Talk:German National People's Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Low-importance).
 


Untitled[edit]

National Socialisist parties as rightwing is not Nuetral it is NPOV.

Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism, because it requires supreme devotion to the state as supreme concern and focus of all citizens. The citizen serves the state and promotes the states interest. It is not the state promoting the concern, protection, interests and individual liberties of the citizens. It is anti-communism, because it allows capitalism and personal ownership of property or capital, as long as the companies and individuals do what the state tells them to do with the capital or property, like oscar Schindler. He snuck behind the Nazi's backs to help the Jews, so he wouldn't lose his property. Socialism isn't just the state ownership of capital; it is the state control of all capital. If it were just the state ownership of all capital, then it would be Communism. They hated communists because the communists wanted to have the state own all capital. The National socialists just wanted to control everything, that way they wouldn't be responsible for all the upkeep of capital, they could have the companies and individuals do that. Plus, it is easier to play policeman(or macro-manage)over private owners[national socialism], than to try to fully control(micro-manage) every action of the people running state owned property[communism]. Socialism is: n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or run by a centralized government that controls the economy. state socialism: n. < stAt 'sO[sh]&"liz&m > : 1. An economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed. -neutral nobody

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party"

But this party wasn't a national socialist party, was it? It was a conservative nationalist party, somehow archetypical of the term right-wing. --Soman 07:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't called that in its's title, but read down a little further and it mentions that it is an extreme nationalist party, which demands complete loyalty to the state i.e. national socialism. It says they worked with Hitler's party. You are parsing words and playing games.
If you want to keep the npov-tag, you have to make an argument that hold some ground on factual basis. Can you seriously claim a) that DNVP wasn't a nationalist conservative party, b) that DNVP didn't enter into cooperation with NSDAP in its latter stage of existance? I took away the wording extreme, if that was what was bothering you. --Soman 08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a legitimate dispute over this article not being neutral, quit being disruptive by removing the NPOV template. It should stay so others know ther is a debate over it. (Neutral nobody 08:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Using "left" or "right" as categories in politics is always problematic, as the content of these epithets differs from time to time and country to country. (One of course might argue about including left and right at all). The definition given above ("Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism ...") is taken from current political discourse in the US, though even there is too one-dimensional. Hence transferring these American definitions to the Germany of the 1920s is wrong. Calling even the Nazis a left wing party is nonsense, as they were clearly located on the right under the 1920s German political spectrum. You may argue about "socialist", but one shouldn't judge a party by its name alone. Anyway, while these considerations might have some validity in regard to the NSDAP, it is completely nonsensical in regard to the DNVP, the heir of the conservative parties of the Kaiserreich. Str1977 09:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC) ___________________________________________________

Yes, in my view the commentary that seeks to equate Nazism with socialism or describe it as a variety of state socialism of the Soviet or even Western European welfare state variety is a cop-out cranked out by respectable conservatives and aimed at naive people of polite society in prosperous Western countries who know little about the conditions of extreme crisis that existed in Germany and Europe in the interwar period. Yes, Nazism, like the New Deal, imposed certain social programs and state oversight of business, but this was in situation where a laissez faire solution was going nowhere except towards more instability-with the prospect of Bolshevik like revolution being immanent. Thus Nazism, like the New Deal, was a political device and vehicle instituted by the capitalist class to salvage its interests in this situation. The difference is that Nazism-a fascistic and gangsterite regime of militaristic rule-pandered to traditional bigotries, was fundamentally anti-communist and jingoistically militarist and was completely opposed to the existence of an independent labor movement.

Hitler himself in various speeches derided this facile comparison pointing out that it is was well known that Nazis stood for the "total annihilation of Marxism," adding that patriotic business owners had nothing to fear from his party and that the confiscatory language in the Party program was directed at Jewish and treasonous elements only. The chapter "Struggle with the Red Front" in Mein Kampf gives some insight into this with Hitler's description of the traditional conservative politicians as inept intellectual clowns.

It also bears pointing out that the Nazis-and a broad section of German public opinion going beyond them-felt that preparation for a major war, a rematch of the Great War to redeem Germany, was a proper and immediate national objective, a context within which only the most myopic and utopian of conservative ideologues would not admit required regulation, oversight and yes, concessions by business, that might not be appropriate in another context. Moreover, Adolf Hilter is not someone to be trivialized by psychobabble, but was rather more than any mere seasoned thug, a world class political gangster and militatist who was an overachiever in infamy.

since it's a article about Germany: In Germany Nazi is generally seen as (extreme)-right-wing and ABSOLUTLY NOT as any kind of left, and further the Nazi saw themselfs as right-wing (as do modern German neo-nazis) so even if some hayekist argue if nazism is right-wing or may be left or wahtever in the German context it is right-wing!!! 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)~m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk)
The description of the German National People's Party as Far Right is simply wrong. It was the major "conservative" party, and inherently not on the far right of the political spectrum. This must be corrected.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

