The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
A: Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party.
Q: If socialism is mainly left-wing and they called themselves socialists in their name, why is this being ignored?
A: Historically several right-wing figures used the term "socialism" to mean something very different from what would be understood by traditional left-wing socialism, referring simply to the broader concept of collectivism and anti-individualism. For instance, "conservative socialism" was promoted by Austrian political figure Metternich. The prominent French reactionarymonarchistCharles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand". Mauras' views influenced fascism. Oswald Spengler's ideal of "Prussian Socialism" directly influenced Nazism, and Spengler promoted it as a member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement.
Q: Were the Nazis actually a capitalist movement?
A: The answer depends on the context and definition of capitalism. Hitler in private was just as opposed to the ethos of capitalism as he was in public as a politician, he regarded the capitalist ethos as being self-centred individualism that was incompatible with patriotism. Furthermore in both public and private Hitler regarded capitalism as being created by the Jews for their own interests. Hitler promoted effectively mercantilism through policies of colonial expansion in Eastern Europe to gain access to natural resources to make Germany self-sufficient and no longer dependent on international trade. The Nazis in public and in private held contempt for bourgeois culture in liberal capitalist societies - as they associated such bourgeois culture with a cosmopolitan, liberal, and decadent lifestyle that was incompatible with the Nazis' ideal of a nationalist martial ethic of disciplined soldiers who were collectively committed to the Fatherland above any individual interest. So ideologically, Nazism held strong antipathy to capitalism. However at the same time Hitler and the Nazis endorsed private property and private enterprise and did not challenge the market economy, which was important to their accrual of power because it avoided antagonizing industrialists and aristocrats. The Nazis themselves claimed that "true socialism" did not involve the Marxian opposition to private property. But if capitalism is defined in a minimum way as involving the support of the existence of private property, private enterprise and a market economy, then from that minimum definition, the Nazis could be considered as endorsing a capitalist economy.
A: No, Nazi Germany did not invent universal health care. It was first implemented in Germany, but in the German Empire under Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s. Bismarck implemented universal health care in response to address growing demands for social welfare policies by socialist movements such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany, as well as studies and government reports that declared the need for universal health care.
Q: Are there people who still support the Nazis?
A: Yes, they are called Neo-Nazis. They still exist even though the party, itself, is dissolved. There are about 5600 registered Neo-Nazis in Germany (in 2010) which are approximately 0.01% of the German population.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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 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.
I understand why the pronunciation of Nazi is what it is; in the name of the party in German, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the first part of national, in German, is pronounced "not-see." However, the spelling of national remains unchanged between English and German, so I was wondering if the z may have come from the Italian spelling of national, nazional. (See Partito Nazionale Fascista, known in English as the National Fascist Party) Some of the ideas adopted by the NSDAP were based on Benito Mussolini's fascist regime, and some of these fascist ideas served as an inspiration to Adolf Hitler. I haven't yet taken the time to look it up, but for these reasons and others, I might believe the z to be based on the Italian spelling of national. The Italians, I believe, pronounce "nazional" the same way as the Germans pronounce "national," so I might look into this. I won't add any information about this without trying to find sources first, though. Does anyone reading this have any thoughts about the aforementioned? Dustin(talk) 03:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The best sources say it came from "National Sozialist," "Na" from the word "National" and "zi" from the word "Sozialist." TFD (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The Four Deuces is correct. Kierzek (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
But it doesn't makes sense, considering the fact that "Nazi" is phonetically the first two syllables of the word "Nationalsozialistische"., just as "Sozi" is phonetically the first two syllables of the word "Sozialistiche". The whole "NAtionalsoZIalistische" nonsense is just a ploy to make the "Socialist" word appear to be of more importance than it is. Just more Right-Wing disinformation, from people who can't speak German. , , etc. --Bryon Morrigan --Talk 13:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bryanmorrigan – I may be misunderstanding you, but the name of the party "was" Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, with the sozialistische part meaning Socialist, and being part of the actual German name; it was not just something added by non-German speakers. Dustin(talk) 15:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying that "Nazi" comes totally from the first two syllables of the word "Nationalsozialistische", not this absurd idea that it has to do with combining "NA" from "NAtional" and "ZI" from "soZIalistische", which was likely created by non-German speakers trying to emphasize the "Socialist" in "National-Socialist" to try to cram the Nazis into being "Left-Wingers" for ideological propaganda purposes. The word "Socialist" in "Nationalsozialistische" is of very little importance, because the "National" part denotes "Nationalism", not simply the regional concept of a "National" organization, as used in American terms. For example, in Germany, the current Neo-Nazi part is the "Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands", which translates to "National-Democratic Party of Germany". That word usage has nothing to do with how, in the USA, we have a "National Democratic Party", where the word "National" just