Jump to content

Talk:Nazi Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Creator Edition (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 16 February 2021 (→Talkpages of the Wiki articles is OFFICIALLY CALLED AS "FORUM"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleNazi Germany has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2013Good article nomineeListed
January 26, 2019WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Predecessors and successors

The infobox contains a list of entities that are listed under the columns "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by". These look odd to me, i.e. Poland and France, for example, did not precede Nazi Germany, they were occupied by it. Likewise, Occupied Germany and Yugoslavia, among others, did not succeed it. The Weimar Republic is fine to keep as a predecessor, but not sure what to include as the successor(s), since the article does not discuss this. I seem to vaguely recall that West Germany may have assumed treaty obligations of Nazi Germany, but not sure.

Any feedback on this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the territories, not to the legal entities. Nillurcheier (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except the headings are listed as Preceded by and Succeeded by. Successor state has a specific meaning in international law. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman:,
Poland and France preceded it, because of many former German territories were recovered from them. Yugoslavia succeeded, because part of the former Carniola. WP infobox succession-predecession does not follow international law, see spefific discussion once at Austria-Hungary and the edit logs, unrecognized entities remained as well in the list, together with recognized ones. Btw. in war conditions - as I urged and clarified in many topics with various examples - blind adherence to the so-called inernational law may be POV and mutually exclusive, etc. We only agreed to remove such impossiblities, like a Polish underground/in exile organizations could be identified as a country or a territory. On the other hand, if the timeline covers interruptions or changes of status quo, the same entity may be as well predecessor and successor. These are the most important factors currently at first glance which should taken into account.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
France did not cease to exists, it continued. It was occupied, not disbanded.12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Who said it ceased to exist?(KIENGIR (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I find that entire section in the infobox totally non-informative without an explanation of exactly what is meant by “preceded” and “succeeded.” Normally terms like that are used (for example) in boxes referring to country leaders, where predecessors and successors filled the exact same role under discussion in the article. That’s not the case here. France was not “Third Reich” before Third Reich. The whole concept of the box doesn’t make any sense that I can see. Can someone please explain the rationale behind it? Preceded and succeeded as what? France was France before, during and after the war. This simple fact is what got the west involved in the war, because every country involved viewed the occupation as illegal. With that view in mind, what is this box really saying? 73.69.251.97 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is obvious, and this complaint is specious, bordering on trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that seems obvious to one is obvious to all. Let’s assume it is obvious to you. Okay, I can accept that. Can you accept that it’s meaning is not obvious to me and others involved in this discussion? That fact appears to be fairly obvious to me. If the meaning of the infobox section is that obvious to you then please humor us by answering the questions I asked. Show us how obvious it is. Humor us also by dispensing with unproductive accusations. Calling me a troll is a clear personal attack and waste of time. It is what those involved in the indefensible resort to when they believe they are being challenged. I’m not saying that’s what you are. I’m saying if you don’t want to appear as such, then simply engage in the discussion. I am not challenging the information. I cannot challenge what I cannot make sense of. I’m saying I cannot make sense of it as it is currently presented. So please explain what it means, as if I’m asking genuine questions that deserve genuine answers. Because that is exactly what I am doing. Thank you. 73.69.251.97 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s a thought. After poking around a bit I think I understand now why this particular section of the infobox seems confusing to some readers. Example: The predecessor France is not actually linked to the France article, but to the article French Third Republic. Others are similarly NOT linked to main articles of the country/region as spelled out in the infobox. I propose the place names used in the infobox simply be changed to match the article titles to which they are linked. For me, following the links cleared up my confusion. Had the place names already been named as they are in the linked articles, I (and I assume many others) would not have been confused in the first place. How about the names in the box match the linked article names? Seems simple enough. 2601:180:103:6270:C003:4A19:8D24:D590 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop this, obviously they are not linked to the articles of present-day countries, but the contemporary ones, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

Change this anthem file with an old recording, rather than modern U.S. Navy Band version, because the anthem of Nazi Germany has only one stanza from Deutschlandlied and Horst-Wessel-Lied. 2001:4452:4AE:8A00:3C95:88E4:3568:4F91 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) File:Deutschlandlied (first stanza).oga[reply]

