Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 5

Socialists cannot by definition be right wing.

Far Right wing refers to total absence of government (anarchy). Far left is total government control (Communism or Socialism). This is not a debate. The National Socialist Workers Party were left wing extremists. Not right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.66.66 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right about one thing: "This is not a debate." Everything else you typed is completely false...especially your absurd "definitions" of what constitutes "Far Left" and "Far Right." Read a book some time, or maybe just this page: Left-right politics. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this confused me as well. It seems overly simplistic,and inaccurate, to label the Nazi party "Far-Right" when they were in fact a Socialist Party with a range of both socialist and nationalist views and policies. Just saying, the snarkiness seems a little unnecessary to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.138.70 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the snarkiness is absolutely necessary. This "redefinition" of the Left-Right spectrum is a deliberate attempt to propagandize the American public, and should be fought and ridiculed wherever encountered. It has the same purpose/goal as Holocaust Denial: Rehabilitation. Holocaust deniers try to white-wash the history of the Nazis by trying to wipe their actions from the collective historical consciousness, whereas Right-Wing revisionists attempt to redefine the Left-Right spectrum in order to disassociate themselves from all of the "villains" that the Right has produced historically (Nazis, KKK, etc.). It's as absurd as if modern Left-Wingers tried to claim that the Soviet Union wasn't connected with Left-Wing politics. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Byron is quite right. The Nazis weren't socialist, they just called themselves that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.19.182 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

First, what was Left-Right at that time is different from what is Left-Right today in the US (in Europe, it is different from the US). Because of this, this isn't a "redefinition" in the sense that you, Byron, are trying to assert (id est, revisionism).

Second, no, IP user, they didn't "just called themselves that," they absolutely were socialist (perhaps hindsight's view of all the horrible things that they did is leaving their socialist policies in the shadow for you, but socialism is what moved them forward, nationalism is what bound them and enabled their socialism, and racism is what reenforced their nationalism).

Third, the KKK was not born from a (in the modern US sense) Right-wing group, as you, Byron, are trying to imply. The KKK was a product of the US Democratic Party whose main goal was to suppress Republican votes in The South (most blacks were Republican at that time, thus, one of the reasons blacks were targeted, although any Republican was a target for the KKK, including whites; of course, the other main reason blacks were targeted was because the KKK were racist arses). This is why the KKK was referred to as the Militant Wing of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party as well as the anti-civil rights party until the mid-1900s. The Republicans (until the mid-1970s) was the anti-slavery, pro-civil rights party. After LBJ convinced enough Democrats in Congress to side with the Republicans to pass civil rights for blacks, the Southern Democrats felt betrayed and were distancing themselves from the Dems. The switch was made final when Reagan courted the Southern Democrats to vote for him, which lead to the Republicans to eventually become the more racist (and religious) party, relatively speaking, of the two when the majority of Southern Democrats joined the Republicans.

At the time that the NSDAP was in power, they would have been classified as Right-wing. But if you compare it to the modern US usage of Left-Right, they would fall onto the Left. The reason is that the Left-Right dichotomy is poorly defined, and changes from place and time. Additionally, Left-Right is only a 1-dimensional classification, and poorly describes political parties, which are multidimensional. Yes, they were anti-communist, but they were also anti-capitalist, and very much pro-socialist (the majority of their policies — and their party platform — centered around pro-socialist policies). Basically, the NSDAP was the bastard child of Nietzschean Philosophy and Socialist Philosophy.

Byron, you being someone who understands that classifying anarchists as Right-wing in the modern usage is wrong should already understand this. This article is influenced by such misunderstanding without much explanation of the context. This article also seems to ignore Nietzsche and his influence on the NSDAP and the German people as a whole, at that time (which seems odd to me considering how much he was raised up/honored, mentioned, appropriated, and memorialized by the NSDAP and Hitler). I did not see one mention of Nietzsche in the entire article.

— al-Shimoni (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1) The KKK absolutely were a right-wing group. That they came mostloy out of the Democratic party is utterly irrelevent. At the time, the Democratic party was the right-wing party, a fact you are, I suspect deliberately, ignoring. 2) To claim that "socialism is what moved them forward" is just a flat lie. 3) Claiming that the Nazis would be left-wing by modern US standards relies purely on the same absurd rewriting of the left-right spectrum (a rewriting that has only ever been about assigning all of history's villains to the left). Scholars (who aren't out to demonize the left) are universal in describing the NSDAP as right-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.19.182 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Gosh Bryon, I note that you are an anarchist. I suppose that puts you somewhere right of the Tea Party. Interesting, very interesting, but vat does it mean? Carptrash (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea that Anarchists (apart from "National Anarchists" or "Anarcho-Capitalists") are "Far Right" is not just wrong, but patently offensive to all scholarship on the planet. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, the is no universal definition to the left/right axis, and the way the left/right axis is being applied differs between different countries and over the span of time. What we can say, with a fairly strong degree of certainty, is that neo-Nazis are commonly labelled as 'far-right' in modern Western discourse. Whether such a label is academically correct or not, is not a matter for Wikipedia in my opinion. --Soman (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

a few thoughts: the nazis WERE left regarding their social policies. read the first (and only) party program of theirs, there are a lot of points that Attac would happily agree on. Germany (and pretty much all other european countries) then were led by old elites and insititutions (nobility, bourgeousie, military), their societies had a strict social hierachry. nazis took the idea of social equality from marxism based on economic classes and replaced "class" with "Volk". So: in their perfect society, people are fact equal and the state replaces any private activity, charity, social, political. But to be part of this classless and socially equal society, you have to be part of its ethnicity. in Nazi ideoolgy there are no classes, but here is only ONE Volk and your social background doesnt matter at all. from a nazi point of vie, only (jewish) capitalism and individualism hold us back from achieving this perfectly equal and just society. this perception of the individual as the ultimate problem for society is the very same state of mind of bolsheviks had. both their solutions were: be part of the social revolution or perish. its also interesting that the basic supranational tenency of left ideologies got converted into socialistic nationalism every time communism took power in any land. Fazit: Nazis and Commies have a lot more in common than it seems. Nazis are for sure no conservatives in the european sense, not even today, and for sure not back then. 87.243.151.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are irrelevant, as the only things that matter on WP are RELIABLE SOURCES. And if you seriously think that the Nazis were "Left-Wing" on social issues, then you really just proved you have no understanding whatsoever of the Left-Right spectrum. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to the IP, "social" in Europe (the IP is from Austria) refers to economic policies. But I agreed that the article must be based on sources, not the "synthesis" of individual editors. TFD (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

Hitler was working on setting up a new Pagan Nazi religion called the "National Reich Church" and outlawing all other religions, and which catered to the Nazi community. 30 Point Program For Germany's National Reich Church By Alfred Rosenberg

1. The National Reich's Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich; it declares these to be national churches:

2. The German people must not serve the National Reich Church. The National Reich Church is absolutely and exclusively in the service of but one doctrine: race and nation.

