Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives[edit]

Older talk is archived at


Nazism and conservatism[edit]

How is Nazism and conservatism off-topic in an article on Nazism in relation to other concepts? If someone explained this on the talk page, I can't find it in all of the cross-talk. If not, the tag should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Jmabel, my reasons got lost somewhere in the back and forth with EffK.
"Nazism and conservatism" is not off-topic on this article for sure. However, currently this section doesn't deal with Nazism in relation to the concept of conservatism, but rather with Hitler's accession to power involving conservative and other forces. That's an interesting topic but it's not what this article, this section is supposed to be about. (I guess I have to improve the wording of the "off-topic" flag).
Hope that explains it. Str1977 11:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Source Basis Un-constitutionality[edit]

Un-Constitutionality of 1931 Decrees, from Arthur Rosenburg,1936 ( 1931 Death of Weimar)[edit]

Matbe you had not sen this , but I thought it was provided with your knowledge there on Reichstg Fire Decree discussion. I think this justifies the Article clarification until you can source to the contrary,Str1977. Please do, but please do so before removing or reverting.

However the decrees issuing under Bruning are focused upon by Weimar historian Arthur Rosenburg who states that :
On October 18, 1930, the majority in the Reichstag composed of Bruning's supporters and the Social Democrats resolved to refer the question of the[misuse as clear from previous pages] question of the emergency decrees to a special commission of the Reichstag and to pass to the order of the day without discussing the proposed vote of no confidence that lay upon the table. The Reichstag thus abandoned the struggle with the un-constitutional dictatorship of Bruning and his friends by majority vote . The same hour saw the death of the Weimar Republic. Since then one dictatorship has succeeded to another in Germany.
fair-use/educational from p 306 in Arthur Rosenburg(ex Berlin University Professor of History)'s A History of the Weimar Republic,1936, Methuen & Co.[Highlight EffK]
This returns us to the continuous un-constitutionality of Hindenburg's use of Decree 48, to which I shall add Rosenberg's completer analysis ,as the implication to WP and other history is considerable.

EffK 23:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So-do I really have to extract the actual words Presidential Dictatorship for you ? I could change the Fuhrerdom word - to something longer, but the clear import of Rosenberg stands until the opposite is proved, hereupon they must both be reported to be NPOV. EffK 08:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Here , look at the full source, placed on 11 dec 2005 at talk Reichstag Fire Decree-: [[1]],http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichstag_Fire_Decree&action=edit&section=6

Str1977, can we avoid another row? Please just provide real counter source that disproves ex-chancellor Luther and Historian Rosenberg, as you clearly should, to warrant excision you make. EffK 09:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And see my reply over there. Str1977 14:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Socialism as key issue in Nazism[edit]

Main line of argumentation[edit]

(copy-paste from article Nazism - this discussion belongs to this article here)

Hello, in my opinion it is heavily forgotten, that Socialism has been a key issue of the National Socialists. There are the following items to consider:

  • Main point: For Hitler there was no difference between Jews and Capitalists. Capitalist culture was jewish culture for him. So if Hitler spoke against the "jewish capitalists" he did not only spoke of jewish capitalists but of ALL capitalists in the world. One root of anti-semitism in Hitler's era has been simply anti-capitalism (=socialism) combined with the believe, that capitalism derived from jewish influences. I think it is very wrong to emphasize the romantic influence. Hitler always refused things like that. Only a part of the movement has been motivated by romanticism.
  • Party Program: Big companys should be nationalized. Hitler limited this item to jewish companys shortly before he came to power to find allies in the conservatives. He had success with this trick. He didn't nationalize anything when he was at power, because he planned to win the war first. It was the same with the churches: Hitler didn't destroy churches just to win the war first.
  • Ideological mixture: Hitler said, he would be anti-marxist. But was he? In fact he took over a lot of ideas from Marx and in the end, there were so many similarities between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The reason is, that Hitler was no intellectual. He just didn't sort that out, that his ideas often were marxian. Yes, there were inconsistencies in Nazi ideology.
  • Socialist names and symbols: The party members called themselves party comrades, the Germans were called people's comrades, where comrade is a clear hint to socialist traditions. The flag of Nazism has been chosen as red to show connection to Socialism. Self-Description: The party is called National Socialist Party, i.e. also socialist. They called their coming into power a "revolution".
  • Hitler's biography: He was engaged in Socialst revolution in Munich 1918, there is a photography showing him with a red arm-sling.
  • Hitler cooperated a lot with communists. In Berlin Nazis and communists organized common strikes. Stalin commanded German communists to consicer Social Democrats as their main opponents, not the Nazis.
  • Hitler and Stalin cooperated conquering Poland.
  • When Hitler conquered France, French communists told the population, that Nazis would have the same political aims as communists, so French should welcome the Nazi troops.
  • Compare to anti-semitism of Soviet Union Socialists: Many similarities.
  • and so on and so on

Other idea: According to my opinion, the word Nazism is chosen so often, because it does not show the word "Socialism". There are many, who do not want to have any connection between Nazism and Socialism. They believe, that Nazism is the opposite of Socialism - but it isn't.

