marx developed his own Socialism (Marxism), and contributed a lot to the ideas of Socialism, he didn't really create anything. Also, have in mind that there are lots of different varieties of Socialism outside of the Communism/Nazism spectra, for instance, Arab Socialism (Saddam/Baath party, differs a lot from Marxism), Social Democracy, and so on. Socialism does not imply a Communism type of Socialism. The only people who cannot handle that Nazism is a form of Socialism, are usually Communists and other leftists. By the way, do you seriously believe that an entire nation, the most intellectual state on earth at the time (or one of anyway), did not know the definition of its own ideology? Socialism is just a social (social as in society) form of politics, it doesn't mean, and it is not synonymous with Karl Marx. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:33 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary (definitive in the U.S. by law) says: (http://m-w.com/dictionary/socialism)

Main Entry:      so·cial·ism 
Pronunciation:   \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ 
Function:        noun 
Date:            1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

---

O.K. -- pick a definition!

---

Wowest 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we use a better definition:

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

You can't exactly say that Nazi Germany had a liberal economy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:59 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

But you couldn't say either that it had state ownership. You need some intermediate category. Try Corporatism. Zara1709 08:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialism is not synonymous with state ownership, as I've said, there are other aspects. By the way, you should read this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:17 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

but it is, that's socialism, 'collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production'. Socialism as a theory was created by Marx. Of course there were social movements before him but i believe he coined the term to refer to his ideas. The Baath party were stalinist by the way. Your knowledge on the subject seems to be severely lacking. not having a liberal economy does not mean you are immediately socialist, there are many diverse systems of economy. It's simply wrong to define anything that isn't liberal capitalism as socialism. Socialism has a definiton, you cant twist that to fit nazism. There was capitalism, There was private property. State ownership wasn't an ideal. Whether you like it or not history dictates that social reformists were forced out of the nazi party. If you'd actually read any nazi throry you'd know that hitler was quite derisive about the earlier National Socialist Program of the DAP and NSDAP. To quote the page: -

"Henry A. Turner holds that many of the program's vague calls for economic reform and pro-labor legislation, as well as its endorsement of democratic politics, went directly contrary to Hitler's own social Darwinist views and dictatorial ambitions. Furthermore, he noted that the program's calls for land reform and anti-trust legislation threatened the interests of the big business tycoons whose support and funding Hitler was trying to acquire (though his efforts in this direction proved largely unsuccessful). Since he could not abolish the program entirely without causing a stir among the party's voters, Hitler chose to ban all discussion of it instead and hoped it would be largely forgotten."

There is so much evidence to suggest that the nazi party under hitler was not interested in socialist policies. --Neon white 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So, in your expert opinion, what kind of economic-system did Hitler advocate? I would also like to see some of your evidence. It's also quite arguable that Hitler, or the Nazi Party (which was the state) owned the industry simply due to Totalitarianism. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:27 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I just provided evidence from Henry Ashby Turner noted scholar of german history. He maintains that hitler all but banned the national socialist program. My believe is that the economics of nazi germany were not driven by any ideaogy on the nazi's part but, like many countries involved in WW2, they were driven by the war itself and the necessity for planned resources and production during a lengthy war. You probably wont find too much difference between the war time economies of nazi germany and britain at the time despite them having very difficult politics. --Neon white 21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already been told. Nazi Germany, like its brother fascist states, was corporatist in economic policy. The political compass explains pretty well with an analysis based on the most mainstream and reliable sources. That's only a summary; their small piece is based on the work of major encyclopaedias and scholars. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

From your own link: “So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc.” In other words, Self-pwnage! — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:10 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want toengage in the most outrageous display of selective reading I've ever seen, sure. Nazism incorporates some elements of socialism; it is not socialist. The modern welfare state incorporates some elements of socialism. I never said Nazism and socialism had zero relation whatsoever. If you think that justifies categorising Nazism as a strain of socialism, you must also believe that justifies categorising Nazism as a strain of capitalism. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialism is not necessarily state ownership of the means of production. What about anarchists? A key point in the Merriam-Webster definition above that some seem to be conveniently ignoring is "collective" ownership of the means of production. This gets people all turned upside down and promotes the impression that "Socialism = state-controlled economy, therefore state-controlled economy = socialism", which is simply false. Mercantilism was an economic system that featured state control, and I would be very impressed if someone could successfully argue that this was a socialist. This is not to say the Nazis' economic policy didn't feature characteristics of socialism. The ideology informing this policy, however, was not socialist (equality and social justice for workers) but nationalist (implementing these socialist features to benefit the state).FrostyNorth (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should all pause to think that we’re trying to label something that defies labeling. Not every peg will fit into a square hole. The Nazi brand of what they labeled National Socialism might not have fit with the other political systems out there already. Considering everything else that didn’t ‘fit’ this might come to no surprise.

Perhaps someone should spell out what the Nazi brand of National Socialism was, from the ground up, as opposed to making connections with other forms of government. Someone a lot more able than I. Joliver375 (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An ideology cannot be totalitarian

The first sentence is an absurd. One cannot call an ideology (ideology is a system of political ideas or doctrines) totalitarian. Totalitarianism is one way of carrying out a certain ideology; and as we don't know whether the case of Germany was/is the first and the last attempt to fulfil nazism, we cannot be sure if nazism always requires totalitarian methods or not. One can say: nazism is an ideology which had so far used totalitarian methods to carry out its politics/policies. 195.50.200.246 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The means to achieve an ideology can still be part of the ideology. Nazism refers to system of government under the nazi party in germany and it's subsequent influence. Totalitarian was an integral part of it. --Neon white 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an ideology can be totalitarian, if it calls for totalitarian rule -- just as an ideology can be democratic, if it calls for democratic rule. Nazi ideology incorportates Fuehrerprinzip, racial supremacy and domination, and a fascist conception of the state. These require totalitarianism. --FOo 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you studied the elementary theory of what political doctrines and ideologies are and how they function? 195.50.200.246 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the page continues to irritate me. I have read The Origins of Totalitarianism twice, and of course I would speak of totalitarian ideology when it comes to Nazism and Stalin's version of Socialism. Zara1709 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"IDEOLOGY is a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture and/or a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture, and/or the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program." - Assertions, theories and aims, NOT MEANS. If you call an ideology either totalitarian or democratic, then (neo-)liberalism is certainly democratic, isn't it? Yes, it is democratic, when it is carried out in today's Denmark or Germany, but what about Augusto Pinochet and Chile? An ideology can call for BOTH totalitarian AND democratic rule. 195.50.200.246 08:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all the elementary reviews of ideologies emphasize that: IDEOLOGY = IDEAS, THOUGHTS, CONCEPTS, NOTIONS, CONCEPTIONS. Louis Althusser, in his work "Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatuses", writes the following:

Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.

(Louis Althusser, LENIN AND PHILOSOPHY AND OTHER ESSAYS, Monthly Review Press New York and London, p. 162)

This means that the ideology is something that represents something imaginary (ideas, thoughts, conceptions are imaginary). And so we come to admit that the ideology has no direct connection with reality, and we must regard ideologies as IDEAS or THOUGHTS -- unlike the first sentence of this article which tries to connect the IMAGINARY THOUGHTS with the German reality. As a comparison, the beginning of the article concerning communism:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

It would also be possible to start the article of communism like that: "Communism refers primarily to the totalitarian ideology that ruled in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and so forth..." Rannit 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that would not be possible. Surely Communism (also) refers to The Communist Manifesto, and not primarily to the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao, and Cuba is actually not that totalitarian... We should not have had this article semi-protected. Now people spam the discussion page with weird statements. I don't know how somone can quote Althusser and at the same time not remember that the word 'Communism' goes back at least to the Communist Manifesto (unlike the word Nazism, which has been coined for a specific 20th century movement.) Zara1709 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had the ability to think and analyse, you would understand that Rannit quoted Althusser in the context of the theory of ideologies, not in connection with communism. 195.50.200.246 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Zara, have you ever studied the history of the twentieth century from other sources except Wikipedia too? Do you think the Soviet Union was totalitarian only under the regime of Stalin?? Rannit 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, with all my abilty to think I don't get why someone who has read Althusser would like apply the term Communism primarily to Communist states, regardless in which context he quoted him. Seriously, I fail to understand most of what has been recently written on this discussion page, and I don't want to analyze it further. In the corrosponding German article they still have an edit war about whether Nazism was anti-democratic or anti-liberal. I will do my best to stay away from something similar here, and thus will take the article of my watchlist now! Don't expect any replies.

Concerning the Soviet Union, read Hannah Arendt. Zara1709 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is typical that when people haven't got sufficient arguments, they just say : "I don't want any criticism more!... I don't want to discuss this subject any more!" If you don't understand most of what has been written here, maybe you are incompetent in the corresponding matter? Now, perhaps the definition of nazism should be something like that of fascism:

Fascism is an political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity through oppression and coercion, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

Rannit 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism is generally seen as totalitarian. For example, see article in Britannica about it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, arguments like "it is generally seen as..." are not convincing. And Britannica isn't concentrated on ideological topics and there are the so-called "popular" definitions, not those composed of scientists. We must make a difference between nazism AS AN IDEOLOGY and nazism AS A CERTAIN POLITICAL SYSTEM IN GERMAN HISTORY. If the article aims at describing the political system, then I'll agree; but if the goal is to introduce the national socialist ideology, then it is a gross mistake to call it totalitarian. 195.50.200.246 08:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference, the ideology of nazism is the ideology of the nazis, That's kinda why it's called that. --Neon white 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, academic consensus, as you've been shown, is clearly that Nazism is inherently totalitarian — e.g., that totalitarianism, or at least the desire for it, is a part of the ideology. No such thing can be said about communism. Marxism-Leninism, perhaps, but certainly not communism. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are typical dilettantes... that's why people attend universities, and so did I, to study thoroughly the politics and history. That statement about communism does not deserve the labour of criticising, because it is, to put it mildly, idiotic. 195.50.200.246 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, to summarise, you have not responded to either offering. People often shelter under ad hominem when they cannot counter an argument. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should first name some arguments to your statement: "Well, academic consensus, as you've been shown, is clearly that Nazism is inherently totalitarian — e.g., that totalitarianism, or at least the desire for it, is a part of the ideology. No such thing can be said about communism. Marxism-Leninism, perhaps, but certainly not communism." When there are no arguments, I cannot counter any argument. 195.50.200.246 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That didn't make too much sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. You have yet to come up with anything convincing that says totalitarianism can't possibly, for some absurd reason, be part of nazi idealogy. You're essentially arguing that hitler didnt plan to be a dictator, that he didn't believe in centralized government or complete control. --Neon white 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the article

Why does the first sentence of this article describe its subject pejoratively, while at the same time the article concerning communism starts as follows:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.

Perhaps THIS ARTICLE should also be NEUTRAL and describe the content and ideas of nazism? 195.50.200.246 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about the lead that isn't neutral. --Neon white 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The German article beginns as follows:

Der Nationalsozialismus ist eine radikal antisemitische, antiliberale, antimarxistische und antidemokratische Weltanschauung und politische Bewegung, die in Deutschland nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg entstand.

To translate the sentence: National socialism is a radically anti-semitist, anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-democratic ideology and political movement that originated in Germany after the First World War. Perhaps such a beginning would be more adequate? Rannit 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is better this way you proposed. But the whole introduction is coherent and we cannot just change the first sentence without re-writing the rest of it. So if others also agree with such a beginning you should try to re-formulate the entire introduction. 195.50.200.246 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservative or Socialist

An edit war is under way over whether the Nazis were conservatives, one of many such edit wars associating Nazis with your party of choice. That the Nazis resemble party X is not a question that can be addressed in an encyclopedia. What can be addressed is how parties and politicians in the Weimar Republic perceived themselves and each other, or claimed to perceive themselves and each other. The Nazis believed themselves socialists and revolutionaries. The conservative parties did not believe the Nazis to be conservatives. If you want to associate the Nazis with party X, find a Weimar Republic politician or think tank associating the Nazis with party X – not as evidence that they really were like party X, but as evidence of the politics happening at the time.

If we are going to revisit the edit war as to whether the Nazis supported capitalism or socialism, let us at least quote communists of the Weimar Republic calling them supporters of capitalism, and capitalists of the Weimar Republic calling them supporters of socialism – inserting actual evidence that tends to support the conclusions we desire, while leaving the conclusions unstated.

James A. Donald 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not do what you are claiming. There is nothing that you are trying to remove that compares the nazis to any party or person. The is no consensus here to remove all claims that the party were conservative in nature. I think there are plenty of sources to suggest that part of the ideals of the nazis was to rooted in historical German nationalism. Parts of your edits were completely unsourced but i will give you the chance to source them. Please stick to facts and keep the article within NPOV guidelines. I have tried to incorporate them without removing too much material. --Neon white 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That the Nazis were conservative is controversial: Nazis are revolutionaries. To assert it in Wikipedia is a violation of NPOV. You can insert sourced material that might incline the reader to the view that Nazis were conservatives, but to simply assert it is a gross violation verging on vandalism. You also deleted my criticism of your edits in this talk page, and your reply to it, and the criticisms that many other have made of you. It is completely improper to delete other people's criticisms of your edits made on the talk page James A. Donald 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs)

Not really, its a widely held belief, they had conservative beliefs and consevative supporters, see Viscount Rothermere, a well known consevative that supported the nazis. You cannot deny that nationalism and conservatism are very much linked. The idea of shared ethnic heritage is at the heart of cultural conservatism. They were very much influenced by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck's work 'Das Dritte Reich' it which he specifically used the term 'conservative revolution'. Martin Heidegger was also a major critic of modern technology and believe it the 'conservation of racial inheritance' It is nowhere near a violation of NPOV, it's a cited fact that the nazis were known as conservative whether you like it or not. Nazism and fascism are both distinguished by the haunting presence of strongly conservative elements This point is clearly disputed amongst scholars so the article needs to present a balanced view, attempting to remove all reference to conservatism because of a personal view does not make the article NPOV. I did not delete anything on this talk page they were moved to the correct place at the bottom of the page. Your baseless personal accusations violate wikipedia etiquette and will not be tolerated as does your POV pushing. You have been warned. --Neon white 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Two major scholars on fascism Roger Griffin and Stanley Payne see fascism as anti-conservative. Griffin says that anticonservatism is one of the features common to all forms of fascism (including National Socialism) [10] and Payne in his A History of Fascism lists anticonservatism as one of the fascist negations. -- Vision Thing -- 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascism incorporated elements of socialism, but opposed socialism. Fascism incorporated elements of conservatism, but opposed conservatism. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism co-opted elements of many movements. For instance, their ideologies could be stated in religious terms to sway religious audiences, while the fascist state suppressed religious movements that could not be suborned to serve the state. The Nazi Party organized social activities for workers and for children, copying tactics from syndicalism; but the Nazis were certainly not syndicalist in their economic or labor policies. Both Nazism and Fascism drew support from conservatives for their devout anticommunism, but opposed any conservative power base that failed to support them. --FOo 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:SwitChar and User:Fubar Obfusco are both precisely on the mark here. Like most fascist parties, the Nazis were very eclectic, especially in their rhetoric. Once in power (and especially after the Night of the Long Knives) they (mis-)governed from the right, but in a manner that had little to do with conservatism, and even less to do with socialism (except in the sense that "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools"). - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why i think the article needs to mention it because there are scholarly sources that call them 'conservative'. The whole principle of preserving genetic heritage, which i think we can agree, was at the root of most if not all hitler's policies can be described as conservative. Van den Bruck's term 'conservative revolution' essentialy meant a major movement against the forces which would change germany, namely the communists. --Neon white 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics (what you call "preserving genetic heritage") has little to do with political conservatism. And van den Bruck was dead by the time the Nazis were politically relevant (and I don't think he was ever a member of the party, was he?)

