Talk:National Socialist German Workers Party

Contents

1 Obsolete Naming Discussion 2 Size of Nazi emblem 3 External Links 4 Page Title 5 DAP party organization 6 No Snarky Barks 7 No Snarky Barks 8 Rallies 9 Post World War II Nazi Party 10 Apostrophe 11 Requested move 11.1 Support 11.2 Oppose 11.3 Comments 11.4 Decision 12 Category:Socialist parties 13 National Labour Law of January 20, 1934 13.1 pre long knives the NSDAP was a lot more socialist 14 Nazi Sayings 15 Photograph "early leaders of the Nazi Party" 16 National Socialist Driver Corps paramilitary? 17 My changes

Obsolete Naming Discussion

(Is there really no discussion on this yet? Sorry, I'm just discovered this site and am not familiar with it yet.)

I just changed "are called Nazis" to a more clumsy wording, which may even sound as if I had any sympathies towards Nazis.

My point was that a serious encyclopedia should put more weight on official names. I therefore would advocate swapping the main entry from "Nazi Party" to "NSDAP". Sebastian

Yes, absolutely, an encylopedia shouldn't adopt idiomatic names for entities that had proper legal names.

Also, there are modern movements that call themselves 'Nazi Party' and those ought to be given space, as they are current (if obscure and despised). An example is the [1] (http://nazi.org) <-- probably not the best example, as it has a doctrine rather than a hate rant at its core - most Nazi Party outfits are just hate groups.

"I hate Illinois Nazis" - the Blues Brothers

Good point. So we should have one entity "Nazi", reading something like:

Abbreviation for national socialist. Originally a mocking abbreviation, it became widely used by opponents as well as some groups with similar idiologies.

However, I would rather not include the link. This would be promoting them. Leaving it out is no censorship. Anyone can find it by searching the web.

Sebastian 20:02 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

[regarding the link:] I strongly disagree. We should include links to modern nazi parties' homepages -- I haven't looked at the link in question, but some links should be included. The wikipedia exists to store information, not promote anything, including nazism and anti-nazism. Tokerboy

Well, maybe. It should also depend on how important they are. Snatching a catchy URL alone should not be an admission ticket to wikipedia. Sebastian 07:30 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I just realized that it was Maveric149 who moved NSDAP to Nazi Party. His reason was:
NSDAP is a German acronym!!! This is the English wikipedia folks.

I disagree. Do we really have a policy not to include foreign acronyms? Or should we? If we chose to include an article on DAX, the German stock index, would we have to call it "GSX"? And if acronyms, why not names? Would you list Hans Blix as "John Blix"? Where would you draw the border? I don't think this would make sense. But I see that 7 months later you agreed to similar arguments in http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Frei, so I may be preaching to the converted.

Sebastian 07:52 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Goodness gracious! I don't see why this is so difficult; when writing in language X about subject Y, we should use the form of the name for subject Y most often used and recognized in serious writing in language X. Note that language X is the language you are writing in; the form of subject Y's name most often used in language X may or may not be the same as the form of subject Y's name used in some language Z which is or was spoken by subject Y or persons close to subject Y. Hans Blix auf Deutsch is best known as Hans Blix in English; DAX auf Deutsch is best known as DAX in English; NDSAP auf Deutsch is best known as the Nazi Party in English (unless someone can show otherwise?) --Brion 10:44 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. We have a very clear naming convention on this. Sebastian please read the naming conventions that would be violated by this move: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (anglicization) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). --mav

I'd like to add that a redirect from NSDAP to Nazi Party would of course remain in place. Also, while Nazi Party is the more common form in English, the same is not true in the case of GSX vs. DAX. --Eloquence 11:09 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure that "Nazi" is a mocking abbreviation? I thought it was simply an abbreviation of the German pronounciation of the first part of the adjective "national socialist".

I think that people find the general term 'NAZI' sinister without understanding what it means. Obviously, when we say 'Nazi' we are referring to an adherant of the political creed of National Socialism, so a Nazi is a National Socialist.

There, that's much less 'sinister sounding' isen't it?

