Talk:Nazism

Lead

The lead section of this article still seems to be a little unbalanced. It should summarize the defining and most important facts about the article's subject. Of course, it is verifiable that some Nazis supported the idea of pan-Germanicism. But that does not mean that it was a defining or very important point of Nazism. Google books finds me 7 (!) hits for pan-Germanicism + Nazism. Given the huge mass of books dealing with Nazism, this seems to be only a minor aspect. Of course you will always find some (reliable) sources mentioning that (some) Nazis had pan-Germanicist ideas, fancied Paganism, were vegetarians or liked dogs (please forgive the admittedly flawed comparison). But that does not necessarily make these defining and essential parts of Nazist ideology. On the other hand, essential aspects of Nazism, like the Führer principle or the Volksgemeinschaft idea, are not mentioned in the lead. The questions of whether or not Nazism was far-right and how National Socialism is related to (proper) socialism might be interesting to some North American editors and readers (probably because there are widespread misconceptions on these issues), but they are never discussed in Germany. Do they really belong in the lead section or can they be treated somewhere further back in the article? --RJFF (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much on the "socialist or not" question, including the rather over-desperate bids to "disprove" it. Most of the third of the of three current paragraphs in the lead is taken up with details of this meta-debate about etymology and also with riposte-style detail about Nazi attitudes to the economy. The current phrasing re far right in the first para, re "major elements .. have been described as" is also impossibly woolly and weaselly. It either needs to say "usually described as far right" or some such or be dropped altogether. I think pan-Germanism, as an aspect of Nazi nationalism, is important and worth mentioning, both in its influence on Nazism's development and its practice (is the lack of hits a spelling issue?). I agree that it needs more on the Fuhrer principle, among the other issues mentioned. N-HH talk/edits 12:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean pan-Germanism or "pan-Germanicism"? Pan-Germanism is without doubt a major influence. "Pan-Germanicism" is something different: it means to unite all Germanic peoples (i.e. Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons). And this is mentioned very rarely. Currently, the lead mentions the (in my opinion unimportant) pan-Germanicism, not pan-Germanism. --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pan-Germanicism" did not even have a WP article until User:R-41 created it on 5 February 2013. On the same day, the very same editor added the mention of pan-Germanicism as the fourth introductory sentence of this article. --RJFF (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't spot that that was the exact word used in the lead; nor was I tbh aware of the technical difference, if indeed there is one as opposed to it all being slightly made up (on which point, the history you've explained there kind of clarifies the problem). I agree it should not be there then, although something about pan-Germanism should be. Nor does it appear to be in the cited source - something btw which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding very common in most politics leads, due to initial mis-citation, then compounded as successive editors switch and change text while leaving earlier footnotes in place. N-HH talk/edits 13:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose to add the following sentences:

• Both the Nazi Party and the Nazi-led state were organized under the Führer principle ("leader principle"), a pyramidal structure with the Führer Adolf Hitler at the top who appointed sub-ordinate leaders for all branches of the party and the state and whose orders had the force of law. (ref: Kuntz, Dieter (2011), "Hitler and the functioning of the Third Reich", The Routledge History of the Holocaust, Routledge, p. 75)
• Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle and instead promoted the idea of Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community"). Nazis wanted to overcome social divisions which they considered artificial, instead all parts of the racially homogenous society should cooperate for national unity. (ref: Judson, Pieter M. (2011), "Nationalism in the Era of the Nation State", The Oxford Handbook of Modern German History, Oxford University Press, p. 515)

Instead, I would cut or condense the mention of pan-Germanicism, and the lengthy discussion of Hitler's views towards (Marxian) socialism. In my opinion a verbatim quote of Hitler in the lead section should be unacceptable. --RJFF (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All the above looks OK to me, further to previous comments, subject perhaps to replacing pan-Germanicism with some reference to pan-Germanism. N-HH talk/edits 13:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead needs to be re-written based on how normal, neutral sources would present the subject. At present, it presents the view that Nazism was a clear, coherent ideology on the same intellectual level as liberalism or Leninism. TFD (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. When something is viewed as an "ideology", the starting point is to assume it is "coherent" by definition - or else its not one. There are scholars that advocate the point of view than NSDAP had no coherent ideology, but I would need to be convinced that placing them in the forefront would not be WP:UNDUE. That way lie problems: that position in effect denies that "Nazism" as such actually exists, and to write an article fully in accordance with it would probably require us to rename the article or perhaps even to delete or move it.

