Talk:Nazism

Other countries

Nazism had a powerful influence on neighboring European countries. It seems to me to be appropriate to include some reference to this such as: It was also contemporaneous or promoted in other European countries, particularly those with large ethnic German communities such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia

• Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera(2001) The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gsKbQgAACAAJ&dq=nagy-Talavera&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zJ2UU5OaMYal8AHY-4GACA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 13:43, June 8, 2014

Edit request: CS and Hungary

I don't think it's appropriate to equate Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the lede as countries where Nazism took hold. Hungary as a nation fell to Nazi governance in its entirety and conducted itself as a Nazi state, whereas Czechoslovakia only did so after German invasion. An element (the German minority) within Czechoslovakia supported Nazism, but the same could be said for the United Kingdom. Czechoslovakia should be removed from the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk • contribs) 04:51, July 21, 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

Nazism (National Socialism) is a far LEFT movement! See Von Hayek's Road To Serfdom" 2605:E000:7E86:C400:BD16:B45F:CC07:845 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Right wing?

We have been over this far too many times! Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article takes the position that a socialist political party is right wing. This is factually wrong and can not stand. Someone appears to have deleted this criticism from the talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC) The issue has been brought up many times. Mainstream sources do not consider the Nazi party socialist. And even if it were, it would not preclude it from being right-wing. TFD (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC) This is incorrect and misleading WP:UNDUE "Mainstream sources do not consider the Nazi party socialist." More recent sources, on analysis of what the Nazi's actually did, are coming to the conclusion that they were left wing as their name suggests. The reason for this denial is modern political bias - there are few right wing dictators. The left do not want to acknowledge this. This section of the article concentrates on trivia mostly, he said that or they said this, statements by Hitler are quoted regularly but we all know politicians adapt their speeches for their audiences. It seems to avoid the main questions relevant to left and right definitions. The only one it refers to is genetics which is a minor differentiator between left and right. Syncretic is not helpful in defining left or right - it is a distraction from the thrust of the arguement and a minor point.wp:undue.WP:BALASPS. The statement that the majority of the literature states that Nazism is right wing is over 15 years old, and is misleading. Any analysis of the literature would be out of date by now. This needs to be corrected or removed. Some of the sources used to back up the right wing argument are obscure : Oliver H. Woshinsky. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2008. p. 156. In 8 years it only had 26 official citations, it should have over 300 if it was a main stream source or respected source. "Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements". This is neither mainstream thinking or even correct. The left wing do exactly this not the right wing - look at Mao, Lenin, Stalin ???? I think this is article is misleading in many places. POV.WP:BESTSOURCES. I also note that most of these "Nazi are right-wing references" are not easily checkable ie not online. In its self this is fine, but given the obscurity of the example above, this article needs be be reviewed. Something on why the Nazi's are considered left wing would be more accurate and helpful. People1750 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC) The number of citations a book receives is irrelevant. Woshinsky's book is a standard textbook that explains politics drawing on the literature and therefore does not contain original research or theories that are not already available. If you think that recent literature has revised its views and now considers nazism socialist then please provide a source that says that, i.e., not an argument. TFD (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”. Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/ https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/the-nazi-party-a-left-wing-liberal-movement/ These points are valid and need to be incorporated in a new section on leftism and Nazism. People1750 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC) None of the sources are considered reliable per reliable sources policy, and drawing conclusions from them is not allowed under no original research policy. If you think the bulk of Nazism scholars are mistaken, then you need to submit your views for publication elsewhere and when you succeed in changing scholarly opinion, we can change the article to meet those views. TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC) On this point there is no source for the first few paragraphs. Ie Not WP:V. I have checked the facts and many are correct but there are a few dubious words that are WP:NOR. + None of the sources are considered reliable per reliable sources policy, and drawing conclusions from them is not allowed under no original research policy. If you think the bulk of Nazism scholars are mistaken, then you need to submit your views for publication elsewhere and when you succeed in changing scholarly opinion, we can change the article to meet those views. TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC) − The Telegraph is a reliable source. They are direct quotes from the sources. So can not be WP:NOR. "The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and businesses." The literature does not support the final clause..... "and sought to defend private property and businesses". The thrust of the article misses the point these and other sources make. I agree that there seems to be more articles which discuss the well known fact that Nazism was against communism. But this is a fallacy in the leftism argument - just because two parties are against each other does not mean they share some of the same characteristics. There has been no detailed comparison in the literature of the policies of the Nazi state in comparison to those of the left. For this reason I think we should allow some dissent as to the assumption that many articles make. As Jimmy Wales says - if its cited it can be included somewhere in the article - the question is where ? People1750 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As greater people than any of us have noted, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, but expecting different results." Please can we just stop this? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DanielRigal