Ok, I do not write this into the article. Please tell me your opinions! I am pretty sure, there will be some discussions.

--84.176.170.253 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire discussion of this matter is on another page: Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Nazism_and_socialism. That's why it is not on this page.--Cberlet 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
But ... is it an "other" concept?
--84.176.170.253 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
And: What is written there where you link to is ... terribly wrong.
It is simply the view of today's socialists, who do not want to accept, that Nazism was clearly a kind of Socialism. It is pretty silly to write, that the Nazis didn't want to abolish capitalism. Of course they were clearly anti-capitalistic, since they considered capitalism as something jewish.
Well, I doubt that I will succeed in change the things here in Wikipedia. Too much propaganda and too much public lies around here. I will not "vandalize" ... ;-))
--84.176.170.253 23:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You might try learning more about how the issue you raise is not a new one on this page nor on Wikipedia. Your POV is neither new or original. We are not ignorant, we disagree with you. It's not a plot.--Cberlet 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this is not a plot, public error would be the best word to describe it. But it is clear that we cannot solve those problems within Wikipedia. That's the reason why I said I will not "vandalize" ...
--22:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The issue here is not a "public error," it is the fact that most scholars simply disagree with you--hard as it must be for you to believe that. You hold a minority view. It is represented as appropriate.--Cberlet 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, that science is not in favour of my opinion. But this does not prevent things to be a public error. Science is not infallible - but of course the first thing to be reported in Wikipedia - I agree. And yes, I hold a minority view. But this minority view is not represented in an appropriate way. Can you please show me, where it is represented, citation? Thx.
--14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism of the Nazis[edit]

NSDAP-program: "B.6. Giant operations (factories, syndicates and trusts) must be nationalized. This demand, again, is derived logically from our generalized struggle against the capitalistic idea." [NSDAP-program]

Well, they fought for "SMALL" private property, but wanted to nationalize the "BIG" private property. This is clearly a kind of socialism. Also in the states under control of Soviet Union "SMALL" private property has been allowed.

--84.176.138.195 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"This is clearly a kind of socialism": not at all. Nationalization of property is just that: nationalization of property. It is not inherently socialistic, unless you have a very odd definition of socialism that would say, for example, that the nationalization of Phillipine Airlines somehow made Ferdinand Marcos a socialist, of that when some corrupt Roman emperor seized someone's property that was a socialist action, at which point the word seems drained of all meaning of its own, and simply becomes a synonym of nationalization. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
O no, the intention has been clearly socialistic: The people should gain power of the means of production via the socialist party of Hitler. So nationalization with this intention is clearly socialism.
--84.176.163.223 23:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx's anti-semitism corresponds to anti-capitalism[edit]

Has Hitler been anti-marxian? He himself was convinced to be. But ... Hitler was not that intelligent to know exactly about these things ... Let us see, what Marx wrote. Unfortunately, there are some similarities between the thoughts of Hitler and the thoughts of Marx. These sentences find their correspondance in Hitler's book "Mein Kampf". (If he just took over Marx's ideas?)

  • Source: On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx
  • "Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist."
  • "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange."
  • "Judaism reaches its highest point with the perfection of civil society,"
  • "Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, vendible objects subjected to the slavery of egoistic need and to trading."
  • "Since in civil society the real nature of the Jew has been universally realized and secularized, civil society could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature, which is indeed only the ideal aspect of practical need."
  • "Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, nd because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

--84.176.183.74 14:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

About Chip Berlet[edit]

The anon might like to know who he is talking to. I suggest he read Chip Berlet so as to gain an understanding of the POV of User:Cberlet. I think once you read that you will understand why he is representing things in the manner in which he is. Sam Spade 02:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, you should be ashamed of yourself. You argue that your real identity should be protected and then post my identity as part of a mean-spirited personal attack. You barely survived sanctions in the recent arbitration based on your personal attacks on me. You should have learned a lesson, but apaprently that is too much to hope for. You owe me an apology.--Cberlet 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a well known article. If your identity is ment to be secret, please make some changes @ User:Cberlet (like renaming the account for one). If you make such steps (deleting User:Cberlet#Identity_Spoiler and etc...), and make it clear you would not like to be associated w your real life persona, I would certainly respect that.

You have done nothing but the opposite however, making your identity especially clear. Since you are an opinionated journalist who specialises in this area, and were making statements suggestive that your opinions were a consensus here (which they are not), I decided it was of value to make clear to the anon who he was speaking to. I do not see how any of this can be construed as a personal attack. Bringing up personal attacks, the arbitration case, and my identity however strikes me as in poor taste. Sam Spade 02:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

