Talk:German National People's Party

Kamfstaffeln instead of Stahlhelm as DNVP paramilitary wing

The Stahlhelm was not the official paramilitary association of the DNVP. It's actually the Kampfstaffeln (Fighter Squadrons) that was its paramilitary force. I first learned this months ago when I was reading "The Fateful Alliance: German Conservatives and Nazis in 1933" by Hermann Beck. https://books.google.com/books?id=BG9Or-27pdsC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Kampfstaffeln&source=bl&ots=-6guIdWbp2&sig=ACfU3U22dBGnO7_K85WsAz27txwC_WtHAw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZvpub19fnAhXUQs0KHb4DBl8Q6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Kampfstaffeln&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaniack (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

National Socialisist parties as rightwing is not Nuetral it is NPOV.

Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism, because it requires supreme devotion to the state as supreme concern and focus of all citizens. The citizen serves the state and promotes the states interest. It is not the state promoting the concern, protection, interests and individual liberties of the citizens. It is anti-communism, because it allows capitalism and personal ownership of property or capital, as long as the companies and individuals do what the state tells them to do with the capital or property, like oscar Schindler. He snuck behind the Nazi's backs to help the Jews, so he wouldn't lose his property. Socialism isn't just the state ownership of capital; it is the state control of all capital. If it were just the state ownership of all capital, then it would be Communism. They hated communists because the communists wanted to have the state own all capital. The National socialists just wanted to control everything, that way they wouldn't be responsible for all the upkeep of capital, they could have the companies and individuals do that. Plus, it is easier to play policeman(or macro-manage)over private owners[national socialism], than to try to fully control(micro-manage) every action of the people running state owned property[communism]. Socialism is: n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or run by a centralized government that controls the economy. state socialism: n. < stAt 'sO[sh]&"liz&m > : 1. An economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed. -neutral nobody

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party"

But this party wasn't a national socialist party, was it? It was a conservative nationalist party, somehow archetypical of the term right-wing. --Soman 07:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't called that in its's title, but read down a little further and it mentions that it is an extreme nationalist party, which demands complete loyalty to the state i.e. national socialism. It says they worked with Hitler's party. You are parsing words and playing games.

If you want to keep the npov-tag, you have to make an argument that hold some ground on factual basis. Can you seriously claim a) that DNVP wasn't a nationalist conservative party, b) that DNVP didn't enter into cooperation with NSDAP in its latter stage of existance? I took away the wording extreme, if that was what was bothering you. --Soman 08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a legitimate dispute over this article not being neutral, quit being disruptive by removing the NPOV template. It should stay so others know ther is a debate over it. (Neutral nobody 08:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Using "left" or "right" as categories in politics is always problematic, as the content of these epithets differs from time to time and country to country. (One of course might argue about including left and right at all). The definition given above ("Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism ...") is taken from current political discourse in the US, though even there is too one-dimensional. Hence transferring these American definitions to the Germany of the 1920s is wrong. Calling even the Nazis a left wing party is nonsense, as they were clearly located on the right under the 1920s German political spectrum. You may argue about "socialist", but one shouldn't judge a party by its name alone. Anyway, while these considerations might have some validity in regard to the NSDAP, it is completely nonsensical in regard to the DNVP, the heir of the conservative parties of the Kaiserreich. Str1977 09:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC) ___________________________________________________

Yes, in my view the commentary that seeks to equate Nazism with socialism or describe it as a variety of state socialism of the Soviet or even Western European welfare state variety is a cop-out cranked out by respectable conservatives and aimed at naive people of polite society in prosperous Western countries who know little about the conditions of extreme crisis that existed in Germany and Europe in the interwar period. Yes, Nazism, like the New Deal, imposed certain social programs and state oversight of business, but this was in situation where a laissez faire solution was going nowhere except towards more instability-with the prospect of Bolshevik like revolution being immanent. Thus Nazism, like the New Deal, was a political device and vehicle instituted by the capitalist class to salvage its interests in this situation. The difference is that Nazism-a fascistic and gangsterite regime of militaristic rule-pandered to traditional bigotries, was fundamentally anti-communist and jingoistically militarist and was completely opposed to the existence of an independent labor movement.