The reason this keeps coming back is that a large number of people know that itis not correct. Despite all the good work done to date by many people the article still ddoes not represent a balanced view.

People1750 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Most people know"? Really? Got a source for that? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources have been quoted but there is a reluctance to use any sources that argue that the Nazi party was left wing, or had policies in common with communists, even if they are legitimate sources. If there are two major views then both views should be represented in an article.

People1750 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox, under related topics, contains two curious entries:

• Nazi punk
• National Socialist black metal

Do they belong in the infobox? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition of words : No source. Vandalism ?

DD2K  : Please provide sources for "privately owned" as incorrect according to literature. Thank you. See below.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and privately owned businesses.

People1750 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would add also that it contradicts the text in the article when talking about Nazism as a regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by People1750 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the text says what the differences are compared to communism but not the simularities. Early in his career Hitler worked for the communist part and derived his concept of state from the communists. As the text says there was no class struggle element in The Third Reich.

This needs some sort of balancing. People1750 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no sourcing for the text, so it is hard to discuss it. I would not object to removing the paragraph, but if you want to put something in its place you would need sources. TFD (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces|TFD]

"After taking power the Nazi party introduced a series of laws in October 1937 that immediatily closed 20% of all small buinsesses in Germany."

The Nazi party cannnot have defended privately owned businesses if they closed 20% of them down in 1937. The remaining companies were then forced under the control of the state.

"The Nazi party appointed The Reich Economic Chamber to control all the nations business interests. National Socialism divided up industry and business into seven national economic groups, twenty-three economic chambers, one hundred chambers of industry and commerce and the seventy chambers of handicrafts."

RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer, People1750 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When researching for an article, you should not use a book written by a journalist over fifty years ago, but consult modern academic writing. Also, you should not provide evidence and state your conclusions, you need to find the conclusions in reliable sources, otherwise it is original research and inadmissable. Anyway, you took the first quote out of context: "The little businessmen, who had been one of the party's chief supports and who expected great things from Chancellor Hitler, some found themselves, many of them, being exterminated and forced back into the ranks of wage earners. Laws decreed in October 1937 simply dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000. This quickly disposed of one fifth of all small business firms. On the other hand the great cartels, which even the Republic had favored, were further strengthened by the Nazis."[1] That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back. TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:The Four Deuces

RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer,

People1750 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all thank you Four Deuces for your views. I'll deal with them one point at a time :

"1. When researching for an article, you should not use a book written by a journalist over fifty years ago, but consult modern academic writing.

2. Also, you should not provide evidence and state your conclusions, you need to find the conclusions in reliable sources, otherwise it is original research and inadmissable.

3. Anyway, you took the first quote out of context: "The little businessmen, who had been one of the party's chief supports and who expected great things from Chancellor Hitler, some found themselves, many of them, being exterminated and forced back into the ranks of wage earners. Laws decreed in October 1937 simply dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000. This quickly disposed of one fifth of all small business firms. On the other hand the great cartels, which even the Republic had favored, were further strengthened by the Nazis."[2]

4. That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back. TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)"

RESPONSE from People1750 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

1. a. A book has more weight than one article in a journal. b. Being written historically closer to the time the events occurred it is more likely to be factually balanced, less likely to be revisionary, and less likely to be influenced by the fashions of today. c. The book its self was very successful in its time and many copies were published, more than most articles quoted in the sources. d. The book meeting WP:V and WP:R standards. e. To clarify and misunderstanding old does not imply 'wrong', in this case where the issues resolve around historical events, the sources written closest to those events in time have the greater WP:R and WP: f. It is a history book.

