Talk:List of Nazi ideologues/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Headings and Subheadings

I quote from above ChildofMidnight "I think it needs to be made clear when someone's ideology was co-opted or used, but the person wasn't themselves a Nazi." Some of us have been trying to come up with a way to dealing with this. Putting the lists under the various headings in historic order is one step but I agree with CoM and think we also think we need a clearer demarcation however difficult that might be to figure out. Richard has tried using the subheading

• Pre-nazi era writers

I have tried

• Those indirectly associated with Nazism

There would be a problem with pre-Nazi era writers since this is a merely arithmetic difference in dates something already handled by the date ordering and the dates themselves. There is some subtlety (and I know that can be difficult for some) required to distinguish a genuine pre-Nazi era Nazi from a mild or innocuous thinker who was ripped apart and merely used by Nazi ideology. This division is crucial to ensure we don't have a sprawling black list and become accused of the kind of superficial history that merely goes on guilt by association. I think we should add as many subheadings and see which suits best. Other possibilities are:

• Those Misappropriated by Nazism
• Controversially associated with Nazism

One problem with including figures from history whose only line to Nazism was as an anti-semite is that again we may get into the sprawling list syndrome but we have a very good article on the history of Anti-semites.

Because of the shape of the article I think it also needs to be with four "====" so it appears clearly as a subheading and not as a heading. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I continue to think that if at all controversial this is a matter which cannot be adequately discussed in a combination article like this--the place for it is the bio of the individual. Trying to summarize political positions into phrases like the above is the very example sort of OR that we should not be doing. the ones whose affiliation is totally clear and direct belong here. The ones whose affiliation is in any way indirect do not. It is not our responsibility to decide which category to put them. DGG (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If the sources support a inclusion with a controversial designation, I think that designation is acceptable. The list points to the bios, so the readers can find the details there. I don't think leaving people off because there is controversy about their role is a superior solution to including them with the notation that there is controversy over what their role may have been. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This depends on your definition of indirect, of course, and this article is all about various degrees of involvement in an attempt to trace names but avoid a black list, hence there will be white-list people here too. For example, Nietzsche's involvement is indirect, he was neither a Germanicist nor an anti-semite, in-fact he hated both, but indirectly, through his sister for example, he became associated with Nazism, but they had to suppress Nietzsche's hatred of anti-semites but never quite could since it is all over Nietzsche's writings and life story. The strong criterion for inclusion/exclusion is whether of not the intellectual or his/her ideology was used by the Nazis, for this we need a material connection and not just that they "supported" Nazism in their private opinion but never used by them. 84.203.70.55 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy/paste moves

As harmful as move warring is, copy/paste moves are even more harmful. If you see a page that has been copy/paste moved, stop, find an admin, and ask for help fixing it. The convoluted history here made it very difficult to find and merge the history of this article. --B (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• As soon as I noticed the moves I notified the appropriate board. It has been almost a week. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I don't have any idea what the process is there, but fixing a copy/paste move needs to go somewhere without a backlog (like an individual admin's talk page). Is this where you want the article to be or should it be named something else? Is there general agreement for that name? --B (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here was the discussion to develop consensus. It looks like User:Savabubble has been doing the damage with the cut and pastes. The only thing not covered is whether it should be a list or not. My vote is for a list, it certainly isn't a prose article, it is just a list. It also appears in the Nazi navbox under the heading of lists, and they are named as "lists" in the navbar. For example there are lists of party members. This article appears in the navbox as "List of Nazi ideologues".

• Nazi philosophers (to include only reliably sourced nazi philosophers)
• Nazi philosophers and ideologues (broadens it out a bit)
• Contributors to Nazi ideology (might work?) and Contributors to fascist ideology (two articles)
• Nazi ideologues (simple, reasonably broad)

• I prefer this one. "Nazi philosophers" anywhere in the tile confuses people into thinking they are professional philosophers accredited by the Nazi party. See DGG's comments above, where he thought just that, and I thought that when I first clicked the link in the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• I also think this one is the most accurate and descriptive of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nazi ideology (More of an article title than a list title, the persons in this article can be discussed in the article.)

