Talk:Nazi Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q:Why is the Nazi Party labeled a far-right party? They called themselves socialists, so should they be left-wing?
A: Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science; however, labor parties are typically far-left in party affiliation. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party.
Q: If socialism is mainly left-wing and they called themselves socialists in their name, why is this being ignored?
A: Historically several right-wing figures used the term "socialism" to mean something very different from what would be understood by traditional left-wing socialism, referring simply to the broader concept of collectivism and anti-individualism. For instance, "conservative socialism" was promoted by Austrian political figure Metternich. The prominent French reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand". Mauras' views influenced fascism. Oswald Spengler's ideal of "Prussian Socialism" directly influenced Nazism, and Spengler promoted it as a member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement. However, many socialists have a dim view of what they see as cooptation of socialism by otherwise right-wing movements. For example, Nikita Khrushchev sardonically remarked, "In modern times the word Socialism has become very fashionable, and it has also been used very loosely. Even Hitler used to babble about Socialism, and he worked the word into the name of his National Socialist party. The whole world knows what sort of Socialism Hitler had in mind."
Q: Were the Nazis actually a capitalist movement?
A: The answer depends on the context and definition of capitalism. Ideologically, Hitler in private was just as opposed to the ethos of capitalism as he was in public as a politician; he regarded the capitalist ethos as being self-centred individualism that was incompatible with patriotism. Furthermore, in both public and private Hitler regarded capitalism as being created by the Jews for their own interests. Hitler promoted effectively mercantilism and state capitalism through policies of colonial expansion in Eastern Europe to gain access to natural resources to make Germany self-sufficient and no longer dependent on international trade. The Nazis in public and in private held contempt for bourgeois culture in liberal capitalist societies - as they associated such bourgeois culture with a cosmopolitan, liberal, and decadent lifestyle that was incompatible with the Nazis' ideal of a nationalist martial ethic of disciplined soldiers who were collectively committed to the Fatherland above any individual interest. So ideologically, Nazism held strong antipathy to capitalism. However at the same time Hitler and the Nazis endorsed private property and private enterprise and did not challenge the market economy, which was important to their accrual of power because it avoided antagonizing industrialists and aristocrats. The Nazis themselves claimed that "true socialism" did not involve the Marxian opposition to private property. But if capitalism is defined in a minimum way as involving the support of the existence of private property, private enterprise and a market economy, then from that minimum definition, the Nazis could be considered as endorsing a capitalist economy.
Q: Did Nazi Germany invent universal health care?
A: No, Nazi Germany did not invent universal health care. It was first implemented in Germany, but in the German Empire under Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s. Bismarck implemented universal health care in response to address growing demands for social welfare policies by socialist movements such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany, as well as studies and government reports that declared the need for universal health care.
Q: Are there people who still support the Nazis?
A: Yes, they are called Neo-Nazis. They still exist even though the party, itself, is dissolved.

The word Aryan must be defined in the lead[edit]

It is a problem on wikipedia right now, that articles about Nazism and Nazi Germany are claiming they belived all Europeans or whites were a superior race. This is because the article about Aryans are claiming falsely that everyone and every nation defined Aryan as indo-european and western-asian. This defenition are not in line with what Hitler and the other national socialists thought about this word.

He even writes in Mein Kampf that it is hard to define Aryan, but it is usually described as a indo-german people who took controll over a part of India. In which it seems he wanted to use since it were an ancient name for Germans.

From my time at school and trough reading about the subject, there is no dubt that Hitler were speaking about a superior German race or Germanic race, this was what they though Aryan meant. While other Europeans, like Southern European were not as great, and the eastern Europeans were one of the lowest races.

This article in particular are helping to misinform the public, because the term isn't defined.