Regards,

Louise

When spoken in German, the first portion of the word "National" is pronounced 'nazi'.

-- Harald

Size of Nazi emblem

Does the swastika emblem have to be quite so large? Why not reduce it in size by about a third?

emblem large? It's not that big ... it's only 200 x 200 Pixels

reduce it a third? I'm not sure if it show up well (@least not here) ... it's already kinda small ... but others display may vary on that ...

I take it that you uare talkin about the top one ... the bottom one is 160 x 160 Pixels

Sincerely, reddi

External Links

The attempt to reduce the ability of the reader to research contemporary Nazi parties, as well as their opposition is fundamentally against the spirit of the wikipedia. I find the reasons for doing this to be particularly vacuous. They are on talk:nazism, if anyone is interested. Jack 12:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Take it to Neo-Nazism, Jack. For you to list a couple of contemporary fringe groups as opposition to Nazism, while forgetting that the US sent 16 million troops into WW2, or forget about the USSR, the UK, the Free French and the Maquis, Canada, Australia, the Polish Free Army, the various underground and partisan groups, the White Rose, the Edelweiss Pirates, The Swing Movement in Nazi Germany, the Red Orchestra, etc., etc., etc., is not only misleading, it is disingenuous. Danny 12:50, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why any useful links you might add should be removed. And I guess I could see why contemporary opposition might not be appropriate (I was trying to be NPOV by giving both sides), but there is no legitamate reason for removing links to contemporary Nazi organizations. These are not neo-nazi groups, but rather are officially "Nazi" in nature. I mean, the ANP? Jack 20:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page Title

Since this is a page specifically about the party, can we move it to National Socialist German Workers Party, or what not? john 05:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

good idea Sam Spade 19:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

DAP party organization

Even though the beginning part of this article mentions a few of the first members, it isn't really clear on their categorization. Also, a lot of literature makes Anton Drexler the first head of the DAP, and he's mentioned more predominantly at the top of the article as it is now. But information I've come across places top position squarely on Karl Harrer;

"Organizational Comitte: (Sept 16, 1919 to february 20, 1920):

1: Karl Harrer, founder and President. 2: Anton Drexler, co-founder and Vice-President. 3: Gottfried Feder, Economic Affairs Specialist. 4: Dietrich Eckart, Ideological formation of the Party. 5: Hermann Esser, Relations of the Party 6: Emil Maurice, security 7: Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Secretary.

After the reconstitution of the Party in 1925 A. Hitler received the member number '1'"

No Snarky Barks

(a variant of fascism under a misleading name)

What is this supposed to insinuate? Fascism is a variant of socialism. The Fascist Party in Italy grew out of socialism; Benito Mussolini's political career started as a socialist; only later did he style himself a fascist. The Nazi Party was founded by socialists. Both parties, Nazis and the Italian Fascists, were understood to be working implementations of socialism by their contemporaries. The fact that the outcome of each of these socialist parties coming to power led to negative results should not be glossed over by conveniently mischaracterizing them as non-socialist. That the experiment in socialism failed in the two aforementioned instances does not grant one the right to ignore empirical evidence in favor of personal preferences. MSTCrow 14:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. Here we go again. Yes, Fascism started against a background of the socialist movements starting at that time, and the NSDAP even appropriated the term in their name. However, in practice, and by their own statements, both the Italian Fascist movement, and Hitler's Nazi movement, were parties of the political right. We have recently spent several months debating this, and can quote primary sources in evidence that this was the case. Oddly enough, what both did practice, among other things like killing millions of people, was corporatism; again, evidence for this assertion is easy to provide from primary sources. -- The Anome 14:51, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Nazi Germany did kill approximately 8 million people, but the USSR killed at least 80 million, so I'm not sure how the body count is relevant here, unless you're trying to insinuate that fascism is somehow more desirable that socialism. It also isn't of much importance whether the Nazis claimed to be on the so-called right or left, as actions speak louder than words, and in actions, Nazism was most certainly socialist syndicalism.

