Talk:Nazism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are like the socialists

I remmember the socialist slogans " 9 September 1944 - the victory of the Bulgarian people against the nazism and capitalism " . Now you say - socialism and nazism. You propaganda is pretty trite.

Nazism, fascism, and socialism are all forms of collectivism. It makes perfect sense to lump them together in certain instances. It isn't contradictory in the least. --Jayson Virissimo 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Membership

The Nazi party started out with few people joining, with only 55 members, one of them being Hitler. However, to make the party seem big, the started out at 500. I think it would be worthwhile including this.

Membership

I agree, not least to emphasise that what ruled Germany at this time was often not "the Gestapo" so much as "fear of denunciation to the Gestapo" - the "World at War" video series narrated by Lord Olivier mentions the "start at 500" statistical trick and demonstrates the fear factor better than I can and I would refer interested readers to this source, which states that cities of hundreds of thousands of souls were terrorised by as few as 28 actual Gestapo, nobodies in and of themselves, bolstered by a publicised fearsome reputation. To US President Franklin D Roosevelt is attributed "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". This may still serve as a warning to us now. Dajwilkinson 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Nazism

This article is grossly biased against Nazism. For example

There are lots of things wrong with Nazism, such as murdering millions, but incoherence was not one of them.

One might argue that because Nazism is an evil ideology, it deserves biased articles, but then we should also have biased articles against Communism and Islam and people will dispute where to draw the line.

No one reading this article is likely to get a clue as to why Nazism appealed to so many people, and, more dangerously, they are unlikely to recognize modern day parties which that appeal to the same forces as gave nazism its appeal. The article is not neutral in POV, nor neutral in substance. It stretches facts to make Nazism unappealing, leaving the reader entirely in the dark as to why it did appeal. Nazism appealed to people's altruism and desire for self sacrifice, not to greed and hatred. Do you see any hatred or violence in "Triumph of the Will"?

The correct approach is to report what makes Nazism appealing from the neutral POV, report the bad consequences from the neutral POV, and report that "critics of nazism" argue that these bad consequences were a predictable and unavoidable consequence of the seemingly attractive aspects of nazism. The article refuses to acknowledge that there was anything at all attractive or appealing about Nazism, which obviously silly.

James A. Donald 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that Communism or Islam are evil ideologies. Nazism is an ideology of evil since it supposes that races exist, and that they are of unequal value. Communism and Islam do not assume that people have unequal worth. Please note that, if you say in a Wikipedia discussion that Communism or Islam were evil, it could deter or exclude a Communist or a Muslim from participating in this discussion.--Schwalker 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am to understand Nazism and the ideology I must have all information available; "Good" and "Bad". Every distorted fact, deliberately withheld truth, or lie that makes place on Wikipedia is a threat. They say knowlegde is power. You may add that a lie is as powerful as the truth. Where lie is detrimental to us only the truth, the whole truth will make mankind prosper. OktoberStorm 12:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to present neutral and unbiased information, yet as I look at the Nazism page, I see much information which is substantially inaccurate. The wording of it seems, as well, biased against Nazism.

Where's all the information about the "common interest before the individual interest?" That was the core of the Nazi program and decidedly the base of Nazism. What about the idea of a "race soul?" What about the SS Racial Theory? Where is all of this information? This is not just significant information in regards to this article, it is essential. These things are what comprised Nazism and defined it. All I'm seeing is "white power," "holocaust," and "Jews." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T20:37:54 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to present neutrally. The bias comes from a wide consensus within the historical and political communities which outweighs the far-right fringe’s propaganda and is unproblematic per WP:NPOV. The article certainly should be expanded and more thoroughly referenced, though. —xyzzy_n 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some of the points you mention are detailed in the article, just not in its opening summary. "Race soul" is a concept that could use expansion, but if you have something to contribute, especially if you are able to source your material, we welcome any improvements you make to the article.--72.92.8.6 14:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it being biased against nazism? Who cares if this site is "supposed" to be "neutral"? Nazism is evil and wrong, a despicable ideology of racism that promulgated an era of slaughter and death. The article should be biased against Nazism, so as to help prevent its resurgence.--Alex, 74.133.188.197 09:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Errr.... No it shouldn't. Yandman 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr.... Yes it should. This reminds me of those debates in the UK about the stated goal of the BBC to be neutral - there are some things you just can't be that neutral over. Unless maybe (for the sake of balance) people think it's a good idea to maybe have a pro-Nazi page detailing all the reasons why Hitler was right, the death camps were a terrific idea, etc, etc? After that, we can go on to reworking slavery and then get into a better position viz-a-vis Jo Stalin and Pol Pot. Or maybe just hand Wikipedia over the the neo-Nazis and forget the whole enlightenment?? MarkThomas 19:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Mr. Thomas; I rarely participate in discussion on the good ol' Wikipedia, but I suppose I feel "morally obligated" here. I think it's hard to be relative about Nazism; it requires one to adopt ideas that one could condone the horrors associated with Nazism. Could it be said that according to cliché judgements (every action has an opposite and equal reaction) that perhaps there was some motivation, even perhaps some justification (the doomed social situation set-up by the Allied Powers which preceded the Nazi regime, known as the Weimar Republic)? Maybe, but that doesn't mean we have to approve, nor should we encourage Nazism again, especially when we have ethics that have the potential to create a better world for *all* of us?? Just because there is a neutral perpetuity, does not mean that there is a lack of ethical perpetuity. Anyway, why should we stop at Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Enlightenment, Mark? Clearly, we can work our way back to the ignorance of Darfur, Milosevic, and while we're at it, centralize power in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church! Cheers. Steve 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"there are some things you just can't be that neutral over". Who are we to decide on what the "some things" are? All facts are equal, but some are more equal than others? Neutrality is what makes an encyclopaedia. Yandman 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean some kind of balance between pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi. It means letting the facts speak for themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. let the facts speak for themselves. I do think nazism is evil and wrong, but obviously the German people saw something good in it otherwise they wouldn't have been so complacent. It may be that all the "positive" aspects of nazism are propaganda but I think it would be good to include them in some fashion. Of course, if the official Nazi line doesn' square with reality this should be noted.

Is it just me, or has somebody edited out my last comments? Steve 02:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you hope to write a "neutral portrayal" that is not "piased against Nazis," which killed 11 million people. Having soldiers storm your home and threaten to kill you if you do not support them is the reason they enjoyed extremely high popularity. Wikipedia does not need to be "neutral on this issue"

Let the facts, not the bias, speak for themselves.

