Talk:Nazism

Position in the political spectrum subverted to a specific agenda

Seems this whole section has be subverted to the anti-socialist agenda to tie it to Nazism. When in fact Nazi Germany was never simple either or system.

Himmler: conservative or radical?

In the section 'Position in the political spectrum' Himmler is labelled as a conservative Nazi. In the section 'Response to World War I and fascism' he is labelled a radical. In Peter Longerich's biography of Himmler (pp. 92-93), he quotes Himmler as saying: "In the course of history periods of capitalism and socialism alternate with one another; capitalism is the unnatural, socialism the natural economic system", "Capitalism seizes control of machinery, the most noble invention of mankind, and uses it to enslave people" and "The National Socialists and the Red Front have the same aspirations. The Jews falsified the Revolution in the form of Marxism and that failed to bring fulfilment. Why, is not the issue today. So, there’s still a longing for Socialism".--Britannicus (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagine the point is that in his 20s as a street fighter he was radical and became more conservative when he reached government. No idea what your point is by providing the quote. If you are interested in the fringe theory that nazis were left-wing, you are welcome to pour through 22 pages of talk page archives. TFD (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot see the relevance of socialism as to whether a person is conservative or radical then I feel very sorry for your powers of comprehension.--Britannicus (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot see the relevance of REPUTABLE SOURCES as to whether a person is conservative or radical, then I feel very sorry for your powers of comprehension. No reputable sources believe in your wackadoo fringe theories regarding the Nazis, and like TFD noted, this issue has been discussed many times, and you conspiracy theorists are always left in tears. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If the article contradicts itself I hardly think it's in a position not to be improved upon. It's not my "wackadoo fringe theories" that have made a hash of it.--Britannicus (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Language is not that rigid, nor do people always exist in such rigid either/or categories. It is possible to be radical on one issue and conservative on another or, as noted, to have been radical at one time before becoming more conservative. It is possible for one writer to describe someone in one way while another uses a different term, It is even possible, simultaneously, to actually be "radical" in a conservative context. I'm not sure you've uncovered a fatal flaw or lack of consistency in anything other than a superficial sense. The text can easily be tweaked to avoid any apparent contradiction. N-HH talk/edits 18:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A very crucial fact that must be kept in mind is that the Nazi Party came to power effectively in coalition with German conservatives (to put it simply). Between 1933 and 1945 the ideology of Germany was really a sort of blend between National Socialism in the strictest sense, and conservatism. Conservative, or conservative-friendly National Socialism if you will. For this reason the most radical left wing of the party began planning a coup and speaking out against Hitler's leadership, and had to be "excised". You will often find a shift in rhetoric of the sort you describe, and not just with Himmler. Goebbels, for example, was very much to the left, but stuck by Hitler's shift to the right "when push came to shove". It also must be kept in mind that the most conservative significant element in German Interbellum politics was the army, etc.. -- Director (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Shift to the right and socialistic elements

Here's Bendersky, Joseph W. (2007). A History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945 (3rd, illustrated ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 40. ISBN 0742553639.:

"...their [Nazi] version of socialism did not offer the sweeping economic and social revolution advocated by the Marxists. National Socialism would eliminate neither private property nor class distinctions. It would provide economic security and social welfare programs for the workers; employment, a just wage, and protection from capitalistic exploitation would be guaranteed. But economic equality and and a classless society were never Nazi goals. What workers would receive, aside from economic justice, would be enhanced social status. The new image of the worker would be one of honor and pride in his station in life. Workers would no longer constitute an alienated and despised group. They would again take their rightful place in society; their importance and dignity would be recognized by the rest of the nation. In the ideal Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, classes would exist (based upon talent, property, profession, etc.), but there would be no class conflict. Different economic and social classes would live together harmoniously and work for the common good. A national consciousness would replace the class consciousness that had historically divided Germans and turned them against one another.

