Talk:Nazism/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Connection between pre-Nazi national socialism and Nazism

I have moved the following comment by OpenFuture from the "Scope of this article" thread, as it was just starting to diverge from the topic at hand. My apologies for the slight breach of wikiquette. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"I will not accept another rebuke by OpenFuture on my point about this when he/she claims that it must be proven that it was different before the Nazis, it must be proven that there is a linear causal connection between a pre-Nazi "national socialism" and Nazism, otherwise it is speculation and possibly correlation." - Well, you have to accept another rebuke, as you are blatantly and obviously wrong. There is no requirement to show that "Liberalism" mean the same word in 1942 as in 1941, no requirement that "The White House" meant the same house in 2003 as in 2002, no requirement that "Whipped cream" meant different things in 1867 and in 1866, and there is no requirement to show that national socialism mean the same thing in 1919 as in 1918. I have asked you several times to show souring of the same kind of continuum for other words, and you refuse, for obvious reasons. Your continued request of a source for "National Socialism" is hence completely absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely not "completely absurd" to acknowledge that massive change can happen. Massive change did happen in liberal politics. Think of the change in the liberal U.S. Democratic Party that went from acceptance of racial segregation from the 19th century based on the supposed "separate but equal" to the 1960s to support of de-segregation in the 1960s. The Democratic Party that had been the "anti-Lincoln party (especially in the American South) suddenly ceased to be so in the 1960s with desegregation. The entire political landscape of the United States in the 1960s was turned upside down by this sudden change. Thus ending the remains of American classical liberalism and entrenching American modern liberalism. So yes, massive change can happen. Please answer this question OpenFuture, and don't ignore it: Where is the evidence of a widespread, single unified national socialism existing before Nazism that is related to Nazism? You ask me to disprove a supposed positive, but the supposed positive needs to have evidence or else it is speculation, you don't provide such "a source for National Socialism" because you claim it is "absurd" to ask for one. That is why I say that I will not accept another rebuke: I am frustrated that I have to go over this again and again, if claim you want me to "disprove" something, you need to put some on the table to examine, or else how can I prove or disprove anything if no evidence is available to examine.--R-41 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"It is absolutely not "completely absurd" to acknowledge that massive change can happen." - Straw man. I never disagreed with this. First of all we are not talking about a shift in meaning such as in liberalism, but the claim that national socialism of 1919 had NOTHING to do with pre-war national socialism. That the two usages of the word has no connection. Secondly, if the change in the meaning of the word, gradual or sudden, small or massive, that is what you need to source. You are claiming that we need to source that there was not a change or complete disruption. That is patently absurd, and evidence only of the ridiculous length to which some people are willing to go to avoid losing even a small part of a debate.
You HAVE to accept rebukes until you stop claiming this absurd nonsense.
"Where is the evidence of a widespread, single unified national socialism existing before Nazism that is related to Nazism?" - You are asking for proof of something that does not need proving. "single unified" what does that even mean? It's a wording you are using so that you can reject any proof. And you are also now backing up and bringing up for debate something that there was already consensus of: That there was something called "national socialism" before 1919. That's a different claim. Don't try to switch topics just because you are backed up in a corner, that will not work. I understand that you are trying the old tactic of repeatedly bringing up topics already covered over and over and over, so I see already that informal mediation is not going to work here. We can just drop it and go directly to formal mediation, everything else is a waste of time. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The major totalitarian and Fuhrerprincip policies of Nazism were borrowed from Italian Fascism, they didn't exist in national socialism before 1919. "Single unified" means that a widespread adherance by many proponents and organized pre-Nazi national socialist ideology that warrants itself via its coherance and widespread popularity with Nazism. As I said, before a popular ideology seizes control of a name or a symbol it may have numerous meanings to different proponents - i.e. Ferdinand Lassalle's National Socialism - he was a Jew and his ideology is not a predacessor to anti-Semitic Nazism and was denounced by early Nazi member Dietrich Eckart in a speech, because Lassalle was a Jew (source: Barbara Miller Lane, Leila J. Rupp. Nazi ideology before 1933: a documentation. Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas Press, 1978. Pp. 30 and 32. [1]) And there is the example that you asked for of a substantially important pre-Nazi national socialism NOT equalling Nazism. And even if we did lump it as a predaccessor of Nazism then massive change did occur in National Socialism to have gone from an ideology promoted by a Jewish German to an anti-Semitic ideology, and the denouncement by Eckart eliminates Lassalle as an ideological predaccessor. There is also the National Social Union founded in 1896 by Friedrich Naumann who promoted "Christian National Socialism", The National Social Union was pro-democratic, committed to civic equality and opposed anti-Semitism (source for its pro-democratic and civic equality goals and opposition to anti-Semitism: Peter G. J. Pulzer. Jews and the German state: the political history of a minority, 1848-1933. Detroit, Michigan, USA: Wayne State University Press, 2003. Pp. 145.) (source for "Christian National Socialism": Edwyn Robert Bevan. German War Aims. Harper, 1918. Pp. 14.). Now please explain to me what pre-Nazi ideology called "national socialism" is it that you want me to review?--R-41 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
"The major totalitarian and Fuhrerprincip policies of Nazism were borrowed from Italian Fascism, they didn't exist in national socialism before 1919." - Good, so you admit that national socialism existed before 1919. Then we have that issue over with. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
" "Single unified" means that a widespread adherance by many proponents and organized pre-Nazi national socialist ideology that warrants itself via its coherance and widespread popularity with Nazism." - This is an arbitrary requirement you can't find any policy or logic to support. You have only added it so you can dismiss any sources. Requirement rejected.
"As I said, before a popular ideology seizes control of a name or a symbol it may have numerous meanings to different proponents" - So?
"Ferdinand Lassalle's National Socialism - he was a Jew" - So? Many socialists were jews. There existed Jews in nationalist and separatist and racist organisations too. Since when would that prevent a racist from adopting the same idea? It would only prevent them from admitting where they got the idea *from*. Hence:
"his ideology is not a predacessor to anti-Semitic Nazism" - Source?
"and was denounced by early Nazi member Dietrich Eckart in a speech, because Lassalle was a Jew" - Duh! That's a primary source so it's not reliable, and your conclusion is OR/SYN.
The fact is that you and several others here have claim that there is no connection at all between pre-war national socialism and post-war national socialism, and that is a claim that needs sourcing by a reliable third-party source, and no matter of attempts to switch the topic from your side is going to change that.
Now please explain to me what pre-Nazi ideology called "national socialism" is it that you want me to review? - I don't want you to review anything, because you are not a reliable third-party source. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, you are suggesting that Nazism, an anti-Semitic ideology is based upon the ideology promoted by a Jewish German, even after I showed you evidence of a Nazi denouncing it, your claim of original research is unjustified, I told you to look at page 30 where the authors of the book, Barbara Miller Lane and Leila J. Rupp - third party references - are acknowledging Eckart's statement on page 30. Now it is your turn to present your evidence for your claim of Jews influencing anti-Semitic Nazism. Don't use "duh" as an insult to my intelligence or I will report you again for personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
What you find ridiculous is utterly irrelevant as you still are not a reliable third-party source. The fact is that you and several others here have claim that there is no connection at all between pre-war national socialism and post-war national socialism, and that is a claim that needs sourcing by a reliable third-party source, and no matter of attempts to switch the topic from your side is going to change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
LOOK AT PAGE 30 OF Nazi ideology before 1933: a documentation. Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas Press, 1978. [2]) God, how many times to I need to repeat myself. I am not switching the topic, I gave you third party references - the authors (third party sources) acknowledge the statement.--R-41 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That book does not support the claim you are making. That book only supports the claim that Nazis dis not like Lasalle. This is not the claim under dispute. Again: The fact is that you and several others here have claim that there is no connection at all between pre-war national socialism and post-war national socialism, and that is a claim that needs sourcing by a reliable third-party source, and no matter of attempts to switch the topic from your side is going to change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"The book only supports the claim that Nazis dis [sic] not like Lasalle". No, the book states that the Nazis lumped Lassalle alongside Marx and Bolsheviks in an alleged Jewish conspiracy. That is denouncing Lassalle and presenting him as an enemy. FOR THE LAST TIME I AM NOT CHANGING THE TOPIC!!! I HAVE RESPONDED TO YOUR REQUESTS, BUT YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANY OF THEM!!! I have shown that there were prominent non-Nazi national socialisms before Nazism that disrupt the idea of a single cohesive national socialism ideology existing prior to the Nazis. I AM NOT SAYING there is no possibility of a pre-WWI connection at all, but WHERE IS THE CONNECTION? WHERE IS AN EXAMPLE? Why do you always present this as a one-way direction with all the burden being on me to disprove something and when I ask you to present 1 piece of evidence to show the linear development of Nazism before World War I, you refuse?--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to provide sources that when modern writers refer to "national socialism" in the 19th century, they are referring to Nazism in the 20th century. You have not even established that national socialism was a commonly used term. I can find for example a source that says Abraham Lincoln was a "democrat". That does not mean the ideology of the modern Democratic Party is the same as Lincoln's. On the other hand I can find sources that show a link between Jeffersonian Democracy and the modern Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
TFD, who are you addressing to? Open Future or me? In any case I've shown two examples of substantial non-Nazi national socialisms, Ferdinand Lassalle's National Socialism - Lassalle was denounced by early Nazi member Dietrich Eckart - and Friedrich Naumann's democratic Christian National Socialism of the National Social Union that opposed anti-Semitism.--R-41 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
OpenFuture and R-41, I was sorely tempted to {{trout}} this thread until I saw TFD's post. I'm not talking about any of the specific arguments that either of you have made - it's just that experience has taught me that threads with this much bold in don't usually result in a constructive resolution. There are a couple of essays that address these kind of discussions, and I suggest you make yourself a cup of tea and have a sit down while you read them again. Personally I can see how you can both reconcile your differences, but you both need to be calm before that discussion can take place. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It is true that I am frustrated, I'll take a break. But before I do so I say that I am perfectly willing to accept that Nazism's roots stretch back decades if not centuries if we include Martin Luther's anti-Semitic theories. Moreover I am perfectly willing to accept that a direct lineage predacessor national socialism ideology exists prior to the Nazi Party and prior to Plenge's National Socialism of 1914, but sources must be provided or else it is speculation. Still, prior to the Nazi party there were a variety of "national socialisms" unrelated to Nazism such as Friedrich Naumann's Christian National Socialism of the National Social Union.--R-41 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No, your claim that they are unrelated must be sourced, nothing else. And a source that Nazis did not like Lasalle is not it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Read the source again, it is a Nazi member in a public speech lumping Lassalle with Karl Marx and Bolsheviks whom the Nazis despised and associating Lassalle, Marx, and Bolsheviks with a common Jewish conspiracy, the third party reference authors point out this argument. Friedrich Naumann's Christian National Socialist National Social Union, the source I found about the National Social Union mentions that it was a liberal organization that opposed anti-Semitism.--R-41 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
A first-party source saying "I don't like Lassalle" is not a third-party source saying "The national socialism of NSDAP has no relation to the national socialism of the 19th century". I've never claimed the christian National Social Union are national socialists. To my knowledge they didn't even claim it themselves. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"The national socialism of NSDAP has no relation to the national socialism of the 19th century" - I can't find a universal statement like that, what author would create such an awkward universal statement like that? I am saying that there were a variety of strains of national socialism prior to the popular use of the term to refer to the Nazis, and that they don't all interrelate despite similar names. The authors point out on page 30 that Nazi member Eckart is associating Lassalle, Marx, and Bolsheviks with a common Jewish conspiracy, that doesn't mean they "don't like him" it means that he is their enemy. For if you take the assumption that it merely means they "don't like him" does it also mean that the Nazis merely "didn't like" Marx or "didn't like" Bolshevism but that they may still be associated with Nazism? As for evidence of Naumann promoting "national socialism" for his liberal-leaning, democratic, non-anti-Semitic, though pro-imperial National Social Union, he formed a newspaper called Die Ziet which he declared to be the "Organ for National Socialism with a Christian Basis" in August 1896 see here: [3].--R-41 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
However you want to reformulate your claim to get out of your lack of sources, still needs to be sourced. And yes, even if person A denounces person B as a part of a conspiracy, they can have ideology that is not only related, but for all practical purposes the same, as proven by the numerous denunciations done by people towards someone within the same party or organisation throughout history. They are in no way evidence of ideological difference, but only done to gain political advantages. Eckharts denunciation of Lassalle are not because he disagreed with him ideologically, but because he was Jewish. Your claim that the denunciation means anything at all ideologically is WP:OR. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's have a look at what Wikipedia:Verifiability says. I think some particularly relevant quotes here are "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation", and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." My reading of this is that the only material that requires verification are specific claims, in the article itself, that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Challenges of material are not required to be referenced, and comments on this talk page are not required to be referenced. However, if we are discussing a specific claim that is made in the article, it seems reasonable to ask about a source for it on the talk page. In the heat of the discussion above, I have lost track of the specific claims that you would like to make in the article itself. Would you mind restating them below, in exactly the same language that you would use in the article? Then we can decide if the current article sourcing supports them, and judge if your claims contradict each other. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about whether to include material about national socialism before Plenge. R-41 claims that we should not include it because he claims it's not related, that although Plenge obviously (but obviously is not a RS) uses the word in the same way as others did at that time, somehow he claims there is no relation, and that national socialism before Plenge therefore should not be included. So we aren't discussing a specific claim in the article, but rather scope. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not claiming that there is no possibility of a pre WWI connection, but please present an example of pre-WWI Nazi-esque national socialism, present a source.--R-41 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"Nazi-esque"? Nobody claimed that the pre-war National Socialism was "Nazi-esque", whatever that means. Are you trying to change the agreed on scope of the article, by excluding all non-NDSAP ideology? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that we had an agreed-on scope for this article - I thought that was the reason for most of the discussion that we have had in the last week. Maybe there was a discussion about the scope before that that I missed? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's obvious that the scope of the scope discussion will have to be bigger than I thought ie we have to revisit if this will include pre-NSDAP national socialism at all, and perhaps we'll have to yet again revisit if it even existed, which has been denied. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The lead, which is sourced, defines the topic as the ideology of the Nazi Party. TFD (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It's based on a dictionary entry that summarizes National Socialism in a sentence. It's as such gross oversimplification that isn't supported by other sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Nazi-esque national socialism = racist, anti-Semitic, authoritarian national socialism. This article is focused on Nazism as practiced by the Nazi Party and the history that led to it. Now, present an example and a source of a pre-WWI national socialism following these Nazi characteristics.--R-41 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"This article is focused on Nazism as practiced by the Nazi Party" - No. National Socialism redirects here. It is about National Socialism, in general. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Minor, relatively-unknown people who used the term, "National Socialism," and who were not connected whatsoever to the Nazis, have no business being conflated with them...particularly when the only "connection" is the words "National" and "Socialism" being put together...even though they are used in different contexts and refer to wildly different political philosophies. It's like having a section on the page National Alliance on Mental Illness discussing the National Alliance. When 99.99999% of people use the term "National Socialism," they are referring to Nazism, and to suggest otherwise is extremely disingenuous. This debate is, and has always been, about Conservative editors trying to make Nazism "fit" into the John Birch Society conspiracy theories. Nothing more. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: That "National Socialism" redirects here is not a good reason to cover every use of the term "National Socialism" in this article. Rather, it is just an indication that "Nazism" is the primary topic for the term "National Socialism". On Wikipedia:Disambiguation there is a clearer example: "The article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", "vilification", and "calumny". Even though there is a British film with the title Libel, the article at Defamation is still the primary topic for that title and the film must be disambiguated." According to Wikipedia policy, where the redirects happen to go has no bearing on what goes in the article. Rather, it is how the topic of Nazism is treated in reliable sources that determines what we may or may not include. If there is evidence in reliable sources that Nazism and other National Socialisms are connected, then we may include the other National Socialisms in the article. If there is no evidence in reliable sources, or if it would be giving a tiny minority theory undue weight, then we cannot include the other National Socialisms in the article, but we must instead disambiguate them through National Socialism (disambiguation). I hope this post makes sense - let me know if anything still isn't clear. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Nazism and national socialism are not different topics, it's just that Nazism is a more common name for national socialism. So this article covers the ideology "national socialism", which is more commonly known as "Nazism", so the article is called that according to WP:COMMONNAME. The article should cover all aspects of Nazism/National socialism (possibly split up into subarticles if necessary). --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, hold on one second for me. Here you are making the claim that Nazism and National Socialism are the same topic. This claim has been contested by R-41, who says that some ideologies that were called National Socialism bear no relation to Nazism. Now you haven't made this specific claim in the article, so it does not fall under the requirement for evidence laid out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, you are proposing that we include material about all aspects of National Socialism in the article. This could fall foul of Wikipedia policy in two ways. The first is that - depending on the context - including referenced, accurate, material about National Socialism, and then including referenced, accurate material about Nazism, could imply that they are related. If you imply that they are related without a reference that explicitly states that, it would be a synthesis.