Why not discuss the unbearable depression Hitler ended in Germany or the way he united a people broken by the treaty of Versailles. Or anything else anyone can ‘prove’ was a positive factor to the Nazi Regime. Then describe the atrocities, genocide, war crimes, national aggression and the rest of the story.

Everytime I read anything on this topic, people are all afraid that speaking a positive word about this sensitive and hotly debated issue will raise Hitler from the dead or something. Let the history, all of it, speak for itself. History needs to be neutral on all issues. The history books written under the Nazi Regime weren't neutral either, remember.

Joliversc 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)joliversc

Well, then you have the other side of that coin. I just pulled out a paragraph that read: "A nazi is a stupid german prick who is sort of like a paccy and because you want to get rid of them all because they are stupid and follow the stupid prick hitler who was a gay wanker" Not really up to snuff, you know. Gerard Van Der Leun 14:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Vanderleun

I also agree. Nazism is one of the most frightening ideologies ever to exist on Earth, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should censor information about it. The Nazi party did do things that helped Germany, such as reducing unemployment, and they should be mentioned, as well as all the horrific crimes it committed. I think that actually people will come to a much stronger decision against Nazism if they have been presented with an unbiased collection of facts, without constant opinions telling them what to believe. Look at Michael Herr's Dispatches, on the Vietnam War, in which he hardly expresses an opinion in the whole book, and you come to a stronger conclusion for it. Wasn't it Socrates who said that all true understanding comes from within? It would be counter-productive to be biased here.
Anyway, being biased against Nazism is frankly ridiculous; surely this is the one article on Wikipedia in which the conclusion the reader will draw is so patently obvious that it DOESN'T need bias? That would be to admit that somehow there was an inadequacy to the arguments against Narzism that needed backing up.
Finally, there is a more idealistic reason not to censor information in this article. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a political magazine. Surely it's our job to give information and not opinions. We would be undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source of information if we accepted that we have to slant the facts to show everyone that Hitler was a bad guy.
So please, don't turn Wikipedia into a political lobbyist group. Let people have the truth and draw their own conclusions from it.
By the way, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and completely new to this article so if I've done something wrong then I apologise in advance. Phileosophian 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Phileosophian, honey, I'm afraid that's just not gonna happen. Hitler, National Socialism, the Holocaust, Holocaust Denial/Hitler Diaries hoaxes stir up a LOT of passions (rightfully) in a LOT of people. It's pretty much impossible to be entirely dispassionate about the systematic slaughter of 11 million plus people (saying that's a bad thing is not tantamount to being a "political magazine"). As for painting Hitler as a "bad guy," the facts don't even need to be slanted; empirically speaking, I think it's pretty safe to say the facts speak for themselves. Nobody's censoring information or going out of their way to say that Hitler and National Socialism was bad. You can see that on its face. As for the frequent mention of "Nazi efficiency," that concept is rather debatable. The upward bump in Germany's economy was quite probably a delayed reaction of the Weimar's economic policies, and when your primary output is military technology chances are your economy isn't going to be solvent after the war is over.68.33.6.116

A good journalist/history writer is able to be unbiased about any topic. Unbiased reports are necessary to maintain an accurate perspective on history. Reporting the facts will more effectively bring across any point a biased writer tries to make(Of course this is considering he is well justified.)

This article doesn't need to be biased. A perfectly unbiased, well-detailed article on Nazism will show how evil it is even better than a biased one. After covering all the mass murders and genocides and atrocities committed by the Nazis, it should be totally obvious that it's evil, whether the article states it or not. I mean, come on: if we say, roughly, "they killed millions of innocent people because they thought they were superior to everyone else," do we really need follow that with "and that is bad"? Because that's essentially what making the article biased would do. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

umm.....they don't ever really say that they going one side of the other, if fact they never really discriminate either side(Nazis or those who were persecuted by them). They merely talk about what what had happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.248.16.18 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The article is clearly neutral; if facts substantiated a positive portrayal of Nazis, they should certainly be included in the article. There are, however, no such facts. Neutrality and impartiality are distinct. The article appropriately presents facts without selectivity among events of equal historical weight and merely illustrates the topic of the article with accuracy and neutrality: as an atrocious ideology.

An "atrocious ideology"? Nonsense. Nazism is no more atrocious than Democratic Liberalism or Communism. It is simply what it is: An ideology. Those who are unwilling to provide an objective article which does not denigrate Nazism, but instead dispassionately presents the facts, lists the beliefs, practices, and other relevant information, should remove themselves from Wikipedia fully. Your political agenda and politically correct nonsense is the stuff of profound and willful ignorance and malice against knowledge.

Moreover, it should be noted that Wikipedia, or any other encylcopedia, is not meant as a platform for moralizing. Let us leave this "evil" nonsense at the door. I am also quite certain that the lot of you are not ethicists, nor even well versed in theories of ethics, and therefore are not fit to make even a remotely objective argument for why Nazism is "evil" beyond "oooh, they killed people!"24.239.162.211 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a student, I think it's vital that articles on Wikipedia (especially this one in particular) are neutral. Sure, if you were around during or shortly after the time of nazi Germany, you'll realise the good and bad points of Hitler's rule; but for those of us who were born a long time after, we MUST know the entire story of what actually happened. If we know only the bad things Hitler did, we are left naive and vulnerable to future movements of this kind - we may not recognize Nazism until it is too late. - Caitlin (Age 16)

Even the opening, referring to Nazism being based around a "conspiracy of Jews and Bolsheviks," is fairly weak. I don't recall the Nazis talking grassy knoll. I believe it was more like "Social Democrats," the dominant left-wing party of the Weimar, who had strong socialist sympathies, (incidentally correctly) may have espied the total insanity of WWI and seen no trouble tossing in the towel; Jews, who had massive influence in business and therefore politics, also may have been less than pumped for three more years of batshit-crazy and purposeless slaughter. Even in Hitler's craziest rantings, that's not exactly conspiracy. I agree with the near-consensus edits should allow maximal "emulation" of Nazi's contextual appeal...that is the superior way of understanding history. Idiotic emphasis is for idiots, the facts speak for themselves: Nazis were incredible, heartless, vicious morons.-Rick

---

Encyclopaedias are an essential form of scientific documentation. Science is only concerned with well-founded evidence. We must not inspire hatred toward the Nazis by the same method that the Nazis inspired hatred toward other human beings: through lies dressed as scientific facts. Nazism's racist ideas are unreasonable. Nazism endorsed morals based on an unreasonable account of reality. Encyclpaedia's are concered with making such facts clear. ---- (Sam, (Australia: June/2007)

