Talk:Nazism/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Racial Theories

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that the Nazis were not Nordicists in anyway. On the Nordic race page right now there are sections devoted entirely to the Nazis Nordicism. If you're privy to the topic of race to the Nazis then you would understand that they were Nordicists and considered the Nordic phenotype to be an example of a 'White Aryan race'. The current textual on this article insinuates this entirely and states this with "Günther applied a Nordicist conception that Nordics were the highest in the racial hierarchy amongst these five Aryan subtype races." and to say the Nazis in largely weren't adherents of this and even their associates is laughable. My edit with a picture was reverted and deemed WP:OR which makes no sense. The picture deserves to stay on the article seeing how it was an important part of their racial views. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see with the picture is the caption. Do you have a source for the claim that this guy is some archetypal Nordic? If not, it's OR to present that picture as (a) an example of an ideal Nordic type and (b) as an example of whatever fever dream the Nazis were speaking of when they proclaimed Nordics to be the highest type of Aryan. I don't know the reason you were reverted, but that's the reason I'm arguing right here that this picture is problematic unless the tacit claim that the guy represents a Nazi ideal can be sourced. Not that they had the ideal, that's already sourced. But that he himself, the guy in the picture, represents the ideal. Is there one? If not the picture ought to come out, and soon, because it's really messing with my wa.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything OR about the material seeing how he is a man who is Nordic in phenotype and the Nazis claimed the Nordic was the highest in the hierarchy amongst the Aryan subraces. Obviously phenotypically Karl von Müller is Nordic in appearance and therefore would have been at the top of the hierarchy amongst Aryan subraces in terms of the National Socialists perception. I think it's quite clear the man is Nordid in phenotype, so not sure really what else there is to it and how its OR. It goes along with the material in the article currently, but just an image giving an example of a man who is apart of the Nordic (highest in terms of the racial hierarchy by Nazis) race phenotypically. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me and it's evidently not clear to whoever reverted you, so it would seem that it's not clear. Here's how you can see that it's original research: Suppose I replaced it with a picture of some random guy that you didn't think looked Nordic. I don't know, like Mickey Mouse or something. Then I said it was obvious to me that Mickey Mouse looked Nordic and I wasn't taking the picture out. Then what? You demand a reliable source that says Mickey Mouse looks Nordic and that the Nazis considered him to look Nordic and therefore considered Mickey Mouse to be an example of their highest racial phenotype. How else would we settle the issue? I'm surprised that you don't see that, whether the guy looks Nordic or not, it's original research to claim that he looks Nordic without a source, since its based on subjective criteria. Are you claiming that there are actual objective criteria for who looks Nordic?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly why I removed the image. I stated in my edit summary - OR -image and caption .... I couldn't have given a better reasoning than your posts here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah c'mon, obviously a man with black hair and brown eyes isn't Nordid in taxonomy, but I'll try and find a picture from a reliable source by an anthropologist that classifies as a man as Nordic phenotypically and then put the picture in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll need more than that. You'll need a single source that says the guy is an example of a Nordic phenotype in exactly the way the Nazis interpreted that concept for it to be usable here. One source stating that guy X is Nordic and another source (which we already have plenty of) stating that Nazis considered Nordic phenotype people to be the highest type would require synthesis to put a picture of guy X in here as an example of some Nazi ideal. You ought to be able to find an actual, sourceable, Nazi-approved exemplar of Nordic-phenotype-in-the-Nazi-sense, because they were big on racial ID manuals and stuff, but barring that, we're probably just not going to have a picture to illustrate this. Various anthropologists will have various examples of the Nordic phenotype because it is not defined (and, indeed, not definable) in objective terms. There's no reason to assume that just because some non-Nazi anthropologist thinks guy X looks Nordic that the Nazis did too.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, obviously ones perception of who is phenotypically "Nordic" is completely different then someone else's. The Nordic type the Nazis perceived as "Nordic" and at the top of the racial hierarchy could be completely different then the traditional Nordid type we're used to knowing about. ShawntheGod (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're being serious, then you're right. If you're being sarcastic, you're ignoring over 100 years of anthropological scholarship which shows that the concept of race is ill-defined, internally contradictory, and unscientific in a strong sense, and that therefore there is no "traditional Nordic type we're used to knowing about." As soon as someone says that a person is objectively an exemplar of a "type" in this sense, they cease to be a reliable source on anything but their own opinion. Thus if you want to illustrate a Nazi racial ideal, you need either an independent reliable source saying that the illustration illustrates the Nazi ideal (preferred) or else a Nazi source saying "Look! This guy is our racial ideal" (second best but arguably acceptable). Even Nazis disagreed amongst themselves about racial types. It's like trying to do a taxonomy of unicorns or anything else which doesn't actually exist: (a) scholars working in the field will disagree because they aren't studying an actually existing phenomenon, (b) the very fact that they're studying it seriously makes their works suspect and not reliable for anything other than what the works literally say, and (c) in order to talk about their works in Wikipedia we need reliable secondary sources independent of the unicorn theorists which discuss their various taxonomies as an object of scholarly study rather than as the work-product of reliable scholars.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was being serious, what makes you think I was being sarcastic or any jocularity there? Usually "Nordic" types are defined by certain stereotypical features. Obviously the "Nordic" type the Nazis viewed at the top of the racial hierarchy should be the typical blonde hair and blue eyed Nordids that come to mind when I think of them. Perhaps putting something in the article of a man with blonde hair and blue eyes saying he was the 'ideal Nordic type for the Nazis' is a bit ridiculous and I understand that now. Putting the caption something like the German soldier picture seems much more apposite. No? "Blonde hair and blue eyed German soldier from WW2, the stereotyped physical appearance of the Nordic race, which was said to be the most pure sub-race of the Aryan race. something like this seems more suitable for the article then to claim an 'ideal Nordid type', perhaps? ShawntheGod (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it's so hard to tell from characters on a screen whether there's sarcasm or not. Yes, something like that picture would be much better if it's true that it's a piece of Nazi propaganda and that Nazis identified it as a Nordic ideal. I notice they don't have a provenance for the picture on the page you linked to, and there's none on the image page. Surely it can't be so hard to find sourceable information about this? I agree that an image wouldn't be a bad thing per se.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if that image is truly Nazi propaganda and the Wikicommons doesn't offer a direct source of where they got the image from and elaborate on the image. I did a Google reverse image search and I really can't find any sources that show its Nazi propaganda. I was proposing that inserting an image similar to that one in the article with a caption quite the same too. Obviously showing an image of the usual stereotypically consensus Nordic racial type and then talk about how the Nazis considered the Nordic type to be on the top of the Aryan race hierarchy. Nazis were Nordicists heavily and in my opinion to not even put an image regarding their views on this is expunging a big part of history of their views. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an image would be good. I just want an image that's sourceably related to Nazi conceptions of racial ideality. If we could find the provenance of that picture, it'd be ideal. There must be a zillion pictures like that that are sourceable, and they're almost certainly all out of copyright because of various historical contingencies.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to include a picture as representing the Nazi Nordic ideal, a source is required to say that it represents their ideal. Compare with the article Know Nothing, where an image is shown of "Citizen Know Nothing The Know Nothing Party's nativist ideal." It is doubtful that the nazis would have chosen a Conservative Prussian aristocrat as their ideal. TFD (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt an image would be good and I concur with you on the fact it would best to be an image of a Nordid propaganda type from the Third Reich seeing as how it would be directly more related to the article at hand instead of some random person with a Nordic phenotype who was classified by an anthropologist. Surely most of these propaganda images have expired copyright too. I'll try and find one that suits the article good. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

German soldier

I recently made an edit to the page with an image of a German soldier who has stereotypical Nordid features in terms of taxonomy. I believe the caption is more apposite here instead of a claim like 'he was an ideal type for the Nazis' but instead I put a caption mentioning how the man has stereotypical Nordic features and how the Nordics were regarded as the highest on the racial hierarchy due to the Nordicist concept that comes along with National Socialism. ShawntheGod (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How did that edit take into account even a single one of the objections stated above? Is there evidence that this guy looks Nordic as the Nazis defined Nordic? Is there evidence that this guy represented to the Nazis their Nordic ideal? Otherwise the caption is just as much either OR, if he's not said somewhere to look Nordic, or else synthesis, if he's said to look Nordic by other than Nazis and Nazis said they like Nordic but not specifically this guy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hence the reason I said "stereotypical Nordid features" cause that's what the guy has. I did not claim he was directly an ideal type for Hitler or Goebbels or anything like that, but that he has stereotypical Nordid features in terms of taxology, which was considered the highest in the racial hierarchy by the Nazis. ShawntheGod (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See "Synthesis". You think he looks Nordic and the Nazis put him in a poster therefore he is an example of the Nazi Nordic type. You need a picture that the Nazis claimed is an example of their Nordic type. TFD (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly right.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said he was an example of the Nazis ideal type, that's where you're confused here, both of you. The man has stereotypical Nordid features based off a consensus by various anthropologists who came to an agreement of what the Nordic race looks like phenotypically. I put in the caption "stereotypical physical appearance of the Nordic race" and then the rest of the caption went on to say that the Nordic type was regarded as the highest by the Nazis. I never claimed he was an ideal type for the Third Reich, but had the stereotypical Nordid features and that the National Socialists considered the Nordic type to be the highest on the racial hierarchy. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, see, it's not possible that he has "stereotypical Nordid features based off a consensus by various anthropologists who came to an agreement of what the Nordic race looks like phenotypically." First of all, human races don't exist, and any anthropologist who thinks they do is doing fringe science. Also, since races don't exist, there can be no actual scientific agreement as to what typical phenotypes look like. You might as well classify subspecies of unicorns. Finally, even if you had some list of anthropologists who said that the Nordic phenotype consists of X, Y, Z, etc., you'd need a source saying that Nazis believed those particular anthropologists and you'd need a source saying your picture has those characteristics. Don't you see the problems with this? The presence of the picture in the section is making a claim of connection with the subject of the section also. If there's no connection, why have the picture in the section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So: if something like this is to be included, the best choice would be an image the Nazis themselves used. It shouldn't be hard to find one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That they used and called Nordic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Something like this, only with a provenance that's not off some neofascist chat board: [1]— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"first of all, human races don't exist"