As for "levels" of ideologies.. is there a hierarchy of some sort? Something like Liberalism > Conservatism > Socialism > Communism > Fascism > Nazism? -- Director (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say there's no coherent and intellectual ideology of Nazism – at least to the same level that there is with, say, Marxism, in that there's no serious voluminous literature by its adherents, explaining, expounding and expanding the idea. There are ideas behind it of course, but ultimately Nazism is as much about what the NSDAP said and did as much as anything else. As to more specific points in terms of the lead, I think RJFF's changes (most of which, as noted, followed discussion above) help, even if we think a more broad overhaul is also necessary. I'd repeat again that I still think something needs to be done about the "major elements .. have been described as far-right" phrasing and also say that I'm still not 100% sure about the claim that Nazism opposed democracy on the basis that Jews "used it for their self-preservation", even though the wording there is now better than it was at least. N-HH talk/edits 11:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition

I would propose seeking for a proper, scholarly definition of "Nazism" and using it in the first sentence. A definition equivalent to "Nazism is an ideology of its adherents" does not sit well with me. I would also propose a structure where we avoid describing it as a "form of socialism/fascism" in the first sentence, but instead discuss that complex issue (princeton.edu) in the following sentence (as is the case now, in fact). -- Director (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not go any further in the article after reading in the first setences that nazism is a racist ideology and not even mentioning socialism, also saying it is right wing. Completely wrong. Nazism before anything is a socialist ideology, ans so, left wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.14.46 (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Passing over the latest volley in the "but Nazis are left-wing socialists", and per some of the points above, surely we are slightly bound by the facts that a) there is no clear, expansive "ideology" of Nazism and b) the idea of Nazism is inextricably bound up – from its name onwards – with the German Nazi Party. Inevitably, we are going to end up with defining it primarily as what that party said and did. I think we should also very much be describing it pretty much from the opening of the lead as a form of fascism, or at least noting that it is usually characterised as a form of fascism (although I'm not sure it makes much difference whether that's the first or second sentence). This, again, is the mainstream consensus in both academic and non-academic discourse. N-HH talk/edits 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's comments like that made by the anonymous IP that make me feel that it is necessary to completely eviscerate these "arguments" when they appear on WP. As long as they are treated with the tiniest element of "respect," such nonsense will continue to flourish, like a viral infection. It's no different from Holocaust Denial, has the same purpose, and should be treated exactly the same. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah.. that's something I've always cautioned against on this subject. The goal is to be emotionless in your approach, to view the facts (i.e. sources) alone. I would not dream of supporting the IPs position in the extremes where it stands, but is most certainly not "nonsense" to describe the ideology of National Socialism as having elements of Socialism. That is very much an undeniable fact, or at the very least, I hope you'll grant its a position taken by reliable sources to an extent it cannot be ignored. I'd go so far as to say that National Socialism is arguably a variant of Socialism (the name kind of clues you in), with a brief ten-year term in power that manifested in a much more right-wing regime. Indeed, if you just type in "definition of Nazism" in your Google browser, you will likely be pointed to this definition featured by princeton.edu.