MSTCrow 18:38, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've edited the entry on the topic page in an attempt to present a more balanced survery of viewpoints regarding the issue of Nazi socialism, while removing any wording that posits a POV (the Nazis were NOT socialists, etc). There are arguments and many proponents on either side, and to sweep one or the other aside as non-existent or inconsequential is biased, unscientific, and not in the general spirit of the Wikipedia.

MSTCrow 15:40, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

No Snarky Barks

The view that the NASDAP were socialists is scarcely taken more seriosuly than those of holocaust deniers or The Flat Earth Society. It is enough to warrent mention that some people hold this view, but we certainly shouldn't have sentences like, "many people today as well as the past have pointed out that their policies were indeed socialist in nature."

The opinion that the NASDAP weren't fascists is even less widely held which is why I removed sentence reading, "To call the NDSAP fascist is common but misleading."

I don't think this article is really the place for such comments at all, they would be more at home in the article on Nazism than one on the Nazi Party.

Rallies

I think this article is incomplete without discussion of NSDAP rallies. 119 02:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Post World War II Nazi Party

There are big discrepancies between what is written here about the NPD and what's written on the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) page. According to the former, it has been forbidden, according to the latter, it hasn't. Which version is true? Sebastian 09:05, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

I think the article on Wiki is true. The source I had was pretty old and might have spoken of an initial disbandment. Article should be changed to reflect the current status of the DAP -Husnock 4 March 2005

Apostrophe

I don't want to move such a page as this without at least bringing it up on the talk page (and I can't actually, because the place I want to move it to has an edit history), but shouldn't this be at "National Socialist German Workers' Party"? It's the Party which belongs to National Socialist German Workers (plural), surely? — Trilobite (Talk) 04:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think thats a valid reason to move the page. The full German title of the NSDAP doesnt have an apostrophe and very few english translations use it either. -Husnock 6Mar05

Well no of course the German title doesn't have an apostrophe. I think you've misunderstood my point. Ho hum. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I would dispute that very few English translations use it. I have seen it often. Those that don't use it, I suspect, do so not because they have thought about it but because, like many people, they don't understand how to use the possessive apostrophe.

"Mary is the cat's friend." = "Mary is the friend of the cat." (singular)

"Mary is the cats' friend." = "Mary is the friend of the cats." (plural)

"Mary is the cats friend." = nonsense

Workers is a noun, not an adjective. It's not the "Party which is Workers" in the way that it's the "Party which is National Socialist". It's the "Party of the Workers". I just checked Britannica and they use an apostrophe. They're not alone. I'm not some sort of grammar pedant by the way, but we ought to be able to get the title of the article right. Can anyone back me up here? — Trilobite (Talk) 08:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the first line of the article uses an apostrophe. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Trilobite, please tone down the sarcasm of your replies and we dont need a grammer lesson. Husnock has done FAR more for this article than you have will. You should not attack him so as he was just answering your question. -User:A Concerned Citizen

Sorry Husnock, I don't see any sarcasm in what I wrote, but if you did then I sincerely apologise. I wasn't attacking you, questioning your undoubtedly positive contributions to the article, or suggesting that I could do a better job. I was merely suggesting that you could have misunderstood my point. The whole thing was a constructive suggestion anyway, not an attack. I outlined some grammatical rules as I see them to illustrate why I thought the article needed an apostrophe in its title. Please assume good faith. I am not attacking anyone. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Its always nice to have a fan club , but whoever that was did not post on behalf of me. I think you should mention the syntax info on the move page that the other user has started. Its a decent point. -Husnock 6Mar05

Requested move

National Socialist German Workers Party → Nazi Party -- Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Can there be any doubt that Nazi Party is by far the more common name?--Pharos 07:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is not just something for this article. Is Soviet Union "wrong"? No, because most people will search for the abbreviated name. Remember, Wiki is not paper, and this situation is rather different from a printed reference work that is not typically accessed through a google search. The full title "National Socialist German Workers Party" should of course be given in the first sentence of the article; indeed it should remain its very first words. As to "Nazi Party" being POV, then I suppose Nazism and Neo-Nazism are also POV, as well as indeed the many uses of "Nazi" in this very article. BTW, I really think it would be better to shift discussion to the 'comments' section.--Pharos 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Philip Baird Shearer 00:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Use common name. Jonathunder 00:20, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
4. Support! At the moment, I guess there has existed one and only one party in the world that is commonly thought of as the Nazi Party. I don't understand, and I can't understand, why this article should be given another name. Ruhrjung 23:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the decision section below instead of voting