The second is that we should not give any aspect of Nazism undue weight - we must treat every aspect of the subject of Nazism in proportion to the weight of coverage that aspect gets in reliable sources. If these sources do not include the older uses of "national socialism" that you are seeking to include, or if such uses of "national socialism" are only grouped with Nazism in a tiny minority of sources, then we cannot include them in the article. Both of these points suggest that we need to look to the sources to see how they treat the two terms, hence R-41 asking you for sources to back up your claim, and hence me asking about the authoritative sources in the thread below. Once we are clear about what the sources say on the subject, it should be obvious how to proceed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think R-41 has contested that National Socialism and Nazism are the same topic. Maybe he could confirm if this is the case? It seems to me that he claims that National Socialism pre WWI and National Socialism post WWI are different topics. Nazism is just a short name for National Socialism.
Having National Socialism pre-WWI and National Socialism post-WWI in the same article does indeed "imply" that they are the same, in the same way as having Liberalism pre-WWI and post WWI in the same article "implies" they are the same, and that having texts about the White House pre and post WWI "implies" it is the same house, etc. (While of course the fire and rebuilding of the White House in 1814 doesn't mean it gets two articles, it's described and sourced in the article, as would be expected). As mentioned before, if the meaning of a word changes, that is something you can source and find support for. R-41 has flatly refuse to find any source or support for that position. At the same time the connection between National Socialism pre and post-WWI are obvious: Before WWI it means "state socialism" and is sometimes associated with nationalists. After WWI it means a state socialism and is strongly associated with nationalists.
So the "implication" that they are the same should be there because they are the same. If they are not, that must reasonably be possible to source that claim, and then there should be different articles or a disambiguation page that explains the difference, with that source. This is why I have asked for a source for the claim from R-41, which he refuses to give me, while he at the same time requires me to find a source that says that the word did *not* change meaning, something that is just as unreasonable as finding a source claiming that nobody tore down and rebuilt The White House in 1918.
As far as I know, all sources that talk about national socialism before the war do so when discussing the rise or origins of the post-war national socialism. I'm not aware of any source that claims that the two national socialisms are separate. There are however many sources that simply ignore the pre-war national socialism completely, as most sources are sources about the Nazi party or WWII. To me that is a clear indication that the thesis that pre and post-war national socialism are different beasts has no support in the sources. I'll add some sources that talk about national socialism before the war below. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
That's an outright lie that I refused to provide sources. I showed you repeatedly sources that demonstrated that there were significant "national socialists" before the Nazis who had nothing to do with the Nazis, and thus any pre-Nazi group called "national socialist" cannot automatically connected with Nazism: such as the source about the "national socialist" Lassalle being denounced by Eckart as part of a Jewish conspiracy or Friedrich Naumann's "Christian National Socialist" National Social Union that was liberal in nature, democratic, and that it denounced anti-Semitism. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the sources I provided, does not mean you can claim that I didn't provide any. You seem to want a source that will claim "all pre-World War I national socialism is unrelated to post-World War I National Socialism" - I'm sorry but no source will make such an ackward universal statement. What I did do to satisfy your request was provide examples of prominent non-Nazi national socialists that indicates that there were a variety of version of national socialism prior to Nazism that do not connect as ancestors of Nazism. What I am saying is the same thing BryonMorrigan said, just because something has "National" and "Socialist" together in it, does not mean that it can be automatically connected with the Nazis, I doubt very much that members of the moderate left-wing Czech National Social Party would appreciate their party being associated with the genocidal, racist, anti-Semitic, and totalitarian ideology of the Nazis simply because they have a similar name. This article is about Nazism, and as BryonMorrigan has said 99% of times people refer to National Socialism, they are referring to Nazism, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.--R-41 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
For what now must be at least the fourth time: Eckhart denouncing Lassalle is not a reliable third-party source that their ideas and ideologies are unrelated. I fail to see what is difficult or unclear with this. Naumann is a straw man, I've never called him national socialist, and to my knowledge never did he or his organisation, same thing for the Czech National Social Party. That there existed people adn organisation that was NOT national socialists doesn't mean that there existed no national socialists. Also note that "social" and "socialist" are different words. Just because Darkstar1st makes those mistakes is no reason for you to make them. You do not counter anything I say, you do not provide anything new, you just repeat what you said last time, even though I explained why you were wrong several times. Is that really your view of constructive consensus building? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all I am dumbfounded that you still cannot comphrehend that the authors of the book (the third party sources that you demand) acknowledge and summarize Eckart's denouncal of Lassalle as being part of a Jewish conspiracy included alongside Marx and Bolsheviks on page 30. The authors are from a book written by a third party not affiliated to Eckart or the Nazis. I am not saying that you claimed that Naumann was a "national socialist", I was referring to a source that shows that Naumann promoted a non-Nazi "Christian National Socialism". Naumann promoted this for his liberal-leaning, democratic, non-anti-Semitic, though pro-imperial National Social Union, he formed a newspaper called Die Ziet which he declared to be the "Organ for National Socialism with a Christian Basis" in August 1896 see here: [4]. His ideology that was significant at the time, is another example of a pre-Nazi "national socialist" party not associated with Nazism, thus showing again that a universal linear history of all "national socialism" that you seem to be promoting, is not practical, as every ideology called "national socialism" cannot connect automatically connect with Nazism, the focus of this article. If you have examples of historical Nazi-esque (racist, anti-Semitic, authoritarian) national socialism, provide sources and these can be included in the article. And don't reply again that I am completely discounting the idea of pre-WWI Nazi-esque national socialism, just provide the sources.--R-41 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
1. I refuse to believe that you don't understand the difference between person A denouncing person B and their ideology having no relationship. Stalin denounced Trotsky. Are you claiming Stalinism and Trotskyism have no relation? That you continue to refer to this irrelevant source is beyond absurd.
2. "as every ideology called "national socialism" cannot connect automatically connect with Nazism" - Straw man.
3. The burden of proof is on you.
4. I *have* provided sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
On the issue of Lassalle, here is a major example of the Nazis attacking this prominent pre-Nazi "national socialist", this source's authors mentions the people that the Nazis associated with a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy, it includes a quote from the Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew that included Lassalle on the Nazis' attack list among other Jews like Rosa Luxembourg, saying: "The founder and first organizer of the German Social Democratic Party was the Jew Ferdinand Lassalle-Wolfson. The Jewess Rosa Luxemburg, whose real name was Emma Goldmann, one of the most notorious communist agitators." See the reference here: [5]. Here is another source about Nazi education on racial policy as created by Nazi official Alfred Vogel who claimed that there was a "red flood" of Marxism invading Germany that was associated with Jews, including Lassalle, Rosa Luxembourg, and Wilhelm Liebknecht. See here: [6]. The Nazis associate Lassalle with Jewish conspiracy, Marxism, and social democracy - all of which they opposed.--R-41 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"The Nazis associate Lassalle with Jewish conspiracy, Marxism, and social democracy - all of which they opposed" - Yes, and? The claim you are asked to support is that there is no connection between pre-war national socialism and post-war national socialism. What Eckhart thought about Lassalle is still completely irrelevant, and will always be completely irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat it. What do you not understand in this? How can you possibly think that this is relevant? It's completely absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"What Eckhart thought about Lassalle is still completely irrelevant, and will always be completely irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat it". I didn't mention Eckart again - you aren't paying attention, I gave you 2 new sources, one derives from authors noting the famous or infamous Nazi propaganda film, The Eternal Jew, another has authors speaking about Nazi education official Alfred Vogel who set Nazi education policies. Both sources involve Nazi attacks on Lassalle. I am responding to the claim you made earlier that said something along the lines of "just because Eckart did not like Lassalle it does not mean that the Nazis are not related." These sources show a clear animosity by the Nazis to Lassalle. Lassalle and Naumann are examples of non-Nazi national socialism, and previous attempts by Darkstar to include Lassalle have been based on false assumption of Lassalle's association with Nazism. My goal is that I do not want non-Nazi national socialism confused with Nazi national socialism. As I have said time and time again, I am not denying the possibility of pre-WWI Nazi-esque national socialism, so STOP asking me for a source for proof of "no connection of pre-war national socialism", I am not contending that. I am however skeptical that a universal national socialism existed before 1914, as there were a number of people called "national socialists" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who were not associated with Nazi-esque national socialism. I simply believe that evidence as in sources are needed for the association of a person or ideology to the history of this highly controversial ideology.--R-41 (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
attempts by Darkstar to include Lassalle have been based on false assumption. I made no assumption, rather tried to include text from a RS, no one has refuted the source, instead suggested i have misinterpreted the quote, which is impossible as i made no comment on said quote. Lassalle's politics were power-politics, his socialism was national-socialism, The roots of national socialism, 1783-1933, Rohan d'Olier Butler plz cite the specific policy for excluding this material. plz only choose one, so we may focus the debate. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not relevant which Nazi makes the attacks on Lassalle. They still don't prove what you have been asked to prove, namely your claim that there is no connection between pre-war national socialism and post-war national socialism.
"I am not contending that" - Good. That was what I asked you to prove, because you claimed it, and your response has been to show that Nazis attacked Lassalle, which is irrelevant. Now you concede, so then that debate is over. We then agree that there is a connection between post-war national socialism and pre-war national socialism. Excellent. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a White House in Moscow too (see White House (Moscow)), but it has its own article. TFD (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


What are the authoritative sources?

