Talk:Nazism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


"Also, Aryanism was not an attractive idea for Italians that had neither blond hair nor blue eyes, but still there was a strong racism and also genocide in concentration camps long before either was in place in Germany"

Plenty of Italians have blond hair and blue eyes. And besides most Germans didn't have blond hair/blue eyes either and were still regarded as Aryans. I think we need a more accurate statment here.

Why are they the National SOCIALIST party?

Doesn't it seem like a bit of a paradox that the word socialist is part of the party name? Weren't Nazi's anti-socialist? Or is this a different use of the word "socialist"?

  • First you have to know that there are different schools of socialism. As we can clearly understand from the term, it is a NATIONAL socialist organization. Basically, only for the well-being of the German nation(you may prefer to call it racism but I don't). Hitler's regime provided the basics(food,work,etc.), actually more then the old democracy could give, for people. In a sense, it was working for the well-being of the society(the most basic explanation of socialism). With respect, the Turk, Deliogul 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Some comment on the strange name of the NSDAP is needed. This business of accepting the Nazis' implicit claim to be in some sense socialist is relatively new and tends to be popular with people who have some hidden agenda or other - either the rehabilation of Nazism or as a means of attacking socialism. (Of course, there are also those who are naive). If the Nazi régime provided essentials it was largely through its massive rearmament programme, not as something considered a basic right. Preparing a country for a war of aggression is a strange way of attending to the welfare of the people. Moreover, rates of personal taxation in Nazi Germany were very low. There was none of the redistribution or egalitarianism associated with socialism. Norvo 03:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

- redistribution or egalitarianism associated with socialism. - lol Afcorse there was not ,they wanted basic welfare not for the people but for nation , because of that they are national-socialist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 27 August 2006.

Is it really that strange? Look at the official names of China and North Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 29 August 2006.

From what I gather, Hitler just wanted the socialists/communists/trade unions to vote for him. So he put the word "socialist" in the title, hoping it would help him (which it did). Simple as that. Yandman 07:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

-> If you study the origins of the Nationalist Socialist party, this was actually a Socialist party before Hitler joined. The party was not created by him. He took power over it and transformed it into a right-wing party. It is neither a modern conspiracy against socialists nor one of Hitler's propaganda manouvers.

It would be much more accurate to speak of 'some populist features'. Norvo 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

- I looked up the origins of the Nazis on wikipedia and found that the ideology of National Socialism was traced back to Austria where nationalists united with workers against Jewish employers and wealthy Jews whom they blamed for workers ills. The original national socialists did advocate revolting against aristocrats, capitalists, and oddly desribed themselves as "liberal" in nature. In 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party was formed in Austria, being renamed from the German Workers Party of Austria which followed national socialist principles, this was two years before Hitler would rename the German Workers Party the National Socialist German Workers Party, following the same path of its far less successful Austrian equivelant. Hitler's Nazis however did not identify themselves as "liberal" and only used the term to gain the workers vote in the 20s and 30s and implemented no workers-oriented policies

The early part of the current Introduction makes a great song and dance about socialism and - incredibly - also syndicalism. It's clear that 'cold warriors never die'. Dating the ideology back to the late 19th century is too early. Norvo 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When referring to Socialism, people generally refer to the Socialism strongly influenced by Marx, amonst others. This however is not the only form of Socialism, as seen in National Socialism. If you take a look at the original 25 points of the NSDAP, you'll see some strongly racialist influences, combined with Socialist influences. If you combine those two elements, you'll get a racially progressive left-wing movement, which is basically what the National Socialist movement is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Actually this comment of Norvo, "Dating the ideology back to the late 19th century is too early," is strange. According to this comment, Nazi ideology would not be influenced, for example , by the 1855 work An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Intangible 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


the definition of nazi is also "someone who is cruel or who demands an unreasonable degree of obedience, or someone who has extreme and unreasonable beliefs about race" Cambridge definition

Should this be added somewhere?--AeomMai 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That definition is used when you want to insult someone , not in terms of NAZI ideology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 27 August 2006.

...stupid. :) with all the respect, of course. Well I suppose this is a general discussion space 'cause of the title and your comment, so, why does NS haven't a box??????????? yeah right there is "fascism" but you know karl marx has a box and also commies and anarchists and vegetarians, but the nazis don't. you can't just put nazism inside fascism and lock it that sub groups of racial and inlorant stuff worldwide, because nazis as commies and marxists had their own workers rights and stuff (and were actually quite good) and worried about comfortable life style, health and better working places, so it would be good to portrait this non-racial side of nazi politics, and of course the other stuff like youth projects (sports, arts, things) and etc, at least the theories, because they may have had turned everything into preparing everyone to fight in a war at some point, but as they intended to live (and live well) for thousands of years they surely have a whole social program like marxism and communism and capitalism and blablabla. or is it anti-semitic to talk about the "good" things like a happy and rich nation instead of only racial monstruous assassin politics? alright it would be built upon "inocent peoples' blood" but so is isreal. make a box and link holocaust in every article then. it may sound pro NS and/or racist but is not (actually if you think that talking about real things is racism then you have the problem, punk),i just think it's important, or whatever if they had nothing and it's all about being blond and killing and fighting winter wars, then i'll just sit here and STFU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:08, May 10, 2006