Is the site name you are asking for Nazi ideologues or List of Nazi ideologues? --B (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• • "List" please, it isn't a prose article, its just a bunch of names and links to their full articles. All the other articles like this in the Nazi series are labeled as "list". Peek at the navbox on the page. Thanks for your help. There already is a prose article called Nazi ideology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Please verify that everything looks like you want it to. --B (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello B,

The move of this page to Nazi Ideologues or List of Nazi Ideologues was the outcome of an ongoing attempt at consensus on the talk page but just the idea of Richard and a partial idea of ChildofMidnight, most editors have not expressed agreement with this move, these DGG, Shoess, and myself. Nor did others agree to a move, though they were less involved: Colonel Warden, -Cerejota. During the Afd the overwhelming choice was Keep and not Move nor Keep-Move, this had the support of Shoess, Totnesmartin, Celarnor, csloat and myself. The only name change suggestion in the Afd was to lower the case of Philosophers to philosophers. The original request for deletion of "nazi philosophers" was made by ChildofMidnight who in his application for deletion specifically asked regarding the category "Nazi Philosophers", the majority thought it a valid category.

thanks 84.203.45.65 (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

• As in life itself, and here in Wikipedia, silence equals acceptance. If you don't make a choice during an active discussion you are tacitly accepting the new status quo. The AFD was a long time ago and kept the concept alive of having an article on the topic, all other discussion beyond not deleting was handled in the edits. All articles must comply with the MoS and other Wikipedia content rules on verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These need better sourcing

I don't know why these people are on the list. I don't see evidence that any of their ideas were incorporated into Nazi philosophy. Remember, all references should call them contributors to Nazi ideology, not just list them as Nazis. That they embraced the Nazis is not a criterion for inclusion. The Nazis had to embrace their ideas and incorporate them into Nazi ideology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hendrik Elias (1902–1973), Belgian politician and Flemish nationalist.
• Bert Eriksson (1931–2005), Belgian neo-Nazi and Flemish nationalist.
• Joris Van Severen (1894-1940), Belgian nationalist politician, ideologist and leader of the national-solidarist Verdinaso
• Jef Van de Wiele(1903-1979) leader of the Deutsch-Vlämische Arbeitsgemeinschaft
• Reimond Tollenaere (1909-1942), propaganda leader of the V.N.V.- in 1936 became a member of parliament.

The article as it currently stands

I came to the article and it looked like this. It was just a bunch of names. I have performed hundreds of edits, I added references and added a blurb on each person. I trimmed off about two-thirds of the original list, and made additional entries. It now looks like this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The name is still a problem

After several moves, the name of the article is still problematic; or perhaps it is the content that is the issue. To take the most conspicuous example, there is no way that Friedrich Nietzsche could be considered a "Nazi ideologue". He's quite a bit too old, for starters, to have signed on to the project.

There seem to be three different groups here, which don't really fit under the supplied headings:

1. There are people who are considered to have supplied ideas to the Nazis (e.g. Nietzsche). These can't be called Nazi ideologues with any accuracy.
2. There are party members who formulated its ideology (e.g. Rosenberg). These are the only ones who can unquestionably be included under the article's title.
3. There are German intellectuals of the period who were party members, but who probably cannot be said to have shaped the party's platform (e.g. Heidegger). Calling them "ideologues" is also questionable.

There also seem to be a few stray hangers-on who don't seem to fit any of this (e.g. Wagner-- does the fact that Hitler liked his operas matter here?).

One of the reasons I wanted this deleted in the first place was that it was never clear who exactly should appear in it. Now that the name is more specific, most everyone in the article doesn't qualify for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Any confusion about inclusion based on the title is covered in the lede. If you think the lede needs tweaking, please contribute. The lede covers all three types of people you mention. A title isn't a lede, and a lede isn't an article. All serve their own purpose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure if 10 editors made a list of 10 people to include, the list would look very different. My approach was to start at the references and search Google Scholar, Google News, and Google Books for "Nazi ideology" and see who was listed to add new people, and to search the existing names with "Nazi ideology" to see what references would be useable. It isn't my list, I just deleted ones where I could not find a reference, and added context and references to the ones that stayed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Like all titles to articles and books they are a compromise between clarity and brevity, never perfect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response is platitudinous. "Ideologue" is a very strong word, to the point of being flatly pejorative. I question using it at all. "Nazi ideologue" is therefore uncompromising in the extreme; trying to fudge it in the lede is insufficient, because the lede cannot make the title say something in opposition to what it plainly says. Mangoe (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The definitions I've seen for ideologue indicate it means and advocate of a particular ideology. Like all words, it has multiple meanings, and in some cases can be used pejoratively. But it seems to fit philosophers, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would, except that most of the people in the article didn't espouse Nazism. Mangoe (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem is in the title then. I suppose the word Nazi needs to be broadened out as philophers was to be more inclusive. Are you sure the content of the article isn't good enough in making clear why certain people are included? This issue of labeling has always been the problem with this article. Is the appropriate title something like list of people whose ideology relates became part of Nazism? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Swastika, work stops here!

