Talk:Nazism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

request

Text of the 22 pages of Babik given as a cite for the claim of Lutheranism and its "organic pagan past" as being a basis for Nazism. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not understand your point. What do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have full access to this paper, which is a critique by Babik of a book written by revisionist historian Richard Steigmann-Gall. According to Babik, Steigmann-Gall "challenged the conventional wisdom that Nazism was either non-christian or anti-christian" and "rejected the increasingly popular interpretation of Nazism as a secular or political religion". Steigmann-Gall view, according to Babik, is that there is a high degree to which Protestantism was central to Nazi self-understanding with the top Nazis comprehending their actions in Christian terms and "as a mission completing the work of the reformation in germany". Babik then proceeds to criticise Steigmann-Gall's line of thought beginning with the following questions: "Is Steigmann-Gall’s understanding of the implications of his portrayal of Nazism correct? Is his rejection of the secularization thesis valid? Does his representation of Nazism as a Protestant movement necessarily undermine the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion?" Babik answers these questions in the following terms:

"In the following article I suggest that while Steigmann-gall’s revision of Nazi conceptions of christianity represents a welcome addition to accounts of Nazism as a form of neo-paganism, his claim concerning the implications of this revision for the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion is deeply problematic. His dismissal of the secular religion approach stands on an untenably narrow conception of secularization as a tool of historical understanding. In other words, I take issue not with Steigmann-gall’s depiction of Nazism as a Protestant movement, but with the model of secular religion against which he subsequently evaluates it. This model ignores the finer points of secularization theory; it represents only a truncated version of the much more rigorous model of secularization developed in the debate between Karl Löwith and Hans Blumenberg, respectively the main proponent and the main critic of the secularization thesis in the area of historical theory."

Babik goes as far as saying that due to Steigmann-Gall's poor understanding of the secularization thesis, his theory of Protestant Nazism actually confirms the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion:

"In light of the Löwith–Blumenberg debate, Steigmann-Gall’s revision of Nazism as a Protestant movement thus does not undermine the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion, but tends to make this interpretation more plausible. ..... By demonstrating that Nazism had Christian content, Steigmann-Gall has unwittingly met the test of secular religion proposed by secularization theory’s most rigorous critic. If Steigmann-Gall reaches the opposite conclusion and sees Protestant Nazism as running counter to the secular religion approach, this is because he lacks more thorough awareness of secularization theory. Insofar as he extracts his understanding of secularization from contemporary political religion historiography on Nazism, the lack of awareness is more extensive."

So it is clear from this paper that the conventional view is that Nazism is either non-Christian or anti-Christian, and the view that Nazism is a radical extension of Protestantism is a revisionist view point (i.e. minority POV) of a historian with a poor understanding of secularization. I am surprised that Paul has overlooked the substance of this paper and instead used it as a source to text in the article that is written as a mainstream viewpoint, when in actual fact it is a flawed minority POV. --Nug (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect, that is now a very complicated and intellectually formidable lead-in to the Church and State section, rather than an introductory A, B, C statement. For someone new to the subject it would be better if the Nazis' basic position on religion were stated first, before going deeper into the subject. Kim Traynor (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The source used is not easily reduced to platitudes <g>, as the prior poorly worded claims indicated. I soght to salvage the source, and not to savage its meaning. Perhaps better to omit the mass of quite convoluted reasoning present in that source? Collect (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I'd have a go myself but am a bit busy at the moment, perhaps you could try your hand at drafting a suitable explanation of the Nazis' basic position on religion. --Nug (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you wouldn't say that. I'll have a rummage around some sources and see if I can come up with something sensible on this tricky subject. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading the literature I found a lot of new information and facts I was not aware of. It is a very interesting reading, and I need some time to read and summarise it. In connection to that, I take a short break and hope to come back with new version of the text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a draft of sorts, but it reads poorly at present. It's quite difficult to find over-arching statements that can be individually referenced. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Give it a go and post at least an outline here, I'm sure with many heads we can formulate something. --Nug (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether the Nazis were Protestant, Catholic or pagan is irrelevant to whether or not their anti-Semitism developed from Luther's views. TFD (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel a bit like an embarassed schoolboy being asked to show his sub-standard work to the class. I have a skeletal version of what could be an explanation of the Nazi-churches relationship, but even if I work this up to a more acceptable standard, the next hurdle would be how to integrate it with what already exists on the page. I hope you can read it despite the presence of pointers to my references.

The 24th point of the Nazi Party Programme of 1920 guaranteed freedom for all religious denominations not inimical to the State and endorsed “Positive Christianity” to combat “the Jewish-materialist spirit”. J Noakes and G Pridham, Documents on Nazism, 1919-1945, London 1974

The anti-communism of the Catholic Church and its priority of self-survival eased accommodation with the regime in 1933. Relations between the Nazi state and the Catholic Church were regulated by the Concordat signed in July of that year, an agreement upheld by both parties despite breaches criticized in 1937 in Pius XI’s encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’. Hildebrandt Lutheran traditions of obedience to state authority and German patriotism, together with anti-Communism, resulted in a more enthusiastic reception of Nazi beliefs by the Protestant churches. Remak comments on the “misunderstanding of true aims” of Nazism by most church members

Despite their fundamental incompatibility, Snyder the Nazi Party and the mainstream churches co-existed uneasily throughout the period of the Third Reich. The Nazis avoided direct public attacks on the churches. There was no equivalent of Bismarck’s Kulturkampf. Hitler respected the power of the Catholic Church and was wary of the negative effect any open confrontation might have on the German public. Remak. Although privately expressing his hatred of Christianity Snyder p.304, Hitler saw the churches as embodying a socially conservative element that could not be replaced by party ideology. TT He was prepared to tolerate them as long as they recognised the State as master TT 143 and did not interfere in its affairs.

Bormann, who represented the more aggressively anti-Christian element in the Party, thought Hitler had always been religious p.203 While he rejected Christianity with its Jewish origins as a "big lie", TT Hitler employed religious vocabulary in his everyday conversation, often invoking the Lord and the Almighty in his public speaking.

Although he agreed with Bormann that National Socialism and Christianity were incompatible 145, Hitler deliberately held aloof from interfering in church affairs p.122, saying he had no wish to promote atheism p.6 which was associated with Bolshevism. He hoped for the eventual elimination of the churches, expecting the "disease of Christianity" TT 343 to die a natural death. Table Talk p.59

Hoping to maintain good relations with the churches to secure their support, he forbade Goebbels to leave the Church 340 and intended to remain Catholic himself. Speer p.95 Speer reported Hitler as believing that the churches would adapt to the Nazi state over time.

Dissent occurred in both mainstream churches, especially on the question of euthanasia. Fischer In the case of the Catholic Church this was expressed in individual acts of disobedience by priests and bishops who were punished by internment in concentration camps. Remak Goebbels retaliated by orchestrating occasional smear campaigns in the press against priests and monks. Fischer Crucifixes were removed from schools and hospitals. Goebbels diary

Dissent expressed itself in a more organised form in the Protestant churches. Fearing that the Nazis posed a threat to religion, many resisted Nazification by establishing the Confessing Church as a counterweight to the pro-Nazi element styling themselves ‘German Christians’. In 1937 800 members of the Confessing Church were arrested. Hildebrandt

The outbreak of war saw an end to official harassment of the churches. Snyder While fanatics like Bormann continued to press for a campaign against the churches (Kirchenkampf), Hitler wanted this postponed until after the war. Speer p.123; Goebbels p.163 He recognised the value of traditional religion in maintaining morale in the armed forces and providing solace to the bereaved families of soldiers killed in action. Both mainstream churches continued to provide chaplains to the armed forces and offered prayers for the Führer from their pulpits. Remak Speer’s architectural plans for the new Berlin included the rebuilding of churches destroyed by bombing. Speer 177

By the war’s end the relationship between the Nazi state and the churches was still “a major unresolved issue” Remak.

The American historian Klaus Fischer has described the moral failure of the churches to resist Hitler as an “institutional failure of nerve”, while acknowledging that “few believers realized that their Christian faith was fundamentally at odds with Nazi ideology. p.359.

Actually that's not bad at all, it seems like a good summary. I've added some subsections within the "Church and State" section, I'd be inclined to replace every thing above the "Thule society" subsection with your text, then anything salvageable form the old to be added in where appropriate. --Nug (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment. Not having to merge the above with existing text would certainly make things a lot easier. I'll find time this weekend to polish the draft. I'm still hunting for a source I know exists where Hitler says, either to Bormann or Goebbels, that he can't see what it would achieve to prevent the mother of a soldier killed in action seeking comfort by going to church. This has been an interesting exercise for me in revealing how reluctant H was to move egainst the churches (I'll wager that has something to do with his mother's devoutness); it also explains how lay members of churches could believe that, with the notable exceptions of euthanasia and anti-Semitic measures, there was no basic incompatability between their beliefs and patriotic support of the regime. Kim Traynor (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Right Nug, I've had a go at rewriting the section. The source base is currently quite narrow, but I'll see if I can expand it. I'm mindful that the overall article is already too long for Wikipedia, so I've tried to keep the points to a minimum. I'm assuming more detail on aspects like neo-paganism, the substitution of Christian symbols and rites, can be found on linked pages. I might just add one more point about how the 19thC, e.g. Wagner, had paved the way ideologically for the German Christians by remoulding the Judaic Jesus meek and mild into an 'Aryan' warrior. Kim Traynor (talk)

I've now added the Wagner point, but it may be too specific to fit in with the general tone of the section, so I won't be surprised if it is reverted. More seriously, if you look below you'll see someone has raised a serious objection to using Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk as a reference. If the objection is sustainable, I think several WP pages will be affected. It's really up to others now to build on the basis I've laid by modifying and improving the section I hope that it is more comprehensible and comprehensive than what went before. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have laid a solid foundation now for future work, I find coming up with a structure is always harder than adding the detail, so well done. I've read the thread below concerning Trevor-Roper's work and was rather surprised myself, it is something I'll have to look into further. Regarding Steigmann-Gall's work, it has been criticised by Babik, see the quotes I posted at the top of this thread from Babik's review of Steigmann-Gall's book. That's what makes this topic so difficult, scholars seem to find some issue in each other's works. --Nug (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Targeted groups?

Can someone add Slavs to targeted groups? To this paragraph: To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews, Romani, and the physically and mentally disabled.[14] Other groups deemed "degenerate" and "asocial" who were not targeted for extermination, but received exclusionary treatment by the Nazi state, included: homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses and political opponents.[14]

From "The Holocaust" wikipedia page:

Slavs Main articles: Generalplan Ost and Hunger Plan

One of Hitler's ambitions at the start of the war was to exterminate, expel, or enslave most or all Slavs from their native lands so as to make living space for German settlers. This plan of genocide[255] was to be carried into effect gradually over a period of 25–30 years.[256]

It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply.

— Heinrich Himmler spoke about Operation Barbarossa, June 1941[257] Nekoceko (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the context here is targeted groups within Germany itself. --Nug (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DAP ?