My apologies, it appears that I had misread R-41 and OpenFuture's dispute. If this is about the scope of the article, not any specific claims, then I should have left it in the "scope of this article" thread. Anyway, I have a way that we can resolve this, if you will humour me for a while. Up until now a lot of the claims I have been seeing look like they have been formulated in a bottom-up way - that is, an editor makes a claim, and then searches around to find a source to support it. To decide something as important as the scope of the article, however, we need a top-down approach. We need to identify the most reliable, the most rigorous, and the best-respected sources on the subject, and we need to treat the subject as they do.

So, what do you think are the best, say, three sources on the subject of Nazism? Let's keep discussion about the sources themselves now - we can move on to discussing their contents when we have agreed on a list. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Most sources on Nazism and the rise of Nazism concentrate on the evil of Nazism. They want to explain how the holocaust could happen. As such they concentrate on the nationalism and antisemitism. Many either ignore socialism or sees it as a good that was hijacked. Hayek is an exception, because he views socialism as evil, and hence writes his text on the socialist roots of Nazism. But he doesn't cover the other sources, so he isn't authoritative either. He is as such just another writer who tries to assign "blame" on something. Fritz Fischer blames the Lutheran church and the German elite for creating a society where Nazi ideas can take hold, but isn't so interested in where these ideas comes from, Richard J. Evans in his re-reading of German history largely blames social Darwinism. Butlers The Roots of National Socialism was written during the war, and has been criticized for being anti-German, so I guess it tries to blame Germany.
There are loads of good books on Nazi Germany and WWII, but few on national socialism. Picking out authoritative sources is therefore not an easy task. I do think we can agree that a dictionary that summarizes "National Socialism" in once sentence isn't it, though. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • A history of fascism, 1914-1945, Stanley G. Payne. [7]
  • The Roots of National Socialism, Rohan D'O. Butler. [8]
  • The Road to Serfdom, F.A Hayek. [9]
All books mention national socialism before the war, both claim them as precursors to the national socialism of Nazi Germany. Hayek is definitely not authoritative, as previously mentioned. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The roots of National Socialism (1939) and The Road to Serfdom (1943) are too dated to be used as sources. Payne's book is good, but he says, German "national socialism" (his scarequotes) "derived from" Austrian National Socialism and other groups, not that it was the same thing, and does not claim it derived from whatever our Google searches find was sometimes referred to as "national socialism" in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Quote the policy that says that anything published before (insert arbitrary year here) is "too dated" to be used as a source.
2. Nobody is claiming they are "the same thing", because "sameness" is undefined. How similar must it be to be "the same thing"? With that argument you can claim that Himmler wasn't a Nazi because he had some minor disagreements with Hitler, so they didn't have the "same" ideology. This discussion is about your and others complete denial to accept that one of the influences and roots of national socialism was socialism. To do that you have refused to accept that there is any national socialism at all before WWI, and when evidence was overwhelming about that you denied that they had any relation whatsoever. In your comment now you implicitly accept that there is a relation, but claim that they are not "the same thing". Well, that's a step forward, at least. Could we please get that implicit acceptance explicitly so we don't have to go through this again? Then we can start discussing "sameness". --OpenFuture (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The only reason to ignore the mass of current scholarship and go to historical books, fringe sources, etc., is if one has a POV they wish to insert into the article and cannot find mainstream current sources that support their views. You cannot show that Hayek's views of Nazism are anything other than fringe, and he does not support your views anyway. So the policy is WP:NPOV. Your second para is confusing. The ideology of National Socialism, which was named after the National Socialist German Workers Party did not exist before that party was founded. You might find occasional instances from the 19th century where socialism was described as "national", for example you provided an example where the Socailist Party of America's organization at a national level was referred to as "national socialism" and contrasted with their organization at a local level "municipal socialistm". But none of those references are to the party of Adolph Hitler. TFD (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"The only reason to ignore the mass of current scholarship" - Straw man. Nobody is suggesting we do that. This is an opportunity for you to provide better sources. Instead of doing do, you erect straw men. Do you think that is a constructive way forward?
" The ideology of National Socialism, which was named after the National Socialist German Workers Party" - That statement is false, as has been proven numerous times here before, and is supported in the three sources I gave above. None of this is any news to you, we've been over it multiple times in this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
OpenFuture, my idea behind starting this thread was to make clear what the modern scholarly consensus on Nazism is. Though older sources may be reliable, they do not have the benefit of the subsequent research, and as such should be given less weight. It depends on the length of time and the nature of the field, but in general it is better to use newer sources to find modern scholarly consensus, and older sources to see the state of research at that point in time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
That newer sources have more weight is something different. For that to be valid, somebody has first of all to present newer sources. TFD claims the sources are too old, despite that he can't provide any newer sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I said Payne's book was good. Another recent source for ideology is The Russian Roots of Nazism White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945 by Michael Kellogg, Cambridge University Press, 2005.[10] But really since you are the one who wants to add to the article, the onus is on you to provide sources for what you wish to add. TFD (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so we have two sources that everyone agrees on - Payne 1996 and Kellogg 2005. I'd be interested to hear what Butler 1985 has to say on the subject. 1985 is not far back enough for us to discount it, in my opinion, although we should take care with things that may have changed with subsequent research. This isn't enough for us to get a good consensus though - there must be more sources on a subject like this. How about some of the books from Category:Books about Nazism? Or from this search? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Butler's book is not from 1985, it's from 1941. Google Books apparently got confused by a reprint. Hans Adler 21:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how Kellog is an authoritative source on the origins of Nazism. He, as so many others, like for example Hayek, just takes up one of the influences. In this case anti-bolshevik Russians. It also has a post-war focus and basically ignores anything that happened before the war. I agree it is a reliable source, and it's good in that it debunks the myth of national socialism being a purely German invention, but I don't see how it argues for or against any side in the argument that national socialism didn't have any pre-war precursors. It just ignores the issue altogether.
As mentioned, most books about Nazism is really about Hitler or about the war, not about the ideology, so they can't be used to settle the dispute. The above mentioned are amongst the few I've found, and Hayek isn't authoritative. Butlers book may be old, but unless somebody finds newer sources that contradict him, there is no reason to exclude him.
It's good that we agree on Payne at least. Then we have one authoritative source. If that's the only one we can agree on, then so be it. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggested "The rise of the Nazis", Manchester University Press (2002) by Conan Fischer [11] -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is a good source too. I would also like to point out that we need to distinguish between reliability of sources and notablity of opinions. Reliable sources may present non-notable views but they are reliable for explaining how subjects are seen. Russian Roots for example may present views that are new and therefore we would need later sources to confirm the degree of acceptance. However, it would be a good source for explaining the general views of scholars at the time it was published. TFD (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A reliable source that yet again simply ignores the question we have here, as far as I can see. It explicitly just talks the Nazis during the Weimar era. It hence can not shed light on the disagreement we are having here. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Payne 1996

  • (the) national socialism (of the DAP) sought the nationalization of big business. it differed from marxist socialism in advocating a common economic policy to benefit all...pressing for a mixed socialism...the original german-bohemian national socialism was in essence a radical democratic movement.
  • there were some fundamental differences...nonetheless, hitlerian national socialism more nearly paralleled russian communism than has any other non-communist system p211
  • In some specific ways National socialism paralleled russian communism to a much greater degree than italian fascism was capable of doing p210
  • national socialism is a parody of fascisim, mussolini p231
  • Fascist accused Nazis of being too socialistic, too anti-individualistic... page 232
  • Nazi publications denounced Jewish Fascist party officers. page 232
  • ultra-Fascist wrote nazism was offensive and would push europe into communism. the difference between fascism and nazism are profound and unambiguous. page 232
  • Fascist publications referred to Hitler as the anti-christ. page 232
  • German speaking national socialism originated in austria in 1903-4 thru support of the DAP. p246 Darkstar1st (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The collection of quotes does nothing to support your case, unless you use it as a source to develop your personal theory. So fascists called Hitler the anti-christ. If we decide to write the article from a fascist point of view and decide that socialism is the ideology of the anti-christ, then using synthesis we could conclude that Hitler was a socialist. Then using more synthesis we could conclude that Nazism was socialist, because its leader was a socialist. TFD (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Darkstar, the Italian Fascists denounced Nazism in a specific response to the 1934 Austrian crisis when an Austrian Nazi assassinated the pro-Mussolini Engelbert Dollfuss. Prior to this the Italian Fascists financially subsidized the Nazi Party, declared that "Hitler's victory is our victory" and Hitler met with Mussolini earlier in 1934 in Italy, prior to the Austrian crisis, where both leaders were trying to organize an alliance. Mussolini was enraged by the loss of Dolfuss, a leader of a loyal puppet state to Italy and also a personal friend, and blamed Hitler for the Austrian Nazis' actions. Within two years all the anti-Nazi rhetoric of the Italian Fascists ended and relations were generally restored in 1936 due to Germany being the only country to publicly support Italy's war with Ethiopia from 1935 to 1936 while the League of Nations condemned Italy, distrust remained over Hitler's independence from Mussolini's grasp. Three years after anti-Nazi Italian Fascist propaganda was made, in 1937 Mussolini was supporting Hitler by personally and publicly calling for Britain and France to return to Germany its former colonies that were seized by them in the Treaty of Versailles.--R-41 (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
would anyone object to me adding the above material to the article? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I did object as I clearly described above your recent post (22 September) and I still object. Your examples refer to the temporary anti-Nazi period of the Italian Fascist regime from 1934 to 1936 in response to the assassination of Engelbert Dollfuss. Before 1934 the Italian Fascists praised Hitler's rise to power and the Italian Fascist regime had financially subsidized the Nazi Party prior to its rise to power. From 1936 onward, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy's mutual relations were restored due to Hitler's support of Italy's invasion of Ethiopia. Furthermore, I am puzzled by you suggesting that the Nazis and Italian Fascists hated each other, forgive me for this sounding offensive, but considering the level of historical information out there, it is extremely naive to suggest that Nazis and Italian Fascists were complete enemies when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy fought a war on the same side (the Axis powers) and issued propaganda for years prior and during World War II of Fascist-Nazi solidarity - including pictures of fasces alongside swastikas and Hitler beside Mussolini - see here: [12] - all of these propaganda pictures of Fascist-Nazi solidarity are readily available through an image search on a search engine like Google. Mussolini spoke at the Nazi Party congress in Nuremberg in 1937 where he praised the Nazis while Hitler visited Mussolini in Italy in 1934 and 1938 - attending Fascist Party rallies, even wearing an honourary Fascist patch on his left-hand sleave that bore the fasces on a black triangle in his 1938 visit to Italy - you can even see this very "fasces on triangle" patch I am mentioning on the cover of the book you used, which also shows Hitler and Mussolini shaking hands in general comradery [13].--R-41 (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
R-41, which specific policy is the basis of your objection? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You are reading too much into a two year period of anti-Nazi rhetoric by the Italian Fascists from 1934 to 1936. It was a response of disgust and contempt by Mussolini towards Hitler for having assassinated Dollfuss, a loyal Austrian client leader to Italy and a personal friend of Mussolini. The information you have posted above that only involves the 1934 to 1936 rhetoric would make it seem that opposition to Nazism was complete and total by the Italian Fascists. This is not the case. As I said the Italian Fascists and Nazis after this period promoted close solidarity between them in propaganda.--R-41 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The rise of the Nazis