37.253.208.227 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please come up with a definition that you think is appropriate, being sure to have it well referenced, Hitler is a fine source to use for this purpose, and post it here. From her it can work its way into the article. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a few good sources. From the Holocaust museum: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005184. "Germans and other Northern Europeans were the 'Aryans', a superior race". Another one: https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007679. One from the Meriam-Webster Dictonary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Aryan. Either indo-european, "a hypotetical people who spoke a indo-European language in India", Nordics (in reference to the Nordic cuntries), Caucasians with nordic characteristics or indo-Iranians.
In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that "Chamberlain belives Aryan and German to mean the same thing". When Hitler speaks of the real Aryans, the people who inhabited India, he writes about an Indo-German and Indo-Germanic conqest, the Aryans who conqered India were in his view (some scholars too) German or Germanic. He later writes: "no defenition of the word Aryan is acceptable", but that the term "Aryan" had become a synonym for indo-German. He seems to belive that Europe and America become what they did because of the Aryans, that would indicate he thinks the UK (Conqered by German tribes, Anglo-Saxons), USA (at that time were inhabited by Anglo-Saxons, a German tribe), Germany, France (when it were conqered by German tribes, Franks) were Germanic or partly. He seems to have a very mixed view on the Term in General. This is the version I used: https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt
129.177.179.80 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that how it is handled in the lede is just fine. It is a link to Aryan race. That is where the Nazi definition or use of the term needs to be clarified. And I think that to some extent it is, although I have not delved into that article too much. Yet. Carptrash (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You need a reliable secondary source for what the Nazis meant by Aryan. The dictionary is inadequate because Nazis may not have used the same definition, just as they did not with Jews. Hitler's writings are also indequate because it assumes that HItler was consistent in his definitions and all Nazis accepted them. The Holocaust Museum definition is correct but imprecise. Certainly Germans were Aryans, but it is unclear which other peoples were. Note too that Aryan was considered a racial or subracial group by mainstream anthropologists at the time, and that is probably what the Nazis meant, but you need a source that explains it. TFD (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hans F. K. Günther in his book “The Racial Elements of European History” (translated from the 2nd German edition, 1927, p.257) has only one listing in the index for “Aryan.” It is in “The Nordic Ideal” chapter. I think I need to quote a largish chunk to get the sense and then we can decide if there is something useable in it. Or not.
”Following the terms used by Gobineau and Chamberlain, we come here and there upon more or less clear conceptions of the need for keeping the ‘Germanic’ blood pure, or (following Lapouge) of keeping the ‘Ayran’ blood pure. ‘’’Then there is a footnote. It states’’’
Philology used formerly often gives the name of Ayran to the Indo-European languages; nowadays the term ‘Ayran’ is mostly applied only to the Indo-Persian branch of these. Racial investigations in the beginning sometimes called the (non-existing) white or Caucasian race Aryan; later the peoples of Indo-European speech were occasionally called Aryan; and finally the Nordic race also was termed Aryan. Today the term Aryan has gone out of scientific use and its use is not advisable, especially since in lay circles the word Aryan is current in still other meanings, and mostly with a very confused application to the peoples who do not speak Semitic languages; the ‘Semites’ are then opposed to the ‘Aryans.’ The term ‘Semites’ however, has been likewise given up in anthropology, since men and peoples of various racial descent speak Semitic tongues. (cp. on this the fourth chapter above).” Carptrash (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Nazis definition of 'Aryan' was both ambiguous and flexible, sometimes they even targeted those that they considered to be part of the so-called Aryan race. When the Nazis introduced the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 the term Aryan was not used but rather German or related blood, but like Aryan, it was not defined. All definitions the Nazis used for Aryan included all the European peoples, including the Slavs, who many Nazis (including Hitler) regarded as racially inferior to the Germans.

Eric Ehrenreich in his book The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution speaks about the problems the Nazis had when defining the word 'Aryan' on pages 9-11. Diemut Majer in her book "Non-Germans" Under The Third Reich also explains the same thing throughout the whole book. On p.63 "According to National Socialist racial doctrine, all European peoples belonged to the family of Aryans and were thus fundamentally "racially equivalent", that is, recognized as equal before the law." However, as explained throughout the book, despite being considered 'Aryan' by the law, the Nazis discriminated against those they considered to be foreign. Even though the Nazis knew that there was no such thing racially speaking as the Aryan race, they still continued to use the term in propaganda but for the majority of time in documents the term German or related blood was used.

Hitler himself personally considered the Germanic peoples to be 'Aryans'. The Nazis had problems defining the racial status of non-Germanic people such as Hungarians and Finns.--Enoch J Brown (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

May I also just elaborate on what's already been said, Christopher Hutton in his book Race and the Third Reich wrote a chapter called "The Myth of an Aryan Race", in the 'Introduction' (p.80) he stated:

The notion that Nazi race theorists promoted the notion of a superior Aryan race is deeply embedded in academic and popular perceptions of Nazism. The term 'Aryan' was widely used in Nazi Germany, and 'non-Aryan' became in many contexts a synonym for 'Jewish'. However, Nazi race theorists opposed the promotion of 'Aryan' as a racial concept. By 1935, the National Socialist regime had accepted that this use of the term was unscientific. Almost every academic commentary - outside specialist writings on race science in the Third Reich - fundamentally misrepresents the intellectual history of this question. The notion that the Nazis 'confused language with race' or Volk with Rasse in relation to the Aryan question is completely false.