If you have a view you want to get into the article, could you give an example of a scholar who holds the view you want to present, so that people can look at the relevant article by that scholar? - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Conserving genetic heritage is surely conservative. Van den Bruck works were known to be a major influence on nazi idelogy and he met with hitler in 1922. The idea of the third reich as a third germanic ethnic empire, came from his work of the same title. The fact that it was to be the third germanic empire suggests a certain amount of nationalism routed in the past which is very much part of conservatism --Neon white 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazism, fascism, communism, socialism, etc. which doesn't function like a capitalist-based anti-authoritarian multiparty democracy is considered morally wrong, kinda "evil" or just not politically correct in the eyes of most Americans whether they are conservative, liberal or moderate, and in Republican, Democrat or third parties...but Americans today like post WWI Germany began to sense their government hasn't worked, despite the belief "we the people" and elected representative government of the U.S., but to me Nazism was far-right with limited socialist elements and so was Mussolini's "corporate state/social republic".

I feel the same way about many forms of Communism (i.e. Stalinism) was far-left adapted totalitarian ideas like the "cult of personality" and the opposition to individual human rights was shared by the Nazis. One claims Hitler was a fanatic nationalist, religious zealot, antileftist and militarist, but the other pointed out he was an atheist, national socialist, and was a young liberal in 1914 Vienna who hated the Hapsburgs and the Catholic church. Which makes better sense? An ultra-rightist in the socialist left category of the modern-day political spectrum? + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Category attack"

--Neon white 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard reverted my removal of Category:Discrimination, Category:Socialism, and Category:Homophobia from the article, with the edit summary "reverting category attack".

I would suggest that Category:Socialism here is particularly tendentious: as discussed above, it is just as inappropriate as it would be to include Category:Conservatism, and certainly more inappropriate than Category:Anti-communism. "Discrimination" in this case is a horribly euphemistic term for "genocide", but in any case the topic of this article is Nazism, not the policies of the Nazi regime, so it's a dubious inclusion. Similarly, the Nazi party was (at least post Night of the Long Knives) duly homophobic, but so have been quite a few other German political parties. Take a gander at Paragraph 175: for decades, West Germany's record of jailing homosexuals actually exceeded the Nazis', although at least they were placed in ordinary prisons rather than in deadly camps. Sadly, their homophobia is an area where the Nazis were arguably not far from the mainstream of their time (except, again, in their use of concentration camps).

But more to the point: if any of these categories are deemed appropriate, then Category:Nazism should be a subcategory of those categories, and it is redundant to include them in the article itself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I will give a long reply later in a few hours. I'm a sort of busy at the moment. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 09:30 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

the topic of this article is Nazism, not the policies of the Nazi regime. That makes no sense, what do you think nazism refers to, if not the nazi regime? The nazis discriminated against and killed alot of gay people, what anyone else did at the time is not relevant. --Neon white 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, whether some hardcore leftists/socialists/marxists like it or not, Nazism is a Socialist ideology, and both Communism and Nazism have a lot in common, more so than most nazis and communists would like to admit. Now, you might say, 'Marx defined Socialism, his Socialism is the only version that should be accepted as the standard model for everything Socialism.' I personally don't agree with that, but it's not up to me, you, or anyone else to decide what Socialism is. Hitler, considered himself a Socialist, and he considered the Communists as his enemies. This is true. He considered their version of Socialism, to be a Judeo-Bolshevik version of Socialism and that is why he hated their Socialism. Now, this debate whether Nazism is a Socialism or not, is not a new discussion. It's been going on ever since the second world war stopped. I am not going to discuss it anymore than it has been discussed, but some leftists simply have to accept that this was in all aspects, more or less, a Socialism based on Nationalist foundations. As hard as it can be to realise this for leftists, we who aren't Socialists, usually tend to agree on Nazism being a Socialist ideology. Homophobia? If Nazism isn't homophobic, then neither is Islam homophobic. Discrimination? I disagree that it's an euphemism for genocide. Nazism is an ideology based on the Indo-Aryan/European races and specifically, the German/Germanic peoples. Any group of people who are non-German and/or considered to be of no good or a threat to the German race, will be discriminated, and yes, in some cases, it can even lead to genocide. I see no problem with these categories being here. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:13 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

• The socialism in National Socialism does not make Nazism a socialist ideology. This is the consensus reached on many, many discussions on Wikipedia talk pages, and in many political/historical texts. Pretty much the only people who claim that Nazism is a socialist ideology are extreme free-market supporters who oppose almost all government intervention in the economy, and third position SA/Stasserite-types who want Nazism and neo-Nazism to appear to be a progressive ideology.Spylab 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler certainly did not considered himself a Socialist. As i pointed out many times he banned all talk of the national socialist program. Your posts are becoming more and more incoherent as your POV pushing starts a POV that is based on a serious misunderstanding not only of the nazi regime but of politics in general. The categorizrd does not mean they were socialist it means they are linked the socialism, which they were. --Neon white 12:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• New comment posted after below comments were posted: No, putting it in the socialism category implies that Nazism is a socialist ideology, which it is not. Lots of topics are "related" to Nazism, but do not necessarily belong as categories in this article (e.g. conservativism, capitalism, Catholicism, Paganism, the occult, homoeroticism, Volkswagon, IBM, etc.).Spylab 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For exactly the reasons stated by Spylab, I believe Category:Socialism should simply be removed.

Category:Nazism is already included in Category:Homophobic violence. It is their violence against gays, not their homophobia, that distinguishes the Nazis from many other political parties of the time in this respect. We do not normally include categories at multiple levels of the hierarchy. Again, it is redundant to include supercategories of Category:Nazism in the article itself.

As remarked above, Category:Discrimination is, at best, horribly euphemistic, but I'm less concerned with this than the other inclusions; once again, though, if valid it belongs on Category:Nazism, not on the article.

I stand by my view that these categories should not be on the article, but I've already removed them once and was simply reverted by EliasAlucard. I'm not looking for an edit war, but I hope he is not either (which is to say, if someone else removes them, I hope Elias will show as much restraint as I am showing). - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

After all the discussion that has gone on, it's clear that at the very least this argument should be moved from Nazism to Category:Nazism. I'm removing the categories from this article; if anyone wishes to discuss this further, please raise the issue at Category talk:Nazism, not here. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 06:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

None has yet come up with any reason why these categories have nothing to do with nazism. The only thing being posted here are POVs. Especially the ludicrous claim that a categoty is 'euphemistic'. The discussion is about this page so it belongs here. --Neon white 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Except for socialism (where there is a clear argument that the connection to Nazism is tendentious, as would be Category:Conservatism) the argument isn't that they "have nothing to do with nazism". Don't set up straw men. It's that we don't attach supercategories of categories that are already attached: that "homophobia" is redundant to "homophobic violence" and that if Category:Discrimination belongs, it should be attached to Category:Nazism, not to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism

In the section beginning "Nazi thinking had an anticapitalist (and especially anti-finance capitalist) direction", which is currently marked as original research or non-trivial synethesis: can we perhaps solve the issue simply by changing that sentence to "The Nazis often used anticapitalist (and especially anti-finance capitalist) rhetoric"? That is certainly borne out by the two paragraphs that follow. - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A point about religion

Quoting this article on wikipedia:

[Hitler] preached that his was a "true" or "master" religion, because it would "create mastery" and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions.

Contrasted with this other, from a book review on about.com

In “Michael,” the evil of Communism finds its greatest enemy in Christ, who is elevated as the ideal expression of “German” socialism: “The idea of sacrifice first gained visible shape in Christ. Sacrifice is intrinsic to socialism. ... The Jew, however, does not understand this at all. His socialism consists of sacrificing others for himself. This is what Marxism is like in practice.... The struggle we are now waging today until victory or the bitter end is, in its deepest sense, a struggle between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love. Marx: the principle of hate.”

The quotes on the review are from Joseph Goebbels, however. But I think that it suggests that it's necessary to work a bit on it. The excerpt of the wikipedia's article suggests (at least to me) a somewhat simplistic notion that Hitler's religious views were purely "anti-love" (like some super-villain you'd expect from the carebears cartoon), as if love and tolerance by itselves were "in contravention to the facts", while perhaps these "facts" were some reasonings of him concluding that only aryans were supposed to be accepted/loved/tolerated. --Extremophile 04:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Outdated cites

The first four paragraphs of this entry are almost entirely based on outdated cites that do not reflect current scholarship on Nazism. They need to be rewritten based on scholarly studies published in the past 20 years. Otherwise marginal and outdated claims will continue to distort this entry.--Cberlet 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently even the slightest change casues frustration. Reversion without discussion other than a crisp edit summary is hardly useful. There are a number of issues in the lead:

• Nazism was a form of national socialism. It may have been the main form, it may be the best known form, it is not the only form, which is why time after time most editors support the disambiguation page for National Socialism.

• In the past 20 years, a number of scholars, especially Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, and Gentile have argued that there were both ideological and cultural core elements of both Fascism and Nazism. Not all agree on what they are, but the claim that Nazism lacked substance ideologically is no longer the main current concept in the social sciences.

• the text: "Nazism consisted of a loose collection of positions focused on those held to blame for Germany's defeat and weakness" violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In light of recent scholarship, this claim, although popular in the 1950s and 1960s, is now outdated.

I will start with some basic edits, and we can go from there.--Cberlet 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "a form of National Socialism"? Nazism is the original National Socialism ideology that was created in the 1920's, and 1930's in Germany. It had two different factions, one more orientated towards Socialism (Strasserism) and one more leaning towards Nationalism (Hitlerism). Hitler won, and his version became the standard for future National Socialist parties (Neo-Nazism). You're making it sound like there were at least 20 different movements in the 30's with different National Socialism as their ideology. And it's not outdated sources. Britannica Encyclopaedia is most definitely a WP:RS. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica Encyclopaedia is an inferior source for an entry in Wikipedia, especially for the lead. We need to do our own work, and cite it to the majority view of recent scholarship.--Cberlet 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't just cite a book, you have to cite pages, and preferably also provide links and citations. The way you're doing it now, anyone can just add the title of an academic book and write whatever input he wants. It doesn't work that way on Wikipedia, you have to cite specific passages, or else it will be reverted. Use the cite templates available. The ideology is not a "form of National Socialism", it is simply National Socialism. You are mistaken about this. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, there are several neonazi groups that consider themselves "Strasserite." White Aryan Resistance is a good example. Your research is outdated. Sorry.--Cberlet 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And your refs aren't good enough at the moment. My research isn't outdated, you are just adding your 'expert' opinion and listing a few books as if they were unquestionable facts. This is clearly WP:OR. Needless to say, you are not doing things right. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Someone posted a cleanup tag in September 2007, for good reason. This article needs drastic improvements in organization, references, and general copy editing.Spylab 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is not accurate in the lead I rewrote and cited to recent scholarship? As Spylab notes, this article needs serious work.--Cberlet 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution to the many issues raised may be to ask a prominent scholar of National Socialism to write the article. Despite what many people think -- not everyone can be an historian. It takes years of training to learn the ins and outs of writing good history. Angela Thomas Winkler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.54.22 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazi racism

There is a section on Nazi racism, ticking off some of the categories of people the Nazis despise (Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.). So why is there a subsequent section on Nazi antisemitism? If this is done, there should also be sections about Nazi attitudes toward Gypsies, Slavs, and other "races" dissed by Nazis. Why give special attention to one, and not others, of these categories of people, and to Nazi attitudes thereto? Tom129.93.17.135 05:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Gypsies and Slavs were kind of like "normal" enemies of the Nazis, while the Jews were "the Big Boss", at least if you want to believe Hitler and his rants about Jewish Bolshevism. In any case, the Nazis focused a lot more on the Jews compared with other ethnic groups. — Devil May Cry (talk · contribs) 16:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the article needs to be balanced, the jewish holocaust has recieved alot more attention, reporting and studying and the article has to reflect that. --Neon white 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be balanced. So what do you suggest? — Devil May Cry (talk · contribs) 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazism is pure racial nationalism, a hatred of different ethnic groups, nationalities and cultures different from the Nazi racial dogma of a "superior race" of humans over others (whether it's ethnic Germans, "Nordic Aryans" or white Caucasians in Northern/western Europe). Hitler was a bigot, chauvinist and xenophobe who disliked human diversity and cultural tolerance, and desired Austria along with Germany to displace or destroy non-Germanic ethnic groups he felt stood in his nation's way. According to Hitler, Germany should stay "German" and Pan-German nationalism to unite all German-speaking peoples is important, while he excluded fellow Germans because they are Jewish or had Jewish parents, or Slavic minorities (i.e. Poles, Lusitanians, Sorbians and Wends) in Easternmost Germany are to be expelled.

Hitler felt Jews are "alien" or hasn't originally belonged to the German reich, because Hitler studied but misinterpreted anthropology and he didn't like their religion and worried about the Jews' origins are from Africa, Arabia, India or east Asia, where Semitic languages and local darker-skinned peoples live, despite the widely accepted racial classification charts stated Jews are only a religious group, as well Arabs and South Asians are classified Caucasian and shared Indo-European languages. The Nazis' false theory of "Aryans" are the one "light-skinned" race whom conquered northern India about 2,500 years ago are German or European, although the Aryans could originated from Persia or present-day Iran and migrated first to Turkistan, Central Asia then went southward and dispersed in all four directions.

He felt Jews are too liberal, involved in progressive, reform and socialist movements around the world, and in the late 20th century, white racist groups in America and nationalist groups or nativists in Europe blamed Jews for "assisting" African-Americans in the civil rights movement (1960s) and also backed Islamic immigrants (despite radical Islam's comparison of Jewish Zionism with Nazism and colonialism), in part of a "plot" or some conspiracy to politically, socially and demographically drive down the white European/"Aryan" races in European majority countries and North America (the U.S. as a superpower) during the recent wave of Hispanic-Latin American (mostly mestizo) and Asian (east and south) immigration aren't considered "Aryan".

The Nazis always placed Germans (esp. they had blonde hair, blue eyes, much taller or hardly any previous intermarriage with Jews or non-Germans) on the top of the racial hierarchy, while Scandinavians, the Dutch and English along with British-descended countries like the U.S. are equally "pure" or the reason why Britain had a world empire is explained by racial theories. But the Latins with exceptions of Northern French and Northern Italians are placed lower, which the list includes most Italians, Greeks and Spaniards, the Nazi race scientists claimed the Moorish-North African occupation of Iberia/Spain and later Ottoman Turkish occupations of Southeast Europe was responsible for ethnogenetically degrading a formerly white "Aryan" people.

