Talk:Nazism/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2020

change "National Socialism, commonly known in English as Nazism" to simply "Nazism" because

• (1) this can be easily confused with Left-wing Nationalism[[1]]
• (2) is potentially misleading opening description of this movement and a political euphamism: current neo-Nazi propagandists deliberately use the misnomer of Nazi's having Socialism in their name as a grooming and recruitment tactic for impressionable people, arguing that the Nazis were therefore a left-wing ideology.
• (3) the title National Socialist is in itself Nazi propaganda and an ahistorical opening political description of this movement.
• (4) the nuance of Nazism name and origin is explained extensively in the Etymology section, opening this article with this nuanced statement is essentially a political euphemism. This could be arguably evidence of information framing abuse by its previous editor. Telltergist (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• I have made changes to account for your critique, but not exactly as you requested. Since "National Socialism" was what they called their ideology, and is included in the formal name of the Nazi Party, there is no way that we can avoid using the term, although we try to limit the number of times we do, and use "Nazi" whenever possible, as the common English language term. But we can't not use it anymore then we can not use "Democratic" in the names of numerous un-democratic Communist countries, because that is what they call themselves. (it is not, in fact, a "euphemism", although it might be considered a misnomer. In fact, their 25 Points did include socialist elements, which were de facto dropped, if never replaced in the formal program.)
  In any case, I have moved "Nazism" up to the top of the lede, and moved "National Socialism" to a secondary position. I think that this is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• I mean, the anti-individualism of it was never "dropped", and this it definitely had in common with socialism. I think it's a fairly serious omission that the views of e.g. Hayek regarding commonalities between Nazism and Soviet Communism are not represented in this article. --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  Let us not start the fringe views Nazism is really socialism. It also had things in common with other ideologies and "anti-individualism" is by no means a synonym for socialism. While there is a legitimate comparison of Nazism and Stalinism (not of communism, or socialism, in general), Hayek's views are fringe, i.e. "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", because he considers Nazism socialist and the comparison is based on this alleged socialist, or left-wing, element, which is unlike the more mainstream comparison based on "totalitarianism". Either way, experts of Nazi Germany and Nazism largely ignore Hayek, who is neither a historian nor a political scientists but an economists from the heterodox Austrial School. Davide King (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  An economist and political philosopher. I don't know why the views of political philosophers, particularly one as respected as Hayek, should not be considered. --Trovatore (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  There are certainly commonalities between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and there were indeed socialistic aspects to the Nazi program and the Nazi state, but it would be going much too far to say that Nazism was a socialist ideology, either theoretically or practically. The history of the party shows that very clearly, as Hitler forced out or killed Rohm, the Strassers and others who hewed to the socialist side. (He also carefully seduced Goebbels away from Strasser, recognizing his value to the party.) I don't think any serious historian of the regime ignores the socialistic aspects, but the vast majority of them put it in the proper perspective. I haven't read Hayek's views on this, but I do know what the general consensus is regarding this issue -- and that is what we follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I doubt how even their "socialist policies" meant. For one, it was mainly propaganda to attract support away from the KPD. Second, most parties have adopted the same "socialist policies", so the Nazis were no more "socialists" than the national-conservatives, from whom the Nazis took the economic programme, itself a continuation of the Centre and SPD parties. Both conservative Bismark and new liberals adopted the same "socialist policies", so I still do not see or get why or how the "socialist policies" of the Nazis should hold more weight than these of conservatives and liberals, who also adopted them. Even though they were adopted across the spectrum, the few "socialist policies" of the Nazis are used to argue they were socialists, but the same is not applied to conservatives and liberals who adopted the same policies; that is, because the whole point of the argument is to show the Nazis were "socialists", not making an accurate analysis of "socialist policies" adopted by most German parties in the 1920s and 1930s due to the Great Depression and the failure of 19th-century free-market capitalism. I find it curious how this is used to argue the Nazis were "socialists" but it is not applied to the centre-left, pragmatic socialists of the 20th century, who are dismissed as supporting capitalism just because they did not turn their countries into command economies, which is not what socialism is even about, perhaps because that would give socialism a better image than the Soviet Union et al. That is inacceptable. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Your point about the propaganda value of the socialist aspects of the National Socialist Program is a good one. Indeed, I believe that Hitler added "Socialist" to the Party's name -- over Drexler's objections -- for that very reason. But beyond that, there were some things that the regime did which can be considered socialistic, such as the whole Strength Through Joy program, but I have no doubt that they were instituted for extrinsic reasons -- such as keeping the people happy -- and not for ideological ones. On the whole, though, you are correct that whatever they did which can be considered to be socialistic is not sufficient to call either the ideology or the regime a socialistic one, and so we continue to reject labeling them as such, or -- even more ridiculously -- as a "left-wing" ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Being respected doesn't mean that all one's ideas are accepted in mainstream scholarship. Newton for example was possibly the most respected scientist who ever lived, but his views on alchemy have no support among scientists. TFD (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  What Beyond My Ken and The Four Deuces stated. If Hayek's views are relevant, notable, due and mainstream, it should be easy to provide secondary and tertiary sources. Either way, I do not see why we should use a political philosopher, especially when they push the fringe view the Nazis were leftists ("collectivists") and "socialists", when we should rely on actual experts on Nazism and Nazi Germany, who see Nazism as a form of far-right fascism. Davide King (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Even non-mainstream views can be represented if they represent a significant minority current of thought.

  As to why we should use a political philosopher: The majority here seems much at pains to explain that the Nazis and fascists were "right-wing", but generally says much less about what that is supposed to mean. What it means is inherently a question of political philosophy, not political "science".

  I know of two common ways of making the left/right distinction; both are part of political philosophy rather than political "science", and both are problematic. The one they typically teach you in school is that the right wants to hold onto or recover the past, whereas the left is looking toward making novel change. This one does not fit well with the Nazis, who certainly had notions of making the German nation into something that had never existed before. It seems to me that this form of the distinction can be saved only if you think history has a natural direction, and the left is the current that flows with that direction. In other words, it essentially takes Marxist historicism as granted.

  The more serious version of the distinction is the one due to Norberto Bobbio, who posits (as I understand it, and in my own rephrasing) that the left is the side that takes equality as its highest political value, and the right is whatever opposes the left. In that formulation the Nazis were clearly "right" and no confusion about it. Their highest political value was the German nation/race, and equality with any other races was something clearly to be avoided.

  The problem is that that formulation gives a uniform view only to the "left"; the "right" is simply whatever opposes it, for whatever reason. For example, classical liberalism takes individual liberty as a higher political value than equality, and is therefore also "right". But it is violently opposed to Nazism and fascism, because individual liberty as a goal is incompatible with the supremacy of the nation as a goal.

  I recognize that this is getting rather far afield, but I think it's something that needs to be said, as background to why I think we should give a wider range of political philosophers a say in how to evaluate the position of the Nazis. --Trovatore (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  Please read WP:FRINGE carefully. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  This is all interesting but what exactly do you propose and to which source should it be referenced? If these are significant minority views, it should be easy to provide them; and if they are due, tertiary sources would mention the minority who think so, but I have not seen them. We already write and discuss this and the radical wing of the party.

  As for classical liberalism (economic liberalism would be more accurate since classical liberalism refers to 19th-century, or otherwise pre-20th-century New Liberals, several of which were left- or social-leaning) being on "the right" like Nazism, we also have anarchism, or other libertarian communist and socialist philosophies. alongside Stalin et al. on "the left". There are also other labels such as "authoritarian", "democratic", "libertarian", "New", "Old", etc. that are used to group ideologies despite being on the same side of the spectrum. Classical liberalism and Nazism are on the right because they support, or accept, social hierarchies and inequalities, while both anarchists and Stalinists opposed them, or wanted to reduce them, i.e. what Bobbio stated, except "the right" is not just "whatever opposes the left" but also either supporting (established) authority(ies) (conservatism) or (socio-economic) hierarchies (economic liberalism), or both.

  It is very common among the public to put Stalinism et al. on the far-left and fascism et al. on the far-right, but this showcase a centrist bias in that it assumes going further to the left or right results in authoritarianism. However, this is not necessarily true for the left, as one on the farthest left would be anarchists, left communists and other libertarian communists and socialists, who are anti-authoritarian. It makes sense for the right, as it is commonly defined by authority and/or hierarchy, to become more authoritarian but it makes not much sense for the left, as it is commonly defined by equality-liberty; the contrary should be true, as these closer to the centre would also be these who would tend to have less radical opposition to authority and/or hierarchies.