Oppose

1. Oppose. While Nazi Party may be used commonly, NSDAP was its formal title and so is more suitable in a reference work. 119 20:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • That doesn't matter. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the full name of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Articles should not be listed by abbrviation. In addition, every professional text I have seen written regarding Third Reich history (I am a World War II historian) usually indexes "Nazi" as "See: National Socialist German Workers Party". This is the full academic title of the political party and should remain so in this article. -Husnock 6Mar05
   • Incorrect. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy. There are plenty of pages that are abbreviated for the reason that the abbreviation is the more commonly used name. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Note: This page has been renamed back and forward at least twice in the last two years, as can be seen from the above chapter, which I called - optimistically - "#Obsolete_Naming_Discussion". (I don't know when it was renamed to the current title - I don't see this in the page history.) Sebastian 21:08, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
   • Noting that this has occurred before is not a reason for opposition. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose due to the fact that while common name is good, the name is, more or less, POV. It'd be better if the article remains here -- there's already a redirect in place. Penwhale 21:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • That doesn't matter. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Showing up only because someone with whom I frequently edit Nazi-related articles expressed concern that this is at the risk of being hijacked by abbreviation freaks. We don't title the Republican Party in the United States by its familiar moniker "GOP", or the Conservative Party in the UK by the familiar nickname "Tories" (though we do have an article on the historical phenomenon of the Tory). Likewise, NSDAP...the more familiar associative abbreviation inside Germany at the time contemporaneous to the Third Reich...redirects. Typically, the M.O. around here is eschewing abbreviation or acronyms for organizations (like I said many times previous about CIA, FAO, etc.). —ExplorerCDT 05:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • "Republican Party" is currently more common than "GOP". The currently common title in the English language is the preferred title, according to policy. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose see Husnock User:Trödel/sig 01:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Don't let the common names policy get in the way of accuracy. Moreover, what's common in one corner of the world may be less common somewhere else (hence the danger that common names can be seen as POV); the official name is unaffected by such considerations. --MarkSweep 23:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • The currently common title in the English language is the preferred title, according to policy (as opposed to your personal wishes). --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose Nazi is abbreviation. Should not be using abbreviations for an article title -User:ConcernedCitizen March 11, 2005
   • Incorrect. The currently common' title is the preferred title, according to policy (as opposed to your personal belief). There are plenty of articles which have abbreviated titles because the abbreviations are the more common names. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose Leave the article where it is and dont fix whats not broken
   • That isn't a reason. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose Under Nazi party I'd expect a list of all nazi parteis, not just one. There were other parties like that back in the '20s, '30s and '40s, and there are others now. -- AlexR 08:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't matter. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy. When anyone talks about "the Nazi Party" in the English language, it is obvious to any layman that they're talking about the party in Germany in the 30s and 40s, in the same way that "the Holocaust" is an article on the genocide during WWII, as opposed to a list events called "____ Holocaust". Of course, at the top of Nazi Party would be a link to a disambig page where articles on other Nazi Parties are listed. This is all pretty standard, and in accordance with policy. --brian0918™ 12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see the decision section below instead of voting

Comments

In an encyclopedia I would expect NSDAP. 119

Again, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The goal of titles in Wikipedia is, in large part, for the article to be most easily found from a search. This includes from search engines like google, which of course do not register redirects.--Pharos 08:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you get down to it, Nazi is actually an abbreviation. We went through this until the cows came home with Schutzstaffel vs. SS. I can see you're point , though. I suggest starting a disucssion on the "rename page". I dont know the exact link, but is over on the SS link. -Husnock 6Mar05