  • (hitler) strove to avoid being pinned down as a conventional right- or left-wing politician, observing that: the nationalist on the right lacked social awareness, the socialists on the left lacked national awareness. he sought a synthesis of the virtues of both poles while avoiding their vices...
  • Otto strasser and joseph goebbels interpreted stalinism as a russian form of national socialism and therefore postulated a german foreign policy conducted in alliance with, rather than against, the soviet union. p 60
  • the adjective socialist within the nsdap's title was meant sincerely, but only in irrevocable tandem with the adjective national. it was the socialism of a thwarted ruling people (herrenvolk)...p53
  • the right in general succeeded in assuming the mantle of the guardian of the collective national interest, while the national socialist were to add to this demands for societal reform so as to strengthen national cohesion. p20 Darkstar1st (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Again, you are taking Fischer's comments out of context. The para that contains the snippet "form of socialism" e.g. begins, "Virtually all aspects of National Socialist ideology either drew on precedent or mirrored aspects of contemporary German thinking and concerns". (p. 53) At the end of the chapter where Fischer has explained these influences, he refers to the influence of socialism. The Nazis copied the class consciousness of socialism, but applied it to the Herrenvolk rather than the "underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights". The same could be said about any right-wing populist group, such as the Tea Party Movement. In fact on page 38, he says that he sees the theory that "Nazism was a 'popular' movement" as "inherently attactive". TFD (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that Darkstar1st is taking comments out of context. Fischer really seems to think that Nazism was a form of socialism. Maybe we should ask for third opinion on some noticeboard? -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That is because in you world-view everything you disagree with is socialism. You would think that if Fischer believed it was a type of socialism then he would have explained why and probably would have given this observation more mention in a fifteen page section of Nazi ideology. At least one other writer would have picked up his supposed claim, whether to confirm or deny it. But it is just a turn of phrase. When you Google-mine for quotes to support your views you will find them. TFD (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"You would think that if Fischer believed it was a type of socialism then he would have explained why" - Which he did. What is unclear? Fisher isn't, he says that Nazism is a synthesis of nationalism and socialism (and he is right, even if with the rise of NSDAP the socialism got less and less space and hence became less of a synthesis). --OpenFuture (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you are reading too much into it. You probably think that by socialism he means the welfare state, which is what writers like Jonah Goldberg/Glenn Beck mean, but he is referring to the "socialism of the Herrenvolk". In other words, while socialism is the ideology that supports the working class, national socialism will support the authentic citizens. The name for that ideology is populism, which is what the modern American conservatives advocate. TFD (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't read anything into it, I just read it. What you read into it is irrelevant, as you are not a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to a widespread misconception, there is no policy against reading sources intelligently and actually understanding them based on a knowledge of their context. Policy does not require us to misrepresent sources by quote-mining them and interpreting them out of context. Hans Adler 07:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hans, please provide the additional context needed to correctly comprehend this passage from the book, the nationalist on the right lacked social awareness, the socialists on the left lacked national awareness. he sought a synthesis of the virtues of both poles while avoiding their vices. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
In this case it's actually not so much additional context as it is lack of inappropriate context what we need. You seem to be reading this in today's American context, in which anything approaching social responsibility is vilified as 'socialism'. I don't have to resort to examples such as Franklin D. Roosevelt to show that this is wrong: With such a reading you could paint even Otto von Bismarck as a socialist because of Otto von Bismarck#Paternalistic welfare state and in spite of Otto von Bismarck#Socialism. Hans Adler 09:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem with your view of "reading sources intelligently" is that opinion differs on what reading is "intelligent". Which is why we rely on sources. Neither you, TFD or Darkstar1st are reliable sources. How Darkstar1st interprets "socialism" is irrelevant for this article and the discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I now see that my post immediately above wasn't helpful, and likely wrong. I think the problem is really that there is a huge spectrum of definitions of 'socialism', and we must make it clear what we mean, regardless of the reader's cultural background. I maintain that my point about the widespread misconception is correct when applied to quote-mining and tealeaf-reading of sources by uninformed editors, but I withdraw any accusations that this is what has occurred here and that the principle is applicable here. Hans Adler 09:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading this discussion correctly, large majority of editors now supports inclusion of Fischer's views. Are there any suggestions on text that should be included once the article is unlocked? -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For a start I propose including something like "Historian Conan Fischer argues that the Nazis were sincere in their use of the adjective socialist, which the saw as inseparable from the adjective national, and meant it as a socialism of the master race, rather than the socialism of the "underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights."" in Ideological origins section. -- Vision Thing -- 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that the RfC vote now be closed, it has been up for a while with no recent activity and a large majority has supported one of the two options.

The RfC appears to be decided, no recent activity - including no new votes have been added for some time now. Also the result is a large majority in favour of the proposed RfC.--R-41 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable request to me. Does anyone have any objections? If not I will request closure by an admin. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
As the latest supporter, no problem; you may have other comments arising from RFCbot notifications (like mine) over the next day or so, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Scope of the Nazism article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC closed conssensus reached, discussion ended. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

There has been an ongoing dispute at Nazism over the term national socialism (both capitalized as National Socialism and in lower case). National Socialism is often used to refer to Nazism; the dispute is about uses of the term which predate Nazism, and whether or not they are related to it. Some editors feel that uses of national socialism by people such as Ferdinand Lassalle and Johann Karl Rodbertus should be included as forerunners of Nazism. Other editors feel that such uses are not related to Nazism, and argue that including them amounts to synthesis unless evidence can be found in reliable sources that they are related. This RfC is an attempt to resolve this issue of scope through wider community input.

This dispute has generated a large volume of discussion. For details, see the thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and my original list of issues under dispute. Of particular relevance is the post at the original research noticeboard, in which Hans Adler points out the distinction between the German terms nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus, both of which are translated as "national socialism" in English, but which are used in different contexts in German.

So, here is the statement I wish people to debate:

The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term national socialism that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany.

Please indicate Agree or Disagree in the appropriate section, along with your rationale. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree

  1. Agree, as proposer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. agree, the redirect of national socialism to nazism is confusing the actual meaning of national socialism. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. Agree, the vast majority of sources identify this term to the Nazis. There are many other articles about actual "Socialism" to add to if one wishes to explore a 'national socialism' ideology not linked to the fascists. Dave Dial (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. Agree. article risked getting overgrown with distracting asides about fringe uses of the phrase. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. Agree with the proposal. Things that are uncontroversially accepted to be significant precursors and influences to the Nazism of the NSDAP can still be included but we don't want to clog the article up with stuff that is not directly and demonstrably relevant to the subject of the article. (BTW, I disagree with Darkstar1sts comment above. The redirect is not confusing. 99%+ of people searching on "National Socialism" will be wanting to be redirected here. For the few who are interested in the other, much more obscure, uses of the term there is a nice prominent link to National Socialism (disambiguation) at the top of the article.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. Agree. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary - thus, a page should be about a topic, not about a word. 100% unrelated uses of the phrase "national socialism" do not belong in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. Agree Articles should be about topics, not about different uses of the same term. TFD (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  8. Agree. The term "National Socialism" almost always refers to Nazism in reputable sources and this article should focus on Nazism and not stray away into unrelated, and rare fringe "national socialisms". Those concerned about these other non-Nazi forms have the article National Socialism (disambiguation) to redirect them to those other forms.--R-41 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. Agree. There is a very great danger of reading too much into terminological coincidences. The term 'socialism' has been applied to a very wide variety of political beliefs, and at the time the NSDAP was formed it was a very fashionable political label attached to many new political movements across the political spectrum. 'National' is very much a generic term whose precise meaning in a political slogan must be examined individually. To give one manifestly coincidental example, there was a National Socialist Party in Britain formed in 1916; it was a breakaway from the British Socialist Party by those members who supported British participation in the Great War, and had no connection with the later German Party nor any sympathy with its mixture of economic fascism and racial nationalism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  10. Agree. I think an argument can be made to make National Socialism a disambiguation page, but variants of National Socialisms that are not directly linked by reliable secondary sources to Nazism should not be part of the Nazism article. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  11. Agree per the OP. --FormerIP (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  12. Agree I think all the valid reasons for agreeing have already been given. But lets keep to topic is a good one for me. Bjmullan (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  13. Agree with the proposed scope of this article, especially in light of Hans Adler's distinction between nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  14. Agree One of the assertions that will be sourceable, however, is that National Socialism was a established term, if not two terms, before NSDAP adopted it; this is worth saying, with a link to the disambiguation page. The sources for this may have other useful things to say about their range of meanings, and what the fledgling party meant by its name. This should, on one side of the link or the other, include a distinction as clear as the sources will support between nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Collect (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC) per comments made before, and the logical separation of the various topics into distinct article, rather than the current redirect situation which leads readers to believe that Nazism = National Socialism, and that other uses do not exist, or that the history of National Socialism is entirely the same as the history of Nazism.
  2. Unless of course National Socialism is no longer a redirect to here? If it continues as a redirect then all usage of the term needs to be included within this article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. My thoughts exactly. i should have qualified my earlier agree the same. nazi should be about the ideology of the nazi party, which already has 15+ articles dedicated to every detail. an entire article on the salute, yet we can't have a page on the ideology of socialism meant practiced within the border of one state? the argument is nazis used the name as a trick, fine, but the actual meaning of the term should not be buried because some did not correctly use the term. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    Darkstar1st, you risk misleading people if you claim to both "agree" and "disagree". Would you mind striking one of your comments using <s></s>? Also, if you choose to remain neutral you can strike both the comments. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    i am going to leave it the way it is for now, perhaps the rfc wording is confusing. if you only mention national socialism in the article as it relates to nazi, what to do with the material on national socialism not related to nazi? editors keep suggesting the disam, but there is no national socialism article there either? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    For "socialism practised within the borders of one state" (although I think that's a slightly confusing way of putting it), we have Left-wing nationalism. --FormerIP (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    An extraordinarily confusing way of putting it. There are reasons to consider Stalin a Nazi; but that he supported "socialism in one country" is not one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    then how would you define the national socialism that preceded the nazi party? the concept was to have socialism for germany, not try to unite the workers of the world, just the german people, hence national socialism, as opposed to international, or more commonly known as plain socialism. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    I wouldn't make any such definition. Naumann, Strasser, and Lassalle do not constitute any single thing; they shared two words. Least of all would I do so in conjunction with a definition of "socialism" which excludes Robert Owen, Beatrice Webb, and William Morris. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    There was not anything called "national socialism", it is just how the socialism of Lassalle or the "state socialism" of Bismarck or socialist parties organized on a national level were sometimes called, mostly in later writing. We have articles about the first two topics, and articles on socialism should explain how it was/is organized in different countries. TFD (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

As Darkstar1st points out, one issue that has confused this debate is that of the redirect National Socialism, which at the moment points to Nazism. Some editors have claimed that this means other uses of national socialism should be covered in this article, as National Socialism is not a stand-alone article. Others have claimed that this is merely a matter of disambiguation, and that the primary meaning of National Socialism is in the sense of Nazism; they claim that the other uses should be listed at National Socialism (disambiguation) rather than in the Nazism article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem can be that some people use "Nazism" as short for "National Socialism", while others use it only to specifically mean the policies and ideas of NSDAP excluding other national socialist parties and ideas (in some cases to the extent of equalizing it even with NSDAP policies during Hitler and excluding the early NDSAP ideology). So one question is if Nazism is the ideology NSDAP (and others) had, or if it is seen as the ideology unique for NSDAP. Since the term Nazism derives from NSDAP, while the term National Socialism does not, this is not a completely clear cut question, I think. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I iterate that there shuld be 4 articles as a minimum, and that "National Socialism" should not be a redirect to "Nazism" as being misleading to readers and directly implying that Nazism has exclusive rights to a concept and term antedating Hitler by quite a bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The question is if accepting this RfC will be a step in that direction or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
i agree with Collect national socialism should not be redirected, and agree with Mr Straivarius mostly, when someone thinks National Socialist, in caps, they mean Nazi, which could be redirected if such an article exist. There is no such term National Socialism, because it is an ideology, not a person likewise there is no such thing as a national socialist, since it is a person and required to be capitalized. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) About National Socialism - I still think that the question of whether it should redirect here or whether it should be its own article is a good one, and that it would be best addressed by a separate RfC. Shall we open up a simultaneous RfC on this question? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
example: Libertarian may refer to A proponent of libertarianism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there really significant disagreement to warrant an RfC? A hatnote is not sufficient to direct the two or three users who aren't looking for Nazism elsewhere? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is significant disagreement in the sense that we have had discussions on this before based on WP:DAB, and it hasn't seemed to satisfy the editors who want the status quo changed. National Socialism was re-redirected to Nazism in late August 2011, following discussion here, and it looks like some editors are still unhappy with the outcome there. An RfC would be a good way to judge consensus for the redirect, and would help counter the (in my opinion) misunderstanding that where National Socialism redirects has anything to do with the content of the Nazism article. You could be right that it would be overkill to have an RfC though, and bringing it to a noticeboard may be more efficient. It just depends what it will take to satisfy everyone, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Since the term "nazism" refers only to the NSDAP and related groups, it would be inherently POV to provide disambiguation links to non-nazi articles. And since the only mainstream use of the term "national socialism" is as a synonym for nazism, then "national socialism" should re-direct to nazism. There is about a 0 percent likelyhood that someone searching for national socialism is looking for something else. Example. If someone were searching for information about Socialist parties organized on a national level (Darkstar1st example from an article comparing Socialists in Imperial Germany and the United States operating at a national level), would they type in "national socialism"? TFD (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Um, when you say "disambiguation links", are you talking about the ones right at the top of the article that link to National Socialism (disambiguation) and Nazi (god)? Because those don't have to have anything to do with the subject of the article, they're just there to help readers who have landed at the Nazism article when they were really looking for something else. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
No those are fine. I mean incorporating the disambiguation page into this article. TFD (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

the capital N, small n could possibly fix this issue pre-rfc. capitalizing socialISM is an error, capitalizing SocialIST is not. we should remove the capital N article, and allowed the lower case n its own article, allow capital N ational SocialIST, to redirect here, and remove the lower case nat socialist article as it is referring to a person, therefore a proper noun. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nazism in Germany