National socialism as far as i can explain it is as follows: Socialism and the left wing is working for the good of the whole world, national socialism is working for the good of the country/ethnic group. Also hitler was renowned for making good propaganda, in the early days this meant he might get votes from both people who wanted right wing goverment and people who wanted germany to work together. Hope this is of help Pastinator, 21:23 gmt october 16 2006. (sorry if that is not how to date stamp writing) Nobody writes about the plumbing system of pre-war Korea, either. That's because it wasn't significant. At best, it's a nuisance and at worst misleading- even revisionist- to include prosaic details alongside pertinent facts. The "good" things that Nazis did are in fact included in the article, along with how they fit into "das Tausendjahre Reich". It would seem your request were already answered. Ben L. 06:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick comparison of Socialism (Communism) and Fascism.

1. Socialism = total rule and control (tyranny / despotism). Fascism = total rule and control (tyranny / despotism) .

2. Socialist leaders demand to be deified / idolised for example busts / statues (idols) of Lenin, huge posters and billboards of mao and kim il sung . for example; [1] Hitler was idolized as fuehrer and the kiddies in school sang songs of praise to the “god man” leader. The same can be said for this part of the school “curriculum” in all the communist countries.

3. The socialists governments frequently organized and held controlled propaganda parades / processions / rallies where posters and banners were flying all (and only) praising their “god” leaders and the “virtues” of the party. There were many great charismatic speeches made, much singing of praise to their “gods”. Exactly the same can be said for Fascism.

4. Socialist countries will not tolerate dissidence nor would Nazi Germany.

5. Socialist countries send political dissidents and “undesirables” (eg. Christians and minority ethnic groups) off to the concentration / prison / labour camps they called Gulags, the Nazis called them concentration camps (eg. Auschwitz).

6. A culture of spying and snitching was created to weed out the “thought criminals” in both political systems. In communist china for example the government teaches the kids in the state controlled schools to snitch on their parents if they are engaging in Christian / Falun gong or Democratic (dissident) practices. In Nazi Germany there existed the Hitler youth and the brown shirts spy and snitch gangs. Socialist Russia had the KGB secret police, who brutally interrogated and tortured people then sent them off to the Gulags. Nazi Germany had the SS secret police who brutally interrogated and tortured people then sent them off to the concentration camps.

7. Checkpoints were / are everywhere in socialist countries (eg. at every state / national border). The Nazis had their armed guarded checkpoints just the same (Achtung! Show me your papers).

8. Socialist countries are Martial Law / Military Police states. Fascist countries the same.

9. The socialist countries labour camps were just that, used for slave labour. Same with Fascism (eg Schindler’s List). The labourers who were political slaves were making goods not only for the states but also for the benefit of big multinational corporations that funded these regimes.

10. Socialist countries have full search and seizure laws in place to break into peoples houses and seize their property or them, and haul them off for interrogation and eventual imprisonment. Fascism had the same laws. Not innocent until proven guilty here folks! Fair hearing in a court, forget about it!

11. The people inside the closed systems of socialism were / are the enemy and must be ruthlessly controlled, same in the fascist countries. This is the reason for Martial Law and the Militarisation of the police forces.

12. Defection in socialist countries is a major crime, likewise Fascist.

13. Socialism benefits the few (ie. The leaders), Fascism the same, while the rich get richer and the poor poorer. Socialism is feudalism / slavery, likewise fascism.

14. Last but not least, both of these evil cancers have brought about the deaths of countless millions of innocent people, have destroyed much existing infrastructure and environment and caused all sorts of famines and pestilences, a bit like the current bush regime really.

In short George Orwell’s 1984 speaks as much about socialism as it does fascism. There are no real differences between socialism and fascism except purely cosmetic and pseudo intellectual ones.—Cantsi Wontsi 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This post is for Cantsi Wontsi. George Orwell first of all considered himself a socialist, 1984 was not an attack on Socialism but more of an attack on Stalinism. Your comparisons between socialism and fascism clearly shows a misunderstanding of BOTH the terms. This isn't a personal assult on you. But what you are defining to be socialist has almost absoluteley nothing to do with actual socialism, what you are describing is Stalinism. xcuref1endx 12:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between theoretical socialism and socialism is practice. Socialist countries in practice have shown themselves to be totalitarian in nature. Does that necessarily mean that socialism is totalitarian? OF COURSE NOT! It simply means that the feeling of power, absolute power, tends to corrupt the minds of men. Now, fascism, nazism, and all right wing movement (I don't give a fuck about third way movements), have shown themselves to be very much totalitarian. There is one certainty, one cannot say, fascism and socialism are the same. That is total bullshit. Theoretically, there are few, if not any, ressemblances. "cosmetic and pseudo intellectual ones" Laudable! It is like saying that Plato is Neo-Platonic. It doesn't work. If you're to say that socialism and fascism have practical similarities, then it is true. But they are not the same! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 9 September 2006.