Due to the offensive Swastika in the article I must here decline further involvement with this article. Having created the idea for the page and put up many of the names to get it going, I thought of it as skimpy but with potential. It now appears to lack depth with most of the interesting names now in a simple black-list, many removed, and replaced by complete ignorance of Nazi suppression. The structure that classified biologists, anthropologists, etc. has been mostly removed. Artificial depth has replaced this potential with an almost unreadable and crowded list of simplistic phrases on why such-and-such has been added to our black-list. An indication of this problem is Nietzsche, his complex relation to Nazism is reduced to his development of the concept of ubermensch and, via the new title, he is referred to now as an ideologue'! At least now I realize the, perhaps incurably, amateur nature of Wiki. Also the exploration suddenly stops about 50 years prior to Nazism giving a one-sided (idealist) impression of what happened. Scratch it and start again! 84.203.45.65 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you want a critique: Your list had no explanation why anyone was on it, it was a bunch of names with links. You included people that embraced Nazism, but made no contribution that was adopted into the canon of Nazi ideology. You had people completely unrelated to Nazism like Marc Chagall, Sigmund Freud, and Ezra Pound. You had people who admired Mussolini and contributed to fascist ideology, but you insisted that the article have "Nazi" in the title, so they had to go. Everyone now on the list should have a citation tying them to a reference work saying what their role was in "Nazi ideology". You can find your original list and add it to the Gaelic version, if you want to start from scratch. Your list of people suppressed has been moved to a new article. Why don't you complete that list using this as a model. I know it is hard to work in a team and to take criticism, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. Concerning Nietzsche, he may have been the only one to deserve to be on a list of "Nazi Philosophers", your original title. In your version, he was just a blue link, now there is some info tying him to Nazi ideology. Also note that Martin Luther is on the list and is from several hundred years before the Nazi era. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RAN, I agree with what you say, but it has to go further--everyone on the list has to be so clearly a Nazi ideologue that no reputable opinion can be found to say otherwise--if not, you need to include the variety of views per NPOV. DGG (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That has never been a requirement of Wikipedia. Wikipedia only requires that the information come from a reliable source, not require the absence of dissenting opinions. You are asking for a standard even higher than BLP. Who do you feel still doesn't belong? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This reply of Richard's is really no reply at all since, as usual on here, it didn't engage with the reasoning, instead, it went off on a tangent regarding the known deficiencies of the original basic list. Just to remind you, the points I made were: that the structure is lost, the list is now almost unreadably cluttered with reductive comments and over-simplifications just because someone said something like it in a published book whether the author of that book knew anything about philosophy, was a ranting fundamentalist, or even, a neo-Nazi. Editors, who know little on this matter, scurrying off to find those sacred references and pasting them in here to avoid original research, that itself is original research and a very mechanical and dumb one at that. This was the manic rush that was foisted on the article's editors, we all see the results.

The article can no longer be taken in at a glance, nor via the finer structure of biologists/anthropologists/politicals etc. subheadings, nor does it suit a straight reading from begining to end since it jumps from one person to another. So now, instead of coming across a name, say of a biologist, you really need to already know a name in order to find it amongst the clutter of the article, and this, only in order to get a little simplified blurb on something you'd know from that person's main page.

DGG, of course every source would not say that Nietzsche was a Nazi ideologue, firstly, if there was anyone who could be called the opposite of an ideologue it was this man with "a hammer," secondly, his work was torn apart by the Nazi's in their attempt to expunge his hatred of anti-semitism and Germanicism. In fact the only true "Nazi philosopher," as initially defined, were those who were members, such as Heidegger but even for him his productive work is well beyond it. Something the article completely ignores with these one-sided reductive comments. The article also is slanted, somewhat inevitably, toward idealist historiography, but it should make this clear or compensate.

What I said about the swastika is a blocker and that is my conviction, it has little, Richard, to do with my inability to do bee-work. And why would I go to a new article, as Richard suggests, when someone like Richard will likely appear and keep putting up swastikas on it, because, as he says, it is according to wiki rules that any article related to Nazism must have a swastika flying bright and clear from the top left corner. By the way, I think they had a similar rule in Nazi Germany between 33 and 1945.