Interestingly, Hitler and the Nazis allied themselves with a non-Caucasian country, Japan in East Asia and the Japanese knew of Nazis' dislike of Asian races in part of their racist ideology. But the Nazis observed Japan's rise in military strength and industrial power in the same way they noted the much feared Soviet Russia and Hitler knew the militarists in Japan equally dispised Marxism and the U.S. Hitler once considered the U.S. as an idealistic "white Aryan" country but he felt was threatened by non-white minorities (i.e. African Americans) and was under "Jewish socialism" with finance capitalism, since Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe arrived in large numbers to America in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

Today, Neo-Nazis and white supremacists in part admire Hitler, Nazism, and share his psuedoscience and xenophobia to further their hatred of African-Americans, Latinos (illegal immigration has gained momentum in national politics) and after 9/11, Middle Easterners in the U.S. Neo-Nazis express the same illogical feeling of "white Aryans" of Northwest European extraction are no longer in charge of the world, the percentage of native-born whites are declining in number and the increase of racial intermixing is "bad" for European lands with a former homogenous character and in racially diverse but segregated North America. Hitler's ideas shown he's a fanatic racist alright. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

National socialism

How many times does the phrase "national socialism" have to appear in the lead paragraph before the libertarian editors will be satisfied? Is there any room for compromise here? Today there are several forms of "National Socialism," and there were National Socialist ideologues in other countries than Germany in the interwar period. That is one reason the Catholic hierarchy proposed the idea of syndicalist corporatism. Editors here have repeatedly chosen to support a disambiguation page for the term National socialism. The horse is dead. Stop beating it.--Cberlet 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I personally think this article should be named National Socialism. If there were and are other kinds of "National Socialism(s)", then they should be named something like National Socialism (non-Nazi version, example example). And the reason why you're removing National Socialism from the lead is because you want to make Nazism a more legitimate name than its actual name. It's of course, simple POV-pushing and nothing else. It's a simple tactic; first they removed the Socialism category, now they're trying to remove National Socialism, that way, making it look like Socialism and National Socialism have nothing in common. — Devil May Cry (talk · contribs) 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an outlandish personal attack. Who is this "They"? you refer to? Please refrain from further attempts to smear me as an apologist for Nazism. This is especially absurd given my writing outside Wikipedia on this subject.--Cberlet 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologist for Nazism? I did not say nor did I imply anything of a kind. It's very interesting to note however, that you made such a conclusion on your own. This is an outlandish personal attack. — No, it is not. This article has been hijacked by POV-pushing Wikipedians who want to impose their own political POV on the article's topic, such as, "Nazism has nothing to do with Socialism, it's Socialism in name only," etcetera. Your ability to list books, as scholarly as they may be, do not give you the right to write whatever you want in the articles. You can't just list the name of a few scholarly books and then enforce your own politcal POV on the article. And your articles outside of Wikipedia, is none of my concern. — Devil May Cry (talk · contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Most serious scholars of Nazism observe that it evolved out of a form of socialism. This is reflected in the entry, and I agree with it. The term "national socialism" appears four times in the lead, twice in English, twice in German. Your claims are false on their face. Your attempts to portray clear writing that follows contemporary scholarship as some form of insidious conspiracy of POV pushing is without merit. I am not trying to push my "own political POV on the article's topic." If I was, it would look quite different. It would look more like one of the many articles I have published internationally on the subject.--Cberlet 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Most serious scholars of Nazism observe that it evolved out of a form of socialism. This is reflected in the entry, and I agree with it. — It is good that you acknowledge that much. That is a lot more than most editors have agreed on about this article. The term "national socialism" appears four times in the lead, twice in English, twice in German. — Yes. Is that a problem? Many articles here on Wikipedia do have similar leads with alternative titles, especially if the topic happens to have another common name. Your claims are false on their face. Your attempts to portray clear writing that follows contemporary scholarship as some form of insidious conspiracy of POV pushing is without merit. — Of course such claims are false since I haven't accused you of any conspiracy. Now you're making things up. I am just saying, there is some POV-pushing going on here, and it has to do with some Wikipedians who don't consider Nazism a form of Socialism, and it has to do with their own political POV. That is why National Socialism has been removed many times from the lead and Socialism from the category. As for "contemporary scholarship", you still do not seem to understand. Do you understand why we have cite templates here on Wikipedia? If you're going to cite an academic source, that is fine and I encourage you to do it, but do it properly. You can't just add <ref>title of scholarly book</ref> and then claim your edits are purely based on academic research. You have to cite specific passages, pages, etcetera. And about your writing: I do not care about whatever it is you write. You can stop bringing up your writing merits; it won't give you any special privileges of expert opinion here. — Castlevania (talk · contribs) 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazism is not a form of socialism. This claim is made by a tiny hanful of libertarians such as Hayek and von Mises. Most contemporary scholars of Nazism do not call it a form of socialism, any more than serious scholars of capitalism call it a form of feudalism. We have had this discussion many times over the past few years. The idea that Nazism is a form of socialism has been rejected numerous times, as has the name change, as has the battle over the disambuiguation page, as has the claim that Fascism and Nazism are on the political Left. If there is POV pushing going on, it is by libertarians and others on the right who try to jackhammer their marginal views into page after page on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazism is not a form of socialism. — Thanks for proving my point. Nazism most definitely does have a lot of Socialist influences. Is it pure Socialism? No of course not. But it is definitely what the name implies: National Socialism. It is a nationalist version of Socialism. Socialism in itself was more of an international movement ("Workers of the world, unite!") whereas Nazism was simply for the workers in Germany, i.e., ethnic Germans. That said, there were of course differences between Stalin's Socialism and Hitler's Socialism, but as you said, Nazism evolved out of a form of Socialism, and Nazism obviously had a lot of Socialism elements intact. the claim that Fascism and Nazism are on the political Left. — That claim makes a hell of a lot more sense than Nazism being on the right. Not that Nazism is either left or right in my point of view, but to call Nazism right-wing is preposterous since it has nothing in common with right-wing politics, save for some conservative elements. Anyway, National Socialism must be included at the very beginning of the lead per WP:COMMONNAME. — Simon Belmont (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason that National Socialism goes to disambiguation page is that it no longer primarily refers to the German Nazi Party. There are today several forms of national socialism, and not all neonazi movements or ideologies are based on national socialism.--Cberlet 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is some text from the Wiki entry National socialist party:

Parties that existed before the rise of Nazism

• Parti Socialiste National, in France, founded by Pierre Biétry in 1903. It became the "Fédération Nationale des Jaunes de France" (or the "Yellow socialists") in 1904.
• Czech National Social Party, founded in 1898
• National-Social Association, founded in 1896
• National Socialist Party (UK),1916 to 1919
• National Socialist Party (Philippines) (Aguinaldo), founded 1930
• Austrian National Socialism

So the lead that keeps getting stuffed back in is not factual, and represents what is today a marginal viewpoint. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply.--Cberlet 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a marginal viewpoint? Every other encyclopedia I've seen refers to "National Socialism" as being Nazism, even dictionaries. [11] [12] [13] While other political parties have used or use the words National and Socialist together in their naming, it is clearly not the same thing. National Socialism is the unique ideology of Nazism. In fact isn't the word Nazi a contraction of "Nationalsozialistische", e.g. National Socialism? The machine512 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

<---------Nazism, captal "N", (the German interwar variety) was a form of "National Socialism." It was not the only form. A number of national socialist groups used the phrase "national socialist" in their names. Today there are numerous national socialist groups. The idea that the term "National Socialism" refers only to interwar German Nazism is not accurate. When you state that "National Socialism is the unique ideology of Nazism," it is demonstrably false. It may be a popular perception, but it is still false. German Nazism was a form of national socialism, but not all forms of national socialism are "Nazism," which refers only to the interwar German national socialist party and government under Hitler. It would be using this logical fallacy: Collies are Dogs, therefore all dogs are Collies.--Cberlet 13:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, however, looking under the various forms of Socialism I don't see any specific reference to a strand of Nationalist Socialism, if you could point this out that would be helpful. Aside from that, it really all comes down to naming conventions for example the "Democratic Socialists" and the "Socialist Democrats", are they the same thing? In all, the term National Socialism in the most widely used and accepted context refers to Nazism. I don't think we should change the dictionary definition and direct translation of the term Nazism to make way for the few parties who go about the unfortunate task of naming themselves this. The machine512 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I haven't seen this dab page before: National Socialist Party. Look, we all know that there are other parties than the NSDAP who have labelled themselves National Socialist or Social Nationalism etcetera. That is completely beside the point. Fact of the matter is, that "Nazism" has become entirely glued together with National Socialism (the original name of the ideology) because it resulted in an entire world war. Your statement: So the lead that keeps getting stuffed back in is not factual, and represents what is today a marginal viewpoint. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. — is your own personal POV and does not apply on Wikipedia. Nazism, compared with other unrelated obscure and minor National Socialist parties whose success was/is very minimal, is not a marginal viewpoint at all. It is still an ideology that is alive in the form of Neo-Nazism, and it is still an active, world wide ideology (though not very influential at the moment, and hopefully won't be in the near future), and Nazis more or less have copyrighted "National Socialism". Seriously, when you hear National Socialism, what is the first thing you think about? It sure isn't Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Either way, National Socialism is the common name of Nazism. Though Nazism has become more common in colloquial speech, that doesn't mean National Socialism must be removed from the lead. Your version is actually trying to standardize Nazism as the ideology's official name, which is inaccurate. And Wikipedia is all about accuracy (or should be, which is obviously not the case). — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop shifting your signature names, EliasAlucard, it is deceptive and annoying. No one is suggesting removing the phrase "national socialism" from the lead. In the accurate version it appears twice each in English and German. This is about writing a better lead, not about your original research and POV contentions which have surfaced on other pages and been tendentious.--Cberlet 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I find it odd that the National Socialism page doesn't link here and that the National Socialism (disambiguation) page links back to National Socialism. At the least without changing the name of this page National Socialism should link here and the National Socialism (disambiguation) should be used for all the other possible meanings of the term. And a see also link should be prominent above this page. That would be the standard Wikipedia approach. The machine512 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The National Socialism and National socialism should redirects to National Socialism (disambiguation) which has Nazism as its first link. It should be invisible to the non-editing user, but a Bot messed it up.--Cberlet 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, you claim that Nazism is a form of National Socialism. That is fine, but realize that National Socialism is also another English common name for the ideology and practices of the NSDAP. Intro should reflect both of these facts. -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing: you have no leg to stand on. This entry repeatedly mentions National Socialism, and your marginal claims on this matter have repeatedly been rejected by a majority of editors, as you are well aware. This endless attempt to impose a marginal POV on this entry is a waste of all of our time,a nd tendentious as well as disruptive.--Cberlet 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What marginal point of view? Are you saying that National Socialism is not another English common name for Nazism? -- Vision Thing -- 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that this same debate was held in September, and the majority felt that "National Socialism" should go to a disambiguation page and that this page stay named Nazism. There is already clear mention in the lead that Nazism is a contraction from National Socialism in German. There is also a plethora of evidence that has been posted on Wiki repeatedly noting that Nazism is not the only form of national socialism. This is a case of an aggressive minority viewpoint seeking to impose its POV on Wikipedia repeatedly over several years.--Cberlet (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

September debate was about page rename, and I don't see how it's connected with this. It seems to me that you are trying to obscure the fact that another English common name for this ideology is National Socialism (even if Nazism is more widespread). -- Vision Thing -- 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This obvously false. I support having the name national socialism in the lead. I oppose the false construction that "National Socialism" only means German Nazism, or that German Nazism is the only form of "National Socialism." This is false, and Vision Thing, you know it is false becasue this debate has happended many times before with you right in the middle of it. The the main proponents of this view have been tendentious POV pushers with a long history of rewriting various pages throughout Wikipedia calling Nazism just another form of socialism, or claiming Nazism and fascism in general are on the poltiical left. This is a marginal view. Mentioning "National Socialism" four times in the lead is quite sufficient--even redundant. I am objecting the the clearly false framing of the lead that equates "National Socialism" with German Nazism. Once again, I am returning it to a sensible, accurate NPOV version that mentions "National Socialism" four times in the lead.--Cberlet (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I support having the name national socialism in the lead. — No, you don't. You've removed it several times. I am objecting the the clearly false framing of the lead that equates "National Socialism" with German Nazism. — We're not equating National Socialism with German Nazism. It just so happens to be the case, that the German National Socialism that was held by Hitler, is historically, the most successful National Socialism ever. Therefore, just as Marx somehow patented Socialism, the German Nazism is the mainstream National Socialism. But of course, in reality, Nazism does have Socialist elements, and it is a form of Socialism, though the Socialism aspects in Nazism isn't as emphasized as in other Socialist ideologies. And Nazism is neither left nor right-wing. It doesn't fit in such a political spectrum because it's a very different ideology and not based on the economical struggle between Capitalism and Communism; it opposes both. While it is true that the mainstream media considers it to be right-wing, it's simply just an ad populum fallacy. But your version is simply based on consensus, while our version is trying to maintain historical accuracy. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd.--Cberlet (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, it is duly noted. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, making the statement "Nazism is the best known form of National Socialism" from my understanding is false. There is no specific known BREED of Socialism with a Nationalistic approach that is directly called "National Socialism" (other than nazism). The few non-nazi parties listed under National Socialist Party are not part of this (alleged by you) "new breed of socialism" but rather just socialist parties which just so happen to be titled "National" in their naming. The machine512 (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that there are numerous scholarly cites to books and journal articles that talk about new forms of national socialism. Examples in the U.S. include White Aryan Resistance and the National Socialist Movement. There were other post-WW I forms of national socialism than the German variety. Popular misconceptions, no matter how sincere, do not trump actual published research. Please stop restoring an flawed and false lead based on a failure to check conemporary research.--Cberlet (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "flawed and false lead" when every other contemporary dictionary and encyclopedia uses the term National Socialism, even instead of using the western contraction Nazism [14] [15] [16]. Check even the German version of this page (or any other language for that matter), they are titled "National Socialism". Using terms defined by a few scholars here and there is giving WP:Undue Weight and going against the rest of the world's definition and even the true naming of what this was called by the Germans during WW2. The machine512 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is getting more and more obvious that Cberlet has some weird agenda. He obviously doesn't understand the logical arguments we're putting forth, despite that there are several encyclopaedias calling the ideology, specifically, National Socialism, and he talks all day about scholarly research yet he doesn't actually provide any sources except titles of books without being specific on what's written supporting his claims. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

<---This has become surreal. I am not changing the translation of the contraction. I am pointing out that "Nazism" was not and is not the only form of "national socialism." This hysteria over demanding that there be 5 uses of the term "national socialism." in the first paragraph rather than 4, and the rewriting on the lead to imply that "Nazism" was the only form of "national socialism," has become a tendentious POV war, and frankly somewhat fanatic and ludicrous.--Cberlet (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that Nazism is only form of National Socialism and the intro is clear on that when it says: "Nazism was the main form of National Socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 17:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But the point of the entry is to explain Nazism to a reader, not push a minority POV about Nazism being a form of socialism.--Cberlet (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful if you would drop this rhetoric about "a minority POV". That "National Socialism is another common English name for this ideology is easily defendable fact. -- Vision Thing -- 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The last time we voted on this issue, the POV pushing about "national socialism" being congruent with "Nazism" was found to be a minority POV. That is why there is a National socialism (disambiguation) page. Do you dispute that there were/are other forms of "national socialism" prior to and after the German "Nazi" variety? No. No one is disputing that "Nazism" is a form of "national socialism." The issue is what makes for a better entry and lead on "Nazism." All this rhetoric about how some of us are to push a minority POV by tring to write a better lead is nonsense. How many times does this have to be noticed up for mediation? How many times do the real minority POV pushers who have lost every almost editing debate here and on related pages have to be admonished and sanctioned? This is a waste of time. We are here to write a better entry. Reverting back to the same badly written and overly complicated lead is not useful. How many times does this debate have to resurface? Does it have to be every 6 months? Can't we at least have it just once a year? Do we have to call for comments again?--Cberlet (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are confusing things. Maybe you should contemplate on why United States leads to an article about United States of America and not to United States (disambiguation). -- Vision Thing -- 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In German, there is no difference between Nationalsozialismus and Nazismus. The latter is a popular contraction of the former.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We have in English a National socialism (disambiguation) explaining that there are diffrent forms of National Socialism, and the lead on this entry page mentions that Nazism is crafted from "National Socialism" in German.--Cberlet (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are different forms of national socialism but if it's capitalized "National Socialism" it's the proper name for Nazism. It's like "libertarian" and "Libertarian." Ron Pistol (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no nazismus in the German language because all nouns are capitalized. The word Nazismus is used to describe a political ideology, and mainly in a historical sense, because Nazism is outlawed, and no contemporary party can properly be called Nazi. Because Nazismus is not considered a coherent theory of government, other terms are usually used to describe Hitler's dictatorship, e.g. der NS-Staat or die Nazi-Diktatur. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is the English language Wikipedia. And in the English language Nazism refers to the German interwar movement and ideology, while neonazism, Neo-Nazism, and neo-Nazism have been used to describe the post WWII varieties. --Cberlet (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In the English language "National Socialism" also refers to the German interwar movement and ideology, as it can be seen from variety of sources. -- Vision Thing -- 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the claim that the word Nazi disappeared from Germany after 1933. It certainly disappeared from official use, but it remained a common colloquialism. I have here a copy of the Brockhaus dictionary from 1935, which refers to Nazi as a abschätzige Abk. von: Nationalsozialist. I can cite memoirs and contemporary letters showing that the word remained in use. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Bias

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am posting here under my own name. I have a master's degree in history (2005) from the Free University in Berlin, as anyone can confirm by contacting the Friedrich Meinecke Institute ([email protected]). For best results, communicate in the German language.