Done. I absolutely agree, only the first stanza was used as the co-official anthem of the Reich, and it is the reason why it's censored in this modern day and age. PyroFloe (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this version is much more appropriate. My one complaint is that this file doesn't have the translated English subtitles pop up when playing. Is it possible to add those? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Yes,

we discussed this and you seem to understand it. PyroFloe made many good faith, but erroneus and sloppy edits at several articles. Even by your argumentations small-f does not define the state as the sloppy edits would describe, it was a National Socialist State, and the Nazi is enough defining, this is not a case study of the relations of Nazism and Fascism. Moreover, this paremeter is a government type parameter, and a fascist state is not a government, etc. I suggest you think twice and carefully listen arguments.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Nazism is a form of fascism. Please stop removing the description from the article against the consensus of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, some relation between them does not mean them equal, not even by in a terminological way. I don't know what consensus you are talking about, I was reverting a bold edit, so the opposite is true about what you are saying.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I'm saying that several editors have undone your removal of "fascist", and that constitutes a working de facto consensus, if not a formal one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misleading edit logs, you are edit warring, I just restored the status quo. No, one editor reverted, but after she understood my argumentation, so your deduction fails. Please revert yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
No, I will not, considering that you've now reverted three editors. Just because you consider the original edit to be BOLD doesn't means you can discount your revert. Per WP:BRD, a revert of a bold edit is supposed to be followed by a discussion, something which you only did after two other editors reverted your revert.
Please note that the article has been categorized in "Fascist states" since 2016, and Diannaa herself added a reference to the NSDAP being a "fascist party" in 2019, so the add of "Fascist" to the infobox was not in any respect a bold edit.
I do not want to report you for edit warring, but I will if you give me no choice by continuing to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop repeatedly mischarachterizing the issue. Now after you realized you did a mistake and arguing differently. I reverted a legitimate way the first editor, as a bold addition (yes it was bold, since it was not there), after Diannna asked me about something, I clarified, she understood (an administrator). After you did what you did, despite I entered in the talk page. What you do is clearly, against wikietiquette, since you are an experienced editor, as me and we know what is the protocoll, BRD, status quo ante, etc. So your reference to the earlier is boomerang. Hence, any report you would make, would be a failure since requirements would not meet, but may have an opposite outcome. I think you should calm down and in the future follow the etiquette with a cold head, as our relation always had been professional and were based on mutual respect.
The Fascist state category is just as enough to resolve this issue, this category is anyway sloppy creation, used at many instances erronouesly, it's a broad concept umbrella. However I could as well recommend you the German article on NS-Staat, which as well clearly describe if even later it has been called "fascistic", or in the Communism everything has been labelled as Fascist, indeed the state was an unprecedented Nazi state, uncomparable with any other in his kind, a new model, and Nazism is well defining, if someone seeks connection/similaritiers to fascism, it may be substracted in other articles. As well, a government type as I explained is semantically different issue. Nazi Germany was a National Socialist state, not a Fascist state, the relation of degree of the ideologies are not to be confused with something else, hence no consensus for this addition.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I've changed nothing, and I made no mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where and when did your discussion with Diannaa take place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no discussion. He likely assumed I agreed when I chose to not engage in an edit war over this. The truth is, I think the description of Nazi Germany as a fascist state is an apt one, and it should remain in the infobox.— Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, so we have a formal working consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should remain, even though Nazism had other aspects to it, beyond fascism. Kierzek (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany was a fascist totalitarian dictatorship. Fascist is one of its most important distinctions, since the Nazi state exemplified the authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization that constitutes the term. Moreover, much of the Nazi organization's early ideals and practices (as we all know) mimicked the Fascist Party under Mussolini. That being said, the Oxford Thesaurus of the English language itself lists the following words as synonymous with fascism: AUTHORITARIANISM, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism; neo-fascism, neo-Nazism; corporativism, corporatism--Obenritter (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond my ken, you did. This the status quo ([1]), revision, which is not equal with the edit you performed. With Dianna we just interacted in edit logs so far, she is a nice editor, however not necessarily an expert in these areas, as well we met in similar topics where amendments had to made for accuracy, similarly to you or other editors. Kierzek, you have the point, but you should drop the emotional issue and remain professional. Obernritter, terminologically as well this is not a valid designation. Just because they share some charachteristic, it does not mean we just collect some variables, group them and if they share a few or more with other considered elements of an ideology, then we add the as genuine, it's quite synth or or-ish. The government type parameter already contains Nazi piped with Nazism, and that's enough defining, in that article the reader could read the relations of fascism. The rest I already said, unfortunately many times Anglo-Saxons do not really understand appropriately many akin things in the topic area (even outside), they just throw to everything as fascism, believeing they "justify" something. I am very sorry the the result of new, sloppy bold edit of PyroFloe caused this mess (which most of the articles have been reverted wholly of partially because of it's mistakes), however much more sorry about the lack of professionalism here, hence I have to uphold everything I said.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
