Talk:Nazism/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nazism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hitlerism vs. Strasserism the distinction
I have added a couple of paragraphs to the Nazi theory section of the article outlining the key differences between 'Left-Nazism' i.e. Strasserism and 'Right-Nazism' or Hitlerism. I feel that the article treats Nazism as a too much of a homogeneous ideology when in fact it is far from that. Ideally a more developed Nazism Project should split Nazism into separate articles dealing in detail with the relationships between these various sub-ideologies.
Worth making a point about
Knucmo2 wrote (20:35, 31 Oct 2004) Adolf Hitler is said to have drawn upon Nietzsche in the article, and yes he did read a lot of work most probably by Nietzsche, which is made doubly obvious by his some of his concepts, which were a result of his misreading of the philosopher. The only ideas Nietzsche remotely shared I believe with the Nazis were his glorification of conflict (not necessarily military conflict, as so many blindfolded critics stoop to believe), and his collectivism (Communist idea.) In contrast, Nietzsche's views of the difference between strong and weak, between masters and men, were a sharp contrast to the Nazi philosophy. Nietzsche's famous "blond beast" aphorism probably sounded like music to Hitler's ears, and he could made many variations on that theme alone.
- I don't know if I've misunderstood you - but Nietzsche was massively against the idea of communism; he abhorred any pretence of "herd mentality". The idea which Hitler presumably drew upon most is the idea of the 'superman', and the 'inversion of morals'; namely that it was unfair that the weak were seen as morally superior to the strong. Seegoon 22:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Both A. Hitler and F. Nietzshe were against communist doctrine. Vost 17:44, 5 February 2006 (PST)
- I don't think that really means anything. newspeak comes to mind here. As we've learned above there are different strains of nazism as there are different meanings to the term communism and excatly what the communist doctrine was as a funtion of time and nationality.
The path to featured article status
The article is too long. Nazism#Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts needs to be split into separate articles. I am going to focus myself on Nazism and religion, as that is an area of particular expertise and interest of mine. Lets go way out of our way to be civil and considerate of each other and the readers, and we should be able to get this article featured someday :) Sam [Spade] 14:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nazism and religion, references
AndyL wrote (18:32, 3 Oct 2004)
- Sam, you've allowed your own prejudices to guide your editing. You've completely disregarded the following exchange on Nazism and religion:
There are no Christian influences in Nazism. Andy. I haven't read anything anywhere. I do Know that Hitler was influenced by Marxists and the SPD and by the Socialists in Vienna. He copied them. Unprotect the page Andy. WHEELER 14:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, do not unprotect it. It is a controversial and complex issue and such absolute, black&white claims do not do the subject justice (and it is about Nazism, not just Hitler per se.). One work by historian Steigmann-Gall, views Nazism as ultimately Unchristian, but still "point[s] out how much Nazism owed to German Christian, especially Protestant, concepts."
Steigmann-Gall, Richard. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Book reviews (amazon - editorial) for Nazi Conceptions of Christianity El_C
- El_C, if you have read the book then I suggest you edit the section about religion. The book seems good when I read the reviews on Amazon. Please tell us what you know because the books make me curious. Andries 18:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Also, most of my "key" edits were to "Nazism and Socialism".
I haven't gotten that far down yet. Sam, if protection is lifted do you promise not to implement your changes unilterally as you did last time and allow for a consensus to develop here instead?AndyL 19:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have not read it, I am only (somewhat) familliar of its role in the historiography. The following are works that could also prove of value:
Nazism and religion: references
Addendum: I forgot to note that I have encountered scores of books on the subject written in German (without an English translation) on the topic of Nazism and religion, so I encourage German-speaking contributors to seek those also as the title of some of these strikes me as potentially quite valuable. El_C (4 Sep)
- WTF? I thought talk page flooding was vogels thing. Is there anything you are able to articulate, because the above isn't what I would call an effective dialogue. In the future, if theres something you'd like me to review, please give me a hyperlink, and a bit of context. Sam [Spade] 22:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sam, you tried to remove references to Christianity from the article except to call those who suggest there is a connection "anti-Christian" rather than base your edits on the discussion we had when the article was protected you've completely disregarded what was said. AndyL 22:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well thats a bit better, at least I know what you're talking about now. I didn't mean to bias things in that way, and I'm fine with the edit you made a few minutes ago. What do you think of the very many other edits I made? Any chance I might possibly squeeze a compliment out of you for my hours work? Sam [Spade] 22:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
WTF? I thought talk page flooding was vogels thing. Is there anything you are able to articulate, because the above isn't what I would call an effective dialogue
Try to stay calm. A talk page can always be archived when it becomes too lenghy. The list cannot be considered flooding if its items are pertinent. The point for it was to demonstrate that the topic should not be omitted so readily — listing these references helped to establish this. I urge you to review the comments that preceded these for further context. I remain hopeful that it proves useful here.
Inarticulately yours,
- Well, if you focus on the sentance you left out "if theres something you'd like me to review, please give me a hyperlink, and a bit of context." you might understand what I was getting at. Actually, you seem to have done just what I asked, which is great. It wasn't you, nor the opportunity to discuss and review references and previous discussion that annoyed me (how I reacted in anyway other than "calm" I cannot fathom), it was the manner in which things were done ("Sam, you've allowed your own prejudices to guide your editing. You've completely disregarded the following exchange on Nazism and religion"...), and the lack of context. Sam [Spade] 11:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I mistook your comments to indicate a criticism of the refernce list per se. as not being a part of the dialogue — only after making my comment did I notice the discrapencies that made the page misleading and read poorly. I should have noted that there and then, but I neglected to (was preoccupied at the time). So I retract my comments. As for reading a lack of calm in your aforementioned comment, the reason for this was the WTF, I simply found it to be a term uncharectaristic with your usual demeanour here (and I did view it as directed towards myself, author of the reference list), so I arrived to that conclusion. But that isn't very important one way or the other. El_C
- actually it was directed towards andy, who responded to my suggestion that we work together amiably and focus on separate areas (maybe I should have been more clear that I was avoiding the whole socialist debate in my edits as an appeasement to him?) with making a rude statement and copy pasting your list, comments, and whatever else into the talk. That annoyed me, but I'm pretty much always annoyed w andy, we've had a RfAR, RfC and so forth, and theres not alot of sweetness between us. That said I wasn't particularly upset, and certainly wasn't remotely unhappy w yourself, your references, nor your statements. Anyhow, I'm off to edit the article now, I hope everythings cleared up. And andy, if your listening, lets agree to disagree, or argue via email, or something that isn't disruptive to the project, if you please. And I'm open to mediation any time ya like. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)\
Soemone help fix this?
When I tried to make some minor edits I ended up cropping alot off the article, as its too big to edit as a whole (for me anyway). Can someone revert to the earlier version? Thanx -R. fiend 17:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and whoever does that, can they get rid of the pointless Hitlerism link in the first line? Hitlerism redirects right back here, and Hitler goes to a disambig page (is that right? Well, a discussion for elsewhere). Adolf Hitler is linked in the next couple sentences, and throughout the article, so that Hitlerism link is useless. -R. fiend 17:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed. Jayjg 17:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- OK, Hitler linking to a disambig page was a very recent change, I just realized, so I changed it back to a regular redirect, to which I hope no one objects. I mean, when someone says "Hitler" they're not talking about Paula. -R. fiend 18:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't militarism be under "Key elements of the Nazi ideology"? It seems appropriate to me. They were very militaristic. -R. fiend 17:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, they were pretty militaristic, but the SA was such a mess. No wonder the army never liked them. Sorry totally irrelevant...he he... I mean, like, Hilter always wanted to (and mind you he obviously did) militarise again after the major cut backs because of that V.treaty, and that's not small matter....so yeah why not, go ahead and stick it the "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.165.36 (talk • contribs) 31 Dec 2005.
Question regarding "Aryan Supremacy"
Hi, I read through Mein Kampf and failed to see anything that indicates Hitler believed the word Aryan applied to any particular race, or that a particular race was superior to all others and thus deserved to rule over all other races. I also watch films such as "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia" and see other races portrayed as equals. Can anyone provide a citation that indicates the term "Aryan" applies to the race to which Germans belong (I suppose that would be "Nordic")? I have the Manheim translation of Mein Kampf, btw. Is there perhaps another source on this of which I am unaware? From the speeches I have read, especially of Goebbels, Nazism seemed to be framing the political struggle along the same lines of Germans fighting to be free of Rome. Goebbels seemed to have no problems admitting the Germans really were once a slave race. This seems inconsistent with what is presented in this article.
Note, there is no question Nazism found specific races to be inferior, such as Jews.
Also, I am concerned with this use of "Aryan" as its original meaning is "noble" and many political groups elsewhere in the world use it that sense. I haven't read anything that indicates to me Nazis or Hitler used it to mean anything else.