What's point with DAP ?! Nazism isn't socialism. It's only the name :

• Not class struggle, which is an important socialism topic

--Bobybarman34 (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an old chestnut. Search the archives, this has discussed before. --Nug (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's more than just a name. It certainly isn't socialism in the Marxist sense or in the Christian socialist tradition, with their vision of a more just and egalitarian society. But neither should the 'socialist' element in Nazism be underrated in terms of explaining its wide appeal to many Germans. The 'socialism' of the Nazis was very narrowly defined within a nationalist framework (its variant of egalitarianism being embodied in the idea of Reich citizenship - as Hitler put it, a German street sweeper should feel superior to any foreign king). It never quite succeeded in winning over the workers to the extent the Nazis hoped for, but it did in many individual cases cut across the class divide. I think this is why the Left has never understood why the Nazi dictatorship was possibly the most popular in history. It built on Bismarck's state socialism which was well in advance of other European countries (and eventually copied by them). Nazi social welfare put France and Britain in the shade during the 1930s Depression. Read Hitler's Table Talk to see how smug he is when referring scornfully to the way the class system operates in England. I'm sure it was awareness of the inadequacy of Britain's welfare system compared with Germany's that made its expansion under the Beveridge Plan of 1942 a political imperative. Hitler and Goebbels were proclaiming a 'New Order' in Europe which would sweep aside the old, decadent 'plutocratic' order in France and Britain. Politically, these older systems could not, after victory, return to pre-war average levels of material existence and still expect to enjoy popular legitimacy. Neutralising the propaganda of the Soviet Union's 'workers' paradise' was also a consideration. Kim Traynor (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs, or we will end up referring to Roosevelt's New Deal as American socialism (a claim generally made only by fringe right-wing polemicists). The Nazis' "national socialism" should not be confused with what is generally understood by socialism as an ideology. Of course, the name was chosen to appeal to the working class. Bismarck was not a socialist. In fact, he passed the Anti-Socialist Laws. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs..." Indeed so, but social welfare programs are popularly associated with socialism. It's absurd to imply I suggested Bismarck was socialist. He was playing the same game as Hitler, providing social welfare measures 'from above' to wean the workers - proletariat if you prefer - away from Marxist socialism and integrate them into the authoritarian state. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. The Germans were not smart enough to figure out what 'Socialist" actually meant, and were thus fooled by the Nazi's, or is your assertion that the Germans were so smart that planned to confound us all over a half a century later with this incredibly clever scheme to fool us all and make Socialism look bad by falsey using the name? Really, do you all have anything but your own personal opinions to actually back this up? Something solid and lastings. Hey I know we will settle this by looking at specific planks in the National Socialist Party Platform. You know, the National Socialist Program.

11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

19.We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20.The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

Holey Moley Braintrusts, they were Socialists. The biggest fraud perpetrated by the so called intellectual elite in the 20th Century was the idea that National Socialism and Marxist Socialism were polar opposites. They were not, they were in competition for the same groups of people. If you have trouble understanding the animosity between them, I suggest you research Stalinism, Trotskeyites, and Maoists and their notably (not peaceful) ideological disputes. They are all Socialist. Whether Hitler, Stalin or Mao actually believed in Socialism is certainly debatable, but their ideology was all socialist, so the point can be made it was meant to just attract followers. That point can be made about any Political Ideology or movement. But these groups were far more alike than any of them were "different" and what they sound like is the half of the Occupy Wall Street movement, right down to the Anti-Semeticism.

Power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.13.6 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Under your absurd "reasoning," we are to then conclude that the German Democratic Republic (a/k/a, the "DDR," otherwise known as East Germany) was really not Communist at all! Why, they had the word "Democratic" right there in the name! There is no merit whatsoever to your argument, which is why there are no reputable historians that buy into such a ludicrous concept. There is no "conspiracy" or "fraud," any more than there is any merit to other wackadoodle conspiracies, like the "Truther," "Birther," or "Chemtrail" conspiracies. Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My absurd reasoning relies not on the title of the Party, but principles of the Party Platform. Can you show me where the Nazi Party enshrined, as part of the Party Platform or even operating philosophy, which proves your point? Too much critical thinking results in denial of reality in favor of your own opinion. Power 108.241.120.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

no, several editors including myself have alluded to the 25 point plan before. ip makes a great point, either much of germany did not understand the meaning of the term, or it is misunderstood here. ddr was forced on germany by communist, NSDAP won elections. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The NSDAP did not win election. They formed a coalition with the Conservatives, which gave them a majority. They achieved dictatorial power when the Christian Democrats and others including free market types approved the Enabling Act of 1933. Only the Social Democrats opposed this measure, the Communist MPs having already been arrested. TFD (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

here are the actual election totals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results Darkstar1st (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

a perfect example of why naziism and nazi party should be combined, editors on one page are unaware of material on the other. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Their best showing was 288 out of 647 seats and together with the Conservatives' 52 seats they were able to form another coalition government. However they needed a 2/3 vote to achieve dictatorship which they did by obtaining the support of all the non-socialist parties. TFD (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

so we are back to my original point, either millions of Germans did not understand the definition of national socialism, or you do not. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have facts to back up my assertion. Not just the platform of the National Socialist Party, but go and look at the statements by both the German Government and the Soviet Union during their pact. What do you have, your opinion. Please bring some facts to the argument. You may disagree with idea that they were good Socialists, but they were Socialists none the less. You do not get to define it to suit your ideology. Bring some facts and debate the issue. This is not a conspiracy theory. Again, it was the way they presented themselves to the electorate, and the mode of most of the Social Policy programs they implemented. The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution. The Russians made sure of it when they wrote it or them. Just because the Soviets massacred hundreds of thousands of Socialists, Trotskyites, and various other forms of progressives whose ideologies did not mesh well enough with the Stalin variety does not make them Capitalists either. It was the way they operated. Same thing with the Nazi's. Hell, even IL duce, Mussolini was a member of the 2nd (Communist) international. The Marxists hated the National Socialists and Fascists for one major reason, and it was not because they were not socialist, it was because they focused on Nationalism in opposition to internationalism. Think about what the biggest threat to say a Sunni Muslim is. It is a Shiite Muslim. That and again they were competing for the same pool potential supporters. Capitalism will really never undermine the base supporters of any Socialist party, but another Socialist party sure as heck can. People who thought that Socialism might be a good idea were not going t leave the Soviet Bolshevik version to join the Christian or Centrists Democrats in massive droves, but they did leave to join the National Socialists. As far as the birther comment, now that we know that Obama was the source of the rumor he was born in Kenya, you should probably retract that little (meager) attempt at ridicule, it does not ring true. Power75.143.144.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

"The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution." It says no such thing, please do not provide false facts to support your opinions. TFD (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Um ...

Article 1 of the 1968 constitution began with the words, "The German Democratic Republic is a socialist state of the German nation. It is the political organization of the workers in the cities and in the countryside, who jointly under the leadership of the working class and their Marxist-Leninist party will realize Socialism."

Seems to contradict your wondrous blanket assertion (trusting that you acknowledge "Marxist-Leninist party" = "Communist party" at least. When accusing editors of lying, it would help if you had actual facts on your side, TFD. Or will you now insist that "Marxist-Leninist" has naught to do with "Communism"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It says "socialist" not "communist". Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. The leaders of the GDR claimed that they had established socialism, which in their view was a step to communism, when the state would wither away. TFD (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic is a socialist state in the constitution, voted democratically by free people, if there be not objection, i suggest we simply use the constitution as a RS, for what else could be more peer reviewed by scholars than the very constitution of the nation. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that self-description is not sufficient to categorize a government. Power75 wrote, "The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution." They did not, and editors should not use false facts to bolster arguments. --TFD (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The term they used is "Marxist-Leninist" -- I find the cavil that this is not "communism" to be remarkable, but incorrect. Collect (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It says the party was Marxist-Leninist. The claim that the GDR claimed to be a communist state in its constitution is false. TFD (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You do know that was a revision of the original Constitution, which was promulgated 20 years earlier, written by the Soviets, after they forced the formation of the “The ruling Communist party, known as the "Socialist Unity Party" (SED), was formed in April 1946 out of the forced merger between the German Communist Party (KPD) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). As Walter Ulbricht noted, everything was made to look democratic while in reality Communists retained control in the background.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany#History

I To be blunt, all Communists are Socialists, or claim to be, not all Socialists are Communist. And, keeping in mind the fact that Engels and Marx were after all German, that the German people were pretty well clued in to what Socialism was, and more accurately, what was not Socialism.

The fear of Communism in Germany was based on the international aspect of Soviet Communism, dominated by the Soviet Union. The Russian Communists dominated the Communist International, and the German fear was of, and it was often stated, Bolshevism. In fact, they likely considered Soviet Communism as a perversion of Socialism.

If such an idea still confounds you, go and review the relationship between the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China. To include their numerous border incidents and the fact that one of the Soviet Union’s biggest fears was an American Chinese relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Power 108.241.120.20 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Trevor-Roper Edition of Hitler's Table Talk Should Not be RS...