We should inform the reader adequately and accurately, not just based on solely what it may be probably understood. Appropriate terminology should not be a subject of a community vote, but professionality.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
It is unfortunate for you that six editors disagree with your assessment concerning the addition of "Fascist state" to the infobox, while one appears to agree with you (see below), but has yet to present any real evidence to support their opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me? This an encyclopedia, it is unfortunate for the readers primarily, it has nothing to with how many editors you list on any side, this is not a vote, irrelevant. Only what matters, accurate and adequate information, in the end. Btw., this comment of yours was completely unnecessary, take a break or cool down, as I recommended more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
It is a WP:CONSENSUS discussion, and when six seven (see below) editors are on one side of the issue, and one (and perhaps another) are on the other, the consensus is quite clear, something you seem loathe to admit. You very much need to WP:Dropthestick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should stop bullying me and being unfriendly, you go by far, better try to interpret appropriately what I have written. I now what means consensus, and yes it is a consensus discussion, but consensus itself is not solely a vote per policy, this is what I referred. Hence your statement about "you seem loathe to admit" is a complete speculation, in a bad faith manner. I ask you to abandon any unconstructive comments which are not directly related to the content, hence your comment made by your 10:33, 15 February 2021 entry tried to insist some kind of WP:WINNING, but our encylcopedia is not about that (hence I said it was unnecessary). Dropping the stick you should as well interpret to yourself. Mind also WP:AGF. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Actually it is Mussolini's Italy.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Actually it is both.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your opinion, I disagree. Italy is that, or we could say Spain and some other countries may had open declared fascist traits which are notable. However, any expert knows the distinction and it's level, which is evident in the "non-Anglo-Saxon" Europe on the given period.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
OK, do you have one RS that sats it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean reverse engineering, something should be denied not stated, or vice versa? See e.g. Z. B. Reinhard Kühnl: Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten, Köln 1975; Jürgen Kuczynski: Geschichte des Alltags des deutschen Volkes. Studien 5: 1918–1945, Berlin 1982. "Marxistische Historiker in der früheren DDR und in Westdeutschland nutzten in diesem Fall Begriffe wie „deutscher Faschismus“ oder „faschistische Diktatur" -> clearly such notions were coined later in the Communist period.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I can't read German, maybe you would be so kind as to quite the relevant passages?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Marxist historians in the former East Germany and in West Germany used the "German Fascism" and "fascist dictatorship" terms in this case".(KIENGIR (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
And? This is not saying no one else has said it. [[2]], so you need a serouce saying it was not facist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep the "fascist state" in the infobox, as I have already explained. Kieniger's explanations do not accord academic consensus in the English or German-speaking sources. The Nazi government was multi-faceted and unique but fascism was part of its makeup. In Duden's Wörterbüch, they also list the following synonyms with Nazism: Hitlerfaschismus; (Politik) and Faschismus. The contention that this categorization is an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon fails and so it is an imperative to keep it.--Obenritter (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms of an ideology does not qualify an entity as "fascist state", necessarily, it is a more complex issue (seriously, Duden Wörterbuch?). I disagree German-speaking sources would accord to that what you say, hence I recommended the overview of the German Wikipedia on this, in which such issues are treated even more strictly then here. I agree Anglo-Saxon sources are not best, but as well in on other areas some sources are far from being accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
You can disagree all you want and try to ridicule the use of dictionaries that use Nazism as a synonym for fascism, but you are wrong in this case. I can cite dozens of academic sources in German or English from noted historians of the Third Reich and I suspect you'll still try and make your point. You have a history of edit warring BTW and this long and silly argument is another example of that. Per eminent German Third Reich scholar, Wolfgang Benz: "As the most radical manifestation of fascist ideology, characterized by a corporatist social order, by non-normative violence, the suppression of the workers' movement and strict anti-communism, by racist exclusion of minorities up to genocide and expansionism (“living space”), National Socialism (Nazism) gained power in Germany in 1933." (See: Wolfgang Benz, "Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus. Die Folgen für das Verständnis von Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa," in Religiöser Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa, eds. C. Augustin, J. Wienand, and C. Winkler C. (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006), p. 69. ISBN: 978-3-531-14811-3)--Obenritter (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obenritter,