- Mein Kampf was mostly for public consumption. Hitler's own writings and the writings of his mentors such as Eckhart went into more detail on the caste hierarchy and the belief systems of the elite Nazis. The population were never told the truth about the beliefs of the elite, just as in most totalitarian societies, because they knew that the populous could never accept such a twisted ideology. Instead, they gave them excuses as to why they were behaving the way they were. The population of Germany were told, for instance, that Jews were being relocated to Madagascar, and that the goal of such relocations were to separate out the races into their proper genetic and physical locations. Many Zionists publically promoted Nazism at the time, because the illusion was that the Nazis planned to help the Jews move from their disaporic settlements to a new homeland. If the evils of any major nation on this planet at this time, such as China or the United States, were publically exposed, they would appear in the eyes of many to be in some ways far more horrible than the Nazi regime. These activities are kept under wraps for the purpose of avoiding mass outrage. As an example, the United States Army, and even Alberto Gonzales himself, approved 100% of torture at places like Camp X-Ray and Abu Ghraib. These tortures included raping children in front of parents to get answers, electrocution, and sodomising an inmate with a chemical light covered in battery acid. Read the Abu Ghraib report for yourself. This is typical horrific Nazi-like behaviour, and yet most Americans know little, if anything, of it. All tyrannical governments behave in this way. They feed the population, and most of their own underlings, lies, so that they will carry out operations for a government they would otherwise totally object to supporting. The Nazi regime is in no way an isolated instance in human history. It is merely a well-known example of a very common theme throughout the world.
- Oh you shouldn't have read that book, it's full of lies and it can fool you too. And you shouldn't have watched those movies either, the nazis only portray other races as equal to make honest people like you question their evilness. You will become very prejudiced if you continue to read about stuff, especially stuff written by the nazis themselves. This article on the other hand is extremly NPOV and you can read many interesting things about the evil nazis and stuff here, good for your education, dude. VarzaViezureMinz
- It seems sensible enough to read Mein Kampf and watch Nazi propaganda films if you have a serious interest in the history/ideology of the Nazis. Cadr 19:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain Varza was being sarcastic. As for what the Ayran race is, that is debateable - many people see the ideal as being Nordic, tall, blonde hair, blue eyes, but of course Hitler was none of those. However, it is well known he despised the Poles as well as the Jews and Gypsies. What other races, specifically, I do not know, though he didn't really seem to like Slavic people or Russians either. Ayran can be simply taken to mean of a certain line of descent (i.e. descendents of a certain group). See Aryan race. Titanium Dragon 05:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Terminology in Pop Culture
I have never seen the term "spelling Gestapo" anywhere before here. Generally, people who are sticklers for proper spelling and grammar are known as "grammar Nazis" instead. I've taken the liberty to change the former term. --coldacid 17:48, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
- What's the Difference?Tcpekin
Post WWII Germany
I read somewhere about supporters/members of the Nazi regime/system carrying on terrorist or similar activities in the immediate post-war period. Can anyone develop this and make mention of it - a sentence or two would suffice. (Anon)
See werwolf - it seems to have been pretty low level.. Mozzerati 18:15, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
- Most of it was before the end of the war as well - after the war ended its activities declined precipitously. It isn't really more than a footnote to history. Titanium Dragon 05:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah they were called werwolf cells but the biggest attacks they launched killed only 40 or 50 people and were realatively innefective they also were told by superior officers to hide weapons in caches but they had children hide them and most of them blew up on route also the Russians found most of their supplies [email protected]
where i live, wich is Chile (and i think it aplies to most of the world), there are still a few neo-nazi movements, they usually are youths that couldnt find their way into society and decided from night to morning to become nazi (in almost the same way of punk movements). They dont have any real intencions more than to drink a lot and to gang attack what they consider inferior (homosexuals, for example), the usual risk of them, is that they grow in number with their chauvinistic ideology (the population of Chile is hardly aryan, yet, they still believe that they could had made the ranks of the third reich).
-Yeah they are idiots and would be sent ot the death camps like Dachau just like every other non aryan person [email protected]
Mussolini quote has a fake cite
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
The so-called Mussolini quote where he is claimed to have equated fascism with corporate power is a fake or a terrible translation. This quote does not appear in the original Italian encyclopedia text or any of the English translations from that period. I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter: Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers). I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Finally I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. We had a whole discussion of this over on the Talk:Benito Mussolini page. I removed it from this page and the page on corporatism. I have photocopies of all the original documents in front of me. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from an original document.--Cberlet 19:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- My impression has always been that it was a newspaper or newsreel quote. perhaps you've been looking in the wrong place?
Socialist/Marxist/Communist Terminology
This article is in need of serious overhaul on some of its terminology. In its present form it often uses terms such as socialist, marxist, and communist interchangably as if they were one in the same or synonymous to a degree that would support this. They are not. The three terms are related to each other and similar in some ways but each is a precise word with a precise definition (marxism, for example, refers specifically to the subset of communist ideology that derives from Karl Marx and his successors). The role of the term "socialist" in national socialism derives from a very specific conceptualization of the relationship between the people and the state that is itself a variant upon the traditional definition of socialism. The controversy of whether national socialism is socialist is thus an extension of the development of that variant definition - not whether Hitler was friends with a bunch of factory owners. Please see the section on the role of the nation & the edits I made.Rangerdude 08:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree, for the purposes of the article, they can to a certain extent be used interchangebly – because all Marxists are Communists (at any rate, largely seen through the KPD), and the socialists (the SPD) still considered themsleves Marxists, despite 1919. It is not simply a variant definition (or some abstraction), it corresponds to an interpertation of policy which the editor above grossly oversimplifies in an attempt to outright state that the Nazis were socialists. Notice, for example, how s/he changed:
In comparison, many socialists refute ...
- into:
In comparison other socialist ideologies reject ...
- (italics are my emphasis) El_C 09:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- All Marxists may be communists, but all communists are NOT necessarily marxists. Terms with specific meanings should be used with precision, not as the synonym of the moment.Rangerdude 18:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whenever one could demonstrate a need for it to be noted in this article, that's fine; largely it doesen't though, is my point, because it goes off topic (i.e. as already mentioned, both the SPD and KPD considered themsleves Marxist, and historically, in that sense, they are really key). El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Then identify them both in the PARTICULAR as marxist, or self-identified marxists. That does not justify using the terms marxist, socialist, and communist interchangably in the article though. Rangerdude 22:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I argue that sometimes it does, while othertimes such generalizations are appropriate and are not reductionistic. El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do find your changes to be POV El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly how is it POV to remove text such as:
- "The suggestion that economic intervention is left-wing ignores the tradition of intervention practiced by monarchies and oligarchies in Europe before the eighteenth century, and the intervention, including protectionism, subsidies and anti-trade union laws, practiced by right-wing parties in government in Europe and North America during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries."
- The only POV being pushed there is in sentences like that, which disguise a speculative POV rebuttal of an argument (and something of a straw man one at that) into the article's text as if it were a material comment on the subject. Rangerdude 22:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That is an argument used by scholars when they discuss the issue. How is it POV to retain it? No, I do not see it a straw man. Incidentally, not to boast, but straw man is an article I made appreciable and long-lasting contributions to (I have written nearly a quarter of that article), and my addition has thus far enjoyed overwhelming consesnsus, so I do have some familarity with the term and I do attempt to avoid using starw man arguments (with a large measure of success, I maintain). To sum up, yes, it is pertinent for the topic in question, remains my position. El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
and that they ignore much of the past discussions and consensus painfuly arrived at with respect to this specific subject. Have you read what I and others had written in this talk page concerning the issue of Nazism and Socialism? I ask that because I wish to avoid repeating myself on that front as much as it is possible. When you simply insert such passages as the ones disputed without having a discussion of it specifically (and I'll reiterate: one which takes into account prior ones), without attempting to establish consensus, these outcomes, these objections to your changes, should not be a surprise to you (they should not because I automatically consider you an inteligent person with rational and critical faculties of observation).
Therefore, when you go on, against/without consensus, to also explicitly state your position on Nazism viz. Socialism in other articles that are on my watchlist, a similar response (to similarly unilateral) changes should not be surprising to you on that front, either. At any rate, my position is that unilateral action (or innuendo about gatekeeping, N/POV, tages, etc.), will not do for the controversial changes you are calling for to be retained. For an issue of this magnitude (both theoretically in general, and in terms of past disputes, discussions and consensus here, specifically), frankly, I am more than a little surprised you considered the above comments (which, again, I wish to stress, do not even touch on the issue of Nazism's relationship to Socialism) as sufficient. I hope I have made my position clear, please let me know if you need for me to elaborate or elucidate anything that I have said here (or anything I did not) and we can discuss the issue both colegially and substantively. El_C 21:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate your past work on this article, but previous edits on wikipedia are not set in stone nor are they always the best edits for an article. This article, as with all others, is a continuous work in progress open to ANY wikipedia editor who so chooses to participate. You are not the gatekeeper to this article (and yes - going through and cleaning out additions to an article because you personally do not like them is gatekeeping). You do not sit at the head of a council that must approve each and every little change to this article and you do not have the right to arbitrarily censor out or reject changes that you do not like, especially when they are intended to remove NPOV problems in the article - a policy that I suggest you review. Nor does there seem to be any overwhelming "consensus" problem with anything I've done other than the fact that it evidently does not meet the consensus of one single person: you. It is not "controversial" to add solid factual information (e.g. the role of the nazi volksgemeinschaft principle, which was central to their ideology's view of the state-citizen relationship). Nor is it "controversial" to remove a very clear and blatant POV statement disguised in the article text (except, perhaps, to the person pushing that POV). Nor is it "controversial" to make a polite, plainly stated suggestion on the talk page that greater care be exercised in using the terms marxist, socialist, and communist as if they were interchangable. If you disagree with any particular aspect of these changes by all means discuss themRangerdude 22:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I was only involved in the discussion, I have not made any contributions to this article (aside from reverting vandals) – but I have written extensively about Nazi Germany in this encyclopedia, and all my writings on this topic have enjoyed overwhelming consensus (again, none of the passages you are disputing were authored by me, because I have authoredf nothing in the article space itself). I am familliar with NPOV policy, I do not need to review it again – I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that I follow that policy (for example: I was the one who had to note to you the issue about the tag, not the other way around, etc.). You are distorting the situation: politeness is not an issue behind the controversial nature of your edits – since when did I mention politeness or lack thereof (rhetorical: I did not). You seem to be, quite circularly, going around and discussing anything but the topic itself – returning to terminological abstractions, which, I already mentioned are not that key to my objections. El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Also - on the many socialists/other socialist ideologies change - if you have something better I'm completely open to it. I was trying to think of a way of stating it that avoided the weasil wording "many socialists" (which begs the questions - who are these other socialists? How "many" of them are there? etc.). It seems that your gripe is with the word "other". I changed it to "some" as an alternative Rangerdude 22:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Finally, please make sure to sign our names (respectively) if you break up a preexisting text (so it is easier for other editors to follow who said what). I cannot provide precise quantifications, but you should note that some positions are so well-known that what would otherwise clearly be a weasel word, is actually the most inteligent and intelgable way to express something. True, one should attempt to avoid weasel words (and I argue I do, in my own writings), but it is not entirely avoidable, in that sense, each and everytime. El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Other NPOV, style, and accuracy Problems
- Biased language is common. Example:
- Article uses term big business and links to that article, which defines itself as a pejorative in the opening sentence Rangerdude
- It is a pejorative in the conterxt of socialism El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And pejorative terms tend to indicate POV. This is not an article from the socialist POV. It is an article from a _neutral_ POV. Since the reference is to what could be otherwise described as corporate business or large corporations in neutral language, this link should be changed.Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If we the article goes on to outline whether they were generally socialists, the preojratives of socialism become pertinent, as NPOV. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Unless you are specifically quoting a socialist figure, I disagree. The context of that particular pejorative term is a paragraph that contrasts business with labor - not an opinion of a socialist figure. A neutral term like "corporations" is properRangerdude 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, I disagree with your disagreement, the article can (when qualified as such) outline this without citing a specific individual – it all depends on the nature of this qualification. I think labour and capital is a neutral description, coproations is a bit too exclusive of a term (for example, owners of large estates whose properties the Nazis left largely untouched, were not necessarily involved in or a part of coprorations, etc.). El_C
- May i suggest an alternative term, such as 'favoured entities' if that is accurate?