It is a favorite sport of extreme partisans in the United States to identify their opponents with the Nazis. On the right, this is daily fare for luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, who identify feminists or environmentalists as Nazis. On the left, the accusation of Nazism is regularly thrown at the Bush administration because of its policies on torture, domestic espionage and imprisonment without trial.

Regardless where you stand politically, changing history to reflect contemporary political views is absurd. In this case, the currently protected version of the "Nazism" article includes sections reflecting a political bias. These should be modified or removed:

INTRODUCTION

The National Socialist party described itself as socialist, and at the time, conservative opponents such as the Industrial Employers Association described it as "totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist."

I'm not sure why this quotation is considered so important to the definition of Nazism. It appears a tendentious attempt to place Nazism on the left side of the political spectrum. The sentence should be removed entirely or else followed by another which provides balance, for example:

Marxists, however, lumped Nazism, together with fascism as purely capitalist phenomena: "Fascism is the openly terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialistic elements of finance capitalism."

POST-1933 DEVELOPMENTS

The section on British appeasement is irrelevant and should be discarded (everything from "Post-1933 Developments . . . " to "' . . . than live as slaves.'")

I would offer the following as a replacement:

After Jan. 30, 1933

In the night of Feb. 27, 1933, the Reichstag fire provided Hitler with a convenient excuse for suppressing his opponents. The following day, he persuaded President Paul von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree suspending civil liberties and stripping the power of the federal German states. Opponents were imprisoned first in improvised camps ("wilde Lager") and later in an organized system of Nazi concentration camps. On March 23, the Reichstag passed an "Enabling Law" which granted Hitler dictatorial powers. Unions were abolished and political parties, other than the National Socialists, forbidden.

Having dealt with his political enemies, Hitler moved against his rivals in the party, principally those allied with Ernst Röhm, leader of the Sturmabteilung (known as SA or "brownshirts") and Gregor Strasser, leader of the Nazi left wing. Between June 30 and July 2, 1934, these were purged in the so-called Night of the Long Knives. With this, Hitler assured the support of the powerful Reichswehr. After the death of Hindenburg, on August 2, there was no one left who could present an effective challenge to Nazi power.

The Nazi Party had been anti-Semitic from the beginning, and shortly after seizing power had attempted a boycott against the Jews (see Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses). Official measures against the Jews had been limited by the reluctance of President Hindenburg, but the Nuremberg Laws, proclaimed by Hitler at the 1935 Nazi rally in Nuremberg, provided a legal basis for systematic persecution. Visible signs of anti-Semitism were removed during the 1936 Summer Olympics, but replaced shortly thereafter.

ANTI-CAPITALIST RHETORIC

This section is redundant and should be eliminated. If it must be retained, I would propose adding the following:

However, after the Nazis actually came to power, there were no serious efforts to abolish capitalism. Hitler declared in a speech on July 1, 1933: "I will suppress every attempt to disturb the existing order as ruthlessly as I will deal with the so-called second revolution, which would lead only to chaos." After the 1934 Röhm purge, the socialist wing of the Nazi movement was a spent force.

IDEOLOGY

We should distinguish between elements incidental to the Nazi program, and those to which they gave lip service, from the key principles.

I would question whether animal rights, environmentalism or public health were important parts of the Nazi program. To the rejection of modern art, I would add the rejection of jazz. "Freedom of religion" should not be included: The Nazis attempted to subordinate all forms of religion to the state, and locked up those (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) who proved intractable.

I would add "Racial purity" and "Anti-individualism," illustrated by the Hitler Youth slogan "Du bist nichts, das Volk ist alles.", also, the unity of the German people ("Volksgemeinschaft").

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You have many interesting ideas, Forrest Johnson, but you need to cite reputable published sources to back them up. You already have some of these cites at hand. Just start making changes with one cite at a time and see what happens. I think you make sense.--Cberlet (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not tell me what you dispute? Then I can more easily judge what additional sources may be needed. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pick what you think would make the article better, find a cite, then insert the next text. That's how it works. Otherwise it is original research, which cannot be placed on an entry in Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Original research" is the pile of old letters and documents in my workroom, or transcripts of the interviews which I am compiling for a projected book. What I have posted here is neither "original" nor "research," it is simply what my professors taught me in my eight years of study in Berlin. You are demanding more particulars, but at the same time, you are extemely vague as to what these should be. Have you no specific criticism? --Forrest Johnson (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Verifiability and other related links on that page to see Wikipedia's policies on backing up content with reliable sources.Spylab (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to review the citations I provided:

1. I referred to a publication of the Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Berlin, a nonpartisan government organization which publishes information for educational purposes.

2. I cited a quotation of a Hitler speech from Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," a classic work which has been outdated in some respects by more recent research, but remains a standard reference. Shirer was a contemporary witness, and if he quotes Hitler saying something, that's what Hitler said.

3. I provided twelve internal links to Wikipedia articles, most of them undisputed.

I believe I have sufficiently documented all the points I wished to make. No one here has disputed any of them. However, if anyone does have some specific criticism, I will be happy to provide further documentation. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• What you are pointing at (You are demanding more particulars, but at the same time, you are extemely vague as to what these should be.) here - is a Wikipedia problem generated by the ill-defined freedom - Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. This freedom is used here on the most unethical way. On the Neo-Nazism talk pages I tried to get clear answers to the same type of claims (=extemely vague) from the same two persons you responded to here. To my great surprise, my questions were marked as an original research.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

page numbers

What's the page number from Payne? On page 147 of the book Payne makes mention that "Many who use the term fascism are referring not to the Italian movement led by Mussolini but to German National Socialism," but this not really supports what is being said in the article here. Or does Payne discuss this on some other page? Also, Ian Kershaw's 2000 book, The Nazi Dictatorship, says that there is still a considerable controversy over seeing Nazism as a form of fascism (pages 40 and on), and that much disagreement still exists between scholars. Intangible2.0 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this again? How many times do we have to have this same discussion with a tiny handful of editors? How many times do Intangible and Vision_Thing and a few others get to raise the same marginal views and suggest that they represent the majority views of scholars. How many mediations? How many sanctions? How many scores of hours wasted? My response is that to raise this again on Fascism, Nazism, Far Right, or related pages is tendentious and disruptive. Would you please list the prior votes, mediation requests, and sanctions involved over the past two years? That would be both constructive and instructive.--Cberlet (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From the Fascism entry on Wikipedia: "Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism," citing to:

Kevin Passmore (2002 p.62):

There are sufficient similarities between Fascism and Nazism to make it worthwhile applying the concept of fascism to both. In Italy and Germany a movement came to power that sought to create national unity through the repression of national enemies and the incorporation of all classes and both genders into a permanently mobilized nation. http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/people/kp/

Most scholars agree, despite the continuing controversy.--Cberlet (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stop acting like a spokesperson for all scholars. And Nazism is not a form of Fascism. It's quite different from Mussolini's ideology. Nazism is based on 'what's considered best for the race', and because of that it employs some aspects of Fascism. Remember: “National Socialism is politically applied biology.” [17] Fascism does not include the racial aspects. Mussolini rejected that. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does Passmore say there is scholarly consensus that Nazism is a form of fascism? Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the page number from Passmore's book? Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't expect a straight answer. Cberlet never gives any specific citations. He just cites book titles. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus, Edited by Roger Griffin, Oxford University Press, May 1998.

• "This reader focuses on the definition and ideology of generic fascism, bringing together articles, essays, and political writings by several key figures to lay bare the structural affinity that relates fascism not only to Nazism but to the many failed fascist movements that surfaced in inter-war Europe and elsewhere. In both his introduction and his editorial commentary Griffin locates the driving force behind all fascist movements in a distinctive utopian myth, that of the regenerated national community, destined to rise up from the ashes of a decadent society." --Oxford University Press

Try actually reading the books rather than doing Internet searches.--Cberlet (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Max Weber, Charisma, 1947. Discusses Nazism as a variety of fascism. --Cberlet (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger Griffin, entry on Fascism in Encarta:

"Fascist movements surfaced in most European countries and in some former European colonies in the early 20th century....fascists managed to win control of the state and attempted to dominate all of Europe, resulting in millions of deaths in the Holocaust and World War II (1939-1945). Because fascism had a decisive impact on European history from the end of World War I until the end of the World War II, the period from 1918 to 1945 is sometimes called the fascist era. Fascism was widely discredited after Italy and Germany lost World War II, but persists today in new forms....Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements, from Italian Fascism to contemporary neo-Nazi movements in the United States."

Are we clear yet? I am doing Internet searches now to demonstrate how easy it is to demonstrate that most scholars consider Nazism a form of fascism.--Cberlet (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This from a review at a conservative magazine online, The National Interest:

• "Walter Laqueur's Fascism: Past, Present, Future and Roger Eatwell's Fascism: A History are two recent additions to the growing literature.... Laqueur's Fascism is a sweeping overview of the two paradigmatic cases of "historical fascism", fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.... Eatwell's Fascism tells the story of fascism in four countries: Italy, Germany, France, and Britain. It traces Italian fascism from its birth in the wake of the First World War to near-death experience in the Second World War to mature respectability today, and it follows Nazism and its posterity from Hitler's Munich days to post-reunification...."

More to come....

You don't have to prove to me that scholars use the concept of generic fascism, which includes Nazism. There is no argument about that. But your cites do not validate your claim that there exists a scholarly consensus calling Nazism a form of fascism. You are just citing individual scholars, and then using your own POV to say that what they are saying holds for other scholars as well. I have already given a reference, Ian Kershaw's book, which shows that the consensus you are talking about, does not exist. Intangible2.0 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Griffin: "Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements."

Griffin: The issue, Intangible2.0, is your insistance on cherry picking the tiny handful of scholars that insist that Nazism was not a form of fascism, and then demanding that I find a scholar that states in a precise way that there is a consensus. If by consensus you mean 100% agrteement, then indeed there still is a controversy involving a handful of scholars. But I am talking about the overwhelming majority view among contemporary scholars, which is that Nazism was a form of fascism. If you prefer, to be precise, let's follow Griffin's argument. In that case Nazism was not a form of (Italian-style) Fascism, however according to Griffin, Nazism was a form of fascism. We have had this discussion before, yes? Would you please confirm that we have had this discussion before here on Wikipedia?--Cberlet (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look man, let's not play stupid, all right? There are many "scholars" who consider Islam a form of fascism. Nazism is simply based on the race and Aryan ideals. Fascism has nothing to do with this. The only thing Nazism takes after Fascism is totalitarianism and nationalism. That doesn't make Nazism a form of Fascism. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man, for sharing your uncited original research POV. However, even Intangible2.0 is asking for actual cites to reputable published scholarly research.--Cberlet (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You can call it original research POV as much as you like; that doesn't make you factually correct. You are in fact just trying to add a political POV into the article. For instance: Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements. — Those who insist that Fascism is limited to Italy under Mussolini, are right. Fascism is Mussolini's creation. If you're going to "broadly include many movements" and categorize them all under fascism, you are in fact just aping the Leftist media. This is a political POV, and it has no place on Wikipedia. And the same thing goes for those who call Nazism a "right wing ideology". This is another Leftist POV. And for the last time, I've told you, stop acting like a spokesperson for all scholars. If anyone is making a lot of uncited original research POV, then it's you, Mr. Berlet. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with the theory that the word "fascism" applies only to the Mussolini dictatorship. If you look, for example, at Shirer's "Berlin Diary" (first published in 1940) you can see references to fascist movements in Austria, England, France and Spain. Hitler's dictatorship is also described as fascist. I am sure that there are academics who prefer the more narrow usage, but that doesn't matter. Webster calls fascism "any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition," which reflects the common usage. I don't think the Wikipedia should get into the business of reforming the English language: It isn't for us to say whether the common usage is right or wrong. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

<---------Professor Roger Griffin: "Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements."

• Griffin, R. 1991. The nature of fascism. New York: Routledge.
• Griffin, R. ed. 1995. Fascism. Oxford Readers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Griffin, R. ed. 1998. International fascism: Theories, causes, and the new consensus. London: Arnold.
• Griffin, R. 1999. “Fascism Is More Than Reaction,” Searchlight; online at <http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/stories/understandFascism.htm>.
• Griffin, R. 2001 ‘Fascism’, in Brenda E. Brasher (ed.) Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism (New York: Routledge), pp. 171–178.
• Griffin, R. and Matthew Feldman, eds. 2003. Fascism. Vols. 1-5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, New York, NY: Routledge.
• Griffin, R. 2003. “From Slime Mould to Rhizome: an Introduction to the Groupuscular Right.” Patterns of Prejudice 37:27-50.
• Griffin, R. 2003. “Shattering Crystals: The Role of ‘Dream Time’ in Extreme Right–Wing Political Violence,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 1.
• Griffin, R. 2004. “Introduction: God’s Counterfeiters? Investigating the Triad of Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:291-325.

I was citing Griffin, one of the world's leading scholars on the subject. Hardly "uncited original research POV."--Cberlet (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS states that claims of consensus need to be sourced. I already provided a source to the contrary, namely a section from Ian Kershaw's book. Intangible2.0 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Autarchy

As of now, the first paragragh under reads that the Nazis wished to create a largely homogeneous and autarchic ethnic state. Where I could be mistaken, this seems highly unlikely, as autarchism rejects the value of government, an idea largely opposed to nationalism. Is this a misspelling of autarky, or was there in fact a little known goal of some form of liberty within Nazism? 24.24.90.148 (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Good catch. The word should be "Autarkic". I made the change. The setion still needs better cites.--Cberlet (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When did the DAP become the NSDAP?

"The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party on April 1, 1920" — I have one generally reliable authority, at least on factual details (Goodrick-Clarke 1985: 150), who dates the name change to "the end of February 1920" but without being precise. Follow the link to 1920 and you will find that on February 24, "Adolf Hitler present[ed] his National Socialist program in Munich", which indeed is the date given in the Yad Vashem reference only a few sentences earlier ("Nazi Party Established"). I've altered the date in the article and sourced it to Y.V. Come to think of it, April 1 does look like somebody's idea of a joke. Gnostrat 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a disputed point. In "Mein Kampf," Hitler referred to Feb. 24, 1920 as "the first great public demonstration of our young movement," and it was indeed on this day that the 25-point program of the party was presented. In many histories, it is named as the founding date of the N.S.D.A.P.

However, some historians dispute this version of events. In "The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler," Robert Payne notes that Hitler was only one of several speakers. He quotes a newspaper account of the event: "Herr Hitler (DAP) developed some striking political ideas, which evoked spirited applause, but also roused his numerous already prejudiced opponents to contradiction; and he gave a survey of the the party's program, which in its features comes close to that of the Deutsch-Sozialistische Partei."