How many Germans supported Nazism at its peak ? Has there been any research on this ? --Lysytalk 20:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There are figures for the 1933 elections and of course the Conservative Party and others also supported the chancellorship of Adolph Hitler, giving him an absolute majority. After he assumed power however no further elections were held and there were no opinion polls, so we cannot establish the degree of his support. Many of his opponents were killed or went into exile. TFD (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if social history has any answers to what happened between 1933 and 1945 in terms of popular support of Nazism. In 1933 the Nazis got most support in Prussia. Has it changed later ? The article does not mention anything about how widely Nazism was supported when it was most powerful. Maybe there is some research in German ? --Lysytalk 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, there would be no way to measure it. But certainly the Nazi Party was not the only supporter of the regime, otherwise it would not have come to power. TFD (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It's even hard to really tell how popular the Nazis actually were in 1933. The later 1933 election that gave the Nazis dominance in the Reichstag has poll booths with Nazi Stormtroopers overseeing the voting and attacking people known to oppose the Nazis - it was nowhere close to a free and fair election. Plus after gaining power, it was effectively expected by the regime that all German citizens support the Nazis, in historic Marxist-Leninist states everyone was a card-carrying Communist, so 100% of the population officially supported the party via membership - that they all truely supported communism is of course impossible, so in the case of Nazi Germany I would doubt the accuracy of any post-1933 membership counts of the party as reflecting actual support of the Nazis, but rather being social conformity to the demands of the totalitarian state.--R-41 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation" V Lenin

I would like to include some material from The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation" by V Lenin 1922, would this material be considered a reliable source? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No. See WP:RS and WP:OR. TFD (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
See WP:RS#Overview: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Since the source you provide is comments dictated by V.I. Lenin, there was no fact-checking. To use this source as evidence that the term "national socialist" was used to mean something else is original research, because it is a conclusion you are making (rightly or wrongly) based on your own research. TFD (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
check away: VI Lenin, 'The Question of Nationalities or “Autonomisation” (30 December 1922)', in Collected Works, vol. 36 Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966. i have made no claims to my intent, therefore OR would be impossible, rather i asked if the source was reliable. anyone else have an objection to including material from this source? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I really doubt that we could use that source in this article. For one thing, it is obviously a primary source, so there are restrictions that apply to it (see WP:PRIMARY). For another, I really can't see what relation Lenin might have with Nazism. If there is a connection, then you need to find a mention in a reliable third-party source. This is a very important editing principle that you need to understand; if you ignore it you are going to encounter a lot of friction. The business of using reliable sources to prove connections with Nazism is also remarkably similar to the topic of the recent RfC on this page, so I'm surprised that you didn't spot it. Also, next time, please specify the text that you want to include in the article, as well as the source. We can't make good judgements about sources unless we know the context of how you want to use them. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Lemme guess: Someone translated it into English with the words "National" and "Socialism" appearing in the same sentence. LOL. Jeez... Give it a rest, Darkstar1st. Wikipedia is not the place for revisionist OR. There is a scholarly consensus, and it disagrees with your weltanschauung. There are articles that have information that I disagree with on Wikipedia...but if the RS is there, then I have to abide. And so do you. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, if you believe that Progress Publishers should be used as an authoritative source, then you bring that up at a policy noticeboard. But I think you will find that most editors are not Stalinists and you might want to consider contributing to a Stalinist wiki. TFD (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, this article is about Nazism and Nazism alone, you know this because you participated in the RfC vote on the scope of the article that was passed with overwhelming approval that states: "The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term national socialism that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany.". Lenin's statement that you wish to include has nothing to do with the above mentioned RfC declaration on the scope of this article. Darkstar1st, you know what the RfC is and you should know that the topic you brought up is not about the RfC, you have no excuse for trying to push to have this material included in the article.--R-41 (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-fascist nationalist socialism

There have been several nationalist socialism, that predate or that otherwise have little or nothing to do with the National Socialist Party of Germany. For example, in the U.S. the Bellamy brothers promoted a Christian socialism centered, in secular form, around "The Nation".

Could we split that material off to an article with the title "Nationalist socialism"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, i will help add material. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) There is a rough consensus on this talk page that an article named "Nazism" must restrict itself to the specific German thing and closely related information, and cannot cover everything on the side that has at some point been called "national socialism". I am not convinced (yet?) that we need a separate article for everything of that kind. Some of these are just early forms of socialism that were not internationally oriented (and probably better covered differently, e.g. in a biographical article), and most of the others are very closely related to Nazism and already covered under other names. Encyclopedias are organised by concepts, not names. Hans Adler 22:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Hans Adler. There is no need for a separate article named "nationalist socialism" any more than there needs to be articles for "American socialism" or "German socialism." No scholarly sources have been presented supporting the idea of a unified concept of "nationalist socialism" outside of Nazism, so there should not be a Wikipedia page based on this original research. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
K.F., that goes against WP:DISAMBIG, BTW I never came across these writers described as ns. TFD (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
We had an RfC vote on the scope of the article that was passed with overwhelming approval that states: "The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term national socialism that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany.". So the answer is no, we cannot add material on "nationalist socialism" that is not directly related to Nazism in this article. There is the disambiguation page National Socialism (disambiguation) that refers to other uses of the term "national socialism".--R-41 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
"I pledge allegiance ... to the Nation and Looking Backward

My safe OR (by intention) was not OR by fact. See the standard usages revealed by searching Google for "Nationalist socialism", "Looking Backward"!

This (and similar) material does not belong here. Material non-fascist "nationalist socialism" should go in its own article, which should of course have disambiguation in the lede.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please clearly explain what you are recommending. What are we supposed to conclude from your Google search? TFD (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You stated that your were unaware of the use of "nationalist socialism/nationalist socialist" to describe e.g. the Bellamy brothers. I give you evidence of its established scholarly usage.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The first source in your Google search is a book about Horace Greeley published in 1915.[14] Please stop wasting other editors' time. TFD (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You claimed to have been ignorant, and so I gave you a citation. The wasting of editors' time was only my own, in AGF, I fear. Besides Busky, there exist other sources in the universe: Have you heard of Google Scholar?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:RS and WP:OR. If you believe that the world has ignored views that are so blindingly obvious to the non-ignorant then you owe the world to write down and publish your views and then, and only then, they will achieve the notablity required to be included here. TFD (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN, I am going to show in bold letters in a subtitle BELOW so that it is big letters, that no one can mistake or ignore, the decision that was voted in favour of by large majority of those users who votied in the RfC: The RfC says:

=== RfC: "The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term national socialism that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany." === - I've reformatted this heading — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC vote passed with a overwhelming majority with only three opposed, decided that this article is to be about Nazism - as in the ideology promoted by the Nazi Party. 99% of the time when scholars use the term "National Socialism", they are referring to the ideology of the Nazi Party. Do not add material about the small minority of cases of "nationalist socialism" that are not related to Nazism to this article. Go to National Socialism (disambiguation) for national socialisms that are unrelated to Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you reacting this way? I suggested that material on "nationalist socialism" go into a separate article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You do not need to use bold text and big letters to express your views. Do you think that when Americans pledge allegance to the flag that is ns? Curiously they once used the Roman salute.[15] TFD (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reformatted the subheadings to avoid them taking up too much real estate on the table of contents. There's no need to shout about this - reasoned discussion will actually get the job done better, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, R-41, the RfC purposefully didn't address the question of whether there should be a separate "national socialism" article, but only the content relating to uses of the term "national socialism" in the Nazism article itself. You will probably recall that I suggested having a parallel RfC on the question of whether National Socialism should redirect to Nazism or not, but there didn't seem to be much appetite for it. If I have my details straight, then the last discussion on the redirect took place at Talk:National Socialism in August, with sporadic mentions on the talk page here over the last few months. It does seem like the consensus at the moment is to keep the redirect, but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for more debate. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

KF's Google scholar search shows lots of sources that include the terms Bellamy, nationalist and socialist, but I do not see any that call Bellamy ns. The same logic would imply that because "Churchill" and "National Socialism" appear in many of the same books, that Churchill was a National Socialist. TFD (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
One of the first html links I gave has a source with discusses Bellamy as a founder of "nationalist socialism". (Anybody who has read a bit of Looking Backwards" remembers "The Nation" being central to the socialist utopia.) Material like that should go in a short expansion of the (limited) dab page, and then into a stub/start article, not here, per consensus.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
None of the links you provided, to Wikipedia articles and google searches, count as sources, and do not expect us to search through them to find whatever you happen to believe supports your views, If you have a source, then provide it. Otherwise please stop wasting my time. TFD (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

rfc wording for the redirect of National Socialism

please do not move or alter this heading. It has been decided an rfc concerning the redirect will proceed. only comment on the suggested wording of the rfc, discussion about the necessity of said rfc will be moved elsewhere. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolution/Haeckel/Etc.

I just noticed the section on science making it look like the Nazis were in "love" with Darwin, Evolution, and Haeckel...but it's my understanding that all books on Evolution, and specifically those written by Haeckel...were forbidden by the Nazi regime? Specifically, I see the following as being banned:

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel)." [16]

Now, the book used as the citation for all of the statements connecting the Nazis to Haeckel and Evolution is "Evolution: the history of an idea," by Peter J. Bowler. It's available in its entirety on Google Books. [17] Of the pages cited for the article (304-305), I only see one reference to the Nazis. It is this sentence:

"If the Nazi's subsequent denigration of other races had any grounding in biological theory, it was in Haeckel's idealist version of Lamarckism as well as his Darwinism."

This sentence certainly does not seem to back up the statements in the article for which it is being used as a citation. Any other comments? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find the citation in Google books when I removed an even more transparent and ridiculous From Darwin to Hitler jab earlier today. I'm glad you found it. If what you say about the source is right, then it doesn't support a mention of Darwin, Lamarck, or Haeckel. causa sui (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I originally wrote that section. I never intended to make the assertion of the From Darwin to Hitler. Nor did any of the material included claim that the Nazis' use of those biologists' works and discoveries constituted an accurate rendition of their works. Nazis were divided on issues of science and religion, Hitler himself sought an outlook involving science mixed with spirituality (his spirituality itself an irrational contradictory mix of references to his concept of Positive Christianity, mentioning of the Roman Goddess of Justice in Mein Kampf, support of Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate's condemnation of Christians - though not Jesus - in particular Saint Paul's interpretation of Jesus (at least in or by 1941 in Hitler's book Table Talk), admiration of State Shinto in Japan, and occult and paranormal ideas). But the Nazis' racial theorists commonly exploited themes by biologists to justify their pseudoscientific claims of racial supremacy of the Aryan race. I fully acknowledge that Nazi interpretation of Darwin along with other of the misnamed social Darwinists, were based upon Herbert Spencer's claim of "survival of the fittest" - an inaccurate interpretation of Darwin's claim that those individual animals or species best adapted to their natural environment would survive - Darwin never claimed that this meant innate superiority of one individual or group over another, but Nazis and other social Darwinists commonly interpreted it in this inaccurate way. I disagree with the current layout of the ideological origins section that I did not create, as "science" did not directly influence Nazism it was their interpretation of science that did.--R-41 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

introduction

In general, the article about national socialism is badly written. I don't know what others think but the last paragraph of the introduction ought to be deleted entirely as it is repeated only a few sentences later. I am going to delete this paragraph again because it adds absolutely nothing to the article. I will contact an administrator if the problem of deleting this paragraph persists. The article has already been flagged as one that possibly needs to be rewritten entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Could someone please take a look at National Socialism (disambiguation) and National Socialist Movement for me? I made a couple of technical edits to bring them into conformance with WP:INTDABLINK ("creating [disambiguation] links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article.) and MOS:DABRL ("A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link.") but I have very little knowledge about the actual subject, so could someone familiar with the topic please check to see that the links themselves are correct? Also, please check the recent history and confirm that the deletions by another editor were correct. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a followup, an editor at Talk:National Socialism (disambiguation) has some questions about some of the links. I answered the portion of his questions that deal with how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but I have no idea whether or not the content changes he is advocating are correct. If someone who actually understands the topic could pop over there and help him, I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the intro in past tense? Is it denying that there are Nazi movements today?