- No, I disagree with your disagreement, the article can (when qualified as such) outline this without citing a specific individual – it all depends on the nature of this qualification. I think labour and capital is a neutral description, coproations is a bit too exclusive of a term (for example, owners of large estates whose properties the Nazis left largely untouched, were not necessarily involved in or a part of coprorations, etc.). El_C
- Excuse me but I think the article takes a POV, but so common that it looks like the truth: That the Corporate interests and the Communist State interests are enemies, but I think that is plainly false. In the Marx theory and the Nazi and Soci practice, the State interest is irreconcilable with the free market, not with the Corporate organisation.
- Unless you are specifically quoting a socialist figure, I disagree. The context of that particular pejorative term is a paragraph that contrasts business with labor - not an opinion of a socialist figure. A neutral term like "corporations" is properRangerdude 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If we the article goes on to outline whether they were generally socialists, the preojratives of socialism become pertinent, as NPOV. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, I think we can agree on Marx thought that industrialisation and it's technical development was "good", because it increased efficiency and production of goods to be consumed by people. The fault was the private property and the free market, that forced the industries to compete for profits and to increase the size of it's capital, the "dead work" and it's unfair -illogic- reward far beyond the limits of it social productivity.
- To describe the alienation that took place in factories, first, and industries, later, he used the term subsumption, formal and real. In a Factory the people worked together, they were sometimes owners of some tools and, anyway, they owned their own abilities. They were able to flee, at a great cost, to work for a living in the farms or in their own business. So, as alienation wasn’t complete, domination wasn’t.
- When technology reaches it’s “peak”, and the Automata products goods using the unskilled workforce as an input, the worker becomes completely alienated. He is almost as a mule for the machine, and can be easily changed, fired... his workforce becomes a “fungible” good for the market, and his life goes behind. This is “real subsumption”.
- But, this is the point, this is not an necessarily evil process. Indeed, it is nor part of market-capitalism, but of industrialisation, and we have agreed that industrialisation is “good”. In the way to Communism, and in Communism itself, there is Subsumption too. The difference is that the product of that increased productivity is distributed among the workers according to their needs, and is not invested in forming new capital, and that –specially in the beautiful “real subsumption situation”, when machines will do the hardest part of the work for us and we will be able to change of work at will because our workforce will be “fungible”- we will change our tasks according to our needs, not to capital needs, and we will use the huge spare time for creative/productive activities.
- There are two phases then, socialism-formal subsumption, with a centralised state but with a big and growing oligopoly of corporations and limited private property; and a second stage, Communism-real subsumption, with centralised stated and centralised production system, vertically an horizontally integrated, and of public ownership.(A huge Automata, like Metropolis but focused, thanks to the public property and management, to the "good of the people")
- So, finally, there is no contradiction, indeed it is just the opposite, among NAZI principles (at least,with the ones of socialist roots, on marxist ground) and Corporations-State close, deep, alliances. (and it doesn’t matter if that Corporations are IBM or Coca-Cola, because the main think is where the production centre is, where is it going to produce social change.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.42.171.149 (talk • contribs) 9 April 2006.
- What could be described as "Talking Points" against the nazi-socialist link are repeated multiple times in the article, creating heavy redundancy and overemphasis of them:
- Hitler's belief of Marx's jewish connection/judeo-bolshevism is stated in two separate paragraphs at different places in the article
- The same point about nazi rejection of workers rights is restated at least three different ways in three different paragraphs
- Discussion of the role of class conflict is heavily redundant and recurs throughout the article repeating much of the same thing. It is linked at least twice as well. Rangerdude
- Having an item(s) of such significance repeated twice, is not hugely redundent and would depend on the specifics. El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is a problem when the object of this medium is to be concise and the large number of redundancies in this article (which often consist of the exact same things stated for the exact same purpose only 2 or 3 paragraphs apart) are evidence that it is poorly written, and possibly written with a POV that emphasizes those points through repetition.Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am not dipsuting that there may be redundancies in the article, but each such claim and edits to that effect needs to be approached catiously rather than as an aggregate, was my poiint, I suppsoe. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Okay. Then how should we go about doing that?Rangerdude 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please see my proposal at Talk:Socialism for a practical plan. El_C 00:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Okay. Then how should we go about doing that?Rangerdude 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am not dipsuting that there may be redundancies in the article, but each such claim and edits to that effect needs to be approached catiously rather than as an aggregate, was my poiint, I suppsoe. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Talking Point" about Nazi connections to business is brought up at length in several different paragraphs spread - again redundant and needs consolidation. Also there is no mention of the fact that corporations that defied the Reich were subject to being seized or state-backed civilian worker programs in factories (e.g. for those unable to serve as soldiers), which were arguably very socialistic or at least stalinist in nature. Rangerdude
- Not socialistic if capitalists keep the profits from work done in enterprises as capitalists. The Nazis mainly expropriated Jewish businesses, and at any rate, liberal-democratic countries also, sometimes siezed private interests. It is topical. El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's a POV - your POV. As I carefully noted, the practice was _arguably_ socialistic in nature, meaning it could be interpreted as you do or alternatively as evidence of socialist tendencies depending on how one looks at it.Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It is NPOV, I argue, whether it is my POV as well I find less relavent. Kenysian tendencies are not necessarily socialist ones, even when there is explicit rhetoric that they are just that. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's not NPOV when you are passing judgment on it. From the conservative perspective, keynesian tendencies are often seen as socialistic though from the socialist perspective they may not be. But it's not our business to side with either perspective, hence a neutral approach would term it as an argument offered by some.Rangerdude 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Then it is seen as such in error. Note what Keynes himself had said about his theory and his own position (I'm paraphrasing: as 'supporting the educated borgoisie'). I'll see if I can find the pertinent passage by Keynes, if you wish. El_C 00:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's not the nature of the argument though. Keynesianism is not seen as socialistic on the basis of Keynes being a socialist in theory, which he was not, but rather on the notion that it leads to consequences that are seen by conservatives as socialistic in practice. Some conservatives argue that Keynes introduced a series of thought that, if taken to its logical consequences, results in socialism. Whether we agree or disagree with this belief, it is perfectly valid for its proponents to assert critiques of Keynesianism like it.Rangerdude 01:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. When qualified that carefuly, I have no objections to it being mentioned. This is in contradistinction, though, to an overview of what is generally prevailing social-scientific opinion as to whether this is the case or not. El_C 03:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's not the nature of the argument though. Keynesianism is not seen as socialistic on the basis of Keynes being a socialist in theory, which he was not, but rather on the notion that it leads to consequences that are seen by conservatives as socialistic in practice. Some conservatives argue that Keynes introduced a series of thought that, if taken to its logical consequences, results in socialism. Whether we agree or disagree with this belief, it is perfectly valid for its proponents to assert critiques of Keynesianism like it.Rangerdude 01:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It is NPOV, I argue, whether it is my POV as well I find less relavent. Kenysian tendencies are not necessarily socialist ones, even when there is explicit rhetoric that they are just that. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's a POV - your POV. As I carefully noted, the practice was _arguably_ socialistic in nature, meaning it could be interpreted as you do or alternatively as evidence of socialist tendencies depending on how one looks at it.Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not socialistic if capitalists keep the profits from work done in enterprises as capitalists. The Nazis mainly expropriated Jewish businesses, and at any rate, liberal-democratic countries also, sometimes siezed private interests. It is topical. El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Claims that Nazis opposed the idea "that workers should control the means of production" - this is not entirely accurate and is grossly oversimplified. Nazi political theory did object to a worker-oriented state, but it sidestepped the "means of production" issue by incorporating its control in the service of the Reich via the Volksgemeinschaft. Rangerdude
- Yes, but the Nazis were dishonest and their theory not very advanced (i.e. going to businessmen and speaking against 'Jewish' Bolsheviks, or going to workers and speaking against 'Jewish' bankers and capitalists), we should not give their theory more credit in evaluating it –in practice– than it deserve. El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Accurately portraying nazi political theory is not giving it more credit than it deserves. Like it or not, the volksgemeinschaft was a central part of their theory - a very horrible notion in its own right a part of their theory nonetheless. We can't simply exclude it or pretend it does not exist because you do not personally like the implications it may have for this whole "nazism was socialist/not-socialist" debate.Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am not disputingg that there could be further improvment to an accoutn of the volksgemeinschaft, nor am I pretending it dosen't exist because I find it ideologically convineint, but I do take issues with what it meant –in paractice– in terms of actual policy. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. Theories - especially ideological extreme ones - are seldom if ever realized as they claim in practice. But are you okay now with simply including it?