That reminds me of the Soviet Encyclopedia, where every political article consisted of minor information on the subject, and a huge diatribe on the faults of Capitalism and the awesomeness of Communism and Socialism. It's absolutely the same in Wikipedia. Humanophage

I think your point is that we shouldn't get carried away with focusing of the racist aspects of Nazism because Nazism had significantly more components than just racism; just focusing on Nazism's racist components would not be neutral. I agree, so lets simply not have a disproportionate amount of this article on why Nazism's racist policies were unreasonable. But nonetheless, it is a very significant component which needs to presented clearly.(Sam, (Australia: July/2007)

As a graduate student in History I have yet to come across a neutral or unbiased account of anything in History except for a pure chronology. Anytime an analysis of any event is included into the content of an Historical account biases occur. What is important is to present the prevailing arguments (by scholars) that consider mainly primary sources and to cite these sources. Encyclopedias are secondary sources in the context of providing information to the general public and are therefore vulnerable to the prevailing theories important to the analysis of any historical event. Approaching the content from a critical and skeptical advantage is important in developing your own interpretation of the event. Wikipedia may have its faults but if I wanted a pure unbiased account of Nazism then I would probably never understand the component of human nature so important in the synthesis of political movementsEddd1966 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)eddd1966Eddd1966 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

link to "heinrich kultus"

Having visited Quedlinburg during my holidays, I came aware of the so called "Heinrich Cult" (Heinrich Kultus). German Wikipedia says: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg Seit 1936 profanierte Heinrich Himmler die Wipertikirche und die Kirche St. Servatii auf dem Schlossberg. Diese wurde zur Weihestätte der SS. Hintergrund war der 1000. Todestag Heinrichs I., dessen Grablege sich dort befindet. Heinrich Himmler selbst betrachtete sich als Wiedergeburt König Heinrichs.

One of the Nazi heads (forgot who, sorry), according to the exposition at Quedlinburg, wrote in his diary that there actually was no more difference between Catholicism and Nazism. This should probably make a short link in the Theology part of the Nazism article (but I'm a bit wary of editing it myself). It could say something like:

"The mixing of politics and religion in Nazism can still be seen in the Wiperti church in Quedlinburg, where the Nazis organised a celebration of the 1000th day of death of king Heinrich_I. For this, they restructured the Gothic Wiperti church to have a Roman inside, with a great, round window with an eagle on it looking down on the sanctuary - so the visitors of the church would see the worldly eagle as their highest power.

The eagle has been deleted from the church in 1945, but the Roman inside in the Gothic outside, as well as the stones that fill up the former window, can still be seen."

Both Quedlinburg and the Wiperti church have links in the German Wikipedia, but not in the English equivalents.

Don't be afraid, go for it! Can you provide a link to a picture of the stones on the former window for your audience, by the way? Quedlinburg isn't well known, so maybe you are doing the small, yet important town a favor by promoting it at the same time? Sadly, it is likely to become a ghost town, though it is great shape right now.--72.92.0.83 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I have created Portal:Nazism but do not know enough to get it up and running, perhaps someone could help out or weigh in on whether or not such a portal is viable. I made a comment on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism about the fact that it may be cannibalizing the target audience, i.e. it will turn into one of those portals that sits on a shelf if the main person (me) stops contributing to it because no one else cares enough. Romperomperompe 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Long rambling lead

The lead of this article has become long and rambling. Obviously a controversial article, and I haven't been working on it, so I hesitate to wade in; if the problem really isn't self-evident, ping me and I'll make my comments more specific. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please make your comments. Roger 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic practice

The notion that hyperinflation was a problem in Germany in the 1930s dies hard. The hyperinflation of the early 1920s was overcome late in 1923 when the Mark was stabilized. The depression was charcterized by falling prices. So why does the article refer to the "elimination of hyperinflation"? It's a misleading irrelevance and perpetuates a myth first popularized in 1940 in the "The Great Dictator", though there were moderately inflationary tendencies arising from the rearmament programme. Also, sources are needed for all growth rates given, especially as these can be calculated in different ways and are controversial. Norvo 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, especially on hyperinflation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised the apparent claim that many German corporations didn't know that they were employing slave labour or that they had "lost control of their German branches (sic)". IG-Farben (mentioned here a supposedly unaware company) had a plant at Auschwitz and was tried after WWII - and some of its leading executives were jailed. It's a mystery why Kurt Schmitt and Allianz AG are singled for mention. -- Norvo 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to hyperinflation (following the Flammingo changes). Norvo 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps on reverting the reference to 'Elimination of hyperinflation', despite the fact that there was NO inflation in Germany in the early 1930s. The hyperinflation of the previous decade ended in 1923. Those who want to cling to the myth that just before Hitler came to power Germans were carrying cash around in suitcases might do well to look at postage-stamp catalgoues for the interwar period! Norvo 13:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Norvo 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If one wants to include any reference to the Nazi allegation that the Great Depression was caused by an international cabal I'd suggest keeping it brief, and I don't see any case for taking it back to the 19th century or earlier. After all, it was Nazi propaganda. I'd like to repeat my earlier request that sources be given for those extremely high growth-rates in Germany in the 1930s, as these can be calculated in different ways. Norvo 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY disagree! The point is NOT that there was the existence of hyperinflation in the economy - but that elimination of such a thing, or keeping it from being created again WAS IN FACT a MAJOR point of Nazi economic theory. Additionally, their economic theory was tied up in their overall worldview - as I pointed out, their economic policies supported their ideology NOT the other way around. Missing this essential difference in how they approached economics (which is very different than modern concepts of economics) is vital to understanding Nazi economic theory.

I feel the former edit of this section is more to the point - and the discussion of collusion of big business is best left removed to another section. It should not be to critize what happened, only to discuss what it was. In this case, I feel it is quite pointless to bring up the 'Protocols' here as well.

My cite about their growth rates is from the book 'Nazi Economics Ideology, Theory, and Policy' ISBN# 0-300-04466-6 translated by Ruth Hadass-Vashitz for Yale University Press (if someone could figure out how to cite this for me, as I don't edit much - but this was one of my contributions). I am citing a PRIMARY source. If there are differing calculations - place them in!