<<Sam Spade, you should be ashamed of yourself. You argue that your real identity should be protected and then post my identity as part of a mean-spirited personal attack. >>
As a disinterested third party, I don't see why Sam owes you [Chip] an apology. To wit, in striking contrast to the unknown and pseudonymous Sam Spade, you [Chip] are a public figure whose identity and views are well known -- both in and out of Wikipedia -- and what you have characterized as a "personal attack" was at worst a smoke signal. Indeed, many people respect your [Chip's] byline and (like me) would be mystified by your cry of foul at someone purportedly "outing" you as a noted author and journalist. // NetEsq 05:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Chip, I can't really see anything objectionable about Sam effectively pointing out that you have done solid research on the topic at hand, and are not simply pulling your opinions out of thin air. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Because Sam Spade made a big deal when I once used his "real" name, and Sam Spade railed about how doing it was a tremedous violation of his privacy, etc. etc. Sam Spade and I have been in a failed mediation, and a recent arbitration, where he was officially warned about crossing the barrier between my Wiki persona and criticism of my work outside Wiki. So Sam Spade failed to heed the warning issued during arbitration--in only a few days after the arbitration was closed. So I figure he owes me an apology. I don't expect to get it. But I do expect Sam Spade to take the arbitration warning seriously. Perhaps in the future he will. That would be refreshing, and I hope he does it.--Cberlet 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I just checked my User talk page and discovered that Sam Spade put a note there stating he did not mean to antagonise me, so I will take that as settling the matter. Sorry to be so senstive, but the arbitration was an arduous process.--Cberlet 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this argument is like the cat chasing its tail. I spent some time following on disputes today and I will say that I categorise this as petty and inconsequential in historical terms, along with some others whose names I might not be able to WPspell. No-I don't take kindly to infringements however much I myself am accused ,as IP shit is as it says in the WP engine room- endangerment. signed EffK 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A best way to cut the problems ?[edit]

I put suggestion for the way to generally proceed, at discussion for the Vatican Bank: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vatican_Bank#WP__Article_resolution_templateEffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

DIG THISEffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think of Off-Topic as potentially dangerous. Like agreed historiography. Let us place all sources which stand up either culturally (the Churches, and the Artists like Hochhuth) and historically- by reason of publication ISBN etcera. Let us then link to correctly balanced Articles that are on-topic.EffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

ISBN RULESEffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

reflection and off-topic[edit]

Let us order these , as I express through that link, and then let us confine ourselves thereafter to proper reflection of those sources ie. paraphrasing . At some point acceptance between articles of justified material might then warrant simple use of 'off-topic'. Treated topics will be incorporated into the whole by internal links , but with a cachet of trust. However without general acceptance of an a.r.t. or article resolution template, we all distrust the next article as much as the present. I for one am not happy,and however oddly I may express the un-happiness - I can source its logic inside WP. It hovers very close to off-topic and circles to the distrust borne of hagiography.EffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

ISBN IS SORTED PRO/CONEffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

contradiction and NPOV[edit]

Let's let the contradiction- cats out of the bag, and put them in the template. Here above - it is Socialism or Conservatism, somewhere else it is the extreme form of socialism, somewhere else it is piety or business or a bank or philosophy. I see no trust because there can be no single- no one NPOV : NPOV can only be a full report and state all relevant contradictions, otherwise this miraculous single NPOV has to be final and inconsitently edited judge. Right here there are sources both ways with Hitler and socialism, not least the - complete 25 point NSDAP program. At NSDAP there is no inclusion of the program , nor that it was presented at the renaming of the party, by Hitler himself, not that it remained unchanged until 1945. There is no link to National Socialist Program except for a bookshop, and I for one distrust by reason of this absence. It proves my point that off-topic is dangerous. You only arrive at the program from section: Key elements of the Nazi ideology on the Nazism page. Why not its party the NSDAP , ie not from the "nazi" title/word buit yet from another "Nazi" word Article. I distrust inconsistency and limitation and off-topic, as it re-inforces these failures of WP. I experienced this with Concordat/reichskonkordat.EffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

CON AS IMPORTANT AS PROEffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

WP inconsistancy[edit]

Here for example there is a section entitled Seizure of Power , but at Holocaust [Jews} I bet it still says accession to power. I distrust. I quote the patently un-true following statement- "A further decree enabled for preventative detention of all the Communist deputies, amongst many thousands of others." . I distrust. There is no link , and as far as I know no Decree. There is no WP notice for even the Special Courts Decree of October 1931 upon which the Reichstag Fire Decree was promulgated . I distrust. At Heinrich Bruning, there is no true reflection of the Decrees, as un-constitutional, as I have sourced them to be. Notverordnung appears to translate as need, and bears no relation to Article 48, and Armed Revolt. I distrust. The Fire Decree seems based upon, I source, an un-constitutional Decree. The Nuremberg Trials mention all this- I have not read everything, but in terms of source, there it is, October 1931. I find these failures instill my distrust-especially as I am personally barred from repairing the failures since I remark unfortunate 'cultural' omissions. Absences, errors, reductions, no linkage- it is all a big mess. I distrust, and see more than 'birthing' problems.