3. The field of activity of the National Reich Church will expand to the limits of Germany's territorial and colonial possessions.

4. The National Reich Church does not force any German to seek membership therein. The Church will do everything within its power to secure the adherence of every German soul. Other churches or similar communities and unions particularly such as are under international control or management cannot and shall not be tolerated in Germany.

5. The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

6. The existing churches may not be architecturally altered, as they represent the property of the German nation, German culture and to a certain extent the historical development of the nation. As property of the German nation, they are not only to be valued but to be preserved.

7. The National Reich Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

8. National Reich Church services are held only in the evening and not in the morning. These services are to take place on Saturday's with solemn illumination.

9. In the National Reich Church German men and women, German youths and girls will acknowledge God and his eternal works.

10. The National Reich Church irrevocably strives for complete union with the state. It must obey the state as one of its servants. As such, it demands that all landed possessions of all churches and religious denominations be handed over to the state. It forbids that in future churches should secure ownership of even the smallest piece of German soil or that such be ever given back to them. Not the churches conquer and cultivate land and soil but exclusively the German nation, the German state.

11. National Reich Church orators may never be those who today emphasize with all tricks and cunning verbally and in writing the necessity of maintaining and teaching of Christianity in Germany; they not only lie to themselves but also the German nation, goaded by their love of the positions they hold and the sweet bread they eat.

12. National Reich Church orators hold office, government officials under Civil Service rules.

13. The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.

14. The National Reich Church has to take severe measures in order to prevent the Bible and other christian publications being imported into Germany.

15. The National Reich Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuhrer's "Mein Kampf" is the greatest of all documents. It is conscious that this book contains and embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

16. The National Reich Church has made it its sacred duty to use all its energy to popularize the coeternal "Mein Kampf" and to let every German live and complete his life according to this book.

17. The National Reich Church demands that further editions of this book, whatever form they may take, be in content and pagination exactly similar to the present popular edition.

18. The National Reich Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.

19. On the altars there must be nothing but "Mein Kampf", which is to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book, and to the left of the altar a sword.

20. The National Reich Church speakers must during church services propound this book to the congregation to the best of their knowledge and ability.

21. The National Reich Church does not acknowledge forgiveness of sins. It represents the standpoint which it will always proclaim that a sin once committed will be ruthlessly punished by the honorable and indestructible laws of nature and punishment will follow during the sinner's lifetime.

22. The National Reich Church repudiates the christening of German children, particularly the christening with water and the Holy Ghost.

23. The parents of a child (or if a new born child) must only take the German oath before the altar which is worded as follows: The man: "In the name of God I take this Holy oath that I the father of this child, and my wife, are of proven Aryan descent. As a father, I agree to bring up this child in the German spirit and as a member of the German race". The women: "In the name of God I take this Holy oath that I (name) bore my husband a child and that I its mother am of proven Aryan descent. As a mother, I swear to bring up this child in the German spirit and as a member of the German race". The German diploma can only be issued to newly born children on the strength of the German oath.

24. The National Reich Church abolishes confirmation and religious education as well as the communion the religious preparation for the communion. The educational institutions are and remain the family, the schools, the German youth, the Hitler youth, and the Union of German girls.

25. In order that school graduation of our German youth be given an especially solemn character, all churches must put themselves at the disposal of German youth, the Hitler youth and the Union of German girls on the day of the state's youth which will be on the Friday before Easter. On this day the leaders of these organizations exclusively may speak.

26. The marriage ceremony of German men and women will consist of taking an oath of faithfulness and placing the right hand on the sword. There will not be any unworthy kneeling in National Reich Church ceremonies.

27. The National Reich Church declares the tenth day before Whit Sunday to be the national holiday of the German family.

28. The National Reich Church rejects the customary day of prayer and atonement. It demands that this be transferred to the holiday commemorating the laying of the foundation stone of the National Reich Church.

29. The National Reich Church will not tolerate the establishment of any new clerical religious insignia.

30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels within the Reich and its colonies and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol of Germany the "Hakenkreuz" (swastika). 204.186.240.234 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This recommendation has also been posted to Talk:Nazism and I have explained my objections there. TFD (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Not done: per my reply at Talk:Nazism. Also, there is no information on religion in this article, so adding any of this information would require some substantial writing to adequately cover the subject. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

NAZI CAN NOT BE FAR RIGHT BY DEFINITION

National Socialist Party. Socialism is far-left (like in the USSR). NAZI IS A SOCIALIST PARTY. Not only by name, they supported the "People Car" and initiated Public Jobs. IT IS SOCIALISM. Color of the Flag- Mostly RED. All the Signs are for the FAR-LEFT. The -People- National -Socialist- Party is FAR LEFT. They were SOCIALISTS, with RED COLORED FLAG. IT IS NOT FAR RIGHT. FORGET IT.

(and Even if 1 or 2 sorces wrote is far-right, others also wrote is Far-Left). DON'T BIASED THE HISTORY. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

They are far right by definition. The definition of far right is groups like nazis, fascists and klansmen. Incidentally, the public works projects were brought in by the Conservative government before Hitler and were so popular he was unable to cancel them. No Volkswagens were actually sold to ordinary Germans. TFD (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

People get confused by the word "socialist," which is something that the extremists all have in common. There are many definitions of "far-right politics" but the best seems to be "authoritarianism, populism and nativism." Some people like to imagine that racism is a requirement, but not all Nazis were racist in the sense that they thought all other races were inferior. Even Hitler made the point that he didn't believe they all were.