I strongly dissent with this sentiment seeing as how there are different morphological structures found throughout homo sapiens. I could concur with you that "white" is a social construct, seeing as how it is a pragmatic term based off perception, although socially speaking people know what it means. Actually yes, that is a consensus by anthropologists as to what a Nordic phenotype generally is. Perhaps you should enlighten yourself on Nordic race concept and then come back to the page. I also never claimed the boy/man (whatever he is) what an ideal type for the Nazis, but that he had stereotypical Nordic features (this is based off a consensus by anthropologists) and that the Nordic type was regarded as the highest on the racial hierarchy by the Nazis. I also see an image quite similar to that one above, but I can't find a direct source for it except for the fact I see a bunch of blogs and forums posting it and claiming it was Third Reich propaganda. ShawntheGod (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You might "dissent with this sentiment," but you're going to have a hard time finding reliable sources that don't "dissent with" it. See our own article Race (human classification) for endless sources, the upshot of which is that there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable and among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. This has been pretty well at consensus among anthropologists since at least the 1940s with Ashley Montagu's work on "the fallacy of race." Even the article you send me to hedges the definition in the lead with the word "putative." By the way, can you explain what you mean by "Nordid"? I thought it was just a typo until I started seeing it on all those neo-nazi chat boards while I was looking for images. It's not in the OED or, as far as I can see, any other respectable dictionary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there are various concepts of race (involving taxonomy, morphological structures, etc) and I understand that all these existing concepts fall under the homo sapien (human race) but to deny anthropometrical and morphological trait differences is absurd. I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you about how we both construe race. I've seen the word "Nordid" thrown around on anthropology forums and it's basically another way of saying Nordic. I see images of Nazi propaganda regarding Nordic types, but most of these images have a genesis of going back to forums or blogs and these forums/blogs just mention how it was propaganda, they don't give a direct source for these images. ShawntheGod (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If he is not "directly an ideal type for Hitler or Goebbels or anything like that" or "an example of the Nazis ideal type" then he does not belong in the article. Nazi racial theories in the 1930s/1940s did not necessarily agree with mainstream racial theory at the time. TFD (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Lemme just say Karl von Müller was not a "Nazi poster boy", or a Nazi at all. Nor did the Nazis first use his appearance as representative of the "Aryan race". He's just a famous naval captain who died in 1923. Everybody liked him and lamented his relatively early death, which is why someone (not the Nazis) used him as an example of the "Aryan phenotype" in some book, can't recall which one. The term "poster boy" implies he was a Nazi being used as some kind of representative. In fact, I'm not sure the Nazis used his image at all.

The use of his photo in this article can only be justified in terms of representing the appearance of the "Aryan race" the Nazis subscribed to. In such a case, it must be made explicitly clear he was not a Nazi. -- Director (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but this subsection is not about von Muller at all, it's about Image:German soldier from ww2.png, who actually is a Nazi poster boy. We've reached consensus not to have the von Muller photo in the article at all. It's a dead issue at this point.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's really misleading to rename this section after von Muller, since von Muller is not discussed in this section at all. That's the section above. Note the very first diff in this section to see that it's actually about an actual Nazi poster boy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, sorry. Thought the "german soldier" was Muller. He was actually used to represent Nordic features. -- Director (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I've been participating in the conversation from the beginning and I can't even follow it any more.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR "he was actually used to represent Nordic features"

Do you have a source to back that up for Muller? If so, then it seems we can include him in the article for a representation of the Nordic type. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

He was used to represent the "Nordic" phenotype in the 1932 Meyers Blitz-Lexikon. Ofc, he was long dead by then.. -- Director (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We need a source that says the image was of a nazi ideal, we cannot just say it sure looks it to us and run with it. TFD (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, the way I interpreted your post was that you were saying he was an ideal Nordic type for the Nazis, not used as some random Nordic type in an old German encyclopedia.ShawntheGod (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Racism is hardly a Nazi invention, ShawntheGod. The conservatives in Germany were arguably even more racist, and social elitist, than the Nazis (though possibly less antisemitic). Go far enough back into the 19th century, and everybody is racist, including Abe Lincoln, apparently.. -- Director (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Racism" and "racist" are such terms with ambiguity; I think everybody could fall under the a facet of "racism" or "racist" in their lifetime. I construed your post about Muller with you saying that he was used by the Nazis directly as Nordic type, but he wasn't. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini's speech in Bari 1934

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/place/austria-english-subtitles-mussolinis-speech-against-germany-bari-video-auCoZq13VL8-138-18.html After the nazi assasination of Austrian patriot and fascisticish dictator, Dollfuss. In a French TV-documentary the speech continues with "it was indeed at the shores of the Mediterranian Sea that they all have been born, the great religions, the great philosophers etc... ...and an Empire that still has a profound impact on all civilized peoples". There was no "natural" connection between nazism and fascism, at this time. Nazism was something very different than Italian and Spanish fascism, from an ideological point of view. (different and worse) Boeing720 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That the two fascist dictators had a brief spat does not mean they did not have the same ideology. TFD (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't brief, it was how it was in the beginning. Further, to one of Albert Speer's architects (currently I do not recall name) Hitler stated that he actually had nothing against the Spanish republicans, but was afraid of Spain becomming a Russian satelite state. He disliked Franco and the other way around. Franco is the only "open fascist" besides Mussolini. Mussolini also dislike Hitler all the way - until Hitler began to, so to speak, "show muscles". And after the "liberation" of Mussolini in jail, one of the most difficult small size but precitional operations during the war, Mussolini bacame a personal fried of Hitler. Please keep in mind that the "axis-power-agreement" ment nothing for the Italian Jews, dispite of the formal changes whithin Italian law that Mussolini agreed to in 1938. He had nothing againts Jews, and even have had Jweish help during "the march on Rome" that made Mussolini "il Duce" (in a few steps 1922-26). There was nothing in fascism that included biological racism (or any other more racial thoughts than was usual in all European nations aswell as in North America at the time). But it was essential whithin nazism. Nazism wasn't reactionary, it wanted to create something new (and indeed horrible), while both Mussolini and Franco were conservative and kind of longed to return to a strong monarchy, after they were gone. Obvious in the case of Spain, that had removed the monarchy in 1930. A King should succeed Franco, and so also happened. Italy maintained the monarchy and the King was of higher rank than "il Duce". While Hitler was very clear about the former Empire, I've red that after the occupation of Holland in 1940, some officer of higher rank put an honor guard outside the former Emperor's house (Wilhelm II moved to the Netherlands after his abdication). When Hitler heared this, he commanded to remove the guards, nor did he reply to Wilhelm's congratulation letter. (source William L Shirer). I'm mostly against describing nazism as some type of fascism, since I'm convinced that it isn't true. All later wartime cooperation is of cource also true, but for instane Mussolini was the last European leader that attempted to avoid a huge war in Europe, even after the German attck had began. And in nations as Poland, Austria (until Anschluss), Portugal and Spain after the civil war, aswell as some of the Balkan nations and possible even in Tukey, Mussolini saw more appropriate friends than Germany and the nazi racial ideology. Even after the axis-pact 1938. But when the fall of France became apparent, the opportunist in him (Mussolini) no longer could see any obsticles to get involved (and plausible a danger in not to). But he wasn't alone , also Stalin (far earlier) thought Hitler could be of help (read Montefiore's "Stalin, the red Tzar and his court", not 100% sure of English title, but it's something like that). Best reguards, but I urge and even beg to reconcider changes in the lead. Boeing720 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is virtual consensus in academic writing that nazism was a form, albeit more virulent, of fascism. Also, this article is about nazi ideology. The nazis did not govern alone, nor did any other fascists, and no government governs by ideology alone. TFD (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini was against Germany until the British turned on him for taking a bite out of their sphere of influence in Africa, i.e. the invasion of Ethiopia. Until that point Mussolini was in very good with the British and French, and was hostile to Germany because of her designs on annexing Austria (c.f. Churchill publicly praised Mussolini etc.). Austria had an Italian minority and Italy had a sizable Austrian minority after her annexation of southern Tyrol in 1918, so the border was a volatile issue; and remember: Italy was a WWI enemy of Germany. After Ethiopia the two were both effective enemies of Britain and France.. so they got friendly and eventually resolved the issue by deporting each-other's minorities. Both the friendship and earlier hostility, its all geopolitics, not ideology. Hitler would go to bed with Stalin (and ofc did) if he thought it was in Germany's interests. -- Director (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please change right wing cartoon caption

A propaganda poster is captioned as:
Antisemitic and anti-capitalist Nazi cartoon telling Germans not to buy from shops owned by Jews.
    Sorry, despite the rightwing agenda, despite Limbaugh's definitions, and his Vast Liberal Conspiracy Plot Theory that EVERYTHING (even Science) is in on, or victim of: The Plot, (the largest conspiracy theory ever invented,) that's Antisemitic, not anti-capitalist. Please change. Thanks!

I'm sure it's just coincidence that 95% of the "Nazis were anti-capitalists" and "Nazis were (also) liberals" etc citations are post Limbaugh (1992). He's a fine example of a man who shook a nation while academia remained studiously ignorant. Important Information from radio?? How gauche! How simply distasteful. Most important: How anti-TV. Look over there! Meanwhile Encyclopedia Britannica is putting up with none of this nonsense. Have a gander.
--71.137.156.36 (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

During World War II, German school children were taught to sing of Hitler's glory, reciting, "Hitler ist mein Gott, Hitler ist mein Gott, Hitler ist mein Führer, oh Hitler ist mein Gott". 50.46.95.198 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You may be "a college professor of Nazism cerca World War II era" and so on, but we need a reliable and published source before we can consider adding material. Read WP:RS to see the kind of thing that's wanted, find one, and make a specific edit request and we'll see what happens.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ideology section part on racial theories is badly organized

That section is meandering all over the place without having clear concentrated focus on the key topics at hand, such as: What did the Nazis identify as the Aryan race? Why did the Nazis persecute Jews and others based on racial policy? These should be the first things answered in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.238.107 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sugggest not to classify Nazism as either right-wing or left-wing as this only tends to confuse the philosophy/policy of Nazism since it was neither or a combination of both. These terms are not static in definition since the connotation of their use changes over time and are used a key-word terms to influence and denigrate political positions on both sides.

Historic articles should refrain from imparting personal prejudices in their descriptions as difficult as this is for some passionate historians. 99.151.29.72 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We have heard all these arguments before. If you think the experts got it wrong, then you need to argue with them. We just reflect what mainstream sources say. TFD (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Vituperational Names

"Anal Ointment" is a classic vituperational name used that means "nazi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.206.251 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Parteiadler

The eagle symbol used on the "Nazi party" article and the "Nazism" article are not official insignia and are simply creations of someone unrelated to the Nazi party. In fact, it is quite reminiscent of representations of the Roman aquila. It would make a lot more sense to use a swastika as the symbol for both the party and the larger heading of Nazism, or else use an actual photograph of a Parteiadler. Ronmexicothegreat (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

The Fifth paragraph second sentence reads "Hitler purged the remnants of the party’s more socially and economically radical factions in the Night of the Long Knives " Shouldn't it read "less socially and economically radical"?