I did not ridicule anything, I draw the attention that a disctionary's list of possible synomyms are far away form the complex subject we are discussing (and you should know that as an experienced editor). "You have a history of edit warring BTW and this long and silly argument is another example of that" -> Excuse me, what history you refer exactly? Without jugding further it's validity, how it would be related to this content issue? Or, how a talk page discussion with arguments would have any connection of what you stated? What do you mean by silly argument? May I tell you to remain strictly professional and do not deteriorate from the real subject? Could you present the whole sentence Benz stated? Btw. I suggest you to read my answer to Slatersteven.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
You've failed to academically prove/substantiate your point (which makes this a silly argument), you've ignored the consensus opinion that fascism is part and parcel to Nazism, you've implied the inferiority of Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking scholarship on this subject (which is highly offensive BTW), and you're currently deflecting since I provided a direct quote from a noted scholar (albeit translated since I speak both languages) and converted it to English for the reading ease of my fellow English-speaking editors. However, so you can read it for yourself in German -- here is Benz's quote: "Als radikalste Ausprägung faschistischer Ideologie, gekennzeichnet durch eine korporatistische Gesellschaftsordnung, durch außernormative Gewalt, Unterdrückung der Arbeiterbewegung und strikten Antikommunismus, durch rassistische Ausgrenzung von Minderheiten bis zum Genozid und Expansionsstreben („Lebensraum“), erhielt der Nationalsozialismus 1933 in Deutschland die Macht." --Obenritter (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JUst FYI -- the book you cited, which was edited by Reinhard Kühnl, is a collection of documents explicitly about how the Nazis were fascists. In the Amazon.de description of the book, it states that its "350 documents make it possible to develop a well-founded picture of the fascist dictatorship, its political and social foundations and requirements." You have undermined your own arguments. Why am I even having this conversation? Geesh. --Obenritter (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "You've failed to academically prove/substantiate your point (which makes this a silly argument)" -> did the discussion finish? Were you able to do what you consider from me missing? Excuse me, even if it would be as you say, it does not qualify the arguments silly
- "you've ignored the consensus opinion that fascism is part and parcel to Nazism" -> false, read back
- "you've implied the inferiority of Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking scholarship on this subject (which is highly offensive BTW)" -> this is your overexaggerated observation. Indeed, Anglo-Saxon scholarship widely endorse the idea of AuBold textstro-Hungarian citizenship, which never existed in world history (just one example). It has not nothing to with inferiority, just some erroneous parts possible.
- "deflecting" - why would be "deflecting" if I ask for the complete sentence, to properly interpet, precisity would be a "deflection"? (at least I carefully read and evaluate everything, possibly unlike some others in this discussion)
- Thank you for prividing the full quote. Why do you think this quote would prove to be the country of begin fascist state? It tells about National Socialist ideology, which rised to power in 1933. The infobox contains "Nazi", piped to the relevant article in which the relation to fascism is explained.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
You addition I noticed later, it would have been better if you'd wait for an answer, before judging again too quickly. "picture of the fascist dictatorship" would mean the definition of a fascist state? We could discuss about common points, but can we state it would be a fascist state like Italy, or classic fascist states?(KIENGIR (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I can't see this going anywhere until at least one RS is provided that says "Germany was not fascist". Until then this is pointless and a waste of time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I react here you, not to your above answer. Your source speaks about the ideology of Fascism related, but mentions a Nazi state. The issue is not about the degree of fascism related to Germany, try to understand the issue appropriately.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
[[3]] "One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany" (my enmpahsis), The Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazi Germany - Page 54 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state", The Key to Understanding Global History - Page 347 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler: The Nazi Holocaust Masterminds - Page 45 " Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", this is nows disruptive, drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You rush to quickly, one back and forth answer on new point (especially you presented a new source) cannot be disruptive. With the first source you still remained on the ground that I just explained. You presented other two references stating it was a Fascist State (wow, finally we are at the point). Can you demonstrate this view prevails, how it is compated with Nazi state or NS-Staat, National Socialist State or similar, even foreign languages?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
We have provided sources, explicitly supporting our contention, you have failed to provide one backing yours. It is not down to us to do any more work, it is down to you to demonstrate this labeling of Nazi Germany as fascist is in fact contested by any RS. Either put up or stop nowSlatersteven (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To further substantiate Slatersteven's point, here are some books dealing with Nazi Germany's fascism and what led/contributed to or bolstered it, and its consequences:

  • Sohn-Rethel, Alfred. Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism. London, CSE Bks, 1978.
  • Hutton, Christopher M. Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue Fascism, Race, and the Science of Language. New York: Routledge, 1998.
  • Childers, Thomas. The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1933. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1983.
  • Fritzsche, Peter. Rehearsals for Fascism. Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
  • Herzog, Dagmar. Sexuality and German Fascism. New York: Berghahn Books, 2004.
  • Martin, Elaine. Gender, Patriarchy, and Fascism in the Third Reich: The Response of Women Writers. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993.
  • Mason, Tim. Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class. Edited by Jane Caplan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Sünker, Heinz, and Hans-Uwe Otto. Education and Fascism: Political Identity and Social Education in Nazi Germany. Knowledge, Identity and School Life Series, vol. 6. London: Falmer Press, 1997.
  • Kallis, Aristotle. Fascist Ideology: Territory and Expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922–1945. London: Routledge, 2000.

Beyond this...I am done with this discussion.--Obenritter (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, however again, the question is not the relation/degree of fascism, but the Fascist state designation. I would be happy to see how the term is used in comparison the other examples I gave. That may settle this debate, even for clarity.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
We have provided sources, explicitly stating "Fascist state", unless you can show this designation is contested by RS there is no debate to be had, we go with what RS say. This is my lat word here, you do not have wp:consensus so provide a source to back your position or drop the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to repeat your comments, I read above. Just quickly a few for Nazi state [1], [2], [3]. However, today I won't spend more time on this subject. Other editors with good faith could make/expand the analysis I asked.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.press.umich.edu/368243/after_the_nazi_racial_state
  2. ^ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/german-police-in-the-nazi-state
  3. ^ https://www.macmillanlearning.com/college/ca/product/The-Nazi-State-and-German-Society/p/0312454686
Well the jewishvirtuallibrary source does not even contain the word fascist, can you provide a quote for the other two that say it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, but please note only later I will return, but I answer for this yet know. Your question is not logical. We use sources to support something, not necessarily deny something. If you you'd ask me to provide a source for that Greenland is a 20km2 little island, I don't have to provide a source which literally denies that is is NOT a 20km2 little island (hence coined you reverse engineering earlier). Thus I don't have to provide anything, that would state it is not Fascist. Being a Nazi state does not exlude Fascist elements or the relation to the Fascist ideology (which most of you conflate and stress on), but still not identical (again the issue is NOT the degree of relation).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
You do if you want to challenge it, if You want to remove a claim you have to show it is not valid. We have sources that support fascist, so by your logic, we include it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven,
it seems you did not understand what I just told you, I suggest you to read back (hence as well what you suggest "by your logic" flaws). We have sources to support Nazi as well. The two does not exlude each other, so I don't have to show such what you claim, however as per the above demonstrated example your claim would be anyway completely illogical. While Fascism is a greater umbrella term, Nazism is specified close qualifier, and by logic we refer to best near unique sufficient one. As well, if we want to demonstrate Elton John's birthplace in the infobox, we don't write out Milky Way, Solar System, Planet Earth or Europe, but we call the spade as a spade, England. Similarly we don't have to list all charachteristics and relations of Nazism, like far-right, fascist, racist etc., but we put the most defining qualifier, which is Nazism. Nazi Germany was a Nazi (National Socialist) State, as it's government was Nazi, this term is well defyning, even in line with the categorization of our platform, and we ignore superflous and redundant categories, but we put the closest child. Hence, if we have both sources for Fascist state and Nazi state, those who wish to insert the earlier have the ONUS to prove it's validity. per commons sense and logic, this whole issue should not exist, per the earlier demonstrations, since Nazi is well defining as first child (even in relation to Fascism), however there are some good faith but less expert users who somehow feel to push the Fascist state designation over a well-established designation just because another user's sloppy bold edit - which have been reverted almost every another article wholly or partially - have surfaced this somehow, and now we are here. So, if none of you see what's the problem, than prove Fascist prevail over the Nazi designation (for the state of course, if we ignore at this level that a Government parameter in the infobox is about a Goverment, not a state, hence the current addition is even semantically incorrect). Please assure me - or anyone - before answering that you fully understood what I have written, and if not ask before going forward. Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Yes WE know that, its what we are saying, Nazi Germany can be both. We go with what RS say, and RS say it was a fascist state. RS do not (for example) give both places as Earth, Sol, Mutter speiral, so we don't. Again we do not need to prove it, as we have proved sources that say it, it is now down to you to prove its contested, not by omission, but by objection. I understand what you are saying, I do not agree with it, you have to obey our policies, and that means wp:v and wp:or, we go with what RS say, we have shown they say this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is o what the info box says "Unitary Nazi one-party fascist state under a totalitarian dictatorship" (emphasis mine) so we do say it was a nazi state, we say it was both (which it was).Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NAZISM IS NOT FASCISM, and FASCISM IS NOT NAZISM, this article directly goes against the mainstream consensus of political scientists

