Talk:National Democratic Party of Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics / Fascism / Political parties (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Fascism task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Wrong translation of Infratest survey[edit]

An ARD-led poll states that the majority of the population in Germany considers the NPD to be democratic and good to the image of the country. That is a wrong translation of the survey in the citation: The first question "Ist die NDP eine demokratische Partei wie die Bundestagsparteien." means "Is NDP a democratic party." and 82 % of the german answered that NDP is NOT democratic. "Schadet die NDP Deutschlands Ansehen" means "Is the NDP bad for Germany's image" and 70% of the Germans agree with that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, all the negativity of the party could have been perpetuated by undercover government agents?[edit]

Considering that there are a “larger number” working under cover?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. There are neo-nazis;the govt does not have to invent them. Please do not post this nonsense. (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Right-wing populists[edit]

The category "Right-wing populists" is rubbish.--Schlesier 14:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it would be better to call most of them neonazi? 11:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Right. I don't think right-wing populists is ideal, but criticisms that lack alternative suggestions are not constructive. --- Charles Stewart 11:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not just "National democratic"? Or "Authoritarian natioanlists?"

    • They're no democrats. They look like democrats, but in my eyes they're Nazi's. (Posting from Germany)
the NPD is against what they consider 'liberal capitalism' National anti capitalism (in German). In the polls in the runup to the september 2005 election many people who voted NPD in the regional elections are now shifting over to Lafontaine (former SPD social democrat leader) and Gysi (leader of the PDS, the successor to the east German communist party SED) and their Linkspartei (left wing party). They are doing this because of the many similarities in the platforms. Of course there are also differences but it is clear that a party who is anti-capitalist cannot be considered in any way 'right-wing'. Fascism, at least in terms of economic policies, is in fact quite 'left wing'. --Marcel1975 20:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, they might be against 'liberal capitalism', but in my opinion it's just an act of deceiving the frustrated electors as well as the unemployed population. The NPD IS right wing and it IS populist, believe me, the economic aspect is the only one, where they seem to be left wing, thats why Hitler's party was called the National SOCIALISTS. And the fact that the NPD supports Neo-Nazi-Bands/Gangs etc, shows their attitude very well. (Also a posting from Germany)
Yes, the political spectrum is what makes this party of course right-wing extremist. Thanks for all those little Germans showing up here trying to bluntly propagate and weasel-word around. I found this article extremely one-sided, populist-drenched and clearly to see who wrote it: somebody favoring the NPD. So please, having a close look on this site would be very necessary from my point of view. But I guess there is gonna be editwar soon if any of these ** regularly checks for changes. well, good luck
While I support your efforts to correct this article, and will try to readd some of it, slurs like "all those little Germans" are anything but helpful. And even wrong since the person who reverted your edits was posting from Philadelphia, USA.
Authoritarianism is not nesseccarily right-wing. Stalin for instance was a very authoritarian communist. Considering the party's centre-left stance on economics, I think "authoritarian nationalists", as mentioned above, seem more correct as a label. -- (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


That is unaccptably POV, as is Neo-Nazi. Sam Spade 08:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What, then, is in yout opintion a NPOV way to express the undeniable fact the the party is politically more extreme and to the right than any of the established parties? --Brazzy 08:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean 'undeniable fact'. That is a POV. When it comes to economic policies, the NPD is a radical left wing party with it's avowed anti-capitalist platform. --Marcel1975 20:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How about far right? Sam Spade 10:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds OK. -- Brazzy 13:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How about extreme far left.

t How about getting educated?? A party is not singularily constituted by its economical programme. In fact, saying economical programme even goes too far in the case of the NPD. Having some populistic points of view does not make you have policies. The NPD declares itself nationalist (by definition right spectrum of politics), they oppose immigrants (by definition far-right spectrum of politics), ... many more to look up. Just a case that proves again how the political extremes share commons. But this never makes the NPD a far left party.

Perhaps this is just A proof of how limited the scale of Left-Right is limited and that a party and/or ideology can take elements from both.

- I think that the theoretical foundation of the NPD's "anti-capitalism" should be looked at in more detail: Their (very recent) ascent into the league of parties and groups criticizing capitalism is fairly transparent and populist ("American 'locusts' are destroying our economy"), and the alternatives they propagate rarely extend beyond visions of a strong national state with partly state-owned key industries and heavy taxes on imports etc. A far cry from a funded critique of capitalism or an emancipated view at how the world could function after capitalism. Hence portraying them as "extreme far-left" would frankly be an insult, and proof of poor knowledge of german politics. (yet another posting from germany) 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Logged in now. CptSwing 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dresden bombing[edit]

This page is about the NPD, and is inappropriate for the discussion of the various estimates of casualities of the WWII bombing so exhaustively discussed in the talk pages of Bombing of Dresden in World War II. If you dispute the estimates given in that page, the place to discuss it is *there*. If you don't try to argue there, or fail to win your arguments, don't cry when your edits here are reverted without argument (all arguments which have appeared here have been raised there). --- Charles Stewart 14:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are a couple of online sources which might help people who do not trust a wikipedia article:
The first is a devastating critique of David Irving's Dresden numbers (typically 135K), which were used against him in his British libel court case Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat. The second is interesting because using statistical analysis the number of dead mentioned by modern authoritative historians fits within the range of %ages of dead against populations in other German cities in which fire-storms were generated.
Two authoritative books, the first in German
  1. ^ Götz Bergander, Dresden im Luftkrieg: :Vorgeschichte-Zerstörung-Folgen (Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, Munich, 1977)
  2. Taylor, Frederick. Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945. By Frederick Taylor;
Appenix B Counting the Dead. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the following line in this article:

"Later the same year the party used the slogan "Marx statt Hartz" (Marx instead of Hartz), a phrasing suggestive of sympathy for socialist ideas."

The above statement is wildly speculative and without any merit. It is also suggestive of the NPD's support for Marxist type Socialism (ie. Communism ) which is highly unlikely if not laughable.

Peter Marx is the NPD's parliamentary manager in Saxony. The slogan "Marx statt Hartz" ( Marx instead of Hartz ) is in all probability a reference to Peter Marx, and to either Peter Hartz, who is the personnel director of Volkswagon, or to the set of unpopular new labor laws known as the Hartz Concept ( Hartz I-IV ) which Volkswagon's Peter Hartz helped pushed through in Germany.

--Joanneva 5 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Dispute Section[edit]

I have marked two statements as being dubious as relating to certain facts being in question. It appears that for some portions of this article, the investigative process went no further than to relate data from certain web articles which were also in error.

1) The NPD person who used the phrase "holocaust of bombs" was not Holger Apfel but rather Jürgen Gansel. This is clearly designated in the minutes and actual speech text from the Sächsischer Landtag (Saxony Parliment) in document 4_PlPr_8_201_1_1_.pdf. I do not know if it would be a violation to upload the document therefore I am not but I do have a copy in my posession.

2) The original writer of this article also claims “He went on to call the Social Democratic leader of the parliament, Cornelius Weiss, "an old Jew",

Again using the same document as recorded by the Sächsischer Landtag and the same 4_PlPr_8_201_1_1_.pdf file where the complete comments of Jürgen Gansel's reference to a 'holocaust of bombs" (not Holger Apfel ) were recorded, I find that nowhere does he refer to Cornelius Weiss, as "an old Jew" nor did Holger Apfel for that matter.