Some people like to think that Nazis weren't really socialists. But to believe that, you'd need to move a lot of left-wing movements into the right-wing column. Jonah Goldberg wrote a good piece about that here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

good point and great article. the left/right fallacy muddles the article. i suggest we remove left/right replaced by descriptive encyclopedic terms. The argument that the use of the word socialist was a ploy does not make sense, it would require millions of Germans either did not understand the term, or were part of the ruse. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg is a journalist with no credentials whatsoever. His book is laughed at by actual historians, and has been debunked numerous times. And Darkstar1st, your "analysis" is ludicrous and without merit, and OR at that. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg is #1 on the New York Times Best Seller, perhaps that would suffice as a credential for an author, it certainly qualifies him as a RS on such topics, would you not agree? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Darkstar1st. And frankly, if you think that is how we determine RS here at WP, it makes me question whether you understand what "RS" means. The very idea that a journalist's absurd book of debunked conspiracy theories somehow "trumps" the world's pre-eminent authorities on the subject...is just plain silly. Have you even bothered to read what REAL historians think of his book? (Ex. [1],[2], [3], et cetera) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, WP itself is infested with atrocious references. I think Goldberg's critics (the first link of which you should have done without) are going a bit too far, but I didn't bring Goldberg in as a reference. I was merely trying to head off the Nazis-weren't-real-socialists line. You didn't even try to dismiss the point he was making.

Frankly, I can live with marking Nazis as right-wing in the context of those times. The real problem is when left-wing politicians, activists, and other jerks try to label today's conservatives and libertarians as right-wing "extremists." We're not going to fix that here.

--- Randy2063 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I see the invocation of the Nazi epithet far more in use by today's Conservatives as a reference to modern-day Left-Wingers, usually in combination with accusations of being Communists (which would be the appropriate "extremist" counterpart to calling modern-day Conservatives "Nazis"...). And frankly, this talk page is chock full of those kinds of accusations, and again...primarily by Conservatives, not Lefties. Also, I don't see what's wrong with posting the link to the Roger Griffin article, as Dr. Griffin is a fairly well-known and respected example of a "Reputable Source" regarding Fascism, regardless of the snarky tone of his article. Frankly, Goldberg's "work" is of such little merit that it doesn't deserve to be treated with anything but the contempt and scorn of people like Griffin. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the proper time or place to discuss today's left and right wings. That time and place is my place, tonight, you bring the beer. Carptrash (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Where we can also discuss whether it is correct to describe American Football as "football" when it is mostly played with the hands or whether the "World Series" baseball is a world championship or not. If you wish to have them, they are perhaps interesting debates, but they are rather daft ones and irrelevant ones to have on WP talk pages. Whether we think something is "wrongly" described or named, and what we think it ought to be called or described as, doesn't matter. What matters is what the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources use, however illogical that may seem to our own great minds or to those of our one-off pet writers. Does this debate really have to come up every three months, especially with the same names? 10:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC) N-HH (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to call American "football" by my own designation: "Slow-Motion-Rugby-With-Safety-Pads-And-Time-Outs". :D --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your claims are absulotely ridiculous. the Nazis were Socailist. what is your response? "The definition of far right is groups like nazis...". you just defined right as nazis (4 years old logic). According to this logic the Nazis were cats. because 'the definition of a cat is nazism...'. Again- saying that the nazis were right because right is defined by nazis is so stupid I don't even understand how you haven't react about it.

can anyone RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMS and not change the subject? you started to discuss about football(!). Nazis were Socialists DE FACTO. With Red Colored flag. Enterprised public jobs. Anti Communists AND Anti Capitalists. Shared a lot of ideas with Bolsheviks about perfet utopian society. MENTION THAT IN THE ARTICLE.

and what about SOURCES CLAIM NAZI WAS FAR-LEFT PARTY? at least ADD A NOTE that their economic policies are the LEFT's Or mention their idology without classifing. I am shocked that those are the people who edit articles in Wikipedia, which many people are learned from. (p.s. ignore grammar I speak English as a second language). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are still no reliable sources who classify the Nazis as far left. This is a fringe theory hawked by a handful of conservatives who use the claim as a stick with which to beat anybody who disagrees with radical conservatism. Reiterating the same lame claim, sourced to the same non-experts, will avail you nothing. (And that has nothing to do with your grammar; I'm sure my grammar in your native language would be much worse.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I really can’t understand why this has to be discussed time and again. Rgds _{•  • hugarheimur} 00:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Left-Right debate continues in RS

the reason it keeps coming up is it is continued to be debated by RS in widely read media. what has been decided in the past does not prevent new sources from being introduced and challenging text of the current article.

• Daniel Hannan[4] authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.
• George G. Watson, It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too..
• Jonah Goldberg quoting H.G. Wells who, in 1932, told the Young Liberals that they must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis”.
• George Bernard Shaw, An ardent socialist, Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly… If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you even understand what "RS" means? Quoting politicians, journalists, and other non-historians is not presenting "RS"...any more than it would be "appropriate" for someone to quote Michael Moore, Barack Obama, or Chris Matthews. There is an academic consensus on this issue, and it's the exact opposite of your uneducated, fringe opinion. Seriously. If you continue wasting everyone's time with this nonsense, it will likely be time for some kind of outside "intervention". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

And none of these unreliable say nazis were left-wing. Watson, for example, thought that socialism was a form of conservatism, which would make it right-wing. Your quote from Shaw is by the way out of context, here is a link to the play in which it appears.[5] TFD (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just like the Academic Consensus about the Global Warming?? -Socialists can't be right no matter what you believes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

/* Etymology */ Added the use of "Parteigenossen" among members of the party

I added a sentence about the term Parteigenossen, party members, which in my experience is the most common way Nazis addressed other Nazis in speeches and written works. The reference is to one of Hitler's Nuremberg speeches, where he begins with "Parteigenossen! Parteigenossinnen! Nationalsozialisten!" — there are many examples of the term, but that is one. It is also used in Himmler's Posen speeches. The feminine form is worth mentioning because it was used whenever female party members were present.

The term is not limited to Nazis; any member of any party could use the word, and it would still be in use today. I think it is a noteworthy addition, however, because it is probably the most common term Nazis would have used to discuss other Nazis. (It seems to be more common than Mitglieder, member.)

It may also be worth nothing that Hitler used a different word, Volksgenossen (members of the [German] people), when speaking to the general public rather than to the party.

A rare usage of the word "Nazi" by a Nazi is in the name of Joseph Goebbels' 1931 book The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for the National Socialist. It's worth looking at because it discusses the meaning of freedom from Goebbels' point of view.Roches (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Left & Right in Politics

Here is a list some of the left wing policies ..