2. This classic history text refers to a statement of fact that contradicts the Wikipedia lead text and nothing else. Secondary sources cannot be original research.

3. I have compared the meaning of the history book with the meaning of the text in the lead. " It is not out of context but a summary of a longer passage. If you read beyond your quote you will see that the great cartels were divided up into economic groups so they could be controlled by the state. This again supports my position that the text clearly states the opposite of what is written on the Wikipedia website that “Nazism protected private business.”

4. " That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back" a. You might be correct, but it is not the point here. ( As an aside I am sure many left and right leaning individuals have been dishonest - not us, we are better than that.) b. The text clearly states the fact that Hitler destroyed many private businesses, this is in direct conflict with what is written on the Wikipedia website that “Nazism protected private business.”

5. Finally there is no source quoted for the current text, WP:PROVEIT.

People1750 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote Hitler

User : DKK

This supports the text on Hitlers views, so it is relevant to the text.

Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”

Please explain why this should not be included. Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

References

If you check back here and on other pages you will find multiple discussions on this. You are trying to make a point through that quotation which is not supported by the third party material on Nazism. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the policies of no original research forbids us from developing our own theories based on our analysis of primary sources. Instead, we let experts do that for us. Anyway, your source is wrong about the attribution. It was actually made by Strasser in 1926.[3] Toland is the only mainstream writer who has ever attributed the passage to Hitler. TFD (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This guy is just pushing a fringe POV, but I removed the 'quote' in part because it's already in the article here. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be removed since it is wrongly attributed. TFD (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. Both looking at the Gregor Strasser wikiquote page, and this source Nazi Ideology Before 1933: by Barbara Miller Lane, Leila J. Rupp. Dave Dial (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User : DKK. Ok, thankyou for the reply.

People1750 (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1945 Nazism

The article describes sources and developed Nazism. What about the last months of the war? Hitler wasn't nationalistic, he didn't care about the Germans, regarded them as loosers.Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Xx236

Hitler considered that the German people had let him down by losing the war. He argued, from inside his bunker, that any left alive at the end were not worth keeping alive, as all good Germans would have died.

People1750 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like this should be written in the article. See e.g. Black Earth by Snyder.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Where does Snyder say Hitler was not nationalistic? TFD (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead is misleading ! Nazism same ideology "as well as other far-right groups"

This is a fallacy argument:

1. Far-right groups are not neccessarily Nazi or Facist. 2. "Other" is not a helpful descriptive term in defining Nazism. 3. There are better alternatives that define Nazism : National Socialism rejected rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes.

I propose removing the text refering to far right groups because 1. There is no reference. 2. Reasons stated above. Point 3. I propose incorporating this explanantion of Nazism in the lead, after line three.

Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Nazi party only existed in Germany but there were far right groups outside Germany that held the same ideology, for example the German American Bund. If you want to recommend changes you need to provide sources. I and most other editors are well aware of the "They were socialists!" argument originally developed by Cleon Skousen, but you need to show it is a consensus view in mainstream sources before the article can be changed to say that. TFD (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And there are those that to do this day call themselves "National Socialists", and express sympathy for Hitler and his ideas, who are pretty much always classified and identified as being on the far right of the political spectrum. A page listing such groups past and present is linked via the hatnote of this page. The "far right" terminology is accurate and does not preclude the inclusion of more specific detail on the characteristic features of Nazi beliefs and practice. N-HH talk/edits 10:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:N-HH

User:The Four Deuces|TFD

Yes, I agree with you, but I am making a different point that this article is not about far right groups. It is misleading because the link takes you to all modern far right groups, and many object to the policies espoused by the Nazi party.