• I've put it up on Wikipedia:Requested moves now, as you should see from the template at the top of this page.--Pharos 08:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont see the move notice on the main Move page. It should be put in ther alert section and then discussed here, if Im reading the page right. -Husnock

• Yes, apparently someone accidentally deleted it. I've readded it now.--Pharos 20:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've created the following headers because I can see this being a quite even debate. I've taken the liberty of adding your vote, Pharos - hope you don't mind. I'm abstaining for now. violet/riga (t) 20:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the formatting, Violet; yes, that is my vote. Can I request that the votes remain in the appropriate 'support' and 'oppose' sections but 119 and Husnock move their comments down to this section to make discussion and response easier? Thanks.--Pharos 21:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading to "Requested move" because that is the name under which these moves are often titled on other pages linked to WP:RM and as this section is quite a way down it will be more quickly found by lurkers from RM. Philip Baird Shearer 00:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is not about abbreviations, it's about common names, because information on Wikipedia should be as accessible as possible from search engines. It would be ridiculous to put Republican Party (United States) at GOP, but it is also a little ridiculous to use a title that not one in a hundred English speakers can name over a common name that virtually all can.--Pharos 05:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you grossly underestimate English speakers. The information is still accessible, albeit by redirects. Which in this case work admirably. As for your comments above enquiring as to why Nazism over "National Socialism"...the disambiguation page for National Socialism proves that need admirably. —ExplorerCDT 06:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A more spurious argument I don't think I've ever seen. Either we should move Nazism to National Socialism or this page to Nazi. Your argument is either that you should use the official name or that you should use the common name. Either way, they ought to be consistent. Having said that, my vote is for "don't care". It's of absolutely no consequence what the actual title is, so long as the other one redirects. Dr Zen 00:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course Dr Zen is right about consistency. But naming does matter because this is a fine and informative article that is unfortunately unlikely to be found from a google search, when the great majority of people would simply type "Nazi Party" into the search box.--Pharos 00:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And if they did, the redirect would take them here. -Husnock 11 March 2005

No it wouldn't; redirects only work inside Wikipedia. A redirect page is never going to have a high google ranking. To make the page easily findable from a search engine, the actual article would have to be at the common name.--Pharos 10:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decision

After a week of voting the decision has been to leave this article name as National Socialist German Workers Party. violet/riga (t) 18:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously wrong. It doesn't matter what it used to be called (duct tape used to be called duck tape), or what it was formally called, or what it's proper name was (P.G.T. Beauregard's full name is Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard, but nobody called him that), or anythign else. The only thing Wikipedia cares about is how common the name is currently. "Nazi Party" is orders of magnitude more common in usage than "National Socialist German Workers Party" or an acronym. Therefore, this article should be at Nazi Party. It's as simple as that. --brian0918™ 03:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the argument can be made, but consensus is even more important, and if there was a consensus, it was to keep it where it is. I would add that, while in some contexts, it is more normal to talk about the "Nazi Party," in more formal contexts "NSDAP" or "National Socialists" or whatever is the more common usage. john k 03:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Policy overrides whatever "consensus" there may be, especially when nearly all of the opposers are claiming reasons which go against policy. (NOTE: this was a vote, not an attempt to reach consensus) Also, we're talking about "common" in normal contexts, not in formal ones. We're not trying to help WWII scholars learn from our pages, only the layman, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that "Nazi Party" is the usage among 99.9% of laymen. --brian0918™ 12:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, "consensus" is a policy. For instance, "there has to be consensus to move an article," is generally considered to be a policy. Who is to judge whether an article title is a violation of policy unless a consensus finds it to be so? Who has made you the arbiter of wikipedia policy? Furthermore, your basic view here is flawed. Laymen will easily find this page, because Nazi Party redirects to here. At any rate, the question of what we mean by "most commonly used" is very much not black and white. For most other Weimar-era German political parties, there is no "layman-used" term, so we have to use the names used by scholars. It is awkward to have articles like German National People's Party, but also Nazi Party. Furthermore, scholarly contexts are important, as are the ways other encyclopedias do this. Columbia's article is at National Socialism. Encarta's article is at National Socialism. The Britannica article is at National Socialism. Our article is actually at Nazism, but I think the party, which was an entity which was rarely referred to as the "Nazi Party," should be at its full title even more than the philosophy. john k 14:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was a vote, not any attempt at consensus. Also, it doesn't matter what the party was called when determing the name of the article. All that matters is what the currently most common name is. "Nazi Party" is more common now than any of the other terms by orders of magnitude. Other encyclopedias don't matter. Following Wikipedia policy is all there is to it. The rest is just conjecture. --brian0918™ 15:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relax, the name of the article isn't of such extreme importance. If we went with the current most common name for every article, homosexuals would be perverts and marxists would be godless commies. The redirect that's in place works for anyone who is looking for the information in this article. Also, I didn't vote because I really don't care what the name of the article is. I'm just saying you need to calm down and review your position. AngryParsley 16:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm obviously not a sufficiently frequent Wikipedian. In principle, however, I'm convinced Brian is right. If Wikipedia has a policy, then we as Wikipedians ought to strive for adherance to that. --Johan Magnus 22:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Socialist parties