1. Price controls on goods and services

2. Nationalized Health Care

3. National controls on housing including subsidies

4. Blame the rich (Jews) for societies inequalities.

5. Peoples Automobile (VW)

6. Government programs to make people “equal” .

7. Removal of religious powers (Jews , Catholics , Lutherans , Christians)

8. Special favoritisms based on race and ethnicity .

9. Censorship of media

10. Central planned government that controlled allocation of resources .

11. Redistribution of property that benefited the establishment party members. (Think Cuba) 12. Forced abortions, sterilizations, medical experiments and other atrocities by government done “ for the common good “ .

Nazi party had all of these. Leftists have been biased history, and brainwashed people to think the nazi is far-right (like the propagenda in East Germany). Moreover, they were Socialists NOT ONLY by name, but De Facto. so even if 2 sources (that's all you're based on!!!) said it 'far right', not all the historians agree with that. AND being nationalist doesn't mean being Right. For example, Josef Stalin was a nationalist who admired 'mama Russia' passionately. Unless, you think Communism is far-right too...

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 

Not again. _{•  • hugarheimur} 13:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Yup

2. Yes.

3. Yes, to subsidies. Not sure what qualifies as "national controls on housing". The Nazis never came anywhere close to actually "controlling housing" as in the Soviet Union.

4. Yes.

5. Yeah.. That's not a left-wing "policy" as such, but, yeah.

6. Uh, no. The Nazis did not consider people "equal".

7. Only partially true. The Nazis did not attack religious institutions, but attempted to co-opt them. The movement was very secular, that is true. And Hitler was an "atheist" of sorts.

8. That's not a "left-wing policy" at all, in fact its directly contradictorty to them. It also contradicts your own point #6.

9. Again not a "left-wing policy".

10. Yes.. that is a "left-wing" policy, a socialist policy.

11. Not a "left-wing policy". Not a policy at all. And its debatable: the Nazis were not particularly corrupt relative to other regimes, or the US for that matter.

12. Again - not a "left-wing policy".

What is wrong with you Americans, seriously?? :) -- Director (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, that's an Israeli IP, but the nonsense is American ;) -- Director (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume that your question about Americans is rhetorical, but it is pretty hard to argue against "5. Peoples Automobile (VW) " as proof. Carptrash (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (American IP)

Case closed, I'd say.. -- Director (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that if you use that test, then every government is left-wing. Price controls, blame the Jews, rob the public - that could be Richard Nixon. TFD (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite.. the source of all this confusion, and the reason why the Nazis are used by both sides in the US (apparently both Bush and Obama are reincarnations of Adolf Hitler), is that their ideology had elements of both conservatism and socialism. They persecuted homosexuals, but had "nationalized healthcare"; they subsidized the standard of the worker, but were against women's rights, etc. One might simplify the matter by saying that their economic policies were (market) socialist, but that their social policies were conservative. That's an oversimplification, but it works as a general "rule". They were pro euthanasia (to put it mildly), but were militaristic. And their economic policies became less socialist, and their social policies more conservative, after the Night of the Long Knives.

So when people inclined towards the Democrats need to label someone a "Nazi", they invoke Nazi social policies. But when the Tea Party needs to call someone The New Hitler, they point towards Nazi economic policy. But the tricorne-wearing weirdos do tend to take it a step further, and label every liberal policy "socialist" and "Nazi", regardless of contact with historical reality. -- Director (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Every developed country in the world has "nationalized" health care and subsidies to workers. In Germany they were introduced in the 19th century by the Conservative government of Otto von Bismarck. Ironically, in the 1930s, socialists opposed these policies because they concentrated power in the bourgeois state. The way you define it, no government in the world is right-wing. TFD (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I said the Nazis "had" nationalized healthcare, i.e. they weren't opposed to it. I didn't say they introduced it. I was never really 100% sold on nationalized healthcare myself: on the one hand, yes, people need healthcare, on the other, well - I like money :).

Note: I didn't "define" anything, defining "left-wing" and "right-wing" is difficult and near-futile, esp across historical eras. In modern-day American terms, though, subsidies and national healthcare are "left-wing".

In their own historical era, however, the Nazis were viewed as more to the left than conservatives (e.g. Horthy's regime, or that of Franco, or Piłsudski in Poland, or even Alexander I in Yugoslavia.. these "conservatives" would be more like "ultraconservatives" in our terms, royalists and supporters of aristocratic rule). -- Director (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that Right and Left are sort of obsolete terms, They come out of, what? The French Revolution maybe? What is more useful, to me, is a totalitarian to anarchist sliding scale that puts Hitler and Stalin more or less side by side. But pretty much all serious scholars put Hitler on the right and Stalin on the left and on that scale I view it not as a straight line but as a circle. Get it? Carptrash (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The terms date to the early 20th century, when socialists sat on the left and liberals and conservatives sat on the right, which continues today. Can you explain why in the UK, Germany and France, Labour, the SDP and the Socialists are considered to be to the left of the Conservatives, the CDU and the Right, if the terms left and right have no meaning. Why would Labour, the SDP and Socialists work together if they had no connection? TFD (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, conservatives are on the right, socialists are on the left. In their time, Nazis were considered to be more to the left than conservatives. They were not viewed as the Far Right. Whether that makes them "left", probably not, but who can really say with the purported Third Position ideologies? Is Justicialism "left" or "right"? There's no question that Nazism had "many Far Right aspects" as the above disclaimer states, but there's also no question that they had socialist policies. -- Director (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In their time they were viewed as the far right and were seated on the right and eventually came to power in coalition with the Conservatives. In fact, right-wing revisionist historian Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn made a point of this in his book, Leftism Revisited, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot. Have you read it? TFD (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, but I trust your expertise in such literature.

In their time, the Nazis and the Nazi Party were not viewed as the far right. They came to power in coalition with the far right, but they are not the far right. Because they're to the left from conservatives. Who were the far right. Simple, no? -- Director (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

to=> :Not again. _{•  • hugarheimur} 13:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My 6th point doesn't contradict my 8th point AT ALL. Look at Chinese Communist regime (even back in the good red days of the 60's). *On the paper* all equals- communism. But the reality is, that the Han People were favorite and the regime treated better to them than the Uyghur (muslim chinese). So DE FACTO the communists regime in fact treat people differently.

What is your Decision? Change the nationalists (and of course socialists) to far-left, OR Change the Communism (with nationalist Stalin) to far-right?