  Indeed, Communists states are not really called far-left by historians of Communism (they are simply called authoritarian left, left-wing, or their position is not stated) but they have more in common with social democrats, or are closer to the centre-left, than they have with anarchists or libertarian socialists, which is why anarchists, council communists, left communists, libertarian Marxists, etc. are all considered to their left. In general, the far left is anything to "the left of the left" (so it is not so clear and it depends on what one consider on the "left") while the far right has a much clearer definition or grouping. In general, it is a fringe view to see Nazis and fascists as socialists or leftists, which are euphemisms for collectivism, which is in itself used to mean anything in opposition to individual liberty as defined by liberals rather than a more neutral definition.

  In short, one can reject Nazism and fascism but still be on the right because both supported, whether they endorsed it as "how things should be" or simply accepted it as "how things are", hierarchies, whether racial or socioeconomic. Davide King (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Trovatore, actually your statement is correct: the definition of left and right "gives a uniform view only to the "left"; the "right" is simply whatever opposes it." That's because political scientists begin with the fact that political parties arrange themselves into two conflicting camps, one of which is the socialists, while the others is liberals, conservatives, Christian Democrats and fascists who oppose them. Incidentally, Hayek saw anti-individualism as a feature of both left and right. TFD (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the convention is to use the common name as the title of the article, then begin the article with the formal name, before noting alternative names. See for example, the United States: "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US), or America...." TFD (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021, Please make more readable.

Could someone please reword this to a reading age of twelve so I and other mere mortals can undertstand it? Suggest remove the following entirely: famous, allure, reside, construct, cognitive dissonance, tragic interruption, consequent to, brought to order. I'm not kidding about the reading age of twelve and really it's not that hard (but nine is). Current Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level: 36.5, Flesch Reading Ease Score: 0, Reading Level: College graduate ( Very difficult to read ). This using https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/

>>According to the famous philosopher and political theorist, Hannah Arendt, the allure of Nazism as a totalitarian ideology (with its attendant mobilisation of the German population) resided within the construct of helping that society deal with the cognitive dissonance resultant from the tragic interruption of the First World War and the economic and material suffering consequent to the Depression and brought to order the revolutionary unrest occurring all around them.<< Jebbushell (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you reword it right here? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I must add I'm puzzled by your word choices. Is "famous" somehow an advanced reading level word? "Allure"? And how would you explain the appeal of totalitarianism in words a twelve year old would understand? This is pretty deep stuff. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not how the edit request template should be used. You might want to tag the page with {{confusing}}. You may also be interested in the article at the Simple English Wikipedia, which should be much easier to read. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

if the {{confusing}} template is used on the basis of the above argument, I will remove it. We write for the average intelligent adult, not for 12 year olds. In any case, it's better to challenge 12 year olds than it is to write down to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jebbushell: I left you a welcome message on your Talk page with some helpful links to orient you to creating articles and contributing to Wikipedia. With respect to your request above, I don't need to add anything to what Beyond My Ken has already said.

I did want to alert you, however, in case you were not aware, that there is a version of Wikipedia called Simple Wikipedia which is written in simpler language for the benefit of those with less command of English. You can find a similar article there, at simple:Naziism, and you're welcome to edit it. Perhaps you may find it too complex also, as it feels like most of the simplification involves simpler syntax and shorter sentences, and while it doesn't contain any of the words in your list, it does have words like albeit , Germanic, economic woe, Bolshevism, proletariat, and so on. Using your link, it scores grade 10.2, ease 48.1, college (difficult). I don't agree with that subjective score, and upon reading it, I'm sure I would've been fine with that article at age 12, which isn't to say I would know every word, but that's normal even as an adult when reading material about serious topics. Have a look at it, and see what you think; you may find more to do there, than here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 1.2 The Jewish Bolshevism Image.png (discussion)
• Sloučení SdP a NSDAP.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk page FAQ and references

This talk page has a "FAQ" essay at the top which draws a number of factual conclusions and is often used as an authoritative answer to other questions in the talk page. However, the FAQ itself is not cited. I attempted here to add citation requests and was reverted with a link to WP:NONAZIS, and a further attempt was reverted here with a comment that "This is not an article" – so therefore I assume the commenter is suggesting that if it's not an article, statements of fact do not need references in Wikipedia and further, the non-article may be used as a reference itself? I have been editing Wikipedia for quite a while and was unaware of such a policy. I wonder if anyone here can point me to a WP policy that support this and/or answer: From where or whom does the FAQ gain its authority? Thanks very much! Lexlex (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the FAQ's authority is largely derived from the 28 archived discussions that it links to.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Using archived discussions as an authoritative source is something I have not seen on Wikipedia before and I'm having trouble understanding how it works. Can you point to the WP policy that supports this? In any case, which discussions? They're not referenced. Lexlex (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussions are clearly linked in the Nazism FAQ, which is pretty much just a straightforward reminder not to tendentiously push the fringe minority view that Nazism was actually a left-wing political movement without reviewing the sources and evidence in the dozens of archived discussions where that has been litigated ad nauseum. (For the record, such FAQs are not exactly uncommon in articles where newbies and drive-bys tend to routinely add incorrect or disputed content only to be routinely reverted by page-watchers; the FAQ gives the page-watcher something to point to in his or her edit summary in order to quickly explain the rollback.) From your edit history, it seems as though you are talking about the (completely different) Nazi Party FAQ; in that case, you should take your concerns to the talk page of that article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no requirement for sources in FAQs. Even if there is, is a clear case of Over-tagging. It appears as a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the FAQ rather than pointing out that it lacks sources etc. Your opinion is that it is incorrect to call Nazism right-wing.[2] If you disagree with anything it says, it is better to discuss it. I would ask however that before making your arguments you search the archives to make sure they have not been made before. TFD (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses - and while I understand the administrative headache of dealing with the same questions again and again, my issue is merely technical. Why don't the answers in the FAQ provide support for their claims or a link to the sourced section in the article? It would be straightforward to do. Using phrases like "most experts agree" and declaring conclusions without a source is meaningless. It's the same on this page and the Nazi Party FAQ and while I erred by citing the wrong edit, the issue is the same. I am just a little confused by what would seem to be WP:OR use as source. With so much published material on this topic, I would think citing the claims quite easy—but it's not an article so unsure how. Telling the reader to go dig through twenty plus discussions to find support for a specific claim seems wrong. If you/others feel this would be more appropriate for another talk page, can you suggest where? Thanks much. Lexlex (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

TFD This edit is merely addressing the same point, lack of source. Correctness of the claim is not my issue, it's the source of the claim(s) and easy access. Lexlex (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If it is that important to you, why don't you add the sources yourself. TFD (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would do it, but was told it wasn't an article. I'll give it a try - although I think it would make more sense to link to the relevant portion of the article rather than sourcing the FAQ. Lexlex (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an article it's a talk page FAQ. Attempting to link to the article is going to be difficult, as unless you created anchors, you can only link to sections and sub-sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, well I could really use some guidance - and again, my concern is technical. Simply starting with number 1: it draws a conclusion, has a hyperlink to reliable sources, not any related sources, but the Wikipedia article on reliable sources, and that's it. The conclusion, or how it was derived is not referenced nor is it in the article. If a reader wanted to learn how that conclusion was reached, where would they look? Where would I link? Any thoughts? Lexlex (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Lexlex: you asked for guidance, here it is: there are better uses for your time on Wikipedia than referencing FAQs on talk pages. Lots of pages need references: Category:Articles needing additional references. If an editor wanted to learn how a conclusion was reached, they can look at the archived discussions; it is not an article and does not need referenced. The best that can come of this discussion is walls of text and wasted time.  // Timothy :: talk  13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Conclusions in an unreferenced essay are being regularly used as an authority. Reference requests for those conclusions are shut down. The conclusions themselves are not in the article and any attempt to get clarity is met with essentially "go dig." Is that about right? Lexlex (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me put you straight - the purpose of the FAQ is to cut down on the number of frivolous, inaccurate, incorrect, and just plain annoying edit requests. The FAQ is the result of a WP:CONSENSUS discussion on this talk page, and therefore represents the collective understanding of the many editors here who are extremely knowledgeable about the subject. If you think there are factual inaccuracies, bring your concerns here and they will be discussed, and changes made if necessary, but there is absolutely no need to source a non-article such as the FAQ TimothyBlue is correct, your time would be better used elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Nazi" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nazi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Nazi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. PyroFloe (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is this called "Nazism" and not "National Socialism"?