--Joanneva 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

The document I am referring to can be located by visiting the web site of the Sächsischer Landtag here [1]

The document is:

AktDeb NPD PlPr 4/8 21.01.2005 S.460

PlPr 4/8 S. 462 463

--Joanneva 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Fascism and the right[edit]

There is open debate on rather facism is rightwing or not. People like F. A. Hayek, as well as many others state that these parties are state controled collectivists, and therefore leftwing. -- posted by user:, moved to talk by Ferkelparade π 08:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A comment on this: user:'s edits are an example of WP:POINT and it's only a matter of time before he gets blocked ofr this. The proper place to discuss the issue of whether fascism beomgs to the ight or not is the far-right page, which does, indeed discuss this. --- Charles Stewart 15:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This should be discussed any where an unsubstantiated claim of far right or far left is mentioned. I don't see any sources quoted when these labels are used. It is the author's point of view. I think on individual articles, people should refrain from using far-left, far-right, right or left, because that is a point of view of a person, or maybe even an opinion of society as a whole. Those terms should be used only on the far-right, far-left, left, right, left-right politics pages , est. And when mentioned on those pages it should be stated as to why they may be considered left-right and by whom, and to ensure nuetrality, any varing body of thought and whom expresses it. Only when everybody related to a topic are represented do you have true nuetrality. I haven't seen an encyclopedia yet that is nuetral in its articles. - user:

I apoligize for changing rightwing on pages, but froem my understanding of the rules, I thought people were allowed to edit content of an article. Do you have to talk about it first, before any edit. I, also thought, you could state NPOV on a page, then talk about it on the talk page. I'm sorry I stated it on the article page, but I was trying to explain the reason I stated NPOV. - user:

Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism, because it requires supreme devotion to the state as supreme concern and focus of all citizens. The citizen serves the state and promotes the states interest. It is not the state promoting the concern, protection, interests and individual liberties of the citizens. It is anti-communism, because it allows capitalism and personal ownership of property or capital, as long as the companies and individuals do what the state tells them to do with the capital or property, like oscar Schindler. He snuck behind the Nazi's backs to help the Jews, so he wouldn't lose his property. Socialism isn't just the state ownership of capital; it is the state control of all capital. If it were just the state ownership of all capital, then it would be Communism. They hated communists because the communists wanted to have the state own all capital. The National socialists just wanted to control everything, that way they wouldn't be responsible for all the upkeep of capital, they could have the companies and individuals do that. Plus, it is easier to play policeman(or macro-manage)over private owners[national socialism], than to try to fully control(micro-manage) every action of the people running state owned property[communism]. Socialism is: n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or run by a centralized government that controls the economy. state socialism: n. < stAt 'sO[sh]&"liz&m > : 1. An economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed. -neutral nobody Retrieved from "" (Neutral nobody 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

Well, then why not just claim Hitler a socialist? Yes, The NSDAP must have been such a leftist party!! By looking at any encyclopedia not right-wing biased, you're most likely to find fascism being classified as a rightist phenomenon. It is without question the term used (by far) mostly classifying fascism. You could also argue about whether a strawberry is red or not (yes it is green sometimes), still not a reason to not write that strawberries are red.

This rubbish makes Anti-Communism left-wing, too (Anti-Communism was an important issue in every facist movement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some kinds of Anti-Communism are, indeed, left wing. Democratic socialists such as Norman Thomas and George Orwell, for example. And Mussolini regarded himself as a man of the Left, always. I agree the discussion about what fascism is should be moved to that page, but will just say that the case for it being 'right wing' is mostly made by people who can not deal with the idea of a mass movement of the Left that is national rather than class-based. °°°° —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[edit] is an IP address of a private multi-member network. I will sign up, so others in the network don't get associated with my work. I thought each user was identified by their computer address, not the network address. - Nuetral Nobody

signed up now (Neutral nobody 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC))


Right wing party is a Biased point of view, please do not remove the NPOV until this has been throughly discussed!

Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism, because it requires supreme devotion to the state as supreme concern and focus of all citizens. The citizen serves the state and promotes the states interest. It is not the state promoting the concern, protection, interests and individual liberties of the citizens. It is anti-communism, because it allows capitalism and personal ownership of property or capital, as long as the companies and individuals do what the state tells them to do with the capital or property, like oscar Schindler. He snuck behind the Nazi's backs to help the Jews, so he wouldn't lose his property. Socialism isn't just the state ownership of capital; it is the state control of all capital. If it were just the state ownership of all capital, then it would be Communism. They hated communists because the communists wanted to have the state own all capital. The National socialists just wanted to control everything, that way they wouldn't be responsible for all the upkeep of capital, they could have the companies and individuals do that. Plus, it is easier to play policeman(or macro-manage)over private owners[national socialism], than to try to fully control(micro-manage) every action of the people running state owned property[communism]. Socialism is: n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or run by a centralized government that controls the economy. state socialism: n. < stAt 'sO[sh]&"liz&m > : 1. An economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed. - (Neutral nobody 05:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Nationalism is general viewed as right-wing. I'm not sure what "state socialism" has to do with it. Socialism has nothing to do with "supreme devotion to the state as supreme concern and focus of all citizens". That is communism on the far left (USSR, Cuba, etc) and fascism on the far right (Germany, Italy, Spain, etc in the 1930s and 1940s). Socialism is the opposite, unless you believe that we should swallow Hitler's propaganda. Socialism puts the state (governments, corporations, etc.) under the control of the people, taking power away from the elite and giving it to all citizens (West European countries after World War II).
You are wrong. Nationalism is a form of State Socialism. Hey dude, I gave you dictionary definitions. Here they are again:
Socialism is: n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or run by a centralized government that controls the economy. - my emphasis
state socialism: n. < stAt 'sO[sh]&"liz&m > : 1. An economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed.
The highlighted part of definition one and all of definition two describes what nationalism, facism and nazism does.
(Neutral nobody 04:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
From which dictionary are you quoting? I have some sympathy with your complaints about labelling of left- and right- to extremists, although my preference is to say that the meaning of left- and right- comes from the operation of a parliamentary system (which is historically correct), and pariah parties like the NPD are beyond left- and right-, even if we can identify left-wing and right-wing features of their program. Nonetheless, if you are the anonymous editor who has been repeatedly reverted, the way you were going about things is in violation of WP:POINT. The right way is to add a neutral description of the problems with the regular manner of labelling things to the pages that defines left-wing and right-wing, in a manner that gains the confidence of your fellow editors, and use that to try to persuade . Ie. be constructive not disruptive. --- Charles Stewart 15:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I would like to note that if all you're relying on is dictionary definitions to support your view, your argument is pretty shaky as a start. Dictionary definitions, especially when it comes to complex or abstract concepts like, philosophy, politics, or yes, socialism, are somewhat lacking. That's where encyclopaedias come in. Comparisons with nationalistic ideas and socialistic ones normally boil down to two assumptions. The first is the rather risible claim that since the Nazi party had "socialist" in their name, they must be socialist. This, of course, proves nothing - would you say that the German Democratic Republic was democratic because it had the word "democratic" in its' name? The second assumption is the one that N-n here has made, which is one with more intellectual rigour than the sematic battle I mentioned. Essentially, that "right-wing" means anti-state control, therefore fascism, because of state involvement in society, must be left-wing, or socialist. Alas, for every event there is a theory which is simple, easy to understand, and dead wrong. First, I think N-n's definitions are overly simplistic. He ignores that there are large numbers of groups who by no means could be called "socialist" even though they supported state action, and would probably be described as "right-wing" or "conservative", for instance, moral conservatives or monarchists, protectionist industrialists. All would support the intervention of the state in the life of the citizen. What was Pinochet if not one of the "right-wing"? None, by any stretch of the imagination, could be called left-wing or socialist as we understand them. So N-n fails to understand that there are different trains of thought in what is considered "right-wing", and tries to lump what he sees as favourable inside it, and what he does not with "socialism", "left-wing", etc. Not all "right-wing" people are hearty defenders of personal or economic freedom. Even if you accept N-n's definitions, it's a false dilemma logical fallacy. Under N-n's definitions, one can either support state action to be "left-wing" or not support state control and be "right-wing". Since under N-n's definitions, fascism cannot be "right-wing" it must be "left-wing". It's simply a false dilemma, because fascism and nationalism are difficult to quantify on the left-right scale. Of course, the left-right scale is flawed. That doesn't mean we can hammer it into a different, equally flawed shape. --MullHistSoc 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

One) these aren't just definitons in dictionaries. The beliefs that state control or collectivism is leftwing and that little or no government control(anarchy) is rightwing are beliefs held by many like F. A. Hayek and others. The problem is the people with this view are a minority. There are so few who subscribe to this view, because when people like Hayek strongly expressed these views there was a heavy collectivist POV in acedemia and elite circles. Many of these hi-brows didn't want to believe that their collectivist views were from the same family as Hitler and would eventually lead to the same results eventually. These Hi-brows became the leaders in institues of learning and passed their collectivist bias down to future generations. They refused Hayek's assertions, because it tied Hitler to their pet philosopies. They were oppossed to Hitler's Racism, so they refused to see him on the left. They had to put him on the right, because in their minds he couldn't be on the left because his collectivism included racism. Acedemia always influences culture and has passed down to the culture its inncorrect assertions. Also, a majority of the political scientists tend to be left-leaning in their assertions and views. Some right leaning and so-called centrist political scientists have grown up being taught this same left wing bias from the leftist teachers of Hayek's era. So most people you quote would give this false assertion of their being right-wing collectivism
Socialism, nationalism, communism, monarchies, est. are all collectivist, and therefore leftwing.
I am a centrist because I believe in limited government - a republic. I don't believe in direct democracy (one man one vote on every issue), because man is to busy or some are to uneducated to make informed decissions on all issues. And since anarchy is the far right, with weaker forms, than republics, on the right and collectivism is on the left and reaches to the far left in totalitarianism,then that makes me a centrist or classical liberal- not a modern one.
P.S. Today its the same way with the same left-wing collectivist thinkers, they repulse at the idea that their mighty collectivist ideals may be linked to Hitler in any way.
O'yeah! People don't claim Hitler was a socialist because it was in his party's name. Quit trying to be cute. They say he's a socialist, because he was! (Neutral nobody 08:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

N-n, you would be surprised at how many people do make that assertion. Obviously you don't go to the same forums I do. I don't really recommend it, either.