WP IS FULL OF DISTRUSTABLE ERROR

I tell you I have every logical reason to distrust, so I refer you to the a.r.t. All of you whatever your politics or religion of source or sense- as I there express that inclusivity which should be the hall-mark of this project. I personally would add that the RC Church was a factor in AH's and the NSDAP's success, where it is absent still. I would allow for reference to denials, but I distrust the absence of it altogether from,for example, the Nazi article. If we can't include known history , how can we move on to fruitful explanatory articles like this one?EffK 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) EffK 15:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Remark on the above[edit]

The previous several sections are apparently all by EffK, although only one is signed. He has stated in the past that he is a native speaker of English, and that is my native language as well, but I find nearly all of the above incomprehensible. If someone believes they can understand and paraphrase, it would be appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the sections several times, and I just cannot make sense of it. Apologies to the writer, but it seems incomprehensible.--Cberlet 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
BE 2RUEEffK 01:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there still something you need me to add or subtract or explain? Is there some hole in your English, or my English that you fail to jump? Do, please, specify the reason for your categorisation of this as incomprtehensible either of you users and allow me some understanding of the tone you take ... may I ask why apologies be so unrewardable as a communication? Why such remiss be swathed in both of your reactions, and why you do not take your logic towards helping WP?EffK 01:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, I understand almost none of it, so I hardly know where to begin. You start out by telling us to see what you wrote elsewhere, at Talk:Vatican Bank, an article I've never looked at. Your remarks there look much more coherent than here (although the relevance of most of them to this article is not obvious), whic suggests to me that you might be able to go back and rewrite what is above in a way that we can understand. However, if I understand the concept of "No Refusal of Sources", as you put it, my answer is "don't be absurd". There are such things as utterly dismissable sources: otherwise we could each just write whatever we personally think on our individual websites, then cite ourselves. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, but no. I obviously refer to the WP qualification of sources. What you refer to is already covered, and strangely enough such policies are OK. It is quite simple- I estimate the sane NPOV is possible but that to arrive at it we require inclusivity of all angles. There really cannot be one NPOV when we are talking about secret meetings and deals. If we can, for example the famous Sister Pasquilina seeing Pacelli hand a bag of cash to Hitler early in the twenties, if sourceable in fact(letter, statement however) would up-end the entirety of apologia. It may do, but the apologia needs to be represented, or it will simply attack and destroy. The 1932 Mowrer/Brok testimony is not acceptible to apologists despite a Pulitzer prizewinner having put it under an ISBN. All I am suggesting is that WP follow a clearer path because a path that is more like our world. I don't have a N/POV that I can say is there tomorrow. If source came to me from the other side equivalent in its strength, showing say that Pacelli had threatened AH with say excommunication in any one year from 1921 onwards, well that'd affect my current N/POV . As it is I was under the impression until yesterday that the curious reference by Papen to Bishop Hundal in some way would provide the opposition real source,not me, as Papen paints it that way /defensively asserted. But no, I misread the name over time, and what do I see- its Alois Hudal, and its the biggest can of worms possible. Now, do I increase the mental linkage from the clear Papen statement because I am a sane person ? well Yes, my N/POV is thrust further towards the Cornwell thesis by now Hudal entering my ken. What I thought was explosive was the reference to a high authority in 1936 , and Hundal was , in a sane guess, some cosy scholar who as Papen suggests was anti-nazi. OK so Papen got away with it then and there in that document , but what else is lurking when now a ane reaction sees that Hudal already has his page up here in WP, because Hudal is the key to the whole nexus, judging by a cursory glmpse at links online. Now sure, they may or may not be pukka, quoteable, like Yale and Nuremberg surely are, or Hudal perhaps will now show up in the extensive real-world literature. A website made by a published ISBN author, such as Cornwell abbreviating himself to Vanity Fair is true reflection(since no records show of Cornwell say suing VF for misuse etc.) I tell you there is no single NPOV, there' only grading of contradiction. You bet Hudal has defenders , so they have to show reason and source and we should defuse them by allowing them their reasoning. Those say in the hierarchy who held sufficient belief to instigate the line were not those say at street level, who would have had a rather different experience. Or, say the activity of Pius XII as intermediary between the German General/s and the Brits in 1943. There is no single N/POV. What he was at was on one hand good, and on several others bad(to others). We should mention all. We should allow apologia to source however strong a case it can. But we cannot say that their line taken will accord with, say, the attitude of the Allies, so the real NPOV can only ,as with Pius XII's page, represent opposing sourced POV by the original players.

I try to base my N/POV on source and be a sane contributor. I wince at people always removing material, when I believe even on this Article, it diminuishes the clarity . The socialism of the NSDAP and the non-socialism of the NSDAP appear to be the discussion above, and I have not entered it, but only said where are the 60,000 hours to read up on it. Yeah somewhere I quoted Bullock or something.

The a.r.t. is me trying to show a way of avoiding continuous wasteful acrimony in WP, which prevents me/us from editing at all. The kettle has a whole in it. If you want me to explain more the concept of inclusivity , perhaps I should-since I'm not stupid enough to edit. I am shown bad faith, and I am on strike as a way of demanding due behaviour. If the a.r.t. could help us over-come the differences, which I have clearly experienced, I would then have contributed something to WP other than source.