In "Nazism, A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts" (v.1 p.18) by J. Noakes and G. Pridham, I read that the party was renamed in February 1920, but further that Hitler was officially only propaganda chief, not yet the "Führer."

According to Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (p.41)"its name was altered on April 1, 1920, to the National Socialist German Worker's Party." The source, so far as I can tell, was Konrad Heiden, "A History of National Socialism," a book which is not available to me.

Alan Bullock, in "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny," p. 42, dates the re-naming to August, 1920.

I am able to confirm Bullock's version from a Nazi-era publication, Daten der Geschichte der NSDAP by Dr. Hans Volz, published in 1935 by the publishing house A.G. Ploetz: der "Deutschen Arbeiterpartei"(seit dem Salzburger Parteitag [7./8. August 1920]: "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" [NSDAP]). That is the best information I have. --Forrest Johnson 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is most interesting that details of such a basic kind are not, even yet, done and dusted. We should, I think, stick with Feb 24 but add some short acknowledgment of competing views, and reference your several sources in a footnote. That should keep anybody and everybody happy. Gnostrat 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it very frustrating that I cannot come up with any definitive answer to this question.

The German Wikipedia supports the Feb. 24 date: Später wurde der Abend des 24. Februar als Beginn der nationalsozialistischen Bewegung hochstilisiert. An diesem Abend wurde die Bezeichnung NSDAP von Hitler etabliert (das Kürzel „NS“ sollte die Besonderheit der Partei hervorheben und wurde von Hitler, Eckart, Esser, Heß, Röhm und Feder an der Parteiführung vorbei eingeführt) und das 25-Punkte-Programm wurde als Grundsatzforderung der Partei vorgestellt. [[18]]

This is the most widely accepted version. Having spent some time in the library today, I turned up Joseph W. Bendersky's "A History of Nazi Germany," which gives a similar version (on p.35): "At the first successful mass meeting, at the Hofbräuhaus in Munich on February 24, 1920, the spotlight was on Hitler rather than on Drexler or Harrer. Hitler, himself, had the honor of introducing the new party program and proclaiming a change in the party's name. Henceforth, the DAP was to be known as the National Socialist German Worker's party (NSDAP), from which the term 'Nazi' was derived."

There is a serious problem here: As Payne points out, the local paper continues to refer to the DAP, it doesn't take any note of the supposed name change. Could this be another example of Nazis rewriting history? The 25-point program was later adopted by Hitler as the "unalterable" platform of the NSDAP; it would hardly do to admit that it was in fact the program of the DAP under Drexler.

During my library visit, I also found a copy of Heiden's 1935 book. P. 23: "Through the intermediary of Dr. Alexander Schillings the Party had come in contact with the National Socialists of the former Danubian monarchy [i.e. Austria -- fj]. These were engaged at the time in disputing as to whether they should call themselves the National Socialist Worker's Party; the word "Worker" was a cause of some offence among the Viennese. In Munich, again, the word "Socialist" was under dispute, but eventually adopted, against the wish of Hitler. From April 1920 Anton Dexler's Party, which had hitherto been known as the German Workers Party, was called National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Payne agrees with Shirer and Heiden, that the name change took place in April, but makes Hitler the sole author. P. 152: "After his return from Berlin, the party became little more than an extension of his own person. He was the chief speaker, and he held all the strings in his hands."

Bullock also attributes the name change to an arrangement with the Austrians, but pushes the date forward to August. P. 42: "In May, 1918, this Austrian Party adopted the title of D.N.S.A.P. -- the German National Socialist Workers' Party -- and began to use the Hakenkreuz, the swastika, as its symbol. When the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was broken up, and a separate Czech state formed, the National Socialists set up an inter-State bureau with one branch in Vienna, of which Riehl was chairman, and another on the Sudetenland. It was this inter-State bureau which now invited the cooperation of the Bavarian National Socialists, and a Munich delegation attended the next joint meeting at Salzburg in August, 1920. Shortly afterwards the Munich Party, too, adopted the the title of the National Socialist German Worker's Party."

This appears to be the same Salzburg conference mentioned by Volz. That there was another claim to the name NSDAP was probably something the German Nazis did not emphasize in their histories.

I find myself at a loss to resolve this question. It would take, at the least, a lot of "original research," which is anyway forbidden here. If you want, I can correspond with our German colleagues and ask if they have any better information. --Forrest Johnson 08:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles on Austrian National Socialism, the Sudeten German Party and the Czech National Socialist Party collectively indicate that the concept of national-socialism originated with Czech nationalists in the 1890s and was emulated by Austrian-Germans (same basic idea, but rival national movements?) who were sensitive about actually using "National-Socialist" in the party name until 1918. The Austrian party was founded in 1903 as the DAP, and the Bavarian DAP was evidently inspired by the Austrian, even down to its party programme which was largely borrowed from the latter. When the Austrian DAP finally overcame its reluctance to use "National-Socialist" in its title, the Bavarian DAP followed suit. If Hitler opposed even the name, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is just about nothing in German National-Socialism which derives originally from him, except for the totalitarian twist. Backdating the name change to coincide with Hitler's delivery of the party programme would have both allowed him to take the credit and helped to conceal the actual source of the name.

I have another observation which is perhaps worth following up. Most of the original founders including Drexler were associates of the Thule Society (Hess seems to have been an actual member). These men were progressively marginalised from 1920 onwards (except Hess, whose devotion to the Führer was perhaps a clever survival strategy?). Hitler's scorn for secret societies is well documented and, after 1933-4 (when the Thule founder Sebottendorff attempted to claim the credit for Hitler's revolution) could it be that a decision was made to lay this ghost to rest once and for all?

I agree that this leads us into original research, but I wonder if we have uncovered something significant here, which perhaps deserves to be brought to the attention of people who can do the research and publish it so that we can get a definitive answer on Wikipedia! There's another detail which has me no less perplexed: Bullock's claim that the Austrian party adopted the swastika in 1918. According to Goodrick-Clarke (1985: 151), the swastika emblem was first proposed by the Thule Society and Bavarian DAP member Friedrich Krohn in a memorandum dated May 1919 ("Ist das Hakenkreuz als Symbol nationalsozialistischer Partei geeignet?"), although it didn't make its first public appearance until 20 May 1920. So if both authors are correct, then not only was Krohn referring to the Bavarian DAP as the "National-Socialist Party" four months before Hitler joined, but the Austrian DNSAP was openly using the swastika a full year before Krohn's memorandum!

By all means please do confer with your German colleagues. I would be very fascinated to know what they make of all this. Gnostrat (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because I am presently in the U.S., my access to historical sources is somewhat limited. I have, however, posted a query with the German Wikipedia editors [19] and ordered a rare book [20] which may help to clear things up. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I got an answer to my post, which I'll subject to a hasty translation: "There is something in this. You only have to read 'Mein Kampf' to see how Drexler is depicted -- Hitler mentions him only parenthetically and superficially as a person of no importance. At the beginning of 1920, Hitler had a certain importance in the party as an agitator, but was not yet officially the leader (which he first achieved in July 1921 after a power struggle with Drexler and Harrer). The renaming of the NSDAP certainly took place on the initiative of Hitler, who also imposed the swastika symbol, but it is not easy to reconstruct the exact course of events, because the early history of the party is overgrown with legends. In the [German] article on the DAP one reads, 'The National Socialist name was supposed to distinguish the party from its rivals. It was pushed on the party leadership by Hitler, Eckart, Hess, Röhm and Feder,' which may come close to the facts. The name issue could also have become one of the issues in the leadership conflict with Drexler. In hindsight, Hitler was naturally disposed to present the party history so that his leadership role appears at the earliest possible point and the early times under Drexler took up as little space as possible." --Forrest Johnson (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Socialism' and right wing conservatism in National Socialism

I moved this from above where I wrote it because the debate over this seems to be an ongoing one and the section I put it in seems to have died, I have studied in detail Germany in its rise to power, and am just (trying) to clarify some common misinterpretations and why Hitler's NAZISM is mainly classified as a right-wing/ partially conservatism (conservative because it draws on a lot from past authoritarianims). Its a bit of a long winded piece of writing but to explain why NAZISM in in essence right-wing. I have no personal stake in the game of political pass-the-parcel that editors here and some historians seem to engage in, i.e. was the right or the left responisble. The awnser to that is that many left-wing working class and right-wing elitists supported the NAZIS, so they are both responsible (although ultimately it was the right that placed Hitler into power). I am also ready to accept that in essence Stalin was a left-wing dictator who was in many repsects worse than Hitler.

The following is what I wrote...

(A bit of OR, but just gonna give 2 cents) I would say that Hitler was very much a right-wing conservative, that does not mean all elements within the party were right wing conservatives. the whole reason for the night of the long knives was to suppress the 'socialist' supporting left within the NAZI party, who advocated for further socio-economic reform. I would definetly not call Rohm a right-wing conservative, for on he was homosexual which Hitler oppossed and gave as a reason for his removal. However Rohm's removal was precisely because he was a socialist and left-wing who had power over a huge left-wing mob (SA), and Hitler was A: more supportive of the right and conservatism B: Needed the support of the right more than the left. This does not mean that Hitler did not implement programs which helped social deprevation, however if he did not implement these programs (which appeared sucessful on the face of it, but were flawed) his power would have been much less secure. After the night of the long knives the only ideology relevant in the NAZI party was that of Hitler's (the left had been suppressed, and the right had been cautioned), and Hitler was a right-wing conservative in essence.

Reasons for claiming Hitler was a right wing-conservative:

1. Hitler was a supporter of the idea of Indo-European Araynism, and later eugenics that linked in with this, Indo-European Araynism was a movement supported mainly by radical right wing Germans who were conservative A: because they supported the idea of conservative German values and 'features', supporting an idea of 'racial purity' B: linked onto this they were extremely xenophobic/anti-immigration, and supported traditional German values something which can be considered conservative.

2. Hitler drew most of his support from the right, from people such as Von Papen and Hugenburg, the right-wing elite of Germany who obviously saw Hitler as more in favour of the right (otherwise they wouldnt have supported the NAZIS over the other parties).

3. Hitler linked up with parties on the right-wing of the spectrum to form majorities, these right-wing parties did not all support socialism

4. Hitler drew most of his popular support from the right, buisnessmen and nationalists, he used the SA (despite being left in some senses) to attack left-wing opposition such as Communists or merely democratic socialists.

5. Hitler was anti-semitic, something that was opposed mainly by the left in these days and upheld manly by the right (at least in Germany).

6. Hitler tried to relate Germany back to a 'golden age' and forged phony links between modern Germany and the previous 'Reichs' as well as the Teutonic Knights. These links with past eras and (again, a bit of a cliche) 'traditional Values', believing modern Germans should emulate the behaviour of past Germans, something which is definetly (conservative).

7. Linked in with the previous point Hitler oppossed the liberalisation that had taken place under Weimer Germany, he viewed it as immoral and corrupt, and disliked modern movements in general including Jazz which he viewed as 'negroid'.

8. He originally drew most of his support from the countryside, an area which had been traditionally right-wing conservative. In many propoganda posters NAZISM can be seen to contrast the beauty of Germanic rural life with the dingy existence of city, proletarian life. Socialists generally supported the urban working class over the agricultural life.

Ergo the fact that after the Night of the Long-Knives Hitler had consolidated his power completly over the state, his personal ideology was the main driving force of domestic and foreign policy, NAZISM took a firm right-wing conservative stance. However I am not saying that Hitler was conventionally right-wing, he implemented public works schemes such as the autobahns to gain support with the masses when it suited him, he also supported modernization (although arguably moderniation was a pre-requesit for militarisation, again something that, in Germany, was based on a right wing-conservative desire for the greatness that Germany had in eras gone by).

In so far as conservatism is an ideal which supports maintianing of a traditional or past political or social enviroment, NAZISM was conservative, it supported the trational politcal authoritarian rule of Germany (like that of the Kaiser before them), opposed the 'new' idea of democracy, and wished for a return to older values such as maternity, opposing feminism (a very 'modern' movement). However considering that NAZISM was willing to capitualte to the social demands of the people of Germany it can be described as oppertunist. Perhaps, considering the repeated but reformed conservatism of previous eras, NAZISM can be described as one of the first instances of neo-Conservatism, however it is not always helpful to add a modern political term to a past context.

I have spelling issues (dyslexic) and am no good at proof-reading, so if you want to correct any mistakes please do. Sorry for such an OR essay, but I was merely explaining and proving logically that NAZISM, excluding certain elemnts of the party such as the SA) was a right-wing movement. I can provide sources for this if neccessary but what I wrote was not designed to be entered into the article, but to state why NAZISM was right-wing conservative.172.143.124.86 22:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I would just like to add my support for keeping the article name NAZISM, as NAZI is an abreviation for the German spelling of National Socialist, nothing more, nothing less. It is not the German abbreviation of NSDAP, however it is the English abreviation of the German name for national socialism, N a tionalso z i alismus. Therefore it would be incorrect to abbreviate it as Nazi in German, as it is an anglophide abbreviation, however as this is the English wikipedia, and Nazi is used far more often than national socialist (and scholars/authors also write about Nazism, so it is not simply a colloquialism) nthe anglophide abbreviation is more suitable.172.143.124.86 22:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to say that NAZISM is a useful way of describing German national socialism during this period, thaere may be ideologies distinct from Hitler's NAZISM which advocate national socialism, it also is useful to attribuute NAZISM specifically to those who support the German/Hitler model of national socialism, for instance neo-NAzis. In the Uk you could say that Nick Griffin is a national socialist (its what he advocates) although he probably would deny being a Nazi (even if this label wouldnt be entirely off the mark).172.213.23.217 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole argument over whether Nazism was a "conservative" movement should be avoided. In the present political context "conservative" refers to a loosely related group of political policies -- laissez-faire, tax cutting, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, etc. -- having hardly any connection with the Nazi movement. Hitler's conservative supporters were "conservative" in the sense of contemporary German politics: They were landed aristocrats of the Junker class, industrialists, extreme nationalists, kaiserists, colonialists, WW1 veterans, anti-Semites, debtors, shopkeepers threatened by the growth of department stores . . . the application of the word "conservative" in our present context can only be misleading.

I object equally to the persistent efforts to depict the Nazis as leftist. The socialist wing of the Nazi movement had hardly any influence after 1934. (This was a finding of the Nuremberg Trials: Members of the SA could not be held responsible for the crimes of the Nazi government, because they had no political power.) Nazism was not a political movement which can be so easily identified with present-day parties and positions.