You haven't really proved anything. Essentially you've said "all collectivisms are left-wing". Why? "Because Hayek said so" - I'll note at this point WP:CITE. You're also using a different definition of left-wing from everyone else, that of relative political involvement. By your definition, I would be on the far-right, as an advocate of direct democracy. "Left-wing" is an essentially subjective term, so the only way to describe it objectively is to give the position that is prevalent. Controversial definitions, therefore, aren't exactly going to be thought of as NPOV, frankly because they're trying to frame a philosophical position in a way which would not be agreed with.

Also, frankly, as a political student, I'm appalled at how you're trying to straitjacket millenia of political thought like this. It's simply more complex than just "Ooooooooh, collectivism! Left-wing!" To say that right-wing collectivists are actually leftist because Hayek says so as well as "just being influenced by left-wing academics" is to ignore political philosophers like Burke, who lived centuries before any of those cursed "liberal academia" came about.

I'll just note, again, that the left-wing/right-wing dichtonomy is flawed as a way of analysing political standpoints. --MullHistSoc 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Source sought[edit]

I deleted the following claim from the 2nd paragraph:

The NPD advocated a program nearly identical to old Nazi ideals and began combining various Neo-Nazi groups under its authority. This, in combination with a leadership of former Nazis from the Hitler era, alarmed the West German government and the allied occupation forces still technically in charge of Germany.

The claims made here are not absurd, but they go beyond what I think is the case. Does anyone know of good sources for these claims (or what they should be) offhand? I'm going to check de.wikipedia soon. --- Charles Stewart 01:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPD wants to rebuild the "Reich" (Reich=Empire; allusion to "Das Dritte Reich", as the Nazi-Empire was called). Udo Voigt said: "Unser Ziel ist das Reich, unser Weg die NPD." (Our aim is the "Reich", our way is the NPD). According to the NPD Germany is bigger than the "Bundesrepublik" (federal republic). They want to reclaim the borders of 1938. The NPD supports the so called "Kameradschaften"; these are militant Neo-Nazi groups. They also want Germany to drop out of the NATO, like Hitler dropped out of the "Völkerbund" (dont know the translation, sorry).


It's nice to say how much of the vote they got in each election and to fight about whether it is extreme right or left, but what this article does not say, is what is the platform of this party??? How does it compare with other nationalist parties like the Parti Québécois? Qaaa 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving to National Democratic Party of Germany[edit]

To have some consistency with other German political parties' articles (i.e. Social Democratic Party of Germany), I'd suggest that the NPD article be moved to National Democratic Party of Germany. A disambiguation sentence could be placed at the beginning with a link to the National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany). If there are no objections, I will do this. --metzerly 07:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with rationalising the name, but isn't the proposal somewhat out of kilter with how names of political parties are given elsewhere? Wouldn't National Democratic Party (Germany) be more in line with most of what one sees at National Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party or Liberal Democratic Party? There's not a great deal of coherence across WP, but if there's a most common pattern, this seems to be it. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems that parties with a "D" for Germany at the end of their acronyms have "of Germany" in their Wikipedia titles (i.e. Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD). I'm not wedded to "of Germany", but I would like to see all these titles standardized. --metzerly 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I withdraw this objection. It makes sense to include the "of Germany" qualifier given that it is clearly analogous to the title in German. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, for reasons outlined above. Jll 14:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as above. I can't read German per se, but I'd assume "(of) Germany" is integral to the name (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands). I wonder if the alternate National Democratic Party (Germany), or National Democratic Party of Germany (Germany), is passable? As well, the East German predecessor is named the same. Similarly, given the current dab, perhaps the predecessor should be retitled National Democratic Party (East Germany) or National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany)? I suggest these more for consistency, not so much in support of them. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    Metzerly's translation is the most natural way of rendering the german into english: I'm rather surprised I hadn't noticed before he pointed that out. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    No argument, really. I just noted permutuations above due to consistency within and with other political party titles: I would assume that most of the official names for parties listed at National Democratic Party are followed by the appropriate jurisdiction (if at all, in English), and it's debatable to treat the German party articles differently. E Pluribus Anthony | talk |

I've placed this article on the requested moves page (see under November 20). I guess it will be a few days before it is completed. --metzerly 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2005 election results[edit]

I've inserted the results for the 2005 federal elections. You can access my source, Deutsche Welle, by clicking here. If you hover your cursor over the blue sonstige/others bar, it shows the minor-party results. You can also access state-level results on this page. I'm not sure how long they'll keep this page up, so if you want to check my source, you may want to do it now. --metzerly 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This source no longer exists. I tried accessing the source through the Deutsche Welle site but it would not work (for me at least). After a very quick google search for another source I couldn't find anything, perhaps you could find another one. Break 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranian football team[edit]

Why do supporters of this party support the Iranian president and the Iranian football team?

First, the NPD strongly supports a "Germany first" platform - not only in regards to the country's own needs, but also in terms of maintaining Germany's unique character and identity, resisting forces such as "Americanization and influence from abroad."
Iran, secured in its Islamic fundamentalist cocoon, seems to have done a fair job preserving identity, rejecting western influence and its “corruption” on principle.
The second point rings true with some in the far right who identify with Islamic traditionalism – not necessarily its strict guidelines or female repression – but certainly its rejection of extreme liberalism. Similarly, the NPD is a strong advocate of social order and discipline taking precedence over the individual will, which also seems to ring true in the Iranian theocratic system.
Iran represents viable opposition to the ideals of fully privatized internationalist capitalism, which threatens to alter the landscape of Germany thru market dumping. Similarly, it contributes to the particularly sore issue of immigration and unemployment. In Germany, the unemployment rate is atrocious in some areas, yet immigrants are being hustled in as gaestearbeiten for cheap labor. This violates the “Germany first” principle. Some Germans who identify with the NPD are suspicious of the BRD and believe it to be only under the heel of international bidding. Iran’s defiant president has become some what of a rogue for standing up to the pressuring powers of what some would all too quickly label “ZOG”. Not surprisingly, there has been somewhat of a symbiosis between Islam and the “far right” due to their president’s statements about the Holocaust. While some would all too quickly suggest the common ground of anti-Semitism, it goes deeper than that, because the Holocaust is the guardian of preventing “Germany first”, it encourages internationalism and ultraliberalism, it denounces increased state power and nationalism - all make up a new, sort of neo-fascism.--Hohns3 08:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
this should be incorporated into the article--unsigned comment left 15:08, 20 September 2006
Well, maybe it should be incorporated into the article, but not with the words used above which are very POV. From another standpoint, one could say that the NPD supports Iran because both NPD and the Iran regime are antisemitic, narrow-minded and oppressive. Blur4760 12:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
additionally, as stated in the article, ahmadjinedad openly denied holocaust. of course that would find applause within the ranges of neo-fascists.unsigned comment left 00:04, 20 November 2006
Perhaps, but I object to this addition. The NPD has not said that their support is due to the fact that "ahmadjinedad openly denied the holocaust" and even then, "denied the holocaust" is nothing more than a press-sanctioned interpretation of what President Ahmadinezhad wishes to convey. See for yourself what Ahmadinezhad has to say about the matter, [2], then make your conclusions.
Yes, a contigent of the NPD-supporting public, your textbook, racist Neo-Nazis, probably do support Ahmadinezhad for his "holocaust denial", but I remind you that the NPD article is about the NPD, not the certain demographic they attract. Even if the NPD does attract a Holocaust denying contingent, that does not mean the party mirrors these exact views! Abstract caricatures of the NPD are all too common in the media, and the party is often portrayed interchangeably with images of a very peculiar public that, as I've seen, is not the greater whole of the party. Small wonder the rest of the world believes that the NPD is a party of asozial bonehead-skinhead monsters. Could 38% of Postlow [3] be the types shown over and over again in the media? Where are these votes coming from? I think the answer is that the NPD is becoming a protest party, and if not yet, it is already a gauge of discontent in Germany, particularly the East.
In reference to the above, Hohns3 makes a good point regarding the connection between the Iran and the NPD - they are both oppositional to the guiding principles of the contemporary, so-called "Western ideals". Not saying anyone is right, but Hohns3 provides an interesting take at what could also be seen as antisemitic, narrow-minded and oppressive, as the other two users noted. Very interesting.--Logan3xx 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from Voigt[edit]