84.203.45.65 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ahh, the Nazi card, the sign of the death of all logic. Navboxes are in the top right corner, and the bottom of the article. As I said before all people added to lists must have a reference. The references have to say their philosophy was adopted by the Nazis into their own ideology, not that they embraced Nazi philosophy, or were Nazi functionaries. All lists have to comply with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you have contradictory references refuting the references in place, please add them, the more references the better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a reminder, I came to the article and it looked like this. It was just a bunch of names with no context at all. I came via the AFD, my first reaction was: what do H.G. Wells, Marc Chagall, and Ezra Pound, have to do with Nazi philosophy? There was no context, and a click into the biography gave no more illumination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have performed hundreds of edits, I added references and added a blurb on each person. I trimmed off about two-thirds of the original list, eliminated a "see also" section with even more names without context, and made a few additional entries of names from the articles on antisemitism, master race, and eugenics. It now looks like this. Everyone loves their own edits like they love their own children, but an encyclopedia has to follow its own Manual of Style and rules of verifiability. Remember we aren't under the jurisdiction of Germany or of Ireland, displaying the swastika in the navbar is not a violation of law. If you want to argue for the removal, argue at the navbar page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is complete misdirection, you do not address the main points of discussion, which are: the problem of the removal of the structure in the article, the reduction of complex positions to simple one-liners, the unreadability of the article and the irony that it flies the swastika in the top right-hand corner. Instead you prefer to try and brag about how many edits per hour you have done; you spend the quality and then try to pay the debt thus incurred with quantity. We don't care how many hours of edits you did here, we care about the quality.

Your first comment in this misdirection talks of "the Nazi card" game as the "death of logic," and this was in regard to my criticism of your insistent attempt to fly the Nazi ensign, if you think a flag is logical and its removal is the "death of logic" then please let me know what you mean by the word 'logic'. Second, in order keep the pretence that it is a cardgame, you say that "Navboxes" are for the top right corner not the left, but you completely miss the substantive point which was, a criticised of your rule that we all must fly the swastika (be it on the top left or top right): stupidity never went this far! You say that we are obliged to ensure that the references, "say their philosophy," so two lines on Nietzsche "says his philosophy?" There is an awful lot more stuff in books that there is on wiki, there is even more trash out there in books than on wik,i but you think that just because there is a reference to a book that somehow it makes up for a lazy comment on wiki about why Nietzsche is an ideologue. And when I say this please don't reach for your security blanked of wikipedia rules try thinking about it instead.

According to you --and your slavish following of your own unique idea of wikipedia rules is almost embarassing-- the wikipedia rules mandate that one must fly the swastika on all pages concerned with Nazism, this is not unlike the rules of Nazism between 1933 and 1945, in fact, it is empirically identical with them. Don't try and shift the blame for you insistence on the swastika to the navbar talk page, they have their own problems, nobody is forced to use their navbar, most especially if it is so crudely constructed. By the way, I have not replied to any of your other comments on this talk page, as I said, the swastika is a blocker for me and I can't do further talk page or article work on here if that is still the main and/or only image on the page. Though I'm glad you did not try and re-install your other favorite image, that touched-up photo of Hitler.

You have performed 100s of edits you say, and brought it from this to that, you say, but you did it in haste, with only the vaguest notion of the subject matter; you have taken it from a clear, simple and helpful list to a cluttered nightmare, you are essentially lazy and rush to make something look like every other article on here no matter what the subject, forgetting that maybe it should be just a simple list or that it may involve a bit more work and time.

84.203.45.65 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

split needed

the title says nazi ideologues, which in english means ideologues who were nazis. RAN has it backwards., when he say that" The references have to say their philosophy was adopted by the Nazis into their own ideology, not that they embraced Nazi philosophy, or were Nazi functionaries" --this would be a justification for another list the complement of this one. A Nazi general is a general who was a Nazi, and the same with a philosopher. If you want to add that they also must be true supporters of the movement, not those who joined out of pure careerism, I'd accept that (though the distinction is difficult to prove). If we want to include his criterion, it needs to mean someone who a./ Was a Nazi. and b/ contributed significantly to the ideology of the movement, and we need another list entirely. A section on "intellectuals indirectly associated with Nazism" who lived too early to become Nazi does not fit the title. Putting them in here is POV and if justified by the assumption that they would have been Nazis if they had only had the opportunity to know about it, is pure speculation. I accept that a list can be made of Ideologues whose ideas were used by the Nazis, but in that case it should begin with Plato. To include someone like Spengler, who did live long enough and who explicitly refused to join the Nazis because he opposed their racial theories in a list of Nazis is not right, although he certainly would count among those whose ideas were used by the Nazi. Its not just a matter of getting them in the right heading in the article--this entire section belongs in another article. As for inclusion of particular people there, it is of interest that the only two refs given for Luther say he was not a precursor of Naziism. Not every anti-semite is a Nazi. And the Nazis would have been evil even if they had though the Jews the epitome of mankind next to the Germans.DGG (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to rename the article Ideologues and the Nazi party as an indication of the more associative subject matter? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heidegger no nazi ideologue