I just noticed that someone is adding stuff to this page, particularly in regards to the whole Hitler/Christianity debate. Rather than copy and paste the many comments from reputable historians regarding the absolute fakery involved in Trevor-Roper's "translation," particularly in reference to the alleged "anti-Christian" passages, I'll just link you to where it has already been cited very well in the WP article for the book in question: [1]. Such obvious (and well-known, at least in the academic community...) forgeries should not be used as RS on this page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That someone is me. And that someone is now being told that Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk is an obvious and well-known forgery. I'll need to investigate what that assertion is based on because it isn't obvious to me nor known. Is Picker's Table Talk text also a forgery? Kim Traynor (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now looked at the link you provided. It'll take me time to digest and act upon. My first reaction is not to believe that Trevor-Roper's work is a forgery. I am being told Hitler has been mistranslated, which is perfectly believable but a different proposition. Since it might well be true, may I suggest you have a go at trying to provide a straightforward account of the Nazi-churches relationship. I've found that difficult to achieve without going to the horse's mouth, so to speak, for Hitler's views on Christianity. If we don't know what they were, we will certainly find ourselves in a different place. The rest of the information on that link seems to be a discussion about contradictions between the Nazi relationship with the churches and what one might term Hitler's religiosity. There are certainly ambiguities in these, so why should we be surprised to find contradictions? I already tried to point that out by saying much of the evidence appears contradictory. The other stuff about an Aryan Christ is hardly revelatory. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is very serious, in fact shocking. If Steigmann-Gall's findings are reliable, I assume he immediately started work on a new translation, or has convinced a publisher to step in and arrange one's appearance. If, for example, Hitler did not refer to "the disease of Christianity", Trevor-Roper has indeed been fraudulent, or perhaps, more charitably, lazy in relying on the incorrect French translation. If fraudulent, it places a question mark against the credibility of his other work. How much of 'The Last Days of Hitler' did he also invent? (Goodbye 'Downfall' et al.) Does the English version of Hitler's 'Last Will And Testament' also contain translation errors? My brain is slowly shifting gear here, and if, after rummaging around, I find I've been duped, I'll have to expunge the TT references and try to stick to what has been recorded independently of what were hitherto believed to be relevant Hitler utterances. I did say earlier in the discussion that I am not best placed to rewrite this section, but recognised the need to do so. I think, for example, the material on Luther should be on a page dealing with anti-Semitism and that this page should only mention it briefly as one ingredient in the Nazis' anti-Semitism. Now I note that we have a seemingly stranded pic of Streicher whose position will have to be moved to link him more to the Luther section. Kim Traynor (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the passages which were based off of specific statements from Trevor-Roper's "translation" that have been shown to be forged. (I use the term "forged" because I think it goes beyond mere "mistake" when you add things that aren't there in the original...in order to change the entire meaning of a sentence...) I left the rest of the stuff cited to Trevor-Roper, because I can't say that everything in HTT is fraudulent, and if I did so, it would totally mess up the section. I do think, however, that other RS should be used in place of it, because of the "issues" in Trevor-Roper's edition. It's like using Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction" as a source. It's just not reliable. Here's an essay I found, discussing the various fakeries and mistranslations often used to "prove" that Hitler was anti-Christian, when the actual historical record shows otherwise: [2]. (It also discusses the Trevor-Roper fiasco...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty much persuaded now that Trevor-Roper isn't reliable (though I must say the mistake about the army belt buckles on that link is pretty crass. It suggests unfamiliarity with German history because the motto predates Nazism; so who did that chap's translations for him?). If Hitler's other pronouncements in the TT are NOT mistranslated, the basic picture remains the same, but can only be illustrated by duller quotations. By the way, I thought the consensus view of Rauschning was that contemporaries thought he was making it all up, but that events proved he was pretty much accurate on what he was reporting. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well some authors have a tendency to attribute everything to Hitler, but the Nazi party was more than just him. Goebbels also held a dim view of the established churches stating: "Catholicism and Protestantism are both rotten". And let's not forget that one of the key ideologues of the Nazi movement was the Baltic German Alfred Rosenberg, being a true anti-semite he rejected both Catholic or Protestant beliefs and tenets as tainted by Jews and wanted to create an entirely new religion. Hitler may have admired Jesus to be the "slim, tall, blond" aryan saviour of the Germanic people, but at one stage Hitler also admired Stalin thinking he must of had some Ayran blood due to his ruthlessness. The Nazis rejected the Old Testament , which is core to Christian belief, and wanted to merge the Catholic and Protestant churches after the war into a unified German secular religion with elements of paganism. So in that sense the Nazis were anti-Christian. --Nug (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"In that sense," what you just wrote was OR... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense Byron, see Richard Steigmann-Gall,The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 Page 218: "Over time, Nazi hostility to Christianity seemed to increase, as new anti-Christian voices, particularly Martin Bormann's, began to be heard. By the start of the war, Hitler himself was taking a more antagonistic stance". --Nug (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link. The author says there were both Christian and anti-Christian elements in Nazism. Notice that Catholic and Protestant churches continued to be major supports for Nazism, even as relations strained. All political movements have internal divisions. TFD (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nug, the sentence that begins with, "In that sense..." is clearly an attempt to reach a conclusion, rather than a presentation of RS. It is your conclusion, and therefore OR. Furthermore, while it can easily be shown that the Nazis used "pagan" imagery and symbolism, you will find it difficult to show that the Nazis actually promoted any kind of "pagan" religious belief or ritual, or incorporated it into their version of Christianity. There is plenty of "pagan" symbolism all over Washington D.C., but that does not mean that the founding fathers of the United States intended to promote "paganism," or anything else. If you want to prove that the Nazis created a "unified German secular religion with elements of paganism," then you need to find RS stating that specifically...rather than reaching your own conclusions based upon your ideas of the definitions of "Christianity" and "paganism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Byron, perhaps you should get up to speed with the literature first. A review of Steigmann-Gall's book by Milan Babík (Nazism as a Secular Religion. History and Theory, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Oct., 2006), pp. 375-396): "Steigmann-gall’s revision of Nazi conceptions of christianity represents a welcome addition to accounts of Nazism as a form of neo-paganism". --Nug (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't find anything better than a third party, admittedly "revisionist," interpretation of RS? And the title of the article, denoting a "secular religion" is at odds with the sentence you quoted, as "neo-paganism" is not in any way "secular." (This leads me to doubt that the author has anything but a chauvanist definition of "neo-paganism" similar to how many Christians view anything not fitting in line with mainstream Christian dogma as "pagan" -- like those who refer to Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormoms as "pagan.") Show me an example of the Nazis promoting the worship of Odin, Thor, Freya, etc., and you might have a point. Anything else is just an attempt by modern Christian apologists to try to distance Nazism from Christianity, now that most of the alleged anti-Christian statements by Hitler and "Occult Nazi Conspiracy" hogwash have been debunked. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, what Steigmann-Gall's book actually says is this: "Whereas past forms of Christian politics were known to embrace nationalism, antisemitism, anti-Marxism, or antiliberalism, the Nazis took these ideologies to new levels. For this reason the Nazis represented a departure from previous Christian practices. However, this did not make them un-Christian. Whereas millions of Catholics and Protestants in Germany did not think Nazism represented their interests or aims, there were many others who regarded Nazism as the correct Christian response to what they saw as harsh new realities." (Steigmann-Gall, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945," p. 262). He then goes on to discuss what he terms as elements of "paganism" in Nazi belief, but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical," rather than showing any connection whatsoever between Germanic pagan religion (the worship of Odin/Wotan, Thor, Freya, etc.) and the religious beliefs promoted by the Nazis. In fact, he specifically dismisses any connections between the actual Germanic pagan religions and Nazism as simply "window dressing for an ideology rooted in a different source." (p. 263). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Bryon, it is clear that you regard your own interpretation of Steigmann-Gall's book; "but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical,"" carries more weight than Milan Babík's review published in a reliable source. But unless you find a RS that supports your contention that Babík's or Steigmann-Gall's definition of "paganism" is a chauvinist definition it remains essentially OR coloured by your personal POV. --Nug (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear from Steigman-Gall's own statements (quoted above) that he was not insinuating that Christianity had merged with Germanic paganism under the Nazis, as if that were somehow possible...though that appears to be what you are promoting, by using Steigman-Gall as a "source." Incidentally, I've noticed that there are other peer-reviewed articles out there by Christian apologists who DENOUNCE the book in question because they feel that it promotes the idea that the Nazis "were essentially ‘Christian’," and "that neo-pagan ideas played an insignificant role in the ideology." (See "Inventing ‘Paganists’: a Close Reading of Richard Steigmann-Gall's the Holy Reich," by Irving Hexham, Journal of Contemporary History, January 2007, vol. 42, no. 1, 59-78) So I don't understand how you are using Steigman-Gall as a "source" that the Nazis weren't really Christian, and that their ideology was merged with paganism. It's like trying to "prove" that a government, ruling over a non-Christian country, somehow promoted Christianity...without ever mentioning "Jesus," "Christ," or "God" in any public speeches, legislation, or other policy matters whatsoever. It just doesn't make sense at all. Regardless, your own source (Steigman-Gall) specifically states the exact opposite of what you posted when you said that the Nazis were "anti-Christian," when he stated, as was previously quoted by me, that, "this did not make them un-Christian." Also, I can't access the article right now, but from reading the abstract and first page [3] of the Milan Babik article you quoted earlier, it certainly looks to me as if you're mischaracterizing the author's conclusions and opinions regarding Steigman-Gall. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The section reads poorly now, and whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis and of course their support after the war with the ratline. TFD (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

TDF, you should also read up on the current literature, because if you had you would know that Protestantism includes a vast number of independent religious bodies many of which were unrelated to each other and you would know that out of the approximately 18,000 Protestant pastors in Nazi Germany, only around 3,000 were members of the pro-Nazi Deutsche Christen faction while the remaining 15,000 pastors were not.(William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 234–40.) This plain fact shows that your statement "The section whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis" seems not to be based upon any source but rather your personal uninformed POV. --Nug (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry TDF thinks that the section reads poorly. For someone exploring the subject for the first time, I'm sure it provides them with a clearer mental map than what existed before. This section is not there to put the churches in the dock, nor to whitewash them. It hardly does that. It explains they had a shared anti-communist ideology with Nazism, were prepared to come to an 'arrangement' and tried not to rock the boat. It ends with a moral condemnation. On the other hand, it tries to show that many church-goers would have felt no categorical imperative to protest against a regime that was reluctant to carry out unpopular measures against them. It was left to people of conscience to register their protest by not conforming to the institutional 'party line'. The section is trying to include a mention, as briefly as possible, of all the elements involved (I left out Jehovah's Witnesses as being more appropriate to a page dealing with persecution). I haven't found the secondary literature I've consulted giving a sense of the proportion of these elements (that's another discussion), probably because we simply can't put any figures to how many thought X and how many thought Y within each church. All we can probably do, unless someone comes up with hard evidence, is indicate who appears to have been in the majority and who in the minority. We can, however, give estimates like Shirer or exact figures if recorded, as in the case of Hildebrand's figure for the arrest of Lutheran pastors in 1937. I would say the ratline had more to do with personal acquaintances assisting each other or being asked to assist third parties on the basis of their anti-communism, hence pro-fascist tendencies. You can say the hierarchy turned a blind-eye, or even colluded in certain cases, but that is specific to the Catholic Church in any case, or more precisely some Catholic clergy, and has nothing to do with the majority of church-goers in Germany who were Lutheran. It is also irrelevant to the Third Reich time frame being dealt with here. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, a whole issue of the Journal of Contemporary History , Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan., 2007) is devoted to the reviews on works authored by Steigmann-Gall. Therefore, by no means is this author non-notable or fringe. I suggest everyone to read those articles. I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and forgets to note that many articles from the same issue support his views. For example, Richard J. Evans's summary of the issue says:

"In his book "The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919–1945", published in 2003, Richard Steigmann-Gall proposes a way forward. Presenting for the first time, at least in English, a thorough analysis of the religious beliefs of the nazis themselves, Steigmann-Gall argued that although active nazis, from the leadership down to the lower levels of the party, were bitterly opposed to the Catholic Church, they had a more ambivalent attitude towards Protestantism and to Christianity more generally. Even those who, like Himmler and Rosenberg, advocated a kind of pseudo-Germanic paganism, retained at least some Christian elements amongst their religious beliefs. Most preferred a nazified form of Protestantism as suggested by the ‘German Christians’. Nazism in fact contained a wide variety of religious beliefs. Crucially, however, Steigmann-Gall argues that the paganists were less important in the end than the proponents of a ‘positive’, that is, a nazified Christianity. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Germans, including those who carried out monstrous crimes of mass murder, torture, human experimentation and much else besides, remained members of the Christian Churches. Although their beliefs and attitudes changed over time, the fact remains, he concludes, that the nazis were, at bottom, basically Christian in their religious orientation.

These are controversial theses. Steigmann-Gall backs them up with a wealth of illustrative material, garnered from a score of archives and a large quantity of obscure nazi publications. Yet do they, in the end, convince? In this special debate, commissioned by the Journal of Contemporary History, a variety of experts in the field address the issues raised by Steigmann-Gall’s book. The theologian and religious historian Stanley Stowers considers them in the light of the theoretical literature on the nature of religion, and particularly political religion. Doris Bergen, author of the standard work on the ‘German Christians’, provides a balanced appraisal of Steigmann-Gall’s central arguments; Manfred Gailus, whose social history of the Protestant Church in Berlin under the nazis has established itself quickly as a major contribution to the debate, launches a critical assault on Steigmann-Gall’s theses, backed up by Ernst Piper, author of a recent major biography of Alfred Rosenberg. Finally, the theologian Irving Hexham uses an approach derived from the sociology of knowledge to take issue with Steigmann-Gall’s use of sources, rightly concluding, as in the end do all the contributors, that it is necessary to take the nazis’ ideas seriously, however repulsive or bizarre they might seem, if we are to understand their appeal."

Some other quotes from that issue:

"Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich provides a clear alternative to vague ideas about an incoherent religion of National Socialism that arose due to the spiritual vacuum of modernity and tried to replace Christianity. Instead of symbols and rituals that work in mysterious ways and language that does not mean what it seems to mean, The Holy Reich shows that the dominant portion of the nazi leadership held familiar Christian beliefs with their own distinctive interpretations of some points." Stanley Stowers, Brown University

"Summed up this way, Steigmann-Gall’s book can be seen as an expression — perhaps even the culmination — of a trend in the scholarship over the past several decades. Indeed, claims of his project’s originality notwithstanding, with The Holy Reich Steigmann-Gall entered a lively and well-established conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. Like many other misconceptions about National Socialism, the anti-Christian notion has long been disputed by historians and scholars of religion, even if they have not succeeded in changing popular views. In different ways and to different extents, John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others have pointed to connections and affinities between National Socialism and Christianity. I consider my work on the German Christian movement part of this broad historiographical development." Doris L. Bergen, University of Toronto.

"Steigmann-Gall has good reason for concentrating on Protestantism as the philosophical point of access for nationalistic and National Socialist ideas. One can identify the contemporary National Protestant milieu — as compared with other social milieux and group cultures — as the main breach point for the ‘Ideas of 1933’. Manfred Gailus, Technical University of Berlin

Despite considerable reservations and omissions, Steigmann-Gall’s study makes an interesting, stimulating and at times provocative book. I agree

entirely with his assessment of the presence and effectiveness of National Socialist Christians, particularly in the Protestant milieu. I would estimate that a third of the contemporary Protestant milieu belonged to these dual-faith inner ecclesiastical circles. I am less convinced about the presence and prominence of Christian National Socialists, particularly in the Party leadership. They certainly existed but more so in the lower and middle ranks of the NSDAP; if they were present in the upper echelons, it was only here and there and usually in diluted form. ‘Conceptions of Christianity’ cannot seriously be applied to this group; a more appropriate description would be dual faith side by side with shrinking remnants of Christianity." (ibid)

"In writing The Holy Reich, the title of which is never explained, Richard Steigmann-Gall has chosen an extraordinary topic. He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement." Ernst Piper, Moses Mendelssohn Centre for European-Jewish Studies in Potsdam.