If you are unable to relate the idea to the Article/s you may be technically right or legitimate. I do hope you now at least follow what I am trying to say. And if you do not , or do not wish to, I would prefer a reaction that does not characterise either of us as fool. EffK 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, EffK, but I am almost unable to understand your use of the English language. If I get a small portion of the above correctly, you are arguing that all information is valid if sourced. That is a debatable point, but in an encyclopedia, it is simply not true. The major theories should take precedence in terms of the disucssion, and minor theories mentioned in smaller paragraphs in the body of the text. Very unusual theories with many critics may not deserve a mention. Original research is not permitted. You are not being censored.--Cberlet 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, well as I thought. You are technically right in so far as you go. I happen to have been making no complaint about being censored. I happen not to represent a minority viewpoint-though you seem not to know that. My suggestion has nothing to do with my recognition of hagiography-something your reply suggests you not to be aware of. I regret that my writing turns your brain off. Personally I have found hitherto that the enciclo argument is the last refuge of the refusers. Beats me why people use out-dated concepts to develope contemporary channels. If there is anything serious to answer here, I do not see it. Your categorisation, I had better say, is most ill-informed, but that is normal and heh, a good job has been done and it shows. EffK 19:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge and repackage?[edit]

Most of the text on this page would be more useful if it was merged then repackaged. The sections on Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Nazism_and_socialism and Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Nazism_and_conservatism could be merged onto Fascism and ideology, debate and expanded, and then sections that are debated and edited could be spun off from there. --Cberlet 17:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's problematic since it identifies Fascism and Nazism. Despite some similarities the two are not the same. Str1977 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That's true, but the page Fascism and ideology already has a similar discussion about socialism and centralized control of the economy, and has the advantage of more cites.--Cberlet 23:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess, one could include it there with a disclaimer for the part relating specifically to Nazism (and not to Fascism) and vice versa. Str1977 17:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to consolidate some material and avoid duplication. I am open to ideas here. Check out the relevant text at Fascism and ideology and Neo-Fascism. Help is welcome.--Cberlet 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
There is simply no reason to have the same discussion on two pages, and the Austrian School chunk clearly relates to fascism as a whole, and not just Nazism. So I moved it. Don't wail, just go edit on the other page. I suspect that this whole page should be distributed to other pages, and then perhaps coherent chunks spun off to their own pages. There should be a page just on Nazism and religion that could be pulled from this page and from other pages, and the same with Nazism and race. The section on this page on conservatism would fit better on Fascism and ideology for now, and then perhaps spin off to an article on Fascism and the Conservative Revolution. We need not lose the distinctions between Italian Fascism and German Nazis, but so much text is duplicating material on other pages, when for the reader, it makes more sense to have the same topics put together on one page.--Cberlet 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous links (not to mention redirects) pointing to this page. Prominent examples include Nazism and socialism. It seems only logical to me that there should be a Nazi equivalent of the Fascism and ideology page. Perhaps we should call it "Nazism and ideology", but that would be misleading, because race and religion, for example, are not ideologies. Overall, I like the former arrangement, with the Nazism and socialism stuff in this article, though I agree that the POV in favour of the non-notable Austrians needs to be seriously trimmed. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This is just not the case. Most links to this page are not active pages. There are only a handful of active text links to this page. Nazism and socialism no longer exists. It redirects here. All we have to do is send it to Fascism and ideology. Almost all of the discussion of Nazism and socialism duplicates the discussion about fascism and socialism, which was already at Fascism and ideology. I am trying to juggle text on several pages to build one coherent discussion, rather than having bits and pieces on several pages. Give it a chance. For most readers it makes more sense to talk about the whole debate on one page.--Cberlet 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Was Hitler Christian?[edit]

On a website in tribute to the late Stephen Jay Gould, there is a list of quotations from speeches Hitler made, as well as from his book Mein Kampf, that indicating that he thought of himself as a Christian (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html). Does anyone have any good sources pointing in one or the other direction. I think it would be valuable information to this article. - PJ

Hitler claimed to be Christian. Try "Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)." It is the most recent and most damning scholarly work that explores Hitler and his relationship to Christianity. Was Hitler telling the truth? Why believe him? It's a trick question.--Cberlet 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Adolf Hitler for a discussion of this (by now in the archives). Str1977 10:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic content[edit]

I removed the following text from the article. It has been weeks that no attempt was made to conform the contents of this section to its title, "Nazism and conservatism" in the context of "Nazism in relation to other concepts". The text talks about how conservatives and others helped Hitler gain power - this is a valid issue (and hence I hesitated to delete it and have now moved it here), but it isn't what this section is about.(Str1977)
I highlight parts I consider necessary of re-inclusion into Wikipedia, and add justificatory reason .EffK
-

Some of the traditional center and right-wing political parties of the Weimar Republic accused the Nazis of being socialists citing planks in the Nazis' party program which called for nationalization of trusts and other social measures. However, the German National People's Party (DNVP), the most important party on the mainstream right, usually treated the Nazis as a respected potential ally.

Historians such as Ian Kershaw note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment, as well as the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged much of the left elements (such as the Strasserites and homosexuals) in the Nazi Party. This was done at the insistence of the SS, the German military establishment and conservatives.

