Jump to content

Talk:Nazism

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 16 April 2018 (→Workers Labor Party). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateNazism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 11, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

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

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

RfC: Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed here?

I may have !voted, but this needs closing. The consensus is clear, the objections given by the "no" !votes were either spurious, or did not address the question of whether or not we should continue to entertain editors pushing a fringe view on this page, which was the heart of this question. From now on I will delete such objections as I see them posted to this page, and I suggest others do the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Yes, the question has been sufficiently discussed on this page, and the consensus is that the vast majority of mainstream historians do not consider the Nazis to have been part of the left. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, given that the real, but minority, position isn't effectively treated in the article -at all-. Strasserism deserves a sentence or three, the overlap of Nazi social policy with Social Conservatives (and other group's) bourgeoise socialism needs a sentence or two as well. Anmccaff (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Among historians, it's an extremely fringe position. Strasser is mentioned in the political spectrum section, but just briefly and in passing - which is appropriate to the weight most historians give him. New discussions never bring anything new to the table, just the same points over and over; and most of the time they devolve into people using the talk page as a forum to argue over personal opinions and via personal arguments rather than relying on reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this isn't the place to just spout off ideas. No article talk page should be "just" a forum. The question is whether this has been settled appropriately by discussing sources, and all I've seen here, now, is assertion, and reference to old discussion here on this talk page...i.e.. wiki itself as a source. If someone wants to quash discussion, the right way to do it is to source the article to take account of minority views, not to label them as fringe because they don't like them, and, if need be, to write a brief header explaining why other, fringier ideas are seen as outside what the article can address. The article on hitler's religious views did that fairly well, although there is always a danger that a minority view can then get amplified in the article, as, come to think about it, did happen there. Anmccaff (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the idea that Nazism was a liberal movement is prima facie ridiculous. Anyone wishing to argue that should be treated in the same manner as someone wishing to change the tone of the Cold fusion or Perpetual motion articles: either show up with a boatload of excellent sources for your outlandish claim or stop wasting everyone's time. A Traintalk 08:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "liberal" is equivalent to "left" or "socialist" is ridiculous as well. Leaving aside the potential confusion with "classical liberal", the usual left-right dichotomy this comparison is made in is essentially between Hitler and Stalin. Do you see either as a "liberal? Anmccaff (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In your response here you are ignoring the central contention of my argument in order to pick at the edges of it, which seems to be a common practice for you. I have noticed that, in your arguments on this talk page, you are consistently using Wikipedia links to biographical articles support your claims. Do you have any scholarly sources or even popular history books from noted authors that back up your assertions? Because producing some good sources could put this whole argument to bed. A Traintalk 08:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, equivocation of "liberal" and "left" is central to your argument, and it's simply wrong. No one raised that position, so attacking it is just scattering straw. Regarding scholarship, Fest explicitly saw Strasserist socialism, especially Gregor's take on it , as a (diminishing) influence on the party, although one that left no real effect after he left the party. George Watson's The Lost Literature of Socialism makes the case that hitlerism was a form of socialism, and was also widely seen as such until the Spanish Civil War. This review covers many of the high points. Anmccaff (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the faux-naive argument that because I said "liberal" I meant "classical liberal". I've asked you to produce sources and not simply name-drop, and you have responded by continuing to name drop. What Fest book should I look at to back up your argument? What page? What passage? You have frequently cited George Watson on this page, but he was a professor of English and not exactly a great asset for your argument that mainstream historians hold this viewpoint. A Traintalk 11:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since that was mentioned merely to dismiss it from this conversation, your bringing up "classical liberal" now as if I were belaboring it is, frankly, a lie. As for historian's view of Watson, it was positive enough that History Today, scholarly if also popular (Usanians, think, roughly, "American Heritage" or older "Smithsonian"), commissioned "The Eye-Opener of 1939", which makes much the same points. Finally, the points Watson makes about how nastism was seen contemporaneously before the war are unassailable. If Orwell saw a government as a type of socialism, it probably was a type of socialism. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re Fest, I'd expect most people to think "Hitler", the way Morrison suggests "Two Ocean..". Hitler, pp 233/4 suggest that Strasser and Goebbels were still actively pursuing a very different view of national socialism in 1926, and one which did not center on racial antisemitism. Anmccaff (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But George Watson is hardly a fringe source, is he? Anmccaff (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running through your first example, it is of someone claiming that a widespread scholarly debate is ongoing, which was not the subject raised here. Do all of them continue like that, and if so, what relevance have they? Anmccaff (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First define "it" here, since there seem to be about five separate ideas of what this discussion is about. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly construed. William Avery (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes We're under no obligation to continuously re-discuss a position that is clearly and obviously FRINGE, or to entertain obvious POV pushing. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The left-wing/right-wing distinction is an artificial one, that often doesn't help to explain what things actually mean. That is certainly the case here. I don't think you can understand Nazi ideology outside of the context of German nationalism, which isn't going to be simple to translate for a non-German audience. Hitler was a political chameleon who adopted a lot of different stances just because it proved convenient at the time. And some of those were undoubtedly socialist. He needed the support of the German working classes after all. Asides from the name "Nazi", another example of this is that in Mein Kampf, Hitler expresses sympathy with workers unions as being the only tool working people had to ensure their voices were heard (although he was also quite suspicious of them at the same time, my memory is a little hazy about what he actually said). You could say the Nazis were more like "right wing people today" than "left wing people today" but so what? It would be far better to just say what they actually were: nationalists, militarists, opportunists etc. Woscafrench (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, overall they would fit into that category; see the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" section on the talk page for Nazi Party. Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I'd suggest simply not going there, but if things do then say what is the majority and also convey what the minority or debate is about. SImply put, I don't beleive a 2-dimensional or modern reading of 'left' and 'right' serves well here, and both sides use the term as a pejorative on the other. Markbassett (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and just about everywhere else as well.Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The question needs to be answered but not in a laboriously manual way each time. We need a nice clear FAQ we can point people at (or ideally which they are likely to find for themselves). Those who are genuinely confused or misinformed can read it and either understand why they were mistaken or alternatively understand that their ongoing dissenting view is not a mainstream one. (After all, it is not the holding of non-mainstream viewpoints which is disruptive. It is the unending insistence that those non-mainstream viewpoints should trump all others that is disruptive.) Of course, those who are only here to knowingly push POV in bad faith will just try to argue with the FAQ but they can go and pound sand. The main purpose of the FAQ is to help those people who come here in confused good faith. The FAQ needs to explain not only what the mainstream view is but also that Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to seek to overturn it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I tried to look up the answer to this question in the encyclopedia but it said "Nazism was neither left-wing or right-wing", perhaps a brief and to the point answer to the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left could be added at Nazism, so that when the question comes up again, I can look it up there. Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Which is to say, a vast failure to properly manage the talk page with a decent opening FAQ. Anmccaff (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing compared to a vast failure to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What "reality" do you think you are talking about? The fact that a surprising number of wikipedjits behave like the proverbial medic giving recruits shots? ("Dammit, I told you people yesterday!!!") Nah, seen that before. Anmccaff (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that would be a Good Thing Anmccaff (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hell must have frozen over, because I agree as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A brief FAQ might help, but the one at Nazi Party is way too convoluted and TLDR. It also makes the mistake of attempting to argue the underlying issues, often slightly oddly – which simply encourages people to continue arguing them, but from the other side. The point should be to shut down this perennial debate/trolling each time it comes up, not prolong it. It should simply state something like: "because left-right is the standard spectrum commonly used in political classification, and most mainstream analysis places the Nazis on the far right". It can then address the "but they called themselves socialists" and "but they believed in big government" with one line each (roughly by "so what/different sense of the word" and "that's not necessarily what divides left from right, especially historically"). N-HH talk/edits 10:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A FAQ section at the top of the talk page, akin to the one on the Nazi Party page is a good solution, as K.e.Coffman has suggested. If you guys want to tweak it before adding, do so. But with that said, in the end, as Beyond My Ken has pointed out this really has been discussed many times over and should be a dead horse. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the past "discussion" has followed the pattern here recently, it hasn't been discussed at all, and the horse is quite likely well on it's way to winning the Derby. Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an objective evaluation of the "race" below would indicate that your horse is going the wrong way around the track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought the 'Nazi party' FAQ excellent, though it is 'party' rather than -ism, so would need adapting. Even if it fails to discourage repeated discussion, it is still inherently informative. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