− The real, specialized experts like the political theorists political scientists make sharp distinction between nazism and fascism. (The two term was arbitrary lumped together from 1945 to the 1960s. The Soviet Union and Stalin himself were the main driving fore in this well designed confusion and misleading idea. Fascism had no ethnic nationalist neither any racist concepts, it based only around the greatness of state and its citizens regardless the ethnic background of the citizens. For a fascist everybody belong to the nation who and whose ancestors were born on the territory of the state, regardless their ethnic background. It based on IUS SOLI. Nazi ideas rotated around ethnic nationalism and ancestry , the ethnic origin of the people (IUS SANGUINIS). While facism can be (and used to be) anti-racist (like Mussolini), nazism is a clearly racist ideology (like Hitler). No wonder that Jews were overrepresented in Italian fascism, especially in its early period.

− In this video, the huge diferences in economic societal level are well explained : https://youtube.com/qdY_IMZH2Ko

--Creator Edition (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are not reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Thank you that you shared that "new" and "great" knowledge with me, despite maybe it is considered news only for little teenagers.
The video is made to educate people with lot of original quotes. On Google Books you can find this quotes in thousand results, and you can use them as references in the article.
--Creator Edition (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think there is much value in being this rude? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, these arguments that Nazism was not also comprised by fascist ideals and practices assumes that a government has to be one thing only. Absurd. The United States is a democratic republic for instance, neither or which is mutually exclusive in its case. --Obenritter (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages of the Wiki articles is OFFICIALLY CALLED AS "FORUM"