It seems strange and inconsistent to me to use the term "Nazism". "Nazi" is a derogatory slang term for the members of the wartime German National Socialist Party (and later a term applied to other groups subjectively considered similar), not the official name of anything. There has never been any ideology or movement called "Nazism". I don't like them any more than you do, but it seems inconsistent, unencyclopedic, and just plain silly to avoid the correct term out of spite, or a desire to signal virtue, or other similar motivations. Even the big screaming red warning breathlessly insisting what "wing" the ideology belongs to seems to reinforce this point. Even the most distasteful topics should be treated the same as the most innocuous ones when it comes to POV, and it seems like the custodians of this article would rather grind axes than make an encyclopedia. Let's call things by their proper terms, even bad things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4A02:A530:C52B:A978:618B:D5CC (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We use the common name, that is, the name most often used in reliable sources and what most people would recognize. For your information, the name of the party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, not the German National Socialist Party.

Incidentally, the terms liberalism and conservatism were developed long after the ideologies had been developed.

TFD (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrongdoings?

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.

---

Hi, my "Amateur Hour" posting has been wiped, it looks like. Being unhelpfully uncontributing wasn't really my aim, so I'd be grateful for pointers on conduct/conduct. I realize this is a controversial subject, but I didn't think I'd crossed any lines. TiA for any feedback. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for conduct advice, Please go to The Teahouse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's some free advice: your "personal ruminations" have no place on this talk page, or the talk page of any other article, and are really only acceptable on Wikipedia after you've gotten enough experience editing that people respect your opinions, and even then, only if they directly pertain to how best to edit this project. I found your post in the page history, and any reasonable editor would have blanked any talk page comment like that, on any talk page.

Sorry to sound so harsh, because you do seem like you really mean well, but that's simply not how WP works. Beyond My Ken's advise to go to the Teahouse is good advice; there are lots of editors there willing to help you learn how to become a constructive editors. And your assumption is correct: this is a highly controversial subject (well, for the past few years, at least. It was rather uncontroversial at one point), and as such, it's something that an inexperienced editor should avoid at all costs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ok, thx, and apologies all around. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No hard feelings, and I hope we didn't come off too heavy handed, here. It's just that every IP editor and new registered account on this page causes us regulars to wonder "is this some lunatic here to 'correct our grievous errors' for the 45,204,596th time this month?"

I've archived this conversation with this edit, which means you shouldn't edit it any more (and neither should I, or anyone else but the archive bot). But seriously, head on down to the Teahouse, or you can visit my talk page by clicking that link or the one in my signature that says "Tell me all about it". The rules in both of those places are much less strict, and both have folks watching it that know a whole lot about how WP works. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 15 May 2021 (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.

Pre-emptive sourcing note

Marjorie Taylor Greene has picked up on the "National Socialism" trope that has been circulating on this talkpage for years. A detailed explanation of why that is wrong can be found here [3] Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That woman has never met a stupid idea she didn't like, fall in love with, and state proudly on national television. This is why I need to start working on that "check the FYI, the edit notice, and read the page" template I've been mulling over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

^^obvious bias against Greene. This site needs a header or popup like the one asking for donations stating "Bias and unreliable source of information"

Paragraph dealing with NSDAP-DNVP relations

The section in question:

• The Nazis, the far-right monarchists, the reactionary German National People's Party (DNVP) and others, such as monarchist officers in the German Army and several prominent industrialists, formed an alliance in opposition to the Weimar Republic on 11 October 1931 in Bad Harzburg, officially known as the "National Front", but commonly referred to as the Harzburg Front. The Nazis stated that the alliance was purely tactical and they continued to have differences with the DNVP. The Nazis described the DNVP as a bourgeois party and they called themselves an anti-bourgeois party. After the elections of July 1932, the alliance broke down when the DNVP lost many of its seats in the Reichstag. The Nazis denounced them as "an insignificant heap o reactionaries". The DNVP responded by denouncing the Nazis for their socialism, their street violence and the "economic experiments" that would take place if the Nazis ever rose to power.

I have a number of issues with this section

• It cites examples of ideological conflict between the two parties(and using individual statements by party members rather than party policy at that) during their brief spates, but none of the positive feelings between the party.
• uses only one source for this information
• leaves the impression that this was the extent of NSDAP-DNVP relations, not even mentioning the alliance/coalition starting in late 1932, after the two parties reconciled, that lead to Hitler's ascent to power in 1933 and the Enabling Act.

This was discussed in detail between me and Beyond My Ken on the DNVP talkpage[4], and changes were made to that article accordingly. There are some other more subjective issues. The text states that Nazis emphasized that this alliance was "purely tactical.", the cited source does give an example of one prominent Nazis, a faction leader, saying this, but not a general Nazi position - which would be arguable anyways since there is evidence many Nazis openly liked the DNVP, and in fact it was de facto merged (rather than banned) with the Nazi Party in 1932, and even DNVP leaders that didn't join the NSDAP were allowed to keep positions of power, such as Hugenburg himself retaining a seat in the Reichstag. 72.26.30.47 (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not at all what we discussed on the DNVP article talk page. That was about the time period after Papen dissolved the Reichstage and before the election of 31 July 1932, which led shortly to the compromise which resulted in Hitler being appointed Chancellor, with Hugenberg as de facto econnomics czar, holding multiple portfolios. This is about a much broader time frame, in which the two parties did indeed snipe at each other. Hitler did not trust Hugenberg and the feeling was returned, and at times both parties unleashed their propaganda efforts against each other -- although it never spread to the streets (I am unaware of any phsyical conflicts between the Stahlhelm and the SA, as opposed to the SA and the Red Fighting Front and the SPD's street groups.) The NSDAP and the DNVP were never really in full alliance with each other, as you seem to want the article to imply. The Nationalists were extreme conservatives, but the Nazis were radical right-wing revolutinaries whose agenda did not align with that of the DNVP. They came together only for convenience sake, and only for a short period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I am aware that's its supposed to be over a broader time frame, and I didn't say they didn't attack each other (although the only examples listed in this article of outright enmity themselves only deal with a short span of time in 1932), my point is the section under discussion on the other talkpage is not even included here, it just cuts off with their conflict. Reiterating from above:leaves the impression that this was the extent of NSDAP-DNVP relations, not even mentioning the alliance/coalition starting in late 1932, after the two parties reconciled, that lead to Hitler's ascent to power in 1933 and the Enabling Act. It stops with their falling out of the Harburg Front. Another example example: In the elections in fall of 1932 the DNVP made overtures to the NSDAP attempting to reform the Harzburg front. No mention of the DNVP joining forces to make Hitler Chancellor in this article, no mention of the calls to merge with the NSDAP from within the DNVP, or indeed the information you yourself bring up: that Hugenburg was in the Hitler cabinet at all. I suggest you read the full paragraph I'm talking about in the article. 72.26.30.47 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is an overview of the entire history of Nazism, not an article about the relationship between the NSDAP and the DNVP. As such, the amount of information included is appropriate, maybe even a bit too much. If you'd like to write an article covering all the ins and outs of these two parties, please feel free to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I'm not sure why this is going over your head: it leaves a false impression with the information it presents in isolation, and it would only take one or two sentences to add the other information. 72.26.30.47 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not "going over my head", but your personal attack means that I'm done discussing this with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You are done discussing this? Ok, not sure what I said was that offensive, it wasn't my intent to offend, the point is that it contains great detail about their differences but nothing on their collaboration after 1932, and your responses are about how that would somehow bloat the article (you could just as easily remove the other information so it isn't one sided, btw) when that isn't what I'm asking at all: right now the paragraph is comparable in deceit to phrasing the Holocaust in a related article as "Hitler came to power and signed the Haavara Agreement letting the Jews leave Germany", a technically correct statement that conveys a false impression when in isolation. Brevity isn't a defense for that regardless.

I'll ask what others have to say about the DNVP section, way more people should weigh in. AL-wytyx, Amethystloucks, Cutlass, KIENGIR, I would like to hear your opinions. 72.26.30.47 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You're not sure what you said that was offensive? Take a freaking guess. KIENGIR will not answer your ping, he is community site-banned from Wikipedia, something which happens to disruptive editors who can't learn how not to be disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and your pinging editors who you think will come here to support your position is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the accusation of a personal attack coming from somebody that accused my explanations (for my edits that you challenged) of "preaching to you" simply for citing guidelines, and calling them "walls of text" when they are about a paragraph long[5], I find that awfully rich. Now you say that I'm violating that policy you linked, well according to that page it's appropriate if the users are involved in the topic in some way. I literally just went to the edit history of the article and pinged a handful, I had no idea one of them was even banned (how would pinging a banned user help me anyways?) or look at the content, and why are you assuming that's my intent when you literally just told me you weren't going to discuss this anymore? You get to disengage and I can't discuss it with anyone else?