As an example from this book illustrating my point about hyperinflation being a primary concern:

..." "such a small increase in the volume of credit does in no way endanger the currency" bears evidence of the caution still prevalent at this juncture; following the experience of 1922-23, the fear of inflation was deeply embedded in public consciousness, and shared also by economists." pg. 42 Dobbs 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

As I understood it, this is an article on Nazism, not neo-Nazism. So why are there external links to present-day neo-Nazi parties? - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

>> Simply because neo-nazism is nazism

Sean Russell

There is no evidence to support the claim that Sean Russell personally embraced Nazism as an ideology. What evidence there is, is that he sought an alliance with Germany against Britain to secure the full independence of his country. {{subst:unsigned|67.87.90.62|1 September 2006

Vandalism

I hate nazis as much as the next guy, but someone needs to lock this page, and revert the vadalism. Nazism is a 'penis'? Wikiwarlock 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism needs to be reverted, which, of course, you can do yourself; we don't usually lock pages over vandalism unless they are major vandal targets. This one was probably reaching the threshold for semi-protection (though no one seems to have gone for it). Now it seems to have calmed down, but people should keep that in mind as an option. - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism -- > Nationalsozialistische

All the "OMG commies" jokes aside, the Nazis spent most of their time complaining about how leftists, jews, scientists, the media, and socialists were ruining their country, etc, etc, nazi rant, more etc. How about we just call the Nazis what they called themselves, Nationalsozialistische, and just leave the interpretations to someone else?--64.12.117.14 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be an adjective, ie. they didn't: The term is Nationalsozialismus, the follower is a Nationalsozialist (plural:+en). In historiography, it is considered scientifically appropriate to use the political abbreviation for all three words, namely "Nazi" as the term, the follower and the adjective. --Flammingo 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Its "Nationalsozialist" (singular) and "Nationalsozialisten" (plural). "nationalsozialistische" is not really wrong, but commonly used only as adjective (plural, nominative). But whatever you call them: FUCK THEM-yes

Semiprotection

Could someone semi this article again, please? Large amount of IPvandalism (mainly from schools). Yandman 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all of us who care about ideological descriptions on WP are pretty sick of cutting in on IP no stupidity on this and related pages. I SP'ed it just now, let's hope that lasts for a bit. MarkThomas 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We're back to random IP-number defacing of the site every day following removal of the SP notice; is it true as the user who removed it (Casper2k3) said that this removal was correct because it was not listed at CAT:SEMI, I thought it was auto-listed there when the tag gets added? MarkThomas 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected, a non-admin who adds the tag won't actually protect the article. So when you added the tag in this edit the page wasn't protected (hence the IP vandalism after you added the tag). Go to WP:RPP to request a page to be protected. --Casper2k3 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated Comment on Kurt Schmitt

This paragraph didnt fit into the context, the guy is never mentioned again:
Kurt Schmitt (born 7 October 1886 in Heidelberg; died 2 November 1950 in Heidelberg) was a Board member of Allianz AG, Germany's largest insurance company, and was a German economic leader and the Reich Economy Minister from June 1933 until January 1935.
But maybe somewhere else? --[[User:Flammingo|Flammingo^{[[User talk:Flammingo|Parliament]]}]] 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Changes

Wow, that was a big change made there by Flamingo. He seems to have removed a lot of content, and added some new stuff. While I'm not too sure about some of it ("When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism, and focus on their own nation" ? An important assertion such as this definetely needs a quote), I'm not the world's biggest expert on Nazism. Any opinions? Yandman 07:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly important set of changes. The first para in particular I feel is not as good now, as it does not give the panoramic view of Nazism one would expect on it's key page in WP. The rest of the changes are mostly focusing on historicist opinion but I think are rather livelier than what we had, and I don't see obvious mistakes or widely controversial opinions in there, although I will look more closely. I think this will need a lot of editing and thinking about though. Flammingo can you discuss it a bit more? You have made quite a change. Thanks. MarkThomas 08:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still modifying, and concerned about, the Flammingo change, which he has only discussed on my talk page and not here. If there is resolution to revert, do so, but I feel some of the changes were good, just very sweeping and undiscussed. MarkThomas 16:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for not discussing these changes first, with a crucial page like this it should have been; the reason was that there were at least two paragraphs with identical topics. I lately did some research on the rise of Nazism, and gave some reasons when this morning there was some concern on User talk:MarkThomas#Nazism; yes i agree the first paragraph is not finished and needs to be easier to read. Question is what should the first paragraph be used for, give an outline of the rest of the article or list events or be a moral introduction? The latter is necessary on the one hand but debatable for an encyclopaedia. My main reason was a more readable (?) structure. The rejection of Internationalism etc. is not mine but a quote from analyses like Mann, or leading historians Nolte and Arendt. Now I'll get some sources for that. Again, this was for structure, the content though needs more sources and probably additional perspectives. --Flammingo^Parliament 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Nazism

It is misleading to denounce the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) of being an advocate of Nazi-type racism. His book "Parerga und Paralipomena" section 92 is quoted to support this claim. The quotation ignores both the historical context of Schopenhauer`s remarks, and their context in his essay "On the Philosophy and Science of Nature" from which the quotation is taken. In his essay, Schopenhauer gives a matter-of-fact account of the development of humans, informed by the science of his time. He (correctly) acknowledges the origin of humans in Africa, then speculates on the processes which led to a white race. He makes clear that there is no such thing as a "natural white race" and that in fact using the term "white race" shows "prejudice and lack of thinking" (page 137 of the 1988 Haffmans edition, my translation). Schopenhauer takes the superiority of European civilization as a fact, arguing that climatic conditions were the driving force towards a superior creativity. There is nothing particularly Nazi-like in these views. They represent the mainstream opinion of educated Europeans in the 19th century. Schopenhauers views on race and civilization are the views of a moderate and highly educated conservative in the mid-19th century, in no way extremist, and would probably have found the thorough approval of, say, Queen Victoria or Florence Nightingale. You cannot judge a 19th century thinker using 21st century language and moral standards.Christophreisner 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can it not be said that the original thought of the basic concept and symbolism of Nazism, the Aryan Race and its supposide competition with the Semite race can be traced back to Helena Blavatsky. Afterall, Blavatsky coined the term Aryan race and her personal symbol included a swastika at 45 degrees with a ring surrounding it. Look at Theosophical Society on Wikipedia to see Blavatsky's emblem _{preceding unsigned comment added at 01:00, 24 September 2006 by IP 65.95.171.76 Talk}

Sounds very likely- i still suggest to base the statement on a published research in order to prevent internal myth-making. Do you have one? (Please remember to click "sign your name") --Flammingo^Parliament 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A darker shade of Green

A while back I read a "What if" article in New Scientist. A darker shade of Green. I just remembered it today, so I did a quick search of what I remembered, and it was amasing what I was able to dig up:

There are probably more litle known Nazi topics to dig up, but I haven't got the article anymore. I wonder if I will dare question the roots of the "green party".... --Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi hard sciences seems to have been doing well as well Operation paperclip --Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They were incredibly advanced on the green side of things. I don't really see this as a contradiction, as the Nazis didn't want to destroy the world or anything. They sincerely wanted to make it a better place. For anyone with blond hair and blue eyes, that is... Yandman 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a very false analogy, to be perfectly frank. For every parallel you can find with the Nazi Party and the left, you can find plenty with the right (laissez-faire capitalism, anti-gay initiatives, eugenics, etc. etc. etc). Yeah, Hitler was pretty green, but not so much in a tree hugging way as in an aesthetic way. And don't get me started on the whole "Hitler was a vegetarian" thing. Yes, he was, but only because his stomach couldn't digest meat properly and it gave him gas. Plus, he cheated on his diet plenty of times.