Fellas, this isn't World War II we're fighting here. We're writing an encyclopedia. I've said my piece (-Dir steps down from the pulpit-), now I'll be leaving you to be eaten alive by your consciences :). As I don't want to fight the Second World War here (on the wrong side!), I'll be taking a break. Cheerio -- Director (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Re the point that Nazism (and fascism) thought was influenced by socialism and contained elements derived from or usually associated with it: no-one is suggesting it was not or that the page should not note that (which it does). Re the claim that Nazism might itself be a form of left-wing socialism (and one that suddenly swerved to the right when faced with the exigencies and practical limitations of being in power): that is both a very different argument and, as ever, simply not the mainstream categorisation or analysis in serious sources, by a long, long way. Pointing to one random and unvouched-for webpage definition, even if it comes with a .edu doesn't really help with that much. The endless attempts to revive this claim, and conflate these two separate points – whether more calmly and rationally as you are, or in the more crazed posts by passing IPs – is both a distraction and worryingly indicative of a fringe worldview which should not be allowed to influence this page. And please, let's not drop the old name gag in again. Do you think this hasn't crossed the mind of more serious thinkers in the last 80-odd years who nonetheless have come to the conclusion that Nazism is not generally bracketed alongside socialism, as commonly understood? You know that English words always have different meanings in different contexts, right, and are not always taken literally, or even meant to be? See LDPR, DPRK etc. N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. As I've pointed out a bajillion times on this page, if "National Socialism" means that Nazi Germany was truly "Socialist," then "German Democratic Republic" means that East Germany was a "Democratic Republic," and not Communist at all... -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And of course, beyond that, far greater minds than any of ours have spent many decades looking into these points and have come to their broadly agreed conclusions. They've actually saved us the trouble of having to go over all this ground over and over again ourselves from what we claim to be first principles (or should have done). Brilliantly, we can both comply with WP policy and make our editing and talkpage lives much easier while doing so. It's a win-win. N-HH talk/edits 11:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "Democratic" had different meanings in different Cold War blocks. "Democratic" in general simply means "rule by the people", not necessarily entailing a Western-style multi-party system. The communists claimed that the people ruled through the party, which was the vanguard of the people. Highest party officials were indeed elected by the party membership, whereas communist party membership was intended to reflect the politically active element from the entirety of the people. In theory. You need not worry - the communists had a very well-elaborated ideology and did not pick their terms arbitrarily. One might be cynical and claim it was all propaganda, but one must also then be cynical towards a system claiming to be "Democratic", where the people are ultimately presented with no more than two candidates - both elected by their two political parties. Instead of having one party elect one guy, you've got two parties electing two guys between whom the people supposedly choose ("sure its the 'rule of the people', here - pick one of these two"). I see little essential difference in terms of applicability of the adjetcive "democratic". Some - but little.

All that said, I would not dream of claiming that National Socialism was a form of Socialism simply based on its name. I was merely pointing out - using sources(!) - that this is a legitimate view, and not "nonsense" that should be "eviscerated". My position is more moderate, though: merely that National Socialist ideology unquestionalby included elements of Socialism, that there are reliable sources for that, and that it should be mentioned clearly. For the record, I usually vote for social democrats myself, but I'm a Wikipedian first over here, and do not care whether some hick right-wing commentator in the US will or will not use Wiki to further his nonsense. I want our reader to understand why they called it "National Socialism". (Yes, I am so high up here on my moral high ground, I can barely read your posts. :))

P.S. I notice, N-HH that you insterted "left-wing" in front of "Socialism" to emphasize your point. Neither I nor thesources ever said that Nazism is "left-wing". Fact is, Nazism is often described as being "right-wing" in terms of the left-right spectrum - but you can have a right-wing socialistic ideology as well (its called the "Third Position", Strasserism e.g., a sub-form of National Socialism entertained by the left wing of the Nazi Party). And I see you frequently calling on "broadly-agreed conclusions", however, despite requesting them above, I've as yet not seen any sources that indicate you are backed by such support. Remember - we are here talking about the ideology itself, not the de facto regime in Nazi Germany. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

agree and good point. since we already have nazi germany, AND nazi party, this article would be a good place to discuss national socialism, which was about socialism being attempted within a border, instead of a global workers revolution. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an incorrect definition of why the word "National" is in front of "Socialism." It has to do with "Nationalism," rather than simply geography. It wasn't a geographic term, as in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People," but a political one, referring to the philosophy of Nationalism. Nationalism was the primary word in that phrase, and changes the entire meaning, as with "National Anarchism" or "National Bolshevism". -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

national is not a geographic term? Adjective Of or relating to a nation; common to or characteristic of a whole nation. Noun A citizen of a particular country, typically entitled to hold that country's passport: "a German national". Nation Noun A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan is right. Geographic, but more. National + -ism. Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of National Socialism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated. [1]. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

NATIONALISM: "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups" (Merriam-Webster) [2]; "patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts, an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries, advocacy of political independence for a particular country." (Oxford Dictionary).[3]