I don't know if you are just misreading me or you have actual malintent but I don't appreciate your behavior. 72.26.30.47 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The source does not say that the Nazis called the conservatives bourgeois and in the reference to them calling themselves anti-bourgeois isn't in the referenced page (p. 72).[6] Since bourgeois can mean different things depending on context, we should not use the term without explanation. Were they referring to the capitalist or the lower middle class? And why would they refer to aristocrats as bourgeois? TFD (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Any corrections which bring the statement closer to what the source says are, of course, fine. I;m just tired of this IP acting as an advocate for the DNVP. [7] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the above and the other discussion at the DNVP page. I would always beware of IP editors that choose one specific issue to sealion about. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

warshy since it seems to be an issue that I've edited using an IP thus far, I have created an account and will no longer use that IP for editing. Beyond My Ken I apologize for being abrasive, but I am frustrated with the presumption that my edits are in bad faith. I am no advocate for the DNVP, if anything I think the DNVP's role in the Nazi rise to power is being somewhat obscured. I went through the archives and found another user that brought up the same concerns I do, mentioning that reliable sources were being used but used selectively, sometimes misrepresenting the source or outright making up statements not in the source material, and particularly in this statement[8]:

• a paragraph about the Harzburg Front that focused almost entirely on the mutual accusations between the NSDAP and DNVP when the Front broke down and somehow neglected to mention that the NSDAP came to power the following year with DNVP support. In addition, the section on Social Class did not explain the concept of Volksgemeinschaft (which should be, in my opinion, the primary focus of that section), and the article as a whole said nothing about the relationship between the NSDAP and leading German industrialists.

This is something I noticed (and Ken can attest to since he agreed with those edits after checking for himself) was present in the DNVP article. Some of this was apparently corrected here but the section on the DNVP still does not mention their support of Hitler's bid for power, it only mentions Papen who wasn't even a DNVP member. It also doesn't mention that even during their "falling out" the DNVP were concerned the NSDAP might fall apart, and how Alfred Hugenburg was actively trying to reform the Harzburg Front with the NSDAP despite his outward conflict with them in 1932. (source[9]) There is also the issue that only Beck's book is used as a source for the DNVP paragraph but that's a secondary issue. Now there is more evidence of either misquoting or selective quotations of sources brought forward by TFD above. Ken can ping any user he see's fit if he doesn't trust me, but this is concerning that there is so much "information" being used in Nazi-related articles that isn't even in the sources being cited, or information that is left out. I don't see how it is disruptive to bring this up. Hilbert Rose (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it wise to call the ideology "evil"?

I'm not a fan of Nazism but it comes off as editorialising at best. "Evil" is generally regarded as subjective. Generally I thought historians said that Nazism is universally regarded today as immoral, or some such (please note I am not saying Nazism was moral at the time!). Maybe that is a better turn of phrase? I'm not a linguist or historian, but the phrase strikes me as a bit out of place in a wiki article.--Phil of rel (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The article does not call it evil, it says "It is widely regarded as immoral and evil." TFD (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

i hope there is source about it Modern primat (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No references that I could find and "evil" does not seem to be in the article. I suggest removal of immoral and evil till we include such things in main text. One can only hope its relationship to the holocaust will allow reading between the lines in the interim. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Section on position of nazism on left right spectrum

This section’s content is off topic. It just drones on about historical events, but except in the very beginning does not discuss contemporary or historical views on the position of nazism in the left right spectrum. I suggest the section should be shortened and limited to a comprehensive overview of the actual section topic only. 2601:285:8180:1A10:0:0:0:413F (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Nazi Party is not a ‘far right’ group. Mainly because ‘far right’ ideology is Christian based and Nazis were Atheists. Also, believed in abortion where right leaning ideas do not. 2600:100C:B05A:760:4824:916A:1D82:D209 (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

United Nations resolution that condemns the glorification of Nazism

I Think there should be included in the article, a section on what countries allow Nazism to still exist and be practised and preached. And which countries is wanting to forbid the practice or fandom of Nazism according to the latest UN Resolution vote. In 2017 during Trump administration, the United states voted against the resolution alongside two other nations - Ukraine and Palau. The majority of the World either officially abstained or voted to support this UN resolution.WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Official according to whom?

The beginning of the article says "officially national socialism". Who says that this is official. Shnaa4n (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody. I moved that back to how it was before last November. Thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice—addition of a new source

I won't make a firm commitment, but over the next few weeks, I may be updating this article with material from Chapoutot, Johann (2019). The Law of Blood: Thinking and Acting as a Nazi. Harvard University Press. Any issues, feel free to revert. JBchrch talk 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just keep in mind that the article is pretty long now, so make sure anything you add is important enough, and also that it should go into this article and not in one of the many (many) other articles about Nazis, Nazi Germany and Nazism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverting revisions without allowing others to see what was reverted

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.

---

@Black Kite and SunDawn: What procedures allow the reversion of edits so others cannot even see what was reverted?

I vehemently object to those procedures.

I accept that "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" should be reverted.

However, Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, collaborative project. The ability of editors to delete material without allowing others to review what was deleted seems to me to be a clear violation of the otherwise open and collaborative nature of Wikipedia: Are you going to delete this question as also being "Grossly insulting"? Evidently, you can. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I just did the revert, I have no power to WP:REVDEL. I also have no recollection on why I did the revert, but from the size of content deleted and subsequently restored it is more likely just deletion of content. SunDawntalk 14:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a vaguely interesting point; but a bit of assumption of the deleter's good faith would be correct here. If you want to object to the process itself, this isn't the place to do it. The guidelines say "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it must not be removed." "Heil hitler" repeated a dozen times is offensive, grossly to some, and there's little likelihood of dissent about the removal. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RevDev criteria far too broad. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

p.s. I agree that "there's little likelihood of dissent about the removal" of '"Heil hitler" repeated a dozen times'. I think it's silly, and it could be "grossly offensive" to some people, but I don't think it should have been deleted without a trace. FYI, in the 1970s, I supported the ACLU in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, though my Jewish wife did not. But whether or not the Nazis should have been allowed to march in Skokie, the news outlets should not have been prohibited from covering the court case! Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

which has what to do with this? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

An edit was removed without a trace. User:Jpgordon indicated that the material removed was comparable to '"Heil hitler" repeated a dozen times'. Such an addition, according to User:Jpgordon, justified removing the offending material without a trace. Assuming the allegation was true, I agree with removal. I object to removing it without a trace. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not indicate it was comparable. I said it was "Heil hitler" repeated a dozen times. And it wasn't removed without a trace; it was removed in such a way that I as an admin could immediately find out what it was (and in this case validate that the removal was legit). I wouldn't have removed it myself, but it's within policy, and as you already know, this isn't the place to argue that policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I overstated the case slightly: People without admin privileges can see that a change had been made, but cannot see the actual change. That's a violation of the basic philosophy of openness that I think most people have a right to expect from Wikipedia.

You say, "this isn't the place to argue that policy."

Where should I argue that policy?

After some searching, I posted a complaint to "Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RevDev criteria far too broad". I got a reply there saying, "it's a waste of time even discussing this. It's calling not for a change in RevDev but in WP:OVERSIGHT".

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2022 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

It says nazism is a form of fascism however in the name it is the SOCIALIST Republic and socialism and fascism are two completely different things. The style of government was socialist while Italy was fascist during this time. 2600:387:F:4418:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"German fascism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect German fascism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#German fascism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"National Socialist German Workers' Party" as an article title term and inclusion of the party name in German

For reference, this is about this part of the lead: Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP; or National Socialist German Workers' Party in English).

I believe the inclusion of the part in parenthesis is detrimental and therefore I make the following proposals:

1. "National Socialist German Workers' Party" should not be bold, as that indicates that it is the subject of the article, but there is a separate article about the party, and National Socialist German Workers' Party redirects to that separate article.
2. Removal of the entire part in parenthesis, because it makes the lead cluttered and more difficult to read, and its inclusion is unnecessary and provides very little benefit, since the separate article on the subject is linked just before, where a reader could easily find this information.

Relevant manual of style pages: MOS:LEAD, MOS:BOLDTITLE.