Although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis seized power. Ultimately, many of the socialistic ideals and programs remained unrealized. Part of the reason for this was that within the party there was violent disagreement over the essence of national socialism. Hitler, himself, was more concerned with the racial, nationalistic, and foreign policy goals of the ideology than he was with socialism. While he glorified the workers in his speeches, he later downplayed socialism in his efforts to gain votes from the middle classes and funds from wealthy capitalists. However, the left wing of the Nazi party, lead by Georg and Otto Strasser, considered Nazism essentially a socialistic and anticapitalistic movement. Their goal was the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist state, and they vigorously protested Hitler's compromises. In most cases, Hitler's views prevailed, but the conflict between these party factions over such issues would last until the suppression of the left wing in 1934. In theory, at least, socialism and anticapitalism remained integral parts of the Nazi ideology, and they continued to play a very important role in Nazi propaganda and election campaigns."

To cite another example, Nyomarkay, Joseph (1967). Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party. U of Minnesota Press. p. 91.:

...no one spoke in stronger socialistic terms in this period than Hitler's protege, Goebbels, who attempted to conquer the proletarian districts of Berlin with his National Socialist message. The socialistic orientation of the party [the NSDAP] from 1925 to 1928 was reflected not only in its propaganda but also in its membership. (...) This decidedly socialistic orientation was, for a variety of mutually reinforcing reasons, reversed by Hitler in 1929.

I don't believe we've covered the shift in Nazi rhetoric towards the right in the years leading up to and including their assumption of power. And I believe the lead should mention that the ideology incorporates "socialistic elements". -- Director (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

All these points are in the article from the lead onwards. The lead notes the role of "socialism" in Nazi ideology and the intellectual culture that preceded it as well as its criticism of capitalism, as well as those parts of the party programme that called for land reform and nationalisation of some industries. It also highlights that Hitler came to dominate the party and eventually purged the more socially and economically radical elements. Details about Strasser and anti-capitalism, as well as Goebbels's early radicalism, abound in the body. I'm sure the content could all be improved in some way, but I'm not clear what exactly you're asking for in terms of detail. If your point is a more general one and you are arguing that the page should, as a whole, suggest that the Nazis were some sort of left-wing group who veered to the right once they aligned with the traditional conservative parties and then once in power, as ever, this is not going to wash. Most serious historians – and contemporary accounts – place the Nazis on the right from the outset. They emerged out of the post-war nationalist/racist groups not the anarchist/socialist ones. N-HH talk/edits 12:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a discussion somewhere without you, N-HH, just for variety's sake.

My point, which I must repeat now, is that we should cover the shift towards the right in Nazi rhetoric and propaganda which started in 1929. Just read the above thread, clearly this aspect is not adequately explained. And I'd be more than happy to write up specific changes; this is not a general complaint. -- Director (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to stop hanging around Nazi-related pages (Kolkata is the only other one we've both been on recently, where I've long been involved in the naming issue). Unfortunately all these political pages have a limited and repetitive contributor count. Anyway, I'd quite like to have a discussion without the old right vs left debate cropping up yet again. And I will repeat that I dispute the notion of a "shift to the right" in any significant sense and repeat that the issues you have raised are already, broadly at least, covered. I did read your post and responded to it. Please don't just respond in turn by telling me to read it again. N-HH talk/edits 13:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and this article is apparently unaware of what. few in 1933 Germany would have voted for the 1945 version of national socialism, there should be more text explaining how they got there. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"shift towards the right" is your analysis. Do you have any sources that phrase it that way? TFD (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't insist on that exact phrasing. -- Director (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nazism - Was it left or right?