means "of the nation", or "interstate", rather than "Nationalist". Various Neo-Nazi groups have added "National" to just about every ideology (National Anarchism, National Bolshevism, National Conservatism, etc.), and the operative word is "National". In german, "National" is pronounced the same "Nazi - Oh - Nahl". That's all it means. It's the same with the Sozis, the German short-hand name for Socialists. --Bryon Morrigan --Talk 18:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces – I understand your reasoning; however, I wasn't giving that conclusion much consideration because the pronunciation of Nazi, being "not-see," is only from the first part of the German word national (from Nationalsozialistische). Like a said earlier, the word "national" remains unchanged in spelling between English and German, which was the original reason for which I considered the Italian spelling in the first place. To find out the actual origination of Nazi, I suspect that one would have to track down the earliest known usage. Regardless, it would be nice if you would provide your sources here; they could be helpful. Dustin(talk) 15:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a topic that has a lot of prominence in writing about Nazis, so I don't see much reason to include it in the article. It's the sort of thing that people on right-wing blogs like to discuss. "ZI" comes from sozialist, so the nazis were really left-wing and gun control and obamacare lead to concentration camps and tyranny. TFD (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course, there are some who try and use terrible reasoning such as that to make liberals appear to resemble Nazis by calling the "socialists;" I was only trying to say that the historical name of the party was in fact, National Socialist German Workers' Party. On a side note, the political compass, which adds another dimension to the political spectrum, classifies Hitler as having not been very far to the right, but rather more in an "authoritarian" direction, contrasting with a "libertarian" direction. This too would place the National Socialist regime at least somewhat on the right side, though, despite the inclusion of socialist in the name. I understand what you are saying. Dustin(talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't realy say where the "Z" came from but this link: https://archive.org/details/Goebbels-Joseph-Der-Nazi-Sozi makes it clear that 1) The four letter combination NAZI was used by the party themselves: perhaps not often, but definitely used, and this paper was produced for several years, and 2) the "zi" does not come from sozialist as that has its own abbreviation, "sozi". IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking into it, several books say that the party nickname was originally "Nazi-Sozi", and the last part was later dropped; "Sozi" was already a well-known nickname before this for the SPD, and they wre playing off of that. I think the "Z" in Nazi just reflects the German pronunciation, it would be like an English ultranationalist group being called the "Nashis".--Pharos (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
On your last sentence, I would've thought it would be notsi or something like that instead; the German pronunciation does not really have a "z" sound. In any case, on the book sources, maybe you could add some information from these books you were referring to? That would be helpful, so if you are willing, it would be a good contribution to make! That is all I will say for now. Dustin(talk) 22:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article puts a lot of emphasis on saying the Nazis and their form of socialism is right wing. In reality, on the far right would be laissez-faire capitalism, not socialism.
Does this come out as logical?: Communism - Socialism - Laissez-faire - More socialism That's just an abridged example for clarification.
One of wikipedia's policies is to write articles from a neutral view point, and unfortunately, this article is used by the left to combat the right in a biased way to avoid being on the same wing as both Hitler and Stalin, two of the world's cruelest dictators.
It's obvious, and deep down inside, the lefties know this too.
I highly recommend Wikipedia have an unbiased centrist edit this article (I am not a centrist). TheWkThink (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at the FAQ near the top of the talk page. Dustin(talk) 17:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Articles are based on what reliable sources say not on what you think is true. TFD (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Although the FAQ phrasing is if anything too weaselly and convoluted about this and effectively invites people to debate the issue further rather than simply accept the standard terminology and classification found, as noted, in the vast majority of mainstream authoritative sources. Whether those sources are somehow all "wrong" and there is a better or different way to classify and describe things, or to use terms such as "right" or "left", are not things random WP editors get to decide, however unfair that may seem to them. N-HHtalk/edits 10:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the FAQ should be scrapped. It says for example, the Nazis "attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany." That implies that they treated Communists and Conservatives in the same way, which is highly misleading. TFD (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to qualify that slightly with my changes earlier, but I agree it remains misleading, as does much of the other detailed content, as well as being as likely to invite more debate as to settle it. I do think it would be worth keeping something pinned to the top of the page though given the regularity with which people swing by with this one – for example perhaps the first two Qs or some variation on them, with simple one sentence answers explaining: a) what sources mostly do in terms of left-right classification; and b) that "National Socialism" was not meant to be and is not taken to be the same thing as, or a sub-set of, socialism as commonly understood. N-HHtalk/edits 11:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a complete rewriting of the political spectrum that was re-written solely for the purpose of blaming the left for everything bad. It's not valid, has never been valid and has never been accepted by credible historians as valid. It's something invented by a political hack just so he could blame the left for everything bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2014