You can be a unsavory character ans still not be a nazi. Heidegger's wife was a Nazi, he personally may have had more than healthy sympathies, his philosophy still has to be judged on its own, The Nazi! shout is just a lazy way to deal with him. His enormous popularity in the 20s simply has to be analysed rationally. Bäumler certainly was a nazi, but he was no Krieck, also he had had a still valued pre-nazi past. Bäumler was very intelligent, as was Arnold Gehlen, whom leftist intellectuals have compared to Benjamin, until they learned about his nazi-friendly past. Very many of german university teachers and professors in philosophy were party members and not only for opportunistic reasons (and depressingly it were some of the very best, too). The Kantian (ontological interpretation, commentaries) Heimsoeth for example. But G. Martin and many more did not develop a Nazi philosophy. Hard to believe, but there was a certain freedom in Nazi germany still for the university (not for jews or communists, I know) to do its job (completely unlike the all in all much milder dictatorship of East Germany) I think your list is basically sound, but one or two strange names occur.--Radh (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I would very much like to remove Friedrich Nietzsche from this page because he just does not belong there. Sure some people construed his philosophies to support the nazis, but then again many people believe in intelligent design and we wouldn't quote them on the Evolution page as "can be explained by Intelligent Design, too". There is nothing in Nietzsche's writings that is advocating violence or murder or genocide. The Übermensch is clearly defined as supposed future human finally being able to create a morality system that is only motivated by human identity.

Also note that many quotes presented by contemporary Nazi ideologues as supported the nazi ideology where in fact forgeries by Nietzsche's sister and her husband, who were actually Nazis. Fforw (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

french fascism

You have some american nazis on the list (in a fit of Lokalpatriotismus?), but were are Sorel and H. deMan? Also, read Zeev Sternhell for his amazing discovery of the (pre-1933) vicious and very popular french strains of fascism.--Radh (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

about the title

The lede paragraph does not express the normal meaning of the title. A Nazi ideologue is someone whose works consciously expressed Nazi ideology. The list of people here contain both them, and also those who might more rationally be on a List of People whose ideas were used by the nazis, or something like that. How do we want to proceed--split, or return to the proper meaning of the title. I'm open to either, but section 4 and the lede are blatant POV violations.DGG (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My previous suggestion was to retitle the article "Ideologues and the Nazi party". It's not perfect, but I think it's better. I agree the present title is too incriminating even though the nature of the relationships is made fairly clear in the body of the article. I think there's a legitimate list article here about the people, personalities and ideologies that were incorporated, manipulated and even misrepresented into what became Nazism. But it is a bit tricky. And I see that Charles Darwin was removed, but there's really no question that his books and intellectual influence were used by the Nazis, however fair or unfairly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there? I'm looking at that list of "indirect" associations and wondering how many of these actually contributed ideas which the Nazis used and acknowledged using. For that matter, I'm hoping for citations that say that the Nazis got ideas from these people. It's well-known that Hitler liked Wagner, but having gone through the Ring cycle recently, I have to say that the only influences I see are the grandiosity and the "and it all burns down" (to quote Anna Russell) ending, which I'm fairly sure that Hitler hadn't anticipated having to use in 1939.

It seems to me that if this latter list has any justification for its existence, it needs to be incorporated in the rather scanty section at Nazism#Ideological roots and variants. Probably that section could be expanded into a survey article on Nazi ideological origins. But it needs to be utterly eliminated from this article. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue you are raising is one of citations. That was also a concern of mine. Others seemed to feel that as this is a list article that having the connections covered and sourced in the relevant biographies was enough. But I think at least one decisive affirmation of a connection should be included for each. And if there is a dispute in the sources this should be reflected by cites to both sides of the argument. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the need for a citation to the effect that each of these was an influence is an ironclad, straight-from-principles requirement. It's not clear to me that the current citations suffice for that; it's hard to tell, because a lot of them are to inaccessible (for me) documents, but I gather that they tend to be citations that so-and-so held the views attributed to them, rather than good evidence that those views were influential in Nazi thought. I'm inclined to hold out for citations indicating that the Nazis themselves acknowledged such influences, but we can discuss that.