"Ausländer (foreigners) will be welcomed as guests, but should live and work in their own countries."

Why is "Ausländer" not simply replaced by "foreigners", since it really is the same thing-- 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It is the same word. Besides several parts of the article have a pro-NPD POV, I will try to improve it a bit. --Hurax 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Under "philosophies", the last paragraph seems to go to great lengths to say that it's a "moderate, centrist party", which I find highly questionable given that it was attemptedly banned. Also, the rest of the articel seems to contradict that one paragraph, which is phrased in a manner suggestive of a persuasive argument, rather then a neutral attempt at information. 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it. It does say that in terms of Economic and Fiscal policy that they tend towards moderate, which is more or less what Udo says in the statement above, financial support to young people vis a vis Bafog etc. which, indeed, already exist.-- 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the words "moderate" and "centrist" don't fit this party at all. The reference website's (political compass) definition of right-wing and left-wing are not used in Germany, where the historic legacies of National Socialism and Communism carry the most weight. The FDP is not considered right-wing, but liberal or "neo-liberal". Besides the adoption of current NPD policy towards immigrants and their descendants, and to the EU, would provide a far greater shock to the economy than any ideas of the Left Party/PDS, which is also nothing a moderate party would do. Also in the recent years the NPD has adopted anti-capitalist rethoric and tried to capitalize on the opposition against Hartz 4. I don't have time now to correct the POV and inaccuracies presented here, as such a controversial topic needs to be edited carefully, but appreciate if someone does. --Hurax 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
read the sentence again. it says in terms of economics. Then it jumps to an explanation of the "extremism" in the NPD's nationalist philosophy. You are correct in saying the terms "left" and "right" varry around the world, but this outdated model has gone far beyond its original purpose, royalist vs. radical, and is often contradictory. I agree with political compass on this one; it doesn't matter what people like to refer to the NPD as in Germany, New Zealand or even Pakistan. There needs to be a new standard that functions scientifically, rather than resorting to localized perceptions. The 4 point model seems to fill this gap. Hurax, would provide a greater shock to the economy has nothing to do with positioning along a political scale. I noticed also that you are quick to point to the Hartz 4 as a populist move, rather than adherence to its program. "Communism" itself can mean so many things, all of which seem to again divide into the social/economic spheres, proving the need for much more than a 2 point scale (i.e...if the socialism is international or integrated into a nation, if minorities are balanced out or told Gute Reise, if small time capitalism is allowed or not). If you want to see a "right wing" party that is to the right, see National Front (France).--Nilus8 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the terms "left" and "right" are problematic and perhaps outdated. But it is still in widespread use, whereas the redefinition of those words used by "Political Compass" is but one of different 4-point models, and I can't see any evidence of any of them being but a minority position even in the USA. And looking at the descriptions in Far_right, everything except monarchism would fit the NPD. That I view their capitalizing on the Hartz 4 protests as populist is my personal opionion, thus only here in Talk. On the wiki article on the FN I can't see any major differences to the NPD, so please explain why they can be called "right" and others not. My French is rather rusty though. But giving deportations and ethnic cleansings the euphemistic label of "good voyage" (gute Reise) is nothing but blatant cynicism and misantrophy on the worst historic tradition.--Hurax
No cynicism intended. Germany would be a much happier land if that was all it had done, all joking aside. Now you could be right or wrong in your assessment that Hartz 4 was a tactic to gain votes. However, you seem to view this conceivably populist act as an "unknown" that we will be able to later look back upon and classify as a deviation or continuation of policy. I'm not so sure that this is the case; populism can also be a continual guide in itself, taking a page from the ideas about "nurtured, organic volk", the NPD advocates a hypothetical situation where the goverment closely interracts with the people. It also forwards the importance of strong community-orientation, order and so on and so forth, so it is hard to imagine that social welfare would not be a key point of NPD philosophy. Voigt recently said in September that if the constitution threatened the welfare/survival of the German people, it should be amended. This is all part of populism and, in theory, it happens naturally when the community comes first, other matters follow, and capital comes last. This is the complete inversion of priority that fits the capitalist scheme (but not the opposite of capitalism itself). Yet despite all of these wishes for state and volk interraction, it is hard to see how a small parliamentary group (the NPD today) could occupy such a position as a minority, thus explaining why the key policy at the moment is to get people to the polls.
So goes the NPD. I suggest you read the party platform and action program, [4], they will probably answer most of your questions. The thing that makes the NPD definitely left of the right is its borderline statism (whether it is officially "statism" or not does not matter) and what you have only viewed as a woo-ing tactic of sorts, its populism. And yet, despite its "statism", there is no amending of private property (which would obviously put it far to the left). If you are familiar with the grueling and still largely unresolved Keynes-era battle over the meaning of "socialism" then you would understand why the NPD is not right-wing and varies slightly from the NF.
Along a plane of fascism and liberalism, the NPD advocates clearly advocates social order and societal control, as does the NF, and both aim to put an end to the rapid immigration in the process. Some of these points have addressed both the economic and social sphere simultaneously. When social control issues spill over into economics or concern the administered care by the state, this is where the NF and NPD part ways, along the liberatarian-communist polarization scale. If you are trying to think of the embodiment of NF, think of America when it claimed to be a democracy but societal regulations were tight, proper behavior was simply expected and order and regimentation were just as important...all the while, free enterprise was the basis of society. "Tolerance" was never the order of the day. The NF sees itself as a continuation of the ideas put forth in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, which says quite a bit about its platform, strict adherence to republicanism, but from some points of view, no, it is not very "tolerant". The Liberty, Equality, Fraternity cry of the French Revolution could be interpretted any number of ways though, which is the contention of the right. When the NF says they see themselves as a continuation of the DOTROM, the are making an assertion as to what the Framers had in mind and had intended. In their opinion, the literal translation of this slogan was not what they had in mind. It deserves to be mentioned that the political spectrum in France is now so far to the left that its left is approaching full-fledged communism by US standards. It enjoys a different sort of reception in France, too.
In conclusion, I think you are looking at regulatory social policy, national considerations or an interest in the homogenous model as your guide for "right-wing". Once upon a time, this was right wing but then along came that floundering behemoth, the Soviet Union, which was "fascist" but not, highly regulatory - authoritarianism - and yet far left. Since then, trying to piece together a workable 2 point left-right scale is like trying to hold a conversation when half of the alphabet is missing. A scale that cannot make a distinction between anarchist liberatarians and authoritarian communists cannot be a good thing.--Nilus8 07:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


if you are going to tag something, you have to give a rationale beyond certainly not NPOV, and cite specific examples.-- 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Party colors[edit]

I don't think that brown is an official color of the NPD. Since the NPD's logo consists of the colors black, white and red (also the colors of several former German flags), I'd rather assume that they are the party's colors.-- 13:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Brown is not officially the party's color, but it is what the general populace identifies it with and what is used to represent the party in poll graphics. --Brazzy 15:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Only the official party colors are relevant here.-- 14:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Prevailing inofficial usage is very much relevant, though it should be marked as such. --Brazzy