Look, Darkstar, we all know that you think Socialism=Everything-Bad-In-The-World=Nazism, and you will not waver from that ideological POV...but stop trying to pretend you don't know what words like "Nationalism" mean. I know you're more intelligent than that, and just trying to be a smartass. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

the term is national socialism, not nationalISM socialism. nationalism is a noun, national in front of the noun, "socialism" must be the adjective form, Of or relating to a nation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

One -ism is enough to evoke 'nationalism'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the term is "Nationalsozialismus". It is the combination of "Nationalismus" and "Sozialismus", put together into a single word. In German, it would be ridiculous to contract it to "Nationalismussozialismus." The modern Far-Right party in Germany is called the "Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (National Democratic Party of Germany). It's the same thing: The "National" part is the important part. You DO realize that we're talking about a GERMAN word, right? You can't treat German words like their English equivalents, and it's clear, at least...that you do not speak German. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has continued to argue this position over a range of articles and should know when to stop flogging a dead horse. TFD (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They also appear to be confusing/equating National Socialism and Socialism in One Country and, furthermore, doing so on the basis of rather obvious, one would have thought, original research as to what "National Socialism" means. As noted earlier, the brilliant thing here is that not only are WP editors not meant to waste everyone's time conducting their own, often idiosyncratic, analysis of words and concepts but we don't even have to, since proper historians and political scientists have already done it for us! What part of this basic principle is not understood? N-HH talk/edits 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fellas... the only point here is that National Socialist ideology included elements of socialism. I believe this was well supported by sources, and is an accepted moderate view. The Nazi regime was much more right-wing than the ideology, and the sources point this out. These are essential basic facts on this topic, that imo ought to be included in the lede.

As far as the "Nationalism" thing is concerned.. it seems a red herring. From my own research to me it appears evident that Nazism was indeed "nationalist", just what this "nation" was might be debated... but I think that the accepted view is that Nazism was indeed a German nationalist movement and that dissenting voices shouldnot be given much space in the article. Though I have heard it said in lectures that Nazism was internationalist in that it advocated the union of "Aryans" and that "nationalism" refers to "Aryan nationalism".. e.g. the internationalist nature of the Nazi Party's military wing. Reportedly, Hitler believed that the Germans were simply the "last best hope of the Aryan peoples" etc.. No matter though, as I said, that's a different subject and a red herring. -- Director (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nazism, like all right-wing movements contained elements of nationalism, conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Weight requires however that we do not zero in and overplay any particular influence. And as observed, nazism was not a coherent ideology on the same level of the others. TFD (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly for those people deemed "Ayran", nazi policy was for the creation of a classless society, which is as I understand, is a socialist goal. From Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler, page 210:

"For the majority who were neither politically nor racially marginalised, Nazi policies elevated them into a realm where previous markers of social distinction, although those hardly disappeared, would not matter. Nazi social policy, the execution of which the regime's racial categories obviously defined, aimed to transcend all manner of local identity, privilege, and social distinction, thereby eliminating previous barriers to an integrated nation. It would unite all Germans around their common racial superiority."[4]

In other words, only those who were deemed as belonging to the "German nation" would enjoy the benefits of socialism. --Nug (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is all OR. It may make perfect sense to you, but you need to show that reasonable sources draw the same conclusion. Incidentally, "social distinction" refers to the class system - dukes, barons, etc., which means by your logic the U.S. would be socialist too. TFD (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is "That is all OR" the new euphemism for "I don't like it"? I'm just reporting what reliable sources say. --Nug (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your sources do not mention "socialism". And you are misinterpreting "previous markers of social distinction" as Marxist classless society. Germany was a monarchy until 1917 with clear markers of social distinction based on inherited class. Look it up. Do you think that by abolishing hereditary titles, the U.S. is socialist? TFD (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ofcourse you are aware that the view that Nazism is a form of socialism isn't OR. See Ludwig Von Mises' book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis[5] on page 572

"It is important to realise that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships"

and in the the chapter on Nazism on page 578 he begins:

"The philosophy of the Nazis, the German National Socialist Labour Party, is the purest and most consistent manifestation of the anti-capitalistic and socialistic spirit of our age."