I was happy, feeling a a bit vindicated, to find, in wikipedia (so it's gotta be true) that "The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when . ... " , so it is not an early 20th century distinction but a late 18th century. one, which had to do not so much with economics as with support of the King, or the status quo. I quessing that had the German Kaiser survived WWl that Hitler would gladly retained him as a figure head where as we know what Stalin and Co. did to the Tsar. Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Nazis did not come to power with the far right, they came to power with the Right (the Conservatives and right-wing liberals). But contemporary sources called the Nazis "far right", i.e., more right-wing than the Right. You are welcome to your view that Nazis were secretly left-wing, but you need sources to show that contemporary sources shared your view on that specific point.

Carptrash, while the seating of conservatives on the right and radicals on the left began in 1789, the terms left and right to refer to groups of ideologies only began in the 20th century. See Gauchet, Marcel. "Right and Left". In Pierre Nora, Lawrence D. Kritzman (Eds.), Realms of memory: conflicts and divisions. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. At that time pro-fascist groups already existed and became called the "far right." You will not find any use of the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing" in the 19th century. Notice that no writers from Burke to Marx used the terms.

TFD (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me when the "Right" in Right Hegelians was coined, but it got my attention. Mostly Duce, I think I agree with everything you say, I'm just trying to leave no space for these kid revisionists that like to hang out here. Carptrash (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I did just find, "The term 'Right Hegelian', for example, was never actually used by those it was ascribed to, Hegel's direct successors at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (now the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), and was actually first used by David Strauss to describe Bruno Bauer (who is, confusingly, a typically 'Left' Hegelian).” Wikipedia had David Strauss as (January 27, 1808 – February 8, 1874), so this seems to be a 19th century use of the term “right” more or less as we are using it today. Some of us.Carptrash (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Logo

Shouldn't the image in the infobox be the NSDAP emblem? --76.105.96.92 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of z in "Nazi"

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. [6], [7], 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.[8] 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)

Requested move 23 May 2014

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 result of the move request was: Speedy closed. Problematic nomination by a problematic user. (non-admin closure) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Nazi Party → National Socialist German Workers' Party – The word "Nazi" is derogatory. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

---

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.

How is socialism right wing?

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-HH talk/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-HH talk/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 82.14.21.167 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2014

So, wait, the article states: "Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany.[65] However, a majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far-right form of politics." Obviously, the academics are biased, why don't we take it from Hitler himself? All of the historical evidence backs up what Hitler says. The Nazis had state run labor unions in order to improve labor conditions, state run car companies in order to provide poor people with cars, and all sorts of state run industries to provide poor people with products only rich people could afford. All of that is socialist, and not laissez faire capitalism. By their own actions and statements, the Nazis were both left and right. So, most academics in America are liberals, why are we taking their word for it? Who cares how reputable the academics are, or how many times the biased statement has been repeated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.107.173 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources, such as books by academics, rather than unreliable primary sources, such as Mein Kampf. If you disagree with that policy, then discuss it at WT:RS. TFD (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, just a point, but the political compass, which adds another dimension to the political spectrum, makes Hitler only a bit right, but significantly in an upward authoritarian direction to compensate for certain things. However, on the one-dimensional political spectrum, Hitler would be classified by the great majority as far-right wing. Dustin (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, The Four Deuces, I hope you don't mind that I fixed your wikilink at the end of your comment. Dustin (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In the Reichstag, parties were seated from right to left. There was n no upper left or lower right. The Nazi Party came to power in coalition with the Conservative Party. Ironically, the Conservatives would appear to be more left-wing in the 2D chart - they established the welfare state and brought in make work projects that Hitler opposed. TFD (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we limit ourselves to Right-Wing historians (and they DO exist, regardless of what the uneducated people who have never set foot in a university think - I certainly ran into my fair share while getting my M.A.), we can see William Shirer stating often throughout "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" that there was no "Socialism" in "National-socialism". Or why not check out John Toland's "Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography" for more examples. I mean, do I have to try to hunt down a Niall Ferguson quote on the subject, or what? And yes, I realize that the people claiming that the Nazis were "Left Wing" have likely not heard of any of the above historians, and will instead quote radio talk show hosts or journalists to back up their nonsensical claims, but really...this got 'old' years ago... Just read books before commenting, people. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed re reading. I am far from widely read on the subject, but I found Poole & Poole 1978 (Who Financed Hitler) absorbing and educational (although of course also depressing). Anyone who honestly has questions about the left-right aspects of Nazism should read it. It makes clear how Nazism co-opted German communism's popular appeal (which was very strong in the 1920s) and explains that the socialist or pseudosocialist aspect of National Socialism, after successfully doing its co-opting job throughout the 1920s, forked off into Strasserism, and then Hitler stabbed it to death in 1934 and cozied up big-time with the traditional conservatives (Junkers, industrialists, monarchists) and their money to create a eugenic elitist system that to my mind involved elements of plutocracy, some state capitalism but also plenty of corporatocracy, and treating most of the plebs like serfs. Very much right-wing in the sense of social conservatism, anticommunism, and "viewing some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition". Very much not leftist in the sense of real Marxism, although with plenty of suspicious parallels to the Stalinist Orwellianly upside-down "Marxism-Leninism" that claimed to be true to Marx but would have boiled his blood if he had been around to see it. (And having read Sperber 2013 [biography of Marx], I would say that pissing off Marx to a froth was quite easy. And that he was a dick.) The co-opting of communist populism among the plebs indeed was both why traditional conservatives (Junkers, industrialists, monarchists) feared and disliked Nazism at first (found it suspiciously socialist) but eventually embraced it, some for anticommunism (because they saw it as the only thing that could save them from a German communist revolution by giving the plebs reasons to feel anticommunist, including by bread and circuses) and others (in 1933-1934) because they saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to make sure not to be on the losing side. And by 1934, Hitler's future trajectory was shaping up. He was going to sit at fine dinners with old money (the German aristocracy) and new money (industrialists), and they were going to keep their money and privilege as long as they played ball and treated Hitler as an emperor/Kaiser/Czar/strongman/name-your-Fearless-Leader-synonym, and Hitler would have a huge army and secret police to keep it that way (which recently Imperial Prussians and recently Czarist Russians were both long since used to). Judging from Poole & Poole 1978, I would say that Hitler really did see himself as pursuing a Third Position (at heart, he was contemptuous of everyone on Earth except himself and a select few followers, disdaining both communists and traditional conservatives) but that, like many people, the way he imagined himself does not entirely match that which others can see regarding what he really was, and was even grossly inaccurate in various ways, which is why User:The Four Deuces is so correct when he mentions the difference between "reliable secondary sources, such as books by academics, rather than unreliable primary sources, such as Mein Kampf". (This was a guy who thought the Holocaust was a good idea—hmmm, maybe we take his view of things with more than a grain of salt?) Hitler was a social darwinist, racist and eugenicist thugocrat and kleptocrat at heart. Of course, he himself wouldn't see it as kleptocracy, because a wolf considers that wolves are entitled to slaughter livestock by nature, and Hitler considered most humans (enemies and fawning sycophants alike) as contemptible and as objectified as livestock (as any psychopath would). I disagree with taking away the link to Third Position from the FAQ; I don't think the answer is to try to hide from the FAQ reader how Nazis saw themselves, but rather to show that and also to show how historians view them differently (and more accurately) from that distorted self-image. — ¾-10 04:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Current title stable?