- Of course, in fact, I insist that it needs to be included (how, though, is the question). El_C 00:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. Theories - especially ideological extreme ones - are seldom if ever realized as they claim in practice. But are you okay now with simply including it?
- I am not disputingg that there could be further improvment to an accoutn of the volksgemeinschaft, nor am I pretending it dosen't exist because I find it ideologically convineint, but I do take issues with what it meant –in paractice– in terms of actual policy. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Accurately portraying nazi political theory is not giving it more credit than it deserves. Like it or not, the volksgemeinschaft was a central part of their theory - a very horrible notion in its own right a part of their theory nonetheless. We can't simply exclude it or pretend it does not exist because you do not personally like the implications it may have for this whole "nazism was socialist/not-socialist" debate.Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but the Nazis were dishonest and their theory not very advanced (i.e. going to businessmen and speaking against 'Jewish' Bolsheviks, or going to workers and speaking against 'Jewish' bankers and capitalists), we should not give their theory more credit in evaluating it –in practice– than it deserve. El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion of Hitler's "conservative" allies is very selective - it emphasizes and greatly expands upon Franz von Papen as a conservative ally of Hitler but makes no mention of Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher, a center-right military nationalist who was one of Hitler's biggest opponents.Rangerdude 23:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is quite representative, actually. But you do have a point there. El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If major figures on the right who opposed Hitler such as Schleicher are neglected in an article that heavily emphasizes figures on the right who supported Hitler, it is far from representative. In fact it is telling only part of the story in a way that supports one particular POV. Something about Schleicher should be addedRangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (Added after the comment directly bellow was submitted) I agree. El_C
- It depends on the number of figures included/excluded, and the role they played in the overall dynamic. We cannot go on to claim -gross- misrepresntation on the basis of one example and then use that as a generalization for the rest. El_C 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Schleicher is a pretty big example to overlook! He was Chancellor of Germany and probably the most powerful competitor to Hitler for control of the government in the early 30's (which is why Hitler had him assassinated). I added a paragraph about Schleicher contrasting him with Papen to balance this out.Rangerdude 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I know he was, as I said, you do have a good point there. I will review your addition soon (I have to go out now). Please review my proposal at Talk:Socialism about us progressing forward in our editorial collaboration. Thanks. El_C 00:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Overall, it looks like a sound series of edits (and a good addition on Schleicher), but I have to look at it more closely, which I intended to do now, but I'm suddenly writing in haste. I do take issues with some of the changes, I should note, but as a sign of good faith I will leave everything untouched until I can attend to it comprehensively (most likely tommorow). Please, though, note edits which strike you as (for our immediate purposes) potentially controversial here in the talk page first. El_C 03:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I know he was, as I said, you do have a good point there. I will review your addition soon (I have to go out now). Please review my proposal at Talk:Socialism about us progressing forward in our editorial collaboration. Thanks. El_C 00:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Schleicher is a pretty big example to overlook! He was Chancellor of Germany and probably the most powerful competitor to Hitler for control of the government in the early 30's (which is why Hitler had him assassinated). I added a paragraph about Schleicher contrasting him with Papen to balance this out.Rangerdude 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If major figures on the right who opposed Hitler such as Schleicher are neglected in an article that heavily emphasizes figures on the right who supported Hitler, it is far from representative. In fact it is telling only part of the story in a way that supports one particular POV. Something about Schleicher should be addedRangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is quite representative, actually. But you do have a point there. El_C 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is a very large section on Nazism and Socialism. Obvious case of well-poisoning (poisoning the Socialist well, of course). Clearly there was some socialist influence in the party's early days as the German Workers's Party (I wouldn't deny that socialists in many countries often had "white supremacist" views - eg Jack London) but by 1933 only the Socialist title remained. A brief discussion of this, about the same length as those on the links with other ideologies, should be enough.
81.156.102.204 21:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm new here
Well, I have to disagree with this article here on one thing. Italic text# Racism
- Especially anti-Semitism, which eventually culminated in the Holocaust.
- The creation of a Herrenrasse (Master Race= by the Lebensborn (Fountain of Life; A department in the Third Reich)
- Anti-Slavism
- Belief in the superiority of the White, Germanic, Aryan or Nordic races.
- Euthanasia and Eugenics with respect to "Racial Hygiene"Italic text
Racism is not a major pillar of Nazi beleif. Origionally, Nazism was a purley Pro-German movement with little or no racist overtones. However, People like Heinrich Himmler and and Adolf Hitler used their power to promote Anti-Semitism and Racist. That also rules out Euthanasia in that particular case. Simple fact is, most Nazis, including my Grandfather, knew nothing about the concentration camps. If it was not for those 'missassumptions' I may be considered a Nazi, however I am not racist against anyone and I do not beleive in Euthanasia. And I'm of Italian-Austrian Decent. Therefore I am not a member of the superior 'Nordic' race. Thank you
- Italic text"Simple fact is, most Nazis, including my Grandfather, knew nothing about the concentration camps."Italic text Excuse me, but that is bullshit. Maybe your grandfather did not know of the camps, but it is simply horrendous disinformation to say that the majority of NSDAP members -even the lower ones- did not know anything about the Endlösung. --Vargher, 11 Jan 2006 18:34 (GMT)
- Totally agreed. For whatever reason, much attention is paid to the racism and euthansia policies of the nazis, and yet these are the staples of totalitarian governments throughout all human history. Everyone from the Ancient Hebrews, to the Babylonians, to the Roman Empire, engaged in some form of racism and eugenics. The Vikings raped and pillaged to spread their seed and enrich their empire. The Mongols castrated their male enemies and raped their wives. The Hebrews murdered entire villages of men and took their women. More attention should be paid to Nazi political ideologies, which define it specifically as a belief system, rather than simply to the racist and eugenic policies of the secret sectors of the German government. The United States of America has long been involved in eugenics, as has the United Nations, across the globe, and yet most people who support these governments/organisations know little about it. These many be central pillars to the ideologies of a few madmen in positions of power, but they are most certainly not an essential part of the mass propaganda and belief systems of the population--at least not as overtly so. Attention should certainly be paid to the use of already extant anti-semitism in Europe to further engage the Nazis in a hive mindset, but the primary aspect of their mind-control culture was belief in the "right" of the German people to rule over all Germanically-descended territories in Europe.
- I don't see how your comments challenge the substance of those claims as true. The article can, after all, speak of the Nazi currents of thought while they were in power (which is key). El_C 08:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The argument is absurd in any case. the DAP, the party that became the Nazis, was always anti-semitic. This was the only thing that remained constant about the party. The later elaborations of it into complex theories of the superiority of the Aryan race were, indeed, not an original part of the party platform. But anti-semitism was always the key aspect to the party. john k 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As anyone knows, a good proportion of Mein Kampf is some sort of theory of evolution of people -- Can I be POV for an instant ? I'd say that Hitler was part wannabe Darwin, part wannabe Marx; for some obscure reason, he hates Jews, and spends most of the book trying to justify a hatred which, though being presented as a logical consequence of a constructed argument, clearly preceded it.
- Perhaps there should be a section devoted to "elite Nazism" vs. "popular Nazism", as they were distinct in nature. Whereas Hitler wrote about eugenics from his own Social Darwinist perspective, most of the German population never actually read Mein Kampf, and of those that did, few really understood it. The population were given, as Hitler ironically stated in Mein Kampf, a watered down, easily digestible, or to put it curtly, stupid presentation of reality, in which the whole of the Nazi struggle was simply for German freedom. Meanwhile, psychopaths like Mengele were secretly taking part in horrific experiments in eugenics and mind-alteration. This is a very common manner in which dictatorial governments operate.
- Now the question would be "When does actual nazism appear" ? "Nazism" refering to "Nazional Sozialismus", we might take the moment when the NAP became the NSDAP (before 1923), but I think that it'd be more reasonable to found ourselves on the book which form the theorical basis for the movement -- Mein Kampf, a badly written pamphlet oozing with antisemitism. In any case, it would probably be easy to find proves that the NAP and the diferent movements which elvoved into the NSDAP where antisemit. Rama 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Derogatory abbreviation?
I understand that "sozi" is a derogatory abbreviation for "socialist" in German. However, I thought that this was by analogy to "Nazi", and that the latter was simply a neutral abbreviation used by the Nazis themselves. Is this wrong? --FOo 15:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Nazi" was constructed the same way "Sozi", by the left wing, for what I have heard, so it would be the other way round :p (a little like the Socialists insulting the Nazis back).