(Courtesy ping Nillurcheier) — LauritzT (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The lede is really easy to read and has to summarize the articles content. The official name of the party (in E and G) is one of the most essential facts of it and hence can stay here as it is. It's also a longstanding part of the article. Nillurcheier (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the 'long' names of the party are one of the most essential facts of [the article], and even that they have relevance beyond the 'long' names of the ideology, the inclusion of which is not in dispute. If a reader wants to know more about the names of the party, they can easily click the wikilink to the article about the party, just like we don't explain who Adolf Hitler is or what fascism is, because we expect a reader to click the wikilink if they want to know more about those subjects. I also disagree that the lead is easy to read – I often skip to the closing parenthesis, and thus the lead might be read as Nazism in Nazi Germany. During Hitler's rise to power... when just skimming for the closing parenthesis. Regardless, do you have any objections to the first proposal? — LauritzT (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I observe a puzzling trend in the english speaking community, to erase, at least reduce the official name NSDAP and melt down anything to the Nazi word, which is, seen from a German perspective not more than a colloquial, common, slang like abbreviation. At least in the German speaking community it is only used in colloquial, not academic or encyclopedic context. But even if this is slightly different in English, there should not be any problem to keep both wordings, the official and the english short form. Nillurcheier (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles go for common names. So it is United Kingdom, rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That does not mean we are trying to hide British control of part of Ireland or that we don't think the UK is "Great." TFD (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with LauritzT's proposal. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nillurcheier: I want to make clear that I am not proposing removing "National Socialism" or "Nationalsozialismus" from this page, nor removing "National Socialist German Workers' Party" or "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" from the Nazi Party article. I am only proposing to remove the latter two terms from this article, Nazism (rather than Nazi Party). That is the reason that I don't think it is particularly relevant. That is the reason why I don't understand why you consider it to be an "essential fact" to this article – I do think it should remain in the Nazi Party article, where it is indeed quite relevant. — LauritzT (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Not just "slightly different in English". "Nazi" is used in all contexts in English, not just colloquial. While a history of the party or of Germany during that period would, of course, mention the full form when describing the origins of the party, it would probably never use it (or NSDAP) at any other point in the text. I guess in German, it seems more like a nickname or slur like "Commie", but in English it is treated more like a standard acronym for the organization, like "NATO". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I was going to disagree with this proposal until I looked at the page. Yeah, it's pretty hard to read. If a compromise is necessary, then I'd remove the parenthetical explanation entirely, and replace "... is the ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party" with "... is the ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, better known as the Nazi party". Happy (Slap me) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need anything other than Nazi Party in the lede. People are quite capable of clicking; there is no ambiguity or confusion generated by not further explaining it at this point in the article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This would be my preference. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Mine, too. Partly based on previous arguments about the party name being one click away. Even if it were decided to keep it, it cannot be bolded, because the party is not a synonym of the ideology. Mathglot (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is the German religion glossed over?

Al Qaeda did not go after Christians. They attacked the United States. That makes them hateful of the United States, yet they are referred to as Islamic Extremists. It is not neutral to call Al Qaeda Islamic Extremists and Islamic Terrorists when they were angry with another Country and were not pushing their religion. Nazi's were all Christians and wanted to wipe out the Jews, another religion. That certainly was tied to their religion identity. Literally the people of one religion ok with the extermination of the people of another religion. I understand it is more complex than that, but it seems like the article highlights people who weren't religious or wanted to move away from religion or wanted to change to a different form of Christianity. That ignores the fact that they were all born Christian, they went to churches, Germany was over 90% Christian before the Nazis, during the Nazis and more than 95% after the Nazis. Yet, the Christian origin of Nazis is controversial and is something that Christians have spent decades erasing, but it is still the truth. Nazism was more tied to Christianity than Al Qaeda to Islam. Bin Laden did not like US troops in Saudi Arabia and a host of other grievances against the United States, not Christianity. Nazism specifically went after people of the Jewish faith regardless of Country but we pretend Christianity had nothing to do with it. Yes, they killed Christians that opposed them, but that wasn't 70% of German Christians. I would guess less than 5%. Al Qaeda I am sure killed plenty of Muslims that opposed them, but that doesn't make them not Muslim. All the Nazi graves are marked with Christian Crosses. This is not controversial, or at least it shouldn't be. So either Al Qaeda needs some nuance to their Islamic identity, or Nazis need to be called Christian Extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safeerladha (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking us to do. Are you asking us to change this article? If so, how? If you are asking us to change another article then this is the wrong place for that. Try asking on the talk page of that article instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In most reliable sources, al Qaeda is seen as motivated by their religious views, while Nazis were motivated by right-wing political views. Please see "Typologies of Terrorism" which explains the distinction. Incidentally, bin Laden's objection to Americans in Saudi Arabia was based on his view of Mecca and Medina as holy cities. Nazi anti-Semitism was based on racial theory. infidels can join al Qaeda if they accept their religious views, while Jews could not convert to Christianity and become members of the Nazi Party. TFD (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Only one reference of Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy

Is it really necessary to have Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy referenced three times with three different years? It's the same book. Should we not just cite one year it was published?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Nazism is stated as being on the fringes of society when it should be expressed that, as of 2022, neo-Nazism is on the rise in many western societies.

I think this section should be updated to reflect the current status of this situation. When rallies are being held by the political leaders of a particular party where the Nazi flag is being displayed with impunity and pride, this is no longer a fringe sector, but an actual, mainstream movement in local, state, and national politics. LizzybethC (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You have expressed an opinion above. Articles in the encyclopedia are not based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Unless you can provide a citation of a reliable source to support your contention, the content of the article will not be changed as a result of your comment. General Ization ^Talk 16:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It turns out the Nazi flag story was fake.[10] TFD (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A paragraph or a subsection about the misuse of ‘socialism’ by the Nazis

Hi everyone, what does everyone think about including a paragraph or possibly a subsection about the misuse of socialism by the Nazis? The alt-right, conspiracy theorists and other groups of people have been spreading the myth that the Nazis were socialists for quite some time. Now, of course, anyone who has read a fair amount or watched plenty of documentaries about the Third Reich will know that the Nazis weren’t socialists. I think it’s a good inclusion to the article so casual readers on Wikipedia can find it out easily enough. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Read the FAQ, the word means something different here, namely anti-individualism. There’s a reason “national-socialism” is hyphenated. Dronebogus (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It would help to have a section here, or an article on its own, listing their extermination campaigns

The discussion is scattered through several sections here, Holocaust (which only covers the Shoah), Romani Holocaust (the Porajmos), Aktion T4, Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, Persecution of black people in Nazi Germany, Persecution of Chinese people in Nazi Germany, German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, etc. this makes it harder to track down estimates of the total death toll, and articles on the particular extermination campaigns. 108.56.130.251 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

See List of Nazi extermination camps and euthanasia centers. Happy (Slap me) 05:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1110447188

@Beyond My Ken: why did you think this edit wasn't an improvement? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 05:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Because you deleted simple descriptions of the people pictured, leaving only their names. Everyone knows who Hitler is, but not everyone will be familiar with the rest of the Naxi hierarchy. The deletion doesn't help our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Kindly rectify "Ost-Arbeiters" to "Ost-Arbeiter" as the plural of Arbeiter (singular) is Arbeiter. There is no such plural as "Arbeiters". 88.203.1.72 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Nazism is a far-left political movement. Branding it as far-right is intellectual dishonesty. All forms of socialism are on the left of the political spectrum. Wanyama2022 (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ Cannolis (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Nazis are left wing why is the conversation being shut down?

Why is Wikipedia shutting down the conversion about nazism? The article admits that it is really neither left or right but they claimed left. It would seem to me the honest answer would be that they were neither or left wing. By all definitions of left and right wing, nazis are left wing. Yes correct my grammar amd spelling but be sure to get to the actual conversation. The Second biggest question is why is Wikipedia shutting down conversation about about it and threatening to block anyone who brings it up too much? That's kinda what nazis would do bruv 2600:6C40:6C00:5F20:E36F:DC1F:C898:44CA (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for conversation. Scholarly consensus, as well as Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS, is that Nazism is a far-right phenomenon, so that's what the article says. Feel free to study the past discussions of this, on this talk page and its archives. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the people who bring it up consistently fail to provide reliable sources to back up their claim. Also, Nazism can't be left-wing by "all definitions" of the term if the sources state it's right-wing. 83.6.215.2 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

You even go on to mention in this article that it is actually agreed that nazis were a left-right political leaning.

You can tell only one half of the story is being told here.
Is it because you're upset you share the larger sum of ideas with nazis? 
Is it because this page is run by nazis? Why else would the conversation be shut down? It seems you've gotten enough requests to preemptively write a response.
By that metric alone it seems this isn't a settled argument. 

Go ahead and block me, that's not something a nazi would do 2600:6C40:6C00:5F20:E36F:DC1F:C898:44CA (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nazis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nazis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 12 § Nazis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

intellectuals

it must be described in the article that the world view of Nazism also exists, or existed in Nazi Germany by certain intellectuals, such as Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger "Hasojerna" (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This is a survey article, and a very long one at that. It's not possible to mention every single aspect of Nazism, especially considering that the support of intellectuals was a relatively minor part of their rise to power. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Nazism is inherently anti-intellectual. The Nazis targeted so-called intellectuals (academics, authors, etc.) because they were perceived as antithetical to the goals of Nazism at the time. There are many Nazis that could be considered "intellectual" by current standards, Joseph Goebbels for example. It's hard to make an argument that Goebbels wasn't an intellectual. I don't state that as a defense of Nazism, only an objection to the claim of anti-intellectualism in Nazism in general. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Please cite your sources naming Goebbels as an intellectual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of material added to the "anti-communism" section

I have removed a long addition to the "anti-communism" section contributed by a single editor. This is already a very long survey article, and the addition does not seem to be necessary here. The editor should contemplate starting a new article on Nazism and communism or Nazism and anticommunism and putting the material there.