According to everything I have studied about Germany and Russia prior to WW2, their political philosophies were almost identical. Both were deeply entrenched in Socialist theory with different approaches to implement it. Germany leaned toward nationalizing all private business allowing owners to keep their business but all major decisions were made by the central government. Russia moved toward taking over the business sector entirely. How does this article and it author or authors equate that with "right / conservative" ideology? What does this mean to citizens of the U.S. and the nationalizing of healthcare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreven (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "According to everything I have studied...." Where did you "study"? TFD (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to guess the "University of Glenn Beck" or the "University of I-Read-Some-Conspiracy-On-The-Internet"... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the usual reminder that we describe and categorise things as mainstream sources describe them, not on the basis of our own analysis or what it might mean for some current unrelated debate in the real world; or through the prism of modern US politics, where "right-wing/conservative" usually suggests a pro-business/free enterprise position that it does not necessarily everywhere else and has not at every point in history. N-HH talk/edits 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've studied it makes very little sense to put Nazism on the far right. Their economic policy (years before the war, I might add) was much more aligned with the Soviet economic policy as opposed to the west's, minus the equality aspects of course. Chris Mann and Matthew Hughes have pointed out that by 1936 the central government in Berlin could tell big business what it had to produce and it what quantities - with profits, production levels and future plant construction all set centrally. Hardly right wing! I don't think there's any point labeling Nazism as far left (even if it might look it) since most mainstream sources will contradict it, but equating Nazi economic policy with capitalism instead of central planning is just plain laughable. Fartnut (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see previous comment, including the point about what "right-wing" does or doesn't always mean. Greater minds than yours or mine have already settled the wider question of where Nazism is thought to sit on the political spectrum and we defer to them rather than declaring that we know better. N-HH talk/edits 13:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually there's a number of reasons for National Socialism ending up on the far right, the USSR desperately wanting to distance themselves from Nazism, for starters. You'd know this if you read a single book on Nazism if Fascism. Even by the old definitions of left and right (you know, radical versus reactionary) Nazism would be center at most, since Hitler was constantly pushing for a social revolution. Revolutionary anti-capitalist collectivists being put on the far right is just outright absurd. From what I've seen, wikipedia seems to believe that no matter how radical or contrary to the actual far right the Nazis were, because they were anti-communist everything else goes out the window. Funnily enough, most of the left never talk about Hitler's pre-war economic policy... Why's that, do you think? Fartnut (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oooohhhh!!! A conspiracy theory! Yes, yes...all of the world's historians and all of the major editors on Wikipedia have conspired against the Right in a massive conspiracy to label the Nazis as Right-Wing, in a propaganda campaign to make it seem like there are villains on both the Left AND the Right! Oh, woe to the "true" historians of our age, like the great and honorable "Fartnut"! If only we were to use his economics-only version of history! Seriously, Sport. Give it a rest. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Lol, what a tantrum! If you're as insecure as you make yourself out to be, I wouldn't suggest actually researching Nazism, seeing as how you won't find the results you want. "By 1936 the state could tell big business what it had to produce and in what quantities. Profits, production levels and pricing were all set centrally. Private business was compelled to accept these intrusions as the economy boomed..." -- Chris Mann, David Hughes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fartnut (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that draws the same conclusion as you, otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I can find plenty of primary and secondary sources that prove the Nazis leaned more towards central economic planning as opposed to capitalism, but it's unlikely they'll call it far left even if it might look that way.

Lead: name change and Hitler assuming leadership

This edit reintroduces phrasing I had only just copyedited. Putting awful English back in such as "To increase its appeal to the larger segments of the population" and "a unification of all Germans united in a Greater Germany" is not beneficial to the article. As for the order of the name change and Hitler's becoming leader of the party and more or less taking it over, there may be a point there, but I am not sure there are exact dates for either of those – the original wording simply said both had happened "by the early 1920s", without saying which came first, which seems detailed enough for the lead and certainly not inaccurate. I'm not sure there was a problem that needed fixing there, even if it could be done in better English. N-HH talk/edits 19:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The DAP was changed to the NSDAP before Hitler assumed leadership or party chairman of the party so it should be said before the mention of Hitler becoming the leader. Also, a (DAP) beside the German Workers Party would also be beneficial.--Windows66 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to have that level of detail – this is the lead of the page about Nazism, not the main body of the page about the party. Beyond that, the point is also that Hitler's assumption of control of the party was a gradual process, which arguably began before the name change and before his formal appointment as chairman. As for the acronyms in brackets, again, I can't see that's essential. This is not the page about either party, nor are we defining an abbreviation that gets used later on the page. N-HH talk/edits 19:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)