Whoa, whoa, back up. What you've got up there is a list of similarities between a socialist dictatorship and a fascist dictatorship - I don't think we'll hit the mark comparing them that way. If we're going to characterize socialist government (and decide if the National Socialist Party was one) then our descriptions had better apply not just to the USSR but also to a lesser extent to Sweden and Canada...

Socialism is about the government using its power to redistribute wealth, taking from the rich to serve the poor. That many socialist countries have ended up with iron-fisted tyrants in control doesn't mean that's a built-in (or intended) characteristic of socialism. Jasonfahy 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazi/German terminology consistency

No consistent terminology seems to exist for differentiating the Nazi party from the Germany government during the Nazi Era. Wikipedia has entries for "Nazi Concentration Camps" that refers only to camps established under German Authority only, and "List of German Concentration Camps" which lists the same camps. We also find we find phrases like " Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union " It was the German army that invaded russia, not the Nazi party! In my opinion the term "Nazi" should be used in reference to actions and persons of the Nazi party when addressing functions taken on behalf of the party independant of the German government or military. While actions of the german government or military under Nazi control should be refered to as German actions, perhaps with modification by the word Nazi.

The phrase " Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union " should be "German invasion of the Soviet Union". A "Nazi Concentration Camp" would be a camp established and run by party members independent of the german government ( did any such camps exist?), while the well-known camp at Auschwitz should be refered to as the "German Concentration Camp" or the "Nazi-era German Concentration camp" or even the "Nazi German Concentration camp" as this was estabilished by the legitimate German Government at the time, not the party.

Consistent with this scheme, the two articles I mention above should both be renamed as "German Concentration Camps of the Nazi Era" or "List of German Concentration Camps of the Nazi Era" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19 April 2006.

I'm almost certain that I recently responded to almost the identical remark on another page. Please don't start the same policy-oriented discussion in multiple places.
"Nazi Concentration Camps" and "Nazi Extermination/Death Camps" are simply the dominant terms in English: we follow that usage. I would certainly say "German invasion of the Soviet Union", not "Nazi invasion", but I'd be 50-50 on "German occupation of France" or "Nazi occupation of France". - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The other place was Nazi extermination camp. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Consider: "Republican invasion of Iraq" vs. "U.S. invasion of Iraq." A pointed example, perhaps, but it wasn't just Nazi Party members who invaded the Soviet Union. --FOo 05:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Consider "Republican tax cuts", "Tory privatisation scheme". - Jmabel | Talk 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is always appropriate to follow the "dominant terms" usage when more precise language exists. This is after all an encyclopedia dedicated to accurate preservation/dissemination of knowledge, not continued representations of the vernacular . Today you can talk about the "Nazi's" with school kids and 8 out of 10 times they will not be able to tell you who they were, and I think that is due in part to the fact that the dominant terms are not precise. You and I know exactly what we are refering to, but in 20 years when someone comes across the reference to "Nazi Concentration Camps" they might not have a clear idea to what that refers. The situation is excacerbated by the fact that there is no consistent terminology used here and various terms for the same thing are used in different places. Regardless of what phrase is used we should be consistent here, the best way to accomplish that is to choose the most precise language. Edps 03:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Edps. Because Nazism dominated German political life from about 1933 to 1945, there is a convergence between government and party (cf USSR, PRC) that is not comparable to multi-party/loyal opposition systems. This makes it all the more important to distinguish the two, while at the same time acknowledging the near-absolute dominance. In practice, we should examine NSDAP policy and how that was translated into deutsches Reich policy, keeping the terms fairly separate. Since this may become tiresome for the more mundane points, the forms "Nazi Germany" (noun) and "Nazi German" (adjectival) should be used to show the simultaneous duality and unity of the two institutions. Ben L. 06:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Marginal conservative and libertarian texts

The proper page for marginal conservative and libertarian texts is Fascism and ideology where these matters are discussed at length. This page (and other pages) should not be used as a spam page for links to the von Mises website.--Cberlet 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Flag

Why is there a dispute flag if there is no substantial discussion of a dispute?--Cberlet 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing none, I have removed it Mrmaroon25

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

The result of the debate was not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of this article

Why is this article named “Nazism” and not “National Socialism”? Official name is/was “National Socialism”. Also, both on Encarta and Britannica article on this subject is named “National Socialism”. I’m suggesting moving this article on National Socialism and current article on National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). -- Vision Thing -- 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to do this name change without a substantial discussion. I note that for several days you have unilaterally been going from page to page changing references to "Nazism" to "national socialism." I also note that this has been objected to and reverted, sometimes by me. This appears to be part of a larger effort on your part to argue that Nazism is a form of socialism. This is not a new debate. There is always room for discussion, but please seek constructive consensus rather than starting a revert war.--Cberlet 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a personal attack and not an argument about the issue. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is not ad hominem to factually point out that you are engaging in aggressive and disruptive editing on several pages. It would be ad hominem if I said that all editors should ignore what you post because you are a jackass. That would be ad hominem.--Cberlet 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