In addition, the tone and style of the added material was very un-Wiki-like, as was the formatting of the references. These are matters which the editor -- @Banderswipe: -- should take into account if they intend to re-add the material elsewhere.

In ant event, the material should not be re-added here unless there is a consensus to do so, per WP:STATUSQUO, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. The editor is invited to make arguments here as to why my removal was inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw this content being removed and wanted to add my two cents. I agree with its removal.

But regarding the idea of re-adding it somewhere else, I wanted to point out that the content in question is about the meaning of the word "socialism" in "National Socialism" according to some NSDAP leaders, and the debates between Nazis about that meaning. I don't think it would be correct to place it in any article about "Nazism and..." something else, since it's actually about an internal debate within Nazism.

For the same reason, I don't think it was correct to place it in the "anti-communism" section of this article, since it wasn't about communism at all. It was about internal debates within the NSDAP about their name.

So where does it belong, if anywhere? Well, I don't really know, but I suppose in a place where the wiki talks about the name of the Nazi Party. Although I'm not sure if relying so much on statements of the Nazis themselves is the best approach to that.

Removal of content

Under the section "Totalitarianism," there is an insidious paragraph that ought to be removed:

An epistemic crisis occurs when one tries to synthesize and contrast Nazism and Stalinism as two-sides of the same coin with their similarly tyrannical leaders, state-controlled economies and repressive police structures. Namely, while they share a common thematic political construction, they are entirely inimical to one another in their worldviews and when more carefully analysed against one another on a one-to-one level, an "irreconcilable asymmetry" results.

This paragraph is pure dishonesty. It is most likely a Stalinist writer's way of suggesting, in a supposedly "technical" language, that Soviet Stalinism was something completely different from National Socialism, despite all their likenesses. Notice that it does not illustrate how they differ, it says claims that they do. Not only that: they are "entirely inimical to one another" (!).

The language oozes of dishonesty. Just listen to this: "An epistemic crisis occurs…" Wikipedia ought to be cleansed from language of this postmodern sort, especially when it is used in a context as serious as this. Wikipedia is supposed to be clear, neutral and objective.

If anyone wants to keep this piece of rubbish, please argue for it here. Trakking (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess I don't have a problem with the paragraph since it is referenced to what seems to be a decent source that is discussing this exact issue. That academics tend to write in acedemic language is something we just need to learn to live with. Carptrash (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with it being reworded to be more direct and easier to understand as I feel that the average reader might struggle with it as currently written. That is not an argument for removing it though. I don't see anything in it defending Stalinism. Saying that Hitler and Stalin were different is not absolving either of their respective crimes. Where Trakking might have a point is that we should briefly say what the main differences are, not just say that there are some.

But I'm not done here because that is not the only edit that I had to revert. Trakking, I notice that you make absolutely no attempt to defend your other edit which is a completely indefensible attempt to remove unimpeachably well referenced factual information. We have a FAQ on that very topic on this very page. Oh, and I don't think that the section heading you used here was appropriate either so I have modified it. DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Well, that section is either postmodern bunk or dishonest obscurantism, not academic brilliance. "Epistemic" is the wrong word for this context and "crisis" is outright bombastic. "Entirely inimical" is also bombastic. No one writes like that unless they have something to hide such as an ideology. Trakking (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The language could be less highfalutin. But, I have no problem with the point or inclusion as the source appears more than acceptable. Clearly Nazism and Stalinism are different. So are cancer and the plague. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"No one writes like that unless they have something to hide such as an ideology." It seems to me that this sentence is another example of "postmodern bunk or dishonest obscurantism." Carptrash (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, speaking of "bombastic" writing: "insidious paragraph", "language oozes of dishonesty", "dishonest obscurantism". The graf can certainly be rewritten to be clearer, but it's hardly "insidious" or "dishonest". The complaint smacks of academic in-fighting, if you ask me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

grammar stuff

Thanks @Adolphus79: for the link to the punctuation page, you are certainly correct about the ". issue. I do still think that the article is over commaed, every date does not need one after it. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I promise, it took me a while to get used to the Wiki way of doing things, also... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Fascism sidebar § Nazism or National Socialism?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Fascism sidebar § Nazism or National Socialism?. –Vipz (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Views of capitalism" section

An editor wishes to change the title of this section to "Anti-capitalism", on the grounds that this describes the first paragraph of the section. I'll repeat here what I write on the editor's talk page:

"Please read the article's section on capitalism farther then the first couple of paragraphs. You'll see a much more nuanced description of Hitler's and the Nazi's thoughts about capitalism, including their actions once in power. The section does not support the sub-title "Anti-capitalism", but does support "Views of capitalism". The sub-title is not describing merely the first paragraph of the section, it is describing the whole of the section."

Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll pase my main concern from my talk page here:

The section overwhelmingly talks about the "anti-capitalist" element of Nazism. While later policies could be described as capitalist, they are not detailed in this section and the only talk of pro-capitalism in the article is the statement "Some have described Nazi[sm as a form of capitalism]". Snspigs (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This description is not accurate. The section talks about Hitler's views being effectively mercantilist, and specifically states "In practice [i.e. once they were in power], however, the Nazis merely opposed one type of capitalism, namely 19th-century free-market capitalism and the laissez-faire model ... Some have described Nazi Germany as an example of corporatism, authoritarian capitalism, or totalitarian capitalism. ... In spite of their anti-capitalist rhetoric in opposition to big business, the Nazis allied with German business as soon as they got in power..."

Anyone familiar with the history of the Nazis knows that the strongest anti-capitalist faction in the party was Röhm and the SA and the Strasser brothers. Hitler forced out Otto Strasser, and defanged Gregor Strasser, who was killed (along with Röhm) in the Night of the Long Knives. The SA was allowed to exist, but never had the same influence it had, and Hitler was free to make the deals with industrialists that he needed to make to further his military and social agenda. Anti-capitalist rhetoric remained in the 25 Points as official ideology, but it was no longer their operational strategy.

Given this complex and nuanced history, "Anti-capitalism" would be a terribly simplistic and misleading title for the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The section should in that case delve into specific qualities which make it capitalist to substantiate the subtitle. Snspigs (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You seem to think that the question is a zero-sum one, that either one is pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist, with no middle ground between them. The Nazis clearly distrusted capitalism from their beginning, so it would be a mistake to categorize them as "capitalists", but they did use capitalists and capitalist methods when it suited them to get the results they wanted. The current section title doesn't say that they were capitalists, not does it make a case for categorizing them that way. It merely presents the history of their views about capitalism and the actions that flowed from those views; that is why the sub-title is appropriate. No one is arguing to change to it "Nazis as capitalists", which is what you seem to imply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I still believe the section is lacking in specifics, but I see that that is far beyond the scope of this edit. Snspigs (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a survey article, and has a lot of ground to cover. It's already quite long, which means that any additional material would be closely scrutinized as to whether it should be included or not. I think Economy of Nazi Germany would be considered to be the main article on this specific subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Snspigs (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The section itself probably overplays the "anti-capitalism" aspect. The Nazis believed that because of the profit motive, private enterprise could run businesses more efficiently than government and privatized almost all government owned corporations.

The only capitalists they actually criticized were bankers and retailers, whom they saw as unproductive middlemen, and believed they were all Jews. They saw nothing wrong with manufacturers, who were producers. In that sense, they mirrored the views of Henry Ford, who was sympathetic to them. TFD (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reasonably sure they were against liberal capitalism in all sectors. They may not have been averse to having manufacturers do their thing as long as it served the interests of the state. But it was always about the interests of the state, never about the idea that individuals should be able to organize, produce, and trade freely on the basis of mutual consent. --Trovatore (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You cannot tell much from the period of time the Nazi's controlled Germany as they were either preparing for or at war. During the US participation in WWII, the US auto factories were ordered to build tanks, planes, etc. They could not build cars. Dozens of things were rationed. Its always about the interests of the state in major wars. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a fair point as far as it goes, but I still can't see any reason to think they ever would have been interested in moving to a liberal-capitalist model. Granted that rhetoric is not reliable, still, there's nothing in any of their theory that even hints at it (to the extent I know their theory, which admittedly is limited). --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hitler frequently praised free enterprise, such as in the Secret Meeting of 20 February 1933 with German industrialists.[11] It makes little sense to evaluate Nazi economic ideology without taking into context the preceding period, the depression and the war as well as the need to retain popularity. And of course the objective was the total destruction of socialism and communism.