"In conclusion, there is no easy answer to the questions raised by SteigmannGall’s book. National Socialism still sends shivers of horror through most people today. All we can do is plot its progress and attempt to understand how such evil was sold to the world. Unless we face the full horror, including its intellectual and mythical appeal to both the masses and scholars through works like Michael and the Mythus, we will have failed to understand the true rhetorical significance of nazism and its literature." Irving Hexham, University of Calgary

These are all reviews devoted to the Steigmann-Gall's book. As you can see, some of them are critical, whereas others fully support him. Interestingly, Manfred Gailus noted that the situation with religion in the Third Reich showed tendency to drift from Christianity to some form of Neo-Paganism. That trend became especially prominent in early 40s, and was stopped by the military defeat of Germany. In connection to that, the very question "were Nazi Christians?" is incorrectly formulated: probably, they initially were Christians (or predominantly Christians) and they probably would become Pagans (or the proponents of Nazism as a form of secular religion) later (if they would not be defeated).
In addition, some of other reviews criticise just some theses of Steigmann-Gall. Thus, the main Babik thesis is not that Nazi were not Christians. He simply argue that it would be correct to describe Protestant Progressivism as a form of secular religion, therefore,

"Fine-tuning secularization as a tool of historical understanding in this manner represents a second, and perhaps the key, potential benefit for political religion historiography. With the distinction between partial and complete secularization in place, there is every reason to believe that one can classify Steigmann-Gall's Protestant Nazism as secularized eschatology while remaining sensitive to its differences from other (irreligious) instances of the same phenomenon"

In other words, Babik does not argue that Nazi were not Christians, his point is that their Christianity fits a definition of secular religion.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, the volume of your latest contribution is impressive, but it is not clear to me what your reason is for presenting it. Is it to show that Steigann-Gall is taken seriously? What conclusion should we draw from your last sentence in terms of how it should affect what appears in the article? Kim Traynor (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Steigann-Gall, as well as many other authors expressing similar views, should be taken seriously, and the idea that Nazism was intrinsically secular anti-Christian movement should not be presented as the sole mainstream views. For example, in light of some sources cited by me it is clear that the idea of the fundamental incompatibility of Christian teachings and Nazi ideology appears not as obvious today as the article says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul says: "I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and forgets to note that many articles from the same issue support his views." Well, thank you Paul for the reference to this journal issue, but your contention that I somehow "forget to note that many articles from the same issue" is most bizarre, as I don't see how it is possible to "forget" something before the fact of becoming aware of it in the first place. As you recall, I referred to Babik's critical paper published in History and Theory, so I am unsure why you think I might have read this particular issue of Journal of Contemporary History before your mention of it. But anyway, as we now have these reviews, let's examine them in order to assess the weight we should apply to Steigmann-Gall's POV.

Stanley Stowers doesn't seem to be a review of Steigmann-Gall's book but rather he is appears to be air his own opposition to the concept of "political religion", citing Steigmann-Gall briefly in support of his own POV.

Doris L. Bergen seems supportive but highlights some issues:

"According to Richard Steigmann-Gall, ‘the insistence that Nazism was an anti- Christian movement has been one of the most enduring truisms of the past fifty years'", "As I suggested in my book Twisted Cross, the German Christians did not fit most standard theological criteria for Christians: that is, they rejected basic Christian teachings about the divinity and humanity of Jesus and renounced the canonicity of Christian scripture.", "Perhaps in an effort to make his evidence fit neatly, Steigmann-Gall left out the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations. Without conceding at least some nazi hostility, however, the dynamic generated by Christian defensiveness cannot be understood. This and other shortcomings will reduce Steigmann-Gall’s ability to convince sceptics of his arguments, but they cannot negate the significance of his call to confront the presence of Christianity in National Socialism."

Irving Hexham:

"Richard Steigmann-Gall challenges the dominant view that nazi leaders were hostile to Christianity"

Hexham goes on to criticise Steigmann-Gall misuse of primary sources such as Goebbels:

"Presented in this way, Goebbels appears to be endorsing Christianity. When read in the context of genre and situation, Goebbels’ speech appears in a very different light. As the editor of Goebbels’ Reden points out, Goebbels was a master of irony and rhetoric, making it very difficult at times to know exactly what he meant. In the context of the speech cited by Steigmann-Gall it appears that Goebbels is being ironic."

and dismissal of non-Christian influences in the Nazi Party such as Rosenberg’s:

"It is here that Steigmann-Gall’s approach fails. Rather than enabling the reader to understand how and why people accepted nazi logic he dismisses it as illogical and vainly seeks an alternative explanation that leads him to deny that anyone could possibly have read Rosenberg’s work."

Ernst Piper:

"In his book The Holy Reich, Richard Steigmann-Gall confronts us with the provocative thesis that, in reality, National Socialism was a Christian movement." "He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement."

Manfred Gailus :

"In his introduction he notes correctly that, to date, mainstream researchers have characterized National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — as predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian."

On the other hand Gailus states Steigmann-Gall adds nothing new as most of it had been discussed in previous decades, citing Claus-Ekkehard Bärsch’s 1998 study of the religious dimensions of NS ideology:

"That Steigmann-Gall fails not only to mention but also to analyse this research which is core to his subject, is utterly incomprehensible. Was he not familiar with it? Would it have reduced the novelty value of his intended ‘revision’? There is another consideration which greatly reduces the surprising or sensational nature of his purported ‘discoveries’. All the nazi protagonists belonged to a generation born between 1880 and 1910 into an empire orientated towards Christianity. What other religious-philosophical influences could they be expected to bring with them from their — mainly bourgeois/petty bourgeois — family background, school, church and upbringing, from the civil-religious cultural contexts of public morality, morals and values, than a belief system informed by Christianity in its broadest sense and the corresponding mentality and loyalty to tradition?"

Given that there are so many writers that support or reject his work, we can conclude that Steigmann-Gall book is at least controversial, and this is confirmed by Evans in his introduction to the issue: "These are controversial theses". Given that most reviewers, both supporters an detractors, state Steigmann-Gall book challenges the dominant viewpoint, we can say his POV is therefore minority and thus be given less weight. Given that most reviewers, and including Steigmann-Gall himself, state the dominant viewpoint is that Nazism was anti-Christion, we can also conclude that this POV can be given most weight. --Nug (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his viewpoint is not the mainstream (at least, not the sole mainstream view), but it is not a fringe view either. Doris L. Bergen listed several authors, who, as well as Bergen herself express the idea of affinity of Nazism and Christianity/Protestantism. They are John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others, according to her. Therefore, this viewpoint should be represented in the article at least as one of significant minority views. As our policy says, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I named several prominent adherents, and I believe it is quite sufficient to devote decent space in the article to this viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no impression in any of the journal papers that there is more than one mainstream view. You say that Bergen mentions a number of authors having expressed the notion of affinity between Nazism and Christianity, but she says "in different ways and to different extents" to Steigmann-Gall. Let's not confuse the two issues of church collaboration/support and the whether the Nazis were pro or anti-Christian. There is no question that thousands of pastors supported the Nazi movement, but equally thousands of pastors opposed the Nazis, causing a split in German Protestantism into the pro- and anti- Nazi factions of German Christians and Confessing Church. The point of divergence is that Steigmann-Gall (who Bergen states is also claiming to revise her viewpoint too) asserts that most of the top Nazi hierarchy were active Christians who saw the Nazi movement as an extension of the Reformation through Positive Christianity. But Bergan states "Most scholars dismiss ‘positive Christianity’ as nothing but an opportunistic slogan coined to conceal nazism’s intrinsic hostility toward Christianity and the Churches". Steigmann-Gall leaves out, as Bergen states, the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations and he fails to concede any nazi hostility existed that created a sense of a return to Kulturkampf that drove German Catholics and Protestants into defensiveness and thus collaboration as a strategy for self-preservation. So while I agree Steigmann-Gall is not fringe, his viewpoint never the less goes far beyond that even of those authors mentioned by Bergen (which she includes herself) who discuss the affinities between the German church and state. So I don't think you can use these other authors to claim Steigmann-Gall has greater weight than he has. --Nug (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The positions by Nazis in public differed from what they thought in private. Public stances by Nazi officials on Christianity were carefully crafted because: (1) Germany's Christianity has been divided since the Reformation between Protestantism and Catholicism, (2) it would be stupid in those days for any politician to say they were an athiest - they would lose support from the religious communities. In private, the Nazis were divided - some despised Christianity altogether for being of Jewish origins, others claimed that they supported a Positive Christianity - that claimed that the Jews stole the Christian legend from the Aryans, and then there were others who sought alliance between Nazism and the Catholic Church like Mussolini and the Italian Fascists did - as a means to legitimize Nazism amongst Germans of the Catholic faith. There is little that can disguise the fact that the Nazis were highly uncomfortable with Christianity in the mainstream form - because of its connections with Judaism, although heroic patriotic imagery of Germany's Christian past was emphasized by the Nazis - such as references to the Teutonic Knights who were involved in the Crusades - mostly because it represented a historic example of German commitment to faith to a common cause and because it emphasized a warrior spirit that the Nazis sought to instill upon Germany.--R-41 (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also agreeing that the use of an Aryan mythos was critical to the core methodology of Nazism - the creation of a fully unified populace on the basis of an Aryan race, with a mythical history including the Teutonic Knights, but absolutely not one based on "religion" as such. Some of the claims that Nazism was "Christian" are quite ludicrous - Germany had lots of Christians, so any group could be labeled as Christian if the criterion is "were Crhistians in the group?". Collect (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nazism was as "Christian" as Mormonism is... In other words, plenty of Christians will say, "No they weren't Christian! They believed very different things than mainstream Christians!" but that does not mean that they weren't, from an objective viewpoint, (rather than a biased, pro-modern-Christianity one...) that they were indeed promoting a type of Christianity. The No true Scotsman logical fallacy applies to those who claim that they weren't "really" Christians. And no, as can be seen by the evidence, the only criteria is NOT simply that there "were Christians in the group." That's a blatant distortion of the facts. Christianity was promoted by the Nazis, and specifically burned books that were in any way critical of Christianity (a policy that I'm betting many modern Conservative Christians would approve of...). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Absurd and fallacious in the utmost. You might as well say that about any society pr grup. The point is that Nazism was not founded in Christianisty. Some Christians were Nazi-voters; some Nazis attended Christian churches; but that does not then allow the claim that "Nazism was founded (in any sense) in Christianity". As far as hitting Godwin's Law by asserting that modern "conservative Christians" would be Nazis in any form - that is simply inane at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job at trying to redirect the argument into strawmen, but no dice. Nobody is asserting that (1) Nazism was founded on Christianity, (2) that this argument relies simply upon the religious affiliations of Nazi members, or (3) that modern "Conservative Christians" are Nazis. (1) The modern American Conservative movement (as an example - again, I am not saying that Conservative Christians are "Nazis," but this works as an example) was not founded on Christianity, but it is very pro-Christian. American Conservatives promote Christianity, and propose very pro-Christian laws, often at the expense of minority faiths. Well, the same was true of the Nazis. They were not founded upon Christianity, but they promoted Christianity, and certainly proposed very pro-Christian laws, very much at the expense of minority faiths! Now, it is not controversial to state that Christianity is a part of Conservative Christians' ideology...though many Christians state that they find their views abhorrent and not consistent with their own Christian beliefs. Does that mean that less-Conservative Christians get to say, "Sorry. Those Conservatives aren't REAL Christians"? No. Not in an objective arena such as this. (I'm sure in a hundred years, when homophobia is a thing of the past, and religious tolerance has advanced far greater than today...that Conservative historians will be claiming that the Conservative Christians of today weren't "really" Christians either...just as they have with the Nazis, and the slave-owners, and the ones who marched against African-American Civil Rights.) (2) This argument relies upon a lot more than simply the religious affiliations of members of the Nazi Party, and you damned well know it. The evidence is presented all over the place, from Hitler's speeches, to Nazi government laws, policies, and actions, etc. (3) The point was to compare pro-Christian worldviews. If I call someone a "Nazi," you better be certain I won't mince words. I think everyone here knows that I say exactly what is on my mind, and give not the slightest @#$% whether it offends someone's sensibilities or risks sanctions on my part. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is fully proven by your Well, the same was true of the Nazis. That is precisely the sort of argument which goes absolutely nowhere on Wikipedia, and should be relegated to the dustbin utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You aren't even capable of the critical thinking skills necessary to denote a difference between saying, "The Nazis, as well as X, did this..." and "X are Nazis"??? Or are you insinuating that anyone who does anything the Nazis did...is therefore a Nazi? It brings to mind the legendary Lewis Black bit: "Hitler had a mustache. Mother Teresa had a mustache. Mother Teresa is Hitler!" Oh brother. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The section on the economy of Nazi Germany should be moved to its own article