  • I support renaming this article to "National Socialism". -- Drogo Underburrow 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "National Socialism" is a general political ideology. "Nazism" refers specifically to the early 20th century German movement. The disambiguation link at the top of the page (and the huge swastika in the infobox) should be sufficient to avoid confusion. If the word "Nazi" has become a pejorative, it's only because they earned it. There's no need to hijack the National Socialism article by adding 38 kilobytes about Nazism to it. Kafziel 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia naming conventions. Nazism is the better known name in English. Angr (tc) 07:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nazism in its early stages was a specific form of national socialism; some scholars argue that this ideological tendency within Nazism ended after the Night of the Long Knives or after Hitler was given state power. Some libertarians and conservatives promote using the term "National Socialism" in idiosyncratic ways as part of their ongoing arguemtn that fascism is a form of socialism. See Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 13:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is revisionism. Don't use Wikipedia for that. Afonso Silva 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, more common--Aldux 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose ......xcuref1endx 8:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Nazism is a term that specifically refers to the German National Socialist party, in the context of this article "Nazism" is the correct title. Edps 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Term that specifically refers to the German National Socialist party is the National Socialist German Workers Party. As you can see, article about them is called the National Socialist German Workers Party, not the Nazi Party. -- Vision Thing -- 15:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well... Google Fight says National Socialism (16.4 million) > Nazism (5.8 million) results,,,we have a clear victor --Shandris 17:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Google fight should be "National Socialism" in quotes vs. Nazism to avoid spurious results. In that case we have "Nazism" (5.8 million) results >> "National Socialism" (1.2 million) results (Google Fight). Edps 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. We need to be consistant. Since there is no "Nazi Party" page, neither should there be a "Nazism" page. This page should be titled "National Socialism" which is better than "Nazism", which is more colloquial, and possibly disparaging. Drogo Underburrow 15:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article is specifically about ("The philosophy of the German NSDAP (the Nazi Party") and follow-on groups, it is not about National Socialism a term that is more general than the context of this article, nor is it about the Nazi Party. I can't think of a better term than "Nazism", and it is my impression that the word is pretty universal and not colloquial. "Nazi" is a common abbreviation of NSDAP and was commonly used (though not prefered) in germany and world wide throughout the period they were in power in germany. In fact the NSDAP page says "better known as the Nazi Party", titling that page the NSDAP is an example of using the more accurate term over the more common one - I certainly support that, but in this case I don't think there is a more accurate term for this article other than "the philosophy of the NSDAP" which is a little unwieldy. Edps 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The philosophy of the NSDAP was National Socialism. Nazism is abbreviation of National Socialism. See links to the articles in Britannica and Encarta. Also, term Nazism has significant negative connotation. As AeomMai recently pointed out, the definition of Nazi is also "someone who is cruel or who demands an unreasonable degree of obedience, or someone who has extreme and unreasonable beliefs about race" and Nazism is associated with such meaning. Did you watch Seinfeld? I remember one episode called "The Soup Nazi" that perfectly depicts that. -- Vision Thing -- 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As stated already, National Socialist German Workers Party is the article for the Nazi party itself. "National Socialism" would refer to the philosophy of the party. "Nazism" is a colloquial term that was originally disparaging, and certainly informal. There was a time when Americans called anyone German a "Nazi"; "Nazism" is still a bit informal, if not actually insulting. Drogo Underburrow 00:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If "[National Socialism]" is only the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party, and it is my understanding that it is not. Then "Nazism" and "National Socialism" are equivalent. If on the other hand "Nazism" refers to the ideology peculiar to the NSDAP with some distinction from other National Socialist movements, then "Nazism" is the correct term. It is my estimation that in the common usage the second case is more often true. In other words "National Socialism" refers to the general movement, and "Nazism" refers to the brand practiced by the NSDAP, I see it both ways in the literature.

I think at one time in Germany the term "Nazi" was oft used informally and perhaps as an insult, but it is certainly no longer a colloquial term having gained now almost universal use and understanding. (Of course the work "Nazism" was certainly not used in german at all as the -ism is an english suffix) The term "Nazism" has a very precise and universally accepted meaning. Edps 02:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, National Socialism (with both letters capitalized) refers to the ideology of NSDAP (see National Socialist Program, again not Nazist or program of Nazism). -- Vision Thing -- 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then the National Socialist Party and National Socialism entries are incorrect and need to be removed or changed. Do you dispute that the term "National Socialism" was in use for decades before the formation of the NSDAP, and that many incarnations were much more socialist than the NSDAP variant? Edps 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
For other, less known, uses of the term "national socialism" there is a disambiguation page. That's what is for. -- Vision Thing -- 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
give up vision thing, wikipedia is run by agressive red bigots who attack anyone who does something they don't agree and promote hate, they'll never change the name because it would be the truth and truth ain't cool. either dressing like hitler in school. WTF? THEY CALLED EACH OTHER NATIONAL SOCIALISTS SO THEY ARE NATIONAL SOCIALISTS AND THAT'S IT!!!!!!!! IS NOT IMPORTANT IF IT DOESN'T MATCH "SOCIALISM" BECAUSE THIS IS A CLEAR POV OF LEFTISTS PROMOTING HATE AGAIN! it's how they called themselves, i think they knew more about themselves than any of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