The word "Nazi" is commonly used in Germany and has been for a long time. I have already referenced it to a 1935 Brockhaus dictionary, but it is certainly much older than that. The English word "Nazi" is simply a borrowing from the German, according to Webster: "G. abbr. representing pron. of first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische (Partei)." A German dictionary, which I do not have available at the moment, gives a slightly different etymology: Nazi = NAtionalsoZIalistisch, taking the form of an older abbreviation: Sozi = SOZIalistisch. [21]

--Forrest Johnson 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article. I'll give my 2 cents on this. Nazism is neither left nor right wing. It is an ideology based on Indo-European (or Aryan) ideals, traditions religions and history. It is an ideology based on what is considered best for the race. Therefore, in practise, Nazism employs whatever necessary that will further the cause of its race (in this case, Germanic peoples). Examples are, anti-abortion, anti-feminism, anti-semitism, etcetera. This does not mean Nazism is a right wing ideology (or left) just because other right/left wing ideologies employ similar aspects. Nazism is not based on socio-economic systems as its main focus, therefore, economically, it can neither be left or right. It is not a materialistic ideology, but rather an ideology that puts all of its emphasis on the race. Is Nazism conservative? Only in the sense of preserving the race and its culture. Nazism is not conservative in the sense of the Christian churches, and similar aspects that are considered right wing today, since Nazism opposes Christianity because it is considered a Jewish/Semitic religion incompatible with Indo-Europeans. All in all, Nazism has aspects found in both the political right and left, but it is neither left nor right wing since it's not part of such a spectrum because it has entirely different political goals than socio-economic features. Nazism does not have Capitalism or economic policy as its basis, but everything that matters in its ideological core is the race and how it supposed to be preserved. Does that make Nazism right wing? It's a good question, but I would say no. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 06:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I am seriously sick of people saying that being an anti-semite and racist makes one right-wing. It doesn't!!! Karl Marx was a racist, he felt blacks were racially inferior. Stalin was a known anti-semite. Are they suddenly right-wing? No! Hitler supported government ownership of all the means of production (socialist!), he outlawed private ownership of firearms, he was pro-abortion (although he preferred Aryan women not to have them, so as to make plenty of Aryans to populate the new lands he planned to conquer), and he named his party the National Socialist German Workers Party. Hmmm... not a very right-wing name. As a matter of fact, it sounds down-right left wing. Also (and I feel bad that I don't have the full quote, but I'll get it and update this tomorrow) Hitler stated that the red field of the Nazi flag was to make sure that no Nazi forgot the Socialist origins of the Party. As for the support of right-wing parties, many of the right-wingers who supported him initially thought that he would essentially be a puppet they could control. Many right-wing businessmen and faithful church-going rural conservatives supported Eamon de Valera and the early Irish Republican Army, even though their stated goal was the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic. It was a matter of perspective. The right-wingers would rather support Hitler, who was a nationalist and a socialist, over the Communists. So I must state that, unless anyone can produce some real proof, I must conclude that Hitler was a left-winger.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You sure about Hitler being pro-Abortion? That contradicts some of his views in his second book. And the reason why they call Nazism a 'right wing ideology' is of course because of a leftist POV. The Marxists simply want to group together everything that opposes their ideology as right wing, intentionally ignoring the fact that Nazism is much closer to their own ideology than conservative Christians. Anyone who is dumb enough to believe that Nazism is right wing, doesn't really understand what Nazism is all about. It's not about being conservative, it's a radical ideology that wants to do away with the church, evolve its race through eugenics, and many other aspects that have nothing to do with conservative elements or economical aspects such as capitalism versus communism. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Hitler was personally opposed to abortion (mostly for reasons of trying to increase the Aryan population) but he tolerated it, which is to say it remained legal in Nazi Germany. So it might actually be more that he didn't oppose it enough to outlaw it, which, I believe, is the same as tacitly approving of it. He though it should be an option for women, although he didn't like it personally.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Well abortion does have its pros and cons. I personally dislike abortion, but I think some countries like China and India desperately need it since they are extremely overpopulated. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hitler supported government ownership of all the means of production." This would have been big news to the Krupps, among others, who continued operating huge private enterprises throughout the Nazis era.

"he outlawed private ownership of firearms" Only for Jews. Private weapons continued to be privately sold and owned throughout the Nazi era. I have seen newspaper advertisements from 1945 offering firearms for sale to the public.

As for abortion, here is what Richard Grunberger wrote in "The 12-Year Reich" (p.261): Immediately after the seizure of power, the advertisement and display of contraceptives was banned (their manufacture and sale, on the other hand, were not limited) and all birth-control clinics were closed down. Abortions were termed 'acts of sabotage against Germany's racial future,' involving commensurately heavy punishment. Whereas in Republican Berlin fines on abortionists sometimes did not exceed 40 marks, Nazi courts imposed jail terms of six to fifteen years on doctors found guilty of abortionist practices." --Forrest Johnson (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, private companies still operated, because Hitler hadn't been able to nationalize them yet. He did intend to, however. I quote from the Nazi Party's official manifesto "We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels." This manifesto, by the way, was written by Adolph Hitler, not some party lackey. Hmmm... As for guns, in order to have a gun, you had to have a permit issued by the government, meaning by the Nazi Party. Pretty effective means of gun control, huh? Anyone Hitler didn't like didn't have a gun. And Heinrich Himmler, the head of the German police (both secret and non-), had this to say about guns. "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA-- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." --Heinrich Himmler Pretty cut-and-dry. And as I stated, Hitler opposed abortion for Aryans, but supported and encouraged it for non-Aryans. In fact, in many areas (especially in the ghettoes and in German-occupied Eastern Europe) abortions were compulasary.

"In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."

That was a policy statement issued in 1942 by Hitler. It was brought to light by Dr Tessa Chelouche of the Sackler Facility of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, in her article, "Doctors, Pregnancy, Childbirth and Abortion during the Third Reich," which appeared in the March 2007 issue of the Israel Medical Association Journal. So while it is true that abortions were illegal for Aryans, but for most everyone else in the Reich, it was encouraged, or even mandatory. Also, don't forget that at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, ten Nazi leaders were indicted for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the Tribunal ruled was a Crime Against Humanity. Doesn't really sound like Hitler and the Nazis were anti-abortion now, does it?

And I'm sorry to say, but the main reason many people now think Hitler was a left-winger is because of the way historians (like Richard Grunberger, who was a card-carrying Communist) have portrayed him. I prefer using his own words to what others who never knew him said.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"'We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.' This manifesto, by the way, was written by Adolph Hitler"

He also guaranteed the independence of Czechoslovakia, but so what? A Hitler quote doesn't prove much. These big Konzerne remained untouched throughout the Third Reich. In fact, they grew larger through government contracts and SS-provided slave labor.

"As for guns, in order to have a gun, you had to have a permit issued by the government". The Nazis had no gun law, except for those in force under Weimar, until 1938. At that time, Hitler decreed a "German Weapons Law" which significantly relaxed the rules on gun ownership: (1) Permits were no longer required for rifles, shotguns or ammunition. (2)The number of persons exempted from the permit requirement for handguns was expanded. (3) The legal age for gun ownership was lowered. (4) Permits were valid for three years instead of only one. (5) Jews were forbidden to manufacture firearms or ammunition. [22]

"In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Another Hitler quote. Never put into practice. The Nazis found it much simpler to sterilize people, starve and shoot them.

"Also, don't forget that at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, ten Nazi leaders were indicted for 'encouraging and compelling abortion,' which the Tribunal ruled was a Crime Against Humanity." Never happened, see for yourself. [23]

"Richard Grunberger, who was a card-carrying Communist" Nothing of the kind. Having fled Austria to Britain in 1938, he joined a communist youth group Young Austria, but remained politically a social democrat. His text is a standard work on the subject. [24]

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, I will give you this: You may be at least partially right on the gun law issue, however, I do want to point out two facts;1) The 1938 German Gun Law clearly states that ownership of firearms was restricted to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Meaning that the government could in fact deny ownership of a firearm to ANYONE they saw fit to, not just Jewish people. You still needed the Nazi Party's approval to own a firearm, which is about as effective a means of gun control as any I can think of (imagine if you needed Hillary Clinton's approval to own a gun!), and 2)the only people exempted from needing a government permit (ie approval from the Nazi party) were: holders of annual hunting permits (which were issued by the government), government workers, Nazi party members, and employees of the government owned national railway. So, even though "2)The number of persons exempted from the permit requirement for handguns was expanded", all the people exempted were still either directly employed by the government, or needed the express approval of the government (meaning the Nazi Party). So while the law didn't say "no civilian guns", it was still an effective means of gun control, keeping weapons out of the hands of those whom the Nazis thought were untrustworthy.

As for the gov't ownership of production and abortion issues, you aren't making any sense. You are saying that the stated opinions and goals of the Party, as laid out by it's founder and sole ideological leader in official party mainfestos and party statements, don't mean anything. Hitler's opinions WERE official party policy. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Joesph Stalin's opinions and goals had no bearing on the policies of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during his reign. No offense, but that is pure, unrefined B.S. All the signs are there. If it looks socialist, sounds socialist, acts socialist, and states it IS socialist, it must be... SOCIALIST!--SpudHawg948 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazis are against abortion because they see it as something that weakens their race in terms of numbers (and they are right about that, it does). They are not against abortion because of "conservatism" or because of any Catholic dogma or anything similar. They are simply against abortion because they think it keeps them down. Their anti-abortion stance has nothing to do with right wing Christians who oppose abortion; they have entirely different motivation for being anti-abortion. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So Paul von Hindenburg, Franz von Papen, and Alfred Hugenberg decided to put a crazy left-wing socialist in power? Let's get serious here. A couple of additional points. Also, whatever Hitler's position on gun control, it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. More broadly, socialism is not equivalent to "anything libertarians don't like." john k (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hitler's opinions WERE official party policy."

Only when he wanted them to be. The same 25-point program, announced by Hitler on Feb. 24, 1920, which you cited above, declared the Nazis in favor of national self-determination, freedom of religion, the equality of all citizens, land reform and abolishing the professional army. Hitler said some things, and then did what he damn well pleased . . . his speeches did not necessarily have anything to do with his actual programs. Hitler quotes are acceptable for illustrating Nazis policies, where these can be established from other sources, but NOT as a guide to what the Nazis actually did.

Regarding gun control, the Nazis law was the same as the Weimar law only much looser. As I noted above, only handguns were covered, and these were of no great military importance. If you look at pictures from the Kapp Putsch or the Beer Hall Putsch, you will see people carrying the standard German military shoulder weapon of the time, the Gewehr 98. [25] [26] If you wanted to pull off a coup, that was the weapon you wanted to use, and under Hitler's law, anyone could own one, without any government permission. Hitler waited until 1938 for this decree because he was no longer afraid of an armed uprising. The truth is, the Nazis ruled through fear of the Gestapo and the concentration camps, and also by bribing the complacent masses with Volkswagens and other material benefits, but not through any monopoly on firearms. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The only revelant point here is that scholarly sources, the media and most people in general think so and that's what wikipedia basis itself on, not original research or personal views. --Neon white (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazism is absolutely right-wing. Conservative is perhaps the first quarter of the right wing of the spectrum, then you get to fascism which is undoubtedly what Hitler was, a fascist. Indeed extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing governments will have likenesses, as with many extremes. You could say that Hitler even borrowed certain Communist ideals as they were perfect for driving pride and moral. Perhaps it is best to imagine the political spectrum coming full circle and almost connecting fascism and Communism. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much discussion on abortion and gun control laws, when these have nothing to do with socialism? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed invisible comments

I have deleted an extensive block of invisible comments on the Ariosophists. I have no idea why it's there, but this irrelevant material — irrelevant because the minimal influence of the Thule Society is adequately summarised in the visible text and because the other Ariosophists (not demonstrably or directly related in any way to Nazi origins) are covered in the linked Ariosophy article — does nothing for the article except lengthen it to no purpose. People can read very similar material quite openly on Ariosophy. I might re-insert some of this stuff there later on. Gnostrat 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought HItler was non-Christian

Didn't Hitler say ""National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html) Not that he was an atheist, either, as is made evident in quotations like these: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

See, the problem with Hitler's religion is that he grew up in Roman Catholic family but later on he declared himself as atheistic. The problem is because to this days we are not sure what was Hitler's point of view about his own religion.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that as Hitler liked to warp Nieztchen philosophy into a kind racial ideology he would have been fundamentally against religion as Nietzche was, I think the best description of Hitler's personal 'religion' is nilhilism, although this seems somewhat a contradiction in terms. Hitler would have probably been influenced by his mother, and at least partly his anti-semitism probably must have come from christians sources (as anti-semitism was largely maintained through balming Jews as 'Christ-killers').Anti-BS Squad (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's strange. I was under the impression that Christian antisemitism was based on religion and didn't inspire murder of an entire race (which is against the Bible by the way "Thou shalt not kill" and can be used to describe the Holocaust), whereas Hitler's antisemitism is based on race and did inspire the murder of an entire race.--69.234.222.211 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See for instance Martin Luther's frankly obscene Vom Schem Hamphoras, for instance: a clear case of a Christian leader of substantial whose antisemitism was visceral and not merely a matter of religious dispute. --FOo (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Vom Schem Hamphoras is disturbing, vile and strange. Jesus, Joseph, the Virgin Mary, John, Paul, were all Jews. I thought that antisemitism was never promoted by Christian leaders and that is why Christians are no longer antisemitic. In addition, I thought that pigs were not kosher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarian (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that Vom Schem Hamphoras is unbiblical. The Bible in no way suggests that Satan lives off Jewish vomit. I have to admit that Vom Schem Hamphoras made me want to vomit. Indeed, I think that Luther shouldn't have invented those lies. In addition, I haven't encountered antisemitism among today's Lutherans, or among any Protestant group for that matter, so I was shocked and sickened. --69.234.200.253 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently studying this, Hitler actually attempted to start his own religious movement in Germany called 'The German Faith Movement'. It was non-Christian and was based on sun worship and of course worship of the Nazi party. In his early time in power Hitler did not directly opposed any Christian movements or groups, he even allowed the Catholic church to organise their schools as they saw fit, in return the church stayed out of politics. Later on he tried to unify all Protestant churches into one "Reich Church", this did not work most church goers felt their loyalties lay with their local churches. Some ministers opposed Nazi ideas publicly and were struck from their posts then sent to concentration camps, of course. It is unclear if Hitler truly believed in a God, it is fairly clear that his 'German Faith Movement' was just another vehicle for propaganda and self-promotion. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the stuff he let himself get away with, and the jerk that he was, I'd not be surprised if Hitler worshiped himself.--69.234.207.238 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GA classification

I’ve removed the GA classification from the project banners. The article does not appear to have ever been nominated for a GA review and, consequently, has not been reviewed in accordance with the process. The GA rating appears to have been inappropriately added with this edit, and was apparently never really questioned. The article, in its current state, is not eligible to be a GA given the presence of numerous cleanup banners, any one of which would make the GA nomination a “quick fail”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 16:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamo-Nazi

Is there any intellectual basis to the use of the term Islamo-Nazi? I thought that it was confined to the world of conservative talk radio where facts and logic are not an essential component of the debate. I was shocked and embarrased to hear it used by Mit Romney during the ABC Republican candidates debate.

Maxdratomic (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go to JTF (Jewish Task Force), you'll find that in Islamic countries Hitler is a very admired individual because Antisemitism is widespread among Muslims, even though Jews are decent people who did not do the Muslims any wrong. [27] That is probably why Muslims are associated with Nazis and vice versa. And by the way, it's spelled embarrassed, not embarrased, and Mitt Romney, not Mit. --69.234.222.211 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard the word before. Is there a consensus on the meaning of the word? DanielDemaret (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The term was coined within the last few years, either because the term "Islamo-fascist" did not sound alarming enough or because most listeners to conservative talk radio are too uninformed to know what a fascist is. James Woolsley used the term in a 2005 article. Outside the No Spin Zone, very few people would actually use the term. Incidentally the JTF is not a main-stream Jewish organization. The Anti-Defamation League is much more respected. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hang on a minute. How do you know that most listeners to conservative talk radio don't know what a fascist is? Have you interviewed them? I see fascist as someone who's opposed to interracial marriage (because they see certain races as inferior) and values the state over the individual, and suppresses any opposition through force. They may even attempt genocide, as in the case of the Nazis. The Nazis are condemned and even associated with the pro-gay movement in conservative circles. This apparently shows that not only do they condemn fascism, they associate it with homosexuals.

While JTF is not a main-stream Jewish Organization, their heart's in the right place. If you want to see an overboard, extremist organization, don't look at the JTF or Focus on the Family. Go to the Fascist Jewish Defense League. Condemning interracial marriage between Jews and non-Jews. --69.234.204.104 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)--69.234.204.104 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"How do you know that most listeners to conservative talk radio don't know what a fascist is?" Because it's true.