The section on the economy of Nazi Germany is duplicating material that is mentioned on its own article. As this is on the ideology of Nazism and not the economy of Germany from 1933 to 1945 that was influenced by many other factors than political ideology, a brief mention about how Nazi economic ideology was pursued in practice may be acceptable but not multiple paragraphs.--R-41 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree.Spylab (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I stress that it needs to be reduced down to what was the economic ideology, not economic practice - economic practice is influenced by multiple non-ideological issues - and that can be mentioned in detail on the article Economy of Nazi Germany. If economic practice resulted in an official or clearly recognized change of the economic ideology promoted by the Nazis, that can be mentioned. Again economic practice should not be assumed to be connected to ideology alone, there are other reasons for practices.--R-41 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that where no ideological basis is present for a topic, that it does not belong here. Pragmatic decisions do not really have a lot to do with "Nazism." Ditto in Fascism - where material is not reasonably connected to an ideology or consistent position across the topic, it does not belong in the article. Collect (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just deleted a lot of unsourced, very badly sourced, and fringe claims from the article. I retained what had reliable sources - but I still think the article requires major reorganization.--R-41 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest for the benefit of the common good that you do not consider doing this yourself. See following section. Kim Traynor (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

democracy

what is this ? it is commonly estbalished that the nazis were against democracy ! they did not invent some kind of special democracy ! Yiddi (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis and fascists denounced common representative democracy, especially liberal democracy. They never claimed to denounce democracy entirely. They claimed democracy did not mean multiparty elections but participation within the state - I do not buy their vague claim that they were democratic, but censoring it out will not help in understanding the nature and presentation of the ideology. You are welcome to add a sentence after the claim by the Nazis that they represented a form of democracy, by mentioning that most scholars commonly regard Nazism as anti-democratic.--R-41 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This presents a view held by an extremely small minority and per WP:WEIGHT I will remove it. The first source in fact does not even support the sentence. TFD (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm not going to get into an argument over this. But where is the evidence that the Nazi ideology itself denounced democracy in its entirety rather than liberal democracy? Of course Nazism never advocated anything near liberal democracy - that is how people like me in the Western world view democracy - liberal democracy is associated with multiparty elections, freedom of speech, etc. Now TFD you say that the first source "doesn't even support the sentence", I paraphrased it, but here is what the source quoted of Nazi official policy, that: "National Socialism is the true realization of democracy", so your claim that it does not support the sentence is completely wrong. There are two ways of addressing this: (1) acknowledge both Nazism's claim to support a form of democracy along with a statement that says that numerous scholars regard Nazism as anti-democratic; or (2) saying that Nazism opposed democracy in general. Both come to the same conclusion except that the 1st option negates the possibility of someone accusing the article of having anti-Nazi POV - yes it is hard to imagine that such people on Wikipedia are out there, but they are, so don't give them the pleasure of actually being successful in accusing this article of anti-Nazi POV, take my advice and choose option (1) let the Nazi claim to be some strange (and in my view fraudulent) form of democracy stand alongside a statement that says that scholars regard Nazism as anti-democratic. But nothing that I say here really matters because you two users have already made up your minds, so any further feigning that this is a open "discussion" when in fact TFD has already acted to remove the material without serious discussion, this is just a de facto act of arbitration by TFD who is not an administrator.--R-41 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, could you keep your edits shorter, WP:TLDR applies. The guiding principle is WP:V not WP:TRUTH Some people believe Hitler was a democrat, he never killed anyone, he was a great leader, etc. If we can prove these ideas have any acceptance we can mention them provided we follow WP:WEIGHT. But to take minority or fringe views and present them as facts is wrong. Rather than argue that your views are correct, you must show that they are the consensus view before presenting them as facts. Your claim that a statement by the Fuehrer can support a statement about Nazi ideology is false. None of his statements are reliable sources, and we must rely on the interpretation of experts. TFD (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My edits are their length to make my point clearly, WP:TLDR is an essay - it doesn't "apply" because it is not a Wikipedia policy, stop being disrespectful and pushy with your complaints. I will in response complain that you did not even look at the source I provided, and instead are poisoning the well by essentially associating the source I provided with Holocaust denial and admiration of Nazism and Adolf Hitler. STOP poisoning the well. I acknowledge that Nazism openly denounced liberal democracy - associated with multiparty elections, representative government, freedom of speech - that is what people in the West think of when they say "democracy" - that does not represent all democracy. I asked you to provide a source that demonstrates that the ideology itself denounced democracy in its entirety, you have not yet given one. We have an article for the Nazi regime in practice, that is the Nazi Germany article, this is about the ideology.--R-41 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We had the same discussion about fascism. Yes there is a theory that fascism developed out of the democracy of the French Revolution but it is an extremely minor view. Let's not clutter the article with views held by tiny minorities. I do not have to provide a source that demonstrates that the ideology itself denounced democracy in its entirety because I am removing material not adding it. TFD (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD, in actuality, this issue is not as simple as you think. I recall, Plato defined four types of state system: democracy and tyranny vs aristocracy and monarchy, in the first two the ultimate source of power was plebs, whereas in the last two the power belonged to nobility. In that sense, tyrants were people's tzars, democratically elected or self-appointed persons who fought against nobility on behalf of the plebs. In that sense, Hitler was an equivalent of ancient tyrants. You probably know from history that Greek polices were divided onto two groups. One group (Sparta etc) had an aristocratic state system, and another (Athens, Samos, etc) was democratic. Interestingly, during revolutions the power in the later group changed from democracy to tyranny and back, whereas the first group remained aristocratic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

True, and the original democracies in ancient Greece were known for political persecution - such as executing Socrates as an act of political censorship because enough opponents of Socrates mobilized to demand his death. For years the word "democracy" was associated with mob rule - even by Enlightenment people who supported a "republic" based essentially on what is now called liberal democracy. There is something called "Jacobin democracy" that the Jacobins sought to achieve in the French Revolution that was almost totalitarian - the Jacobins sought to be the only movement represented as the "true" upholders of the Revolution - rejecting multiparty pluralism, and they openly promoted persecution of the moderate Girondins and reactionaries - in the name of democracy. Both demonstrate that "democracy" doesn't always mean the multiparty, free speech liberal democracy that is what Westerners think of when they hear "democracy". We should be careful and precise with the terms we use - the Nazis specifically denounced liberal democracy, the form of democracy that most Westerners think of, but to say "democracy" in its entirety without evidence is not acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, my point was that tyranny is not an antithesis to democracy, because both of them have the same roots (and whereas immature people's movements give rise to tyranny, the societies with longer traditions of people's rule produce democracy). However, by saying that I didn't imply Nazism had any common features with ancient democracy. It had more traits of tyranny.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(out) I understand the arguments. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explained it in Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (1974) and Leftism revisited: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot (1990). You can read his last essay in a 2003 book published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.[4] He claims that Socrates was killed by democrats (p. 84). He says, "Already in 1986, the [National Front] French Deputy Bernrd Antony warned the European Parliament in Strassburg not to celebrate "1789," since it had bred National and International Socialism" (p. 90) He quotes Eugene Nickerson as saying "the United States had sought to protect thenselves against democracy by their Federal Constitution" (p. 94). He even quotes David Irving's discredited estimates of the number of deaths at Dresden, which originated from Nazi propaganda (p. 104). This historiography has received no notice in mainstream academic writing and does not belong in this article. TFD (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD read all of this, even if you think it is long. I was not using this Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn nor Ludwig von Mises as sources about what I said about Socrates and I do not endorse their views. The fact is that Socrates was executed in an Athenian democracy, and famous Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle did not have a positive outlook on democracy due to Socrates' execution. As for criticisms of pure unrestrained democracy having the potential to repress people - that does not come from the two people you mentioned above, but from Enlightenment political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville's concept of tyranny of the majority. TFD, you have already crossed the line when you accused me without any evidence of POV pushing from three sources that had different perspectives from each other, and a user informed me that you have done that before and almost got penalized by administrators until you promised never to do it again - but then you did it again, to me. I let that pass, but now you are comparing my arguments to material that includes arguments by Holocaust deniers, I urge you to immediately stop poisoning the well of what I am saying by relating my arguments with the likes of Holocaust deniers such as David Irving, and immediately rescind any indication that I am in anyway legitimizing material by Holocaust deniers. I am not a Holocaust denier and it is extremely offensive to me for you to relate arguments I made to material by Holocaust deniers. If you do not immediately rescind such suggestive comparisons of my arguments, I will report you to the administrator's noticeboard for slandering me through irrational poisoning of the well comparisons of my argument with material influenced by Holocaust deniers.--R-41 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@both of you. Can you please explain me what concrete edits are you discussing?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit. TFD (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD, rescind your unwarranted comparison of my argument to an argument with material by Holocaust denier David Irving. I do not support the sources by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn nor Ludwig von Mises that you have compared my argument with. You are poisoning the well and are violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - particularly the section that says: "Do not misrepresent other people". If you do not acknowledge and rescind your misrepresentation of my argument, I will be forced to report you to the administrator's noticeboard for deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.--R-41 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, TFD just noted that the your argument is supported by the works authored by some Holocaust deniers. Both you and TFD are not right here. TFD's error is that he believes that if some idea has been expressed by a Holocaust denier it is automatically fringe. In actuality, that is not necessarily the case. With regard to you, I am not sure TFD's post draws or implies any connection between you and the Holocaust deniers. I think you both should focus on some concrete edits. In connection to that, I repeat my question: what concrete edit are you guys discussing now?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is not a holocaust-denier, and I do not know Irving's views on fascism and democracy. But R-41 has used Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn as a source that fascists claim to support a form of democracy.[5] BTW it is not very nice to repeat what another editor have "informed" one. I do not wish to get into the merits of that editor's recollection of complaints he made against me. The fact that he forgot that he was the one who made those complaints says something about his memory. TFD (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I was inaccurate. What you in actuality said is that the author used by R-41 quoted some Holocaust denier. Do you want me to strikethrough the part of text that caused your objection, or this my explanation is sufficient?