Capitalism? Hate to break it to you but Hitler was as anti-capitalist as the communists. --Jayson Virissimo 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why NPOV tag?

It's not clear to me why there is a dispute tag on this page. It's not the best treatment of the subject I have ever read, but it seems both reasonably balanced and comprehensive. Am I missing something? White Guard 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now removed. White Guard 00:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

German terms

I want to make a few corrections on the German terms used in this article. I am Austrian and so German's my mother tongue and I noticed some grammatical or orthographic errors, which I ask you to correct. The article's locked at the time, so I can't change it myself. The section "Introduction" mentions the German term "das Blut" as a translation for the English "race". This is incorrect, for "das Blut" means "the blood", while "the race" means "die Rasse". It is true, that the term "Blut" was sometimes used symbolically for "race" (for example: "Ich bin deutschen Blutes", literally "I am of German blood" meaning "I am of the German race"), but the most widespread translation for the English "race" is "Rasse". It should, however, be noted that in German the term "Rasse" (race) is sometimes frowned upon because of the possible racist connotations. Instead, the more neutral and scientific term "Ethnie" (ethnic group) is prefered.

The German word for "National Socialist" (referring to a person) is not "Nazionalsozialist", as the article claims, but "Nationalsozialist" (with "ti" instead of "zi"). It is, however, pronounced [nat​͡sjonˈaËlsot​͡sjalˌɪsmsÊŠs], with a t​͡s in "Nation...", which would normally be spelt in German as "z". However, in German "ti" whenn followed by another vowel is pronounced /t​͡si/ instead of /ti/, so "Nationalsozialisten" is the correct spelling.

The term "Dolchstoßlegende" in the section "Nazi theory" is also misspelled. It should have an "ß" instead of an "ss". "Dolchstoss" would be the Swiss spelling, which is not the most widespread standard spelling in the German speaking countries. The term "German Volk" used in the same section could be easily translated as "German people". The motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" should be spelled with only one capitalized "ein" at the beginning, with the other "ein" (an article meaning simply "a/an" or "one") being spelled with in lower case. The name of the Thule Society is spelled with a hyphen between the words "Thule" and "Gesellschaft" ("Thule-Gesellschaft", not "Thule Gesellschaft").

Besides: I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think that the opinion that "National Socialism" was a world-wide phenomenon, as expressed in the "Introduction"-section is wrong. There may of course have been movements, that combined nationalism and socialism, but they didn't call themselves "National Socialists". As far as I know, the German term "Nationalsozialismus" was a unique expression at the time, used by the National Socialists to attract members of the working classes. The opinion that "Nazism" is the distinct German form of National Socialism is almost certainly wrong. The term "Nazism" is almost never used in German-speaking countries, instead the terms "Nationalsozialismus" (National Socialism) or -- less frequently -- "Hitlerfaschismus" (Hitler fascism) or "Nazifaschismus" (Nazi fascism) are used.

The term "völkisch" used in the section "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" should not be capitalized, for it is a normal adjective, which are spelled in lower case letters even in German.

The term "Lumpenproletariat", however, should be capitalized, because it's a noun and all nouns are capitalized in German.

Furthermore, National Socialism is not only outlawed in Germany, as the article says in it's "Introduction" section, but also in Austria, which was occupied by the National Socialists in 1938.

The term "lebensunwertes Leben" included only disabled and mentally ill people and people suffering from hereditary diseases (and sometimes the so-called 'Asoziale'). The term "lebensunwertes Leben" was connected with the "Euthanasia" programmes the National Socialists committed. It did not include non-German people, homosexuals etc.

Phew, this was getting longer than I intended it to be. I hope I could help you. 62.46.181.60

Many good suggestions. I rewrote the lead. The term Nazism is widely used in most English-speaking countries. National socialist ideologues existed outside of Germany, but it was almost exclusively limited to Europe--not international. I hate opening entries with a cite to another encyclopedia. What's the point? The issue of fascism is dicely, I used the term nationalism in the primary clause, and mentioned fascism in a later sentence. I am intimidated by the idea of trying to fix the German language stuff.--Cberlet 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard about the fact that the term "Nazism" is very widespread outside the German-speaking countries. I didn't object the usage of that term, only the claim that "Nazism" is the specific German variant of National Socialism. I also appreciate that there were National Socialist ideologues outside of Germany, but I don't know any movement from the time before German National Socialism that called itself "national socialist" (using the term, you know). Unfortunately, I don't understand what you want to say when you're speaking about opening sentences citing other encyclopedias an the relationship between National Socialism and Fascism. Does it refer to something I said or to another discussion?

Oh, and about the German language stuff: that are only orthographic errors. Please just do the following:

- Change "Nazionalsozialisten" in paragraph 3 of the section "Introduction" to "Nationalsozialisten" or, even better, "Nationalsozialisten/Nationalsozialistinnen" (thus mentioning both genders -- strictly speaking, "Nationalsozialisten" refers only to male Nazis). - Change "Dolchstosslegende" in paragraph 2 of the section "Nazi theory" to "Dolchstoßlegende". - Change "German Volk" in the "Nationalism" paragraph of the section "Nazi theory" to "German people". - Change "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" in the same paragraph to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". - Change "Thule Gesellschaft" in the first "Racism" paragraph of the section "Nazi theory" to "Thule-Gesellschaft". - Change "Völkisch movement" in the first "Nazism and mysticism" paragraph in the section "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" - Change "lumpenproletariat" in the third paragraph of the section "Ideological competition" to "Lumpenproletariat"

I hope that I could help you. 62.46.181.60

Yes, helpful, thanks, I made the changes. My remarks about encyclopedias and the relationship between National Socialism and Fascism are my pet complaints from another discussion--nothing you said.--Cberlet 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote "das Blut, la razza", it was a quote from Paxton, Blut is of course blood (in the sense of race). Still, it is easier to read this way, and ok, i guess. What I do not understand is why Cberlet deleted the Britannica reference^[1] They call it totalitarian, btw. Because it is another encyclopaedia? Is that it?
@IP: strictly speaking, yes. For people who do not know German I would like to add that "-istinnen" refers to women only, while the "-isten" usually does not explicitly exclude women, it only does not stress that both are referred to. I agree with the way it is now, though, it shows the term exists.