I have read books by conservative authors, listen to sermons by conservative preachers and listened to God knows how many arguments by the conservatives I know ("conservative" here meaning American Republican) which make it abundantly clear they haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. I've heard Hitler described as an atheist (never mind that he believed in God, formulated and followed a philosophy called Positive Christianity and recalled in "Mein Kampf" that his first ambition was to be a priest) and as a leftist (never mind the amount of communists, socialists, social-Democrats, Christian socialists and other leftists who were sent to concentration camps for espousing leftist ideals). It's also practically an article of faith that Nazism is the same thing as Communism (Hitler's support was founded in the business sector, the military, churches and other conservative elements of the middle-class, all things that the communists tore apart the first chance they got) and New Deal liberalism (I'm curious; when did FDR abolish unions? The right to collective bargaining? When did FDR pass laws requiring workers to have the permission of their previous employers before they could find work? When did FDR's economic policies cause real wages to drop by 25% between 1933 and 1939)?

The average Republican has been spoon-fed piles and piles of horseshit to the point that they have no idea who Hitler was and what he stood for anymore, not that they ever did (despite their ability to see a Nazi in everyone they dislike, the GOP was remarkably silent back at the time when the Nazis actually existed and were actually a threat to humanity). It's a fact. Deal with it. But since Hitler is the personification of evil in the modern world, Republicans have simply adopted a logic as follows: 1) Hitler is evil. 2) Liberalism/Islam/insert-opponent's-name-here is evil. 3) Therefore, Liberals/Muslims/insert-name-here are Nazis.

Oh, yeah;

"even though Jews are decent people who did not do the Muslims any wrong".

Oh, blow it out your ass. First of all, any statements that claims a priori that "[insert race] are decent people" is bullshit. A person can be decent, a race cannot. There are decent Jews, douchebag Jews and everything in between, just like in any other group. And some of the douchebags have in fact done Muslims, and others in the area, *considerable* wrong. Such as the Irgun, largely composed of people who had recently immigrated from Europe and had no claim to the Middle-East, conducting terrorist activities against local Arabs, moderate Jews and the British Empire throughout the thirties and forties, without any provocation from any of those communities I might add. Such as the Israeli colonization of the West Bank which has proceeded unhindered for the past thirty years, and the systematic denial of rights to Palestinians and Arab Israelis. Such as the carpet-bombing of Beirut in 2006 in response to an incident involving only two Israelis soldiers. Such as events like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2) which occur on a regular basis but which the so-called "liberal media" of the United States has consistently failed to report. The "us poor, sweet, innocent victims" fairytale used by the Israelis to describe the conflict makes me gag... the absolute worst thing I can say about the Palestinians is that they're doing to Israel exactly what the Irgun did to them back in the thirties and forties. Israel's mess is entirely of its own making, so forgive me if I shed no tears over their so-called "plight". 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminoligy edit

There is nothing in the source or source link that claims Nazi as being a pejorative term. I have removed the subject entirely until better sources are cited. Jeremy D. (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You've removed the entire section. Jmlk17 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from removing it entirely and have edited out the sections to which are not commonly known and cannot be cited.

Jeremy D. (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, the statement "The term Nazi is derived from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" is misleading because the second syllable ends after the /o/: German "National-" is /na.tsjo.na:l/ and not /na.tsi.o.na:l/ or whatnot. The sentence as it stands seems to predict /na.tsjo/ rather than /na:.tsi/. The abbreviation is therefore limited to the first four phonemes (/ts/ being an affricate) -- and even that is controversial, since somehow "Nazi" /na:.tsi/ changes its final phoneme from an approximant to a vowel. The real etymology, of course, is probably much more complicated than that, if this website is anything to go by. I'll change it as soon as I have time for it. By the way, the accompanying footnote which gives the pronunciation of NSDAP as "Not-zeo-nahl Zote-seea-list-uh-shuh Doy-cha Ar-byter part-eye" is just plain gibberish. Not every speaker of English pronounces "not" as /nat/, mind you. Use the IPA, this is exactly the kind of cross-linguistic situations it was designed for. JREL (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Nazism discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals==

Description

A project to unify & improve the many articles relating to the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, Wehrmacht, Schutzstaffel, Nazi ideology etc as well as allowing more efficient collaboration between editors.

Interested Wikipedians

1. This is serious mother (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Probably best as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the proponent, This is serious mother, has been banned from Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reichstag Fire

I have inserted an earlier section dealing with the immediate aftermath of Hitler's accession to power, which for some strange reason was deleted. Since the fire allowed Hitler to abolish democratic government and start the concentration camp system, it should be here in a prominent position. Peterlewis (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

I think this article could use more than 3 images. ^8thstar 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't edit

Hello. I have information to add about Nazi economic policy but the article has no "edit this page" tab. What is going on? -Souviens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souviens (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. -- Karenjc 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

National Socialism

It is in the lead. We have this dicussion over and over. A tiny handful of libertarians keep trying to rewrite the leads of several articles to reflect a minority POV. Most of the last discussion that went to mediation involved editors now banned from Wikipedia - shall we take it to mediation again?--Cberlet (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with POV pushisng. National Socialism is common english name for this ideology. Articles in both Brittanica and Encarta confirm this. If you want meditation feel free to start one. In the meantime stop with POV pushing. -- Vision Thing -- 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

VT, I'm wondering how the Britannica link supports what you're saying. It would seem to support the other version. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Britannica article itself is called National Socialism, and in it they talk about National Socialism 17 times and about Nazism 3 times (count is from my 2007 DVD version of Britannica). -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is what makes a better lead representing the majority viewpoint. Every time we have this discussion a majority of Wiki editors dispute the minority libertarian view on "National Socialism" being the equivalent of the word "Nazism." To repeatedly raise this issue on multiple pages over several years is POV-pushing and tendentious.--Cberlet (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in truth he can read this discussion from November of last year when current intro was established. It's interesting how Cberlet thinks that "I" in his case equals "majority". -- Vision Thing -- 15:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And be sure to note that one user, EliasAlucard, has been banned from Wikipedia, and two other editors, Forrest_Johnson, and Ron_Pistol, magically appeared with new accounts just for that discussion and then vanished: Forrest Johnson; and Ron Pistol.--Cberlet (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that Vision_Thing is now inserting the same marginal POV into the lead at Neo-Nazism. Can we keep this discussion here to avoid wasting time and energy?--Cberlet (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone started with inserting POV into introduction, that would be you with this recent edit. -- Vision Thing -- 15:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we have had this discussion repeatedly, and the editors who agreed with -- Vision Thing -- have either been banned, or were magical single-issue hit-and-run proponents, I am restoring the lead back to the majority viewpoint.--Cberlet (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than empty rhetoric you haven't offered any arguments that support your changes. -- Vision Thing -- 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"National Socialism" is not congruent with "Nazism"

Just check the page on "National Socialism" We go through this battle everytime Vision Thing decides he can risk another POV edit war. We have had numerous discussions across Wikipeida about this. The majority view should previal. The movement and government known as Nazism was far more than just about national socialism; and there were several other national socialist parties and movements at the time.--Cberlet (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to say that we go through this every time when you decide you can risk edit war. IIRC you were already blocked for edit warring over this. -- Vision Thing -- 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

and one of the editors has been permanently blocked, and two others were fictitious accounts.--Cberlet (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<----The majority of editors have repeatedly made it clear that they reject equating "National Socialism" with just "Nazism." Please see:

• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]

Shall we go back to mediation, or would you prefer going directly to arbcom? --Cberlet (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer arbcom since your edits are extremely tendentious. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but, alas, I am informed by an Admin that we must start the dispute resolution process over from the start.--Cberlet (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I would like to point out that the quote from the Industrial Employers Association giving their view of Nazism does not belong in the intro, unless you can provide a reason why that particular description of Nazism should be privileged over those given by the large numbers of scholars and historians who have written extensively on Nazism and are not quoted in the intro. -- Nikodemos (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikodemos that the Industrial Employers Association text is minor and fringe POV.--Cberlet (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the term "Nazism" equivalent to the term "National Socialism"?

Real question here is not whether the term "Nazism" is equivalent to the term "National Socialism" but should the intro say "Nazism or National Socialism". Version similar to current has been here at least for a year. Wikipedia guideline on naming conflict within articles is pretty clear on this: Where two or more names are commonly used in the present day for an entity, the names should be given at the start of an article with the article name listed first, then the alternate names in alphabetical order by name (if they are all from the same language) or in order of the name of the language (if they are from different languages). That "National Socialism" is commonly used in the present day can be seen from articles on the same subject in Britannica and Encarta, both of which have named their article "National Socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to the question is: No, they are not equivalent. There are two relevant data here: one is that members of the NSDAP (adherents of the Hitlerite variety of the German form of national-socialism) did not refer to themselves as "Nazis" but as "National-Socialists" and that this is true of their modern imitators also. The second datum is that there were/are umpteen other organisations which have designated themselves in the same way (see National Socialism (disambiguation)) but are either completely unconnected with Hitlerite national-socialism, or are related but parallel to it (Black Front) or are related but older (Austrian National Socialism), a fact which arguably makes Hitlerism a DEVIATION from the original idea of national-socialism. We can identify Czech nationalists from the 1890s as the originators of a national-socialism (see Czech National Socialist Party), closely followed by their Austrian-German rivals, copied in turn by the Bavarian (NS)DAP (two decades later).

If we call this article National-Socialism, we arbitrarily exclude the others which are all equally entitled to the name, if not more so. If we name it in a way which implies that somehow the NSDAP constituted the DEFINITIVE form of national-socialism, we are violating WP:NPOV. In fact, we would be conferring legitimacy upon the Nazis' own appropriation of the concept. However artificial or unhistoric, we need a terminology which will differentiate Hitler's national-socialism from other sorts of national-socialism. They didn't call themselves Nazis, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. I would think that "Nazism" is at least as common as "National-Socialism" today.

"Nazism" is in any case what we have chosen for the article name and therefore, it gets first mention in the lead section. If you want "National Socialism" to be listed first, then you have to rename the article, and that leads us into all the problems I've just described. I can't think that it's SO difficult to find a form of words which gives both names along with an explanation that "Nazism" is the popular name for an ideology which called itself "National-Socialism" but which in fact was not the only sort of national-socialism. Gnostrat (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RfC: Knowing about the origins of the term "nazi" (and its relation to "sozi" for that matter) and the already described fact that the word all but disappeared in Germany during Hitler's reign - it does seem rather imprecise at first glance. It should be fairly clear to most people that the word "Nazism" refers specifically to the ideology of the NSDAP, I'm sure there aren't many disagreements in that departement. As the editor above stated, Nazism is not National Socialism. Somehow the ideology ended up being named after the Socialist riposte to the word "sozi". That "nazi" was originally cut from the words "National Socialism" does not mean that Nazism is equal to National Socialism. Take Communism for instance. What if popular opinion had named it "Sozism"? Would we be here discussing whether or not Communism is in fact Socialism? I think not. TerminusEst (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also responding to the RfC -- Nazism as described in this article does not correspond to National Socialism. Doug Weller (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick note on my proposed compromise: The source of the controversy lies in the fact that while the Nazis did indeed call themselves National Socialists, they were neither the first nor the only group to use that term. Thus, what we need to do in the introduction is to say that the Nazis called themselves National Socialists without implying that they have exclusive rights to that title. I see now that my initial proposal didn't really achieve this purpose too well, so I will try another one. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The source of dispute is not how National Socialist called themselves, but the fact that "National Socialism" is a name commonly used to describe NSDAP ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note: Does anyone have any information on the size of the Czech National Social Party in the 1920s and 30s? I'm not sure at what point the Nazis became more numerous than the CNSP. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that whilst there have been other usages for the term 'National Socialism' and groups called 'National Socialist' that wheren't Nazi, but 'National Socialism' in current political usage is simply a more academically correct synonym for 'Nazism'. I would support a move of this article to National Socialism. --Soman (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the answer, IMO, is two articles. The article, as it is ATM, deals overwhelmingly with Nazism (specifically the brand of National Socialism practicsed by the Nazi Party) rather than National Socialism in general. While both could exist within the same article I think National Socialism would be swamped by the Nazism side in a way. Narson (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are already a disambiguation page National Socialism and a page on the NSDAP National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party and a page on the original National Socialist Program. Every time I add a link in the lead of this entry to the disambiguation page National Socialism, -- Vision deletes it, and reverts the lead back to the one -- Vision prefers. Several editors have tried compromises to no avail. There was already a recent vote where editors rejected the proposal to rename this page to "National Socialism," here and here: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Several of the supporters of the move have since been banned.--Cberlet (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I read of it all, frankly, the less I understand the desire to move this page. This article details the Nazi Party/NSDAP branch of National Socialism not national socialism in general so the page name seems nice and appropiate. Somehow I suspect this attempted move and the disputed move of Nazi Party are going to end up in one of those annoying arbcom cases that drags on for god knows how long. Narson (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Private property under the Nazis

The Journal of Economic History (2006), 66: 390-416 The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry CHRISTOPH BUCHHEIM a1 and JONAS SCHERNER a2 a1 Chair of Economic History; University of Mannheim; L 7, 3-5; D-68131 Mannheim; Germany. E-mail: [email protected]. a2 Seminar of Economic and Social History; University of Mannheim; L 7, 3-5; D-68131 Mannheim; Germany. E-mail: [email protected].

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

Thanks.-Souviens (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't resist pointing out that I know of no country that treats private property as a 'fundamental right'. See eminent domain used for all sorts of things (and abused a lot). I don't think the phrase should be there as it applies that other countries do treat private property that way.Doug Weller (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the right is more fundamental in some societies than others. The statement was from the paper but I can take it out without harming the idea. -Souviens (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision of Lead

It is clear that a majority of editors think that the current lead equating Nazism and national socialism is not the best form. There is no attempt to remove the term "national socialism" from the lead. I invite the majority editors here to help rewrite the lead to reflect the majority viewpoint.--Cberlet (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Majority view is reflected in sources, not in personal opinions. -- Vision Thing -- 08:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a rule here that one cannot go against the wishes of the majority? --Souviens (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Vision_Thing has repeatedly violated basic Wikipedia policies and continues to engage in tendentious and disruptive edit warring. All it would take to stop this, would be for other editors to ensure policy is followed by reverting Vision_Thing's improper edits.--Cberlet (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I please see this rule that one must go along with majority? --Souviens (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It involves asking for comments and holding votes, both of which have been conducted. See above. The basic policy is [here] --Cberlet (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can point me to a specific section? Because I don't see it say that consensus is required before a person makes a change to an article. --Souviens (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is considered appropriate on a controversial article, and there have been numerous times that this issue has been discussed, voted on, comments requested, even mediation. Vision_Thing simply ignores these procedures and reverts all edits back to the lead Vision_Thing prefers, even though Vision_Thing is well aware that the majority of editors and the majority of reputable published scholars hold the opposite viewpoint.--Cberlet (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipiedia is based on verifiability, not on democracy and original research. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading through the policies I have to disagree. I don't see anything saying that a person has to go along with the consensus. A person can edit an article as a lone dissenter if he wishes, and when he does he has not violated any policies. --Souviens (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not a democracy but we're not a dictatorship either. We function by consensus, as Cberlet has stated. In the consensus lead, WP:Verifiability is met by the reliable scholarly sources which attest to the blunt historical fact that Nazism is not the only movement to have described itself as N-S and is not equivalent to N-S. However, Vision's lead violates WP:NPOV by treating Nazism and N-S as equivalent terms. So I have a proposal for discussion. What exactly would be the objection to a lead in something like the form "Nazism, commonly known as National-Socialism..." which simply and succinctly says what Vision wants it to say WITHOUT saying that the terms amount to the same thing? (And leaving the rest of the paragraph to expand on what that means.) Gnostrat (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with that as a compromise as long as National Socialism was wiki-linked to the disambiguation page. Not ideal, but a reasonable compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We could make it a little more ideal as the exact wording can be discussed and fine-tuned if necessary. The wikilink to the disambig is essential, I agree. Gnostrat (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All sources in the lead treat National Socialism as an equivalent to Nazism. None of the sources talks about other forms. However, I can accept the lead which says “Nazism, also known [or called] as National Socialism,” as long as phrase “by its supporters” is excluded because it implies that editors of Britannica, Columbia and Encarta are National Socialists. -- Vision Thing -- 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a compromise. --Cberlet (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He is correct that National Socialism is usually used as a synonym for Nazism. There's no dearth of sources that show this. Maybe if it wasn't capitalized it could be a more generic term, but capitalized it is Nazism. --Souviens (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The majority of editors here disagree. That is why National Socialism is a disambiguation page. We have had this debate repeatedly over several years on multiple pages. The consensus is always the same. We just had comments from outside editors on this page. The consensus was re-affirmed.--Cberlet (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'll re-affirm it again. The present lead takes into account that NS is commonly used as a synonym for Nazism. Restricted use of a term may be widespread without being taxonomically correct. (Lots of people still imagine that reptiles don't include birds, for example.) Even Vision Thing would, I think, acknowledge that the Union of Revolutionary National Socialists and the Austrian Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei were national-socialist in the full ideological sense, not merely in the sense of happening to combine the words "National" and "Social" in the name of a party. But they were not the same national-socialism as Hitler's NSDAP. I regularly use lower case for the broad overall concept (i.e. including, but not confined to, NSDAP national-socialism), much as we distinguish communism from the Communist Party. Following MOS guidelines, organisations should be capitalised but generic ideologies put into lower case. We capitalise (Nazi) National Socialism as the ideology of a specific organisation, but we have the problem that parties or movements outside the NSDAP have named their organisations National Socialist and we have to capitalise their specific ideologies too. Gnostrat (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged meaning of colours