67.184.203.16 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, why do you think that? TFD (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Because clearly the most socially and economically radical group was the one willing to kill all the opposition and base their economy on theft, that would be the Nazi party right? It just seems odd to talk about the night of the Long Knives and at the same time talk of the killers as being less radical than those who were murdered. It seems to me that the act of killing is a bit more radical than the act of getting killed, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.203.16 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Economics section is a mess

It reads like a right-wing American liberal's pet thesis that OMG THE NAZIS WERE SOCIALISTS! Moreover, it contradicts itself throughout, despite the consistent emphasis on establishing that certain tenets of Nazi rhetoric (though not practice) were state- rather than market-oriented, and that the Nazi war economy featured about as much state control and regulation as most war economies of the time. From reading this section, a credulous visitor would never guess that the Nazi economy was overwhelmingly based on profit-making private enterprise. I know that's probably the intention, but it's a deeply disingenuous one. The whole thing should really be blanked after that nonsensical opening remark about Hitler, until some kind of objective treatment can be arrived at. DublinDilettante (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about Nazi ideology, rather than what Hitler did. He inherited a finance minister who continued the policies of the previous Conservative government, then replaced him with a laissez-faire liberal, then adopted a war economy. None of that belongs here, unless it is connected with Nazi ideology. The book Nazi Ideology says nothing about economics.[2] It could be that economic theory was not part of Nazi ideology. I suggest we delete the section, since it is POV OR and none of the sources used say this was Nazi ideology. If someone wants to find reliable sources on Nazi ideology and use them to write a new economics section, I would not object. TFD (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The German National Socialists weren't Socialist? And those who make such statements are "right-wing American liberals"? You guys are reminding me why virtually all college professors give automatic failing grades to any paper using Wikipedia as a supporting source. Speaking of which, to illustrate what Hitler's economic stance actually was despite any interpretation based on his Socialist Party's war or peace based State economy: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler, published by Toland John, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, Volume 1, p. 224 [3]

And he proved it by going to war against his other fellow left-wing Socialist leaders around the world who weren't quite as ready to mass-murder the right-wing "bourgeois", except perhaps Stalin. So the other Socialist leaders drafted their reluctant right-wing "bourgeoisie" into military service to stop him and the other further left-wing Socialists. And the rest has been history. Academics are often more biased than the average self-thinking interpreter of knowledge. They often fail to follow the adage, "never let schooling interfere with your education." -- Sfbmod (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be that "Academics are often more biased than the average self-thinking interpreter of knowledge." However, the policy of "reliable sources" (click on the term to read the policy) is to prefer their opinions over yours. If you disagree with the policy then argue about it there. TFD (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Right Wing?

There seems to be a massive controversy amongst academics as to whether Nazism was right or left-leaning. Perhaps a good idea not to categorise it either way in the opening paragraph. Let's let readers decide. 21:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.13.55 (talk)

No academic sources refer to nazism as left-wing, although it is a popular view on some non-nazi right-wing websites. TFD (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" among academics, only among uneducated propagandists. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a fair point that there is a significant controversy. Either way, it was the "National Socialist" Party, not the "let's be really conservative party". I think this is a fair point and this should perhaps lead to a review of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.254.41 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy, "significant" or otherwise. If you disagree, please provide a source that supports your views. TFD (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What there is is an editor editing both from The University of Western Australia and another IP address in Perth. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Like it was said above, there is no "controversy". There is no more "controversy" among scholars and academics than there is "controversy" among scientists as to whether the world is flat or round. And the name of the party has been discussed...over and over...on this page. Please consult the archives, as you are not the first person to notice that or something. Communist East Germany called itself the "German Democratic Republic". Was it "democratic"? NO. Was it even a "republic"? Hardly. "National-Socialism", or "Nationalsozialismus" (it's one word in German) means "Nationalist-Socialism", not like a "National" organization of "Socialists" or something. People who are not educated on a subject should not be "educating" people on that subject. YOU have no education or knowledge on the subject, but for some reason think that your "synthesis" is more important than the combined scholarship of all of the REAL experts. Why is that? What is it about experts that you find so non-credible? Here's a discussion on "The Death of Expertise", by a fairly well-respected, fairly-Conservative guy: [4]. You really should read it, and rethink the reasons you have for trying to convince everyone that your opinion is "correct" here. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested if anything has been written about why this particular point is so popular among the right-wing fringe. A lot has been written about truthers, birthers, climate change skeptics, intelligent design and tin foil hats, but I have not found anything about this. TFD (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it has been a fairly under-the-radar fringe belief, started by Von Mises and Hayek (both economists* with no expertise in history) but not really incorporated into the mainstream Right until Glenn Beck started ranting about it in the mid-2000s. Beck acted like he had "discovered" some secret conspiracy to hide this "truth" from the public. Of course Beck, a dropout with no expertise in anything at all, apart from talking on the radio...likely really thought that he had come across some kind of hidden "knowledge"...and his enthusiasm for the conspiracy theory was somewhat infectious. "There is no one so pious as the new convert", so they say. And then the IP above became the next "convert", and the chain continued... At its base level, this is a conspiracy theory with the same kind of propaganda goal as Holocaust Denial. The purpose is "rehabilitation" of an ideology that is responsible for things that are now regarded with scorn. Just as Holocaust Denial is designed to "rehabilitate" the Nazis, these revisionists who try to claim that the Nazis were "secretly" Left-Wing are attempting to "rehabilitate" Right-Wingers. They do the same thing by trying to claim that a Left-Wing Republican like Martin Luther King, Jr. was "secretly" a Conservative, even though he actively derided Conservatives and Right-Wingers in many speeches, even going so far as to compare them to Fascists. Modern Conservatives essentially do not wish to "own" their villains. For some reason, this is primarily limited to the Right, as you don't see many mainstream Left-Wingers trying to pretend that the Soviets were "secretly" Right-Wingers (though I have seen a few fringe idiots trying to claim that about Stalin). (*Note: The reason this theory originates with economists is that they are viewing the entire ideology from an economic lens...completely avoiding the fact that nobody really thinks about the Nazis' economic policies as their main focus or anything...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is Beck. He has revived Skousen's conspiracy theories from the 50s. Mises and Hayek thought that fascists, European conservatives, and pretty much anyone who did not agree with them were socialists, but they never put fascism on the Left. Mind you, unlike their followers, they never put themselves on the right. There's a new article btw, Controversies over Italian Fascism’s political placement. TFD (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

using a single right/left classification in a political article is a failure per Political spectrum, Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. . example, would North Korea be right or left-wing? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if what you were saying were true, it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. TFD (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

actually that was exactly what we are discussing in this section; a massive controversy amongst academics as to whether Nazism was right or left-leaning, see above. whether or not what i said was true can be verified at the Political spectrum article, plz afg. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You can keep making that claim all over Wikipedia and various forums, but it doesn't make it true. There is no "massive controversy amongst academics" about Nazism. Scholars and history reflect the facts, and no amount of history revisionism is going to change that. And again, that article has nothing to do with this one. Dave Dial (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

perhaps you have confused me with the editor who said that above? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazism should not be designated as right-wing in the opening paragraph because it fits under the umbrella of collectivism, whereas individualism is more right-wing. What are the connections of Nazism and Right-wing politics? Later in the article states that "the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements" is a far-right theme. This is not a far-right theme. Br1answanson (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)br1answanson

Repeating those claims over and over again doesn’t change the fact that they are just plain wrong. However, even if they were true, you would have to give a reliable source. Rgds Torana (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nazism and Fascism are forms of Socialism. It is not a secret, and it is not controversial to say so. Why there is an argument over whether it is right wing or left wing I do not know, except perhaps that neither the left nor right want to have to explain how they are related to Nazis. I think it is a waste of energy. They were socialists. Mussolini was a Socialist, and when the Socialist party in Italy threw him out, he repeated that he was a Socialist whether they wanted him in the party or not. The bigger difference is between Communism's globalism and Nazi Fascism's nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.122.242 (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That they were forms of socialism is a view held by a tiny fringe. It is not a secret how the Left and Right are related to the Nazis. In 1933, the Right (conservatives, liberals and Christian Democrats) were unanimous in voting them dictatorial power - only the Left (communists and socialists) opposed. TFD (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Right-wing advocates, especially as described during the French Revolutions where it was originally coined, tend to be anti-Federalists, or those for minimal governance. Which is why the "classic liberalism" term is also applied to the "right". Left-wing advocates are of course the opposite, advocate for strong centralized government, often needing to conduct very "liberal" political movements to establish those "radical" changes. Therefore, the strong centralized form of government during the German NAZI movement is unequivocally left-wing. The only logical idea that the NAZI's could be viewed as right-wing, would be a purely propagandist statement made by those who wish to not be associated with the abuses of this strong centralized government in human history. Such as many "academics" today with their political biases. Either the term "left" or "right" wing should be removed to avoid making the appearance of congruence with any modern associations. Or the NAZI Party and Nazism should be associated with it's more accurate terminology within the English language as "left-wing." The "right" have had no monopoly on racism nor genocide, as seen today in many "left-wing" movements all across Africa and the Middle East. To label left-wing organizations such as the German NAZI Party or Nazism as right-wing harms the integrity of any organization wishing to misuse these political terms. -- Sfbmod (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The right side in the French Revolution supported a highly centralized government, while the left side established local communes. There is no connection between centralization of government and left-right orientation, and you need sources. TFD (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read Frédéric Bastiat's "The Law", written during the height of the French Revolution. [5] It will help correct the misrepresentations commonly, and fraudulently, made in many biased circles of education today, which you just expressed. The French Left demanded strong centralized state government specifically to undo the traditions and "Natural Law" the Right presumed were fundamental and already shared to all people. The Right had tried to establish a Parliamentary Monarch where the Crown had very limited authority, often looked at as a "figure head" of municipalities, and had no real authority outside of what was commonly established through an electoral process. The Left worked strictly through fraternities, or "communes" as you referred, in efforts to control the economy and society by an ever-changing, competitive, and often contradictory legal system. Which of course was often plagued by even worse cronyism and public infidelity than many of the Royal and religious authority figures who had dominated government for centuries past using the same philosophy of government as the Left. The Right had largely stayed out of politics and government, until the Left started to foment hostility towards the rule of law and move away from all previously established electoral processes. The Left became.. radical. To the point the Left started to resort to murder to affect political change. The Right tried to end all such abuses of power by both the Left and Royal power structures, and strove to maintain a sensible and limited government authority, promoting instead the greater authority of the common citizen. The Right believed in self-governed society with legal protections guaranteed by "God" or "Natural Law", or in other words, an established moral and legal standard that was not as arbitrary or easily amended by ever-changing human inventions. One of limited decentralized government that was held accountable by every citizen who had the same rights as anyone or of any official of State. The Left were the opposite, always promoting themselves or their fraternity to promote the "common good" despite their false rhetoric that often proved contrary to their actions. They constantly tried to manipulate the market and especially elections, by trying to create legislation that supported their vain attempt to promote all of the many different factions interests, relying on political clout rather than equal protections under the law for all. The Right constantly worked to stop the Left from discriminating against others who did not belong in these certain Left-wing social and political groups, or fraternities, communes, etc. It is well documented throughout history, and easily evident still today. The Left today still routinely classify every political issue or complaint with what's now coined as "identity politics." While the Right still today advocate for the same limited levels of government so everyone can be treated as equal, despite their many differences. Bastiat's famous Candlestick Maker Petition highlights these historical political collisions the Left-wing Statists and the Right-wing individualists of those days. [6] I understand both sources are much to read, but they are extremely well worth it for all those honestly interested in political history and the truth of these terms still used today.

