Talk:Nazi Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q:Why is the Nazi Party labeled a far-right party? They called themselves socialists, so should they be left-wing?
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 reactionary monarchist Charles 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.
Q: Did Nazi Germany invent universal health care?
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.[citation needed]
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Munich (marked as High-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Politics / Fascism / Political parties (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Fascism task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Arrows unclear[edit]

In the box at the top of the article, it is not clear what the green and red arrows next to the membership numbers mean. Hovering over the red arrow displays the text "decrease". Decrease from what? Hovering over the green arrow displays the text "increase". Increase from what? 86.150.71.35 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You list Nazism as a FAR RIGHT movement. This is WRONG.[edit]

“Nazi” was actually an acronym for “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" which translates to “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. Socialist. As in, on the far left. Socialism always, always falls on the far left of the political spectrum. You're not very bright if you can't figure that out. You know what IS on the far right? Anarchy. Less government, not more. You need to fix that, because it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alittlebitofliberty (talkcontribs) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The name is irrelevant; it was marketing. As every one of the over one hundred reiterations of this discussion on this talk page have re-established, there is no evidence whatsoever to support a claim that the Nazis were not far right; they are the epitome and example of a far-right extremist organization. Assertions to the contrary by right-wing political commentators have no value when compared to the universal consensus of historians and political scientists alike. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015[edit]

anti-Semitic not antisemitic Onlyonechange (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Few Comments in the Spirit of Clarity and Neutrality[edit]

As a profoundly "anti-authoritarian" and tepid soul, when it comes to such potentially incendiary pages, I offer a few comments intended merely to help the page toward greater clarity and neutrality.

1. "The term was in use before the rise of the party as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards peasant, characterising an awkward and clumsy person."

The reference of the phrased "The term" is unclear. Perhaps it should say "The term 'Nazi' was in use . . ." ?

2. "This was partly because Hitler, who had no administrative ability, left the party organization to the head of the secretariat, Philipp Bouhler, the party treasurer Franz Xaver Schwarz, and business manager Max Amann. The party had a capable propaganda head in Gregor Strasser, who was promoted to national organizational leader in January 1928."

I can fully understand an unconscious motive to take Hitler down a peg or two at any opportunity, but the claim that "he had no adminstrative" ability, therefore he delegated authority over specific party functions to experts (an inherent contradiction) does not increase the credibility nor neutrality of the article. Clearly, if Hitler, whom we've just been told in the preceding section had total authority, delegated critical party functions to experts, then he HAD administrative ability, although he may well have lacked ability in business management, accounting, etc.. The easiest solution would be to remove the clause entirely, but perhaps there is more meaning (and more valid meaning?) hidden behind the lines?

Given what we know about this particular party, and how terrifyingly effective it became and suppression all dissent and organizing an entire nation to engage in aggressive wars against the entire continent of Europe the phrase "left the party organization to . . ." is also a bit lacking and unbelievable.

I would suggest a wholesale replacement of the sentence: "This was partly because Hitler, who had no administrative ability, left the party organization to the head of the secretariat, Philipp Bouhler, the party treasurer Franz Xaver Schwarz, and business manager Max Amann." with:

"The Nazi party continued to grow and succeed in late 1920's Germany, in part, thanks to increasing delegation of administrative roles by Hitler: for example, Philip Bouhler as head of the secretariat, Franz Xaver Schwarz as treasurer and Max Amann as business manager."184.37.25.165 (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. Agree entirely with every point made. — ¾-10 22:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Dissolution?[edit]

I came here to see what happened to the party at the end of the war, how it was dissolved, if it were specifically banned by the occupying powers, if so when and by whom, if there was any specific political legacy or some sort of short-term successor (particularly what did the German people who were members of the party do at the end of the war), however the page doesn't have any information at all on any of that, can someone help to expand on this? Gavinio (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The article on denazification seems like it provides some good answers on this (I glanced over it). I noticed via ctrl-f that this article doesn't didn't yet mention or link denazification. I will go add added a linked mention. — ¾-10 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree the article needed some mention of the end and that has been done. If consensus is that it needs more, others can add to it as needed. Kierzek (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Substance of the Third Position concept versus the name "Third Position"[edit]

Hi all. I am OK with this revert after pondering it a bit, although I accept it on different grounds than the edit summary gave. The edit summary says the term Third Position was not coined until 1945. This surprised me because I was under the impression that the name had existed since around World War I. The ideas that the name refers to certainly did. I looked to the article on the Third Position for any definitive citations on the coining's date, but didn't see any. Anyway, the idea (regardless of which name anyone calls it by) was part of the essence of Nazism—a co-opting of socialism's popular appeal into a syncretic ideology of nationalist, anti-internationalist, and racist character by Nazi and Nazi-like movements. This is not under doubt and is what the lede currently conveys with "an ideology combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left.[9]" That conveyance is quite concise and accurate. In this sense there is nothing POV or OR about the concept. But I think the problem is whether the Nazis themselves ever used the name "Third Position", which I do not know with certainty but now suspect that they did not. So here's the bottom line: This article's coverage isn't complete if it doesn't mention (with link) the Third Position in some way or another, but how it does so is the question. The right way may turn out to be that somewhere later in the body of the article (not the lede), it would be stated that "the combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left was similar to Third Position ideas that had been formulating since World War I, but the Nazis were not called a Third Position movement." If someone confirms that that's the case. Food for thought. Eventually this should be handled somehow. No rush; I have no time right now to devote to reading in search of the answer. Just noting here that eventually this coverage should be developed. If anyone who is especially well-read on the period may be reading this and has references at their fingertips, it would be great, but it would not be surprising if that is not the case (alas). Regards, — ¾-10 16:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-scientific[edit]

I propose removing the mention of this because the article is about the Nazi party not whether the racial theories it promoted are now considered pseudo-scientific. Wording like "universally recognized as pseudo-scientific" is also wrong. Sometimes it may be labeled as such but that doesn't mean its universally recognized as such.--Hashi0707 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the Nazi party, its beliefs, and analysis of its beliefs by reliable sources. If there are sources that state they universally recognized as pseudo-scientific then you should provide other sources that contradict that view. --NeilN talk to me 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. Universal means the same for everybody, how can an author's opinion equate to it being universal?

The source Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy on p.94 does not say anything about the racial theories being universally regarded as pseudo-scientific and does not give any sources for the statements on this page about the Nazis but on the contrary just the author's opinion on what racial theories the Nazis used during the Third Reich.--Hashi0707 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)