- I don't think that I have ever heard any Nazi refer to "nazism" or a "nazi", they always use "Nazionalsozialismus".
- Of course, nowaday, lots of neo-Nazis call themselves "nazi".
- I don't know whether there are references I can cite for this, though... we might ask for a confirmation of the German page, for instance, what do you think ? Rama 16:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nazi wasn't used in Germany during that time period. It was the NSPDA, and thats what it was called. Thank you.
- NSDAP is the correct form. National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei
Request for comment on uncomplimentary history
I'm coming to this page because I expect it is closely watched by people who have had to think through the balancing act needed to properly present uncomplimentary history. I am starting a discussion on how to balance history that is derogatory (or viewed by some as derogatory). I put my more detailed request at the Village Pump.
- I didn't get much response there as of today, so I put in a policy proposal under Uncomplimentary History
External Links
- "Myth: Hitler was a leftist" (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm) - an extensive case against portraying Hitler as a Left-winger by Steve Kangas
- What Fascism Is & Isn't (http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm) - with references to both Fascism and Nazism, explaining why they are not Leftist by Glen Yeadon
Why are the writings of these two Usenet fucktards, Steve Kangas, a psychotic delusional who probably intended to murder Richard Mellon Scaife, but ended up committing suicide in a bathroom across from his office, and Glen Yeadon, a total illiterate, given so much as a shred of credibility here? Both articles are premised on bullshit, and have long since been discussed and discarded on Usenet and elsewhere.
- The Steve Kangas piece seems to me to be clearly original research. I'll remove unless someone can show otherwise. -- Temtem 03:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
And why somebody (without explanations and without any right) deletes entries with different opinions, like this one?
- Hitler was a Leftist - description of the Keynesian and Socialist Economic Policies of Hitler's Fascism by John J. Ray
Comedy about nazism
If anybody can think of pop culture entertainment involving humor and nazism, make a article called Nazism comedy. --SuperDude 21:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the Mel Brooks film "The Producers" , or various British comedies such as Allo Allo might count, although it is debatable whether these actually deal directly with Nazism. What about the Charlie Chaplin film 'The Great Dictator;? Will Lakeman 19:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Strangelove? 64.12.116.197 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Then there are both versions of To Be or Not to Be. And of course a lot of propaganda cartoons. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe think back to the time when it was really relevant, like Charly Chaplin and´The Great Dictator´. There must have been a lot more.
I heard of a film called "Beautiful Lives" that takes place in a concentration camp. I haven't actually seen it though, so I'm not sure if it's a comedy. Has anyone here seen it? Mayuko 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
One could add the American sitcom Hogan's Heroes. — Michael J 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to add Hogan's Heroes (which you should! Werner Klemperer, who played the camp kommandant, was Jewish and initially thought the series was going to be a drama, not sitcom. He only agreed to play a Nazi on the condition that the Nazis lost in every episode), you should add the film and play Stalag 17, on which Hogan's Heroes is (perhaps a bit too closely) based. Possibly the film Liberty Heights, as well, but that's a bit of a stretch (one scene where a Jewish kid dresses as Hitler for Halloween). Then there's always Art Speigleman's graphic novels Maus, but I suppose it depends on whether you believe that's comedy. Monty Python's Flying Circus has a number of sketches involving Nazis as well. Apparently there's a British sitcom about the French resistance fighters, which is a pisstake of all involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.240.16 (talk • contribs) 16 April 2006.
'Conservative support for Hitler'
The claim that the British Conservative Party viewed Hitler as 'the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism' is a lie. Individuals within the Tory party did believe this but it was never party policy to actively support Hitler. I think this claim should be removed.
This claim should definitely be removed what are you talking about can anyone actually substatiate these claims the British Conservatives said this
[email protected]
Couple requests
a) it also might be worth including Hitler's belief in the lost aryan tribe theory - believe it was tied into Atlantis. THere was a recent documentary on Hitler's archelogists going to Neapal & Tibet in a belief they were descents of an Aryan warrior race ... yes, not only odd and overall, not many factual basis for their beliefs but it's still worth noting.
b) What is the pronounciation of Nazi? It's English, it's usually pronounced 'Not-zee,' is that based on the German pronounciation since it seems in English, the correct pronounciation is 'Nah-zee."
- The correct pronunciation is nat-see. Today most people seem to use this. But older Generations in Britain, the ones who lived through the war, often said na-zay. --Doric Loon 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Is that 'nat-see' based on German's pronunciation? Since there's no "T" to be found anywhere in the abbreviation?
You pronounce National as Nazional in german, Nazi is a simple abbreviation. If you use 'Nah-zee´ or nat-see to show the pronounciation does not make a difference to me, and I am a native German speaker.
I am also a fluent German speaker and have travelled to Germany many times and it does not matter it also depends I find sometimes to diffent Germans have different accents which affect how they pronounce it
Proposal to move
Not a strong conviction, more flying a kite, but don't you think this article should be under the heading National Socialism, with Nazism being the redirect? I know "Nazi" is used far more frequently in English than in German, but it is still a colloquial, name-calling kind of word, and to me it just doesn't sound serious enough for historical discussion. I'm not saying don't use it, but at least keep it out of the headings, and perhaps alternate it with phrases like "the NS-period"? --Doric Loon 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that many would not be able to make the link between National Socialism and Nazi so I think this is just a helpign hand
Slavs as Subhumans
Well I notice this article like many others I've read refers to slavs as being untermenshe (subhuman) The quote "People of Slavic descent were also seen as subhuman, but only marginally parasitic, because they had their own land and nations" is used in many articles I've read, I just don't know what proof their is that would suggest such ideology. Some allude to Mein Kampf as depicting slavs as subhuman but If you've read it you'd know it really doesn't, through out the book he uses the nation not the meta-ethnecity to describe slavic peoples, he only uses the dysphemism "slave" to describe russian slavs, who he had seen as being slaves to the bosheviks. This is hardly evidence to support the intended creation of a slave class which is what many contend was Hitlers master plan. Also using polish russian slave labour isn't evidence either, since it was a War, and not the any war, the greatest war ever. If this was real ideology , or even just present undercurrents of such Ideology, I doubt there would've been any slavs collaborating, but that wasn't the case, the slavs by far were the main collaborators, such as the Slovakians, many soviet citizens especially ukranians and white russians. In many instances slavic populations faired better than many other non-slavs, for instance under Heydrich the Czech occupation was largely not nearly as violent and oppressive as you'd think it was. With a nickname like "the hangman" you'd think it was pure tyranny but it really wasn't the case, the only sizable reprisal came after Heydrich was assassinated. (added ID: EmanResu 22 June 2005)
- Actually, "untermensche" did not refer to people who were 'sub-human', but who were of a lower caste as according to Hitler's personal scheme of human evolution.
Ubermenschen were people of the highest, or Brahmin caste, whereas other Caucasian peoples, and Jews, were Untermenschen. "Dark Races" occupied the lowest third of Hitler's caste system, beneath Caucasoids and Orientals.
Hitler refers to the 'subhuman' nature of slavic peoples extensively in his second book. Gerhard Weinberg does a good job of streamlining Hitler's grand plan in "Visions of Victory", which is a far easier read than slugging through the Second Book. Either way, the same information is there.
Romanticism section is terribly inaccurate
The author of the section dealing with Nazism's supposed relation to Romanticism clearly shouldn't be writing this article. First, he quotes Russell (a terrible misreader of post-Kantian Idealism and someone whose opinion of German thought is virtually worthless), then talks about anti-semitism in the German Empire, which did not exist contemporaneously with the Nazi party and whose anti-semitism was actually was on par with or even less virulent than the hatred of Jews in other European countries during the final quarter of the 19th Century. The author of the section proceeds to talk about "early 19th century" Romanticism, but has no grasp of what he means by that because instead of the real Romantics who gave birth to the movement in Germany (the Schlegels, Schelling, Novalis, Tieck, etc...) he jumps right to Wagner, who cannot be classified as "early 19th Century" by any stretch of the imagination, since he began writing at roughly mid-century. Furthermore the Ring cycle was actually written when Wagner was at his most fiercely republican. He always had a distasteful hatred for Jews, but by no means is The Ring some sort of authoritarian work. Wagner became more Christian and "proto-fascist" (a trend which Nietzsche often laments) later on, with works such as Parzival.
I would like to delete this whole section. If it even belongs here, it must be rewritten from scratch. (added ID: 67.10.90.5 6 July 2005)
nazism in usa
I've been noticing a lot of similarities between the Nazi's and modern day USA. Just how conservative the both sides are, and how they use propoganda to support their cause. If you ever turn on a TV in the U.S. to watch the news, you cant help but notice how all the news programmes are pro American. They always portray USA as a hero or liberator, and never as an imperialist. This is probably because anyone that dares to challenge the U.S. conservatism is censored. The U.S. has also gotten out of control in recent years with its imperialistic invasions of other countries. It seems like people want to say something or step in to stop them but people are scared. This reminds me alot of what how the Nazis conducted business through fear and intimidation. The world also watched as the Nazis got out of control, and no one stopped them till it was too late. It seems like the same thing is happening today with USA.