Hitler himself in various speeches derided this facile comparison pointing out that it is was well known that Nazis stood for the "total annihilation of Marxism," adding that patriotic business owners had nothing to fear from his party and that the confiscatory language in the Party program was directed at Jewish and treasonous elements only. The chapter "Struggle with the Red Front" in Mein Kampf gives some insight into this with Hitler's description of the traditional conservative politicians as inept intellectual clowns.

It also bears pointing out that the Nazis-and a broad section of German public opinion going beyond them-felt that preparation for a major war, a rematch of the Great War to redeem Germany, was a proper and immediate national objective, a context within which only the most myopic and utopian of conservative ideologues would not admit required regulation, oversight and yes, concessions by business, that might not be appropriate in another context. Moreover, Adolf Hilter is not someone to be trivialized by psychobabble, but was rather more than any mere seasoned thug, a world class political gangster and militatist who was an overachiever in infamy.

since it's a article about Germany: In Germany Nazi is generally seen as (extreme)-right-wing and ABSOLUTLY NOT as any kind of left, and further the Nazi saw themselfs as right-wing (as do modern German neo-nazis) so even if some hayekist argue if nazism is right-wing or may be left or wahtever in the German context it is right-wing!!! 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)~m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk)

The description of the German National People's Party as Far Right is simply wrong. It was the major "conservative" party, and inherently not on the far right of the political spectrum. This must be corrected.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

CDU a successor

By-passing the absurd discussion above, I'm a little concerned that the CDU/CSu is considered a successor party in the info box, although this is implicitly denied in the text. The CDU is surely rather what it says on the tin: a Christian democratic party. Commentators in the UK tend to describe it as centre-right, but it's barely right-wing at all by US or even UK standards, with a strong commitment to social liberalism and a solid welfare state. Together with the SPD, it is a pillar of German democracy. It is a pillar of the EU too, so hardly nationalist in any recognisable sense. I can't really see how it perpetuates a conservative nationalist tradition at all. Perhaps someone with greater specialist knowledge can convince me otherwise. Sjwells53 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume it is meant that not the CDU as such is a successor to the German National People's Party (DNVP), but rather that some DNVP politicians participated in founding the CDU (namely Otto Dibelius, de:Hans Schlange-Schöningen, Otto von Bismarck (Jr.)), and the post-war CDU absorbed parts of the pre-war DNVP electorate (i.e. rural, Northern German conservative and nationalist Protestants).(cf. Winkler: Der lange Weg nach Westen, Sahner: Politische Tradition (German)) Exponents of the CDU's rightist faction, e.g. Alfred Dregger, have been tagged as "German-national".(cf. Schroeder: Parteien und Parteiensystem in Hessen (German)) The CDU has always been a very heterogeneous party, assembling Catholic and Protestant Christians, Christian socialists and proponents of free enterprise, liberal metropolitans and conservative traditionalists, former concentration camp prisoners and former Nazi officials. So the DNVP is just one of its several roots, not its predecessor in a strict sense. --RJFF (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

well but some former DNVP politicians joining CDU does not make the CDU a successor. I'm sure there have been some (few) ex DNVP joining SPD, SED, maybe even the Greens (which is possible if they were pretty young when DNVP was desolved). And hey what about emigrants, there might have been ex DNVP members who emigrated to US/Canada/Australia/NZ/... and joint parties there. So maybe the US Democratic Party (or Republican Party or both) is a DNVP successors in that sence as well. 134.3.76.108 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The comparison is flawed. The SPD existed before 1933 and SPD members usually stayed SPD members after the war (if they survived). There is a continuity, it is the same party. The SED was a merger of SPD and KPD. Former members of the non-socialist parties in East Germany usually joined the LDP(D) or CDU(D). On the other hand, the CDU did not exist before 1933. It can be considered the successor party to all non-socialist (or right-of-center) parties of the Weimar Republic: Centre Party, DDP, DVP, DNVP. The aim of the CDU was to gather all non-socialists: Catholics and Protestants, liberals, conservatives and social Christians, to unite the right-of-centre camp that had been very fragmented before 1933. So it is also (amongst others) the successor party to the German National People's Party. This is more than just some ex-DNVP members incidentally joining the CDU. The remarks on the Greens are odd. The Greens were founded in 1980, nearly 50 years after the dissolution of the DNVP. Their members were born after 1933 and belonged to the left-libertarian 1968 movement. They could not even been members of the DNVP, besides the two parties being politically complete opposites.