The problem remains that we have a list of people who are certainly not Nazis. I really think it would be better to move them to some place more appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A useful book on A. H.'s Mein Kampf lists the writers mentioned, thinkers A. H. was influenced by and strangely enough it seems Schopenhauer was most important for him. Ernst Jünger who certainly was a hero is not even mentioned, etc.. This does not perhaps prove too much, but is interesting in its own right. We need a list of people of all tendencies who influenced Naziism. Why should only Nazis have been important for Hitlerism? On the other hand it is clear that radical rightwingers (in a philosophical sense) like Heidegger or Carl Schmitt or even Nazi philosopher Bäumler were probably never even read by A. H.--Radh (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree fundamentally with DGG. The effective scope of this article is an absolute farce.  Skomorokh  05:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I totally misread DGG's statements, I do not see where he says that. A renaming of the section, Yes, but deletion? The title has been under discussion since the articles conception. Any suggestions?. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want a list of people of all tendencies who influenced Naziism, then make such an article. Of course, if you made a List of people who have influenced political philosophy X, there are people (such as Plato) who would be on almost all of them. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL – I actually thought of him with regards to the Cave. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy category

I removed Category:Philosophy since it should not belong in a category at that level of the hierarchy. If this article were to be included in that category a host of similar pages can be added leading to category clutter (not a good thing for navigation). My edit was undone. Can we get some consensus on whether it should stay or be removed? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to start whacking

I'm going to go over the entries in the alst section, seeing as how nobody else seems to want to step up to this.

Wagner

This has two citations, both of them problematic. The first actually argues against the point: it says that Hitler liked Wagner, but that nobody else in Germany at the time much cared for him. The second is from a questionable source. Also, its claim that the Ring cycle is "ultranationalistic" is dubious. It's really an article about controversies over playing Wagner in Israel and not a good source about the intereptation of Wagnerian opera. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche

"Nietzsche's ideas can be interpreted as similar to those of the Nazi regime."

Perhaps this should be changed to "Ideas in the Nazi regime can be interpreted as similar to those of Nietzsche's." Saying it the first way implies Nietzsche was influenced by the Nazis, whereas the second way implies that some members of the Nazi regime were influenced by Nietzsche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.50.182 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Darwin

I removed the reference to Darwin because the citation is to an unreliable source-- Jerry Bergman, the creationist author, whose work is always filled with numerous inaccuracies. And that's the case here.

If you read through what Bergman wrote about Darwin's influence on the Nazis, it's all creationist trickery. Here, for example, he quotes from the book "The Nuremberg Trials" and, to show Hitler was a Darwinist, he inserts the words "of evolution" into Hitler's mouth:

"incorporated the... theory of evolution in their political system, with nothing left out.... Their political dictionary was replete with words like... struggle, selection, and extinction (Ausmerzen). The syllogism of their logic was clearly stated: The world is a jungle in which different nations struggle for space. The stronger win, the weaker die or are killed. In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "higher race subjects to itself a lower race... a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right because [it was] founded on reason [of evolution]" (Quoted from The Nuremberg Trials, Vol. 14, pg. 279)."

Note that Bergman inserts the phrase [of evolution] into Hitler's mouth. And Bergman does it again, here quoting Gasman, Bergman inserts the phrase "[as interpreted by evolution]" which is not in the original:

"[i]n no other country... did the ideas of Darwinism develop as... the total explanation of the world as [it did] in Germany... [or insist] on the literal transfer of the laws of biology [as interpreted by evolution] to the social realm."

Another trick Bergman uses is to go on about Haeckel. Haeckel certainly believed in twisted version of Darwinism and was a racist (not an Anti-Semite). But the Nazis rejected Haeckel's beliefs, so what does it matter? This is supposed to support the idea that Nazis were influenced by Darwinism, not merely that German racism existed.

And another trick Bergman uses is to quote Tenenbaum with so many ellipses "..." in the quote as to render the meaning incomprehensible:

"the political philosophy of the... German State, was built on the ideas of struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at... by Darwin... but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century.... Thus developed the doctrine of Germany's inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength... of a "hammer and anvil" relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations (1956, 211)."