It's no "inoffical usage", it's only used by its opponents as pointed out correctly in the first chapter of the article.-- 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Although brown isn't the official colour of the NPD, it is associated with it because brown is associated with Nazi parties. In the German Media, people who vote for the NPD are referred to as "braune Wähler" brown voters. 13:00 UTC 14 March 2007

- Ah, but the voters of other right-wing parties such as the DVU, Republikaner, or Pro Köln are also referred to as "brown" - it is a collective term that's applied to any party/organization on the far right fringe, not a designation reserved exclusively for the NPD. 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Logged in now. CptSwing 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt on a date[edit]

I've got a doubt about the 2003 date given for the attempt of forbidding the NPD. In the German and French wikipedias, the date "2001" is given... 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The government and parliament applied for the ban in 2001, but the decision of the constitutional court to abort the procedure was in 2003. --Brazzy 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


This article is strewn with appalling grammar- incorrect verb tense, basic stuff like that. Perhaps it was a non-native speaker making a lot of edits. Regardless, someone should go though and clean it up --Jordanus maximus 06:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How about yourself? It looks okay to me.-- 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


I added the NPOV tag because this article only reflects the propaganda of this party. --Thw1309 15:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • As of February 2008, I agree with the above user, this article seems to be very promoting of the party and dismissive of the very legitimate belief that the NPD is a neo-Nazi party. Claims by the party to be a successor to the DVNP, a German nationalist, monarchist AND conservative party are false, the NPD advocates nationalism combined with non-Marxist socialism, thus quite literally National Socialism. Also the party promoting a "third way" between international socialism and liberal capitalism is exactly what the Nazi party and other fascist parties advocated. This combined with the NPD's negative view of Jews, non-whites, the Allied powers in World War II, and its belief that Germany should annex Austria, Suddetenland, and former German-held lands of Poland only makes suspicions more legitimate. Whatever the small technical differences, the NPD supports almost all the key Nazi principles. I hope that Wikipedia allows the argument to be made that the party has very close ideological connections to the Nazi party, rather than just allowing the page to be used to present the NPD's policy as some uniquely independent ideology, which it is not.--R-41 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NPD-logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:NPD-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation[edit]

This article is filled with POV which promotes the NPD and denounces its criticism as well as having sections which appear to have Holocaust denial in them. As of writing this note here, there is a section in the article which is POV that says

"The NPD has come under criticism for allegedly exerting party influence by means of "intimidation", creating "national, free zones" in areas where their support is the strongest. This tactic is seen by the anti-German groups as an attempt by the NPD to circumvent their marginal electoral status."

Labelling opponents of the NPD as part of "anti-German groups" is very biased. Even worse is the article claiming that the Auschwitz extermination camp was a "relocation camp" and says that people "allegedly died" in Aushwitz. Solid evidence exists from multiple sources to show that Aushwitz was an extermination camp and that many people died there in gas chambers. Calling Auschwitz a "relocation camp" where people allegedly" died is not backed up by most sources. Most sources confirm that it was an extermination camp were many people were systematically murdered. Calling it a "relocation camp" and claiming that it is only an allegation that people died in Auschwitz is original research which is banned on Wikipedia, and is just another example of Holocaust denial.

To me this appears to be the work of a neo-Nazi or at least some partisan extreme nationalist. The entire article has to be redone and monitored to insure that this kind of biased, unsupported material does not return to the article.--R-41 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You must understand that these additions are all recent and the work of a single contributor. Did you bother to take a look at the history of the page? I would argue that there is no need for your tag(s) now, except it is selective information to list Duke as a former KKK wizard without listing his other title, as a representative of the gov't. Calling him a "controversial ideologue" is much less subjective than listing just one position held or another and does not way down the article with information about David Duke. This is an article about the NPD, not Duke.-- (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think "white nationalist ideologues", the exact phrase in the last version by Dub " ", is even less POV than what I suggested above. Duke is an ideologue for white nationalism, nobody doubts that. The reader should decide if that is controversial or not, not us. Furthermore, I am also noting that the person who made the last few edits to the section about Duke failed to do so much as check to see if it was "Klu Klux Klan" or "Ku Klux Klan"...that speaks volumes about the quality of edits thrown in to the article after the version by Dub " ". In any case, I have reverted to Dub " " 's work.-- (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The explanation of David Duke as a former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives is now mentioned as well as that he was a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.--R-41 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


"It is under observation by the German counterpart of the FBI because of right extremism." What agency is meant here? Bundeskriminalamt? I'd rather doubt that ... If the Verfassungsschutz is meant here, I'd question the comparison to the FBI. --JensMueller (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

what ?![edit]

"Third position" ?

They are national socialists not third positionists ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't want to include this into the main article, but a link to "Narcissistic personality disorder" might be an idea, both for the abbreviation (NPD) as well as for the personality of most right-wing extremists (with seems to be mixed between said NPD and an inferiority complex [which doesn't have such a nice abbreviation for the topic]). In case you see this commentary unfit for this discussion page please feel free to delete it, I'm just trying to offer you some fun in exchange for your efforts dealing with this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Text taken out of 2003 banning attempt section[edit]

I have taken the text

The NDP militants, guided by hatred against Israel and Jews, have tried to establish contacts with muslim extremists and also with pariah regimes like North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq[1].

out of the section on the 2003 banning attempt because it's not related to that particular topic. Feel free to insert the mention of that Tagesspiegel article (cided by in a more apposite context in the article. Tschild (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a Neo-Nazi Party???[edit]

Just because the party has ethnic or white nationalist ideologies the party should not be considered as a Neo-Nazi party.

They should be considered Neo-Nazis for that, for their antisemitism, their holocaust denial, their open admiration for 3rd Reich leaders, their opposition to democracy and freedom and, last but not least, for holding "activist trainings" with the title "national socialism, now!" - how much more explicit do you need it? --Brazzy (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what is this about claiming Rudolf Hess is a martyr? An account of the basis of this claim would improve the article. °°°°

When I translate the above 'national socialism, now!' article I get this:

'The NPD is a collective movement in the national camp in which there are several trends. The National Socialists are represented in the NPD.'

So, the NPD itself says it has Nazis in it. The only thing to argue, then, is how many? Are the Nazis just one trend, or is this a circumlocution required by the anti-Nazi laws in modern Germany?

A clue to this might be found in a 1996 interview with NDP leader Udo Voight. He was speaking to the 'National Vanguard' official magazine of the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group in the USA. Voight said:

"First of all, I must make clear that I am giving this interview in a land in which there is no law which explicitly guarantees the right to freely express one's opinions. For this reason National Vanguard readers would be advised to read between the lines. Individuals uttering forbidden statements, including statements made in foreign countries, may face criminal charges in Germany."

He then goes on to deny the NDP is the sucessor of the NSDAP(Nazis) Is this a statement where we should 'read between the lines'? He also says the NDP has been 'collaborating sucessfuly' with the USA's National Alliance, an open neo-Nazi group, which seems plain enough.

The link to the whole interview is given below. It could be a useful source of first-hand info on the NDP for anyone who wants to improve the article. (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

NPD's cooperation with neo-Nazis[edit]

I would like to ask user and user, who appear to be the same to translate my sources and elaborate in how far its content is not stating or implying

a) the cooperation of the NPD with neo-Nazis and b) not stating that neo-Nazis are gaining influence in the party itself.

Because these are the statements that I added in my edits and which i documented from three different sources, namely the Verfassungsschutz, the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Federal Office for political Education) and the süddeutsche Zeitung. Other users are invited to unfold any mistakes by my side, as well of course. Kalifat (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe now that you finally created a proper account you can be kind enough to answer my questions and explain your reasons for your reverts, gaius octavius princeps? or are you simply not interested in discussing the matter, but trying to push a pov? Kalifat (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox[edit]

nazism is illegal in germany, if npd were neo-nazi they would be illegal. It is fair and justified to reference reputable sources that still claim they are neo-nazi, it is however not encyclopaedic to state these sources as fact when, if it were a proven fact the npd would be illegal and not exist.

The article is certainly not pro-npd as some here have said, this is a good thing. However it should not be anti-npd either, regardless of how you personally feel about the npd.