no in the early days of the greens there were all kinds of people not just young ones, at times funding them also people old enough to have been voting in1933. you definatly can not seriously claim that there has not been anybody old enough (espacially in the early days of the green party).

and the SPD did not exist 1933-1945 - it was refunded (so to a certain deegree new as well). and what about ex NSDAP members; you would have found them in every (major) party in both German states. so they all are in the same way successor parties of the NSDAP. 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.210.114.106 (talk)

Greens and Nazis "Werner Vogel, a former member of the Nazi Party and of its SA stormtroopers, was among the first elected members of the Greens to the Bundestag in 1983." http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/The-Nazi-roots-of-the-German-Greens-318973 "The Nazi roots of the German Greens" - ok Nazi not dnvp but if a Nazi could be a green bundestagmember a dnvp-person could have been as well 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.252.102 (talk)

and the national-conservative party of the post-war era and the 50ies was the German party who has been in state parliaments and the Bundestag. (plus some minor parties in the realm of national-conservatism, national-liberalism, nationalism, like Deutsche Rechtspartei or Deutsche Reichspartei or fascism like Socialist Reich Party178.210.114.106 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deficiency of internet sources

I am well aware that a when citing a source, it is not required that there be a linked URL. However, this article which is stated to contain 164 citations does not contain even one URL in any of them. As a result, it is impossible for me to verify and or improve the content using the listed sources, and I think that is a bit of an issue. Dustin (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Hugenberg, republican?

This article suggests that under Hugenberg's leadership, the DNVP abandoned its support for restoring the monarchy and accepted if not the Weimar republic, at least republican government. The article says the DNVP was "Extremely nationalistic and reactionary and originally favouring restoration of the Hohenzollern monarchy, it later supported the creation of an authoritarian state as a substitute." To start with, the Hohenzollern monarchy which the DNVP wanted to bring back was an authoritarian state, so that line is a bit redundant. More importantly, everything I have read indicates that Hugenberg was a monarchist. It was the Lambach affair of 1928 that brought down Westarp and led to Hugenberg becoming party leader was all about whatever the party should remain committed to monarchism or not. Beyond that, the party platform of September 1931 (which is a good three years after Hugenberg become leader) quite explicitly states the DNVP will restore the House of Hohenzollern. The section labeled "Monarchy" of the DNVP platform reads:

"The monarchical form of government corresponds to the uniqueness and historical development of Germany. Standing above the parties, the monarchy offers the best guarantee of national unity, the defense of minorities, the constancy of state operations and the incorruptibility of public administration. The German states should enjoy a free choice over the form of their individual governments; for the nation, we are committed to the renewal of the German empire as established under the Hohenzollerns." ("German National People's Party Program" pages 348-352 from The Weimar Republic Sourcebook edited by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay and Edward Dimendberg, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994 page 349.)