This is a bit of a stretch. Apart from the name, the NSDAP has nothing in common with socialist parties, and no historian I've ever read classifies them as socialists. If you insist on the category, I'd like to see some references. -- Ferkelparade π 09:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, since nobody replied to quote any references (I suspect that's because there aren't any), I'll remove the category -- Ferkelparade π 01:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The nazi party was a socialist party like any other socialist party. they were anti-capitalists and anti-communists. --Haham hanuka 12:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, see Talk:Nazi_Germany#Socialist_in_name_only. Cheers, Sam Spade 13:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of Socialism is rather broad, and it's certainly big enough to include Nazi Germany. Small corporations were abolished, and the larger ones were forced to join trade organizations. They even used wage and price controls to direct the economy.

Wikipedia also defines Socialist economics as "a term which refers in its descriptive sense to the economic effects of nations with large state sectors where the government directs the kind and nature of production." That sounds a lot like Nazi Germany. IMHO, the only reason not to include it in the list of socialist nations is because socialists are overly sensitive.

Randy 15:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Sam Spade 15:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not this again. The Nazis were not socialists in any real sense. We've been over this many times before. john k 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be considering Haham hanuka's opinion. From his last failed self-nomination for Adminship, it was revealed that his user page was locked on the Hebrew Wikipedia (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%97%D7%9B%D7%9D_%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%94), and it lists all the charges brought against him by their admins, including that he had vandalized the Hebrew Village Pump and put pornographic content on the main page, among other things, according to Danny. I'm not totally convinced that he's Jewish, or, if he is, that he cares about contributing to Wikipedia. The admins on the Hebrew Wikipedia certainly think so. They appear to have banned him completely. On this page he has already shown that he doesn't care about consensus, as he just reverted again. --brian0918™ 02:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm so sick of this argument. The Nazis had little in common with socialists. I don't think Sam Spade is ever going to admit that he's mistaken here, but it's useless to argue. Please keep this claim out of articles. Rhobite 23:34, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

National Labour Law of January 20, 1934

[2] (http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/n-german.htm#econ-reorganize) "National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government." Large public works projects, 100% employment, these sorts of things are socialist.

