Talk:Nazism

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism/Archive_2#Nazism_and_religion.2C_references)

El_C

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 22:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah! What the hell do you think you're doing with all those references?!?!? Do you actually expect anyone to take the time to visit a *shudder* library before editing articles? </sarcasm> —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be alot funnier if I didn't regularly edit from the library. Or maybe if I wasn't well versed in literature on the subject of Nazi Germany? Or many if I was... Oh, I guess it just wasn't funny at all, by any measure. Thanks for thinking of me tho. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 22:47, 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 your talking about now. I didn't mean to bias things in that way, and I'm fine w 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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,

El_C

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 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)

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.

-soon to be registed

http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/aryan.htm El_C

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• • "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)

• 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)

• 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)

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.

1. 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

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.

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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29#Need_policy_on_uncomplimentary_history).

• I didn't get much response there as of today, so I put in a policy proposal under Uncomplimentary History

External Links

1. "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
2. 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)

Comedy about nazism

If anybody can think of pop culture entertainment involving humor and nazism, make a article called Nazism comedy

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 prodcuers" , 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)

'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.

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?

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)

Slavs as Subhumans