By the way, upon writing that I realised that your argumentation is even weaker then I thought before: to claim that the source is unreliable simply because it quotes some Holocaust denier would be strange.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I honestly did not remember using Kuehnelt-Leddihn, it is an unusual name and I didn't remember it because it was unusual. You have said this: "The fact that he forgot that he was the one who made those complaints says something about his memory." That is a personal attack - you have no legitimacy in declaring your assumption about my personal nature (the state of my memory) to everyone here on the talk page - that is inappropriate and it was clearly intended as a condescending personal attack. Are you going to rescind the implicit comparison of my argument here to the material that you mentioned by Holocaust denier David Irving? I do not support David Irving's views, if you do not rescind that comparison, that is poisoning the well and misrepresenting my argument - violating Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and I will report if you do not rescind that comparison. Secondly I have the right now to report you for personal attacks now that you have insulted me by saying I have poor memory - I suggest you rescind that immediately - it is personal and not about the material being discussed at all, I am within grounds to report that as a personal attack.--R-41 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Guys, are you sure all of that belongs to this page? Maybe, you will move it to the user's talk page? And, again, could you please explain me what concrete edit are you discussing??!--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Paul. Lets get back on point guys. The article needs some more work. Kierzek (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the point in me trying to contribute here if my arguments are being compared to material that has quotes from a Holocaust denier - that's poisoning the well. I do not think that my argument has been taken seriously here, and until such poisoned-well comparisons are withdrawn, my argument will be affected by the poisoning of the well attempt. The issue is the deletion of an edit that said that the Nazis oppose representative democracy but that they claimed to support a form of democracy. That was removed based on the claim that the Nazis denounced democracy as a whole. I responded by asking for evidence demonstrates that the Nazis actually denounced democracy as a whole rather than a subtype of it like representative democracy and liberal democracy that it is known for denouncing. No evidence has been given that demonstrates that Nazi ideology denounced democracy as a whole.--R-41 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What concrete modification/addition to the article do you propose?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

At least there should be clarity on exactly the form of democracy that the Nazis did denounce, liberal democracy is what Nazism opposed. Liberal democracy is a variant of representative democracy based principally on multiparty pluralism, and the right of freedom of speech amongst, and majority rule in combination with civil rights to protect individuals, universal suffrage (since the 1860s for men, and the 20th century for both men and women) amongst other traits. When people in the Western world talk about "democracy" - liberal democracy is what they are commonly referring to, there are many other types of democracy.--R-41 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Nazi form of democracy is best summed up as "One Führer, one vote". --Nug (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. And I suppose that you believe that all forms of democracy are the ideal liberal democracy where there is free speech, multiparty elections, and people peacefully co-exist. Democracy was originally founded in Greece by aristocrats to serve aristocrats, no one else could vote, slavery was widespread, bribery of voters was the norm, the aristocrats made death threats and blackmailed each other to coerce others to support their way, and when the aristocrats got mad at each other they went out and murdered each other so that the next time they went to an assembly one side would have more votes. Rome initially had a form of democracy, and in it Roman activist and politician Tiberius Gracchus of the Roman Tribune assembly who sought to improve civil rights of the plebians (non-aristocratic and especially poor people) was physically assaulted and murdered by conservative members of the Roman Senate right in Tribune assembly before his proposed changes could be made. In my opinion, liberal democracy is probably the best system in the world, but other forms of democracy have been ugly. I don't think the Nazis' were genuinely democratic in any sense of the values that I, as a person of the Western world, stand for - but that is my opinion. What is known is that the Nazis opposed liberal democracy, provide sources that show Nazism denouncing democracy in its entirety.

(edit conflict)R-41, you are not right. Democracy was not founded in Greece by aristocrats, it was (along tyranny) a form of opposition to aristocracy. Whereas it is correct that Nazi opposed to liberal democracy (although the main ideology they opposed to was Communism), I do not see any ground to think that there was some other type of democracy they supported. We may discuss various nuances that distinguish liberal democracy from other forms of democracy, however, the main traits of any democracy is elections. As far as I know, the last elections Nazi participated in were the elections that lead to Hitler's chancellorship. In other words, it is correct to say that Hitler came to power according to a democratic procedure, so he was people's leader. It would be also correct to say that Hitler was supported by majority of Germans during whole period from 1933 to 1945, although partially it should be attributed to masterful Goebbels' propaganda. Therefore, we have all traits of tyranny, not democracy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, not all democracies are based on elections, that is a stereotype that is again based on liberal democracy. It requires voting and officially seeking a plurality, majority, or consensus of support amongst those who qualify to represent a society - and that group of people may not represent the whole population at all. Direct democracy in Greece allowed mass numbers of citizens (and only aristocrats were citizens then) to go and vote in a forum - there were no elections. The Nazis had plebiscites to ask for people's support - did the Nazis pressure people to vote their way? Yes. Have historic democracies pushed people to vote a certain way, Yes. You are thinking of an idealistic democracy, it is a common Western world POV to idealize liberal democracy as being simply "democracy" and that's why people don't want to dare even think that the regimes of Lenin, Mao, and others have an unideal democracy that is not compatible with Western liberal democratic values of multiparty elections and free speech.--R-41 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that during the Third Reich, the Nazi Party became the only political party (entity) which was permitted. As for Greece, I recall the political center was the city-state ("polis"). The aristocrats governed the "polis" and did consider themselves as superior. There were clashes between them and the common folk. The common people demanded and got "codes of law". It was later that democracy came into being. Later the aristocrats lost their power for the most part and the Athenian Assembly became the highest political body. Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is accurate, even universal male suffrage was not entirely associated with liberal democracy until the 1860s when Britain accepted working-class suffrage, before that there were many who couldn't vote. In ancient Greece and in Rome, democracy was dominated by aristocrats. It could be extremely violent when divisions on issues became sharp - and long after ancient Greece gave way to Rome, Roman aristocrat Tiberius Gracchus - a left-leaning reformer who wanted to restore land titles to the plebians that were illegally taken by aristocrats many years earlier was murdered by a mob of right-leaning conservative Roman Senators. We know the Nazis opposed liberal democracy - they admitted this themselves, and liberal democracy is what many people in the West think of when they are thinking of "democracy", but Nazism literally denouncing democracy in its entirety - that needs evidence. Again liberal democracy is what the Western world idealizes, there are many non-liberal democracies that most Westerners would not even fathom being "democracy" in the way it is in the West.--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Roland N. Stromberg in Democracy: A Short, Analytical History - Page 116: "The discourse of 1939-45 had upheld democracy as the opposite of Nazism". I think that settles it. --Nug (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nug, please, show respect to your peers. Selected phrases taken out of context tell nothing. Obviously, the author you quote means liberal democracy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, your statement "In ancient Greece and in Rome, democracy was dominated by aristocrats" is wrong. There were some polices with strong democratic traditions, and polices ruled by aristocracy. In Athens, a special procedure ostracism was developed to fight against aristocrats. Regarding Rome, the origin of the patrician/plebeian division it still unclear, probably they came from different tribes, and later both nobility and plebs had amalgamated into the single aristodemocracy, which became their res publica. And it is incorrect to say that Roman republic was dominated by the patricians. Thus, trade was dominated by rich plebeians, and such historical figures as Pontius Pilate, Pompeius Magnus and many others were plebeians. I still don't see, however, how can this discussion lead to any concrete edits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Universal male suffrage only became an internationally-accepted idea after the 1860s when Britain allowed the working-class to vote before that the majority of the total male population could not vote in Britain and similar class-based democracies, and then it was not until the 20th century that women could vote. I mentioned these examples of democracy and limitations of democracy to show to other users here who are associating democracy as a whole with an ideal of liberal democracy associated with universal suffrage, multiparty elections, and freedom of speech do not equal democracy as a whole. Outside of liberal democracy there have been authoritarian and repressive democracies. Using the definition of liberal democracy to say that Nazism denounced democracy as a whole is exaggeration at best and naivety at the worst; and it is all because in the Western world the term "democracy" is commonly associated with liberal democracy. I already made a proposed solution that you asked me to present, very clear: the article should say that Nazism was opposed to liberal democracy.--R-41 (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(out) The argument so far seems to be that since "democracies" of yesteryear were not that democratic, we can safely call nazism a form of democracy. Rather than address this argument, I would like to see a source that makes it. The nazism=democracy argument I have seen (which was originally used to describe Napoleon) is that the leader represents the will of the people, as opposed to a prince, who represents the will of God, hence "plebiscitary democracy". See Napoleon, p. 203.[6] Napoleon legitimized his rule through a referendum. TFD (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL I'd want to see the sources too. --Nug (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I said that we don't have to include Nazism's claim to be democratic - it is the Nazis' claim about themselves - as this is about Nazi ideology, I assumed at least acknowledging their claims would be reasonable - not to endorse them as you unreasonably suspect of me TFD, but to show their claims. We already show other Nazi claims in this article, such as their irrational anti-Semitic views and the utter nonsense Nazi claim that "true" Germans are racially "pure" - such Nazi claims about Jews and the Aryan Race are not accurate and are much is based on lies and self-denial by the Nazis, but they are the views that the Nazis promoted. TFD and Nug, I would agree with you that is clearly evident the Nazis were not democratic in practice given Hitler's unrestrained power that required no consensus and was decided at his personal whim - but that indicates an absence of democracy ("non-democratic"). But to say that the Nazis are entirely opposed to democracy and not just liberal democracy, that indicates a principle, and that needs evidence.--R-41 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD, you seem to misinterpret R-41's words. He never proposed to describe Nazism as a form of democracy, his point is that the only form of democracy it opposed to was liberal democracy. R-41, do I understand you correctly that the only change you propose is an addition of the word "liberal"?----Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In addition, the example of Napoleon just confirms the main thesis: both Hitler and Napoleon (and Mussolini, and Stalin) came to power as a popular leaders. They were supported by overwhelming majority of (at least urban) population. The most appropriate term for all those regimes is "tyranny". In addition, Hitler seemed to consider himself as a "democratic" leader: by the end of his carrier he expressed an opinion that all Germans (and Germany as whole) deserve total destruction, because "the Germans voted for us, so they are totally responsible for the results".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article should say Nazism opposed liberal democracy. What I did say that TFD misinterpreted, is that Nazi ideology's claim to be democratic could be included in the article, because we already show other Nazi claims that are inaccurate, such as its absurd anti-Semitic claims and the completely false claim that "true" Germans are racially "pure" - both are inaccurate but they represent part of the ideology.--R-41 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying they opposed "liberal democracy" implies that there were some forms of democracy that they did not oppose. Unless we have sources for that, it is POV. And no my comment on democracies of yesteryear is not invalid reasoning, since there are degrees of democracy. We can say for example that the UK is more democratic today then it was in 1900. Ancient Greece was democratic because citizens voted - the restriction of citizenship to a minority made it less democratic. (Incidentally you seem to be confused about the meaning of circular reasoning - it means that a conclusion has already been accepted as true in the premises). Also, "liberal" in "liberal democracy" means constitutionality and protection of rights. Presumably all democracies would be liberal or illiberal with some falling in between. But nazism would not fall into any of these categories. And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic. TFD (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've got to agree with TDF. The Nazis presumably also opposed Social democracy too, why only specifically mention Liberal democracy? --Nug (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic." - quote by TFD, TFD that is not true - I told you this before that they did claim so, this is what Hitler said about the Nazi regime "While others talk about democracy, this is democracy". No, you have to present evidence that the Nazis did entirely oppose democracy. Social democracy is name of a political ideology - not a system of democracy, it commonly works through liberal democracy. Saying that they oppose liberal democracy is simply saying that they opposed liberal democracy - and liberal democracy was and remains a conventional political system in Europe; it does not say that they endorsed anything - that is reading into it. But to say it entirely opposed democracy - what evidence is there of that? There is plenty of evidence to show that the Nazis explicitly opposed liberal democracy and that they were non-democratic in practice.--R-41 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The source says they opposed democracy.[7] You need to show the source is wrong. TFD (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove that the Nazis were democratic in practice, but I can disprove the claim that the Nazis "opposed" democracy. TFD, you said in your own words "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic", well here is what Hitler said in Mein Kampf, he says that he supports a form of democracy - so thus he did not "oppose democracy", [8]. Now before you jump up and say "Hitler is unreliable" - remember this this article is about Nazi ideology and its claims - Nazism itself was based on unreliable and completely inaccurate claims of Jewish conspiracy and German racial "purity", when we describe their ideology here, we are not describing the reality of the world when we show what they believed in, we are showing their perceptions - and many of them were literally not connected to reality. Now that this has been provided that shows that he did not "oppose" democracy, you now have to demonstrate that what Hitler was saying was a lie. Do you have evidence that Hitler was lying when he specifically said that he endorses a form of democracy in Mein Kampf?--R-41 (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Nazi Party had a version of their "democratic centralism", which is not democracy according to any Western definition. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Democratic centralism" is a Lenin's concept, and, frankly speaking, I do not fully understand why it is so different from contemporary democracy. However, that is not important for this concrete discussion. Much more relevant to this discussion are the following questions: (i) did the Nazi party adopted anything like Lenin's democratic centralism procedure? (ii) how many election (at least nominal elections) did take place during Nazi rule (1933-45)?