Why should we use "Nazi Party" besides WP:COMMONNAMES? It may fail WP:CRITERIA. Sure, it's recognizable. However, it is not obviously natural. Also, it's short but not concise (def: "brief but complete"). I checked the archives, and I found opposing viewpoints on the current title carrying more weight than supporting ones. Also, I believe that "Nazi" has become an insult and is still an insult, especially to people, like Germans. (see post below) --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed on this matter which has been discussed more than once. There is no need to change the title as it is the most commonly used term for this party in English reliable sources. As for the term "Nazi" being an insult, that might be, depending on the context of its use, but that is not relevant as to its use in relation to the title of this article. Kierzek (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow your argument. WPLCRITERIA would seem to describe the current title. Lots of words are used as insults - pig for example, but that does not mean we re-name the articles they are based on. The fact that the insult term used is not "National Socialist German Workers Party member" shows that the term "Nazi" is more recognizable. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: how natural is the name "Nazi Party"? How concise? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll answer. Perfectly natural, and not just concise, it is EXACT. Everyone calls this group Nazis, they did during the war, and are universally known by this title. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Natural is derived from nature. Also, even most English speakers do not know what Nazi Party completely meant, unless they read the history books. --George Ho (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, they can come to Wikipedia, type in "Nazi Party" and find an article that explains "what Nazi Party completely meant." TFD (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with much of this. What if the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had frequently been referred to as the "Commie Party"? That still most certainly would not justify such an article title. Dustin (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Last month 40,000+ people visited the website. It's not compared to 130,000+. --George Ho (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The CPUSA was not frequently referred to in mainstream reliable sources as the "Commie Party." And there was no American Commie Party but there was an American Nazi Party. TFD (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

TFD, don't take this literally. It was just an example. What if? Dustin (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And how many people are going to have any idea what: (1) NSDAP (2) National Socialist German Workers' Party or (3) Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means? The best, concise and commonly used name for English Wikipedia is Nazi Party. Kierzek (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish there were many; not many but not few (2). Same for NSDAP. Too few knew German name, which German Wiki uses. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you purposely pick the holiday of Rosh Hashanah to propose this change? - Davodd (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I largely did not know that September 24/25 was that holiday. Why would I do that on purpose? To remind you, I'm not proposing a "change" at this time. I was discussing whether the current title is best-suitable at this time. --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Consensus agreed to use "Nazi Party" because of its commonality. Does the current title meet other rules of WP:AT, like WP:CRITERIA and WP:POVNAME? --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support current practice and oppose this absurd re-opening of a dead topic; see WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LAMEST. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support the name is supported by those policies. TFD (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support These constant attempts to change the name are un-encyclopedic, and motivated by propaganda purposes. As noted by others, this is a "dead topic", that has already been determined many times. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a name change; I was questioning about the title itself. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever does that mean? The name is the title, no? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

All right jpgordon; sometimes, name = title. I use words interchangeably. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan, just that I am against WP:COMMONNAME and believe that all political parties ought to use the actual names (obviously with information about them, such as the "socialist" part of NSDAP being greatly criticized) does not mean that I am believing in Nazi propaganda, support the Nazi ideology, or whatever you are implying. The actual content of the article and even the usage in the article would remain the same in the (my) preferable version of the article. And there is nothing inferior about redirects compared to direct links. Of course, my variant would only involve changing names to be "official", and there would be some exceptions where conflicts occurred between article titles and others. I do note that this article's title might be a bit long if it used the official name, but for other instances such as "Nazism", I suppose a varied version of my reasoning would be more applicable. Dustin (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMON redirects to "Common sense" section of an essay. You mean WP:COMMONNAME then? --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support current title and its use for my reasons which are stated above; I hope we will now "let sleeping dogs lie." Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the current title because it's obviously non-neutral. You all say that "nazi" is a common term, but by who was it made common? First it was made by the NSDAP opponents and secondly, of all the major media (newspaper, tv, radio) which have contributed to making this term "common", which of them does not strongly oppose the NSDAP policies? People will still find this article if there is a redirection, no problem about that. Also, it looks like the English Wikipedia is the only one that uses the "nazi" term. Most of the others, if not all, uses the full party name, even though the term is common in that country (like in France). Orgyn (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

query - So: you oppose this name because using it means we might be being seen as opposed to the God-damned Nazis? I cannot imagine a weaker argument in the entire armamentarium of rhetoric than that one. If there is any certainty in the history of humankind, it is that any decent sane human being is opposed to the Nazis as we know them to have been in doctrine and in practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is an Encyclopedia. We should neither oppose nor support political point of views. What is wrong with that? Orgyn (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing, particularly. Anti-nazism, however, is not a political point of view; it's a human point of view. Or, in short form: one aspect of ignore all rules is that we get to disrespect Nazis. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. I may agree, or not, but it's not the point here. And how does disrespecting "Nazis" will allow us to "improve Wikipedia"? Orgyn (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

By "disrespecting Nazis" we declare ourselves members of the human race, and completely out of sympathy with the Scheißkopfvereinpartei. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is your opinion, and you clearly show that you are not neutral. Orgyn (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gordon, you can't ignore all rules that strongly apply, like WP:CRITERIA and WP:POVTITLE, unless they are too weak and ineffective, like WP:pinyin and COMMONNAMES, which weakly applied to the modern Chinese wuxia story, "White Horse Neighs in the Western Wind", but are largely ignored mainly for people rejected pinyin-izing the title. Anyway, what the National Socialist German Workers' Party (there, I said it) did were destroying greater potential of their own former culture and killing and persecuting millions of people. However, referring them as "Nazi Party" is not equivalent to referring them as "Nazis" (insultingly). "Nazi" currently redirects to Nazism, not this article. Well, can I call them German National Socialists, German Workers, Nationally German Workers, or what? I don't wanna call them "Nazis", do I? "Nazi" should not redirect to this article, unless consensus would say so. As for Orange Mike, how is Orgyn's argument "weak"? Can you elaborate? --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gordon, you can't ignore all rules that strongly apply. No, but consensus is going to trump any attempts to neutralize Wikipedia's attitudes toward mass murderers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