Tenenbaum is saying that "survival of the fittest" was arrived at by Darwin (nor really, actually Spencer) but the German society ALREADY had their own, long-standing philosophies of struggle and conflict (as evidenced by many German philosophers who lived long before Darwin, like Hegel and Fichte.) Tenenbaum's quote does not show Darwinist influence on the Nazis, but is deceptively edited to make it appear so.

I could go on. Jerry Bergman is not a reliable source. Also, his book "The Criterion", aka "Slaugher of the Dissidents", was shown to consist almost entirely of falsehoods, by the author Ronald Numbers in his history of creationism. Numbers is very objective about creationists and not usually on the attack.

If you want to include Darwin as an influence on the Nazis, I insist you get a reliable source. Not a creationist, and not Richard Weikart, whose books are, like Bergman's, full of wishful thinking and redefining "Darwinism" on the fly. 208.46.240.2 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Writer Savabubble re-inserted Darwin as a "Nazi ideologue", with the only reference being, again, creationist Jerry Bergman's unreliable fake-history source. Jerry Bergman is one of the least honest of all creationists, and that is really saying something. His dishonesty is obvious even just in the Darwin-Nazi article written for the ASA. Wikipedia must limit itself to reliable sources, and only use biased, unreliable and dishonest sources like Bergman if they have warnings and qualifications attached.

Savabubble suggests that we should "Instead, if you wish, include referenced criticism of Bergman in the article itself, or under a subheading on Darwin, race theory and eugenics, cousin Galton etc." But a "list" article is an inappropriate place to pick apart the errors of biased authors. And it's absurd to suggest putting Darwin in a subheading on "race theory", like Darwin made some sort of contribution to race theory! Already well-developed by 1859, and later developed further by non-Darwinists or anti-Darwinists like de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain who directly influenced Hitler. 12.69.143.2 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Plus darwin was a supporter of abolitionism, and pointed out the similarity between races. BillMasen (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to omit Darwin when one talks of idea makers who were indirectly associated with the holocaust. Malthus would also be a candidate. The issue is not that of Darwin's own moral stance but simply that, though Darwin may be as innocent as a child, it is vital to see how the ideology of "breeding" a fitter animal, or a fitter man, played into the the creation of a Nazi ideology whose power was borrowed from Darwinism, just as it was more concretely was borrowed from Socialism. The frequent camp "selections" were perhaps a ritualization of this Darwinian/Malthusian creed and show a link distinctly nazi & fascist and not so apparent in those other camps called the Gulag.

In addition we have distant forbears such as Martin Luther. The "scientific" element supplied by social Darwinism was central to the take-up of a 20th century ideology. talk

NOW Savabubble has put Darwin back in as an influence on the Nazis, but NOW his citation is to...can you believe this?...Darwin's book "The Descent of Man." Can you believe that? Number one, Savabubble needs evidence that The Descent of Man concretely influenced the Nazis, not a vague similarity. A vague, subjective similarity between a book written 60 years before the rise of the Nazis AND THAT WAS BANNED BY THE NAZIS is not proof they were influenced by it.

The Nazis banned Darwin's books, including Descent of Man, in 1935, in Die Bucherei, read it in English and German online, they banned:

"2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.

3. Pacifist literature.

4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic...

5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism...

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel)" [Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279. http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines]

Yup, sounds just like Fox News. So, your point, Savabubble, is that Darwin's book is so darned crucial to Nazism that they banned it?

As for natural selection, all creationists, including Hitler the creationist, believe in natural selection. They just don't believe it can create biological complexity, nor did Hitler. But the Nazis weren't doing natural selection anyway-- they were doing artificial selection. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, explicitly compared his practices to those of the ancient Spartans, who left handicapped infants out to die in the wild.

Hitler never even said the name "Charles Darwin" or the name "Ernst Haeckel", but his hero was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who hated Darwinism. A basic point that Savabubble's source, Jerry Bergman, got totally wrong. 68.44.17.39 (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been repeated attempts to reinsert Darwin into the article, based mainly around the following (rather distorted) summary of a passage from Descent of Man:

In, The Descent of Man, Darwin mentions that helping the weak to survive and have families would lose the great natural benefits of selection, yet he still thought helping the weak in other matters was not such a bad thing, if not even a noble thing to do, yet, Darwin adds that it is "to be hoped for" that the weaker and "inferior members of society" will not reproduce.