I guess Nazism is like the bastard child where everyone denies paternity, but it seems apparent that socialism is in fact the father. --Nug (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A Libertarian source is hardly objective; you'll be using the dreaded Ayn as an authority on the human rights of Native Americans next. It is apparent that you have an opinion which is not supported by sources and you are wasting people's time on a subject which has been done to death. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Native Americans, so your reference to them is rather bizarre. I'm not presenting any opinion but just presenting a source. This source quite clearly presents the view that Nazism is a form of socialism, no point denying it. Your opinion that this source is not objective is just your personal opinion that carries no weight, unless you can supply this mythical "objective" source that states this. The view is published, we can name the proponents of that view thus it cannot be considered fringe, all that we can do is to determine the due weight of that view. --Nug (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are presenting a partisan source heavily promoted in Libertarian web sites. The other reference is the the West Point speech by Ayn Rand, apologies for that I shouldn't make assumptions about the political knowledge of editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing about Conservatives: Left-Wingers do not deny their villains, like the Stalinists and other dictators. But Conservatives won't take responsibility for ANY of theirs...like the KKK, Franco, or any of the Fascist/Nazi groups. Rather than saying, "Well, they're Far Right...but we're not like them at all..." they say, "Nope. Not us. Must've been you Libs!" and find some partisan, POV source to back up their uneducated fringe views. I'm sure I could find fringe views saying that Stalin was "really" a Right-Winger...but I'd never attempt to "prove" anything on WP with such nonsense. This is nothing but butthurt. Sweet, sweet butthurt. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing about Leftists is their tenaciousness in holding the view that Nazism was essentially "reactionary" conservative movement, no doubt due to their assumption that the concept of revolution must refer ipso facto to good revolution, but revolutions are frequently destructive. Stanley Payne writes in Fascism: A Comparative Approach Toward a Definition:

"National Socialism in fact constituted a unique and radical kind of modern revolutionism."

Jacques Ellul writes in Autopsy of Revolution:

"Informed observers of the period between the wars are convinced that National Socialism was an important and authentic revolution. De Rugemont points out how the Hitler and the Jacobin regimes were identical at every level. R. Labrousse, an authority on the French revolution, confirms that"

It seems some what contradictory to state that conservatism should claim ownership of a revolutionary ideology. --00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Strawman argument. First, stop calling mainstream thinking "Leftist." Second, no one calls nazism "conservative." Third, your source does not mention socialism. It is just something that your imagination has read into it. TFD (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You claiming the view that Nazism was essentially a "reactionary" movement is a mainstream viewpoint? Stanley G. Payne writes in Fascism: A Comparative Approach Toward a Definition that it is a leftist viewpoint. I certainly did provide a source, Snowded said it was "A Libertarian source is hardly objective", but given that he hasn't provided a source that articulates that, his view is OR. --Nug (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Stanley Payne used the word "Leftist"? That would INDEED be some very important information for this article! Please point to the exact sentence and page where he uses the word "Leftist". Even "Left-Wing" would be acceptable. There are many examples of RS using the words "Right-Wing" to describe the Nazis, so a historian like Payne using the term would be indeed quite important! What stellar research skills you must have to have found such a "gem"! On the other hand, if you are just using OR and "interpreting" words like "revolutionary", then well...we all know how "important" OR is on Wikipedia... -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

More strawman arguments, Nug. I did not "claim" that the view that Nazism was essentially a "reactionary" movement is a mainstream viewpoint, although Payne does. He wrote, "many commentators...argue that [National Socialism] must necessarily have been "reactionary," not revolutionary. Such an approach is held more tenaciously by leftist commentators...." (p. 99)[6] TFD (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You certainly did, you stated "First, stop calling mainstream thinking 'Leftist.'" in reply to my "Leftists is their tenaciousness in holding the view that Nazism was essentially 'reactionary'", so therefore the implication of your statement is that "Nazism was essentially reactionary" is a mainstream viewpoint. You can't even reliably recollect your own words so I don't see how anyone can possible rely upon what you say about what published authors write. Payne states "many commentators", not "most commentators", so your claim that Payne calls it "mainstream" isn't supported by this source. --Nug (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Mainstream" does not mean "consensus", it merely means that the view is held by many scholars. In any case, it is of no relevance to your argument. TFD (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism

The birth of fascist ideology: from cultural rebellion to political revolution, By Zeev Sternhell ISBN 0691044864, page 4. Currently Nazism is described in the lead as a variant of fascism, citing Mark Neocleous. I suggest we remove this passage. Sternhell notes the fundamental difference being biological determinism. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we retain it, unless and until you can provide any evidence that the majority of mainstream serious sources do not usually define Nazism as a variety of fascism or as closely associated with it, albeit with important differences. I'm also not sure what you hope to achieve by constantly, across multiple articles, citing one-off comments and opinions – however well respected the author – and suggesting that WP should suddenly drop everything and follow their lead. Some of the viewpoints you tout are borderline WP:FRINGE. You've surely worked out by now that no WP article will ever fall into line with such ideas, right? N-HH talk/edits 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sternhell's view has obtained little support, except among the European Right. It should be mentioned, but preferrably by a third party that covers the range of views on the issue. TFD (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael Burleigh

Hardly considered "right" and a well respected historian, The Third Reich was intended to be a racial rather than a class society. This fact in itself makes existing theories, whether based upon modernisation, totalitarianism, or global theories of Fascism, poor heuristic devices for a greater understanding of what was a singular regime without precedent or parallel. The Racial State, by Michael Burleigh, pages 306, 307, ISBN0521398029 Darkstar1st (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So what. He does not say nazism was not fascism although he debunks another of your fringe theories, that nazism was socialism. TFD (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion section and other recent edits

A whole slew of edits have been made to the article recently, especially re race and religion. However, this one, to pick merely the latest one at random for review, appears to take far too much from the source by suggesting that Hitler took direct inspiration from the named figures and their words. The book cited actually makes a far less direct and several-stages-removed connection, based more generally – and speculatively – on the general atmosphere in which Hitler grew up in and what it calls a "narrative arc": "Hitler was less the beneficiary than the product of religious and racial assumptions that had their origins, perhaps, in [the people and sermons mentioned]". Nor does the book say anything about Hitler "connecting" Christianity to anti-Semitism. N-HH talk/edits 21:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to see what has been changed because the editor will make a series of edits and I have no patience to examine each of the hundreds of edits to determine which are wrong. Your example however is typical of this editor - finding a source that supports whatever he happens to believe this week and adding it in. The book is not by an academic and we have no way of knowing how widely held is views are, even if they are correctly reported. It seems that Hitler developed his hatred of Jews from his personal experiences, not by reading Luther, and after all Hitler was Catholic. TFD (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple more examples from this page (there are also issues on Italian Fascism):

• "Nazism claimed that Jesus was Aryan and that Christianity was an Aryan faith that had been usurped by Jews" is sourced to p37 of The Aryan Jesus: christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. However, that page is not discussing Nazism but Ernest Renan. It also says nothing as explicit "an Aryan faith .. usurped by Jews".
• "It rejected the Old Testament of conventional Christianity, viewing Paul the Apostle as having usurped Christianity and attached it to Jewish religious heritage" is sourced to p285 of Metapolitics: From Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler. That page says nothing explicitly about Nazism, or indeed anyone, accusing Paul of "usurping" Christianity or "attaching it to Jewish religious heritage". It in fact simply notes in passing one Nazi – Alfred Rosenberg – and his approval of Paul de Lagarde's vague comments about St Paul and the Old Testament.

Given that, a roll-back of the edits pending clarification would seem to be appropriate. I'm beginning to wonder further whether an RfC/U is not needed (taking in their tendency to switch to anonymous editing once problems with their main account's edits are highlighted), followed by wider scrutiny of the voluminous additions they have made to much of WP politics space over the years. They've begun asking for the former. N-HH talk/edits 09:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I screwed up okay. I'm tired of this stuff, okay I quit. You two think I am scum. Well let me tell you something TFD, you treat newcomer users like crap and regularly use prejudice - assuming they are extremists, etc. how about we spend hours talking about that, or talking about how cynical you are and how you jump to conclusions. Let's talk about your cynicism even further TFD, since this is a hate-in on R-41, let's talk about you TFD and Collect acting like childish idiots to each other, insulting each other all day, and never taking it to an AN/I. I am going to do you guys a favour, I am going to delete everything that I have written for these articles, since I am scum who is always wrong, and everything I added must be dubious, that you need to scan to confirm your view that I am an idiot. So I'll do your work for you.--R-41 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)