- Please do some more research. Nazism is racial nationalism. You probably mean you see echoes of certain aspects of fascism. Even that is a highly problematic comparison with the Bush administration. And in any case, that discussion belongs on the Neo-Fascism page, not here.--Cberlet 02:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Nazi Movement was organised by the same people currently in control of the United States of America. The most publically digestible overview of this historical fact is the information of Alex Jones (www.prisonplanet.tv), in his recent documentary film, Martial Law: 911 Rise of the Police State. However, neither the Nazis, nor the current Bush/Rove regime, were/are even remotely "conservative" or "right wing". Both groups are center wing dictatorships, if one is to use the political spectrum model. Hitler and Bush both support/supported many "left wing" as well as "right wing" policies. Left and Right are meaningless labels, and should not be overused as they are these days.
I hope you are joking because to say that the USA was organized by the same people as Nazi Germany is an outright manipulation of the truth [email protected]
- Whoever started this section is a retard. You can barely spell and use punctuation properly so I'm not surprised at your "political" views. The American political system is designed to prevent any kind of dictatorship, with any power the government has coming only from a majority of support of the population. The population are hard working, intelligent and reasonable people and would not allow political extremists to control their country. You said that people were scared to "step in to stop them", which again, is complete rubbish. Thousands of people conduct protests and demonstrations to show their opposition to the government, and they have a PROTECTED RIGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO. America has not "imperialistic"ally invaded anything. While the invasion of Iraq may have not been justified, an Imperial invasion would now see Iraq as a COLONY of the United States, with economic exploitation rife. You obviously don't actually know the definition of Imperialism, as the above is not the case. Jesus Christ it is irritating to see people who think they know everything about politics just because they watched some stupid left-wing documentary about how the government is evil. I agree
Sure the USA are far away from Nazi Germany. However, some of the reasoning above is rather strange: 1. "The American political system is designed to prevent any kind of dictatorship, with any power the government has coming only from a majority of support of the population." The Nazis were backed by the majority of Germans and simply were the party that had most of the seats in the Reichstag. 2. "The population are hard working, intelligent and reasonable people and would not allow political extremists to control their country." Germans are hard working, intelligent and reasonable people too, what is exactly what stuns them until today: that one of the highest developed nations would go along with the politics of the nazis. And when word reached other countries about nazi atrocities, the most common reply was "Germans are civilized, they don't do stuff like that". 3. "Thousands of people conduct protests and demonstrations to show their opposition to the government, and they have a PROTECTED RIGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO." Though the nazis emerged as the strongest party in the 1933 elections, there were also anti-nazis throughout the population. The lethal street battles between them and the SA prior to elections are a clear proof of this. This opposition had the right to protest against the nazis and they did so. But guess what, that right was among the first to be sacked by the nazis. And here's the frightening thing: The arguments above don't secure any country from extremist parties. Our only protection: Stay awake and defend the freedom we have against whoever threatens it.
Right, but the German political system was considerably weaker and less organised than the American system is, and there is no large-scale economic or social strife (as allowed the environment for Nazism to become popular). "nazism in usa", as so eloquently described by the starter of this section, is impossible in the present. This is what I was getting at.
- Let's note that the source of this claim is Alex Jones, a notorious crank and conspiracy theorist with no serious credibility, and then pay attention to the issue that any conversation about Post WWII reality really belongs over on the Neo-nazism#Neo-Nazism_in_the_USA page or Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism_and_the_United_States, or Neo-Fascism#Neo-Fascism_and_the_United_States.--Cberlet 13:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nazi Homosexuality
Labelling the historical, undeniable fact that Hitler and many other high-level Nazis engaged in homosexual activities as 'hate speech' is absurd, non-sensical historical revisionism. It is not 'hateful' to examine the truth of history. Why is it somehow anti-gay or inconceivable to accept the obvious fact that many of those who publically denounce homosexuality are in fact themselves closet homosexuals or homosexual pedophiles? This is exactly what has occured with, for instance, many priests in the Catholic Church. Whomever wrote away the homosexuality of Nazi leaders needs to get a grip on reality and realise that they are not helping anyone by viciously attacking every piece of literature or history portraying someone (a specific individual) who just so happens to be of an unconventional sexual persuasion as being involved in evil. We could just as well say that all of the historical facts regarding the homosexuality of many insane, evil, Roman Emperors was simply non-sense, because doing so would prevent 'hate-speech'.
For the love of God, people, get in touch with truth and reality, and stop behaving like such children. The very fact that "hate laws" have gotten as far as they have anywhere is a testament to the increasingly paedomorphic mindsets of so-called 'adults', who, apparently on some kind of nostalgic acid trip, are attempting to enact federal laws equivalent to the rules governing hallways in elementary schools.
The necessary laws to protect victims of hate have existed for quite some time, and no new, elaborate, ridiculous, and indeed, rather totalitarian laws limiting free speech are in need of creation.
- Maybe, but the Pink Swastika is not a source, it's a pamphlet, nothing more; and a crappy one to boot. Most of it comes from interpreting limited facts with a 50s puritan worldview of what is """manliness""".
Comment: "Hear Hear!" -Dren 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Slavism
How is it possible for the National Socialists to have been anti-Slavic when they allowed people with obviously Slavic names to join the party? One good example would be Arthur Seyss-Inquart who was Slavic and born Arthur Zajtich. There are many other examples I could cite but I was just wondering how they squared this with they're beliefs.
- They labelled the Japanese "Aryans". And that after having mentionned them as Untermenschen in the 20s. If Nazism was coherent and viable, we'd know that. Rama 09:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Eugenics
Eugenics was a core theme of the German Nazis. Why remove the term when talking about purifying the race?--Cberlet 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- That bullet-item is not merely about purification of the race. It is about euthanasia. It says: A belief in the need to purify the German race through eugenics [...] culminated in [...] involuntary euthanasia. --hitssquad 02:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Eugenics is the racial pseudoscience that led to the "involuntary euthanasia." What is the issue? Quest for racial purity + eugenics = mass murder. Please explain your problem with this. Your response is much to cryptic to make sense to me. I am trying to understand.--Cberlet 02:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- What is the issue? If eugenics is the science of selective human reproduction, it does not follow that it would necessarily lead to selective euthanasia. If certain people are thought to have undesirable heritable traits and/or undesirable pedigrees, with the same ultimate effect on future generations as euthanasia would produce they might merely be sterilized. --hitssquad 03:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thus the sentence reads: "A belief in the need to purify the German race through eugenics - this culminated in the involuntary euthanasia of disabled people and the compulsory sterilization of people with mental deficiencies or illnesses perceived as hereditary." For the Nazis, eugenics "culminated" in a specific set of decisions. The list refers to Nazi outcomes. It is not a general statement on eugenics. --Cberlet 12:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
(Responding to the last item above, but not indenting) For the Nazis, eugenics "culminated" in a specific set of decisions. This specific conclusion has been contested. There may be many writings by activist authors claiming this, but that by itself does not make it any more likely to be true than Richard Lynn's opposite conclusion. On this question, the article seems to present a subjective point of view. --hitssquad 21:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Citing Richard Lynn, a well-known proponent of racial eugenics, to apologize for Nazi genocidal policies, is a real hoot. Breathtaking, really. I'm impressed with your Chutzpah. The overwhelming scholarship in this area supports the current text. Lynn, of course, is considered by many to be a notorious apologist for racist White supremacy. see this Google search, for example: [1]. --Cberlet 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
"Tory support for Nazism"
There is no evidence that the Tory party was pro-Nazism. I'm removing these claims and I suggest someone finds a credible source to back their claims up if they wish to re-add them. Also, I don't know why there is a section on appeasement of Germany either since (a) it has its own page, and (b) it's got nothing to do with sympathising with Nazi ideology. - Johnbull 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Corporatism
>The text I reverted on corporatism was neither useful nor accurate.
Well, I thought so, obviously, and many others in the world. Many dictionaries and other sources say that corporativism is the same as fascism.
"Fascism should more accurately be named corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
>The term corporatism was not used to mean rule by rich corporate plutocrats,
That is what became of the idea the pope had in 1891.
The simple fact is that the increased popularity of democracy and socialism among the workers and the people of Europe and many other countries at the end of 19th century worried the reactionary forces, like the church and the rich capitalists. So they decided to do something about it.
The historical development during the 20th century is one long struggle between capitalism and religion against democrats and socialists.
The capitalist side used fascism and corporativism as tools to stop the workers from using democracy to further their cause.
Roger4911 14:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations. You have used a bogus quote to support a bogus analysis. Mussolini never wrote that text in any of the cited documents provided on hundreds of Internet sites/cites. Not all research can be slurped up on the Internet. Not everything on the Internet is accurate. And the Pope's essay on corporativismo was an explicit call for cooperation between labor and management and owners that sought to subvert Marxism by recognizing some worker rights, and the right of the state to intervene on behalf of workers if needed. It was a lousy plan, but it was not corporatism=fascism=capitalism. Check out the Corporatism page for the debate on this matter.--Cberlet 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Relation to modern politics
The reference to modern left and right politics is irrelevant to Nazism. This is an encyclopedia, not a medium for political gripes, 71.193.3.242. --Andrey 08:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. However it is NOT irrelevant to the modern usage of the word. Since I don't want to argue (wikipedia is too good an idea), I will just request that you think about that and then - if you wish - put the concept back - with your own phrasing.
That's a good point, tough to phrase, though. It's so often misused all over that it's tough to pin down how exactly how it's used. --Andrey 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Time to revise article in view of new research
I refer to this book
Anyone who has read it (and if you haven't you probably shouldn't be involved in editing this entruy) will know what I'm talking about. Starting next week.