End matter

I used a level two heading for the Further reading section instead of the old psedudoheading bold markup that placed it hierarchically under References. Heading hierarchy should distinguish that Further reading entries are not references.

I also changed the redirecting portal link Portal:Nazi Germany to a direct link to the portal at Portal:Nazism since the reader probably wants to know that there is a portal matching exactly the topic of this article, instead of thinking there is one just for a related term.

Beyond My Ken reverted the edit ("better before"). Since we disagree, let's discuss. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The portal change is no problem. WP:FURTHER is an editing guideline and is not mandatory. There is no earthly reason for the TOC to be cluttered up with multiple reference sections, and "Further reading" is a type of reference -- not one used in the creation of the article, but we are referring the reader to those sources. Having all of those things under one "References" section is cleaner and neater and avoids TOC clutter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored your portal change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The portal change to Nazism, I agree with for this article. As for markup, it is a matter of personal preference and local consensus for the article page. Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

right vs left designation

This nonsense has been debunked many, many times, and does not need another go-round. I recommend that, in the future, ignorant comments such as this are deleted on sight with no response. We are not required to give any amount of credence to this crap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was going to delete this tag but I guess responding to it is a better way to go. I am going to look through the history and see how much the person who did this tag has been involved in these over and over and over andover again discussion. I find nothing inappropriate about this post. Carptrash (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so, @Underneaththesun:, I went back several thousands of edits and did not find this editor (you) who placed the tag (Underneaththesun) was ever involved in these discussions. What makes them (you) think/feel that they are competent to make the determination that this edit is inappropriate? ? Carptrash (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And check out this editor's stance in support of Willis Carto and the American Free Press. "Carlo was most politically involved in his career throughout the 1960's. He is notorious for his extremist ideologies in white supremacist and anti-semitic movements." Well Duh. Carptrash (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, It would have been best to undo this tagging (which borders on vandalism) and explain/ask questions at the user talk page. There's broken formatting, and BMK's comments have been altered from a close rationale to what appears to be the opening comments of this section. @Carptrash: would you mind terribly moving your comments to the user's talk page so I can fix this section? For what it's worth, I'm quite interested in the answers, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historians are divided on whether nazis were right or left, why does this say one way or the other when its so much of a conflict? I suggest this is removed. Traditionally Nazis were classified as being on the left because left referred pos rates with more state control and the right referred to less state control...so businesses had freedom. Any state could be nationalist or fascist or egalitarian or matriarchal or patriarchal etc. While some people have created matrices that have two variables fascism and level of state control or government involvement it leaves out so many other variable like level of nationalism etc. We can't put them all onto a grid, so people are still arguing to keep right and left with the original meaning of more or less government involvement. So wither we need a discussion of this or we could just take the classification out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.141.63 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historians are divided on whether nazis were right or left, No, they aren't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
71.223.141.63, you have made more less the same point on three different talk pages. You are incorrect on all three. To say "Traditionally Nazis for instance were classified as being on the left" is simply not true. The mainstream academic consensus since 1945 has put the Nazis on the far right. Even historians who are right wing themselves have tended to agree with this. It is only in recent years, and only really in the USA, that there has been a concerted attempt at revisionism to promote this rather fringe view for what are clearly tactical political reasons. We are not going to ignore this view completely, as it does have one or two respectable adherents who pre-date the current wave of cynical revisionism, but it can not expect parity of esteem with, never mind to override, 70 years of mainstream international scholarship. Also please read the FAQ on Talk:Far-right politics. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

This is inaccurate. National Socialists are far-left. Never in the history of political ideology has there been a far-right socialist. This article is a blaring smear of conservatives and an out right lie. 2600:8803:D400:7A0:20D3:D77A:4BDE:5043 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, please read the FAQ and the extensive talkpage archives. Acroterion (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right talking points keep coming back, over and over again. Two basic facts keep getting overlooked:
(1) Nazism was never a self-consistent ideology, it was a hodge-podge of ideas and prejudices floating around at the time. There were "socialist" aspects to the 25 points (which were never amended or nullified) but Hitler and the Party pretty much did as they wished depending on the circumstances and never upheld a consistent socialist agenda. In fact, I suspect that Hitler added "Socialist" to the party name simple to draw off some members of the SPD and the KPD - there was a lot of party-switching going on at the time, especially in the paramilitary wings.
(2) Calling something "Socialist" doesn't make it socialist, any more than calling a country a "Democratic People's Republic" makes it democratic, or a republic, or a state for the people, for that matter. This is the old problem of confusing the name for the thing.
Of course, there's little point in my writing this, since the whole "Nazism is left-wing" idea has been debunked over and over again, and the kind of people who believe it don't actually take the time to explore the history, or even read FAQs or talk page archives, they just believe it, because someone told them so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that conservatives are far right? Mayber you're the one who's smearing them. TFD (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the idea that "Nazism is far-left" is a conservative talking point? I have more respect for true conservative than to believe that. No, conservatives are on the right side of the (notional) aisle, just as liberals are on the left side, and I don't confuse conservatives with the far-right, the alt-right, the radical right, whatever you want to call them. I was clear in saying that "Nazism is far-left" is a "far-right talking point". How would you get from that statement than I am ascribing it to conservatives or in some way smearing them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TFD was replying to the IP/OP. Dave Dial (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course he was. What a dope I am. My error, and my sincere apologies to TFD @The Four Deuces:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, no big deal, and TFD probably agrees with everything you said anywho. heh --In any case, it's gettting hard to tell the difference of any ideologies these days. I think it's more like people who believe in facts, reality & those stuck in some kind of alternate reality made up of alternate facts. Time for bed, Happy Easter! Dave Dial (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, I suspect that Hitler added "Socialist" to the party name simple to draw off some members of the SPD and the KPD - there was a lot of party-switching going on at the time, especially in the paramilitary wings."