Dear Marek! You confused the Wiki articles,with the talkpages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought See POINT 4: QUORTE: <quote>Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages.</quote> --Creator Edition (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I will explain in the article with references that NAzis always looked down on fasism, and denied any ideological relationship with it.--Creator Edition (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The nazi political philosophy looked down on the fascist ideology since the very beginnings, thinking that fascism is inferior in every aspect with a comparison with their national socialist ideas."
Title The Origins of Totalitarianism
Volume 244. / Harvest book
Author Hannah Arendt
Edition reprint
Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1973
ISBN 0547543158, 9780547543154
PAGE: 309
LINK: [4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator Edition (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I tell the students to read What Is Fascism? ...not a good source ...but iformative.--Moxy 🍁 10:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Creator Edition:
    (1) Please stop shouting. Using all caps is rude.
    (2) Wikipedia's article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article. They are not for general discussion of the subject matter. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM.
    (3) Please do not make new sections every time you post.
    (4) You are a new editor, with an account that's 1 month old and has 218 edits. There's nothing wrong with that, but you should consider that editors such as Volunteer Marek who have been here for many years with many tens of thousands of edits might just have a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and normal behaviors than you do.
    (5) In regard to content, of course a brand-new editor can be correct and a veteran editor can be wrong, but, again, you should consider that editors who have been contributing in a certain subject area for many years might have a better understanding of it than you do, especially as the vast bulk of your editing as been about Hungary and Hungarians, not about Nazis and the Third Reich.
    (6) Regarding the comment above, a YouTube video is, generally, not considered to be a reliable source. Please read WP:reliable sources for an understanding of what are accepted sources on Wikipedia. The Hannah Arendt book is, of course, a very reliable source for Arendt's research and her opinions about totalitarianism.
    (7) To the specific point: Whether the Nazis "looked down on" other fascists is totally irrelevant to whether the Nazis were fascists themselves, especially considering that the Nazis "looked down" on pretty much everybody, most certainly including all their comrades in the völkische, Pan-German, and nationalist movements. They were convinced they had The Truth, and people who believe they hold The Truth generally don't respect anyone who holds to even a slightly different philosophy. Their opinions about fascism are no more relevant than their opinion that Bolshevism was a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a start and better nerstanding: I suggest to watch this video with full of quotes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko You can find these quotes in Google Books , if you need references for the article.--Creator Edition (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not wikipedia quality, since wikipedia does not tolerate fringe theories (pseudo science), only metapeda support conpiracy theories. The confuse of fascism and national socialism became a fringle theory since the 1970s. Thus this article goes against the mainstream academic political science. Between 1945 and 1960 the confusion of nazism became wide spread, due to popular culture like TV shows and Tv series and WW2 films, in such an incredible degree that misconception burned in the brain of people. An interesting note: Before WW2 nobody confused these two different ideologies.
The Soviet Union and Stalin had great work to confuse these two terms during and after the ww2 due to political reasons. The problem of Stalin: the followers and the party of Histler was called as National SOCIALIST, the word which hurt for Stalin and Soviet leadership, especially since they were at war. How can they explain (the not so educated) Soviet masses, that two different type of socialism the National Socialism waged war agains an other Marxist SOCIALIST (Communist) country like the Soviet Union? Socialist states waged war! No---no...no... It is easier to rename National Socialismsimply to fascism, so they fought against fascist Germany and not a socialist one! Stalin made a good marketing trick to confuse the two different ideology.
Who are the exact experts in political ideologies and 20th centuris political -isms? Not the simple historians, but the political scientists. Even historians learn a little during some subjects about 19-20th century political ideologies, but who teach them for that in the universities? Yes, the scholars of political science. And politicial scientists do not confuse these term since the 1970s, as they predecessors did not confuse them before WW2.
PLEASE, do not use historians, since they are non expert in this topic. It is similar if somebody had a stroke, and a biologist want to give advice instead of a brain surgeon. Us I said many times, please, use only the books of political scientists. They are the only experts in this field. Bye!--Creator Edition (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking us not to cite the work of historians in an article about the historical period of Germany between 1933 and 1945? That's a very novel idea, but I'm afraid it's not one that's going to fly here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your analogy is flawed. We aren't the equivalent of the brain surgeon, in that we don't repair someone who's had a stroke, we merely write about strokes, and for that the biologist -- or more specifically a neurologist -- would be who we'd want to take advice from. (Unless we're writing about brain surgery, and not about strokes per se.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from TIME magazine from 1938, which is before World War II (which started with the invasion of Poland in 1939) in which Nazism is referred to as fascism; indeed Hitler is called the head of the "Fascintern" -- a silly TIME-esque neologism coined on the model of the Comintern -- so I rather doubt your contention that no one "confused" Nazism and fascism before World War II. In fact, from my reading, exactly the opposite is true, journalism of the period almost always called Hitler and the Nazis "fascist". But I suppose if you don't even want us to use the work of historians in a history article, you'd be dead opposed to using journalism, even though it's been called "the first draft of history." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We prefer secondary sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany article maybe topic of historians, but the national socialism communism liberalism or commuism as political ideas are only very loosely related and connected to historians.
But if you like historians, here is one of the most prominent modern English historian (if not the most famous nowadays) Niall Fergusson: "The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" Penguin, 2012, ISBN: 9781101615874 PAGE: 231, direct link to the page: [5]
Or see the famous Encyclpedia Britannica, it sees NAtional Socialism and Fascism as different political concepts: https://www.britannica.com/event/Nazism
The most authentic information about fascist ides and nazi ideas are come from their leadersip in their publication or quotes. These are the first rank sources for their ideology. That's why all politician scientists and historians quote nazi leaders and fascist leaders to understand analyze their systems. And the confuse of Fascism with nazism and lump together them are considered as a fringe theory, which is not supported by any mainstream political scientists since the 1970s. Such a non mainstream fringe theory has no place in an encyclopedia. For better understanding, please watch this video, where the sharp differences are explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko
--Creator Edition (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is called WP:OR, you do not think their publication or quotes support our content, others (many of them historians or political scientists) do. Also read [[6]] "Fascist parties and movements came to power in several countries between 1922 and 1945: the National Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista) in Italy, led by Mussolini; the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), or Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler", something not saying something does not mean its saying its not true.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Britannica, which Creator Edition offers as an authority, explicity states in that article that the Nazi Party was a fascist party. @Creator Edition: yes, fascism and Nazism are indeed distinct concepts (which is why both the Britannica and Wikipedia have separate articles on them), but they are also related concepts in that Nazism, like Francoism or Italian fascism, is an instance of fascism. Much like sodium and chemical element. -- The Anome (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica national socialism article:: "In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, Nazism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice." It does not interpret two ideology as one. Just because nazism and fascism are dictatures which reject Marxism and Liberalism is not enough similarity to lump together them. "(which is why both the Britannica and Wikipedia have separate articles on them)" No, you still try to interpret nazism as type of fascism, which is fringe theory, and not supported by any modern (post 1970) political scientits. You must accept that this lump together opinion is not mainstream among modern scholars. I beg you to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko (you can check all of the quotes on Google Books) It is an excellent work, because 1/3 of the video consist quotes of various leaders of nazism and fascism, and leaing political scientists and even historians of our time, with the help of references he destroy this misconception. The guy (TIK) often makes videos against very wide spread common myths (which are popular among the educated but who are not scholar/scientist level people ,for example: the average editors of Wiki) which are not supported by the mainstream historians political scientists anymore. So he is fighting against well spread fringe theories. --Creator Edition (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And not all articles about water say it is wet. We have produced for you the Britanica article on fascism which states "Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler" was a Fascist party. Just because it does not say it everywhere does not mean it is not true. You need a ( wp:rs compliant) source that disputes the claim, not one that merely does not include it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are different concepts:

READ: PAGE 4-6: LINK:[7] READ: PGE : 47 LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=221W9vKkWrcC&pg=PA48&dq=difference+between+nazism+and+fascism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib5_S6x-7uAhVBiIsKHUUoArc4FBDoATAHegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=difference%20between%20nazism%20and%20fascism&f=false

https://www.encyclopedia.com/international/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/fascism-and-nazism
https://www.sociologygroup.com/fascism-nazism-meaning/

And here is the Jolly Joker, what you don't want to face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko

This video itself has more references than this article itself. Everything is perfectly referenced in the video. So this video is a heavy weight stuff in the argument. Because this article use only around 20 (twenty) books and repeatedly rotating around them. And unlike you, most of the references of the article don't even confuse nazism and fascism.--Creator Edition (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:rs and wp:v, the book source is talking about the differences between ITALIAN fascism and Nazism, it is not saying the Nazis' were not fascists.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could Creator Edition please post the quote from the article which they feel supports the argument that the Nazis were not fascists? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The core of the nazi ideas based on racism. Fascist ideas rejected racism and it centered around the state.
Boynamedsue maybe you missed the essence, the deabte was already won by this video, which have more reference than this whole article, where at least 70% of the references based on 2 (TWO!!!!) books. (it is shame itself that such important article had very few real referencesm just reetation and rotating around few books) The most of the references is rather about the situation and historic events of Germany (the country) during the naci rule rather than about nazi ideology itself(!!!)

Please watch the video before you write comment, because it is better supported by references thus more trusworthy than this poorly referenced article. Please watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko

--Creator Edition (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about a quote from this hard-hitting youtube video (who is it by?) that says the nazis were not fascist. Because wp:v (read it please) is clearly a source has to exactly back your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A verbatim quote with a specific page number, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And merely citing a video does not "win" anything, if the video is not a reliable source, and if it is not accepted by the editors here. WP:CONSENSUS determines what gets into articles on Wikipedia, not declarations of "winning". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the bona fides of the person who created the video, "TIK", are not really sufficient to qualify them as an expert on the subject: "I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2)." Sorry, but that's flat-out not enough. Reliable sources have a specific requirement on Wikipedia, as defined by WP:RS, which, again, I recommend that you read. You tell us not to accept the work of historians, and yet the person who made the video has a degree in history, and not in political science, which you tell us are the only experts who can be trusted. You seem to be impressed by the video citing 20 sources, but any historian's work will normally cite 5 times that many sources or more -- and yet you tell us to ignore that.
What's happened here is quite obvious. You cite the video because it says what you want to believe, and you reject the work of historians because they give a nuanced view which you reject. You're also being incredibly repetitive, and your posting are beginning to become both WP:BLUDGEONing and WP:DISRUPTIVE. I suggest you watch your step and adjust your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logically the video can not be used as reference, because technically it is impossible to use it as such (simply because it is not written text but a motion picture, and references are text based beings.) However it does not mean it do not contain exact quotes from written books, even much-much more than this article. I want to download the subtitles of this video, but I did ot figure out how to do it. So it is just a technical problem, but the content is more thrustworthy because it has huge number of references from the books of serious authors of ideolgists (political scientists with modern phrase). And this article is about events in a country (Germany) in a time period, and not about the ideology itself, so it would be even better to move this discussion to the nazism or fascism article.--Creator Edition (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) And the quotes are mostly burned in itself on the video material, and the subtitle does not contain them :((([reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_Germany&oldid=1007139644"