The claim that the red and black colors of the symbol of the NSDAP would represent "Blut und Boden" (blood and land) was inserted by an IP at 3 June 2004. Is there any source for this claim? --Schwalker (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blut Und Boden: The Ideological Basis of the Nazi Agricultural Program by Clifford R. Lovin seems to discuss Nazi symbolism in relation to this doctrine of Blood and Body. As does Path to Collective Madness: A Study in Social Order and Political Pathology by Dipak K. Gupta, this latter one actually links the flag itself to this. However there doesn't appear to be any reputable history sources that I can find online. SGGH ^speak! 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cites please

The addition of POV commentary without cites is not acceptable, even if I agree with you. I have reverted recent edits.--Cberlet (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention please: antipolonism

---

PLEASE KINDLY READ!!! Please add to description of NAZISM a word : antipolonism . Nazis (Nazi Germans in the times of Hitler rule ) started 1939 GENOCIDE AGAINST POLES. Genocide against Polish (GENTILES) women, gentelmen, children. Nazi Germans were murdering POLISH POWS (1939), POLES IN HOSPITALS (1944, Warsaw), POLES (POLES GENTILES) IN Nazi German CAMP AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU,AND OTHER NAZI GERMAN DEATH CAMPS. thanks Bill

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.178.90 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Irena Sendler-ATTENTION

Please add to the description of Nazism name: Sendler. This Polish Woman was rescuing Jews. She rescued (succeed) above 2500 Jewish Children from Nazi German prison called "Warsaw Ghetto".In 1965, Sendler was recognized by Yad Vashem as a Righteous Among the Nations, which was confirmed in 1983 by the Israeli Supreme Court. She also was awarded the Commanders Cross by the Israeli Institute. Sendler WAS POLE GENTILE (1919-2008). Sendler is Polish and Israeli hero. Please kindly ADD Sendler to description of Nazism AS ENEMY OF NAZI GERMANS OR ENEMY OF NAZISM. Perhaps You could write in Wiki: Polish Anti-Nazi fighter or hero. Thanks! :) 83.6.178.90 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Bill

Contradicting Pages

The page on Nazism states "The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party on February 24, 1920,[23] against Hitler’s choice of Social Revolutionary Party." (bold added) The linked page on Anton Drexler states "At Hitler's behest, Drexler changed the name of the Party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) early in 1920."
Did Hitler want the party name changed to NSDAP or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.186.201 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the short answer is, we don't know because the sources contradict one another. You might want to read through the section When did the DAP become the NSDAP? above, which also relates to the question you raised. I left the text as you found it because the issues are complex and I had other articles needing attention. If anybody wants to have a go at sorting it, be my guest and...well, good luck. Gnostrat (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Two citations on the matter:

At this early stage, Hitler brought up the idea of renaming the party, and he proposed the name 'Social Revolutionary Party'. However, Rudolf Jung insisted that the party should follow the pattern of Austria's Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei. As a consequence, the DAP was shortly renamed the NSDAP.

von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik. Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time. Caxton 1952, pg 259. Heiden, Hans. Les Débuts du National-Socialisme, Revue d'Allemagne, VII, No. 71 (Sept. 15, 1933), p 821. Dr. Fabricius, Hans. Geschichte der Nationalsozialistischen Bewegung Berlin; Spaeth, 1937, Vol II, p 15.

It is he that convinced Hitler to use the term 'National Socialist' since Hitler wanted to rename the Munich DAP, the 'Social Revolutionary Party'.

von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik. Leftism Revisited Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., 1990. pp 147-149. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.186.201 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring - Nazism and religion

The issue of Nazism and religion is complex. Please stop edit warring. There is substantial disagreement among scholars. Please stop inserting only one side of the many-sided debate. None of the extended text belongs in the intro. Continue this childish activity and I will ask that this page be locked down. Behave.--Cberlet (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I make you notice that is Gennarus the user who deletes documented information on the basis of his own ideas and propagandistic purposes. The link of Christianity with Nazism is very important, and should be present in the intro. Without Christianity, Nazism would not have ever emerged. --Esimal (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are both acting like total jerks. Please stop edit warring.--Cberlet (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My part in this has been to attempt a sustainable compromise between competing Christian and (apparently) rationalist agendas. The statement itself appears well justified but I'm unhappy with a string of website sources which may, or may not, be reliable. I would prefer to pin it down with scholarly sources (and by the way, Gennarous, pagans and occultists are allowed to be fair-minded, accredited scholars, every bit as much as Christians).

While I have tried to stay even-handed, I take great exception to Gennarous' offensive ad hominem attacks. I am in fact of dual faith, which should not be an issue but since you have made it one, I would point out that I am well placed to see both sides of the argument. There are tenuous neopagan inputs into Nazism but they have been blown out of proportion by sensationalist postwar writers. Christians need the integrity to see what is in front of them in their scriptures. Jesus denounced the Jewish religion in the strongest terms, and for what I would consider excellent theological reasons (whether you agree with them or not). But Christians also need the humility to recognise the unpalatable flip side: that centuries of Christian "antisemitism" (a disputable term, but one that we're stuck with) have been rooted in the words of Jesus, and often for very bad reasons.

Let's agree to leave these issues out of the lead, but they may well deserve further consideration in a neutral and objective manner in the sections dealing with religio-mystical contributions to Nazism. Gnostrat (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gnostrat, I appreciate your honesty and rationality. I think the issue of Christianity should be kept in the intro to clarify an argument that for decades has been heavily decepted by Christian apologists. As I previously stated, a Nazism without Christian basises wouldn't have ever existed. Paganism has nothing to do with Nazism, since also Ariosophy (Thule Society) was modeled after Christian and Biblical mythology. --Esimal (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with you about Ariosophy. The Ariosophists were doing a form (or several forms) of Christian/pagan syncretism. When I wrote that the pagan input into Nazism has been vastly exaggerated, I include in that statement the supposed Ariosophy connection, which was likewise indirect and tenuous.

Where I will agree with you is that the Third Reich was officially Christian and that paganism was discouraged and sometimes actively suppressed (as also were some Christian groups that didn't toe the line). What is more, while it is possible to find antisemitism in some völkisch, neopagan and Ariosophical groups, you could say that it "infected" them from originally Christian sources. In the absence of Christianity, pagans would still have been (like Jesus) theologically opposed to Jewish monotheism. But it takes a John Chrysostom with his Eight Homilies against the Jews, or a Luther with The Jews and Their Lies, to lay the ideological groundwork for 19th-century Anti-Semitism, which was supported by Catholics and Lutherans, and without which there would have been no Nazism.

Should this be stated in the intro? Ideally, yes. I find it disturbing that edits for which I have now provided adequate citations (and I'm sure the experts here could find more heavyweight sources too) have been removed. This should not happen. But without first securing a rough consensus for reincluding this material in some (perhaps redrafted) form, we will just degenerate into another edit war. If enough people support reinclusion, so will I. By all means let us try. Just so people remember what we are arguing over, here is the text:

Nazism, particularly its antisemitism, found strong ideological roots in Christianity.

And let me reiterate that I personally wouldn't rely on the web articles, especially Online documentation with sources and photos which was published on a Willis Carto site. Also, please ignore the first three, extraneous notes which have slipped in from somewhere. Gnostrat (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, the problem is that reputable published scholars take different positions on this issue, so our task here on wikipedia is not to decide who is correct, but to reflect the diversity of views, which means the one-sided presentation of opinion in the intro is not appropriate. It really is that simple.--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I spoke of redrafting. A sentence or two, properly weighted to reflect the predominant opinions. Undue weight should not be given to fringe theories (or any weight at all in a brief summary), and you can't tell me there's even a significant-minority of serious support for the idea that Nazism grew out of paganism, the sort of "balance" which Gennarous inserted at one point. Gnostrat (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I re-introduce the issue since nobody else (or nobody among the opponents) is interested in continuing this discussion. --Esimal (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

DAB

Uh, you don't notice that the DAB is actually at the top of the page where people can find it, and that including this link doesn't show that NS isn't only a synonym of the Nazi Party, but that the DAB on top of the page does exactly that? THis is what the top of the article says, the DAB at top does exactly what you think the link to the DAB 3 lines below does. The DAB at the bottom doesn't do what you think it has to be in for--it's just a confusing link, people come here, see it's not what they want, find the handy link to the DAB, click on it. Or people come here, like me, from the DAB, think it's what they want, see the prominent link to National Socialism, are totally confused because that's what they thought they just came from, click on the link, and get sent back to the DAB, which they would have gone to by clicking on the top, if that's what they wanted. You're just making navigation difficult for those who are not interested in the invited, but rather the article, like me.--Blechnic (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"

"National Socialism" redirects here. For other uses, see National Socialism (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Nasi.

Nazism, commonly known as National Socialism"

Cberlet may be the guy to answer this one. Myself, I'd keep the second link and wouldn't confuse people with the DAB at the top of the page. National Socialism is the broad generic term and so it should, itself, be the disambig. Move National Socialism (disambiguation) to National Socialism and while we're at it, merge in National Socialist party and National Socialist Movement too. There's no reason for keeping ideologies, parties and movements on separate tiny pages, what's needed is one central page to summarise and keep track of all the various uses and definitions of the name. The lack of such a page, or rather, its apparent disintegration is what is at the root of your confusing experiences. Gnostrat (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now your revert of a perfectly sensible edit on my part is at the root of the confusion. Where's the editorial consensus that show's you should send readers from a dab to a dab in two sentences? Please link directly to it. And, please, stick to the issue at hand, not all your opinions about ideologies and other pages. The dab is the central page. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the last three years of edit warring over this issue before deciding that we are all idiots. Sometimes a compromise is just a compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Try considering the reader rather than yourselves before deciding otherwise. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I'm just trying to explain a few things. I won't revert you a second time, but I can't speak for others. Gnostrat (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If this endless right-wing edit warring over national socialism does not end (take note Vision Thing) I will support Gnostrat and merge all the pages National Socialism, National Socialist party, National Socialist Movement. I agreed to a compromise to end a three year long edit war by right wing fanatics. I am tired of the bullshit. Please abide by the consensus.--Cberlet (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? -- Vision Thing -- 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See? That's how easy it is around here to upset the delicate balance, just for the convenience of this, and not that, link to the same bloody fragment of a dab. This is no ordinary article, so you have to make allowances. If you want to ignite another 3-year edit war, Blechnic, go right ahead. Like I said, the navigation problems are caused by separating National Socialism (disambiguation) from National Socialism, and they can be solved by centralising the overview of generic NS on the latter page instead of it redirecting here. Then if you want National Socialism it will take you straight to generic NS where all the meanings are explained and we can have one in-text link from here to there and we all know where we are. But you probably won't get that without an edit war either. Now I'm off to some science articles, where people know how to cooperate. Gnostrat (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame me for your absurd edit war--that's what comes when you individually own an article and rely upon original research, rather than writing an article for the reading audience from well done research available to everyone. This last what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. Any edit wars here are 100% the fault of the participants, and to even try to blame it on people who come here to try to read the article and get information simply shows none of you should be editing the article. This is an encyclopedia article, not your private playground. --Blechnic (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you. It's advice, like I gave you in my edit summary to begin with. You walked into this unwittingly. Now you know the score. Gnostrat (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. Here's a quote from your post, "If you want to ignite another 3-year edit war, Blechnic, go right ahead. Stop blaming me, or anyone else, than saying, "oh, I was just giving you good advice." "Walking into" what unwittingly? My need to quickly use the artile as an encyclopedia article rather your personal playground. The score is you think you own this article, and apparently you'll do what's necessary to get those away who disagree with you. --Blechnic (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks says you're well out of order. You know nothing about my motives. The number of edits I have made in what you call my "personal playground" is tiny and, if you'd bothered to check, you'd have seen that my talk page record is one of mediating and proposing compromises in other people's edit wars. I do this shit because it helps stabilise the article, and that was my concern when I restored the link. Damn right I said to go right ahead if you want another edit war. I didn't accuse you of having ignited a thing; I was spelling out the likely consequences you will involve yourself in if you remove the second link. But I won't be the one reverting you, and even less will I be "owning" anything here, because what I actually meant was that I don't give a monkey's fart what you do from here on. I'm wasting my time wading through blind obstinacy and ignorant personal attacks each time I propose a compromise in good faith or explain one that is agreed and working, even if not ideal. Deal with it yourselves. Gnostrat (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're the one out of line, threatening me and blaming me for this crap. This is not your article. This article is not stabilized, it's a useless piece of crap being guarded jealously by its owners. If I make any edits to this article, I am not responsible for your edit warring, so stop blaming and warning editors who come here. I don't care what the heck you've tried to compromise here, or even care to weigh whether or not to believe you. As long as you are the guardian warning readers of this article away, blaming them for your edit war, you are the one at fault, not the readers who lamely came here thinking they could read an article. You attacked me when I came here to discuss a problem with this article, and you continue to attack me under the guise you are the great protector from edit wars. You're not. You're the problem. Stop attacking readers who come here.

I'm trying to feel at home on Wikipedia, so I too, make sure that any time someone walks into a landmine field that I am playing in I blame the mines on them under the guised of "warning them." I didn't start your edit war. I don't even know what it's about, and apparently not you or anyone here does either. You started it--it's yours. --Blechnic (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And, you've achieved your goal. I'm out of here, the crap is all yours. --Blechnic (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Christianity, Paganism, Occultism

I don't know how much of this is the work of User:Esimal, but the part about religion is currently not acceptable. Goodrick-Clarke and Höhne are misquoted; Angebert (actually a pseudonym of two authors), Pennick, Moynihan, Flowers and webpages like this [28] are not reliable sources. As soon as the current edit war is over, this has to be removed. Zara1709 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, is already someone writing a report for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR about Esimal? We don't need two people doing this.Zara1709 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While you don't mention. your Christian fundamentalist friend Gennarous who has reverted four times? Your POV is disgusting Zara. --Esimal (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)