@Kafziel - National Socialism is a specific political ideology. As the article National socialism clearly says: "the term "National Socialism" (capitalized) is almost always used to refer to German Nazism in the context of Western political or historical discussions." -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

@Angr & Cberlet - In all encyclopedias except in Wikipedia "National Socialism" is preferred (more commonly used) title [2] and I think that naming this article "Nazism" is result of POV pushing by some editors. On what grounds are you claiming that Nazism is the most commonly used term? My impression is that the term "Nazism" is more commonly used to describe the ideology of Neo-Nazis and racists then the ideology of NASDP. -- Vision Thing -- 16:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to claim that National Socialism is the same as Nazism. Nazism is the ideology of the NSDAP, widely known for its role during the 1930's and 1940's. That's what the article is about: Nazism was the ideology held by the National Socialist German Workers Party. National Socialism, as the dab paragraph says, has been used in self-description by a number of different political groups and ideologies, some of which have no connection with the Nazis. Everyone has heard that "Hitler was a nazi" not that "Hitler was a National Socialist". Afonso Silva 16:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why then all other encyclopedias have named their articles about same subject "National Socialism" and not "Nazism"? -- Vision Thing -- 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps other encyclopedias don't discuss this subject like we do. With such content in the article, I don't find the move appropriate. Afonso Silva 21:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure - they don't discuss it. To me, these oppose votes look like pure POV pushing by pro-socialist. -- Vision Thing -- 12:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that National-Socialism is Socialism? Afonso Silva 13:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that you said that National Socialism is not the same as Nazism. And now you are using National Socialism as synonym for Nazism. Your oppose vote is pure farce. -- Vision Thing -- 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Britannica reference is interesting and schizophrenic. Under National Socialism BE says: "German Nationalsozialismus , also called Nazism". But, in every other article it systematically uses the term Nazism: "European responses to Nazism","Non-Jewish victims of Nazism","Heidegger and Nazism". BE defines National Socialism as equal to German Nationalsozialismus of the Nazi era and then uses the term Nazism throughout - BE seems not to recognize other incarnations of national socialism Edps 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The formation of "The Stazi"

Could someone take the time to make the addition of what happened to the Nazi part and the S.S. after the fall of Germany and the creation of East Germany? i.e. The formation of "The Stazi". Also there is no page that contains any information in the Wiki database that contains any historical info on the group. Which I find puzzling. In the 80's going through high school I had several years of history where we talked in depth on them as their iportance and relavance is important to know about comapred to todays exchange of civil rights for "security".

So a historical mention of the S.S. disbanded into the formation of the East German governments "Stazi", how they used civilians to spy on eachother through fear, and perhaps a link to an actual Stazi page would be much appreciated.


No way.

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany came close to war against each other in 1934, when the Austrofascist Chancellor of Austria Englebert Dolfuss was assassinated on Hitler's orders.

I don't believe that Mussolini would have actually attacked Germany, so its false to say they came close to war. War was never a possibility. Saying they came close to war implies both sides were serious and willing to fight. Neither side was willing to attack the other. Quote a source for this statement. Drogo Underburrow 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't name a source, because I saw a documentary about Italian Facism on TV. They said that after this event Mussolini send one of his armies to the Italian-Austrian border. Mussolini was afraid that Germany might become too strong and stuff. But Hitler was abled to convince him to keep calm. 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Certainly the troops were sent to the Austrian border, and, if Germany had at that point invaded Austria, Mussolini might well have sent his troops into combat. However, without that happening, it would have been difficult for Italy and Germany to wage war against each other in 1934, given the lack of a common border. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


The sentence on Nazi Anti-clericalism is far too basic, and ultimately, incorrect. The Kirchenkampf should be mentioned.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. --FOo 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have the time to add it now. I'm sure one of the scholars here can dig up information about the Kirchenkampf


What I'm wondering is how the Wiki NPOV applies to this article versus other articles. Because, the dehumanization of Jews, and other "undesirables" is clearly stated in this article as a negative effect of Nazism. However, in the case of the Palestine conflict, Israel's dehumanization of the Palestinian Arabs is not [if you think that Israel hasn't done anything wrong to the Palestinians then you must have very skewed point of view. For more information see Ted Swedenburg's scholarly articles or]

Therefore, what I as an American and non-Palestinian [but a person who reads European newspapers and has looked into the murder of Rachel Corrie, James Miller, and others by Israeli soldiers] have come to the conclusion that NPOV is still skewed to be Pro-Israeli.