Neutrality lads, come on now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

i never said that the npd itself is a neo-nazi organisation and neither does the article say so. if the npd was a neonazi organisation, it would indeed be banned. i never deleted the info that states that the npd rejects the label of being a neonazi party. and it is okay, that it says so.

but there is a discrepancy between the npd's self chosen presentation to the outside world and their practices and activities inside their organisation. this is where i inserted my edits.

so this contradiction or discrepancy does exist, because there are individuals, who were convicted for being members of illegal "freie kameradschaften". and these organisations were indeed neonazis. they were illegalized because of this reason and their members were convicted for various neonazi activities.

now, the npd allows them to run for office in their name. they represent the npd. these people run for the npd in various districts. the npd organizes rallies, meetings etc. with these guys as speakers, marshals and participants. the npd organizes their campaigns, they support their campaigns logistically, financially etc.

so, they do cooperate with neonazis.

and they endorse them, because the cooperation with these neonazis is giving the npd a chance to reach out to hardcore neonazis. people, to whom the npd otherwise would be 'too soft', not radical enough, traitorous towards the true interest of the german people, or whatever. this is what i edited.

thanks for finally engaging in a discussion.Kalifat (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit states as fact that the npd are neo-nazi in the opening segment, by not offering the sources in a neutral stance.It has also included 'racism' as a political ideology which is like writing 'witch' or 'heretic' as a stance. It is absurd.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does my edit state that the "npd are neo-nazis"? Yeah, nowhere... And what is a neutral source? A report by the Verfassungsschutz isn't neutral? An article in a 'mainstream media' isn't neutral? I differentiated between being neonazis and cooperating with neonazis. is that so hard to understand? And here check this quote by Udo Voigt, federal chairman/leader of the party in 2004:

„Natürlich ist der Nationalsozialismus als Strömung in Deutschland auch heute vorhanden. Für die NPD ist er nicht maßgebend, aber wir versuchen, neben Nationalliberalen und Nationalkonservativen eben auch die nationalsozialistische Strömung zu integrieren, da eine Abgrenzung nur dem politischen Gegner hilft.“

"Of course, nationalsocialism as a political currents/tendency still exists in present Germany. For the NPD, this [political current] isn't authoritative, but we are aiming to integrate this nationalsocialist currents as well, alongside national liberal and national conservative tendencies, because dissociating us from it would mean to help the political opponent."

This quote comes from an interview in the "Junge Freiheit", ("Ziel ist, die BRD abzuwickeln", 40/04, 24 September 2004, p.3 [5]) not really a mainstram media, neither a leftist paper, but the most rightwing paper in business. Is that neutral enough to count as a source that is documenting the COOPERATION and ENDORSEMENT of npd/neonazis for you guys? or not neutral, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalifat (talkcontribs) 19:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Validity of stating that a cooperation between npd and neonazis exists and differences towards labeling the NPD neo-nazis[edit]

I like to ask different users about their opinion and their evaluation of the validity of my edits. As stated in the discussions in the last two sections above, and evidently in the article itself, i never labeled the NPD as neo-nazis.

Instead I tried to lay open the NPD's support and cooperation with neonazis to balance the article. The article labels the cooperation as accusations or was denying it outright, while the cooperation itself is documented by the party's activities, different state/independent/scientifical sources and the party itself. All of them are reporting about the coop. The cooperation and endorsement thus is not only an accusation or a claim, but a factual practice. It exists and is not denied by the NPD. In the article and the discussion here I quoted sources from the Verfassungsschutz, independent media and members of the NPD itself to avoid giving non-neutral sources. Kalifat (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this article for the first time. As far as I can see, your edits are fully justified. Denying any sort of connection between NDP and neonazis seems to be whitewashing. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

problems with the article[edit]

Who recently changed the intro?

"Far right" was what was there before, and at least that refers to a position along someone's political spectrum; "radical" is simply someone's attitude towards far right politics.

I'm also noting how different this intro is from the article about "Die Linke", which in terms of platform, and in relation to the centrist parties, is "far left" and therefore, something someone could also judge as "radical". Yet for Die Linke, Wikipedia has:

The Left (German: Die Linke), is a political party in Germany which commits itself to democratic socialism.

What am I reading about here, the left-of-center SPD or Die Linke? Die Linke has contacts with all kinds of blantantly communist and anti-capitalist organizations, yet notice that nobody is calling Die Linke "radical" in the intro...

And the same with the MLPD:

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (German: Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands, MLPD) is an Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, Communist political party in Germany without parliamentary representation.

Nothing about "radicalism" here, why the double standard? Why is the arguably "far left" being made to look centrist and democratic and the arguably "far right", which tries just as hard to portray itself as democratic (national democratic), being labeled as "radical"?

Other problems:

Why was the information about the financial crisis again moved into "platform and philosophies"? It is recent news, just like the concert, which was one of the largest to date, and recently deleted. Both pieces of information are important news stories.

Again, another unwarranted change: the black football player's name was not on the pamphlet, only the jersey number 25, so the article has recently been changed to include false information and now the article is locked. [6]

The German Federal Agency for Civic Education, or BPB, has accused the NPD of actively working with neo-Nazis and endorsing the cooperation with protagonists and members of unconstitutional and illegal organisations.[5] [6] Whereas the German daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has claimed that known neo-Nazis have influence in the party.[7] [8] [9] is simply an overly-detailed elaboration on the preceding points, about political opponents and the press. I think the links are important to include (5,6,7,8,9) but I'm not sure such lengthy elaboration is necessary. As it stands, the above isn't even written in complete sentences.

However, the Party had less success in the 1970s and 1980s, suffered an internal split over its failure to get into the German Parliament. The issue of immigration spurred a partial rebound from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, but this proved shortlived and with only limited successes in local elections..[23]

The Party's fortunes declined through the rest of the century. It suffered an internal split over its failure to get into the German Parliament. The issue of immigration spurred a partial rebound from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, but this proved shortlived and with only limited successes in local elections.[23]

Again, sloppy reverts and careless re-entering of information.

The NPD also took part in a "holocaust vigil" for Gaza against Israel during Operation Cast Lead in support of the Palestinians.[37] Charlotte Knobloch, the head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, warned ""Joint hatred of everything Jewish is unifying neo-Nazis and Islamists... German-Palestinians protestors unashamedly admitted that they would vote for the NPD during the next election." [38]

...and yet again.

Whoever keeps doing this should be ashamed of themselves. And now the article is locked...nice.--Sixsicksheep (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

--- I agree. It is the work of a couple of persistant offenders who are blind to the concept of neutrality. I'm glad it's locked for now. (ignore the spammer below)Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah. why dont you edit the mickey mouse article. its pretty messed up too compared to minny mouse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts are NOT POV[edit]

The party does not accept non-white Germans in the party and that is a racist position. Stating so is not POV it is a fact and continually trying to whitewash this falls nothing short of vandalism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the article with hundreds of lines of "evil nazi evil nazi evil nazi" as this may be the only way to stop people from whining that the article is too positive about them. Thus the article will be politically correct and everyone except some evil nazis will be happy. -- (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Fact is not a fact but an opinion on the value of German ethnicity in defining Germans[edit]

So in answer to your statement of fact, no.

The party does not accept non-ethnic Germans into it. The NPD view non-ethnic Germans as legal German citizens, but they do not not view them as ethnically German.

They also wouldn't accept Hungarians or Italian, who are 'white' as you call it. So the non-white Germans description is wrong.

They are not saying that German citizens who aren't ethnically German are inferior, they are saying that they are not of the German ethnic group, and therefore as an ethno-nationalist party, they are not accepted into the NPD. Whether this is wrong or not is not the issue. Though their description is vague and basically tailored to be defined as they see fit, your opposition to this is emotional and pov, rather than encyclopaedic.

You should not be condoning or condemning their stance when adding to an encyclopaedia. Putting Racism as a party ideology in the article (as you want to do) is like writing heretic for an opposing religious sect from your own. You are arguing against their definition of what a German is. You are arguing citizen, they argue ethnic (while accepting that there are legal German citizens who are not ethnic Germans) Neither should be presented here as right or wrong.

Unless the npd have stated racism as an ideology, it should not be in the article as one. However, accusations of the npd practising racism can and should be. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The term racist should be avoided in articles, except when there is a reference to a text there the actual term is used. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a source for the policy on admitting only "ethnic Germans" and what is an ethnic German? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So many illogical and factually innacurate assertions and arguments here.