Citing another encyclopedia in the lead of an entry is, frankly, pathetic. We can do better. And there is more recent research on fascism that makes the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry look sophomoric.--Cberlet 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the term "-innen" which today would be used was not in common use in the term refered to. Agathoclea 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the comment on '-innen'. Incidentally, the term lumpenproletariat is sometimes used in English, in which case it starts with a small 'l-' in accordance with standard English usage. Norvo 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And agree on keeping lumpenproletariat lowercase. It has passed into English. In fact, I think even the adjective lumpen has passed into English, at least educated English. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am clueless about the spelling issues, so folks should make corrections as needed.--Cberlet 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made the necessary spelling changes. Norvo 00:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections. It's much better this way. About the "-innen" issue. OK, that's disputable. For myself, I think that a female Nazi would have called herself Nationalsozialistin in most cases, not Nationalsozialist. Of course, to that time PC wasn't that common (and certainly not among the Nazis), so a group of female and male Nazis called themselves Nationalsozialisten. But, I think, we don't have to go back to the usage of gender suffixes of that time. In an article about slavery in America we also don't speak about "niggers", do we? 62.46.177.2

Unsatifactory introduction

At the moment the first two sentences of the introduction are irrelevant and very largely inaccurate:

National Socialism is an ideology that was developed in the last decades of the 19th century. When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, especially the Syndicalists as opposed to the Bolshevists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism,[1] and focus on their own nation, which was then referring to the "race" (die Rasse, la razza)[2].

In Germany there was no syndicalist movement, and the notion that the roots of Nazi ideology can be found in impatient, restless socialists is naive nonsense. Clearly, someone has lifted something on the origins of Fascism in some other country and transposed a very garbled piece of text to Germany. The key early elements in the forerunners of Nazism were extreme nationalism, racial anti-Semitism and Social Darwinism, which is the antithesis of socialism. The populist elements came later, after WW1. Moreover, the core ideology arose in the first decade or so of the 20th century (c. 1900-1914). The reference to Bolshevists (!) in a late 19th century contexts is bizarre. Politically and socially, the key ideological antecedents of Nazism lay in German conservatism.

It is worth adding that Nazism never had a well aticulated ideology. Much of the discussion on this page seems to assume that Nazism had something akin to Marxist ideology, with its claim to provide a theory of history, but it never sought to offer anything remotely like that. Norvo 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opening statement is garbled and misplaced. However, I think you perhaps underestimate the importance of the contribution of 'socialism' to the evolution of Nazi ideology. Quite far back into the ninteenth century you will find attempts to synthesize socialism and nationalism. One obvious example of this is Adolf Stoecker's Christian Socialist Workers Party, conceived as an attempt to win the working-class away from the SPD. Later in both Austria and the Sudetan areas of Bohemia parties with the specific National-Socialist label began to make an appearance. You have to remember, too, that the Nazis began life as the German Workers Party, emphasising the constituency they wished to attract, underlined still further by the addition of the Socialist label. You are also making too much of the kinship between Nazism and traditional conservatism, ignoring the socialist and radical contribution to its intellectual make-up. In this regard you may wish to contrast the NSDAP with the DNVP. which should help you to understand the true difference between the the new radicalism and traditional conservatism. There are those, moreover, who see both Facism and Communism essentially as movements of the left, with their emphasis on state intervention at all levels of social, political and economuc life. Anyway, they have more in common than you would allow.White Guard 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Norvo, just look at the Werner Sombart article. Intangible 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Stöcker's party was called the 'Christlich-Soziale Partei' ('Christian Social Party'). It was - deliberately - not called 'sozialistisch' ('socialist') and it dropped the refence to itself as a 'Workers' Party' as a liability within three years of its foundation. The 'social' bit suggested some kind of social conscience, but in Central Europe in the period c.1875-1918ff 'Christian Social' was largely a code-word for anti-Jewish.

As for state intervention being a form of socialism, this sounds like libertarian dogma. In Germany and some other countries in WWI there was extensive state intervention in the economy, but that didn't make any of these countries socialist. What these countries had - like later the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (and various other countries) - was a planned economy. Incidentally, I don't deny that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had many featues in common, but socialism wasn't among hem. Norvo 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Nazism evolved from socialism is one thing. Beyond that, it is a marginal POV that has been discussed on this page endlessly. The lead needs a rewrite, but not from a marginal POV. We have been here before. Several modern scholars of Nazism argue that it did, indeed have a coherent ideology. Material added here in a rewrite had better be cited to reputable published scholarship. Intangible is currently on probation in part for POV editing on entries related to fascism. I think Norvo has a better grasp of the issues.--Cberlet 03:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on Stöcker, though I do not think it invalidates my point that he specifically set up a 'social' alternative to attract German workers away from the SPD-the anti-semitism came as a later addition.

With regard to the latter contribution, yes, of course, my grasp of the issues is very weak, no more than a 'marginal POV'-but one sadly, with all due allowance for ignorance and stupidity, that will not be silenced, no matter how many times 'you' have been here before. I will repeat my chief point in the face of the orthodox consensus (please forgive my stubborn persistence) that National Socialism was fundamentally different from traditional forms of German Conservatism, and to try to obscure this-or airbrush it out altogether-comes close to being dangerously misleading: Adolf Hitler was not Alfred Hugenberg. We might consider in this regard some remarks of Hitler to Hermann Rauschning;

I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit...The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the worker's sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specifically for the comprehension of the masses; all these new methods of struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do was to take these methods and adapt them to our purpose. I only had to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempts to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its artificial ties with a democratic order.