They killed people who were not "German workers", right? Or were "German workers" themselves included in victims' list besides other groups? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support current title. Common name for this group, used by them in their own publications, and used by almost everyone else since. I completely fail to understand Ogryn's point of view. How is calling them Nazi POV: if we were to call them thugs or murderers that would be POV. if we called them heroes and freedom fighters that would be POV. We are simply using the name that they were, and are known by. If Ogryn, Kierzak, or others find that word offensive, well that is their POV shining through. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• IdreamofJeanie, please don't misquote me; I strongly support the use of the name and current title. Kierzek (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NSDAP party members did not called themselves "nazis". That's the point. The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c.1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname Nazi, Naczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean "a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person." (Source) Orgyn (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

[[9]] IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you cite this document? Except in the title where the word "nazi" is used in opposition to "sozi", it is not mention anywhere else. I will add that the original title is -> "Der Nazi-Sozi" Fragen und Antworten fuer den Nationalsozialisten <- ; two things here: 1. "nazi" is used inside quotes 2. the use of the word "Nationalsozialisten" (which is used through out the text) instead of "nazi". Orgyn (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• This RFC is pointless. Because of the way people were brought up and all of that other stuff, even if provided with counter-reasoning, the CERTAIN majority of people will oppose this. If anything, it is WP:COMMONNAME which would have to be changed. Dustin (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "this"? --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I do not understand your question. Dustin (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll elaborate: what does "will oppose this" refer to? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It refers to the suggestion that "Nazi Party" may not actually be a perfect title. Dustin (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As pointless as this RFC may "seem", prematurely creating another RM would create further problems than it solves. I have been torn between proposing either "NSDAP" or "National Socialist German Workers' Party", so I created RFC as a predecessor of yet-to-exist another RM. Nevertheless, I am leaning toward the longer title as you are. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with the latter. From what I can see, most article on non-English political party are not abbreviated and translated. Orgyn (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Most foreign party names are translated. The main exception is French Canadian nationalist parties, like the Parti Quebecois, because English-speakers refer to them exclusively by their French names. But the Conservative and Unionist Party's article is called Conservative Party (UK) because most readers would not recognize it by its full name. TFD (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Orgyn, that is because most foreign political parties (especially those in non-Anglophone countries) don't have a common name in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I realize that "Nazi" no longer is an insult, but it is often used as an insulting word. People may know that "Nazi" refers to the 1930s-40s Germans, but they fully did not know what German Workers' Party stood for. Then again, did the Party itself stood for German workers? If the whole longer name is used, then readers would get an idea that the whole Party killed millions who were NOT "German Workers", like opposers of the Party, artists, intellects, rich people, homosexuals, non-Germans, etc. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a "Hitler" is an insult, but that does not mean we should change the name of that article to "Heidler" or "Schicklgruber." And in fact the German workers were the first victims of the Third Reich. TFD (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The workers were murdered? --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly many of them were, particularly those who led the workers: socialists, communists, labor leaders of any value or integrity, were the first to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support current title. It is what most English speaking people looking for information on this party will search for. I'm sure the "real name" appears soon enough. Carptrash (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Current Title but feel free to make redirects from the other name to point to this one. - Davodd (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose current title as a clear violation of WP:POVNAME: "notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include (...) colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". "Nazi", "Sozi", etc. are colloquialisms originating in Weimar Germany. -- Director (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I think there is something linguistically interesting happening here: the terms "Nazi" and "Nazi party" are felt (cognitively experienced) by many (I believe most) native English speakers as neutral names appropriate to all language registers (that is, one can write a formal, unbiased PhD dissertation in sociology using the term "Nazi" neutrally to simply denote "any member or supporter of the NSDAP"), whereas they are felt by some others as biased or register-restricted (or both). In contrast, the word "Commie" has never been widely accepted by English speakers as appropriate to all language registers (the wide consensus is that it is informal/slang/colloquial). It is interesting to consider the special case of people born and raised in Germany who are fluent English speakers (which is not a small group—there are tens of millions, I believe). They may resist the all-registers word sense of "Nazi" in a way that English speakers born and raised in the UK or US never would—not because they are partial to Nazism, but only because of idiomatic differences between national varieties of English. Consider: A native speaker of American English resists the word choice "Commie" in formal registers, but it is not because of his political choice (neither procommunist nor anticommunist); rather, he resists it simply because it is unidiomatic (wrong register). Now, there is a connection between idiomaticness and sociopolitical norms that explains why "wrong register"—but it is a level behind the interface just mentioned. An analogy (perhaps not exact but cognitively approaching) would be Coloured and Colored. In South African English (as I, an American, understand the topic), the word Coloured is not register-inappropriate, but in American English since the 1960s, Colored has been considered "a synonym of black that only racist white people use" (it definitely connotes racism). Again, I am not saying the analogy is exact; it is only shows a register difference that is tied to national variety. Because the English-language Wikipedia is written for English speakers around the globe, I would not object to changing the pagename. However, it is very important to appreciate what Orange Mike and Dustin said about humane values versus inhumane values. In a word where humans agree by wide consensus that humans do not accept that humans be inhumane to each other (where human rights can ethically overrule other important kinds of moral authority, such as loyalty-vs-treason), there is an important way in which "all humans are allowed (and in fact also required) to be 'biased' against Nazism," which leads to the extension that one cannot call it "bias" in the same word sense that "bias" refers to conflict of interest or religious or political preference and beliefs. — ¾-10 19:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. If you want to know, English is not my mother tongue... Concerning what you say in the end, if we are "required to be biased" then why not rename the article to The Fucking Nazis? And then we'd have to do the same with all articles on serial killers, rapists, mass murderers, dictators, etc. What I'm saying is that the NPOV rule should not be violated and I don't feel "required" to violate it. Orgyn (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Again this is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia or any other. The common reader, who we are suppose to be writing for, is going to quickly and easily know the title term herein and that is what people use most in their search, as well. A quick check of Google hits will tell you that. Why you guys what to go "round and round" on this when we could be doing something more productive here makes no sense. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. 'Nazism' is merely an informal nick-name for National Socialism, and this was by no means the only party adhering to this ideology. NSDAP would be a much more correct name and is not needlessly complex, and I thinks the accuracy trumps commonname here. --Soman (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a person in a prominently English-speaking country does not know what NSDAP is anymore. --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not a problem, hopefully, Wikipedia is here to educate them! By respecting the NPOV rule of course. Orgyn (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the things that wikipedia does is to allow us, (demand of us?) to have our references speak for us. So just in my library I have:

• ‘’Nazi Regalia’’ (Pin)
• ‘’The Nazi Seizure of Power’’ (Allen)
• ‘’A Secret Press in Nazi Europe’’ (Kowlski)
• Nazi Prisoners of War in America (Krammer)
• The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany 1933-1945 (Grunberger)

Some books that do not have the word “Nazi” in the titles, but use it in the text include:

• Life in the Third Reich (Bessel)
• The Games of ’36 (Cohen)
• Propaganda: The Art of Persuasion: World War ll (Rhodes)
• Totalitarian Art (Golomstock)
• Art in the Third Reich (Adam)
• Youth in European Labor Camps (Holland) This one is interesting because it was published in 1939, before the war began and before the word “Nazi” had picked up all the baggage that it carries today.

Let’s face it. Nazi is the word to describe these folks. The fact that it carries are the negative connotations that it does today is (opinion) pretty much their own doing. Now can we put this to rest and get back to arguing about whether Nazis are rightists or leftists?
Carptrash (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it carries are the negative connotations that it does today is (opinion) pretty much their own doing. The term does not carry a negative connotation, it is a negative term. As I have written before, here is it's etymology: The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c.1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname Nazi, Naczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean "a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person." (Source) Orgyn (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Orgyn's view aside, do these references use exact phrase "Nazi Party"? --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Some do and some probably do not (use the phrase "Nazi Party."). Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party , so the "Party" is sort of built in. In The Nazi Seizure of Power, the "party" is built in, in Nazi Prisoners of War in America the term is used to denote any POW from any branch of the German armed forces of the Third Reich. In Youth in European Labor Camps (sort of my favorite) the author mentions "Nazt salutes," "Nazi theories" and "Nazi books" and the like. He also refers to the "National Socialist Party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support the current title (Nazi Party) per WP:COMMONNAME. The word Nazi may have originated as a non-neutral or colloquial word, but if so, it has ceased to be so in modern English. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• 'Support current name. I certainly don't agree with the earlier people who feel that it is NPOV to make anti-Nazi statements just because it's a remarkably common point of view, however. I also don't agree with the idea that if the name were to change it would be harder to find somehow - we would obviously redirect Nazi Party to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" in the same way that National Socialist German Workers' Party currently redirects to "Nazi Party". That said, I think that "Nazi party" is certainly the common name, I see no evidence that it's non-neutral, and there's plenty of precedence for using short-form names or abbreviations as article titles, e.g. Stasi, Gestapo, Gulag. I think "Nazi party" is likely the most common name. Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the official name is not ipso facto the correct choice for article title. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support current title. Time and constant use have neutered the formerly insulting term. It's the common name in English now. NSDAP would be an acceptable page title, but this one is good enough. There's no reason to change it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
• Support current title per WP:TITLECHANGES - " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support current title per Orange Mike. "So: you oppose this name because using it means we might be being seen as opposed to the God-damned Nazis? I cannot imagine a weaker argument in the entire armamentarium of rhetoric than that one. If there is any certainty in the history of humankind, it is that any decent sane human being is opposed to the Nazis as we know them to have been in doctrine and in practice." WanderingLost (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emblems

I cannot be in accord with the latest changes made by Director. He replaced a clearly explanatory emblem of the NSDAP with the ubiquitous party-adler which was already present right after the Infobox. So now we have two party-adlers one after the other. Besides Director seems to like big dimensions: not only the newly occurring adler is way too big (it could be some 20 px smaller just to remain comparable to the second one) but also the party flag has been almost doubled in size. What the rationale of all this? I hope for some agreement on rejecting these doings. Carlotm (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all, its your edit that's up for discussion here: the parteiadler was in the infobox for months (I think over a year) before you switched it. So why don't you please explain why the actual emblem of the Nazi Party must be replaced with the irrelevant logo devised primarily for party badges?

I did not, in fact, "double the size of the flag" - you reduced it to 80px for some unfathomable reason, and I reverted you [10][11]. If anything it seems I actually reduced the size of the party emblem (from 200 to 190px [12]).

As for why there are two symbols of Nazism, well its because its the Nazism sidebar... and this is the Nazi Party article. Concerns regarding repetition of images do not commonly extend to templates featured on a multitude of other articles. -- Director (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation does not explain much. The emblematic value of what you call irrelevant logo is there to be seen. The repetition of images is there to be seen whatever its concern does "not commonly extend to templates...". The over-dimensioning of images is there to be seen. I hope Wiki is still open to changes and improvements. Carlotm (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to explain? The emblem of Nazism being used in the Nazism sidebar, doesn't justify our not using the accurate emblem in the infobox. Don't know what more there is to say about that..?

I did not "over-dimension" the images either, I restored the dimensions they had for the past, gosh, must be over a year now. And these are pretty average for images in the party infobox template... off the top of my head, the Democratic Party has a logo of 200px, the German CDU has a logo 250px in size, the Parti socialiste 200px again, I mean 190px is typical for this template, and 150px is standard for the flag size.. -- Director (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My remarks are expressing a purely aesthetical point of view. If other logos have all too big of a visual impact, and certainly Democratic Party does, CDU and Parti socialiste a little bit less, then the same considerations apply to them also. That something is good only because it persisted for over one year doesn't look the proper way of reasoning in relation to an encyclopedia whose editors are encouraged to be bold. And, who said that "150px is standard for the flag size"; where can I find an official advice of that sort? Carlotm (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrows unclear

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.

“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 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 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

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

Done Cannolis (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Few Comments in the Spirit of Clarity and Neutrality

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)

Substance of the Third Position concept versus the name "Third Position"

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)

Dissolution?

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)

Pseudo-scientific

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

"Germany should become a unified "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) rather than a society divided along class and party lines."

Please change the link on "people's community" to point to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgemeinschaft, so it is no longer broken.

Obventio56 (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Have removed the redlink in the #History section as it is already correctly linked to in the lede of the article Cannolis (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)