- SafireRain

  • And the relevance of your opinion to this article is...? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I've moved this article to a more NPOV name, hope no one minds--Horse master 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Given a chance, nearly everyone will mind that you moved "Nazism" to "National Socialism (the first socialist government)". Your proposed name violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). It is also incorrect: Nazism was only a socialist movement in name. Rhobite 03:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A Thought

This is obviously going to be taken very critically by alot of people, but I was thinking while watching "The Colour of War" that perhaps Nazi ideals weren't entirely insane/selfish and idiotic as is almost universally accepted. Currently, a huge problem occuring with our world (perhaps not currently, but it will be very soon) is the lack of resources to support the population. Most of you may know recently, China has even been accused of infanticide, which would be considered just as evil as many things the Nazis did (i.e. genocide); Anyways, it seems to me that mass murder (or genocide) would have seemed a practical thing to do at the time, if developing an integral world government. It would have addressed long term needs to the human race, provided much more agricultural room etc. Which would have left us in a much more ideal situation when trying to advance as a society.

Anyways, these were just comments I thought of, this does not necessarily reflect my opinions of any race and/or religion, I am merely extremely open to different theories.

Apologies to anyone who may be offended by this. This is obviously a hugely controversial subject, and obviously the statements I've made here could shake some heads, and perhaps extremely hurt someone's feelings. I realize full well the what the results of my actions may be, and as stated before, I apologize. --OneRyt 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No apology necessary. Luckily, on Wikipedia, your opinions and my opinions are completely irrelevant; this isn't a chat forum or a discussion board, so no debate on your speculation is likely (or welcome). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Considering that you and I are the ones who write the articles, it seems to me that our opinions are of the utmost relevance. 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Not at all. A Wikipedia article should have no reflection whatseover of the editor's opinions. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and all that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTCthi

pro or contra nazis? I'm a German and while i read this i artikle i really thought it is the perfekt help for people who want to become a nazi, not a page which should show readers how terrible it was in this time! especially your links are very dangerous! In Germany wont be online, just think about this.

  • Wikipedia isn't really about describing "how terrible" things are; it's about providing fair and neutral information. It's been awhile since I've been all the way through this article, and I'm hardly an educated historian, but nevertheless the intent of this, such as it is for every article on Wikipedia, is to provide information. And as many outside of Germany that are actually familiar with the country know, modern Germany is far more strongly anti-Nazi than much of the rest of the world. Hence, as any article does to anyone with a strong opinion on the topic, this article's POV likely seems skewed to you, because of its neutrality - the same thing happens frequently to me, and likely to many if not most other users. --Jammoe 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


How many times do we have to protect this page from the insertation of marginal libertarian and conservative claims about "collectivism" and "socialism." This is disucssed at length at Fascism and ideology among many other pages. --Cberlet 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Hayek is an author of marginal importance?-- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, Hayek is of highly notable importance. Any winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics is a person whose views are notable on economic matters.
However ... communists and anticommunists have used "fascism" as a club to beat each other over the head with for far too long. We need to make sure that while we describe that controversy, Wikipedia should not be any further abused as a battleground for it.
It is true that some scholars (e.g. Hayek) have described the collectivist elements of fascism, with a view towards criticizing other forms of collectivism. However, this is neither more nor less notable than the treatment of fascism by other writers (e.g. Lenin) as an outgrowth of capitalism. Both views have some virtue, but are all too often used merely as a way to call the other guy a fascist. --FOo 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hayek and von Mises are marginal on the issue of Nazism They are well-known on the issue of libertarian and classic liberal economics. They are highly notable on pages directly related to economic theory. But their work is seldom cited by the most noted scholars of fascism and nazism. Nazism was not their field. They primarily wrote about Nazism as a form of collectivism and socialism as a way to attack liberal policies of state regulation. Lenin also is generally not quoted by the most noted scholars of fascism and nazism. Nor is Dimitrov. And rarely Trotsky. --Cberlet 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue of Nazism includes the economics of Nazism as well as all its other aspects. I would not expect Hayek to be cited on, for instance, Nazi military strategy, racial doctrine, or the Holocaust, as those are not his field. But economics is. --FOo 23:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
And yet, most scholars of Nazism find Hayek's work quaintly amusing and opinionatd, but of little serious value. This usually comes as a shock to his tiny but loyal legion of fans.--Cberlet 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hayek’s book "The Road to Serfdom", where he discusses collectivism, is highly acclaimed by such people as Milton Friedman (another Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economics), John Maynard Keynes, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Also, this book was one of main reasons why Hayek received Presidential Medal of Freedom. So his view is significant and notable.
That Nazism is a collectivist philosophy was also a view of Wilhelm Röpke, one of the creators of German social market economy. It’s not a exclusive view of libertarians and conservatives.-- Vision Thing -- 09:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find some work by Röpke (hardly a libertarian or classical liberal), I believe I recently saw a critique of him of fascism somewhere. Intangible 17:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah nice, already in 1935 Röpke wrote that Fascism was some sort of middle road between totalitarian communism and capitalist liberalism. As such, it does not seek to establish a collectivist economy (as with communism). Fascism is interventionism plus collectivist terminology, leading to a heavily monopolistic-interventionist society adorned by terminological and phraseologicial ornaments, with an extensive governmental control of prices and capital investments and large 'socialisation of losses'. So the statement made earlier here on this talk page of "marginal libertarian and conservative claims about "collectivism" and "socialism" is incorrect to say the least. Intangible 18:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
He also says that the Marxist class analysis is faulty, that one should only speak about the Fascist class or Nazist class solely. "In fighting at the same time against Liberalism (in its broadest sense), Niebuhr is falling into the other Marxian error of conceiving liberty as a "bourgeois prejudice." Röpke is quick to note this as a general glut fallacy. Intangible 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"The Road to Serfdom" is an opinion piece, and highly acclaimed by those who agree with Hayek's opinions. It is not a study of Nazism and does not claim to be. -- Nikodemos 14:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It’s not an opinion but an analysis. Also, in “Mein Kampf” Hitler wrote that Aryan is greatest in his willingness to subordinate "his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it." and that individual has "not rights but only duties." Nazi’s motto was "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" ("The common good before the private good"). All those are by definition main characteristics of collectivist society. -- Vision Thing -- 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