You all seem to forget that democracy is primarily just a procedure of appointment of some officials, and one necessary component of any democracy, its conditio sine qua non, is elections. No elections - no democracy. (BTW, the opposite is not necessarily true).-Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Germany did hold elections throughout the 1930s, it intended of course to be a single-party state based on the claim that it rose to power in a "revolution" and that it had absorbed the other patriotic nationalist parties to create a government of national unity while banning "dangerous" movements, but it did allow "guest" candidates from outside the Nazi Party whom the regime deemed to be acceptable to their laws and goals, and they ran as candidates in the elections. These types of elections were held in November 1933, 1936, and 1938. Theoretically the basic idea was that Germans could either accept a Nazi candidate or if they reject a Nazi candidate and vote for a "guest" candidates. It held no elections during World War II and claimed that an election would be delayed until after the war. Were these elections legitimate representations of the people's will? No, and neither are the elections in systems titled illiberal democracies.--R-41 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, combing through Mein Kampf and interpreting what Hitler meant is original research. We need to rely on what third parties say. Hitler appears to be comparing Germany's system of strong elected presidents favorably with Austria's parliamentary system with ceremonial presidents. That was when Hitler was in prison for attempting to overthrow the government of Bavaria in 1923 and before he threw his support behind the successful 1925 election to the presidency of P. v. Hindenburg. TFD (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD, the immediate preceding three paragraphs on pages 86 and 87 before the highlighted text that I showed you, shows that Hitler is denouncing parliamentary democracy, and then in the paragraph that I hightlighted he claims to support what he called "German democracy". I showed you another source earlier of the Nazis declaring support for democracy. You object on technicality that noting what Hitler said in his well-known book Mein Kampf is original research, well then here is a book by a reviewer of Nazism who says that the Nazis claimed to support a form of democracy, look above and below the highlighted text - see here [9]. TFD, your claim that you said "the nazis did not claim to be democratic", has been disproven.--R-41 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a passing opinion, unsupported by references, expressed by someone writing in 1938! When one edits an article about Nazi ideology one should identify current relevant texts and represent what they say. One should not decide something then search for sources. If one wants to argue about nazi's being pro-democracy, one needs to submit an academic paper and persuade others. Incidentally, could you please look at the sources before presenting them because while it takes seconds to Google search using keywords to find text that appears to support one's position, it takes time for other editors to read and evaluate them. BTW even if one believes that the nazis claimed to support a form of democracy it does not mean that they actually supported any form of democracy. TFD (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So what about the date of the book? People still read and talk about older books; and this book you are referring to has been reprinted in 2012, so someone thought it had relevance today. The page I showed you from that book, shows a citation that the author used at the bottom of the page. I already said above to you that I am not claiming that the Nazis were democratic in practice. What I said is that there is no evidence that the Nazis "opposed democracy". Being undemocratic in practice and opposing democracy are two different things that you are linking together. You claim that because they were undemocratic in practice that therefore they must have "opposed democracy", when in fact that does not reveal any negative value held by the Nazis towards democracy as a whole. You are hypocritical when you say "one should not decide something then search for sources" - you yourself have decided that Nazism opposes democracy, and you asked me to disprove a source. You have evidence that Hitler officially supported a form of democracy from Mein Kampf, and thus your claim that "the nazis did not claim to be democratic", has been disproven. Now you can choose to use Wikilawyering based on technicality to avoid the fact that your claim has been disproven, or you can say "fine ,the Nazis claimed that they supported democracy, but I reject their claim".--R-41 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Negotiation, I suggest that we make a compromise on what is acceptable to state in the article. I propose that the article should acknowledge these two points: (1) that most scholars regard Nazism as being undemocratic in practice; (2) that Nazism denounced liberal democracy.--R-41 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not be available here for a week beginning later today, it is up to others to review what has been said here and seek a resolution.--R-41 (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(out) Abel's book is of interest to some scholars today because with the assistance of the Nazi Party he collected 600 individual essays about why people joined. No one else did that and no one else now can do that. That is the reason his book has been reprinted and continues to interest some in the academic community. If his single mention of the word "democratic" in connection with nazism had invoked the slightest interest in the academic community then one would expect that at least one writer would have quoted him on that in the last 70+ years. So far they have not. TFD (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You have repeatedly indicated IDONTLIKEIT but that is not, AFAICT, a valid reason for rejecting a well-known reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. RS does not provide a license to write POV articles. TFD (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The only person in this discussion who is pushing a POV here is you, TFD. Collect is right, it is obvious from this discussion here and on Talk:Fascism that your dispute has always been about WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT because you are disgusted by the idea of acknowledging that fascists and Nazis did claim to be democratic - disgust and contempt is a standard reaction of most people when they think or talk about fascism and Nazism, it is still a POV. You are also gaming the system by using certain WP policies in an inappropriate manner. For instance you are gaming the system in your use of WP:WEIGHT, because how can WP:WEIGHT apply to your factually inaccurate argument "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic."? It is factually false, they did claim to be democratic. I offered you per Wikipedia:Negotiation a reasonable compromise here, and now I will offer it again: here is the proposed solution: "Nazism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in spite of the Nazis claiming to be democratic". I hope you will accept this, but I doubt you will, if you don't acknowledge that Nazis and fascists did claim to be democratic, then further discussion is futile, because you are refusing to acknowledge the logical fallacy of your claim shown here: "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic.".--R-41 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are similar to your theory that fascism is democratic except in that case you have a primary source while here you have nothing. You bring up Socrates but of course he died more than 2300 years before the nazis were founded. TFD (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that I believe that fascism is democratic, I personally do not, I am acknowledging that fascists claimed it was democratic. I am making a similar acknowledgement of the Nazis' claim to be democratic. You say that on fascism "in that case you have a primary source" but you say that here I "have nothing" to back up the acknowledgement that the Nazis claimed to be democratic, I already showed you that Hitler in his well-known book Mein Kampf, claims to support democracy [10]. I proposed a compromise above your last post, per Wikipedia:Negotiation, do you accept the compromise?--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Among other things, you would need a secondary source that interprets the passage. TFD (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer is right in front of you from Hitler's well-known notorious book Mein Kampf. But since you insist, here is a source showing the excerpt from that statement from Mein Kampf, in this book on political theory: [11]. In order to avoid confusion, the source does not say that the Nazis were genuinely democratic, but it is acknowledging that they claimed to be democratic. Thus, again it is demonstrated that your statement saying: "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic", is factually inaccurate. Now, again I will offer the following compromise statement for you to accept: "Nazism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in spite of the Nazis claiming to be democratic".--R-41 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Mein Kampf is a primary source and we cannot make claims about what the Fuehrer meant, any more than we can on articles about Jesus, John Locke, or Karl Marx. Fortunately there is extensive writing about his views. TFD (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you even look at this source I just showed you that quotes Mein Kampf: [12]. It shows Hitler claiming to support democracy, it doesn't believe the Nazism is genuinely democratic, but it shows the claim. Your argument that says "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic" has been disproven.--R-41 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest all of you to think about the following. Sometimes the colloquial usage of some terms does not coincide with their exact meaning. Thus, "Soviet Russia" is not the same as "The USSR". Similarly, the term "democracy" appeared to be privatized by some Western leaders and now it means "liberal democracy". However, we all seem to agree that Greek democracy and contemporary British of American democracy are not exactly the same. Therefore, the claim that Nazism opposed both Communism and democracy is oversimplification. It opposed Soviet Communism (and Comintern lead by the USSR), and western liberal democracy (in its Anglo-Saxon version). It had no major frictions with such democratic countries as Finland, Sweden or Switzerland. Therefore, I assume that the claim that Nazism opposed democracy (which can be found in many sources) is just an inaccurate version of the claim that Nazism opposed to leading western democratic powers (Britain and the US). Was Nazism democratic or not is a second question. Obviously, it was much less democratic then most Western societies. However, it is insufficient to claim that Nazism intrinsically rejected any democracy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that Nazism tolerated communism at all - it saw communism as the work of a Jew, Karl Marx. Nazism was emphatically against liberal democracy. I am concerned that you are opening up the Pandora's Box here with all those new claims you are making, Paul Siebert, that will allow TFD to ignore what I have posted in order to rebuke you. My resolution to the dispute in my last post was simple: TFD wanted a secondary source that acknowledged claim in Mein Kampf that Hitler claimed to support democracy, because TFD claimed that we cannot rely on primary sources. Now I have given TFD a secondary source acknowledging it, here: [13]. It shows Hitler claiming to support democracy, it doesn't believe the Nazism is genuinely democratic, but it shows the claim. TFD's argument saying "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic" has been disproven.--R-41 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write Nazism tolerated Communism. My point was that its opponent was Soviet Communism. By the way, Marx was not a founder of Communism, and the versions of non-Marxian communism also exist. In any event, the major point is that "democracy" and "liberal democracy" are not the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I think you are confusing nazi ideology and nazi politics. Nazis formed alliances with groups holding different ideologies and quarrelled among themselves. R-41, what should interest us is whether or not current summaries of nazi ideology say it claimed to be democratic. When we Google for sources to support an opinion we hold, we are sure to find something, in this case a non-notable paperback from the 1950s. BTW my essay "How to spot a POV article" explains my objections to this type of research. TFD (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Your agenda to state without any qualification that "Nazism opposed democracy" is what is POV - a common POV in the Western world, but a POV nonetheless. The Nazis claimed to be democratic but were undemocratic in practice, but where is the evidence for your claim that Nazi ideology officially opposed democracy? TFD, you asked for a secondary source and I provided it to you acknowledging Hitler's statement. But now that I have provided you the secondary source that you asked for, now you are changing your criticism. Now you evade by saying that the source is "too old" - but it shows exactly what you asked for, an acknowledgement of Hitler's claim to support democracy. Nothing is good enough for you. Nothing, because you are gaming the system. Now are you finally going to acknowledge that your argument that says "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic" is inaccurate?--R-41 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You say, it is "a common POV in the Western world". We are not supposed to correct misconceptions but to accurately report what mainstream sources say. If you disagree with policy, then get it changed. But stop second-guessing my opinions and motives for following policy. TFD (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you believe I am wrong, then why can't you find a source that shows Nazism being officially presented as "opposed to democracy"? We are not pressured on Wikipedia to include popular POVs as material such as legends and urban myths, no matter how popular they are. How would you respond to the fact that many people including authors believe that the Great Wall of China can be seen from the naked eye from outer space, it cannot be seen from the naked eye from outer space - it can only be seen via optical enhancement from outer space. Scholars who know what they are talking about recognize that that is false, but there are others that follow the claim that has been proven to be false, so according to what you said here about fascism, would you similarly wish to include that false POV on the Great Wall on Wikipedia as a fact because it is popular and common?--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If there was a consensus among astronomers that the Great Wall of China could be seen from outer space, then that is what we would say. Some editors argue that Obama was not born in Hawaii, 911 was an inside job, Oswald did not alone, the government is hiding the truth on UFOs and evolution is just a theory. Instead of weighing the evidence and deciding ourselves, we rely on what experts agree upon. Incidentally, you need a source, I do not, since you are trying to add something. TFD (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I am not sure I confuse ideology and politics. The essence of democracy is a popular support of the leader who has been appointed according to people's will, and didn't inherited his title, or didn't seize and hold it forcefully. Nazism pretended to express the majority's will, and that was deemed as an ultimate source of power in Germany. Of course, that was not what we usually see as typical liberal democracy, however, to claim that that was a total rejection of the idea of democracy would be equally incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that I have shown and demonstrated that the Nazis did claim to be democratic in theory contrary to TFD's claim "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic". But the Nazis were undemocratic in practice. TFD keeps confusing what I am arguing to that I am supporting Nazism's claim to be democratic, which I am not, I am only acknowledging it. TFD wanted a secondary source acknowledging Hitler's claim in Mein Kampf to be advocating democracy, I gave TFD that source where it shows Hitler literally saying that he supported "the German democracy, which is a true democracy" [14] - word-for-word of what Hitler said as documented in a secondary source as TFD requested.--R-41 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not our role to read Mein Kampf and explain what the Hitler meant, but to report what scholars say he meant. While is may be that the Fuehrer has been deeply misunderstood by modern scholars (he was a democrat after all), it is not our role to correct their errors. If you want to correct them, you should publish an academic paper and if it persuades people then we can change the article. If you think articles should ignore academic consensus and publish the truth, then present your arguments on the policy pages. Other editors - on articles about 911, Obama's birth certificate, etc., make the same arguments as you. TFD (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep comparing my statements to lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists, I resent that comparison, and consider it insulting, please stop making such comparisons - because you are essentially presenting me as a lunatic fringe person for refuting your statement saying "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic" by acknowledging that the Nazis did claim to be democratic while I acknowledge that they were undemocratic in practice. You say that we should not "explain what Hitler meant", well I say that in response to your claim "And no, the nazis did not claim to be democratic" combined with the fact that Hitler said that he supported "the German democracy, which is a true democracy" [15], without any explanation at all, it is obvious that your statement is inconsistent with what the Nazi leader claimed.--R-41 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The approach we should take is identifying relevant sources and reflecting what they say, not searching for sources for what we want to say. In this case you are using a chapter about democracy in a tertiary source on political theory published in 1965. Why not use more recent secondary sources specifically about nazism? The statement in the source, "Hitler described the dictatorship he advocated as 'the German democracy, which is a true democracy'" seems to be inaccurate. He appears to have been writing about the existing Weimar constitution, specifically the election of the president. TFD (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read what Hitler was saying again. He says on that page or the page before that he opposes parliamentary democracy, but he is claiming to support some form of "democracy" - if he is referring to the German presidential system at the time as you say, it appears to be his warped interpretation of it as justifying him, as a Fuhrer to use that position to be a totalitarian ruler theoretically directly connected by "responsibility" to the German people as a whole - basically the Fuhrerprinzip. We cannot deny that Hitler did claim to support some form of "democracy". Now, where I agree with you and I think that I have not made myself clear, is that the article does not have to take Hitler's claims seriously.--R-41 (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead too long