So in essence it's actually very difficult to describe how the Nazis defined 'Aryan' when they couldn't even come up with a satisfactory one themselves.--Enoch J Brown (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This user, Enoch J Brown, has been blocked as the latest sock of user:English Patriot Man. Kierzek (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason why the Nazis used "Aryan" (see Aryan race) mainly to refer to Germanic peoples, even though technically it meant the same as "Indo-European" at the time, is their belief that the Germanic peoples were the "purest" descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans ("Aryans"), who they thought had dwelt in Germany and Scandinavia (as they identified the people of the Corded Ware culture, then known as Battle-Axe culture, with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, after Gustaf Kossinna), while they considered Slavic peoples (despite their light pigmentation) as too mixed with Asians (mainly Turks and Mongols), Greeks and other Southern Europeans (generally not that lightly pigmented) as too mixed with ancient Mediterranean peoples, Indians (often with brownish skin colour) as too mixed with dark-skinned South Asian natives (Proto-Australoids and the like), etc., so these peoples didn't count as "true Aryans", and were considered "racially inferior".
I don't think the Nazis ever considered the "Aryans" (the supposed Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Neolithic/Bronze Age) as literally Germanic, but as older than the Germanic peoples, as their forebears (the same way you wouldn't call the ancient Romans literally Italian), hence their use of the term "Aryan" (I don't think anybody thought that it was Germanic tribes who "invaded" India, just like nobody thinks of Caesar as some Italian dude who invaded France; that's too obvious an anachronism, though admittedly, you never know with some people).
This is analogous to the way the Italian fascists considered the Italians the most direct and "purest" descendants of the ancient Romans, even if the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Romanians etc. also had some "Roman blood", but for example the French would have a great deal of Celtic and Germanic ancestry too.
I believe they did accept the Baltic peoples (Lithuanians and Latvians) as well as the Estonians and to some extent Finns and even Hungarians (despite their Finno-Ugric, non-Indo-European languages) as essentially "Aryan" on account of their appearance. There are also peoples where they were rather ambiguous and noncommittal, like the Persians, Kurds and other Iranian peoples, who have the most solid ancient tradition of calling themselves "arya" (the Indic/Sanskrit situation is a bit more complicated, though Indic is besides Iranian generally accepted as "Aryan" in the historically valid sense until this day), in a mainly ethnolinguistic sense, so ancestry and especially appearance isn't the main concern (many Iranians do look fairly European, though, some even rather lightly pigmented).
The concept Honorary Aryan does indicate a measure of flexibility with the designation and there was a great deal of "worthiness" implied, but the basic idea is fairly consistent and intelligible (or at least can be rationalised their way, even if it was self-serving and of course often specious – especially with the Slavs). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nazi party ideology[edit]

They were also "anti-capitalist". This should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the FAQ tries to blur the fact that national socialism really was (or is) socialism, not only in its name.
  • Reisman, George (2005-11-11). "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian". Mises Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-18. What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners. 
It was not Marxist version of socialism, though. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Mises, everyone was a socialist except him and Hayek and he wasn't sure about Hayek. According to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, both Democrats and Republicans are socialist, the U.S. is socialist as is the New World Order that secretly controls us. TFD (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the FAQ at the top:

  • The Nazi Party did not advocate for "a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment" and instead "embraced interventionist economics."
  • The Nazi Party embraced "collectivism and anti-individualism."
  • Hitler "regarded the capitalist ethos as being self-centred individualism that was incompatible with patriotism."

This is the exact opposite of a rightist opinion as it is understood today. The Nazi Party was only far-right in the same way that North Korea is: emphasis on nationalism and authoritarianism. It is not anywhere close to the right according to contemporary usage of the terms.

I believe it is misleading to use such an antiquated definition of a term, especially in an article's leading sentence. Vektor00 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

See "No original research." It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to correct the mistakes made by experts to report what they say. It seems you do not know why they are called far right and suggest you read the sources rather than ask other editors to explain them to you. TFD (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017[edit]

i request the removal of the logo ofd rhe nazi party as it is offensive 198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that will not happen. Wikipedia is not censored. That image is part or the story of the Nazi party and will remain. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2017[edit]

The National Socialist German Workers Party was not a Right Wing Party seeking Personal Rights in Opposition to Nationalistic Control but rather was a Left Leaning Party seeking a Strong Central Government and advocated that individual rights were secondary to the interests of the Party Interests. Central to the ideology were the beliefs that what was best for the National Interests of the County was what was best for the Unification of the German People.

