Talk:Nazism/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Private property under the Nazis

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

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

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

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

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

Revision of Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged meaning of colours

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

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

Cites please

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

Attention please: antipolonism

---

PLEASE KINDLY READ!!! Please add to description of NAZISM a word : antipolonism . Nazis (Nazi Germans in the times of Hitler rule ) started 1939 GENOCIDE AGAINST POLES. Genocide against Polish (GENTILES) women, gentelmen, children. Nazi Germans were murdering POLISH POWS (1939), POLES IN HOSPITALS (1944, Warsaw), POLES (POLES GENTILES) IN Nazi German CAMP AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU,AND OTHER NAZI GERMAN DEATH CAMPS. thanks Bill Will see if I can find well enough documented evidence. And hopefully add to that list Slavs, homosexuals, Catholics, gypsies. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Irena Sendler-ATTENTION

(added link) Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Please add to the description of Nazism name: Sendler. This Polish Woman was rescuing Jews. She rescued (succeed) above 2500 Jewish Children from Nazi German prison called "Warsaw Ghetto".In 1965, Sendler was recognized by Yad Vashem as a Righteous Among the Nations, which was confirmed in 1983 by the Israeli Supreme Court. She also was awarded the Commanders Cross by the Israeli Institute. Sendler WAS POLE GENTILE (1919-2008). Sendler is Polish and Israeli hero. Please kindly ADD Sendler to description of Nazism AS ENEMY OF NAZI GERMANS OR ENEMY OF NAZISM. Perhaps You could write in Wiki: Polish Anti-Nazi fighter or hero. Thanks! :) 83.6.178.90 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Bill However, other than point out, here in discussion, that Irena Sadler has her own page already, I don't know what I can do about this one. I am not experienced in the more subtle judgements of what links can be added to pages outright, and I just can't see adding one within the main text. A shame, it is a heartwarming story, but I think this one is a no go. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting Pages

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

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

---

Two citations on the matter:

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

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

DAB

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

"

Nazism, commonly known as National Socialism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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