Just as aside, the same document declares that "We are emphatically opposed to the prevalence of Judaism in the government and public life, which has emerged ever more ominously since the revolution." I'm rather curious to know just what "minorities" the DNVP believed that the monarchy would protect, since it is clearly not the Jewish minority that they have in mind. Getting back to the main point, if nobody objects, I would like to delete that line or at any rate re-write it to better reflect the facts.--A.S. Brown (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi A.S. Brown, can you give me the date your DNVP quote was stated, so I can use it as a reference in my Kaiserreich abdication of Wilhelm II, concerning the abdication and restoration attempts, of the House of Hohenzollern &c. Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence is accurate. Officially, they may have never stopped to demand a return to monarchy, but in fact they supported presidential rule under Hindenburg (whom they viewed as a "substitute emperor"), made use of plebiscites and a populistic, anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian, virulently nationalistic and anti-semitic rhetorics in which a return to monarchy did not play an important role any more. The commitment to reinstate the House of Habsburg simply was not an issue during the late 1920s until 1933. Your citation is taken from the 1920 program, so it cannot falsify the sentence which is about a later phase. The supposed outcry over Lambach's tractate on monarchism may as well have been a pretext to get rid of the moderate wing and let Hugenberg take over. After all, Lambach was a trade unionist (albeit a nationalist one) and Hugenberg a big industrialist, so this may just have been the trigger and pretence for a course correction and exclusion of moderate elements. Once he had taken over party leadership, Hugenberg did not stress monarchist elements in his rhetorics either, rather focussing on radical nationalism, and cooperating with the Nazis (who were not monarchist at all); nor did the party make any efforts to bring back monarchy, instead they supported Hindenburg and thereby accepted the status quo of having an (authoritarian) president rather than an emperor. This does not mean that Hugenberg was a republican! Nor do I think the disputed sentence is redundant. I read it as "it later supported the creation of an authoritarian state (but not a monarchy) as a substitute." If it is a substitute for monarchy, it is obviously not a monarchy itself. Authoritarian rule by Hindenburg was a substitute for monarchy, but it was not monarchy as Hindenburg was no monarch (and never intended to be). --RJFF (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

{{@Stephen2nd: I'm sorry about being so late in getting back; I did not see your comment until now. It was from The Weimar Republic Sourcebook edited by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay and Edward Dimendberg, Los Angeles: University of California Press, pages 348-352, ISBN 9780520067745. The date given is 1931; the DNVP had a major party congress in September 1931, so it is probably from that congress.

The source says the party program quoted is from 1931, not 1920. With all due respect, RJFF, I think you are mistaken here. First thing, it was not clear at all what the Nazi stance was on the monarchy during the Weimar republic. The Nazis were more than a bit ambiguous about that issue, welcoming in several Hohenzollern princes as party members. Several of the sons and grandsons of the last Kaiser ended up joining the NSDAP, in 1932 Herman Göring paid a much publicised visit to the Kaiser in his Dutch exile, and in 1933-34 Wilhelm II believed that there was a possibility that Hitler might restore him to the throne. And it was just members of the House of Hohenzollern who were confused about this issue. Joachim von Ribbentrop was an ardent monarchist who joined the NSDAP in May 1932 because he thought it offered the best chance of restoring the monarchy. It was only about 1934 that it finally became clear that there could be one Führer in the Third Reich. Even the name Third Reich was mean to evoke continuity with the Second Reich and the First Reich. There has been much nonsense written about this point with several conservative German historians such as Gerhard Ritter and Hans Rothfels portraying Hitler as an "anti-German" (!) leader who was the heir to the French revolution. Ritter and Rothfels were way, way off-base on this point. Hitler always disparaged the French Revolution as the work of the Jews and he presented himself as the heir to Prussian traditions, especially Frederick the Great whom he reverned. Leaving aside the question of the historical accuracy of this viewpoint, all of the evidence suggests it was genuinely felt belief on his part. The only reason why this claim was being made despite the manifest lack of evidence for it was to portray the Nazis as freakish aberration of German history and portraying them as the product of French traditions was to indict the French as the source of Nazism-the not so subtle message here is that everything went wrong with German history was all the work of the French, not the Germans.

Yes, Hindenburg was viewed as the Ersatzkaiser (substitute emperor), but that change in perceptions took place during the First World War, not the Weimar republic. During the war, Hindenburg definitely Wilhelm II in terms of public affection, becoming the focus of popular attention and affection. At least of the reason for that Wilhelm II during the war became the Schattenkaiser (shadow emperor) who disappeared from public view as the responsibilities of the war were too much for him. Wilhelm II was always more of a posturer than a leader anyhow, full of bombast, so it is no surprise that the self-proclaimed Supreme War Lord could not handle being an actual war leader. The point is that as early as 1915 Hindenburg was being called the Ersatzkaiser as the real one had already disappeared into the shadows. The DNVP supported Hindenburg's election as president in 1925, believing that this was the best way to restore the monarchy. And if Heinrich Brüning's memoirs published after his death in 1970 are to be believed, the endpoint of the presidential governments was always to restore the monarchy. The DNVP was opposed to the Brüning presidential government, presenting itself as the "national opposition". Yes, they supported Papen and his "cabinet of barons". It is true that Papen didn't commit himself to restoring the monarchy, talking only of an authoritarian state, but the massivie overrepresentation of aristocrats in Papen's "cabinet of barons" led to much speculation at the time about the possibility of restoring the monarchy.