The Right are the "classical liberals" as they're coined today, trying to advocate for individual rights and limited government against the "conservative" tradition of strong central governments throughout human history. The Left are the "classical conservatives" trying to maintain those government controlled societies that have existed as the norm throughout human history, who are today trying to be the "liberals" against what the true "liberals" tried to establish. So it's understandable the confusion today, especially for those who haven't spent the time to read beyond college level exams. For a reference showing the Left-wing view of strong central government as the "conservative" or "traditional" norm over the course of human history, you can read Igor Shafarevich's: The Socialist Phenomenon [7]. The Left are in fact the "conservatives" in the broader historical viewpoint, while the Right-wing view of limited decentralized government of self-rule society is extremely rare and has always been destroyed by Left wing view points of organizing society by a central government. Like Napoleon did in France, who had all of his works published through Left-wing publishers of his day [8]. -- Sfbmod (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing the 1848 revolution with the French Revolution which was in 17890. You are arguing that Bastiat, who sat on the left, was right-wing, while leftists are the heirs to conservatives, who sat on the right. And Bonapartism, which your link identifies as one of three strands of the modern French Right, is really left-wing. You need to get your ideas published, see if they catch on, and then we can consider including them. In the meantime could you please read the links to policy that I provided on your talk page. We cannot alter policy for any one article, these changes need to be discussed on the policy talk pages. TFD (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum to espouse your personal beliefs. Your post is pure original research, the reference you are pointing to was written more than 100 years before Nazism even existed. So either discuss sources that are relevant to this article, or take your personal commentary to internet message boards. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Title of article

Evidently this has come up in the past, but it seems that this article should be entitled "National Socialism", not "Nazism". The latter is a colloquial label for the more precise political ideology of National Socialism. Wikipedia's "COMMONNAME" policy has been brought up in the past, to which I respond, how much more common is "Nazism" than "National Socialism" in academia? And "Nazism" is a term that, for the majority of the NSDAP's history, was used primarily by Anglophone detractors; it seems that a neutral point of view is not achieved with the current title. Additionally, National Socialism extends beyond the Third Reich; it is has been a practiced ideology in much of the world. The whole selection of Wikipedia articles related to National Socialism (especially "neo-Nazism") reeks of POV and bias. I say that has a person of Polish Jewish ancestry. Serious historians and political scientists know that precision and non-bias are important when discussing historical occurrences. The crimes committed in WWII should not exempt National Socialist Germany from this guideline. Vrinan (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nazism is the preferred title in reliable sources for articles and books about the ideology of the NSDAP. There is a small minority of people who want the world to know that the Nazis were socialists - it's in their name! - which is POV. TFD (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting an aversion to socialism as the source of my concern is not appreciated. To blanket the ideology of National Socialism under the label Nazi is definitely POV. Subscribers to this ideology do not refer to it as Nazism. The terminology of this article leads the reader to believe that there are two camps; those who oppose National Socialism and refer to it as "Nazism", and those who support National Socialism and refer to it as "National Socialism". Because we are all expected to oppose National Socialism (which contravenes Wikipedia's NPOV policy), the article refers to this ideology as Nazism. I understand the reasoning behind this; the Nazis are a convenient bogeyman and are easy to denigrate. That does not change the fact that by using a term rooted in bias/opposition, Wikipedia is failing at its own stated mission of providing a neutral point of view. I see that you have been involved in past discussions; you seem to have strong feelings about this. Wikipedia:NPOV reminds us that all articles and editors must follow the policy of non-bias. Do you disagree that the derogatory label "Nazi" is biased and non-neutral? Vrinan (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"non-bias" means presenting subjects the way they represented in reliable sources, not correcting the bias in reliable sources. Re: your comment that we are all expected to oppose nazism, the fact is that there are no writers in reliable sources who defend nazism and it is universally denounced. And some subscribers of the ideology have referred to it as nazism. For example the "American Nazi Party." TFD (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the name of this article is a point of contention. For years different editors have petitioned to have the terminology changed from "Nazi" to "National Socialist". If the article had already used the latter terminology, do you think there would be equally powerful motivation to change the terminology to "Nazi"? If not, then I fail to see how keeping this current terminology does anything more than maintaining a faulty status quo. Why is "Nazism" a suitably encyclopedic alternative to "National Socialism"? Most sources make casual usage of the term Nazi, yet they all acknowledge that Nazi is short of National Socialist. Vrinan (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If it is not the suitable encyclopedic term, then why is it that mainstream encyclopedias and other reference books use the term "nazism" in naming their articles? TFD (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are you promoting groupthink? The Vatican was wrong on many science and other issues for many years. Why would you support and promote their philosophy of relying on information today? I'm asking sincerely. I regretfully have to inform you that you are making an Argumentum ad populum. -- Sfbmod (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia should use the name that reliable sources use. Calling that "groupthink" does not make it any less policy. --Boson (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact Wikipedia has another article [9] showing the many relationships with the term "National Socialism" with several political Socialist groups at the top of this article, and not just Germany's National Socialist Party, seems to prove that this article's title is in fact violating the Wikipedia "common name" policy as you just provided. Why aren't all those other National Socialist groups commonly named as "Nazism" as well, and Germany's version of it is exclusively detailed here? -- Sfbmod (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Common name" means the name most usually used in reliable sources. Hence we have articles for "William F. Buckley, Jr." and "Bill Clinton", not "William J. Clinton." Do you know what the common name for these other parties was? TFD (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to correct biases in mainstream scholars. We reflect what historians and sources state. It doesn't matter is several editors with 400 or so edits keep coming back here to insist on a name change. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nazism is equivalent to saying National Socialism. Other wiki articles illustrate the Socialist movement congruities with the German Socialist Movement under Adolf Hitler and others, such as Saddam Hussein's rise to power under the long standing Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world#Arab_incorporation_and_emulation_of_fascism. Only those with obvious political biases towards the term "Socialism" would disagree. It's a shame to see such extreme biases shown in an allegedly bias-free publications. This article is full of such obvious bias and historical corruption. --Sfbmod (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Bias free" does not mean we should replicate fringe views, even if we know they are right, but rather should provide most weight to mainstream views. See WP:NEUTRALITY. If you think that policy should be changed, then argue about it there. TFD (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree with you the formal Wikipedia policies promote fraud as you just suggested. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." [10] But thank you for agreeing this article needs to be amended. There are plenty of "reliable sources" that support these non-frivolous ideas of corrections that need to be made here. Especially the first-source references of the German National Socialist's themselves whom disagreed with many of the points made in this article regarding their own ideology, even before the slang word NAZI was coined by 'Auslanders'. -- Sfbmod (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that support your views and in any case you have not provided any. Bastiat's 1850 book for example is not a reliable source for Nazism since, among other things, despite his great foresight and insight he did not write about nazism. TFD (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The term 'nazi' has never been more than a slur that was coined by political opponents. h http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Nazi

If you compare search results on www.worldcat.org, there are 20,400 book results for "national socialism" while there are 4,959 for "nazism." And when you do a serious comparison (non-fiction, non juvenile books) of the terms "national socialism" and "nazi", they have similar overall numbers. Nazi or Nazism are not terms which are remarkably prevalent (aside from Godwin's Law and the History Channel), and have never been neutral terms.

Finally, I would point out that googling "wikipedia de nazismus" illustrates that these terms should probably all have their own articles. German Wikipedia has completely separate articles for 'nazi,' 'nazismus,' and 'nazionalsozialismus.' This would be the most NPOV solution possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstn (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I get 12,243 hits for nazism.[11] But again the article is about the ideology of the NSDAP, which has been shown is most commonly called Nazism in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

‎

Far right again

An editor has removed the words "as well as other related far right groups". (Again, removed the disingenuous link to "far right politics". Hitler himself indicated that he was neither "left" or "right". This whole page is fraught with bias and requires a complete rewrite.)[12] I would point out to him that the Fuehrer's words are not actually reliable sources for facts. I notice his only other contribution to Wikipedia is trying to insert into a BLP that the subject was a "far left leaning liberal."[13] Please discuss before removing again. TFD (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, as well as his clueless attempt to "discuss" it with you on your own talk page ([[14]]), I'd say this editor is not going to be "reasonable", and is probably going to need intervention if this kind of behavior continues. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

All references to "right-wing" or "far-right" should be changed to left wing. There is nothing right-wing about SOCIALISM. They 1) nationalized industry, 2) sought to destroy classes and equalize all citizens, 3) expressed a profound belief in Darwinism, 4) exploded the size and power of government, 5) became an enemy of Israel, etc. These are left-wing ideologies, not right-wing.

Nazism, Naziism,[1] or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-left groups.

Brantleyoakey (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: there is an entire section in this article devoted to this subject that is well sourced Cannolis (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Were only pure Nordics considered Herrenvolk? This article currently states that in the introduction

Not all Germans were pure Nordic by even Nazi racial standards. Many in central and southern Germany including then-annexed Austria were considered Alpine. In the SS there were staunch fanatically Nordicist tendencies, but for Hitler and others there needs to be more evidence presented. I am skeptical that the Nazis only considered thos regarded as exclusively Nordic people to be Herrenvolk of the Aryan race.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Nazis believed that the Master Race, or Herrenvolk were ideal citizens of a perfect world. Adolf Hitler would have selectively bred humans to have Aryan traits, this is supported by the Quasi-Darwin view of the Nazi Party, stated in Mein Kampt. So the Nazis knew that they needed other types of white, german people to serve them, so then if they prospered, then they would selectivly breed humans. But I do see what you were trying to get at. AlDaBeast24 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nazi recognition of capability of a "Nordic soul" to be within biologically non-Nordic people

Here is a source that describes that while the Nazis made biological claims about Nordic heritage in various peoples deemed to be successful, that the Nazis also sought to reconcile the fact that while not all Germans were ideal pure Nordics that Nordic culture was significant: Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases by Jo Groebel and Robert A. Hinde, published by Cambridge University Press in 1989, on page 159.

On this page it states in quotes that the Nazi regime claimed that " 'a nordic soul could inhabit a non-nordic body' " and that " 'politics must go beyond science, supported by the fundamental intuitive truth of blood diversity among the peoples of the earth, drawing the logical consequence therefrom, i.e. the principle of leadership by the fittest' ".

This is an important note as it indicates that the Nazis did not limit their Nordicism to just biological factors but also included cultural factors.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

94.101.166.104 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please make a specific edit request. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nazism degoratory as a term?

If the word "Nazi" was used derogatorily by the enemies of the moment, can we claim to represent the neutral point of view by using the term here? Don't we usually let the proponents or adherants of each ideology, or the factual government of each moment or country, decide on the proper name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.246.32 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We tend to use the most common term used in scholarly sources. While calling a person a "Nazi" now is certainly a derogatory term now, it was not so regarded when it was first used -

1930, noun and adjective, from German Nazi, abbreviation of German pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier German sozi, popular abbreviation of "socialist"), from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei "National Socialist German Workers' Party," led by Hitler from 1920. [15]

A tad before WW II, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Economics

The opening paragraph on economics appears to have been plagiarized from the following website: http://deutschland1880-1945.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html Administrative editors: please consider removing it since it does not appear to be from a scholarly source.--Obenritter (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The text was added to this article 4th Jan 2013 by Boeing 720,[16] while the source you cited is copyrighted 2013 - it probably is copied from this article. Nonetheless the section appears to be poorly sourced. It begins "Hitler had little interest of both money as such and economics in general. After he became Reichskansler 30.January 1933 he never touched his salary from the state." Nonetheless he became a millionaire through his copyright of Mein Kamp which everyone had to buy.