"The party does not accept non-ethnic Germans into it"

The party accepts Germans with Slavic ancestry, google the name Steffen Hupka Here is some tangible proof that they are racist and not merely ethno-nationalist

The German article states that this man with a Czech name was involved in the NPD!

They also wouldn't accept Hungarians or Italian, who are 'white' as you call it. So the non-white Germans description is wrong

They accept someone with a Czech name so obviously they do accept whites who are not of pure German lineage.

“Racism as a party ideology in the article (as you want to do) is like writing heretic for an opposing religious sect from your own.”

The issue is not whether Racism is right or wrong, I am neutral on this point. They accept Germans with Slavic ancestry like Steffen Hupka but not blacks, Asians or Middle-Easterners and this is a racist position. I never said that their position was wrong or right, I merely stated the fact that it is racist. Same way how a neo-confederate would call Obama a Marxist , Marxist in itself is merely a term for a political or ideological position like racism is. And although it would be motivated by personal bias against the Marxist ideology and against Obama, it would not be POV to state that the US Communist party is Marxist.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

well, the problem is "racism" is not just a word for the acknowledgement of race, it is also a term used to describe the hatred of people because of race or those who hate because of race; furthermore, because of the latter classification, it is a condescending way to classify individuals who promote the ethnostate...which is exactly like saying a non-Christian is a heretic; you simply take one thing and call it something else, using a word with a stigma attached to it so the object in question is seen the same way as the word with the stigma. To decide for Wikipedia that the party is "racist", especially without naming sources that call the party racist, is call the party racist, even if there were a few sources which used the term, is also POV, because this would be merely an opinion held by the press, and would have to be noted as such. The only way the term "racist" is acceptable to use is if the party declares its hatred for other races because, well, racist is the word we use to describe such speech. Whereas racism can mean any variety of things, the term "Marxist" refers to Marxist philosophies or one who follows them. Racism can be a highly-subjective qualification, like heretic, for the value of German ethnicity in defining Germans or something entirely different. - (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"the problem is "racism" is not just a word for the acknowledgement of race, it is also a term used to describe the hatred of people because of race or those who hate because of race"
Do you have any references to back this assertion that it automatically implies that you hate people of other races because by your logic it would also mean that the term nationalist implies that you hate people of other nations and even if it what you asserted can be backed up by scholarly sources it does not mean that the NPD are not racist because it would be logical that they would be opposed to the presence of non-whites in Germany and in the party precisely because they hold contempt for other races.
"Whereas racism can mean any variety of things, the term "Marxist" refers to Marxist philosophies or one who follows them."
The term marxist is employed regulary by neo-confederates in the League of the south to describe not only Obama but even John McCain so it is not always used to describe genuine Marxists. However, because it is occasionally used as an irrational attack by some on others they dislike, same way the term racist is, it does not mean that a party or group cannot be Marxist. Same way how eventhough racist is occasionally used as an irrational attack, it does not mean you cannot find a genuinely racist movement and all the facts that I have presented show quite clearly that the NPD is a genuinely racist movement.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm laughing at this weak-minded liberal idiot. For you guys everything on earth is racist. Before stalking the few white "racists" in the world, you really should take a look at the racist BLACK MAJORITY! 1 out of 4 men in South Africa admitted to have raped someone at least once. In America, the black on white murder rate is 4 times higher than the white on black murder rate, although blacks are only 13% of the population. At the same time, 40 thousand white females are raped by blacks each year in the U.S., but less than 5 black females are raped by whites. Each and every year. You guys must be either, 1. retarded, 2. fools, or racists against whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Spitzer, are you doubting that racist is the word we use to describe hatred towards those of a different background? No, "racist" does not automatically imply this, but this is its common useage to a degree that "nationalist", as a term used to describe hatred of other nations, is not. Neither is "Marxist", but I suppose its common use is slightly more negative than "social" or "collective". However, if a party truly adheres to the principles of Marx and claims this as part of their manifesto, then it makes sense to call the party Marxist. Otherwise, and Wikipedia makes this clear, the opinion should be giving with the source ("according to...")-- (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a point the article does not address:

Does the NDP admit German Jews? (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazi / Neo-Nazi section[edit]

There seems to be some edit warring lately about whether the NPD are often labelled a Nazi or Neo-Nazi organisation. The section that has been restored multiple times is not properly sourced and includes original research and synthesis. The youtube video is not a reliable source. Anyone could upload such a video to make his point here. If it was a video of a TV-channel that is RS, things would be different. The second reference a transcript from Deutsche Welle and is a reliable source. However it doesn't back up the sentence in the article. The source only gives an example of how a NPD member called the Bundestag 'Reichstag'. It doesn't say that this is a reason for people to label NPD 'Nazi' or 'Neo-Nazi'. Therefore it's synthesis. The last source given is from some random non-RS website. Therefor this section should be removed until better sources are found. (By the way, the German wikipedia article on NPD does not contain the claim that NPD is often called Nazi party, either) SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

is it not illegal in deutschland to be a nazi, the guy has a Hess photo at the background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's illegal to be a Nazi in Germany. That's why the NPD insist they're not Neo-Nazis, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To the IP switching vandal[edit]

Please refrain from your continued revert-warring on the National Democratic Party of Germany page, adding material without sources or even discussion is not on. Read the sections above this for info. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a quote for Laqueur[edit]

As the source is not accessible on the net, a quote must be provided for the statement "but historian Walter Laqueur writes that it cannot be classified that way" in the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And you are not in the capacity to do this yourself, so you have posted dubious tags in this sentence and others? Adding dubious tags to everything without doing the work to fix the problem is not constructive editing. Here is the source for the part you say is "not accessible on the net" - [7]. It took less than five minutes to find! And requesting sources for statements such as "the party considers Hess a martyr", as somebody else has done (again, without actually trying to do research) is not much more of a help. Did this person seriously doubt that the party considers Hess a martyr? [8]. What's next, a "fact" tag for the fact that Lacqueuer was indeed the author of his book? --Beepo33 (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Laqueur's statement is not further argumented and it should be contrasted with other reliable sources, I've added the refimprove tag to the section. Any statement appearing dubious can be tagged as such, the burden of finding and quoting the sources is on those defending the statement.--Sum (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "historian Walter Laqueur writes that the NPD cannot be classified as a neo-Nazi party" is useless information (and appears twice in the article btw). A lot of people say the NPD a neo-nazi party, and a lot of people say the opposite. What's the special relevance of Walter Laqueur on this topic, and most importantly, what's the reasoning behind his statement? You can't just write "The Tea Party is considered by many an anti-government movement, but journalist Brian Johnson says it isn't." without explaining why. His argument should be specified, or the sentence should be removed. Pac8682 (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with this. It's Undue weight and pretty much a weaseling. That kind of nuance - the fact that a particular person disagrees with a very common characterization, can (and in fact should) be included in article text, but it's undue for the lede. Moving.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Few things that perhaps should be mentioned-stronghold in Mecklenburg and territorial claims against Polish territories including Pomerania[edit]

I think the article should also mention how Mecklenburgia became the stronghold of the party, and that NDP has issued veiled territorial demands regarding Polish Pomerania[9][10] that borders this region. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point, though Mecklenburg-Vorpommern really translates to "Mecklenburg-Pomerania" or something similar. Also, the cited articles should be in English for the English-language version of Wikipedia.

Ripeugenedebs (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Irredentism VS. Pan-Germanism[edit]

In order for "Pan-Germanism" to occur, the areas that they are going into have to be German speaking. In order for "Irredentism" to occur it requires it to have a historical connection in which these territories do. The former Kingdom of Prussia which is now in Poland and Russia and is filled with those ethnic groups (Not Germans) So giving this party the name Pan-Germanism just because they say they want to reclaim land with immigration (some of it has been German since the Holy Roman empire era up until WWII when they were ethnically cleansed by the Russians) is demonizing to say the least. For those doubting Germans ever has a presence in the area I'm going to post maps to prove otherwise.-

  • German Empire:

recent nazi as ideology edits[edit]

To the editor adding 'Nazi' as ideology: The allegations are heavily covered and sourced within the entry Quote: "The mainstream media and the NPD’s political opponents often label the party a neo-Nazi organization,[5][6][7][8][9] but historian Walter Laqueur writes that it cannot be classified that way.[10] The German Federal Agency for Civic Education, or BPB, has criticized the NPD for working with members of organizations which the federal courts later found to be unconstitutional and were disbanded.[11][12] The German federal intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, classifies the NPD as a "threat to the constitutional order" because of its platform and philosophy, and it is under their observation.[13] The NPD rejects this depiction, calls it an attempt to discredit their politics and states that they stand for the interests of the German people and for the German state.[14]"

They are not a 'national socialist' party. National Socialism is illegal in Germany. Read the huge discussion above.