Although the Party viewed communism as a fierce enemy, both ideologies shared left leaning concepts such as powerful central government, strong nationalist ideals and severe punishment for any opposition. Neither party advocated for strong individualism, religious freedoms or Natural Rights which are at the root of right wing parties. RickHorner (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of "Nazi"[edit]

As I understand it, the term "Nazi" was coined as a pejorative, even abusive term, by emigres who fled from Germany. The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei never referred to themselves as "Nazis" or "the Nazi Party" or to their philosophy as "Nazism". These are all pejorative terms used against them by outsiders. I despise everything about the NSDA but is an encyclopaedia the place to consistently refer to a historical organisation by a pejorative? Do we, for example, refer to Stalin as a "Commie" or as a "Communist"? Surely the latter. It's not a matter of respect for the subject of the article, but a respect for the facts of history. Jayarava (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of your statements are wrong: Nazi was not coined by emigrants, but by political opponents in the early 30s in Germany. Nazis used the word "Nazi" for themselves in the early days of their party history. Later when it became pejorative, the avoided this wording. However the most important argument is: Nazi party is the most often used English name for the NSDAP, so it is fine to put them under this lemma. Look at the German Wikipedia, there you will find the party under NSDAP (resp. its long name) --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

info box[edit]

Please remove "Social conservatism" and "Far-right" from the info box! The NSDAP was a syncretic and anti-"conservative" party. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Far-right is appropriate, as the Nazi Party was considered far-right in the Weimar Republic (the German Republic of 1918–33) due to its radical opposition to socialism, liberalism and democracy. Positions in the political spectrum always depend on historical context as there is no universal definition of "left" and "right". Social conservatism, on the other hand, is dubious and rather not a decisive element of the NSDAP's ideology. The party had different, sometimes contradictory, ideological elements, we cannot list them all in the infobox. Social conservatism perhaps was one of them, but at least until 1934 (Röhm purge), there also was a notable social-revolutionary wing. Readers are best refered to the article on Nazism to find out detailed information about the ideology. --RJFF (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017[edit]

To correct far-right to far-left, seeing as the policies are more in common with leftist ideals SocialistFever (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The National Socialist German Workers' Party was leftist, not rightist[edit]

Sorry but this statement is inaccurate "The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: About this sound Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (/ˈnɑːtsi/), was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920." The Nazi party is LEFT-WING ideology, as many of the posters on this 'talk page' point out. The thesis that because this is a common mistake in common parlance and in literature does not mean that it is correct to reinforce the mistake with continued misrepresentation. The facts are that the leftist policies of the Nazi party are clear to those who care to read about it. Wikipedia does a disservice to understanding history to refer to the Nazi party as 'right-wing'. There were no right-wing policies of the Nazi's save two: patriotism and respect for tradition. These are not exclusively Right-Wing policies, only the ones Nazism and current right-wing adherents share. The policies the Nazi's shared with the left-wing adherents share are more numerous and salient. These are: Social equality and egalitarianism, an opposition to society inequalities - especially financial, and opposition to tiers in society such as castes. Nazis and Left-wingers are radicals, reformists, and revolutionary.

For sources try searching Wikipedia: Left wing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.53.207 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.53.207 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Content is based on what reliable sources say. While the opinion you suggest is found on many websites expressing fringe views, that is not how experts see it. TFD (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Calling Nazis left-wing is close to mockery towards the thousands of communist/socialist victims of Nazism.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017[edit]

In the first Paragraph the identification of the NAZI Party as a "far right" needs clarification. In the second paragraph the NAZIs are supposedly openly anti "big business", anti "bourgeois" and anti "capitolism". To most people these are contradictory and opposite to "far right" positions. These apparent contradictions make the article confusing and apparently politically motivated.

Please change paragraph 1 to drop the phrase "far right". This political identifier should be left out entirely. AWinter (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. Vir4030 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017[edit]

Change the part that states that the Nazi Party was a far right movement. By its very nature the far right was all about the individual where as the far left is about the group. If you are getting hung up on the nationalism, the communist party had that as well. In economic policy, right wing is defined by loose econimic restrictions and controls i.e. laissez-faire. While left wing is defined by strict economic regulation and control up to and including nationlizing major industries as was done by the Nazi Party. Also fascism is just a dictatorship not a far right movement either. 98.150.222.32 (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. "Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science; however, labor parties are typically far-left in party affiliation. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party." nihlus kryik (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
We base content on the conclusions reached by experts and presented in reliable sources rather than editors' individual beliefs. Incidentally, your premises are mostly wrong. For example, the Nazis carried out a privatization program, i.e., de-nationalization. TFD (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Right wing?[edit]

The last time i checked, socialism is a far left wing ideology. Rancoridge333 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ found at the top of this very page for more information. (Or click here). — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)