Sam Spade 20:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, not again. Sam, we've been through this before. Do you really want to do this again? Statism is not Socialism. At any rate, Category:Fascism is clearly appropriate, and far less controversial than Category:Socialist parties, so i reverted you. john k 20:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats your POV, politics necessitates statism when it comes to practical imprementation, even w a state of anarchy, such as somalia. Please review NPOV. The nazis considered themselves socialist, and they fit the definition of socialism laid out in socialism. 'nuff said. Sam Spade 21:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not my POV - it's the view of most (all?) historians who study Nazism. Our basic definition of socialism, at socialism, by the way, is "Initially, it was based on the organized working class, with the purpose of building a classless society. But eventually, it increasingly concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. " The Nazis were not based on the organized working class, and were not interested in building a classless society. Neither were they interested in social reform within (ha) modern democracy. Nazism doesn't fit the OED definition ("A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.") either, nor does it fit the Merriam-Webster definition ("A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all."), nor does it fit the American Heritage definition ("Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."). The Nazis were never in favor of government control of the means of production. Unlike modern socialist parties, who also are not in favor of government control of the means of production, the Nazis do not have a lineage back to parties that did support this. Nazism, in fact, derived mostly out of far-right anti-semitic movements. There was a Socialistoid left wing of the National Socialist Party, led by people like the Strassers, but to call the party as a whole Socialist is utterly misleading. And we've been through this before. We had a whole article called Socialism and Nazism, which it was decided to redirect to Nazism because it was so misleading. Why are you insisting that we go through this again? john k 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[3] (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1068131/posts). Sam Spade 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, nice, a freerepublic article. Did you find that looking up "Nazism + Socialism" on google? john k 02:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Sam Spade 10:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lot of socialists claim to care about the working class even though they don't. That doesn't mean we don't call them socialists.

"Men of the Labor Service! For the first time you appear before me for review and therefore the entire German nation.

"You represent a great idea, and we know for millions of our fellow followers the concept of labor will no longer be a dividing factor but one of unification and that no longer will there be anybody in Germany who will regard manual labor less highly than any other form of work. The whole nation will have to go through your school.

"A time will come when no German will be able to join the community of this nation unless he has first been a member of yours first. And you know that not only the hundreds of thousands at Nuremberg are looking at you, but, at this moment, that all of Germany is looking at you for the very first time. And I know just as you are serving Germany in loyal devotion, Germany today sees, in proud joy, its sons marching with you in your ranks!"

-- Adolf Hitler (Triumph of the Will)

But like I said, socialists are hypersensitive. We might as well keep it out.

-- Randy 00:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't show either that the Nazi movement was based on the working class, or that it was trying to create a classless society. It certainly doesn't show a will to nationalize the means of production. That Nazism tried to appeal to the working class does not make it socialist. john k 02:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No way, appeasement isn't part of my paradigm, and it has nothing to do w NPOV. Sam Spade 00:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm ready to fight this one, but I'll give you a hand if there's an opportunity to lend-lease. And I'll vote to call it what it is if there's a plebiscite. -- Randy 00:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam, why do you have this compulsion to fight and lose the same argument every few months? It's clear that you are in opposition to the consensus among historians. Take your arguments into academia, publish a few articles, convince a few experts that they are wrong and then come back with your proposed changes. AndyL 02:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But he has a free republic article backing him up! john k 02:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

pre long knives the NSDAP was a lot more socialist

Prior to the night of the long knives there were more socialists in the NSDAP. People like Gregor Strasser, Gottfried Feder, Ernst Röhm etc. pressured Hitler to institute social policy. On the night itself, these people were either killed or forced to flee. Only thule society members like Gottfried Feder were allowed to remain in nominal positions of power. Sam Spade 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were, indeed, socialistic elements within the NSDAP. The party itself was not, as a whole, a socialist one, though. Fritz Thyssen, certainly, was no socialist. john k 00:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were anti-socialists amongst them it is true, but there were many socialists, they called themselves socialist, and socialist policies were enacted (http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/n-german.htm#econ-reorganize). Sam Spade 16:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They called themselves socialists, but also assured their backers that they weren't really socialists. "National socialism" was envisioned not so much as a different kind of socialism, as as a philosophy in opposition to socialism, which was, in interwar Germany, identified pretty closely with Marxism. I also find it hard to see how abolishing labor unions, engaging in a massive rearmament effort, and conscripting a lot of people to (indirectly) deal with unemployment can qualify as socialist policies. john k 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually directly ending unemployment was always one of their central goals, and one they largely succeeded in (until the train wreck of the wars end, of course). Sam Spade 22:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In what sense is full employment a "socialist" policy? john k 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who knows? I was responding to your insinuation that it was less than a direct goal of theirs. Sam Spade 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Sayings

A bit heavy on the anti-Jewish quotes. The party members honestly didn't go around denouncing Jews nearly as much as we like to believe these days. The Jews actually didn't figure that largely in their plans, other than wanting to expel them from Germany.