The Final Act[edit]

The Nazis came to power through an alliance with some traditional conservative factions, though also experienced opposition from others. Franz von Papen, a conservative former German Chancellor and former member of the Catholic Centre Party ,supported Hitler for the position of Chancellor. Political and corporate engineering, immediately prior to the 30 January Hitler presidentially appointed Chancellorship, continued through to the 23 March Enabling Act and gave Hitler dictatorial power. This Act passed with the support of the discredited and corrupt Huguenbergian nationalist German National People's Party (DNVP), a few liberals, and all conservative and centrist deputies in the constutionally-challenged and effectively rigged Reichstag. Such remaining bloc easily defeated the sole opposition of Social Democrats, without the absent and 'dormant', but in fact arrested or murdered Communists. [ Questioning ever-since particularly concerns the crucial condonation of Hitler by the largest remaining other Party, the Catholic Centre Party Germany and due to its dissolution being a subject of bargaining by relationship to the Holy See and its 1933 Reichskonkordat with Germany. [FK. Everything is sourced and this is the true conjunction of interests, not clearly presented in a main Article,the questioning is sourced and is here presented in NPOV .]

Late 1932[edit]

Among the conservative forces who opposed Hitler, the most notable was Kurt von Schleicher, the chief Army political general and fixer who held the Chancellorship after von Papen's cabinet of barons, the failed aristocratic attempt at administration. Von Schleicher in late 1932 attempted to construct a "cross front" that would unite anti-Hitler factions on the right and center-left in the Reichstag. His failure to do so allowed Papen's second rise to power inside a Hitler coalition, and it was the failed but still power-hungry Franz von Papen who paved the way for this Decreed January/February Coalition and then for Hitler's March Dictatorship. [FK. Schleicher was being presented as supporting Hitler until I reversed inot this clear presentation of Schleicher, which is insufficiently presented here in any main Article.]

The Engineering of Hitler's 30 January Appointment[edit]

The maverick ex-Centre party, ex-chancellor von Papen was the chief engineer for Hitlerism and, squared the[ Industrial Magnates ] and business class, squared the Bankers, squared the weapon-hungry Officer class and through his personal influence with President Paul von Hindenburg squared the landed Junkers. Von Papen intrigued between Hindenburg's son Oskar and the still despised pre-chancellor Hitler, and equally squared the Church though his aristocratic Catholic credentials and Vatican contacts made during his own Chancellorship. Von Papen persuaded Hindenburg to appoint Hitler into the 30 January 1933 minority and appointed cabinet with a view to him, von Papen and the vested German political forces, controlling Hitler. He is famous for saying that Now we have him where we can control him. Hindenburg accepted this DNVP/Nazi majority and rejected or did not understand the last minute von Schleicher threat of Army putsch resolving the crisis. Such threat would, in fact, have saved the country from Nazism, but was anathema to the terminating presidential ambition. (See Wheeler-Bennett.)[[FK . I sourced this completely for Str1977.it is not sufficiently mentioned elsewhere.]

After Communism Hitler Neutralises the Centre and the Right[edit]

Schleicher was later assassinated by the Nazis on the Night of the Long Knives. Heinrich Brüning and the other Centre party leaders from Catholic conservatism and Catholic trade-unions effected negotiations through the first short Hitler Chancellorship, under their chairman, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, which ended in the disastrous support for the Enabling Act. Hitler had within six weeks of his pure sufferance appointment turned the tables on everyone. He squared the right between Huguenberg and the other corporate interests, he simply eliminated the left Communists bodily, and by negotiation he neutralised the last combination between the Centre and the Socialists. Any possible last ditch resistance there was either physically assaulted during the last free elections (even Brüning was roughed-up) whilst some 26 socialists were arrested or injured. Between 20 and 22 March all combination against Hitler was lost by his allowance of limited Centre demands (for recognition of factional Catholic interests in unions and education). Constitutional fears were mysteriously promised written assuagement, and the Centre was finally squared.[FK:Mildest historical truth here, no POV re Church as per remaining questions.]

Hitler Succeeds[edit]

Hitler achieved in this brief period complete solution to all the most intractable parliamentary problems of Weimar Germany, and his concept of fulfilling the needs of others whilst entering into power succeeds in such manner as to carry enormous propaganda value to the German people. The people had been suffering the torments of un-resolveable parliamentary statistics through so many short-lived administrations that Hitler's stroke and mastery was overwhelming. In the November 1933 one-party Elections, Nazism gained 92.2% of the Electorate. A euphoria swept Germany in the intervening months as the long-awaited nationalist and economic saviour of the Reich fulfilled all his promises towards economic recovery.[FK:represents clearest shortest historically correct text possible, and not included yet in main WP article.]