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What discussion are you referring to? Also, existence of a discussion by itself doesn't mean anything. Your opinion that "They are not a 'national socialist' party" is completely irrelevant. What matters is how they are described in sources. And yes, they're described as neo-Nazis. National Socialism is illegal in Germany but that's exactly why they pretend they're not NS, why they play all kinds of games and dress up their neo-Nazism in new clothes - to get around the letter of the law. But most people don't actually take what neo-Nazis say about themselves at face value, you know?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, they are described as neo-Nazis in sources[edit]

Regarding this revert [11].

First, I have read the talk page. I see absolutely nothing on here which would prevent adding what multiple reliable sources state to the article and the infobox.

Second, if "nazi allegations" (sic) are covered in the entry and text, then they should also go in the lede and the infobox, as these are supposed to SUMMARIZE the contents of the article.

Third, this statement is irrelevant (and incorrect): This cannot be added to 'ideology' without actual evidence, not just opinions - yes, it can be added if these "opinions" are found in reliable sources. What cannot be added are Wikipedia's editors' own opinions. Like, for instance, your personal opinion that they are not neo-Nazis.

Fourth - obviously contensious piece without discus - it's called being "bold", it's recommended by Wikipedia and we are discussing it now.

Fifth, you also reverted my other improvements to the article. Even if you think that the National Socialism doesn't belong in the infobox, that's no reason to make a nonconstructive blanket revert. I'm going to restore my changes, aside from the info box one.

Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here be reliable sources:

  1. The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, by Peter Davies, Derek Lynch - quote: It was the most significant neo-Nazi party to emerge after 1945
  2. Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups by Stephen E. Atkins - quote: the oldest of the German neo-Nazi parties
  3. Germany transformed: political culture and the new politics, by Kendall L. Baker, Russell J. Dalton, Kai Hildebrandt - quote: the neo-Nazi NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany)
  4. Europe since 1945: an encyclopedia, Volume 2, by Bernard A. Cook - quote: possibly deserving of the label "neofascist" and The NPD was founded in 1964 by survivors of the overtly neo-Nazi SRP
  5. The Routledge companion to Nazi Germany by Roderick Stackelberg - quote: a Neo-Nazi party founded in 1964 in West Germany
  6. Encyclopaedia of international law by Vinod K. Lall, Danial Khemchand - quote: frankly fascist NPD, the Neo-Nazi NPD, this neo-Nazi organization
  7. The beast reawakens by Martin A. Lee - quote: neo-Nazi NPD

and I could go on and on. Of course there's no shortage of sources calling this party "extremist" "far right" etc. Yes, the NPD tries to pretend they're not neo-Nazis in order to circumvent Germany's anti-Nazi, anti-Holocaust denial laws. But that doesn't mean we should believe their bullshit, nor that most reasonable people (and sources!) believe it. Can we stop playing games now?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. I am not "playing games".[edit]

National Socialism is illegal in Germany. If they were proven to be national socialist they would be illegal. It is not our place to believe or disbelieve the npd's claims to not be NS, or their status under German law as not NS.

On the sources. Do you not think I would have read up on the npd before weighing in? I know of the sources, I can use google.

For illegal NS parties see: Volkssozialistische Bewegung Deutschlands/Partei der Arbeit and Action Front of National Socialists/National Activists - both banned.

Thank you. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can the both of you keep this in one topic? Just click edit button on the upper right of the topic and put what you want to say in, preferably indented like so: :{comment} ~~~~. (the colon indents) It's going to cause a lot of clutter otherwise. Also, let's all try to remain WP:CIVIL even when talking about whether these guys are Nazis or not. Thanks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
@Gaius - if you know the sources then you know that they are described as neo-Nazi in them. What's the problem?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Much better. Hmm, how do you deal with political parties exactly? I mean it is indeed obvious that they are basically Nazis in porcupine's clothing, however National Socialist is not how they refer to themselves. Do you put a party's ideology as stated by them or by everyone else? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the fact that they are described as such can easily go into the lede and the text. I guess the main issue is the infobox and whether it should be included in there. I understand the desire of limited space within the box, but I think that if we put "described as others as National Socialist" that wouldn't be excessive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Space is indeed the biggest issue imo. The question is how do you get it down to something more bite-sized? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it's noted in the text and the lede that might be enough. One possibility is to put in a footnote in the infobox, and then in the footnote say that many sources describe them as neoNazi.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That could work I guess. What do other editors think? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


"The historian Walter Laqueur however has written that the NPD cannot be classified as a neo-Nazi party." -- This is its own paragraph and a stand-alone sentence in the section. It seems like an abrupt way to end a paragraph, but even worse, it's just saying he has written that they can't be classified as Neo-Nazis. There are no reasons given or anything, just the statement. What is the reader supposed to take away from this without his reasons? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:David Duke and Udo Voigt (2002).jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:David Duke and Udo Voigt (2002).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Before the inevitable edit war[edit]

I made the following revision:

"Knobloch, who broadly associated Palestinians with Nazis, claimed German-Palestinian protestors "unashamedly admitted" that they would vote for the NPD during the next election."

Specifically the statement that Knobloch "broadly associated Palestinians with Nazis", this was added after I checked the source linked. She plainly does broadly associate Palestinians with Nazis in the linked source, yet minutes after I made this revision it was reverted. My question would be why Wikipedia readers should not be informed that the claim of German-Palestinian support of the NPD was made by a source who broadly associates the Palestinians with Nazis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(a) The content you want to include in the article is not supported by the source. (b) This is not an article about Knobloch. (c) I have undone your edit again, as we can't have such defamatory statements about living people on the project.   Cs32en Talk to me  03:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It most definitely is supported by the source, but I, as a lowly unregistered wiki user will undoubtedly lose this edit war with you won't I, as you will cite wiki policy like a bureaucrat to justify an obviously political edit? Been through this before too many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, it is in the source. The question is why it should be included. (and please do not resort to personal comments) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I explained above. I think it's important readers of the article are aware that the source who is making this specific claim (without any evidence) is making it in the broader context of trying to associate Palestinians with Nazis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
No, it is actually not in the source. The source says that Knobloch stated that they were allies. That's not the same as associating someone.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is. An alliance is one kind of an association. Associating two groups means assigning a relationship between these two entities-- if an alliance does not involve a relationship/association between two parties I'll eat my hat.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I'll put mine on the plate, too. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Statements on the election of Barack Obama"[edit]

Is there any good reason why "Statements on the election of Barack Obama" should have its own section? It's a rather insignificant piece of the party's history. Why not among the other controversies in the "Activism and controversy" right above it? /Julle (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved it. /Julle (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation link is broken[edit]

This citation link about a map of Germany that had the Austrian border and the Oder line erased is broken; it's pointing to a blank page. Any replacements? (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ring Nationaler Frauen[edit]

The above article is a stub for a body within the NPD that is meant represent women's interests in the party. I don't think it meets WP:GNG and it should be merged into hear. Charles Essie (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected to this, I have merged the article into the lead section of this article and left a redirect on the RNF article. Thank you for bringing this up. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Does not oppose private property[edit]

It is correct that the NDP economic programme "promotes social security for Germans and control against plutocracy", but why add "but it does not oppose private property"? There is no connection between opposition to plutocracy and capitalism, and opposing private property. Historically most people worldwide have opposed plutocracy and capitalism, but opposition to private property is an entirely different matter, and much rarer. I suggest that the statement that "it does not oppose private property" ought to be deleted as meaningless in the context.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I have removed this phrasing. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

National Socialism is LEFT-WING[edit]

Right-Wing Socialism? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Just forget the "socialism" part of the name (it’s not a very fitting translation anyway, in my opinion). Cheers  hugarheimur 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Platform and Philosophy - Map of Germany[edit]

The reference/source for the map of Germany described does not appear to be working? Source / reference number 25. Does anyone have this image and can upload it somewhere and link to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CC00:80F0:F493:D3C6:2C30:AE17 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ (in German)