Also, in the first years of the Third Reich, economic decisions were made by classical liberals kept over from the previous government. It was only when rearmament began that the partnership frayed. Also, Mussolioni had begun with classical liberal policies and the Fascist government of Austria hired Ludwig von Mises, Ron Paul's favorite economist, as its chief economic adviser. TFD (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Von Mises writes in Liberalism that fascism's "economic program is altogether antiliberal and its policy completely interventionist" (see this excerpt; thanks by the way for prompting me to look this up; I'm going to need to spend some time with it). I gather that he thought fascism might have been a necessary stopgap against the existential communist threat, but nothing better than that, and disastrous in the long run. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with Mises' views on fascism. But the point is that he could work with them, while he couldn't work with socialists or communists. And while he might have thought that fascism was a better alternative to communism, the same could be said for working with social democrats. So that places fascism at least as more pro-business than the social democrats. And bear in mind MIses was not alone. Fascists received dictatorial power from pro-business parties. The only deputies to vote against the Enabling Act in Germany for example were Social Democrats. (The Communists had already been expelled.) TFD (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

While this is drifting a bit off-topic, I would point out that in the twenties and thirties von Mises had seen vast horrors coming out of the Soviet Union, while the Nazi gas chambers were still in the future. As for the attitude of pro-business parties, it's a mistake to identify "pro-business" with "liberal capitalist"; established businesses are often somewhat hostile to liberal capitalism because of its unpredictability. --Trovatore (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

As regards the "secret meeting" link, it just seems to take me to ads, but I was able to find the library archive. As far as I can find, at least in English translation, Hitler didn't speak of "free" enterprise but only of "private" enterprise, a rather crucial distinction for the topic we're discussing. But suppose he had said "free" enterprise? We keep hearing about how the Nazis used the word "socialism" because they thought it would improve their popularity among the working classes — why do you think they would be more straightforward with businessmen? --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what the difference between "free" and "private" enterprise is, unless "private" means capitalism under the control (or at least strong influence) of the state to fulfill the state's economic goals? That would, I think, describe the Nazi's relationship to German industrialists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Regulated utilities are a good example of the difference. They take the form of a corporation with private owners who bear the risks and reap the benefits. But on the theory that they are in a sector prone to natural monopoly, they are granted an explicit monopoly by the state; in exchange, they do not set their own prices or terms of service. This is in some sense "private" enterprise, but not remotely "free" enterprise, and definitely does not sit easily with liberal capitalism. In my view they are basically just an arm of the state, albeit one with a somewhat odd financial structure. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The Nazis defined their use of the term socialism and distinguished it from the "Marxist" (refering to both Communists and Social Democrats) version. While Marxist socialists represented the working class, national socialists represented the Aryan race. This was at a time when liberals and conservatives were seen as representing the middle and upper classes respectively. So there would be no confusion that he would pursue traditionally socialist policies. The Nazis believed and delivered on their racist policies. TFD (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind since Hitler was speaking in German to a group familiar with the current political situation, that we should rely on a writer familiar with the context of his speech. One writer for example described the message as: "the cause was the Reich, free enterprise, the cult of the individual, and the unity of a purified, revitalized Germany." (p 11)[12] Notice too Hitler's reference to the increase in social democracy in the last 40 years that will eventually lead to communism. That period had marked the gradual extestion of government regulation, nationalization and the welfare state. TFD (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Having trouble wrapping my head around Nazis being referred to as exalting the "cult of the individual", unless it means one particular individual, Adolf Hitler. Everyone else was supposed to suppress his/her individual inclinations in service of the Reich. I know it's a mistake to too easily conflate German Nazism with Italian fascism, but I do have to recall the words of Mussolini on this point: Siamo i primi ad avere affermato, di fronte all'individualismo demoliberale, che l'individuo non esiste, se non in quanto è nello Stato e subordinato alle necessità dello Stato, e che, man mano che la civiltà assume forme sempre più complesse, la libertà dell'individuo sempre più si restringe. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Google translation for those, like me, who are not conversant with Italian: We are the first to have affirmed, in the face of demoliberal individualism, that the individual does not exist, except in so far as he is in the State and subordinated to the needs of the State, and that, as civilization takes ever more complex forms, the freedom of the individual is increasingly restricted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the writer's point was that Hitler and the Nazis could tailor their message according to the audience and in fact came to power with the support of the capitalists and all their parties - conservative, Christian democratic and liberal. They then proceeded to govern with (former) members of those parties and pursued the same economic policies that the other bourgeois parties would have. The only tension occurred when they pursued rearmament, but even then it was from only a minority.

But to return to the issue. While Nazi rhetoric criticized capitalism, there were no plans to change the economic system. It wasn't the profit motive that bothered them, it was collusion, profiteering, the destruction of small business and supposed collaboration with Jews and foreigners. TFD (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There is also a translation problem. When Germans or Italians say they love the state it means the same thing as when Americans say America first. It doesn't mean they love bureaucracy. Similarly, British people love king and country. TFD (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the political spectrum section

Hi Trakking! I wanted to discuss why I disagree with your edits to the section about the political spectrum.

First, you reorganized it into subsections about various other "isms" (syncretism, socialism, conservatism, capitalism), and the relationship of Nazism to them. That's not what the section is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about the position of Nazism on the political spectrum, which may or may not have anything to do with other "isms". Also, it seems that you decided what goes in which subsection of your own accord, without reference to what the sources say. For example, do the sources you put in the "socialism" section actually say "these things reflect the relationship of Nazism to socialism" or something like that? I admit I've only checked some of them, but they don't. They just mention that the Nazis did or said certain things, without drawing conclusions from that about the relationship between Nazism and something else.

Then there is the fact that your text starts the section by saying "Scholars have provided various interpretations of the Nazi ideology, although many identify it, in both theory and practice, as a form of far-right politics.[2]", and then goes on to describe in detail the views of scholars who do not agree and place Nazism somewhere else on the spectrum. This is very misleading. Nazism is far-right, the overwhelming majority of scholars agree with this. The page should not be describing the majority view in two sentences and then giving several paragraphs to minority views. Actually, even the old version of the section suffered from a similar problem (not enough space describing the majority view), but that's off-topic here.

Finally, you added a paragraph about Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (who thinks the Nazis were left-wing, together with everyone else he disagreed with), with the source being an op-ed on a website called Crisis Magazine. I don't see how this can count as a reliable source, and in any case we shouldn't be giving this much space to Kuehnelt-Leddihn while the majority of historians get two sentences between them.

Basically, I think your text gives far too much space to arguing that Nazism was left-wing (or otherwise not-far-right), which is an extreme minority view at best. Even the old text didn't accurately reflect the view of the majority of historians, but I believe your edits are taking it in the wrong direction. Hcganir (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is said that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. It's not surprising that after voting first to make Hitler chancellor then dictator and joining in his government to kill Jews, Communists and Social Democrats, and fight a catastrophic war, they now find it convenient to blame the victims. That's a well covered topic that should be mentioned. But all this section should mention, per fringe, is that some on the right place Nazism on the Left. TFD (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a modern leftist myth that scholars unanimously agree that the National Socialists were right-wing. Because, as my citations proved, some of the most prominent scholars on the topic—and these people were leftists themselves—viewed Nazism as either syncretic or centrist extremist. One of the most prominent scholars on Fascism in my own country, leftist Henrik Arnstad, is very clear on this point: fascists, he says, were opposed to the very idea of a Right and a Left, which they believed divided the nation, and instead they considered their ideology a Third Position.

And mind you: the Nazis never considered themselves distinctly right-wing. There had been powerful right-wing movements in Germany at the time: the monarchist reactionaries, the Christian democrats, the Prussian aristocrats, the nationalism of the German National People's Party, the Conservative Revolutionaries etc. These movements were distinctly right-wing—and everyone knew it. But Nazism was a seperate ideological movement that was much more syncretic and it was often denounced as leftist by these other movements, as demonstrated in the article.