Hitler did not get to name the party. He assumed leadership of an already extant party in June/July 1921. The party founder and original leader was Anton Drexler, whose ideas included some notions of socialism. Per our article on the Nazi Party:

  • "Drexler saw the political violence and instability in Germany as the result of the Weimar Republic being out-of-touch with the masses, especially the lower classes. Drexler emphasized the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism with a form of economic socialism, in order to create a popular nationalist-oriented workers' movement that could challenge the rise of Communism and internationalist politics."
  • "On 5 January 1919, Drexler created a new political party and proposed it should be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). To ease concerns among potential middle-class supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists the party supported the middle-class and that its socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race. They became one of many völkisch movements that existed in Germany. Like other völkisch groups, the DAP advocated the belief that through profit-sharing instead of socialisation Germany should become a unified "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) rather than a society divided along class and party lines. This ideology was explicitly antisemitic. As early as 1920, the party was raising money by selling a tobacco called Anti-Semit."
  • "From the outset, the DAP was opposed to non-nationalist political movements, especially on the left, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). Members of the DAP saw themselves as fighting against "Bolshevism" and anyone considered a part of or aiding so-called "international Jewry". "
  • "Hitler's first DAP speech was held in the Hofbräukeller on 16 October 1919. He was the second speaker of the evening, and spoke to 111 people. Hitler later declared that this was when he realised he could really "make a good speech". At first, Hitler spoke only to relatively small groups, but his considerable oratory and propaganda skills were appreciated by the party leadership. With the support of Anton Drexler, Hitler became chief of propaganda for the party in early 1920. Hitler began to make the party more public, and organised its biggest meeting yet of 2,000 people on 24 February 1920 in the Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München. Such was the significance of this particular move in publicity that Karl Harrer resigned from the party in disagreement. It was in this speech that Hitler enunciated the twenty-five points of the German Workers' Party manifesto that had been drawn up by Drexler, Feder and himself. Through these points he gave the organisation a much bolder stratagem with a clear foreign policy (abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, a Greater Germany, Eastern expansion and exclusion of Jews from citizenship) and among his specific points were: confiscation of war profits, abolition of unearned incomes, the State to share profits of land and land for national needs to be taken away without compensation. In general, the manifesto was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist and anti-liberal. To increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party). The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers." Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a cite for Hitler objecting to "Socialist"? I recall distinctly reading that Hitler initiated the name change. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Why Hitler?: The Genesis of the Nazi Reich" (1996) by Samuel W. Mitcham, page 68. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are right, I remembered it backwards:

Meanwhile, on February 20, 1920, the German Workers' Party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party. ... Hitler did not like the addition of the word "Socialist" but acquiesced because the executive committee thought it might be helpful in attracting workers from the left.

So, I had the right motivation, but the wrong actor. Thanks for the correction, I'll try to remember that properly for the future. (It also points out that there was little serious intent on the part of the party to actually be socialist, it was more about what they call in modern marketing "positioning". I'm sure the socialistic elements in the 25 points had much the same purpose, considering that no one in the party ever made a serious effort to carry them out.)
Anyway, thanks again, and for the cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

There is an RfC on the talk page of the article Neo-Nazism which may interest readers of this article. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Labor Party

These terms have been removed from the lede. I suggest we replace and or revert this revert [57]. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good question, something as widely known as the party name should not require a source, perhaps it was an error or the editor was confused? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&oldid=836717406"