With all due respect, I feel the remark "anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian, virulently nationalistic and anti-semitic" rhetoric as incompatible with monarchism is misplaced. Wilhelm II was a virulent nationalist and anti-Semite who spent almost his entire life blaming all on his problems on the Jews. He was an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who absolutely loved the theories of his very good friend, the völkisch thinker, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the "Evangelist of Race". It is true that Wilhelm II got into his really crazy theories about "Juda-England" only after his abdication in 1918, but is revealing that his explanation for the November revolution was a Jewish conspiracy and he had those tendencies long before he ascended to the throne in 1888. Chamberlain himself was another monarchist who joined the NSDAP in 1923, believing that Hitler was going to restore the monarchy. It is true that not all of the völkisch people were monarchists, but being on the völkisch right did not automatically translate into republicanism as the examples of Chamberlain, Ribbentrop and the Hohenzollern princes shows. Radical nationalism and monarchism in Germany were really the same thing; maybe not all of radical nationalists were monarchists, but all monarchists were radical nationalists. The post-war plans drawn up during World War One for Germany to become the world's number one power by settling millions of German farmers in Eastern Europe bear an uncanny resemblance to the post-war plans drawn up during World War Two. One also can see that the plans drawn up by the former DNVP member and monarchist Carl Goerdeler during World War Two, which talked about a German-dominated Europe and deporting all the Jews to some far-away place. Yes, Goerdeler, the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was going too far, but he believed that there was a "Jewish Question" in need of a solution, even if he did not approve of that particular solution. The way that aristocrats continued to be prominent leaders of the DNVP right up to the party's end in 1933 definitely gave the party a monarchist hue under Hugenberg. And for the presidential election of 1932, Hugenberg did not support Hindenburg. He tried to recruit Prince Oskar of Prussia to run as the DNVP presidential candidate. The prince didn't want to run, but does show the party was as late as 1932 still being true to its monarchism.

It is true that Lambach was a trade unionist and Hugenberg was a very anti-union media magnate, but the biography of Hugenberg by John Leopold says that he was genuinely angry with Lambach for wanting to drop the monarchism. Hugenberg was a DNVP purist who very much wanted to stay faithful to the party's roots. Hugenberg was a businessman, but didn't represent industry anymore than let's say Donald Trump represents property developers. Hugenberg's actions like voting against the Dawes plan in 1924 put him very much against the industrialists who were horrified that he and the other DNVP purists were willing to risk a return to the hyper-inflation of 1923. Leopold says quite clearly that Hugenberg represents more the interests of the Pan-German League, of which was a member of.

I never going to argue with you about supporting an authoritarian state, but I think the article should make it clear that party was always faithful towards its monarchism. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Complete misreading of sources

Beyond My Ken, consensus isn't needed for every edit or revision of an article unless someone is deliberately challenging it as false. Is that what you are doing? Your most recent revision is saying you dont agree with the source saying "incomparably" so it shouldn't be there, yet thats the word it uses. In addition my previous edits were about deliberate misreading of the sources in the article. For example, the line that Hugenburg said that the NSDAP was now "the main enemy of Germany" and that the DNVP and NSDAP tried to destory each other. The source given for that is [1](pages 67-83), you can check and read it for free yourself if you use a google account to login. I cannot find a speech in there with Hugenburg saying that, nor that the parties were "trying to destroy each other". It says that Hugenburg called the NSDAP the main rival of the DNVP but not Germany, and while it mentions a bitter dispute I cannot find anywhere the intent to destroy the other party, in fact its explicitly mentioned that the DNVP/National Front were worried that the NSDAP would fall apart, since they were in broader terms allies against the Left. Why are you challenging something if you aren't willing to check for yourself? 72.26.30.47 (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I really don't care if the source uses it or not, it's not an appropriate word for an encyclopedia It's hyperbole. Do not change it back again until you have a consensus for its use.