Or what Bolshevism, it might be said, became. I do myself take the libertarian view; but the whole question should not be dismissed so lightly. There is more to the Nazi intellectual and political universe than Social Darwinism and Anti-semitism, my 'marginal POV' notwithstanding White Guard 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement that there is more to the relation of Nazism to Socialism than that they opposed another (Nazism = Antisocialism) was not meant as a challenge or marginal POV, but like WhiteGuard said there are some arguments that try to understand where the term socialist appears in national socialism. For fun (mocking) or delusion (misleading)? The public and private speeches sound more serious than that, and in order to analyse the threat no argument should be ignored without good (ie. quoted) reasoning. That is why the passage

'''National Socialism''' is an [[ideology]] that was developed in the last decades of the 19th century. When [[Socialism]] was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, especially the [[Syndicalist]]s as opposed to the Bolshevists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism,<ref>see Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism 2004,p.55f: One way to achieve that was taking only "enemy", internal and external, property rights to protect the workers from being exploited by a feared universal enemy - probably meaning the Jews.</ref> and focus on their own nation, which was then referring to the "race" (die Rasse, la razza)<ref>Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism 2004</ref>. Hitler (and the Italian fascist Mussolini) started by working within socialist groups organizing workers, and while there is still no consensus among historians over the character of National Socialism, it is generally considerd to have allied with the political right.

is not as much a personal point of view but a historiographical theory that is just as justified (and based on sources) as any, and its arguments should be considered.--Flammingo^Parliament 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a view widely held amongst historians of the period. Most believe that the words "worker" and "socialist" were cynically introduced into the party name at a time when the main ideological rival was communism, so as to increase support and pose as sympathetic to worker's rights and causes, something the Nazis continued to falsely maintain into the second world war and in captured territories. False because despite these claims, no effort was made to nationalise the means of production - major capitalists were if anything enriched. Corrupt members of the Nazi elite like Gauleiters and organisations like the SS also enriched themselves with war production profits. Some efforts were made to increase worker participation in factories, but in a strictly nationalistic and war-aims context. However, despite all this, as a matter of record the embryo Nazi party did learn from, and imitate, much of the paraphernalia of the Stalinist state and methods such as an omnipresent secret police, informing, labour camps, arbitrary detention and fake trials, etc. This does not make the Nazis of socialist origin, but shows that within a totalitarian system, similar forms evolve. In addition, quite a number of early Nazi leaders were originally communists. The social democrats in Germany argued that both communists and Nazis were aiming for a dictatorship and were attacked and deported to concentration camps when the Nazis came to power. MarkThomas 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalise the means of production? If they had done that they would have been Communists, not Nazis. There are-and have been-plenty of governemts in the world with the Socialist label who have fallen well short of that perverse and economically destructive ideal. In Nazi Germany there was, however, a degree of state interference in the national economy that would be inconceivable in a free society: the only real contemporary parallel is that of Stalin's Russia. Might I suggest that you examine the mass observation studies for Germany's working-classes in the 1930s and 1940s; they make very interesting reading. Where life was uncertain, as it was in the late Weimar period and the final months of WWII, 'history', so to speak, intrudes on ordinary daily life; but in the middle period-after Hitler came to power and before he started losing the war-the record is largely personal, a fully-employed work force focused on domestic concerns alone.

The Nazis were always very careful to nurture the working class, and socialism, as they understood it, was not marginal to their ideology. As a penance for my ignorance on this whole subject I once read through several years worth of Völkischer Beobachter and Der Angriff, and saw just how close at points the Nazis and Communists were in both style and technique, and in the constituency they appealed to; they even collaborated during the Berlin transport strike of 1932. By 1930, according to the Nazi party's own records, 28% of the membership were drawn from the industrial working class, a figure that rose to 34% in 1934. These are people who would never have been attracted to-or welcomed by-the DNVP. 'Most historians' are therefore wrong. Socialism, in whatever fashion you care to define this, from state intervention to the regulation of social life, was a fundamental part of Nazism. To contend otherwise comes close to complete misunderstanding. White Guard 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating point of view. I hope you write an essay some day. In the meantime, it has no relationship to editing this page unless you can find several substantial reputable sources to counter the large number of scholars who do not agree with you. See WP:NOR.--Cberlet 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I have written is not, in fact, 'original research', as you put it. Sadly, it simply does not correspond to your way of seeing things-or the way you would like things to be seen; but, well, I will just have to live with that. I will work in the figures-which I did not collect or invent-and the argument with appropriate citations. Sorry to spoil the consensus. But thank you so much for sharing. White Guard 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That the Nazis were not traditional conservatives (a fact which I doubt that anybody would dispute) does not make them socialists either. There was a great deal of government interference with the economy, but this largely came in the form of a massive military build-up. There was considerably more central planning going on during the war in Churchill's Britain than in Hitler's Germany. Collaboration between big business and government is hardly a socialistic feature, and this is essentially what Nazi interference with the German economy amounted to. The Berlin transport strike was a an extraordinary occurrence, and, in fact, hurt the Nazis, sending many of their more conservative supporters back to the DNVP for the November 1932 elections (at least, this was arguably one of the main reasons for that shift). But, again, I don't think anyone disagrees that fascism is not the same thing as conservatism. Fascism is populist in a way that a party like the DNVP never could be (although Hugenberg certainly tried). It was attractive to segments of society that never voted conservative. But I don't see what that has to do with socialism. Nazism was also strongly attractive to conservative elites whose principle political belief was hatred of socialism. These people saw a careful use of the Nazis' popular appeal as the best way to end the hated Weimar Republic, defeat the Marxists, and restore Germany to national greatness, even if the Nazi leaders themselves were grubby upstarts (the same thing can be seen in Italy, with the King's appointment of Mussolini in 1922). Beyond that, "most historians are wrong" is simply a worthless statement in the kind of debate we are engaged in. We are not arguing about whether nazism was a form of socialism. In such a context, it would be perfectly appropriate to say that most historians are wrong. We are, in fact, arguing about how to deal with the relationship between Nazism and Socialism in a wikipedia article about Nazism. Wikipedia's policies state that we are to present an article based on the views of the consensus of scholars in the relevant field. If you are indeed accepting the most historians disagree with your position, then you are, in fact, conceding the case. If no historians agree with you, it is original research and doesn't belong in wikipedia. john k 11:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with john k. I realize it must be frustrating, but the goal here is to edit the entry, not dispute the views of "the consensus of scholars in the relevant field."--Cberlet 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of authors consider Nazism a form of collectivism. Sources for that view are presented above; however article doesn't even mention collectivism. Also, according to WP:NPOV, all significant points of view must be represented, and view that Nazism originated from Socialism, or that it is its form, is not represented.