I will wait to see if anyone wants to keep this writing, otherwise I will remove it.

TFD (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the vigilance and timely response TFD. My intention is not to disparage any editors, but as a scholar on this field of study, I am working my way around articles on this subject and making improvements when and where possible (as the urge strikes me). Much appreciated...--Obenritter (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The best improvement to this article would be to re-write it. TFD (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And cut its size and make it actually readable <g>. BTW, copyright years represent official date of registration, a printed book may well have been written and issued in 2012 and have a 2013 copyright date (pretty common, in fact). Collect (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Tried to trim lead -- some of the claims may not be fully supportable, alas. His rise was apparently supported by all the non-Socialist parties, which is not just "right wing conservatives" per articles of the period. Also the last sentence implied that active parties in Germany use National Socialism as a system - such would be illegal, and foreign and later uses of the term do not belong in this section AFAICT. Collect (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an improvement. Incidentally, the text you removed said he became chancellor with the support of the Conservatives. That is true, he became dictator two months later with the support of all non-Socialist parties. TFD (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article and this sub-section needs work; both ce and re-write. I just recently have looked over the article again (I did some work on the article quite a while ago now but at the time did not continue due to problems by several now ban editors and my time constraints). So have at it boys. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideological duplicity

Currently, we write:

Despite Nazi doctrine advocating for German women to be fruitful and bear children for the Nazi cause, only the wives of Martin Bormann and Joseph Goebbels successfully met the prescribed quota amidst the Nazi leadership.

I proposed that everything before the first comma ("Despite Nazi doctrine...for the Nazi cause") should be removed, making an edit to that effect. Obenritter (talk · contribs) disagreed, stating in his edit summary that as written, the "[s]entence demonstrates Nazi leadership duplicity...". Per WP:BRD, I'm here on the talk page. :)

I disagree with the rationale that this bit is appropriate, because:

1. Demonstrating the ideological duplicity of any person is not an appropriate encyclopedic objective, although it may be an appropriate objective for the work of a historian or commentator
2. As written, the sentence does not even succeed in demonstrating ideological duplicity, since:
   • To draw that conclusion, a plethora of ideologically consonant medical reasons for the relatively diminished fertility of Nazi leadership would have to be considered and excluded. For example, it is not shown that Nazi ideology prohibited Aryans from suffering with medical conditions that might cause a series of miscarriages, or low sperm count, low birth weight, premature birth, et cetera.
   • We do not say how many people were included in the set of "Nazi leadership", which inhibits the reader's ability to judge the statistical significance of the comparison. "Nazi leadership" could include just Hitler's inner circle and their wives, or it could include a huge number of households.

Therefore, as written, I believe that this bit does less to inform the reader than it does to score a sort of historical "gotcha". Perhaps a compromise revision is possible?

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this.

--causa sui (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence makes no sense without the qualifying commentary preceding it. There is nothing tendentious in the sentence the way it was originally written and while Wiklpedia is an encyclopedia of sorts, this topic is historical and therefore historical observations and the writing of historians is how we substantiated it academically. Using your logic, we should then omit all the observations cited herein from historians throughout the article which makes that line of reasoning non sequitur altogether. The sentence is not a clinical medical statement in any way so your rationale relating it to miscarriages, low sperm counts and the like is equally illogical in this context. The only place where I do concur with you is perhaps we need to add something about Hitler's inner circle which is actually already inferred by the term "Nazi leadership". Hitler's inner circle would make this clearer however.--Obenritter (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pray tell whether, for example, some wives might have had medical conditions preventing them from being "ideologically pure" in having children? Seems that it is pretty much more an exercise in trivia than an actual ideological point in the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia but of encyclopedic information. Collect (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the latest revision, which could have easily been made without deleting the sentence in its entirety. Trivia is totally subjective. It is not considered trivial when historical actors of major importance do not live the lives they preach to others. If someone had a medical condition, that would be preventative to fulfill the ideological goal and would be worthy of mention. Moreover, for a regime that invested itself in an ideology that included ridding itself of racial "inferiors" and replacing them with healthy "Aryans" and which advocated increased birthrates to do so, this information is not necessarily trivial.--Obenritter (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect - as an admin , it is your prerogative to omit this statement, but considering this Nazism section is on sex and gender, this "fluff" as you claim, is actually relevant. What it shows is that only a select few of the Nazi women were willing to sacrifice for the cause despite the rhetoric otherwise. We certainly disagree here - but you're the admin so my obstinacy would only prove futile. "Fluff" it shall remain.--Obenritter (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Admins don't have any special prerogatives regarding article content; in that regard, we're equal to any other editor. Your voice as good as any admin's voice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jpgordon - thanks for the encouragement. (Like the pic of your Shepherd. Mine is named Zeke and he is 120 lbs of beautiful) Back to the subject at hand - I have tried to explain the reason for the inclusion of the content to no avail. It's not in me to fight this tooth and nail since it does not detract from the general content of the article through its omission. Relevant material wrongfully omitted as far as I am concerned. (Bet you miss Bayern) mach's gut nichtdestoweniger, ;-) --Obenritter (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement implies that the Nazis were hypocritical, which is not what articles should do. If there is a significant opinion that they were hypocritical about this then it should say that. Otherwise it violates synthesis. TFD (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. People were cognizant that many women amid the Nazi leadership were not setting good examples in terms of sacrificing for the Fatherland. That was the reason for this statement's inclusion - especially inside a regime that vehemently stressed childbirth. There were certainly popular jokes about the whole "Nordic/Aryan" ideal for instance and the leadership's suspect incongruity therewith among ordinary Germans. One in this regard that comes to mind which mocked their ideal with, one must be "as blond as Hitler, as tall as Goebbels, as thin as Goering, and as chaste as Röhm" . Perhaps a separate segment in the article itself is befitting the theme of Ideological Duplicity. Not going to tussle with anyone over it however. --Obenritter (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology is not correct.

This (http://www.webarchiv-server.de/pin/archiv01/0401ob26.htm) is a source about the etymology of Nazi and how it applied to the NSDAP. I believe that the etymology section is in error in suggesting that

1) the NDSAP did not refer to itself as the Nazi Partei

2) that in the context of the NSDAP, Nazi was a derogatory term

I believe the section is drawing on sources that have confounded the abbreviation from Ignaz -> Nazi with the abbreviation from NSDAP-> Nazi. The source I provided, although in German, seems to break down the multitude of different ways the abbreviation Nazi sprang into existence and also highlights the application of Nazi to the NSDAP first by Josef Goebbels.

It's an interesting source, and the source is pretty good. (Oddly, it would be better if it were ten years older - Franz W. Seidler's reputation has suffered quite a bit in his retirement.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪz(ə)m/, alternatively spelled Naziism),[1] or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice of the German Nazi Party and state. It is sometimes applied to other far-right groups.

the last sentence, "It is sometimes applied to other far-right groups", infers that National Socialism is on the far right of the political system, when in fact it is aligned with Communism, which of course is on the far left.

The last sentence should be omitted. --209.105.126.210 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a fringe view similar to claiming the moon-landing was faked and therefore omitted from the article per content policy. TFD (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Derogatory Term

I am not sure if this is the exact right place for this discussion (it is sort of bigger than this one article), but to the point. I just found out that, as this article itself states, Nazi is a slang, or at least semi-slang, derogatory term. It was coined as a derogatory word, it is based on a derogatory word, and the original Nazis considered it a derogatory term. There is no way it meets general "Neutral point of view" guidelines. Wouldn't this article/other articles currently using the world appear more neutral if we used a more neutral, less slang-y, word to describe them? Wisnoskij (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean we give equal weight to Nazi and non-Nazi views, just that we represent sources in proportion to their acceptance in reliable sources. Reliable sources use the term "Nazi." "Neutral point of view" btw is a policy, not a guideline. TFD (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. We cannot give equal voice to Nazi ideas, at the very least because they are widely disagreed with by the vast majority. But we are still supposed to appear neutral, and use neutral language. Right? So assuming you agree with my assessment of the term, we are not doing that by using the word "Nazi". Now I completely see your point about that is just the term people use, even respected academics writing papers. So there is a conflict in the policies/guidelines, unless we disagree that "Nazi" is a derogatory term. But there is an argument to be made that we can take teh general consensus of what Nazism is, and filter the language to be more neutral sounding. Note: this does not mean changing the ideas or giving more room for pro-Nazism, just white-washing the language. Which is my eminently uninformed opinion would better follow Wikipedia policy. But as I just found out looking at the rules, Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules. So there might very well be a good case to ignore the letter of the policy. I just thought I would start the discussion and let more informed people than me come to their own opinion on that matter. Wisnoskij (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no conflict in the policies, but if yoiu disagree with them, you need to discuss it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well if you are not even going to address my point, I do not see any point in continuing. I did not mean to say that policies were in essence flawed or in conflict. But that in this instance consensus was in conflict with neutrality. That because Nazism is so universally loathed that we do not even really have proper neutral language in which to speak about it/even academic papers use derogatory language. Wisnoskij (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, please direct your comments to the policy pages. If Nazism is so universally loathed that we do not even really have proper neutral language in which to speak about it, then Wikipedia policy requires us to use that language, particularly if even academic papers use derogatory language. TFD (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Nazi" is a biased derogatory term that was invented by a Jewish journalist, how is this not derogatory slang? The proper term is National Socialism. "Nazi" is purposefully linguistically vitriolic and astringent like a modern curse word, don't play dumb. --Sigehelmus (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Nazi" has started as a colloquial term and may have been derogatory; but "Nazism" has long entered academic language as an accepted technical term and not just in the colloquial and/or invective way that you assert. Language is not static, it develops. A formerly colloquial term can become one that is acceptable to be used in scholarly contexts over the years and decades. Lots of professional historians, political scientists etc. use this term in their works when writing about this ideology in a serious and neutral way (to the extent that one can be neutral vis-à-vis this inhumane doctrine). It is therefore totally acceptable for us to use it too. --RJFF (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

" formerly colloquial term can become one that is acceptable to be used in scholarly contexts over the years and decades. Lots of professional historians, political scientists etc. use this term in their works when writing about this ideology in a serious and neutral way" This should be clarified in the article.