It's a bit silly that half of the sayings are aimed at Jews, and nothing about the "Nationalsozialistic bewegung", which Hitler especially liked to talk about.

The party was, principally, an anti-semitic party. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. john k 00:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats simply not accurate, but I don't see the point of arguing about it, yours (John Kenney's) is the common opinion. Sam Spade 23:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is also the opinion of most historians. Of course, it's more complicated than that, but this person is obviously a Nazi apologist ("the Jews actually didn't figure that largely in their plans"?! This is clear revisionist nonsense. ) john k 23:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that nearly everybody and every govt. was an extreme racist prior to 1945. I think the nazi's are meerely the scapegoat for the perpetual persecution of minorities historically. As I point out to my german friends, the americans killed indians, the dutch killed africans, the jews killed the amalek, the french killed algerians... what group hasn't commited genocide? Maybe the San Bushmen? Anyhow, of course they were racist, but who wasn;t back then? Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to africa, for crissakes. Sam Spade 23:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that you have no idea what you're talking about, but who cares about personal opinions? Wikipedia's job is to report on reputable sources, not the sentiments of editors. john k 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, whose adding any of this to the article? You disparaged the anon, I defended him, and now you disparage me and invoke unrelated policy. Lets get back to editing and keep the snarky barks to ourselves, eh? Sam Spade 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photograph "early leaders of the Nazi Party"

Shouldn't be the names of the persons photographed be listed? From left to right: Heinz Pernet, Friedrich Weber, Wilhelm Frick, Hermann Kriebel, Erich Ludendorff, Adolf Hitler, Wilhelm Brückner, Ernst Röhm, Robert Wagner. These were the persons accused of treason. They tried to seize control of the Bavarian government in the so called "Beer Hall Putsch" in 1924. Source: This photograph was published in Spiegel magazine: DER SPIEGEL - (16.8.) 33/1999, Seite 72:. http://globalfire.tv/nj/03de/zeitgeschichte/ah_sta.htm Andreas Schmid

National Socialist Driver Corps paramilitary?

This section has been moved to: Talk:National Socialist Motor Corps

My changes

Here is the changes I made in this article. Please give here reason/s why it should be removed if you think so, if you don't please do not revert my edits. --Haham hanuka 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welfare, social policies and ecological issues See the request on the listing or elsewhere on this talk page. Once the improvements have been completed, you may remove this notice and the page's listing.

The Nazi party done a lot to reduce the unemployment rate in Germany, Hitler even used the 1936 Berlin Olympics for it. The nazi party was based on ecological issues and enacted some laws regarding to ecology. Many people see the Nazi Pary as a Green Party. Before ascending the throne Hitler declared he would forbid experiments on animals and non-humanitarian slaughter.

Hitler's desire that almost anybody should be able to afford a car coincided with a proposal by car designer Ferdinand Porsche, Hitler named the car Volkswagen.

It should be removed because it's poorly written nonsense. "The Nazi Party was based on ecological issues"??? Hitler ascended the throne? john k 16:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor English (I'm not a native speaker), but instead of reverting this text you could improve it. All the facts I mentioned here are right. --Haham hanuka 16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Facts are inherently right. The question is, have you stated any... --brian0918™ 00:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see a quote for the idea that the Nazis were seen as a "green party." That is inherently ridiculous. john k 05:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The NS party certainly was not "based on ecological issues" - though there were links to neo-paganism, "alternative medicine", esoteria etc. and some Nazis were vegetarians (including Hitler, but that might have been for medical reasons). Also such links between right wing extremists and ecological thought still exist, but that doesn't make the NSDAP a green party. -The "many" that see it that way are probably using it as a polemic against green parties.

I haven't heard anything about whether Hitler announced to "forbid experiments on animals and non-humanitarian slaughter", but given the Auschwitz experiments, I very much doubt this.

The references to unemployment and the Volkswagen however are basically correct, but they should be integrated into the entry better. Str1977 13:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)