The following is the full passage:

Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.—I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

I think Darwin goes considerably further than "not such a bad thing", and find little in his sentiments that gives support for Nazi ideology. Nor have I seen any evidence that the psaage in question (or any of Darwin's writings) influenced Nazi ideology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would further note that one of the sources cited in support of this, "Hickman, R., Biocreation, Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51-52, 1983", exhibits no evidence for its existence (let alone reliability) outside its citation by creationist polemics. Although we at least have evidence that Darwin, before and after exists, I would question its reliability -- as it seems to be cited by creationists more than mainstream scholars. The Nuremberg quote (one that likewise is doing the rounds on creationist websites) appears to be cherry-picked from a primary source, lacking a secondary source for context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

On further investigation, Darwin, before and after was authored by a creationist lacking relevant qualifications or experience (his field was Chemistry), so is not a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The title of the section that you are disputing is "Intellectuals indirectly associated with Nazism", you will notice the term "indirectly" this means that your statement that you cannot find a direct reference from Nazi propaganda to Darwin is irrelevant. The relevant quote from Darwin is not necessary other than for some background, the general idea of race and breeding and better "human stock" is already key to the notions of Nazism though I'm sure Darwin himself would not have attempted any illiberal imposition on how people aught Marry etc., rather he only hoped that some people would not have children. The quote is as follows

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected. [ Quote-mining stricken -- full quote is given above, and does not support the contention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) ]

As to creationism, I think that is a pitiful attempt to reconstitute a myth of dignified man in order to act against real, if unconscious, myths that do in fact (and have in fact, in our present context) degrade(d) many men, women and children. The interest, for what it is worth, is in the general intellectual world view around the second millennium CE that could find such traction amongst people in crisis. One could argue that many more than Darwin need be included, the breadth of such genocidal waves in the 20th, and now perhaps with the 6m recent murders in the Congo in the 21st century, means that almost all major thought and life needs to be included as possible sources for such extraordinary brutality.

Admittedly Darwin is slightly innocent in all this as the generalised implementation of the idea of "natural selection", "survival of the fittest" etc. really originated not in biology but in economics, though biology does serve to institutionalise such historical world views. Savabubble (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see you have not even found a link from Nazism to Darwin's ideas. Nor do I see a reliable source that links Darwin's statement with Nazism (even indirectly). The creationist source in question is both partisan and unreliable (as the author lacks any relevant expertise). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Particularly, you seem to fail to realise that such ideas as evolution, survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism predate Darwin, and that Darwin's main contribution to evolutionary thought was evolution via natural selection -- which had little or no influence on Nazi ideology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking out Richard Wagner

I have removed the section on Wagner for two reasons:

1. Of the two citations that were given, the first was specifically a counterargument, and the second was in large part adverse to the notion.
2. Listing Wagner as an intellectual contributing something to a philosophy is highly questionable anyway. Nobody disagrees that Hitler found Wagner aesthetically appealing, but it is, after all, opera.

If anyone can come up with better evidence, go ahead, but it's going to be an uphill fight considering that the material we ahve now is actually contrary to the notion. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Butterfly wings?

The concept of this article is a good idea, and the information is certainly important. However it seems to me that the standards for including anyone are always going to be a problem. For instance reasonable claims could be made that without Saint Paul Christianity would have never divided from Judaism, without Muhammad Christianity would have never felt the need to become militant to defend itself, without Napoleon Europe would have had a much more peaceful transition to liberalism, and on and on. BTW I have often heard that Hitler cited Henry Ford as an influence, especially in his economic policies. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Herman / Eugene Schmalenbach?

It was Eugene Schmalenbach who theorised gemeinschaft and bund, and he had a Jewish wife and resigned in 1933, different guy to Herman Schmalenbach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.121.251 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fichte

Fichte might be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See Fichte's Addresses of 1808. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenuous connection

Francis Galton is listed based upon the fact that a Nazi scientist 'used' his photographs -- which seems a highly tenuous connection. It should also be noted that Galton was an advocate of positive eugenics -- encouraging those considered desirable to marry & have children, not the negative eugenics of discouraging undesirables from breeding, that eventually led to sterilisations and (under the Nazis) genocide. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not list him (I am not saying this, because I do not by in the Holocaust hoax, just generally)? I mean, even Martin Luther is listed. In that case one should perhaps also list Plato, Veblen, Hegel, von Wieser and many others. --196.215.195.12 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)