"(to the extent that one can be neutral vis-à-vis this inhumane doctrine)" Are you letting your emotions get to you? There is no "inhumanity" in any ideology inherent in itself. A saint can secretly be a monarchist, anarchist, national socialist, liberal or whatever else and still be the kindest person on the planet and you would never know. This comment was not needed.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Although they rarely used the term to describe themselves, Goebbels did publish a pamphlet in 1926 titled The Nazi-Sozi.--Hashi0707 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Nazism" is not only shorter than "National Socialism", it is also more precise, because it avoids confusion with other concepts of "national socialism" like the ideas of Friedrich Naumann's National-Social Association or the Czech National Social(ist) Party, both existing more than two decades before the Nazi Party and being totally unrelated with it. The social democrat Ferdinand Lassalle has been described as a "national socialist", because he imagined a national (instead of an internationalist) path towards socialism as early as in the 1880s. During the German Weimar Republic there was a (relatively) rightist faction of younger social democrats who promoted a "national socialism", without being Nazis. The German Wikipedia has an article about these different "national socialisms": de:Nationaler Sozialismus (which is distinct from de:Nationalsozialismus; English however does not have this distinction, which is why it became usual—even in academia—to use the unambiguous "Nazism" instead). --RJFF (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Improvement ! And suggestion/question.

Some years agued for a better lead, to begin with. I got no where at all. "Nazism was a varity of Fascism (end of discussion)". I can now see the article indeed has been improved. Improved according to global perspective NPOV etc.

As I've watched a Ducth TV-documanary about the murder of Walther Rathenau, the German counterpart of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was assasinated at 24. June 1922 by ultranationalists Erwin Kern and Hermann Fischer, both members of something called Organisation Consul in Berlin-Grunewald. Perhaps due to the fact that he had signed ome kind of a treaty with the Soviet Union (?). At this time hadn't Nazism reached Prussia. But the assasination might inspired Hitler and the others in Munich, for the Burgenbräukeller Coup (?) Perhaps someone else is in possesion of litterature which might verify - or reject my thoughts about this.

In any case there were in many aspects similar movements also outside Munich. (But I assume not all moveements were anti-semitic, their least common denominator sooner was anger over the Versailles-treaty. Though William L Shirer states Julius Streicher to have been a leader of a Nuremberg movement similar enough to join the NSDAP. I might be weong here, but I think Joseph Goebbels came from this Nuremberg-movement, but had hated (!) Hitler - until he actually met him. I believe the latter also comes from Shirer. But it was a long time ago that I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. (The murder on Rathenau came from the Dutch TV-documentary)

I hope this input can be of benefit for the article. Boeing720 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Socialism and far right organisations.

Can I politely ask why does this article, as many others, state that National Socialism was a far-right incentive? Since when is socialism even identified with the right wing? This is a common misunderstanding and a false piece of information, which should really be verified with historical and political sources.

(22.04.2015, 23:10, Manchester, United Kingdom)

The Nazis were far right. That is what sources say, we rely on sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I’ve always thought that "National Socialism" is a somewhat misleading translation for the (already and deliberately misleading) term Nationalsozialismus, but then, I’m not a native speaker of English. Anyways, it has (almost) nothing to do with Socialism. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 22:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say. If you want to know why they consider the Nazis right-wing, I suggest you read them. You can follow the footnotes in the article. TFD (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The response to the query on why National Socialism is "far right" is poorly argued; there are plenty of texts (e.g. Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism") that present the cogent argument that the economic model of National Socialism is not surprisingly: *socialism*. Merriam Webster scrupulously avoids reference to "right" or left" in describing Nazism. Socialist understandably have distanced themselves, but as the text of the wiki reads specifically: "Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[9][10] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany." National Socialism was by every definition anti-Marxist, in that it rejected internationalism in favor of extreme nationalism and also anti-equality, in favor of racial superiority; but it also embraced socialism - but only as a political economic system for Germanic peoples. In short, it is an anachronism that must be understood in its own context.69.81.154.2 GAB(talk) 19:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If by "texts...that present the cogent argument" you are referring to books by people with no relevant qualifications that have received no acceptance in reliable sources, then I agree sources exist. There are also texts that claim spacemen have visited earth, tin foil hates protect you from the new world order, etc. If you are looking for arguments discussing those views, go to the articles about them. TFD (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the need of locating Nazism anywhere on the common left-right scale. The left-right scale doesn't cover matters as rabid anti-semitism, the ayrian blood, - nor starting a World War (later revealed together with Stalin and the USSR). The main reason to label Nazism as "right" usually is that it was anti-Bolschevistic (or anti Communistic) - but one main reason for that was the internationalism within Communistic ideology. (And "of cource" Hitler concidered the Bolchevists to be Jews as well) Hitler rejected all such internationalism in favor of "the Ayrian master race" idea mainly. Nationalisation of larger corporations wasn't totally taboo though. But as long as the corporations served the nation, nationalisation was a secondary matter. In general didn't Hitler care much for money, nor did he know much about national ecomomy. National economy was infact one of few normal "minister matters" which he didn't led or supervised. It was infact of secondary matter as well ! (!!!) The former manager of the German National Bank, Hjalmar Schacht, who wasn't a confident Nazi was as close to Ecomomy Minister Nazigermany ever had. I've read suggestions that Germany ought to have been in bankruptcy by 1937, but still society worked within the "Third Reich". The kind of national economy used resembled war-time economy several years before the war began. This can't be concidered to be "normal right - or extreme right". Projects as national motorways (Autobahnen), letting Porsche develope an affordable car for the people (Volkswagen actually means "People's Car"), building huge holiday complexes at the Baltic coast for all Germans etc, are hardly issues which usually are concidered as "right", are they ? This doesn't mean Nazism was left either. The right or left question is too complex and unnecessary, I think. Solely "extreme" is a fully sufficient description of the ideology. Italian Fascism is far more easy to label as right, it was unlike Nazism conservative and the state didn't interfere in economical matters. Also Austria (before the Anschluss), Poland (military rule after 1926), Hungary, (and later) Spain resembled Italian Fascism. And so did Yugoslavia until a coup in the spring 1941. While Nazigermany had no allied nations from a pure ideological perspective. There is very much more importaint issues about the Nazists than attempting to locate them at a common political left to right scale. Boeing720 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Himmer and Nazi ideology

Someone here has used Himmler in order to describe Nazi idelogy, or parts of it. But although directly responsible for the death-camps (etc), his beliefs are hardly representative in the context of Nazi- ideology. He invented a Nazi-religion (if he mentioned this to Hitler is unknown), but that's about it. Himmler was driven by climbing higher and higher on the Nazi-stairway to the top. But it's very doubtful if he even shared the SS-fanaticism regarding the bizzare and rabiate anti-semitism at heart. He was indeed responsible of millions of dead Jews and others, but already in Budapest 1944 he traded Jews with the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. The latter managed to save tens of thousands of Jews. And in the spring of 1945 he also released Jews to another Swedish diplomat, Folke Bernadotte. He seems like a spineless man that could change oppinions over night, if he saw personal benefits in them. Not money, but more power. He even hoped to meet Eisenhower , and try to pursuade the leader of the Western Allied Command, to carry on the war - against Soviet Union. A war in which he hoped to participate in. But the first meeting with the British, made him understand how totally wrong he was. What I am saying is we can't base any Nazi ideology on Himmler's thoughts and ideas. He was a case for himself. Boeing720 (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hitler himself was never an advocate of the mysticism Himmler tried to place with regards to race and rejected the idea of National Socialism as a cult movement, he indirectly speaks about Himmler's mmysticism in a speech in September 1938 rejecting the cult association with National Socialism.

Nazism can't be defined by just solely one person's beliefs, there were many within the Nazi party who squabbled over the definitions of "nationalism" and "socialism" (a perfect case is Hitler and Gregor Strasser). Himmler's beliefs can't be regarded as the universal thought of the Nazis but he was a leading Nazi and with him being Reichsführer-SS his beliefs were indoctrinated into the SS and for the most part his views were just what everybody else was thinking.

His beliefs and his efforts to come to peace terms with the Allies are not related, many Nazis, including Hitler, put aside their own personal beliefs for an advantage.--Hashi0707 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

I've recently reverted this edit as its not supported by the source and is refuted by the Nazis themselves and other sources. I've put some references below.

Here is a few excerpts from Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice by John Connelly:

One is tempted to conclude that a racial hierarchy existed among the Slavs in the Nazi mind: at the bottom the Russians, Poles, and Ukrainians, above them the Serbs, further up the Czechs, and at the top the Croats, Bulgarians, and Slovaks. Yet when one looks at the writings of major Nazi officials from the prewar period one finds no hints of such a hierarchy; "Slavs" were thought of as a vague and undifferentiated generality.

Before 1939, a vague notion thus seems to have existed in leading Nazis' minds that Slavs constituted an inferior group, but just how inferior was an issue to be decided later. In the meantime it was possible to think of them not only as potential allies, but also as Europeans. A brochure was issued for the 1938 Nuremberg rally proclaiming Slavs part of the "Indogermanic peoples.:

Central and Northern Europe are the homeland of the Nordic race. At the beginning ofthe most recent Ice Age, around 5,000 BC, a Nordic-Indogermanic Utvolk of the Nordic race [artgleicher nordrassischer Menschen] existed, with the same language and unified mode of behavior [Gesittung], which divided into smaller and larger groups as it expanded. From these went forth Germans, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Persians, and Aryan Indians. . .

The original racial unity and common ownership of the most important cultural artifacts remained for thousands of years the cement holding together the Western peoples.

Nothing seems to have shaken Hitler's or Himmler's views of the weakness of Germanic blood among Poles and Russians, however, and gradually the former subscribed to the view that was universal among anthropologists: namely that in the racial sense, there was no such thing as "Slavs".

Policies adopted by Nazi Germany toward Slavic peoples cannot be fully explained by Nazi racial ideology. This is evident both in the contradictory and opportunistic nature of policies pursued during the war, and in the absence of any coordinated thinking on this issue in the prewar period.

But Nazi intentions toward the Poles and other Slavic groups in Eastern and Southeastern Europe were relatively open. If the Polish state had been willing to collaborate with Hitler in 1939, it might have survived as a satellite similar to Slovakia, that is, a land to the south of the corridor leading to Lebensraum. It was by blocking that path that the Poles became the sort of "Slavs" destined for destruction.

These differing logics of racial ideology had decisive implications for Nazi practice in Eastern Europe during the war. Because the Nazis did not understand the Poles or the Russians let alone the Slavs as a race, there could be no policy of complete eradication. Any proponent of complete destruction of Poles or Russians would have first stumbled upon the difficulty of defining who a Pole or Russian was in the racial sense; there was no equivalent of the Nuremberg laws for this purpose. In practice, every level of the Nazi hierarchy, whether the top leadership and its most inveterate Slavophobes, racial "scientists," or the army and SS, constantly made distinctions within various Slavic groups.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4546842?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106421466033

Hitler himself thought Himmler's race mysticism was impractical and, while hostile to Serbs and Russians in general, he felt differently about other groups of Slavs. He praised the Czechs as 'industrious and intelligent workers' and speculated that blue eyed Ukrainians might be 'peasant descendants of German tribes who never migrated'. In fact, he came round to the view - common among German anthropologists - that there was, racially speaking, no such category as 'Slavs'; it was a linguistic term, nothing more.

Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe, Mark Mazower, p.198

Hitler and the Nazis during the 1930's were all for a German-Polish alliance and when the Nuremberg Laws were declared in 1935 the Danes and Poles were used as ethnic minorities in Germany that were of "related blood" and open to Reich citizenship (see "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich, Diemut Majer, p.625). A Pole could be a potential sexual or marriage partner to a German during the 1930's. The Ahnenpass used Poles as an exemplar of Aryan and every German citizen had to own one of these documents so even if they had any Polish ancestors they would not have been denied Reich citizenship. After the invasion of Poland in 1939, the Nazis saw Poles as enemies and began to segregate Poles and Germans altogether and forbid sexual relations between Germans and Polish laborers and in 1940 when the Polish decrees were declared one of the regulations was any sexual relations between Germans and Poles would result in the latter being hanged. Thousands of Polish men were executed for their sexual relations with a German woman for 'racial defilement'. There still was not a complete ban on relations between Poles and Germans. Poles were often labeled as racially inferior and as Untermenschen by the Nazis during the war but they were never labeled as non-Aryan.

As above shows, the Nazis did not ever prescribe a racial hierarchy for the Slavs and even differentiated between the different Slavic ethnic groups, some were even Allies to Germany. They could not use any race theory to differentiate a German and a Slav.

I'm aware there is some books that state the Poles/Slavs were seen as "non-Aryans" by the Nazis but this is refuted by Nazi documentation and the fact there is no evidence they were ever described as "non-Aryan" by the Nazis but on the contrary they were also included in the definition of "Aryan". Just because something is wrote in a book, it does not make is true.

--Hashi0707 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You are nearly totally wrong. The Slavic "ethnic hierarchy" from the bottom to the top looked like this: Poles, Serbs, and Russians - those three nations had nearly none collaboration with the nazis, then above these nations there were Belarusians and Ukrainians who collaborated with the nazi Germans but still were seen inferior as they came from the east. Then the Czech, Slovaks and Bulgarians were seen even higher on the "ladder". The Croats were exceptional, as well as Bosniaks, whom Hitler collaborated with very closely and treated these nations as "honorary" Aryans. Hitler claimed that Bulgarians and Bosniaks are more Turks than Slavs, while Croats are a mix of Turks and Goths with only little Slavic ancestry. These pseudoscientific theories were aimed especially at the Polish nation which Hitler seen as the main enemy right after the Russians. He seen Serbs as a blend of Slavs with Romani (Gypsy) people. What he hated about the Russians was their terotorial and military power. Poles did't have nothing similar because they were already occupied by Germany and Poland was completely devasted, but Poles had a strong national patriotic anti-nazi, anti-facist spirit which was Hitler's big nightmare (Poles were also anti-communist unlike all other anti-nazi Slavs). Hitler called Poles a "rabbit family", "only good for enslavement or extermination", and claimed that Poles are "full of dangerous Jewish and Asiatic genes and non-European cultural influences", he also called Poles "dirty mutts from the east" and said that their blood is "worth nothing". This is how he saw 99% Polish people. The 1% that were the little Polish childred who happened to be blonde with light-blue eyes, and who were taken away from their parents and given to random German families to be "de-slavicized" and germanized.

Now, to the main topic - Hitler's racial hierarchy was moreless like this (from the bottom to the top of the so-called "subhuman" race) -->

* Jews,

* Romani people,

* Poles,

* Serbs,

* Russians,

* Black people,

* mixed-race people

* persons of color (with many exceptions like the Japanese, Indians, or Arabs).

This is it. Yatzhek (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide some Nazi documentation where they prescribed a hierarchy for the Slavs? The Croats were seen by Himmler to be more Germanic than Slavic but were never considered "honorary Aryans", this term was used for non-Aryans such as the Japanese whom were considered as such for their alliance, the Croats were never labeled as such. Hitler in his Table Talks did indeed call the Bulgarians to be of Turkoman origin.

Before the war started, Hitler vaguely mentioned the Poles besides a passage in Mein Kampf and his Second Book (unpublished during his life time) where he criticized the Prussian Germanization of the Poles.

Could you please provide a reference to where Hitler described the Serbs as being mixed with Slavic and Gypsy ancestry?

Hitler's reference to the Slavs as a "rabbit family" was made during the war, as above states, before the war there was virtually no remarks against the Poles.

Could you please provide a reference to where Hitler said the Poles were "full of dangerous Jewish and Asiatic genes and non-European cultural influences", "dirty mutts from the east" and "their blood is "worth nothing"?

Many Poles were pro-German and wanted an alliance with Germany. Other Slavs such as the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators.

Nothing of the above provides any evidence that they were ever regarded as "non-Aryan" and you seem to be ignoring the clear evidence that the Nazis never prescribed a racial hierarchy to the Slavs and that they knew Slavs was not a racial category.

It seems you've just made that hierarchy up, could you provide a reference for it?

"Untermenschen" or "sub-human" was never used as a term to describe a race but rather something that is less than human.--Hashi0707 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As I see, all you want is the full documentation of the random things that I'm writing in this talk section (and which I'm entirely sure about because I'm Polish and I know my own history damn well), instead of simply taking your time to see inside the SOURCE given in my CONTRIBUTION which you instantly DELETED, and which states clearly, that Poles, Serbs and Russians were "Untermensch" which was something even worse than "non-Aryan".

@ User:This lousy T-shirt - you thanked me for this contribution right here. Maybe you could help here by joining the discussion? Yatzhek (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in reading red herrings and ad hominems, so please stop both. Of course I want you to provide references to your statements, articles are supposed to be referenced with reliable sources. So what if you are Polish? It does not prove a thing and is completely irrelevant. I want you to provide some references since you have made the claim where the Nazis prescribed a hierarchy to the Slavs and called the Poles or Slavs as "non-Aryan". The source you referenced is an excellent source for what the future of what Eastern Europe was going to be like if the Nazis had won but it does not provide any reference that the Slavs were regarded as "non-Aryan". The terms "Untermensch" and "non-Aryan" are two totally different concepts, please do not confuse the two. I've asked you to reference with sources all the previous claims you have made and you have responded with a personal attack and other fallacies, please stop and provide evidence for your claims.--Hashi0707 (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack? Where? Please don't act like the guy named English Patriot Man. I can feel that you're largely confusing "Aryan" with "Nordic". Some part of Slavs could be having some Nordic traits (and those Slavs were meant to be germanised), but still the Slavs (especially Poles, Serbs and Russians) were NOT considered Aryan. The "Aryan race" accorging to Hitler himself were the Germans, and other German-speaking Germanic peoples. There was a famous speech by Adolf Hitler at Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939, in which he clearly said: "I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language." - Now, tell me, did Hitler say it about the Aryans or non-Aryans? Yatzhek (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only did Nazis consider Slavs to be Aryans, but they were considered Aryan by the racial classifications of the time. So were Indians and Persians. However, the Nazis saw a hierarchy within the Aryan race, and Slavs were considered inferior to Nordics. TFD (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Yatzhek, your previous responses have been with ad hominems (personal attacks) in all of them (first response "You are nearly totally wrong", second response "As I see, all you want is the full documentation of the random things that I'm writing in this talk section" and third response "Please don't act like the guy named English Patriot Man. I can feel that you're largely confusing "Aryan" with "Nordic"."). I'm not going to bother responding anymore to your personal attacks but just your actual arguments.

You have said quite a bit but you have provided no references for this and then when I asked for this you basically used the fallacy of dodging the question and have now continued to repeat further notions of the same thing without proving any evidence. I'm not confusing Aryan with Nordic (it seems you are confusing the policies of Germanization and Nordicism as well as the concept of Untermenschen with non-Aryan). The Slavs were included as Aryans, we have primary sources from them which confirm this. The term "Nordic" is to describe a phenotype which included some Slavs (some Nazi racial theorists also argued the Slavs were originally Nordic). The Slavic people such as the Poles, Serbs and Russians were considered Aryan. Hitler never described the Aryans as just the Germanic peoples, in one of his speeches he also said the "European Aryan peoples". The Hitler speech you quoted is disputed and was not even accepted at the Nuremberg Trials, see the Obersalzberg Speech article for further information on this. Even if we are to accept this quote as genuine, this does not provide any evidence that Hitler regarded the Poles or any Slavs as non-Aryan. The Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and other Slavs in the East were placed outside the ghettos known as the "Aryan side" by the Nazis and many Jews tried to forge documents to pretend to be ethnic Poles or other Slavs ('Aryans') to avoid persecution as a Jew. The Nazis never thought of all Slavs as the same, they differentiated massively between say the Czechs and the Russians.

Please do provide some references for your previous quotes that you claim Hitler allegedly said and some evidence the Slavs were regarded as non-Aryan and not respond with more red herrings which are not about this. As I've already said, a simple Google search will bring up websites and books that say the Slavs were non-Aryan but these are secondary sources but I want to see some primary sources by the Nazis which say the Slavs were non-Aryan.

TFD, I'm assuming you are using the word Nordic to refer to the Germanic peoples? If so, then you are absolutely right. The Nazis viewed all the European peoples as Aryan but did differentiate between different European peoples based not necessarily on the ethnic group their belonged to but their phenotype with the Nordics being at the top. Nazi science even defined the Germans themselves as being Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic. Günther and other Nazi racial theorists who were advocates of Nordicism argued that the Slavs were originally Nordic. Even during the war the Nazis never thought of all the Slavs as the same and differentiated between the different ethnic Slavic groups. --Hashi0707 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not using the word Nordic, merely referring to how the Nazis used it, which was the same as it was generally used at the time. It referred to peoples who spoke a Germanic language, except Yiddish. TFD (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The "Nordic race" was a term used by anthropologists to describe people that had light-coloured hair, light-coloured eyes, fair skin and dolichocephalic (long and narrow) skulls. The Nazis did not equate Nordic with people who spoke a Germanic language. Nazi racial theorists published works that racially classified Germans and what sub-races they were composed of. Hans Günther recognized the Germans as being of five sub-races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine, East Baltic, and Dinaric. The Nazis did however view Nordic appearance as a sign of German ancestry.--Hashi0707 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the five, only the Nordics were 100% German-speaking ancestry. Note that Mussolini, who was Alpine, spoke Italian, while all Nordic peoples spoke Germanic languages. Anyway this is a digression. Slavs were considered Aryans and if you disagree, find a source that says so. TFD (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Nazis never equated Nordic to be only people of German-speaking ancestry. Hans Günther, arguably the most influential German anthropologist of Nazi ideology stressed not to confuse linguistics and nations with races. He claimed that the Slavs were originally Nordic but had lost their Nordic type by mixing with other non-Nordic races during the Middle Ages. The Nazis viewed the German people as a mixture of different European races. Anyways, this isn't really relevant to the topic but we can create a new section and discuss Nazi ideology and their view on the Nordic race if you want. I don't disagree with you, I was the one who created this section, Slavs were considered Aryans.--Hashi0707 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Since when the satetemens like "You are nearly totally wrong", "As I see, all you want is the full documentation of the random things..", or "I can feel that you're largely confusing Aryan with Nordic" are percieved as personal attacks? Hmm. You see, the point of our discussion is, were the Poles treated as subhumans or not? Every sane historian who knows the Polish history very well (not from the USA-centric or Anglo-centric point of view) will confirm, that Poles were seen as beings who were only slightly above Jews in the "racial" hierarchy, were equal to Romani Gypsy people, and were lower in this "hierarchy" than Blacks. To your information - Black people were also in the nazi army (for instance in the so called "Freies Arabien Legion"). You won't find a Polish person in the nazi army, of course, please dont count the "Volksdeutsche" Poles, who were only Polish by nationality, not by their genetic ancestry. Ethnically they were Germans. Yatzhek (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

An ad hominem is attacking the person and not the content. The point of this discussion is not whether Poles were treat as subhumans but as "non-Aryan", earlier up I even said "Poles were often labeled as racially inferior and as Untermenschen by the Nazis during the war but they were never labeled as non-Aryan." Nobody at all disputes this but its not the same as non-Aryan. I have provided enough evidence from primary sources that the Polish people were considered Aryans and the Nazis never considered the Slavs as a racial group, thus, never placed the Slavs into a racial hierarchy. The Nazis did not consider all the Slavs as the same, they differentiated between the different Slavs. Although this is also irrelevant to the topic, the Poles were not placed in the racial hierarchy on the same level as Jews, Gypsies and blacks. The Nuremberg Laws decreed that all three of these were non-Aryan where as the Poles were classified as Aryans, the Nuremberg Laws forbid sexual relations and marriages between Poles and all three of these groups. Which ethnic groups were in the Waffen-SS or involved in any other Nazi organisation is a red herring and is not relevant to the discussion of Slavs as non-Aryan.