<-----but there should be a pointer to the debate, so I added:

"The contested issue of the role of socialism and collectivism in Nazi and Fascist movements is discussed at Fascism and ideology."

and deleted the reference to the Hayek book and the link to the Socialism page.--Cberlet 16:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And the new recent quotes from Röpke show that Röpke thinks that Fascism "does not seek to establish a collectivist economy" and the collectivism is mostly rhetorical. So, contrary to the above claim, Röpke is not a source for the claim that the Nazis were primarily concerned with "collectivism." and so these claims are still marginal.--Cberlet 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
How can the political ends of the Fascist and Nazist regimes be known in 1935? That knowledge would have saved the world from a despicable war! Intangible 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Seven years latter in "The Social Crisis of Our Time" Röpke wrote: "One cannot continually intervene without finally reaching a point where the highly developed nervous system of the market economy refuses to function. The power of the market economy must, then, either be restored by a lessening of intervention or must be completely replaced by collectivism. This crisis was reached in Germany in 1935 and in France at the end of the Popular Front Government; in the former case it was overcome by a step forward, in the latter by a backward turn". -- Vision Thing -- 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with Chip Berlet. Hayek was not a scholar of Nazism. The Road to Serfdom is essentially a polemic. Its view of fascism and Nazism is significant in the context of a discussion of Hayek and those influenced by Hayek. It is not significant as an analysis of Nazism itself, since no modern scholars take it very seriously. (I'd say the same is true, to some extent, of someone like Hannah Arendt, although she is perhaps taken a bit more seriously by scholars of fascism.) Discussion of fascist and Nazi ideology ought to focus on scholars of fascism and Nazism who are read today as something other than primary sources. john k 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to user Intangible. Please do not add "collectivism" to the entry core definition until this discussion is finished. Assume good faith. Continue with your cites to published material that support your views.--Cberlet 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


"The Bureaucratisation of the World" (1939) Bruno Rizzi:

"Bureaucratic Collectivism too has its social base in dominant classes which have established their headquarters in the States in Russia, Italy, Germany, Japan and the smaller States".

"Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism?" (2002) Jacob Golomb, Robert S. Wistrich:

"At the same time Nietzsche also posed serious question for those aspects of fascism related to etatisme and totalitarianism. In this area the contradictions between Nietzsche's individualism and fascist collectivism were difficult, if not impossible, to bridge."

"Key Ideas in Politics" (2003) Moyra Grant:

"Right-wing collectivism is organic, hierarchical and statist; it stresses the individual's duty and subservience to the state. Fascism take this furthest with its philosophy of "Everything for the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state"."

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism."

-- Vision Thing -- 09:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to -- Vision Thing --: It is improper to claim false consensus when debate continues on talk page concerning the place to mention "collectivism." You are doing this on more than one page. Please stop this aggresive and discourteous form of editing.--Cberlet 13:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see that you are engaging in any meaningful debate. Further, place for this kind of "notes" isn’t this talk page, but my personal talk page. For my edits, I didn’t make any claims of consensus, for me "per talk" means "for reasons I presented on talk page". In future try to avoid this kind of attempted public stigmatization and try to keep a cool head since this kind of behavior will probably backfire on you. -- Vision Thing -- 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest that when you mean "for reasons I presented on talk page", and want to say that briefly, say "see talk"? "Per talk" is strongly suggestive that your edit is based on a consensus on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no new arguments are presented against "collectivism" and Cberlet's claim about "marginal libertarian and conservative claims" was proven wrong, I'm putting "collectivism" back in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought" entry on fascism:

Of all the major ideologies of the twentieth century, fascism was the only one to come into being together with the century itself. It was a synthesis of organic nationalism and anti-Marxists socialism, a revolutionary movement base on a rejection of liberalism, democracy and Marxism. ... This form of socialism was also, by definition, anti-liberal and anti-bourgeois, and its opposition to historical materialism made it the natural ally of radical nationalism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Collectivism quote

Some other quotes, from Bonn (1940): To Mussolini and Hitler economics are not ends in themselves, they are mere means which society needs for the pursuit of its main purpose "power," in order to dominate other societies and to grow at their expense...economics count only indirectly; neither the pursuit of wealth nor of welfare by individuals matters...this view of society is highly collectivist—in some ways more collectivist than that of the communists, for these people see society as a physical unit, an organic body made by nature not by men.