On a related note, I think that Collectivism would be a better title for a subsection currently called Nationalism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

John k, I agree expressions like 'most historians' say this or think that are intellectually worthless, but I was usiing this for polemical effect, merely rephrasing some modes argument-and forms of language-put forward in some of the above responses. What disturbs me most is the attempt to silence both debate and analysis by references to some bogus consensus, which I consider to be both shallow and dangerous. I was particularly annoyed by the dismissive response of Cberlet. Read back over what I have written. My intention was to underline the contribution that socialism-both as a system of ideas and as a form of political practice-made to the evolution of Nazism, whether in a positive or a negative sense. It was always a question of degree. Both Nazism and Fascism-unlike traditional forms of Conservatism-are 'children', so to speak, of the Bolshevik Revolution, and both responded to the challege this represented by appeals to social radicalism, and not simply for cynical effect. There were those like Gregor Strasser and, for a time, Joseph Goebbels, who wished to move the NSDAP in a more 'left-wing' direction; and although Hitler vetoed this strategy, the radical appeals to the working-class remained, reflected in party membership figures. Now, on the question of scholarly consensus, here at least is one dissenting view;

This is all true, and worth discussing. But it's not worth having discussions with simple-minded fans of Hayek who have decided that "Statism" and "Socialism" are the same thing. These people come again and again to these pages, and it's incredibly trying to have to explain again and again that they are wrong. We should discuss the ways in which socialism influenced National Socialism, but we shouldn't present libertarian propaganda as fact. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis at first had little success in attracting workers, and their ranks were dominated by the "petty bourgeois" elements. But toward the end of the 1920s, their socialist appeals began to have an effect. When unemployment struck in 1929-30, workers joined en masse. (Richard Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, London, 1994, p. 261).

Pipes is a history of Russia, not of Germany. I don't think he should be considered a reliable source for the history of Nazi Germany. Most reviewers found the book in question to be highly marred by Pipes's obsession with tying the sins of Nazism to Bolshevism. At any rate, Pipes is at one extreme on this particular issue, and is well outside the mainstream. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I took up this challenge to question the contention that Nazism was all anti-semitism and Social Darwinism. Traditional Conservatives, in Germany anyway, embraced both of these things; so what makes Nazism different? You say that you don't think anyone disagrees that fascism is not the same thing as conservatism? Well, read again Norvo's opening contribution where he says "Politically and socially, the key ideological antecedents of Nazism lay in German conservatism." Is this not to say that is the product of Conservatism, and if we scratch Hitler we will find Hugenberg? All I am asking for is intellectual clarity and a proper understanding of all of the political and intellectual sources of National Socialism.

Fair enough. But we shouldn't deny the conservative roots of National Socialism either, nor deny that it was widely perceived, including by conservatives, as being a right-wing movement. Beyond that, it's misleading to cast Hugenberg as the paradigm for German conservatism. He was not. He was a radical figure, whose early leadership led to massive splits within the DNVP, with many of its old, traditionally conservative leadership resigning. Hugenberg's DNVP opposed the re-election of President Hindenburg, who, if anything, by 1932 represented the old face of German conservatism. Brüning's government represented the truly "conservative" strain of German conservatism much better than Hugenberg's radicalized, Nazi-imitating post-1928 DNVP. Even so, there are differences - Hitler was able to gain a broad-based popular appeal that Hugenburg could never compete with, and the DNVP was always tainted by the spectre of old school elitist conservatism and Prussian junkers - but Hugenberg really is a halfway point between traditional conservatism and Nazism. Payne actually does a good discussion of this, where he distinguished between the "traditional right" (in Germany, this would be represented by Brüning, Hindenburg, and so forth - possibly Papen as well), the "radical right" (Hugenberg), and the "fascist right" (Hitler, obviously). The general conclusion was that the radical right is no less radical than the fascists, it's just a lot more right wing (in the traditional sense). We should certainly be careful about all this, but libertarian claptrap isn't the best way to do that. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will, of course, be happy to clarify any of the points I have made here or above in further discussion with you. There are some people I can take seriously.White Guard 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

<-----------The claim that Nazism or Fascism is a form of collectivism or socialism is a minority view of scholars, and it is discussed in far too much detail at Fascism and ideology. We have had this debate here before. Again and again. Please, please, please, let's not have another struggle over this. Once a year is plenty. --Cberlet 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That Nazism is a form of Socialism is a minority view, however that view has prominent adherents and it should be represented in this article if it is going to follow NPOV policy. As for Collectivism, that view is not a minority view, which can be seen from its acceptance by Britannica and by a number of different authors. Until these views are included this article doesn't confirm to NPOV. -- Vision Thing -- 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It has repeatedly been rejected by the majority of editors here, as you are well aware.--Cberlet 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek has a chapter on "The Socialist Roots of Nazism" in his 1945 work The Road to Serfdom. Maybe that can be used? Intangible 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over exactly the same arguments? (And didn't we end up agreeing to take this up in Fascism and ideology rather than here?)

There are topics on which Hayek is expert and citable. He is not particularly citable on Nazism or facsism, which he wrote about mainly to use them as a stick with which to beat socialism. He was not particularly an expert scholar of this topic.

White Guard, I've crossed paths with you on a lot of articles; we are obviously light years apart on politics, but I've seen you do a lot of good work, and ask a lot of good questions. In this case, though, I think Cberlet is almost certainly on the mark in his remark above that begins "Fascinating point of view." It's not that your ideas on this are not interesting, it's that they are well outside the mainstream scholarly view. I also have a lot of places where, left to my own devices, I would dissent from the mainstream scholarly view, but on the whole I keep them out of Wikipedia, except in articles on the people who hold those views. This is an encyclopedia. People who look up Nazism in an encyclopedia are entitled to an article that will coincide with mainstream scholarship, not a polemic in favor any of a number of possible dissenting views. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I really agree with Jmabel on this. There is already a page where Hayek's views are discussed in detail. I have views about Nazism that depart from current mainstream scholarship (I like the work of David Redles, for example), but our work as Wiki editors measns that we need to present the majority mainstream scholarship here, with appropriate mentions of significant minority views that are published. We mention and link to the "Nazism as socialism" debate discussed over on Fascism and ideology. Redles is mentioned only once in this entry, as "further reading." That's about a proper note. We already have:

" For further information on national socialism and socialism, and Nazism and fascism, see Fascism and ideology."

That's about a proper mention.--Cberlet 15:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hayek is not only economist; he is also one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century and his views should get a prominent place. -- Vision Thing -- 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that Hayek was in any way an important political philosopher. But, in any case, you are correct that his views should get a prominent place - in libertarianism-related articles, where they belong. Even the most important political philosophers do not have a claim on being featured prominently on every single politics-related article. Hayek was not a scholar of Nazism. -- Nikodemos 19:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be the case if his most renowned work wasn't The Road to Serfdom which talks about Nazism. As for Hayek's credentials, they can be easily verified. -- Vision Thing -- 19:16,