CDU a successor[edit]

By-passing the absurd discussion above, I'm a little concerned that the CDU/CSu is considered a successor party in the info box, although this is implicitly denied in the text. The CDU is surely rather what it says on the tin: a Christian democratic party. Commentators in the UK tend to describe it as centre-right, but it's barely right-wing at all by US or even UK standards, with a strong commitment to social liberalism and a solid welfare state. Together with the SPD, it is a pillar of German democracy. It is a pillar of the EU too, so hardly nationalist in any recognisable sense. I can't really see how it perpetuates a conservative nationalist tradition at all. Perhaps someone with greater specialist knowledge can convince me otherwise. Sjwells53 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume it is meant that not the CDU as such is a successor to the German National People's Party (DNVP), but rather that some DNVP politicians participated in founding the CDU (namely Otto Dibelius, de:Hans Schlange-Schöningen, Otto von Bismarck (Jr.)), and the post-war CDU absorbed parts of the pre-war DNVP electorate (i.e. rural, Northern German conservative and nationalist Protestants).(cf. Winkler: Der lange Weg nach Westen, Sahner: Politische Tradition (German)) Exponents of the CDU's rightist faction, e.g. Alfred Dregger, have been tagged as "German-national".(cf. Schroeder: Parteien und Parteiensystem in Hessen (German)) The CDU has always been a very heterogeneous party, assembling Catholic and Protestant Christians, Christian socialists and proponents of free enterprise, liberal metropolitans and conservative traditionalists, former concentration camp prisoners and former Nazi officials. So the DNVP is just one of its several roots, not its predecessor in a strict sense. --RJFF (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
well but some former DNVP politicians joining CDU does not make the CDU a successor. I'm sure there have been some (few) ex DNVP joining SPD, SED, maybe even the Greens (which is possible if they were pretty young when DNVP was desolved). And hey what about emigrants, there might have been ex DNVP members who emigrated to US/Canada/Australia/NZ/... and joint parties there. So maybe the US Democratic Party (or Republican Party or both) is a DNVP successors in that sence as well. 134.3.76.108 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The comparison is flawed. The SPD existed before 1933 and SPD members usually stayed SPD members after the war (if they survived). There is a continuity, it is the same party. The SED was a merger of SPD and KPD. Former members of the non-socialist parties in East Germany usually joined the LDP(D) or CDU(D). On the other hand, the CDU did not exist before 1933. It can be considered the successor party to all non-socialist (or right-of-center) parties of the Weimar Republic: Centre Party, DDP, DVP, DNVP. The aim of the CDU was to gather all non-socialists: Catholics and Protestants, liberals, conservatives and social Christians, to unite the right-of-centre camp that had been very fragmented before 1933. So it is also (amongst others) the successor party to the German National People's Party. This is more than just some ex-DNVP members incidentally joining the CDU. The remarks on the Greens are odd. The Greens were founded in 1980, nearly 50 years after the dissolution of the DNVP. Their members were born after 1933 and belonged to the left-libertarian 1968 movement. They could not even been members of the DNVP, besides the two parties being politically complete opposites.
no in the early days of the greens there were all kinds of people not just young ones, at times funding them also people old enough to have been voting in1933. you definatly can not seriously claim that there has not been anybody old enough (espacially in the early days of the green party).

and the SPD did not exist 1933-1945 - it was refunded (so to a certain deegree new as well). and what about ex NSDAP members; you would have found them in every (major) party in both German states. so they all are in the same way successor parties of the NSDAP. 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.210.114.106 (talk)

Greens and Nazis "Werner Vogel, a former member of the Nazi Party and of its SA stormtroopers, was among the first elected members of the Greens to the Bundestag in 1983." http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/The-Nazi-roots-of-the-German-Greens-318973 "The Nazi roots of the German Greens" - ok Nazi not dnvp but if a Nazi could be a green bundestagmember a dnvp-person could have been as well 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.252.102 (talk)
and the national-conservative party of the post-war era and the 50ies was the German party who has been in state parliaments and the Bundestag. (plus some minor parties in the realm of national-conservatism, national-liberalism, nationalism, like Deutsche Rechtspartei or Deutsche Reichspartei or fascism like Socialist Reich Party178.210.114.106 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deficiency of internet sources[edit]

I am well aware that a when citing a source, it is not required that there be a linked URL. However, this article which is stated to contain 164 citations does not contain even one URL in any of them. As a result, it is impossible for me to verify and or improve the content using the listed sources, and I think that is a bit of an issue. Dustin (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)