Template:Nazi
Seems to be a problem with the template, at the bottom when you hit the "Edit" link it brings you to the Template:Fascism. I tried a search for the Template:Nazi but nothing is coming up. WritersCramp 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Racial theory propaganda myth
This article, like every article regarding Nazi race theory, use the same short and sweet propaganda version, as maintained by the British, Americans, soviets etc. First with the Slavic untermensh myth. The Nazi never regarded "Slavic" as a racial title, just as they never used "Germanic" as a biological racial title. They used real racial classification that in many instances are still used today: (Nordic, East Baltic, Mediterranean, Alpine, etc.) This delusion that they believed that Germany was a "pure" Aryan nation, is bullocks. Even to high school kids they were very clear with Germany's mixed racial make-up, as this catechism shows:
"What are the major races?
White, black, and yellow.
To which race do Europe's peoples belong?
The peoples of Europe do not belong to a particular race, but are rather a racial mixture. Our German people is comprised primarily of six races.
And what are they?
The Nordic, the Pfalzish (fälische), the Western (westliche) the East Baltic (ostbaltische). The Ostic (ostische). and the Dinarish (dinarische) races.
How can one tell that peoples are racially related?
First, from their languages, in which many words are the same or similar."
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/catech.htm
or here is another example, from an SS racial pamphlet no less!
"Race means to be able to think in a certain way. He who has courage, loyalty and honor, the mark of the German, has the race that should rule in Germany, even if he does not have the physical characteristics of the "Nordic" race"
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/glauben.htm
Hitler nor to my knowledge any of the Nazi hierarchies lumped all Slavs as being racially inferior untermensh. Instances in with the term untermensh was used, was either by Himmler to refer to the "judeo-bolshevik Asiatic hordes". Hitler had usely it colloquially to refer to Russians individually, whom he was of course was demonizing so as to justify stealing lebensraum. However Even if it was contended they were nordicists, it still doesn't make sense. Another Article called the "Nordic Theory", says that Hitler called Madison Grants book his "bible", in it included a "Nordic" map that distinctly shows places such as Poland, Baltic's, and north west Russia as being predominantly "Nordic", more so that Brana am inn, and Bavaria! So why did they suffer so much at the hands of the Germans, whereas other places with noticeable non-European admixture, in many cases much more that in a place like Russia, be considered allied? Such as Italy, Spain, Finland?? It's because this racial herrenvolk myth is propaganda!
Simply, Aryan meant European, nothing more. Slavs WERE considered European, as most Slavs are. Different non-Europeans only included Sinti/roma/jews/sammi/Asiatic soviets, not Slavs.
Hitler during the war had only a small group of personal companions, mostly made up of women, one, whom was Hitler main secretary was a Slav, named Gerda Daranowski. Was it only a matter of time till she was enslaved too? She married a Nazi Luftwaffe general by the way, which I'm sure was common for untermensh women.
To Anonymous Vandals of Jew
There. Nazism was vandalized in the same manner that you vandalized Jew. It was reverted instantly, too, like the edits of Jew were. Isn't this getting silly? There are more productive things to do than go around equating Jews with ovens and Zyklon B. 64.12.116.197 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Page history
I seem to be getting "fatal errors" when I look up the items on this page's main article's history. What gives? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Anti-clericalism never acted on?
"Anti-clericalism was also part of Nazi ideology, although it was never acted on as the Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich."
"Never acted on"? Didn't the Nazis require all schools in Catholic regions to replace classroom crosses with portraits of Hitler? Weren't hundreds of priests harrassed, sent to concentration camps, or even murdered? (although most of the latter were Polish)
Also this phrase is misleading as "clericalism" usually refers to the Catholic Church does it not, while Germany is predominantly Protestant (something like 60/40)--sounds like someone's potentially (maybe even unconsciously) trying that old saw of highlighting the lesser complicity of the Catholic Church with the Nazi regime while neglecting to mention the (greater) compromises of the Protestant churches.
--Critic9328 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The Nazis were anticlerical and I believe they took some strong anticlerical actions. Various Churches may have cooperated, but that doesn't mean the Nazis were nice to the churchs. Lampros 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Inconsistencies in Nazi Ideology
Barbara Shack 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)-If this(doctrines in racial and cultural purity) were correct theUnited States of America with its famous Melting pot would be weak. The United States is clearly strong.-
Adolf Hitler spent some time homeless in Vienna. If he had not been the Führer he could easily have been designated as having a "lebensunwertes Leben" (Life-unworthy life). I think these points I've made are valid. If others don't like them I request arbitration.
Delete Your comments are POV, out-of-time and out-of-place, as I explained in post to you. 
Camillus
talk|contribs 20:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Socialism as key issue in Nazism
Discussion moved to: Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts--Cberlet 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Major edits reverted
I have just reverted major changes. There may be some legitimate material in what I'm reverting - I'm not sure - but there is no justification for its massive deletions of longstanding material. I do not have time to check through right now, but the removals of well-cited material were alone sufficient for me to consider this an objectionable edit. Also, the odd change of "Aryan", a term strongly identified with Nazism, to "Nordic" seems utterly inappropriate. However, I urge others to look through the material I removed and see if some or all of it should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Long, problematic, mostly new passage
I find a lot problematic about three paragraphs recently added to the Economic practice section, the first of which incorporates some older material.
To start off, not a thing is cited, and this could use lots of citations. The rest of my issues I will interweave with the text, following. I think this is the most efficient way for me to do this; if it proves confusing, let me know and I'll try something else.
- In an economic sense, Nazism and Fascism are related. They both followed the economic model of corporatism Fair enough
under the banner of national socialism, — "Under the banner of" suggests that they used this term. Obviously, the Nazis did, but I don't remember Mussolini's fascists using that term, do you have a citation?
which included government control of finance and investment (allocation of credit), strict supervision of industry and agriculture, combined with a strong influence of "corporate" business interests in the government's economic decisions. — Mostly OK (except for lack of citation), but the phrase "'corporate' business interests" is ambiguous here, given two different, relevant meanings of "corporate".
It is important to note, however, that — Pure POV phrase
only corporations aligned with the state's interests were generally allowed, — Probably at least mostly true, but begs for citation. I suspect that (at least insofar as this attempts to include Italy—and I'm not sure why it should, but that is how it is currently written—"aligned with" is too strong, something like "not opposed to" would be more correct.
and many "corporations" within such states were simply unelected civic assemblies that represented economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. — Yes, that's pretty much how coroporatism works. "Represented" here seems problematic. "Designated by the state to represent" would probably be truer; again, citation would be good, but I'll try not to keep repeating that.
This "corporate" power and market based systems for providing price information co-existed with a strong, militaristic welfare state that guaranteed universal employment, health care, education, and welfare benefits. — "Universal" seems problematic in a state that, for example, banned Jews from the universities
Independent labor unions were banned, and a single, government-run labor organization was created to replace them. — Was it, in both cases, one single organization rather than a system of several? I seem to remember at least something separate for farmers. Citation would probably solve this. Sorry.
Officially, the fascist and Nazi state sought to incorporate and harmonize all diverging economic interests. It was considered very important to unite labor and capital (workers and bosses) in order to combat communism. — Agreed.
The international socialist (i.e. communist) call for the workers of all countries to unite was seen by fascists and Nazis as a mortal enemy of the nationalist spirit which stood at the center of their beliefs. — I'd put "internationalist socialist" in quotation marks—it's basically a Nazi phrase—and someone should clean up the weird construction of "the…call…was seen…as a mortal enemy
The Nazis were inherently socialist, — Whoah! What the heck is that even supposed to mean? Can I raise a big red flag here, so to speak?
but saw the nation and racial interests, not the class interests, as being most important. — Fine.
- Hitler's National Socialists enacted a number of broad sweeping reforms — Fine.
that were entirely socialist in nature, — Hello again: this seems excessive. "Drew from the socialist program?" Fine. But "entirely socialist in nature"? The exclusion of Jews from these programs was not socialist, the favoring of small businesses over large is not particularly socialist, and the singling out of department stores had almost entirely to do with the fact that they were virutally owned by Jews. This is the proverbial "socialism of fools."
including major expansions of national health care, land redistribution, — Some of the land programs were the farthest thing from socialist: the peasants of Prussia were reduced back to virtual serfdom, although lauded to high heaven.
inactment of old age pensions, universal free education (including through university for talented students), opposition to large department stores in favor of small business owners, opposition to private banks, and opposition to any corporate interests which were not closely aligned with the dictates of the state. — On this last: (1) are we back to the more contemporary meaning of "corporate"? If so, given the context, I would suggest "business interests". (2) Again, as in the previous paragraph, "were not closely aligned" is too strong, "were seen as opposing" would be more correct.
It was assumed that all workers should be unionized, but that the strong central state should be in charge of said unions, not the workers themselves. — Is this true? Were employees of small businesses brought into the pseudo-unions?