Preceding administrations had psychologically paved the way for dictatorship by having repeatedly been administrations acting without the Reichstag, dependant on flimsy alliance or majority, and existing under Decree Rule 48 for Presidential appointment The Reichstag had one power alone, which was to precede a further and generally dreaded election, with a vote of no confidence. The very concepts of democracy were subject to widespread disdain as a result of this inability to achieve lasting balance of administration. [FK:as sourced by me from Arthur Rosenberg for Str1977]-----------------end

I, FK have posted link to this text from the main Articles suggesting in good faith that my concerns at these excisions be addressed, and that the clear import of these brief paragraphs inform the main articles, such that their clarity inform the readers more correctly than their absence. I ask any editor of good faith to assist in the incorporation. I remain in serious dispute with the user who excised this, and with the removal of the expandable link to the supposedly POV Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates recently deleted from Wikipedia after one supporting delete vote was presented , alone. It should be noted that with this excision, the true factors in the Conspiracy( the Nuremberg tribunal term) to Institute Totalitarian Government in Germany ( Nuremberg term) are orphaned, down-played or mis-arranged in Wikipedia. I find this difficult, due to the gravity of the subject- hence my intervention. Please help.EffK 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates[edit]

Reported as bankrupt in December 1932, the NSDAP or Nazi Party was in fettle financial health by the middle of January because the Rhenish-Westphalian industrial magnates assumed responsibility for the debts. These financial and industrial leaders had put the Nazi party back into the political arena after a large drop in the pro-Nazi vote in November 1932. In return, they had gotten promises to be paid back as, if and when Hitler came to power. It is reported that "without the formidable assistance of the industrialists the Nazi party would have foundered on the rocks of bankruptcy." (The Nemesis of Power by John Wheeler-Bennett, Macmillan 1953.)

The magnates petitioned President Hindenburg after the November elections seeking the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor. Amongst the 38 signatories of the petition were Hjalmar Schacht, Thyssen, Krupp, Siemens AG, Bosch and the heads of Hamburg-Amerika and the North German-Lloyd Shipping Lines. Hitler was assiduous in fulfilling his promises after achieving the chancellorship by eliminating the Communists, abolishing the trade unions, forcing no nationalization of industry and beginning rearmament on a huge scale.

Representing the industrial and financial force supporting Hitler, Hjalmar Schacht was accused at the Nuremburg trials but cleared of the charges (conspiracy to wage an aggressive war, war crimes and crimes against humanity) but sentenced in the de-nazification proceedings (Also see the Krupp Trial). --Str1977 10:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's rise to power[edit]

The text was useful and informative, but this page has never made a lot of sense to me--it was a hodge-podge. Good stuff, but how was a reader to know? I moved all the text to a new page Hitler's rise to power which is actually what the text is about. I added links to several pages and the template. Next we should carve out the text about religion and make Nazism and religion and expand it. Then all the race material should be merged into Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany. The we have a cyber party and delete this page.--Cberlet 21:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism[edit]

What in the hell? There is absolutely NO relation between Socialism and the German Nazi party. Just because the party went by the name "National Socialist," it does not in ANY respect signify them to be actual Socialists. I recommend the removal of this article completely. It is a factual inaccuracy and will mislead just about anyone studying the Political Sciences.

---Micky Z. (undated)

I agree. Someone needs to remove that section in the article about Nazism and its supposed "relation" to Socialism. There is no connection, absolutely no correlation that can be drawn between the Nazi party and Socialist policies or beliefs. A party professing the name "National Socialist" does NOT necessarily imply a party professing Socialist beliefs, policy, or values. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabidgumby (talk • contribs) .


While I do agree that the view of the Nazis as Socialists was mostly a propaganda tool used by the Nazis in order to gather support for their Party...I STRONGLY disagree with the sections removal. The section, if you actually read it that is, went to great lengths to dispel the notion that Nazism was actually socialist in ideology. That section was informative, fair, and was an excellent reference for all of the non-socialist aspects of Hitler's rule. I used it frequently in my arguments that Nazism was actually a form of Capitalism, not Socialism.

I hope that someone is able to bring it back.

--Rob S.

P.S. I looked through the history of the article and it appears a bunch of biased right-wing ideologues kept distorting the article in order to claim that Hitler actually practiced Socialism while in power. The article needed to be deleted but it needs to be reconstructed in order to dispel the fallacious argument that what Hitler practiced was Socialism.

In particular, it seemed to be Sam Spade who was putting the Nazism=Socialism bullshit in there.

I mean come on Sam, the "war economy" is repesentative of a Socialist state? What an ignorant assertion. The war economy is representative of an Authoritarian state. Take your uninformed, biased views elsewhere.

In closing, after viewing Sam's extensive edits I hereby request that he be banned from distorting this article. His lack of objectivity is appaling, and even worse is his willingness to post when his logic on the issue is so flawed.

This is the man who claims the Nazi's were socialist because they said so.

I mean honestly! Get with it. Ban this guy from editting this section. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.133.94 (talk • contribs) 24 Jan 2006.