The lead section is way too long and too detailed. Enumerating which nations they allied with is an example of detailed information that does not belong to the most important and essential facts of Nazism. Ideological forerunners of Nazism like Spengler and Van den Bruck have influenced Nazism, but they were not the founders or actors of Nazism, therefore they do not belong in the lead section. The first paragraph of the lead section mentions Van den Bruck and Spengler but not Hitler! I think this shows that the lead, as it is now, features secondary information instead of essentials. --RJFF (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and it is POV. TFD (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs pruning - but the claim that the article lede - which is supposed to be a summary - is POV is inapt. Collect (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I included that info on Spengler and van den Bruck because I have grown tired of hearing the nonsense ignorant claims over and over again by right-wing users who take offense to the idea that scholars recognize Nazism as being based upon far-right politics. For gosh sakes, we are not saying that all right-wing people are Nazis! How are we going to respond each and every time a user says something along the lines of: "The Nazis are obviously left-wing, they are called National Socialist, duh you stupid Wikipedia people!" - that is the kind of crap we've been getting from offended right-wing users here for years. It always restarts the cycle that we have to go through a long discussion with the offended user while uninformed users both opposed and supportive of that user engage in cheap sophistry until the offended user gets too peeved off and leaves; and then another offended user arrives and the cycle restarts again. I thought that including such prominent figures the Nazis were influenced by, would dispel that ignorant assumption.--R-41 (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RJFF assessment. Actually the whole article is too long. It lacks a cogent narrative, and therefore makes for some rough reading. Anyone getting worked up about other editors adding inferior content probably needn't worry—I'd wager not too many people will go through the trouble of reading all this. Given the importance of its topic, this is a shame. In my opinion this entry needs to go back to the drawing board—I've done some ce work earlier, but will hold off until the entry shows some promising signs of maturing. Malljaja (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the material on Spengler, removed irrelevent material, and shrunken the intro, and summarized the material on van den Bruck. Van den Bruck is more significant, he is the one who coined the concept of a "Third Reich" that he idealized as an authoritarian state. What I want to know is how we can say in the article that Nazism is far-right without having a hellstorm starting every time a right-wing user arrives and takes offense to the idea that a party labelled "National Socialist" can be labelled far-right. I proposed showing the sources of Nazism's claim to promote "socialism" - from right-wing nationalist figures in Germany who claimed to promote "socialism" and the political themes that Nazism campaigned on - such as van den Bruck, who influenced the Nazis. What ideas do you have to address this issue?--R-41 (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We are writing for a general audience. The fact that there is a vocal minority opinion should not affect how the article is written. There are vocal minorities on 911, climate change and evolution too. When we decide to take these views seriously we are altering the POV of articles so that irrational views are given greater weight than they deserve. I imagine anyway that these views are overrepresented because people with non-standard views tend to be more vocal. No one for example starts a conversation by saying, "911 - I think it was bin Laden." TFD (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with removing the material on van der Bruck if you can declare a consistent and clear way of refuting these people who keep claiming that the Nazis were "left-wing" because the party was called "National Socialist". Remember that those critics will be users who are typically right-wing, and if they are clever, they will attempt to deconstruct all the sources that claim it is "far-right" to reveal alleged "left-wing POV". P.S. TFD, I wish you would respond to my post on your talk page.--R-41 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Malljaja, that the article still needs ce work. I have done some but have tried not to change it too much as the article is still in flux. Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have substantially reduced the size of the intro. The history section of the article which I wrote a substantial amount of is well-sourced, perhaps too much fine details on the origins of the ideology, for the general reader though. It could be summarized.--R-41 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I would avoid to to cite an original quote by Hitler in the first paragraph. The lead section should only be written from a neutral experts' position and not present Hitler's own view or claims. (Hitler is not really a reliable source, not even for his own ideology). There is place for original quotes by exponents of Nazism in the other sections. --RJFF (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it is not the task of this article (and especially not the lead section) to answer certain misconceptions about the subject. Some people believe in Nazi UFOs, still we don't have to write that Nazis had no UFOs, neither in the lead section nor anywhere else in the article. Neither is the question where Nazism is located in the political spectrum essential (no one really denies that the bipolar left-right spectrum is too flat and in most cases not helpful). Essential is that it is a radical antisemitic, racist, anti-liberal and anti-communist ideology. This belongs in the lead section, and not the question how National Socialism is related to Socialism. Funnily this seems to be a question that is often discussed in America, while whoever brings up this question in Germany exposes themselves to ridicule. --RJFF (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good start to pare down the lead, but as I noted before, the whole entry is just a sprawling mess. It's very heavy on interpretation of the ideology, but has some very notable omissions. For example, the Nazis burnt books they deemed inferior or a threat to public morale, and they declared large swathes of contemporary art as "degenerate". I could not find any of this in the entry. Hitler commissioned the building of a truly extravagant Reichskanzelei and had even bigger architectural plans, for example, for Berlin and Linz, and Göring was trying to match this with his own megalomaniac ideas. This sheds light on both the ideology as well as the mindset of the people in the party. Again there's nothing to be found here. So in short, despite a considerable amount of text, essential nuts and bolts are missing. To concentrate on its key features may go a long way to improving this article. Malljaja (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's megalomania is not a political ideological position, there have been many megalomaniac world leaders from multiple political affiliations and even no political affiliations, from figures like Nero to Robert Mugabe today. Hitler's megalomania is part of the man's psychology, it would better be mentioned in the article on Hitler himself. Architecture would best be mentioned on the Fascist architecture article. To RJFF, the issue of Nazism's claim to be "socialist" routinely comes up here, and regardless of what we may view of it, we need a response - why is a party that labels itself socialist considered right-wing, has been a questioned raised here far too many times, we need to develop a coherent response from reliable sources, and especially sources that say why it was far-right.--R-41 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The last point is immaterial, unless scholars are plagued by the same question. Further, Nazism is a very confined ideology, it has never made any inroads anywhere outside Germany. So to try to separate it from its main exponents is unwise. The apparent disconnect between its message of "socialism" and its right-wing nationalistic agenda has a very simple explanation — it was designed for the sole purpose of getting votes and thus gain power. Nazi leaders who took the socialism idea too serious, i.e., Strasser and Röhm, were ruthlessly eliminated once the one-party system had been firmly established. The ideology then focused on building bigger buildings and cities and prepare for war, because it became solely centred on Hitler and his megalomania. Because of these deep inconsistencies, it would have been a short-lived episode (many people began to take notice of its failures already in the mid-thirties). It was only slightly prolonged and thus kept alive by Hitler's move to go to war. Malljaja (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Nazism did not make inroads outside of Germany is inaccurate, there were several Dutch Nazi parties in the 1930s, one was put in power of the Dutch government in 1940 by Germany - Anton Mussert becoming the head of the Dutch government. There was a prominent Nazi movement in South Africa nicknamed the Greyshirts. There was a Norwegian Nazi movement that was installed with a man named Quisling leading the government. There was the Ustase in Croatia that was inspired by the Nazis, it was founded and led by Ante Pavelic whose notorious regime committed mass genocide in the Balkans against Serbs along with Jews in World War II. And there are neo-Nazis across the world today.--R-41 (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is unconvincing. None of these have made any notable political impact. Contrast this with, say, communism, a variegated political ideology that still has great political clout and attraction. Nazism is, to use my favourite tautology, a petite dwarf. It looms large only because of its infamous legacy, the Holocaust and WWII, not because its ideology has any meat to it or—neonazis notwithstanding—gained notable political traction anywhere else. Malljaja (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I may negatively look upon Nazism as. It seems darn important to me that we attempt to make a serious and thorough analysis of what Nazism was and explain it. I am concerned that if we are not diligent and succumb to generalizations, we will end up presenting it as some cheap Hollywood cardboard cutout of a stereotype Nazi - presented merely as "pure evil" - with no explanation of why so many people would support or tolerate a murderous anti-Semitic movement. I have no hesitation in admitting it is very hard for me and most people to try to look at Nazism from any NPOV, in hindsight it is an absurd hypocritical ideology based on conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but we have to try to exercise NPOV here, and that doesn't mean conceding to accepting its claims, but it does involve acknowledging them - should they be or are widely believed to be false (such as its claim to be socialist) - then I suggest that it is best to briefly show the claim and disprove it in the article.--R-41 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the material on van den Bruck. I have found a better source to quickly address the issue of the "socialism" name issue, it is from an older but important source that has been reprinted by Routledge in 2010, from that source I have paraphrased what it said to the following statement I've added to the intro: "Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler did not support the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name as Hitler at the time instead preferred to use "Social Revolutionary".(Source: Konrad Heiden. A History of National Socialism. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2010. Pp. 85.) Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined "socialism" as meaning a commitment of an individual to a community. (Heiden, Pp. 85.)". The source clearly and swiftly addresses the name issue and shows that Hitler was not using the term to refer to mainstream socialism, but defined it to essentially refer to communitarianism.--R-41 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)