In any case, there's much bigger problem here. A huge part of the article seems to be sourced to one book, Beck's Fateful Alliance. That's not a good situation, sourcing should be spread around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You don’t need consensus to ADD sources, and regardless of your problem with that wording you removed the entire edit. Why? As for the word, it is appropriate, it comes from the exact same source as a qualifier to the above mentioned examples of fighting between the DNVP. It’s not hyperbole, the author says that the infighting was emphasized by the DNVP records he uses as a primary source, the qualifier being that it was “incomparably” less compared to Nazi-on Left wing conflict, though the DNVP emphasized their own conflict. And what is your explanation for removing my other edits? I gave you an example where it complete deviates from the source material, you removed my edit, and have no explanation other than “you need concensus”. From Wikipedia itself [2] Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article. Either is a good outcome. If a bold edit might be controversial, consider adding "(revert if inappropriate)" or similar to the edit summary to alert others. So if you are going to challenge my edits, where exactly is it inappropriate? You gave one example, which I myself find tenuous since it’s from the same source as the described conflict it’s an addendum to. User:A.S. Brown could you weigh in? 72.26.30.47 (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

please respond Beyond My Ken, I see that you’ve reworded the edit I made about “incomparably” instead of outright removing it now but my other questions are unanswered. 72.26.30.47 (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I never removed it, I only reworded it - I replaced the unencyclopedic "incomparable" (which requires a judgement and should not be said in Wiki-voice) with "much more". If you have other questions, please separate them into a bulleted list so I don't need to hunt them out of a wall of text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and don't preach to me, just give me your questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you did remove it, along with all my other edits.[3]

As for another edit of mine you removed, I’ll reiterate.

• It says in the article that Hugenburg said the NSDAP was now "the main enemy of Germany" and that the DNVP and NSDAP tried to destory each other. The source given for that is [4](pages 67-83), you can check and read it for free yourself if you use a google account to login. I cannot find a speech in there with Hugenburg saying that, nor that the parties were "trying to destroy each other". It says that Hugenburg called the NSDAP the main rival of the DNVP but not Germany, and while it mentions a bitter dispute I cannot find anywhere the intent to destroy the other party, in fact its explicitly mentioned that the DNVP/National Front were worried that the NSDAP would fall apart, since they were in broader terms allies against the Left.

That’s as brief as I can be Beyond My Ken, since I’m explaining why I changed it. What was wrong with that edit? If you don’t have a problem with it can I correct it again? 72.26.30.47 (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explicating that. It's after 1am here, so I'm not going to start researching now, but tomorrow I'll look at the source, and double check it against my own extensive library and see what I come up with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• The closest thing I can find in the Jones article to a statement by Hugenberg that the Nazis were "the main enemy of Germany" is on page 68: "...Hugenberg claimed that the NSDAP's obstructionist tactics had severely undermined the effectiveness of the struggle against Marxism and designated National Socialism the new opponent of the national front." Of course, "the new opponent of the national front" is a far cry from "the main enemy of Germany".
  In addition, I could not find anything like the "main enemy" statement in my library. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I can't find anything saying that they were "trying to destroy each other", again it says in that source that they were infact worried that the NSDAP was falling apart, that should be changed too. 72.26.30.47 (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you agree that part should be removed Beyond My Ken? 72.26.30.47 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree at this time. The NSDAP/DNVP relationship was complex and had its ups and downs. Until I have the chance to review that history, the article should remain as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I cannot find anything in my sources that back up the idea that in the period after Paper dissolved the Reichstag leading up to the election of 31 July that the Nazis and the DNVP "tried to destroy each other". I have no doubt that in the melee of the period there was anti-NSDAP propaganda from the Nationalists, and anti-DNVP propaganda from the Nazis, but I found nothing saying that they intended to destroy each other. If they had, it's highly unlikely that Hugenberg would have, just a short time later, accept the ministries he was given in the first Hitler cabinet. True, he had to be persuaded to join the government, basically being bribed by making him the de facto economics czar, but their competition against each other before the election of 31 July was just another of the ups and downs between the two parties. Given all this, I have removed the statement and made some other adjustments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Plakat Lasst die alten Fahnen wehn 1932.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)