I strongly agree with Rob S. about bringing the Nazi Relation to Socialism section back. I was looking forward to reading it and found it gone. As he said, it related the differences moreso than the similarities. EIther way, if it had compared it closely or not, it is a valid topic for discussion. I can't help but despise the idiotic proportions to which political correctness has been taken these days. If you don't talk about issues that make you think and question your own ideals, then you've done nothing but brain-wash yourself into a set view of the world. If you've read Brave New World, Animal Farm, 1984, or any other "ideal-society gone bad" books, that's how it all starts: idealistic masses and a couple of smartasses in power that know how to take advantage of them.

Lastly, although I do agree that each topic should be written and viewed objectively, I don't agree with your down-sizing of right-wing idealists. Simply because in saying that, you yourself are not viewing the topic objectively. Hypocrisy doesn't complement. --64.228.202.95 06:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Oliver G.

I'm finding the issue of the relationship between Nazism and socialism to be an increasing point of debate in some of the discussions I frequent online. It would be useful to have a review of this topic here. As it is, and in looking over the discussion page, there seems to be a lack of willingness on the part of certain participants to process or acknowledge the facts of this correspondence and difference between the two ideologies. Just saying THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP over and over again doesn't cut it. And when one side of the arugment can't come up with a substancial response to the facts presented by the other they get the whole article deleted? To many people that just demonstrates how unreliable Wikipedia has become.


This topic is discussed in great length at Fascism and ideology. Please DO NOT start a topic fork, but instead join the editing on that page.--Cberlet 20:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the wrong place for such a discussion. Describing nazism as fascist is POV. This is the page for discussing Nazism in relation to other concepts (such as socialism). Sam Spade 13:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Several editors have been working on that section of that page form weeks. The etxt you placed on this page was 95% totally duplicate of the text on Fascism and ideology. Please do not start another pointless confrontation.

You've failed to address any of my points, so it would appear that you are indeed engaging in pointless confrontation. I will request page protection. Sam Spade 14:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This page has been redirected. If you want to go to Fascism and ideology and make a case for recreating the page Nazism and socialism please do so. If you continue to attempt to enforce your tiny minority viewpoint on numerous pages over this issue, I will file an arbitration, since mediation has already failed.--Cberlet 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen: I will not post info, I am not an expert on the NAZIs. However, I am pretty good at spotting inconsistency.

Start copy

--Rob S.

P.S. I looked through the history of the article and it appears a bunch of biased right-wing ideologues kept distorting the article in order to claim that Hitler actually practiced Socialism while in power.

End copy


So Rob, (not meaning to be personal) you are basically claiming a bunch of right wing ideologes are deliberately and falsely identifying their own favorite political movement as socialist - an ideology they hate.

No argument here - I don't know. But until someone comes up w an explaination for this inconsistency, I think I will take the NAZIs word for it - they were socialist.24.10.102.46 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)--24.10.102.46 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the claim, which is that right wing ideologues are deliberately and falsely identifying Nazism as socialist so as to deny any connection between Nazism and their own politics. This is much the same thing as when Socialists say "Stalin wasn't really a socialist". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does section on Nazism and socialism belong? Discuss and vote[edit]

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. Recently, an old version of the section on Nazism and socialism was placed here, although an expanded version of this discussion already exists on the page Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism.2C_Nazism.2C_socialism.2C_collectivism.2C_and_corporatism. There is no point to have the same major discussion on multiple pages.

On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page. Thanks.--Cberlet 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not the place for discussing this page, nor is there any reason for the information not to appear on multiple pages. Sam Spade 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The vote is taking place on this talk page. There are already four votes on the other page. Feel free to participate.--Cberlet 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia is not a democracy, and voting is not the answer to this difference. It will only underscore the bias of editors present, rather than provide us a method of achieving compromise. Please review Wikipedia:Polling guidelines, then feel free to join the discussion here. Sam Spade 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "Socialist"[edit]

I've read somewhere else on wikipedia (not sure where) that the Nazi's used the word "Socialist" in their name "National Socialist" as a way to attract Socialists into the party. If this is true, perhaps the article should mention this, since the article makes it clear that there really is nothing "Socialist" about National Socialism. -February 24 2006

The article shouldn't be making that clear, since it isn't. Nazi's wanted communists to join them (Hitler mentioned the advisability of that early and often), but had little need for outside socialist involvement, since they were socialist to begin with! Sam Spade 23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Nazi's called themselves Socialists, but looking at their beliefs they really were not Socialists. It seems like many people on this talkpage would agree with that. I was just commenting about how there is/was another article in wikipedia, I forget which one, that claimed that the Nazi's kind of used the word "Socialist" in order to attract people to the party. If this is the case, then I thought it would make sense to mention this in this article.-5:30 PM, February 26 2006

"It has for example been argued…" in the article with reference to the supposed connection between Nazism and socialism. Would someone please substantiate this weaselly phrase with the name of some reputable scholar by whom it has been argued? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Will someone please explain how calling themselves "socialist" to get socialists into the party would have worked unless the socialists were too stupid to read/listen to the platform?24.10.102.46 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Until the Nazis were in power, it was relatively unclear what they stood for (other than anti-Semitism, and even that was sometimes soft-pedaled, though not by Hitler). Lest we forget, this was a party in which, in June 1934, one faction of the party organized the slaughter of another faction. - Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)