Also—it is common knowledge that Conservatism means right-wing and Socialism means left-wing. So these subheadings are crystal clear. If you have any specific paragraph that you disagree about, please take it to discussion. I can think of only one tiny paragraph that seems a bit questionable, namely the one about the British Empire, which ought to be deleted altogether, since it does not have any clear relation to the topic at hand.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is the most knowledgeable scholar thinkable. His fields of expertise ranged from linguistics, theology and history to political science, philosophy and economics. He authored erudite tomes tracing the ideological roots of the Nazi movement: The Menace of the Herd (400 pages) and Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (600 pages). He grew up in Austria in the early 20th century and witnessed the whole scenery first-hand. And he was respected by many of the major conservative figures at the time: Buckley Jr., Kirk, Otto von Habsburg, Hayek, Röpke, Jünger, Pope Benedict XVI, etc. His expertise is authoritative. He is also the only conservative intellectual quoted in the section, making it more nuanced, if anything. Trakking (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion on Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is inconsequential. Personally I think he's a crackpot, but that's just my opinion. Also "Conservatism means right-wing and Socialism means left-wing" is not quite the common knowledge you allege it is. Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Kuehnelt-Leddihn was not only an extremely erudite and cultural man, he was also a genius and an eccentric. Well, we could remove him from the article, but I'd rather include him because that section of the article—the scholarly expertise—ought to be expanded, as Hcganir suggested. Trakking (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"Personally I think he's a crackpot" He was an anti-democracy activist, and spend much of his career claiming "that Nazism, fascism, radical-liberalism, anarchism, communism and socialism were essentially democratic movements" and that monarchism would have saved Europe. Hardly an unbiased source. Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a Catholic scholar of Aquinas. He uses the word "democracy" interchangeably with "ochlocracy" and "majoritarianism". Most prominent intellectuals throughout history—from Plato to Nietzsche—have been critics of democracy in this sense. Trakking (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I was taught some of Plato's text at school as a teenager. I was frankly disgusted with both the Republic and his philosopher kings, as the description was that of concentration of power in very few hands and indoctrination to the right-way to think. The best example of a dystopia that I have ever encountered, with elimination of choices for most of humanity. Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Which probably explains why Nietzsche was the most admired philosopher among the Nazis. TFD (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Any political party that has collectivism at the core of its political philosophy is not "far-right" and it's absurd to posit such. Socialism - a political philosophy defined by the government owning the means of production - is a left-wing political philosophy. By your definition, AOC's Wikipedia page should describe her as having "far-right" political beliefs. Ddperk80 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"should not be describing the majority view in two sentences and then giving several paragraphs to minority views" Minority views can safely be excluded, as with most fringe views. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The most authoritative scholars identify Nazism as a syncretic ideology, combining elements from left-wing and right-wing politics. And the Nazis saw themselves as such, taking a Third Position.

The Nazis originated as a left-wing movement and they were seen as such by their contemporaries. But they took a "right-turn" as they became more influential, linking with conservative politicians, gaining support from industrial leaders, purging their party of some of their socialist ideologues. So they were syncretic. Trakking (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed this many times. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn for example has already been mentioned in six archived pages. Unless the Nazis were socialists argument gains any attention in mainstream academic sources, we can only treat it as fringe. TFD (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if they were ever "left wing", and I really can't see it, they were right wing by the time they became even slightly politically relevant and remained so until the end. The fact that they successful bamboozled some people at the time by putting "Socialist" in their name does not mean that we have to be bamboozled now. We have a FAQ which covers these very matters and there is no good reason to reopen them.

DanielRigal (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

References

State-sanctioned Syndicalism and price controls

more information needs to be added about the DAP and the state monopolized companies, including social Darwinism and the social consolidation of the means of producing goods. I think it is important to make sure readers know the aspects of nazi ideology and socioeconomic regulations and political parties Aucterine (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

You are incorrect! Consensus has not been reached among political scientist and historians as to the left or right dichotomy of the National Socialist German Workers Party. This is still an ongoing conversation within all halls of political academia and media and the general consensus has begun to swing towards the fact, as supported in Mein Kampf, that NAZISM is firmly entrenched on the left side of the political spectrum. Editing on this topic is expected and any further attempts to block it will be regarded as disingenuous. You are expected to rectify this discrepancy. Andre Regimbald (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Such an extraordinary claim is going to require extraordinary sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 17:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

To assert that a political party with socialism at its philosophical core is somehow "right-wing" is not based in reality. Socialism is a first cousin to communism. The two philosophies are described as two sides of the same coin. George Bernard Shaw said that "socialism is the same as communism, only better English". Yet the entry for "communism" states it's a "far-left" philosophy. Given their nearly identical similarities - government ownership of the means of production - how can one be "far-left" and the other "far-right"? Ddperk80 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. — Czello ^(music) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Links

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking: "When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link". This page contains several violations of that principle. Kornatice (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find any of the examples you changed confusing in the least, and you also eliminated links that were not connected to another wlink. Please remember also that the MoS is an editing guideline, and is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

They aren't confusing to you because you have extensive experience with Wikipedia. Typical readers will, and ought to, expect one patch of blue to be one link. And I didn't remove any links that weren't next to another. Kornatice (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hardly the only site on the Internet which colors text to indicate a link. I think the majority of our readers understand that. So, no, your reply is not apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and those other websites often avoid putting two links next to each other so they look like one.

Consider a link like this, taken from the article: command economy of the Soviet Union. How should anyone (especially mobile users with no mouse-over capabilities, a large portion of Wikipedia readers) be expected to see two links here, or to know where one ends and the other begins? Kornatice (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

It is far left because it is National Socialism, Hitler was an athiest and a vegan 2604:3D08:7A77:FD00:D5F3:A643:DABB:D9A8 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Various versions of vegetarianism existed thousands of years before Christ, long before the terms right and left were coined in France. Hitler viewed atheists as uneducated, and atheism as the state of the animals. In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not" See the FAQ at the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hitler viewed atheists as uneducated, and atheism as the state of the animals." Hitler was a lifelong Roman Catholic. What did you expect? Dimadick (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is way off-topic to the request, but I can't let that slide. See Adolf Hitler#Views on religion. A couple of key quotes: "In a 1932 speech, Hitler stated that he was not a Catholic, and declared himself a German Christian." (Note that the link is to a very different thing from Christians who are German.) "Any pro-Christian public rhetoric contradicted his private statements, which described Christianity as "absurdity"[392] and nonsense founded on lies.[393]" --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it though?

Is Nazism really the most common name when referring to this ideology, or is National Socialism? 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:69C6:C11:9F81:FA18 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Nazism is far more common than national socialism. — Czello ^(music) 08:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead Revert

@Objective3000: The source currently cited for this, Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Nazism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above."

Was there an RfC or other clear consensus in the past for that particular language? Otherwise that it's been around for years isn't really a sufficient reason to undo. Sagflaps (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't normally put cites in the lead. The lead is a summary of the body. The status quo lead is just that. We don't require an RfC for everything. If something has been in mainspace for years, it has consensus. Of course you can argue a change to consensus here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that everything requires an RfC, rather I am asking you if there was a previous discussion about what should go here? Otherwise, the implied consensus was ended when I made the change. Sagflaps (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a de facto consensus that appears to go back at least six years. A bold, reverted edit does not change consensus. As it says near the top of this page, feel free to try to improve the article but come here to discuss if reverted. The onus is on you to change the consensus. I doubt that your edit summary comment that a tertiary source has a different line will convince. We don't copy other encyclopediae. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by what exactly you want to happen here. Are you proposing that the reference to Britannica be removed? If so, this is fine with me. Sagflaps (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I was proposing the status quo unless you had an argument for a change. As I said, we don't usually have cites in the lead. I imagine there are several here because of the constant appearance of new editors claiming Nazism is leftist. I don't see the need for the Britannica cite for that -- or any other reason -- and think it makes sense to remove. Let's wait a day to see if any of the regulars here differ. 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we have a separate article about National Socialism?

This currently redirects here. But German, French, Polish, Spanish and Portuguese wikis, among others, have a separate article on this. Compare Wikidata:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7310 nazism (Q7310): fascist, antisemitic, nationalist, anti-communist, totalitarian ideology of the regime that ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945

and

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1968293 national socialism (Q1968293) political ideology

From scanning through the articles in different language versions (ex. compare de:Nationalsozialismus and de:Nationaler Sozialismus), it seems that the former (interwikied here) is about Nazi Germany, while the latter is about a broader (wider, mostly but not only European) ideology The closest to it was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Socialism&oldid=446963303 this version; still very poor. It was boldly redirected here several times (at some points that article was clearly a POVFORK of this one). Still, it seems somewhat reasonable to consider having one article on German concept and one of the broader European iterations of it. See also disambigs at National Socialist Party and National Socialist Movement. Good example to consider (predating WW2 and a bunch of neonazi stuff): National Socialist Movement of Chile. Those Chileans were National Socialists, not Nazis, yet we do not have an article to describe their ideology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Copied to Politics of Germany

Just letting you know, I’ve copied some of this page to Politics of Germany#Legacy of Nazism Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)