I don't understand the past tense in the intro. It was put there a while ago and it has remained. There are Nazi movements today that are just as committed to Adolf Hitler's agenda as the Nazis of the 1920s to 1940s. It seems to be denying that Nazi ideology does or can exist today.--R-41 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nazism refers to the historical movement that ended in 1945. Holdovers and people who want to return to it are called "neo-nazis". Most Nazis either left politics or moved to more mainstream parties. TFD (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:NordischNordic.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NordischNordic.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nazism's position on democracy as whole can be addressed at Talk:Fascism

There is a dispute as to whether fascism wholly rejected democracy or that it opposed conventional democracy - a majority rule representative democracy while claiming to support an authoritarian democracy. The discussion is at Talk:Fascism, it is already a bit heated, so be aware of what you are getting into.--R-41 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm not sure about the etymology. My understanding is they were originally called Nazi-Sozi, on the pattern of the Social Democrats who were called Sozi, and that Sozi was later dropped. The nickname "Nazi" from Ignatz might have influenced this, but the mere existence of the previously existing nickname for South German/bumpkins isn't sufficient evidence of a play on words.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There needs to be a mention of the fact that the first two syllables of "Nationalsozialist" is pronounced in German like "Nazi." [18] While the "Ignatz" thing might have had some influence, my understanding has always been that it's from the German pronunciation, particularly when one considers the fact that the "Nationalist" part was the primary defining characteristic of Nazism, in contrast to the "Sozis" and others. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sources widely claim that the term "Nazi" is related to the use of the "Sozi" short form for the German Social Democratic Party connotation rather than based on "Ignatz".--R-41 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have always interpreted this as coming from "NAtionalsoZIalismus", but that's just based on my own personal impression as a native speaker of German, not on any explicit information I ever received anywhere. It's slightly weird, but the parallelism with the (apparently earlier) word "Sozi" makes it completely logical (via "National-Sozi"). The claim here that this new meaning took over an older word with negative connotations, though I have never heard of it before, seems absolutely plausible and is consistent with the derivation. Hans Adler 09:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's perplexing to understand why the Hebraic origins of this term are not noted. The word: "Nazi" is clearly Hebraic in origin, and is said by some to translate as: "German", although I doubt this is entirely true. It is clearly related to the word: Ashkenazi, who were said to be "German Jews", thus the translation of Nazi, by some, to mean German. However, the Ashkenazi Jews were/are Europeon Jews of historically recent conversion, and are in no way ethnically related to the Jews of biblical antiquity.

The term in Hebrew is closely related to: "Nozeri", which was a derogatory term used in the Talmud and the Midrash to denote the early Christians. In this usage Nozeri was also directly related the term Nazarenes. Considering this, the term Nazi was probably a derogatory term created and used by the Jewish community to denote the German Gentiles in the same manner as was used to denote the early Christians. It is helpful to note in research of this term that in vintage translation the Z and the S were interchangable.(nosi, nasi) I believe the term shares a common usage with the term Goy,(Goyim in plural), which essentially means non-Jew. In this sense the inclusion of the root in the name Ashkenazi would make some sense in that these Europeon Jews are not to be considered natural Jews. However, I understand that this would be considered independant research and ineligible for inclusion in a Wiki article. With this said, however, I do believe that, at minimum, the Hebraic origins merit notation in the article. Manson 23:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

Well, that's an interesting and inventive use of the word "clearly". ;-)
Seriously though, if you have any respectable sources to back up that stuff feel free to suggest them. Just be aware that different words in different languages frequently share some of the same consonants without being connected so it will take rather more than somebody pointing out "But it has an N and a Z in it, it must be connected!" to persuade us that there is an Hebraic connection to the term at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You are correct that this "would be considered independant (sic) research and ineligible for inclusion in a Wiki article". Your comments are therefore wasting other editors' time and are disruptive. TFD (talk)

Manson48 is clearly an anti-Semite—just look at the racist nonsense on his user page. He also repeats the racist lies that Ashkenazim are somehow not descended from Israelites. I strongly suspect he is a Nation of Islam adherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudariseasd (talk • contribs) 01:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite the claptrap above, there is no Hebrew etymological connection between "Nazi" and "Ashkenazi". In Hebrew, these words are not written in Roman characters, but in Hebrew, and are spelt and pronounced differently: נאצי with a Tsade is pronounced "Natsi", while אשקנזי with a Zayin is pronounced "Ashkenazi". The fact that both of these are commonly transcribed into English using the letter Z reflects a shortconming of English orthography, not the reality of Hebrew etymology. RolandR (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with RolandR. Most of this material about the supposed etymology of the word Nazi, like "Ignatius" and a link with "Ashkenazi", is rank speculation and in my opinion completely inaccurate.

Like Hans Adler, I had the strange mental assumption that Nazi comes from NAtional-SoZIalismus. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with Jack Upland about Nazi-Sozi, with the Sozi being dropped in common usage because it's cumbersome. Nazi is a quick and dirty verbal abbreviation of the word "National," which in German is pronounced "Natsional," or "Nazional." The German written letter "z" is pronounced like the letters "ts" in English. In German, the written word National, when spoken, sounds exactly the same as "Nazional." (4 syllables: Na zi o nal) The German word Sozial sounds exactly like it is written, if you use the English "z" that is in the word Nazi (3 syllables: So zi al).

"Nazi" is a German verbal abbreviation for "National," and "Sozi" is an abbreviation for "Sozial," which means "Social." The National Socialists (the German National-Sozialismus is the English National Socialism) were "Nazis", and the Socialists were "Sozis." Just think "Commies" for Communists. Nowadays the "Sozis" are the members of the Social Democratic Party, the SDP. But back in the first part of the 20th Century, there were Socialists (Sozialisten or Sozis), Communists (Kommunisten), Marxists (Marxisten), National Socialists (National-Sozialisten or Nazis), and so on. They began as ideologies, then crystallized into political parties. In the 1970s, in post-war Germany, the big political parties consisted of the Free Democrats (FDP), the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Social Democrats (SDP), and so on. I even saw a demonstration of the Communist Party in downtown Frankfurt when I was a youngster, complete with riot police and water cannon, so they were still alive as late as the 1970s. The anarchists were around too, it was the era of the Baader-Meinhof gang, which were constantly in the news when I was growing up. Rolandrlj (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Both http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Nazi and even Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi implore that it's an abbreviation of Nationalsozialist. Finbob83 (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mark Forsyth does not seem to be a qualified degreed scholar or historian - just a guy with a hobby that runs a blog. Therefore, his book does not qualify as a Reliable Source, and the note citing The Telegraph from which the info comes from is not a valid reference. I'll wait 48 hours before changing it to hear arguments to the contrary, then use two scholarly works to identify the roots of the term "Nazi." HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As someone with a life-long interest in this subject and an extensive knowledge of the serious relevant literature from decades of continuous formal and informal study, I am absolutely shocked by the nonsense appearing on the page and in this discussion regarding the etymology of the term 'Nazi'. To avoid Wikipedia becoming a laughing-stock, I would suggest that the paragraph dealing with this be immediately deleted. The native speakers who have suggested that it is no more than an abbreviation of NAtionalsoZIalist are of course correct, and there is no more to it than that. Kim Traynor 01:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Close...but as I've noted previously, in German, the first 2 syllables of "Nationalsozialist" are pronounced as "Naht-Zee," just as the first two syllables of "Sozialist" are pronounced as "Soht-Zee." The idea that they are bringing the "Zee" from way down in the word "Sozialist" is peculiar and erroneous. These are really no different from how sometimes in the US, the major 2 parties are referred to as "Dems" and "Reps." But the other crazy theories are just that: Theories. (And OR) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I have not been following this page, but after reading the section in question, I agree it needed to be re-written due to very dubious claims. Nazi is an acronym, no more than that. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The word "acronym" is incorrect, for if "Nazi" were such, it would need to be written as "NaZi," or "N.A.Z.I." if it were a true "acronym." Just say the word "Nationalsozialist" out loud in German. This really is an "Occam's Razor" issue. Why on Earth would someone create such a ponderous and absurd acronym, when "Naso" would be more applicable? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever that the "Zi" comes from the middle of the word "Sozialist." (And yes, I speak German fluently.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. "acronym": a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words; and it can be words such as radar and laser. But really there is no reason to beat this horse. Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised this isn't easily settled by an appeal to a reliable source. Oh, it is, I think: the Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache ("Etymological dictionary of the German language") (2002) supports the Ignatz story -- not as the source of the word, but as the reason it became popular for the followers of the movement. One should think that the standard reference work for the history of the German language would be definitive here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
And for the record, it doesn't explicitly state it, but it seems to also back up the German pronunciation thing I've posted about, which is explicitly given as the etymology on the Wiktionary page. The "Nati" in "Nationalsozialist" is pronounced like "Naht-Zee" in German. I think a lot of the NAtionalsoZIalist "theory" is intended to highlight the "sozialist" part of the word...to make a POV point. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Jpgordon cannot be serious in suggesting that the followers of National Socialism wanted to style themselves as "backwoods Bavarian bumpkins". And as for the creation of the acronym from separate syllables, this has a long tradition in Germany, witness Stasi from STAatsSIcherheit in the GDR. Kim Traynor 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you inadvertently gave another example. If you say the word "Staatssicherheit" out loud in German, you will notice that the first two syllables are "Staht-See." Click on the blue arrow here to hear it spoken by a native speaker: [19]. Also, go here and scroll to the bottom to hear a native German speaker say "National." [20] Just listen to the German. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You're misreading me, Kim, but I guess I was ambiguous. "The reason it became popular for referring to followers of the movement" would have been more clear. I don't have the etymological dictionary at hand; otherwise I'd just quote it directly. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You know...I hadn't thought of it until just now, but maybe the "Ignatz" thing was a precursor to the "Teabagger" controversy that occurred a couple years ago in the USA, where members of the Tea Party called themselves that, or variations of it, even though it had a completely different slang connotation. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Trust me to give Bryon an example that failed to persuade! (They didn't say Statsi, did they?) Can we try another? The Nationalpolitische Lehranstalt was abbreviated to Napola. Here you can see, especially from the final 'a', that such acronyms can be created quite randomly as long as the constituent letters are in the right sequence. Kim Traynor 13:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kim for my and his reasons stated above. It also seems the discussion is heading into speculation at this point, Bryon. One thing is for sure the article needs ce and clean up work, outside of this issue herein. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


I'm always learnt nazi = national socialism. I don't know if I helped you...--Bobybarman34 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Luther's influence