- In truth — Pure POV phrase
Nazism little resembled what either modern socialists or modern free market advocates today advocate, but at that time and place they saw their program of strong state control of the economy to be an alternative to both international socialism (i.e. communism) and liberalism. — Again, I'd put "internationalist socialist" in quotation marks; also, liberalism is not an economic system. Do you mean to say "free-market capitalism"? or what? Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The recently added text and this discussion belong over at Fascism and ideology where this debate over libertarian/conservative analysis of fascism really is more appropriate. The majority scholarship on Nazism should be highlighted here on this page, not a well-known minority viewpoint of libertarian/conservative scholars and polemicists.--Cberlet 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am discussing it here because this is the article where the material was added. I agree that it's not particularly appropriate here, but it wouldn't accomplish much for me to comment on it on another page. But if another 24 hours goes by and no one is responding to the issues I've raised, I simply intend to remove it from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seems fair.--Cberlet 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- No answer (in about four days), so I'm cutting it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I rather enjoyed my section..... Dobbs 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone point me in the right direction as to how to add a cite to this article? Most of my information in this section comes from 'Nazi Economics - Ideology, Theory, and Practice', Yale University Press, Lib. of Congress card # 89-52113 Dobbs 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Nazism and Socialism
There are a number of unnacceptable statements in this article I've noticed so far... Italic textThe Nazis were inherently socialistItalic text
Italic textHitler's National Socialists enacted a number of broad sweeping reforms, that were entirely socialist in natureItalic text
Socialism at it's most basic level means the democratic control of the means of production. Clearly this was not the case in Nazi Germany. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 (talk • contribs) 8 Jan 2006.
- I agree. These claims are discussed at Fascism and ideology. They are a minority viewpoint. Should not be presented as majority consensus on this page.--Cberlet 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- To be fair, neither was it the case in the USSR, Cuba, China, or any other "socialist" country, where everything ended up being controlled by the government élite. In fact, socialism is an intermediate step towards communism. In socialism, everything belongs to the government. In communism, everything belongs to everyone. So yes, you could say all these nations were socialist, even though they all ended up more like monarchies because "the government" revolved so much around a single person rather than being democratic. ironcito 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why anyone thinks that one can eliminate government by giving it more power, I'll never understand. Sorry, just had to say it after seeing this. Rogue 9 02:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Homosexuals & Nazis
This section cocvers some tricky ground in a relatively NPOV way (after lengthy battles). It is a curernt debate. It may be obscure, but it should stay, although I moved it down a little. --Cberlet 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!--Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Völkisch movement
The Völkisch movement clearly fed some people into the Nazi movement, but there were many sources of the Nazi movement, and there were elements of the Völkisch movement that did not become Nazi. So "led" is the wrong word, unless a cite can be produced.. Otherwise it is an exaggeration.--Cberlet 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since the wrong author was cited, I think it is appropriate to ask for the page # in the Peter Levenda book Unholy Alliance. I think the book's text is being exaggerated slightly.--Cberlet 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke is a better source, but I didn't have a book handy to cite from. next time you are knowledgable on a subject and have a source handy, make the needed edit yourself instead of wasting my time chasing up citations on information you either know is true, or ought to if you knew your stuff. Your the purported fascist "expert", not me. My area of professional expertise is psychology. Sam Spade 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I was complaining about the way the text read before. Now it is fine: "The esoteric Thule Society and Germanenorden were secret societies which while only a small part of the Völkisch movement, led into the Nazi party." That's much more accurate. That's all I wanted to point out. Lighten up.--Cberlet 00:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- All I know is that I made a minor edit and was asked for a cite, only to find out you had the same book I was citing from. That was annoying. It seems to me you could have clarified what concerned you, rather than asking for a citation for information you had access to. In any case I agree the article is a bit better for my contributions, you're welcome. Sam Spade 11:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it was the sentence structure created by you that introduced a minor error. The sentence you wrote: "The Thule Society was part of the Völkisch movement which led directly to the Nazi party," means that the Völkisch movement led directly to the Nazi party. This is what I objected to as anyone can see by reading my first entry in this section of the discussion. You then rewrote the sentence to read: " The esoteric Thule Society and Germanenorden were secret societies which while only a small part of the Völkisch movement, led into the Nazi party." That straightens the matter out. Thanks. The cite only mattered if you wanted to defend the first version of the sentence. I am restoring the sentence: "Heinrich Himmler was one of the few Nazi leaders to show a strong interest in such matters," as it has mysteriously vanished without explanation. You're welcome.--Cberlet 12:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since you seem unaware, I removed that because it isn't true, and is uncited. Sam Spade 13:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh, because the proper courteous method, especially on a controversial page, is to ask for a cite, before unilaterally deleting text. Since you claim the text is not true, I am sure you have a cite for that claim. In the meantime, I have rewritten the text with a cite. --Cberlet 14:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good job, thank you for correcting the information. Rather than wasting time asking for cites for false info, i simply make the needed edit. Try doing the same sometime, its great! Sam Spade 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I personally do not think that cites and facts are a waste of time.--Cberlet 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- of course we don't, or we'd be out getting bladdered and yelling about football instead ;) My point was more to say "Be bold", and cite facts, rather than taking other editors to task over editorial subtleties requiring little effort to mend. Sam Spade 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, point taken. I do think you are a bit too bold at times. :-0 --Cberlet 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- As do I you, but there are so many editors who agree and disagree w each of us to varying degrees, perhaps we can call it a wash? If you'd like to see a discussion of my being bold which is almost completely off topic (perhaps to give you perspective on how I get on w others) see User_talk:Sam_Spade#Wikipedia:Merge_of_Combatives_and_Close_combat. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Federico Gustavo
Recently added; I cut it. "Federico Gustavo, the Nazi leader in Argentina, has committed many crimes to the jewish peoples in Buenos Aires. He is considered a legend on the streets for his unorthodox methods of inhumane torture."
- Offhand, I have no idea whether this is true. I'm sure it is uncited and that even if true it would not belong in a general encyclopedia article on Nazism. Can someone explain what this is about, or is it just graffiti? - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear
Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Holy Sites?
Is is perhaps incorrect to have a "Holy Sites" section, as Nazism is not a religion? Perhaps "Places of Pilgramage" (or similar) would be a more appropriate title.
- Where did the NS article disappear to ?? SirIsaacBrock 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- See the discussion above. It has been split up onto several pages. I did add the following to the disambiguation page:
- Its application to socialist or anarchist groups, however, is generally considered inaccurate and pejorative. For a discussion of this issues, see the page on fascism and ideology.
- Does this help?--Cberlet 15:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- See the discussion above. It has been split up onto several pages. I did add the following to the disambiguation page:
Nazism and Persians
Hello. I am an avid Persian history buff. I have read many things related to Iran and the Nazis during the 1930s and the 1940s. From what I understand, through that entire period many in Iran applauded Germany if only for making the lives of the hated British difficult. That said, Hitler, who was in great need of oil for his war machine often would play to the hearts of the Iranian populace by declaring his admiration for Iran's past. however, I am not sure if that should constitute wikipedia publishing in its article on Naziism that the persians were partly to blame for Hitler's crooked logic and theories. That's why I deleted that section just a few minutes ago. I also feel that it is very important given today's political climate between Iran and Israel that Wikipedia should make strides not to overplay information that is sketchy at best. If the wiki community feels that the information on Persians and Nazis should remain in the article I feel at the very least some references should be made in that section. Currently, there are none. Thanks for your time. I hope I am using this section correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.15.189 (talk • contribs) 3 March 2006.
Persians
That section in Persians and Nazism sounds really confusing to me. Do you have a source for it?
I have never heard anything like that before. From what I know the admiration was very one sided. The Iranian king Reza Pahlavi had some admiration for Hitler, partly because of love of Aryan race and partly because of hating the British, and he asked the rest of the world to refer to his country with its native name (which has always been Iran) not Persia. Iran means: land of Aryans so it is likely that he did it under the influence of Hitler. But here the story ends. I never heard of Hitler admiring the Persian Empire. Can I see a source for that?
Also what is this? “Hitler also considered the Persians to be the master race more than the Germans”
Never heard anything like that before. I am very interested to see a source for that. This section is not backed up by any evidence and does not sound realistic to me. Gol 10:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I wanted to take out the section completely since it is not sourced and it does not sounds like it can be true but I wanted to give its writer a chance to explain. I have waited for two days and nobody has answered me. I am sure there is no answer for this since it is not true. I am going to take the section out. Whoever wants to put it back In, YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP WITH SOURCES. This section also includes information about USA that is irrelevant. it does not belong under “Nazism and Persians” if you want to put it back in then create a section for it.
Thank you.
Gol 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I dunno about you guys, but hitler actually considered the persians to be the master race. The reasons are the follwing: Sumka, an iranian neo-Nazi party, is present, most of Iran likes Nazi ideologies, and the Persian race have a connection to Hitler, a strong one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.11.236 (talk • contribs) 2 April 2006.
Are swastikas, etc banned in Germany??
Are they?? I heard they were, but if HISTORICALLY they were used by the Nazi party which represented German-speaking countries, then why would it be illegal to use a Nazi flag?? It's the idealogy of the people involved and NOT propaganda items such as flags, badges, etc that counts anyway. The criminal-justice system works in such a way that CARRYING OUT ACTS OF RACISM IS ILLGEGAL, obviously, but POSSESSING A NAZI FLAG should not be considered illegal!! My mother's side of the family has VERY STRONG GERMAN HERITAGE, so this is an issue that concerns me to some extent. Danmeister 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)DanmeisterDanmeister 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- "For example, the German postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons." (from Swastika). Fightindaman 07:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
dictatorship
I have altered the line "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the dictatorship of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" to "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the Government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" becuase i think to call the nazi party a dictatorship is far stratching the dfeinatation of dictatorship. It is important to remember the nazi's had a political party with overwhelming support, far from a dictatorship. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeorgeBuchanan (talk • contribs) 5 April 2006.
- "Dictatorship" does not refer to the means of ascent or degree of popularity: it refers to a monopoly of power, especially by an individual. Hitler may even have been (especially in the late 1930s) a popular dictator, but that doesn't make him any less a dictator. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- So is President Bush a dictator? He is the head of his party, and his party controls every branch of government. Drogo Underburrow 05:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)