Lets not go off-topic anymore with red herrings, no original research is allowed and when making statements you must be able to verify them.

Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages.--Hashi0707 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The user Yatzhek is right. As a historian I can confirm, that Black men were present in the nazi army, while there were absolutely no Polish men in the nazi army. The small group of so-called Volksdeutsch "Poles" who obviously were collaborating with the nazis were NOT ethnically Polish. They were only the Polish citizens of German ethnicity, or at least ethnically half-German, even having some Polish-sounding last names, who declared on writing that they prefer their "German side", that they feel ethnically more Germans, and that they will always be loyal to Nazi Germany. So we can come to a conclusion that the German Nazis didn't find any kind of collaboration among ethnic Poles (the Slavic Poles), and in the longer run the nazis started to hate the Poles nearly as much as they hated the Jews. It's undisputable that there were absolutely no ethnic Poles in the nazi army, while in fact there were some Blacks among the nazi soldiers! This indicates that Hitler viewed Poles as worse type of human than Blacks. How many Jews died during the WWII? The answer is, about 6.2 million total. How many ethnic Poles died? answer - about 2.8 million total. How many Gypsies died? answer - 0.6 million total. How many Blacks died? This is what I'd like to know... 87.205.169.182 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Good on you for thinking Yatzhek is right, it doesn't change a thing, it's just your opinion. A historian who uses just an IP and not an account to post? Sure. What you have posted here as a counterargument is a straw man. None of your so-called arguments here have anything to do with Poles being Aryans. How many Poles or blacks serving in the German army during the war have nothing to do with Poles being Aryans. The policy of Germanization and reclaiming back the Volksdeutsche in Poland and other areas outside the Reich borders also have nothing to do with Poles being Aryans. Before 1939, the Nazis objective was to come to a peaceful solution with Poland regarding territory the Versailles had stripped from Germany, most nostably Danzig and Nazi propaganda portrayed Poland in a positive light during the 1930's and continued repeatedly the idea of a German-Polish alliance. When the Poles refusied to cooperate with Hitler and Nazi diplomats then Nazi opinions on Poland and the Poles began to change. After the war began, Nazi propaganda portrayed the Poles as sub-humans and there were numerous of decrees issued against them. Just because there were a small number of black soldiers who served in the German army does not prove at all that Hitler viewed the Poles as lower than blacks, in fact, the Nuremberg Laws which were announced by Hitler himself clearly shows he viewed the Poles as Aryan and blacks as non-Aryan. The number of Jews and Poles who died during the war have nothing to do with the Poles being Aryans.--Hashi0707 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nazi imagery in Thailand

I just stubbed Nazi imagery in Thailand and am having trouble with the categories and talk banners. It seems more like a fashion thing than a Nazi belief thing. A little help would be great. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nazism vs National Socialism

Using "nazism" as the title of this page is perjoritive, it's a political epitath given to national socialism (see the book World War II: 4,139 strange and fascinating facts. Wings Books. p.248) Please change it. wikipedia's articles on the pro-life and pro-choice movements call them pro-abortion and anti-abortion, not with their given names, that would be biased.InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed before. The relevant policy is "Use commonly recognizable names." TFD (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is actually WP:POVNAME, which explicitly discourages unencyclopedic names like this, where a more encyclopedic alternative is obvious (regardless of commonality/recognizability). -- Director (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

POVNAME allows the usage and in fact most academic sources do as well. The term "Nazi" is mostly considered negative because the Nazis themselves were horrible people, according to reliable sources. It's like saying we should change the name of the Adolf Hitler article because Hitler has become a negative word. TFD (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we (and the world) would now decide to shift from "nazism" to "national socialism", then a few years from now we'd have exactly the same discussion about shifting from "national socialism" to something "less pejoritive" again, because, by sheer and systematic association with these people, the new term will have become negative again. We are here to reflect the sources, not to create new names for things. - DVdm (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@TFD. POVNAME doesn't "allow" or "disallow" the usage, don't know what you're talking about.. what it does is list "colloquialisms where more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" as an example of when common names should be avoided. And I agree with that, it makes sense to avoid slang (like "Nazi" or "Sozi") in titles.

@DVdm. "Negativity" isn't the issue. WP:NAME allows for perceived "negative" titles.. and again I agree with that: subjective perceptions of "negativity" should not affect our work. Its almost as if policy and guidelines are written as they are for good reason. I also really doubt anyone could challenge the actual full name of the ideology on grounds of being "negative", but again, even if they do - let them. It doesn't matter, according to policy.

And furthermore, I would disagree that "Nazi" is pejorative as opposed to "National Socialist". Many Nazis, even in Hitler's Germany, embraced the term. Some took offense, but it generally was not regarded as an insult, only as a convenient colloquial abbreviation: "Nationalsozialismus" is one word in German, and its a pretty big word (though admittedly nowhere near "Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft" :)). Indeed, after the war, Neo-Nazis such as Rockwell embraced the abbreviation as a means to distance their movement from "sozialismus" (as much of their rhetoric rested on anti-Communist rabble-rousing). Which is part of why I think the full name would be more inconvenient to actual Nazis prowling around.

P.s I submit Britannica's use of "National Socialism" in support of that being the "obvious more-encyclopedic alternative". -- Director (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ecology

You may want to incorporate Timothy Snyder's theory from Understanding Hitler’s Anti-Semitism. Basicly he thinks that Hitler's anti-Semitism viewed Jews as an un-natural plague that kept the races away from their natural state of struggle for resources. --Error (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As the book came out 2 days ago, we do not yet have secondary sources to show that it has been influential. In any case this article is about Nazism not Hitler, although the two obviously overlap. TFD (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2015

Hat unproductive personal analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Erase all references that Nazism is of the far-right political spectrum. That is incorrect. Nazism is a form of socialism and belongs to the far-left. It is a common piece of propaganda spread by the left to try and attach it to the right side of politics. 75.138.215.195 (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)  Not done We don't do history revisionism on this project. We reflect what the overwhelming amount of reliable sources(scholarly, historical, etc) state. Dave Dial (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC) @Suwa: Please read above in regards to the reversion of your addition of the Category: Far Left Politics to this article. Ogress smash! 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC) done. :) — smells like stalin time propaganda from kremlin finally will win :) just check history and brainwashing, all best :) user:suwa 19:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Just because you haven't read the sources and therefore conclude that because of its name "National Socialism" is in fact "socialism" when it was a right-wing movement by any standard doesn't make you right or the entirety of historians "stalin time propaganda from kremlin". Your use of "brainwashing" is insulting. Ogress smash! 20:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) hm, i meant that kremlins propaganda brainwashed some of historians, nothing personal :) user:suwa 21:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC) According to "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler, "Adolf Hitler" by John Toland, "Stalin" by Adam B Ulam and "Duce! A Biography of Benito Mussolini" by Richard Collier, all three men started out as members of their nation's Socialist Party before morphing Socialism into National-Socialism, Communism and Fascism. So National-Socialism is a form of Socialism and of the Left. You can look these publications up to verify their credibility. Mussolini also wrote a multi-volume set on Fascism (in Italian) crediting Fascism to the Italian Socialist Party and Adolf Hitler modeled his National Socialism on Mussolini's Fascism. ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Zandovise Just because someone starts out a socialist and ends up as pretty much the world's foremost example of fascist dictators doesn't mean fascism = socialism. It means he changed his politics as a nationalist, racist fascist. Ogress smash! 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC) You have a misconception that racism or nationalism is a right-wing philosophy. It is only International Socialism that is multicultural. In 19th century Europe, with Darwin's discoveries, Eugenics was thought to be very progressive and scientific, and the belief that some races and cultures were better than others was so inherent within the left that it was taken for granted. Even looking further back at other Socialist societies, nationalism was usually the centerpoint. The Inca for example, practiced Socialism to the extent that it can be argued they were the people who got to real Communism the closest. The Inca state owned and controlled all means of productions as well as the people to the point of assigning all professions, selecting which female could procreate with which male, and even regulating the times of the day that the state allowed each worker to urinate. For the common good of everybody of course. Inca were also nationalists and believed themselves the master race, which explains the speed with which a ragtag band of Spaniards formed a coalition of oppressed native tribes to topple them. Racism historically was a left wing affliction. While Nationalism has been a fixture with both left and right. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC) IP from North Carolina, we follow what mainstream sources say, rather than present fringe views. Most U.S. conservative leaders btw started off as liberals or leftists, that does not mean that U.S. conservatism is left-wing. TFD (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Even Marxists are becoming aware of the link between the left and fascism with one modern Marxist philosopher even writing that if you were to 'scratch a Communist, one quite often finds a fascist underneath' [17]. After Hitler saw the problems looking at the Bolshevik Marxist revolution in Russia, and modified his brand of Socialism to fix those problems. In his view: (1) International Socialism is always doomed to failure from corruption due to the character defects inherent in non Aryan races, and thus global Socialism can only be actualized under the control of the Aryan race. (2a) The state confiscation of the means of production from private owners can not be justified by the carnage and resentment it causes. Instead by completely controlling every property and business owner, and through complete regulation, the state has de facto control over all means of production and all property while keeping the illusion that a business or home is actually under the control of a private owner. (2b)So in essence the state tells what type of product should be manufactured, in what quantity, using material from which supplier, set salaries, set work hours, set the rules governing interaction with employees, hiring and firing benchmarks, set selling price and dictates where and to whom the product can be sold, and ensures small salary differences between owners and workers. It's plain to see that Hitler was a racist Socialist who thought that Socialism was too precious to be entrusted into the corrupt hands of races he felt were inferior. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)