I imagine someone coming to this page without any prior knowledge of the subject, and conclude that its information on Martin Luther is seriously misleading. Luther’s influence is greatly overstated. It almost seems as if the section Church and State has been written from a Catholic point of view (why does it suddenly jump from discussion of Nazi attitudes to religion to Bormann’s view of the role of priests in wartime Occupied Poland?). If one were to undertake a survey of the Nazi elite and, in particular, its concentration camp management, one would find that Bavarian and Austrian anti-Semites from the Catholic ‘Jewish deicide’ tradition, not the Lutheran, were heavily over-represented. Since Shirer’s ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’, there has always been a ‘Luther to Hitler’ school of history which has regarded the 16th-century Protestant reformer as a direct anti-Semitic precursor of the Nazi leader. Not without reason. It seems obvious that Luther’s anti-Semitic rant in his old age must have had some sort of a legacy, but I wouldn’t think it possible to measure its extent. Lucy Dawidowicz in her ‘The War Against The Jews’, thought that Luther had influenced modern anti-Semitism, and I wouldn’t argue with her statement that it is easy to draw a line between the two. However, intellectual history is by its nature highly conjectural and I would need to be convinced that Luther’s tirade against the Jews had been in some way institutionalised rather than just another example of the pan-European Christian rejection of Jewish integration down the centuries. Many commentators agree that Lutheranism may be responsible for an attitude of servility among German Protestants towards political authority in the past, but whether modern anti-Semitism can be directly attributed to religious (i.e. not racial) outpourings in the 16th century is less certain. Modern anti-Semitism, post-1789, had its roots in the 19th century as Jews became increasingly identified with capitalism (and later Socialism and Communism). Of course, that clearly built on the legacy of medieval anti-Semitism, but racial anti-Semitism was essentially a modern phenomenon created by new beliefs from the biological sciences. Nazis like Hitler and Streicher, and Lutherans like Sasse, revived Luther’s anti-Semitism in order to legitimate their own anti-Semitism historically by linking it to that of the past and resurrect or fortify the old prejudices. And in the period of the War of Liberation against Napoleon there was clearly a link between the notion of being a ‘German (Lutheran) Christian’ and not being a Jew, which implanted the widespread belief that Jews could not be part of German-Christian society. However, Professor MacCulloch’s idea that Luther’s call in the 16th century for the Jews to be driven out of their synagogues and banished was a blueprint for Kristallnacht strikes me as nothing short of ludicrous – as if historical circumstances four centuries apart have no weight. It is a churchman’s exaggerated view of the importance of intellectual history which I believe few serious historians would entertain. Not even Daniel Goldhagen went that far. Luther’s anti-Semitism was not ‘eliminationist’. Luther wrote, “What good can we do the Jews when we constrain them, malign them, and hate them as dogs? When we deny them work and force them to usury, how can that help? We should use towards the Jews not the pope’s but Christ’s law of love. If some are stiff-necked, what does that matter? We are not all good Christians.” The Church and State section of this article should be re-written by someone who is more competent in the subject. In the meantime, anyone wishing to explore the roots of modern anti-Semitism should consult Peter Pulzer’s ‘The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria’, London 1988. Kim Traynor (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A footnote quotes an article by Johannes Wallmann in the Lutheran Quarterly (1987) saying, "The assertion that Luther's expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment have been of major and persistent influence in the centuries after the Reformation, and that there exists a continuity between Protestant anti-Judaism and modern racially oriented anti-Semitism, is at present wide-spread in the literature; since the Second World War it has understandably become the prevailing opinion." Do you have any sources that question this statement about prevailing opinion? TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Problems: 1. The Roman Catholic Church pre-Luther was anti-Semitic, and 2. The base of the Nazi movement was in the Roman Catholic areas of Germany. Cites for both statements are available if you doubt them. Note also the ongoing concerns in the Jewish community about Pius XII and his apparent acceptance of anti-Semitism, John Cornwell, a historian of religious affairs, cites secret Vatican files, depositions and the pope's own files to support his conclusions in "Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII." is clear on this, and does not blame Luther for Pius XII's actions. Also A LONG HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM, The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), July 4, 2005 contains: However, when Protestantism arose out of Catholicism; the one thing it did not reject from the parent religion was its anti-Semitism. Together, they tilled the soil for centuries in which the seeds of the Holocaust took root. It was no accident, nor an aberration of history, that the genocidal ideas and finally the actions of Hitler had so much cooperation throughout Europe. which is substantially contrary to the cite you use. Also consider New Testament's anti-Semitism not Holocaust trigger: Historians ponder Nazi genocide.(A), The Washington Times (Washington, DC), September 20, 1998 | Witham, Larry which has: Generations of negative Christian attitudes toward Jews set the stage, they said, but the Nazi program to eliminate Jews was "unpredictable" and driven by statism, eugenics, racism and rivalry with Jews in the German middle class. And further Martin Luther and German anti-Semitism: Graham Noble illustrates Luther's anti-Jewish views and distinguishes them from those of the Nazis. (The Unpredictable Past), History Review, March 1, 2002 | Noble, Graham contains: In early modern Europe, anti-Semitism was widespread. Jews were burned at the stake for a variety of imagined crimes, including the desecration of churches, infanticide and ritual castration. They were blamed for spreading plague and poisoning wells and were commonly reviled as lazy parasites. Frederick's policy in Saxony was part of a series of similar banishments, including Ferdinand's and Isabella's expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which drove them further and further east in search of new homes. The intolerance of the medieval Christian Church had formed an unholy alliance with secular anti-Semites. Those who saw the Jews as heretics and Christ-killers found ready support amongst others who were suspicious of these curious, self-contained outsiders, whose speech and dress appeared so odd, and whose success in business was so enviable. All of which is somewhat in countervention to your assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Luther influenced German anti-Semitism. I am not disputing that. I am saying that this article is skewed wrongly in implying that his anti-Semitism was the basis of Nazi anti-Semitism. I agree with Wallmann if he says that Luther is not directly relevant to anti-Semitism in the 18th and 19th centuries (I assume he argued against 'the prevailing opinion'). Re Collect’s comment: I don’t doubt your first two statements as you suggest. They agree with what I was saying, that Nazi anti-Semitism is more a South German-Austrian phenomenon. The Lutheran anti-Semitic tradition of North Germany provided it with fertile ground on which to play on latent and blatant prejudices. I feel no disagreement with your following statements, but don’t see why you think they countervene my statement (or are you referring to the comment by The Four Deuces?). I quoted Luther to show his anti-Semitism was not ‘eliminationist’, as was later racial anti-Semitism. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The TFD's quote tells about "continuity" between between Protestant anti-Judaism and modern racially oriented anti-Semitism. This is much softer statement than the thesis that Lutheran anti-Semitism was the basis of anti-Semitism. Therefore, I don't see any contradiction here. The only questionable thesis is the idea that, since Roman Catholicism was also anti-Semitic, we cannot draw connection between Luther and Nazism. I see no logic here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
And I suppose you can tell me why Luther has such an influence on the Roman Catholic areas of Germany? In fact, where the Nazi base was? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost. Dear Collect, who do you mean when you say 'you'? I couldn't work out from your first comment whether you were referring to my contribution or that of The Four Deuces'. Does your latest 'you' refer to Paul Siebert? I take it we agree that the Catholic anti-Semitic tradition is more relevant to understanding Nazi anti-Semitism than Luther's? Kim Traynor (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
My first comments were about TFD's poorly chosen "claims." The last one just above was with regard to Paul's statement that we cannot connect Luther and Nazism - which seems an odd comment since the primary base was in quite non-Lutheran areas of Germany <g>. I trust you noted the sources I provided above (in agreement with you) - that the Catholic basis for anti-Semitism seems quite important, contrary to TFD's assertions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I would ask Paul Siebert why it is that the article stresses the Luther link to Nazi anti-Semitism, but ignores the long Catholic tradition of the same which is more relevant in the biographies of leading Nazis and SS personnel, such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Hans Frank, Rudolf Höss, Franz Stangl, Otto Globocnik, Amon Goeth, Josef Mengele etc.? Schleicher came from the Protestant tradition, which is why he would seize on Luther as providing an historical pedigree for his extreme views. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Collect for the clarification. I thought initially that you were addressing me in your comments, but came to realise that we were saying the same thing. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Collect, whether you lack basic reading comprehension or are being deliberately obtuse, your continued misrepresentation of other editors' statements is very annoying and a disservice to other editors. Please stop per WP:DE, and contribute in a more positive fashion. TFD (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
WOW! Talk aboout attacking editors! You specifically cited a source as "prevailing opinion" that Luther was the one who is behind modern anti-Semitism (to be precise:
The assertion that Luther's expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment have been of major and persistent influence in the centuries after the Reformation, and that there exists a continuity between Protestant anti-Judaism and modern racially oriented anti-Semitism, is at present wide-spread in the literature; since the Second World War it has understandably become the prevailing opinion
with your exact comment : Do you have any sources that question this statement about prevailing opinion?
I provided substantial sources (note Paul's and Kim's comments thereon) which clearly countered your assertion about prevailing opinion and your response is to accuse me of being obtuse? That my response misrepresented your clear post? Do you really wanna go to AN/I on this sort of continued attack, TFD? Please retract all of those attacks you pepper this page with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I didn't write that we cannot connect Luther with Nazism. I wrote that if there is a connection between Catholicism and Nazism, that does not exclude a possibility of similar connection between Luther and Nazism. Those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
Regarding the linkage between Lutheran Christians and Nazism, I found the following.

  1. Although Catholics actively participated in early Nazi movement in Bavaria, after early 1924 it became increasingly difficult to reconcile Catholicism with participation in Nazi movement (Source: Derek Hastings. How "Catholic" Was the Early Nazi Movement? Religion, Race, and Culture in Munich, 1919-1924 Central European History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (2003), pp. 383-433. )
  2. Catholic areas tended, even before the Nazis' first national electoral breakthrough in 1930, to be considerably less susceptible to the Nazi appeal than were Protestant regions. (Sources: Hastings, op. citJiirgen Falter, Hitlers W'dhler (Munich, 1991), esp. 169-93. But see also Richard Hamilton, Who Votedfor Hitler? (Princeton, 1982), 38-43, 382-85; Thomas Childers, The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1933 (Chapel Hill, 1983), 112-18, 188-91, 258-61.)
  3. Works by Luther are among the most anti-Semitic documents ever composed, rivalling in many instances the worst of the literature which came out of Nazi Germany.(Source: John T. Pawlikowski. Martin Luther and Judaism: Paths Towards Theological Reconciliation. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 681-693
  4. "...adherents of the pro-Nazi, Protestant movement known as the "German Christians" (Deutsche Christen) proudly cited Luther as a precursor of their hatred toward Jews and Judaism. They quoted his essay, "Against the Jews and Their Lies," and presented him as a champion of antisemitism.12 Any Catholics aware of the sharpness of Luther's language against their own religious institutions would be unlikely to accept his antagonism toward Jews as their model." (Source: Doris L. Bergen. Catholics, Protestants, and Christian Antisemitism in Nazi Germany. Central European History, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1994), pp. 329-348)
  5. Interestingly, both Catholics and Lutherans played Jewish card to fight each other: the latter declared that Catholics, like Jews are internationalists, whereas Lutherans themselves are true Germans; in response, Catholics declared that Lutheran anti-Catholicism was inspired by Jews... (Bergen. Op. Cit.)