In addition quote " Mudde adds: "the terms neo-Nazism and to a lesser extent neo-Fascism are now used exclusively for parties and groups that explicitly state a desire to restore the Third Reich (in the case of neo-Fascism the Italian Social Republic) or quote historical National Socialism (fascism) as their ideological influence" " Mudde, Cas. (2000). The ideology of the extreme right. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 12-13

As of then, many of the policies espoused by the Nazi party were similar to policies espoused by left wing parties. WP:WEIGHT !

It is POV/imprecise generalisation, rather than a clear undisputed fact.

So it is misleading to have it in the lead. What I'm also saying is the lead should be as non-controversial and factual as possible.

I was not aware Cleon Skousen espoused that view, I am not aware of any evidence that he origionally developed the argument that the Nazis were leftwing WP:PROVEIT.

People1750 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:N-HH

Refering to your comment "A page listing such groups past and present is linked via the hatnote of this page." did you mean this page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_%28disambiguation%29 ?

People1750 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph 3 - Contradictory

Lead Paragraph 3 - Contradictory

TEXT : The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and privately owned businesses. The third sentence seems to have been added in because the third sentance is contridicted by the second : the whole notion of Volksgemeinschaft implied that every German had some claim to equality, regardless of social background or occupational position.

Rejected sounds too strong a word. Fascism was based to a large degree on communism.

THE THIRD REICH, Politics and Propaganda by David Welch

The differences between the Communism and Nazi Germany were of degree, not kind. Ruud van Dijk, "Bracher, Karl Dietrich," in Kelly Boyd, ed., The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Vol. 1, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999, pp. 111-112.

I would delete the final sentence of Para 3 because it seems made up.

People1750 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First, Bracher's view represents a tiny minority. Second, his comparison with Communism is on the basis of totalitarianism, not socialism. We can all find snippets to support anything we want. TFD (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces|TFD 1. "Bracher's view represents a tiny minority"; WP;PROVEIT, he is a highly respected professor at the University of Bonn, has editorial roles on many main stream and important historical and scientific journals, has written and published extensively about Nazi Germany. An Alma Mater of Harvard. You couldn't get more main stream and respected than that.

Herausgeberschaft

Nach 25 Jahren, Eine Deutschlandbilanz. Mitherausgeberschaft

Staat u. Politik, m. Ernst Fraenkel (Fischerlex. II) 57, Neubearb. 64; Bonner Histor. Forsch, seit 60; Schr.-R. Staat u. Polit. seit 62; Die mod. Demokratie u. ihr Recht 66 II; Intern. Beziehungen 69; Bonner Sehr. z. Politik u. Zeitgesch. seit 70; Dokumente z. Deutschlandpolitik seit 71; Gesch. der Bdesrep. Dtld 81-87 VI: Nationalsoz. Diktatur 83; Die Weimarer Republik 1918-1933 87; Quellen z. Gesch. des Parlamentarismus u. d. Polit. Parteien, Reihen 3 u. 4; Schr.-R. der Vjh. f. Zeitgesch. seit 78; Deutschland zwischen Krieg u. Frieden 90; Staat u. Parteien 92; Deutschland 1933-1945 92. Mitherausgeberschaft von wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften

Neue Polit. Lit. seit 59; Polit. Vjschr. 60-69; Dt. Rdsch. 63-64; J. of Contemporary Hist. seit 65; Government a. Opposition seit 65 (Ed. Board); Journal of Contemporary History seit 69 (Ed. Board); Vjh. f. Zeitgesch. seit 69 u. 78; Societas seit 71; Zs. f. Politik seit 74 (Ed. Board); Tempo presente seit 80; Risorgimento seit 80; Europ. J. of Intern. Affairs seit 88. Veröffentlichungen über Karl Dietrich Bracher

Demokratie u. Diktatur. Geist u. Gestalt polit. Herrschaft in Dtld u. Europa., Festschrift f. K.D. B. 87; Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 82, 92; Zeitschrift für Politik 87.

Honors

   Emeritus of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
   Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.
   Member of the American Philosophical Society.
   Member of the Historische Kommission zu Berlin.
   Member of the Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung.
   Member of the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie.

People1750 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)