From Roepke (1946): The best way to understand the Hitler regime is to conceive it as one of those tyrannical collectivist mass-regimes...under the name of Fascism, Communism or National Socialism...That such a government for cogent reasons, will represent itself in the economic sphere as a regime which cannot be termed other than socialist or collectivist is a fact too well established...

Intangible 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
None of the sources I have seen so far give any definition of what they mean by "collectivism". If collectivism is merely defined as "a focus on some group or other, in some aspects of political life" then the term is so vague as to be meaningless. -- Nikodemos 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know what have you been reading, but entry from Britannica clearly defines collectivism as "any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class." -- Vision Thing -- 09:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to fabricate reality, Vision Thing, at least have the common courtesy to do a better job of it. --Cberlet 17:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We now have "völkisch collectivism" and "strong, centralized government" in the lead. Enough? At least von Mises had manners.--Cberlet 18:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"Völkisch collectivism" gives exactly one Google hit and "Herrenvolk collectivism" gives zero hits. You will need to find something better then that or to provide adequate citations. -- Vision Thing -- 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous way to evaluate scholarship. Google hits? Be serious. Most scholars of fascism discuss certain attributes of fascism. There is much disagreement. Editors here have spent years discussing this matter. The insertion of "collectivism" represents a tiny marginal view favored by right-wing analysts. Where in Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, Paxton, Laqueur, or any of the other major scholars of fascism is this emphasis on "collectivism" to be found? This is POV. If it were not for an attempt to find a compromise, I would have not suggested a compromise that uncluded the term "collectivism." This is the middle of summer. Please do not falsely claim that there is no discussion because some of us have jobs and lives outside of Wikipedia.--Cberlet 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That "collectivism" represents a tiny marginal view favored by right-wing analysts is already proven wrong by provided quotes. -- Vision Thing -- 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

<---------------Definitions from some of the leading Scholars of fascism. Robert Paxton: "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Ernst Nolte: 6 points--antimarxism, antiliberalism, anticonservatism, the leadership principle, a party army, the aim of totalitarianism.

Roger Griffin: "[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the 'people' into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence."

The term "collectivism" is used primarily by right-wing critics of government intervention in the economy to attempt to link this and liberalism in general to fascism. POV political polemic. Not scholarly. Discussed in great detail at Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Judging by definitions you provided we should also exclude racism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism. -- Vision Thing -- 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet, Vision Thing: are we talking about Nazism or fascism here? Vision Thing, fascism is certainly not inherently racist or anti-Semitic, although Nazism clearly is. Both are inherently anti-communist, Cberlet's cited quotation happened to say "antimarxism"; the distinction in this case is, at most, a quibble.
On the "collectivism" thing: I don't have strong feelings for or against it, though I do think that if we are going to use it, a qualifying adjective like völkisch helps clarify things. The fact that the particular conjunction of adjective and noun isn't all over the web is beside the point: no original reasearch doesn't mean "every phrase must be found elsewhere", or we would be the Plagiaropedia. Insofar as there were collectivist aspects of Nazism, they were based on the ideology of Aryan superiority, and the collectivism was only inclusive of those who were deemed racially (and otherwise, since homosexuals and those with certain ailments were also excluded) superior. This is in strong contrast to what collectivism means in most contexts. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that Cberlet's definitions don't include all important aspects of Nazism, and that on their basis he can't argue that Nazism isn't collectivistic. I have nothing against adjective like Herrenvolk if it's sourced. -- Vision Thing -- 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In the personal diaries of Goebbels, he describes his thoughts in favor of state-ownership of industries, the glorification of the worker and farmer, the weakness of Christianity and the replacement of the State as the new religion. To me this sounds like something Lenin could have easily said. So the comparison of Nazism to Communism is valid discussion even while Nazi Germany and the USSR were rivals. To delete this analysis and refer to it as "marginal" is Nazi-esque in its singlemindedness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) July 26, 2006.

Collectivism: from RFC

Just my two cents: It seems to me that the assertion that Fascism is a form of collectivism is debated at best. There are some good arguments that link the two, but there are some good arguments that the two are different. In such a case, we can't just take one side of the issue and convey it to be the truth. The best we can do is convey the debate so that the reader can decide for themselves. Looks like this debate is being carried out on Fascism and ideology, so I'd suggest a very brief summary of the debate and a link to that page. --Alecmconroy 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What are those arguments? -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I put the {{references}} template on top of this article, and I think it should stay there until there are way more citations and references than there are now. This is a controversial, important topic, please do not add information without stating your sources. If at all possible, use inline citations. I'm not trying take away from the work the frequent editors here have done, but you are not doing anyone a favour by creating huge articles with little or no information on sources. At some point, someone will have to go through all of that and source most of the information anyway if this is ever going to be a viable place for people conducting actual research. mstroeck 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)