I found plenty of other sources, but I haven't read them all yet. If you find my above arguments not fully convincing, I believe I can provide more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me Paul that you may be engaging in OR synthesis. I'm sure I could find sources that suggest paganism, atheism or darwinism played a significant role too. However, is it mere coincidence that Catholic Spain and Italy were fascist during that period, while protestant Britain, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark remained democratic? --Nug (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. In connection to that, could you Martin please explain me for which of the above statement no no reliable, published sources exist? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologise, I meant synthesis, as you appear to using several sources each contributing an idea and synthesising it into a notion that Lutheranism was of similar importance as Catholicism in shaping the world view of the Nazis. Or have I misunderstood your argument? --Nug (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't claim that Lutheranism was of similar importance as Catholicism in shaping the world view of the Nazis. My point was that the evidences provided on this talk page do not allow us to speak that Catholicism was equally or more important. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Paul, I think German Catholic resistance to the Nazis in terms of support for the party and voting in elections is well known, but that's not the point at issue here. I recognise Luther's significant part in the history of anti-Semitism, but would argue that it is more valid for the North German states, especially Bismarck's Prussia, than the Nazi movement which originated in Bavaria and incorporated the Austrian-German nationalist tradition, with its long history of virulent anti-Semitism, into the Reich. The article does not reflect this. I was also arguing that it is dubious to maintain that Luther's pronouncement on the Jews in the 16th century explains Nazi actions on Kristallnacht in the 20th century, even though it's easy to draw a direct line between the anti-Semitism of both. There may be a continuity, but I would argue that modern anti-Semitism simply drew upon Luther to give itself a historical and 'intellectual' legitimacy. The Nazis were masters of this method. It's the old chicken and egg argument, isn't it? Did Hitler think as he did because of Richard Wagner's influence, or did he worship Wagner because he thought like Wagner? Which would you choose as the more historical approach for explaining the connection? The compromise is of course to accept both as valid. But, equally so? In the case of Luther, four centuries before Hitler, I'd suggest the traffic is more one-way, backwards in time rather than forwards as the article implies. We're having an interesting scholarly disputation, but the point is, will someone change the Church and State section of this article? I don't think I'm competent to do so, but I recognise the need. I have seen Nazi ideology likened many times to a religion, but this article states that Hitler expanded his views into a religious doctrine. Where's the evidence for that? I take it that the mention of 'Hitlerian theology' is a reference to German Lutheran churches supporting or accommodating Nazism. I've never thought of Hitler as a theologian before, so this is breaking new ground for me. Kim Traynor (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this subject, but upon reading some sources I can conclude the following:
  1. Initially (before 1923) Nazi party grew on primarily Catholic sole.
  2. After 1924 the tension started to grow between Catholocosm and Nazi movement.
  3. Germany was mostly a Lutheran country, and Nazism got more support in Lutheran regions than in Catholic ones.
  4. Lutheran Nazi cited Luther as an ideological father of Nazism.
  5. Nazism was, by and large, a secular movement, and its anti-Christian nature became more prominent with time.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Lots of assertions. I can not verify that Lutherans were more apt to be Nazis or vote for Nazis than were Catholics. There were, however, significantly more Roman Catholics than Lutherans in Germany, so point 3 is errant. Collect (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The lack of your ability to do something is not an argument. The sources provided by me #2 demonstrate the Catholics were less susceptible Nazi appeals that the Lutherans (which automatically means that the Lutherans were more susceptible). And, please, do not mix current demographic data with 1920s situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Try to note that Lutherans counted all Germans in some areas - as they were a "state church" and your count is like counting all Englishmen as CofE. And note also the strong anti-Semitism in France (not very Lutheran) and in Poland (also not very Lutheran). The simple fact is that the European anti-Semitism antedated Luther, and, in fact, he was more "moderate" in his words than other Catholic groups were. As for the 1933 election see [21] and show me where all the Nazi losses in Catholic areas were <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Lots of assertions. I can not verify that Lutherans were more apt to be Nazis or vote for Nazis than were Catholics. There were, however, significantly more practicing Roman Catholics than practicing Lutherans in Germany, so point 3 is errant. Collect (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) 1928 elections: The Social Democratic Party (SDP) won the election in Germany in 1928 with 29,8 per cent of the votes. The party had its power base in Northern and central Germany, mostly populated with Lutheran Christians. In the Catholic west and south, the voters chose the Bayerische Volkspartei (BVP) or the Centrum Party. Neither Lutherans nor Catholics voted for the Nazis in 1928. In 1933, Munich (heavily Catholic) was a Nazi stronghold with 43% of the vote. [22]. There are no stats on religious breakdown of the vote. Hope this corrects any misapprehensions. Collect (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion is now barking up the wrong tree. Studies of why voters voted Nazi show that other factors were more important than religious affiliation. For example, the Nazi vote in elections on their way to power was strongest in border areas affected by the Versailles Treaty; so Protestant East Prussia was solidly Nazi, but so was Catholic Silesia. I expect unemployment was a similarly decisive factor, affecting the big industrial (i.e. predominantly Lutheran, north German) cities more than the more agricultural South. Hitler didn't make big public speeches about anti-Jewish measures to capture votes; he made anti-Versailles and regeneration of Germany speeches, leaving others to do the occasional 'Jew-baiting' in public (notably Goebbels; Streicher was a party animal preaching more to the converted). Fear of Communism was another of his main themes and that would have appealed to both the Protestant and the Catholic middle classes. I think it's wrong to assume that Germans voted for anti-Semitism. That was part of the overall package that came gradually more into play after the Nazis were in power. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Let's not forget that one of the key ideologues of the Nazi movement was the Baltic German Alfred Rosenberg and being a true anti-semite he rejected both Catholic or Lutheran beliefs and tenets as tainted by Jews. Goebbels held a dim view of Luther stating: "Luther does not give us much today. He did not measure up to the highest standard … Catholicism and Protestantism are both rotten. Luther was the first religious liberal". So while Luther has his supporters and detractors within the Nazi movement, all held Jesus to be the "slim, tall, blond" aryan saviour of the Germanic people, surely we do not write about the influence of Jesus on the Nazi party do we? The Nazis hijacked many historical figures like Luther and symbols like the swastika to package and sell their ideology to the people. --Nug (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Precisely! Kim Traynor (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
As I already wrote, I agree that Nazism was, by and large, a secular ideology (with some elements of paganism). I also think that we should separate two issues: (i) the relative role of Lutheran and Catholic ideology in formation of Nazism, and (ii) relative contribution of the Lutherans and the Catholics into Nazi movement. These two things are not necessarily interconnected. Therefore, I think we need to return to discussion of what concrete theses should be added to / removed from the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I think at issue here is the influence of Martin Luther himself, rather than the two issues you identified, that is subject of the current scholarly debate. A well sourced summary of this scholar's debate over what influence, if any, Luther's personal views had on the Nazis is contained in the article on him, which I will quote for convenience:
"At the heart of scholars' debate about Luther's influence is whether it is anachronistic to view his work as a precursor of the racial antisemitism of the National Socialists. Some scholars see Luther's influence as limited, and the Nazis' use of his work as opportunistic. Biographer Martin Brecht points out that "There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and a racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the 'church fathers' of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer."[221] Johannes Wallmann argues that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that there was no continuity between Luther's thought and Nazi ideology.[222] Uwe Siemon-Netto agreed, arguing that it was because the Nazis were already anti-Semites that they revived Luther's work.[223][224] Hans J. Hillerbrand agreed that to focus on Luther was to adopt an essentially ahistorical perspective of Nazi antisemitism that ignored other contributory factors in German history.[225] "
I might add that Martin Luther was raised and educated as a Catholic, to what degree this early exposure to Catholic thought influenced his anti-semitic views in his twilight years will probably be never known. But I am inclined to think the Nazis were already anti-Semites who later opportunistically revived Luther's anti-semitic writings to give a veneer of religious authority to their genocidal policies. As the party originated in Catholic Bavaria I don't think those original party members of Catholic background would have been aware of Luther's writings in detail. Recall that the Nazis adopted the title "National Socialist Workers Party" to appeal to the German working class, so why not adopt Martin Luther in an attempt to appeal to German Christians? --Nug (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
All good points being made. Would one of you two gentlemen be brave enough to have a go at rewriting the section? Kim Traynor (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I still cannot understand what concrete changes do you propose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) I suspect the image of Luther's text is overkill, as are such claims as Simultaneously, the Nazis integrated to Nazism the community elements of Lutheranism, Regarding the persecution of Jews, the contemporary, historical perspective is that in the period between the Protestant Reformation and the Holocaust, Martin Luther's treatise On the Jews and their Lies (1543), exercised a major and persistent intellectual influence upon the German practice of anti-Semitism against Jewish citizens. The Nazis publicly displayed an original of On the Jews and their Lies during the annual Nuremberg rallies, and the city also presented a first edition of it to Julius Streicher, the editor of Der Stürmer, which described Luther's treatise as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published and Nonetheless, Prof. Diarmaid MacCulloch said that On the Jews and Their Lies was the blueprint for Kristallnacht.[142] etc. which appear to quite overemphasise current views on how little Luther influenced Nazism and Hitler at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph is just a small fragment from the large "Church and state" section. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the article in its present form blames primarily Luther. The text is well sourced, and I found some sources that additionally support some claims from the cited paragraph. I think, the only thing we can do is to explain that, although Luther's writing are seen by some authors as the bluepring for Kristallnacht, the Lutherans themselves, as well as Catholics, were seen with suspect by Nazi leadership, so Nazism cannot be seen as a continuation and development of the Lutheran tradition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
And material which is given undue weight should be excised - unless you wish one wishes others to add some of the forty-plus sources making counterclaims. The article overemphasises Luther - and it appears you grant that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Please, comment on contributions, not contributors.
Since the undue weight problem was raised by you, a burden of proof is on you do demonstrate the undue weight is given to the linkage between Luther and Nazism. Please, provide your evidences, andn then we will continue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed what you consider a personal attack, and the rest remains true. We have several editors in agreement on the undue weight at this point. And one editor finding it not undue weight. Enough to likely assert consensus if we tallied them up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is defined not by vote counting. I myself have no opinion on whether we can speak about undue weight or not in this concrete case. The paragraph cited by you is well sourced, so, if you believe the sources cited there are not mainstream, please, demonstrate that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(od)Iterating: Problems: 1. The Roman Catholic Church pre-Luther was anti-Semitic, and 2. The base of the Nazi movement was in the Roman Catholic areas of Germany. Cites for both statements are available if you doubt them. Note also the ongoing concerns in the Jewish community about Pius XII and his apparent acceptance of anti-Semitism, John Cornwell, a historian of religious affairs, cites secret Vatican files, depositions and the pope's own files to support his conclusions in "Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII." is clear on this, and does not blame Luther for Pius XII's actions. Also A LONG HISTORY OF ANTI-SEMITISM, The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), July 4, 2005 contains: However, when Protestantism arose out of Catholicism; the one thing it did not reject from the parent religion was its anti-Semitism. Together, they tilled the soil for centuries in which the seeds of the Holocaust took root. It was no accident, nor an aberration of history, that the genocidal ideas and finally the actions of Hitler had so much cooperation throughout Europe. which is substantially contrary to the cite you use. Also consider New Testament's anti-Semitism not Holocaust trigger: Historians ponder Nazi genocide.(A), The Washington Times (Washington, DC), September 20, 1998 | Witham, Larry which has: Generations of negative Christian attitudes toward Jews set the stage, they said, but the Nazi program to eliminate Jews was "unpredictable" and driven by statism, eugenics, racism and rivalry with Jews in the German middle class. And further Martin Luther and German anti-Semitism: Graham Noble illustrates Luther's anti-Jewish views and distinguishes them from those of the Nazis. (The Unpredictable Past), History Review, March 1, 2002 | Noble, Graham contains: In early modern Europe, anti-Semitism was widespread. Jews were burned at the stake for a variety of imagined crimes, including the desecration of churches, infanticide and ritual castration. They were blamed for spreading plague and poisoning wells and were commonly reviled as lazy parasites. Frederick's policy in Saxony was part of a series of similar banishments, including Ferdinand's and Isabella's expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which drove them further and further east in search of new homes. The intolerance of the medieval Christian Church had formed an unholy alliance with secular anti-Semites. Those who saw the Jews as heretics and Christ-killers found ready support amongst others who were suspicious of these curious, self-contained outsiders, whose speech and dress appeared so odd, and whose success in business was so enviable. All of which is somewhat in countervention to your assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And
I suspect the image of Luther's text is overkill, as are such claims as Simultaneously, the Nazis integrated to Nazism the community elements of Lutheranism, Regarding the persecution of Jews, the contemporary, historical perspective is that in the period between the Protestant Reformation and the Holocaust, Martin Luther's treatise On the Jews and their Lies (1543), exercised a major and persistent intellectual influence upon the German practice of anti-Semitism against Jewish citizens. The Nazis publicly displayed an original of On the Jews and their Lies during the annual Nuremberg rallies, and the city also presented a first edition of it to Julius Streicher, the editor of Der Stürmer, which described Luther's treatise as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published and Nonetheless, Prof. Diarmaid MacCulloch said that On the Jews and Their Lies was the blueprint for Kristallnacht.[142] etc. which appear to quite overemphasise current views on how little Luther influenced Nazism and Hitler at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Show some of the mainstream sources which are not in accord with the curent material in the article. Collect (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and made some updates taking onboard comments here. --Nug (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Not bad, although the statement "Scholars debate the extent of Luther's influence and whether it is anachronistic to view his work as a precursor of the racial antisemitism of the National Socialists" is unsourced. I think we need a source that confirms that there are ongoing debates over this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a definite improvement, Nug. Now I think the section's weakest point is the first paragraph, much of which seems unsabstantiated. It should really start with a Hitler quotation or a historian's quotation showing Nazi contempt for conventional religion as the starting point. I'd also like to know what "the community elements of Lutheranism, from its organic pagan past" actually means and to what it refers. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No one here defended that sentence at all - I just removed it. Besides, I have no idea just what it means <g>. Collect (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
For your convenience, below is a quote from the source used by me. I'll remove it after several days.

Steigmann-Gall's revision of Nazi views of Christianity emphasizes especially the notion of "positive Christianity," adopted under Point 24 of the NSDAP Party Program (1920) as the official standpoint of the party. This was not merely a political ploy and an ad hoc concoction of ideas aimed at securing votes, but a religious system possessing an inner logic and reflecting the sincere convictions of its proponents. Summarized by Steigmann-Gall as "a syncretic mix of the social and the economic tenets of confessional Lutheranism and the doctrine and ecclesiology of liberal Protestantism," positive Christianity encapsulated a nationalist and racist theology that appropriated Jesus as the original Aryan socialist and anti-Semite, proposed to bridge the long-standing confessional divide in Germany in favor of a single Reich Church, and tended to define itself in opposition to "negative Christianity": Christianity as it actually materialized in history, hijacked by Satan dwelling in Jerusalem, Rome, and finally, in the Marxist disguise, in Moscow as well. If the positive Christians within the NSDAP rejected Christianity, then it was only the historical kind, and only in order to excavate from underneathi ts edifice the authentic and uncorrupted Christianity: their own.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Then use what the source says and not what the prior claim was -- which does not seem congruent with the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism/Archive_18&oldid=1143854379"