Talk:Nazism/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Please do not revert referenced, on topic comments disagreeable to your POV

Placing National Socialism on the left wing is not supported by reliable sourcing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please do not revert referenced, on topic comments disagreeable to your personal political POV, and then immediately closing all further discussion, ironically on the note that fascism and left-wing ideologies have nothing in common. Please try to remain neutral and refrain from making snarky unsolicited ad hominem comments against other editors. Can't we all just get along? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Referenced? Your first post about Eugenics and the Incas, which rambles on about your own POV, is absolutely useless. I thought it was favorable to you to just remove it. Otherwise it stands as is and others will see it. But if that's what you want, I'll let it stay there. Try to remember in the future, Wikipedia is not a forum. As for your other post, you claim proves that fascism is really a left-wing ideology, that's embarrassingly incorrect also. Your source? I'll let others decide and disengage. Try to remember that the Talk page is for improving the article, and that the vast majority of scholars, historians and reliable sources describe the Nazis as right-wing fascists. Your own fringe POV,and those that you cobble together is not going to change that fact. Cheers! Dave Dial (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC) I will answer your objections one at a time. You are under the impression that the statements I made have been my invention, so below are references I hope you spend time reading and. As for being a right winger who should go to a Conservative website, as you suggest I should do, well, being an immigrant, an atheist, living with and married to a woman of color and a proud father of my biracial children, having earned two post grad degrees, while having zero extended family left all thanks to the Nazis, and making neocon edits on Wikipedia such as disproving the myth of anchor babies [1] or expanding entire articles to GA on Jewish WW2 heroes Alexander Pechersky , I kind of think I would be unwelcome among conservatives, wouldn't I? Eugenics and the left-wing.Statesman - Eugenics, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Inca and Socialism/Communism.[7], [8], [9] Fascism / National Socialism are left wing ideologies. These references are compelling enough to at least rethink the entire paradigm of Nazism and Fascism as pure right wing ideologies. [10], [11], [12], [13]. Also, why was the swastika, the brand of National Socialism, used years earlier by the Bolsheviks as their initial symbol of the first Socialist state? Look at USSR currency from 1917 and 1918 for yourself: (1) USSR currency with swastika, (2)USSR paper currency with swastika, (3)of Soviet post revolution paper currency with swastikas ). I appreciate your attempt to protect my reputation, but I stand by what I wrote backed by the references above. As far as I am concerned this is a discussion about including language in the article that the assessment of National Socialism as a right wing movement is being re-evaluated. So my posts were not a soapbox or a forum but contribution to discussion prior to editing the article to reach consensus. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Those sources are mostly opinion pieces, while one of them is a book review. They're not sufficient for the extreme claim you're trying to make, especially when the right-wing nature of Nazism is extremely well-documented in far reliable sources; the opinions those people express are extremely WP:FRINGE among historians and political scholars, so focusing on them would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Most of the other things you discuss are WP:OR on your part (you can't cite an eBay auction as a source!) For better sources, read the first paragraph of the political spectrum section and note its numerous cites to highly-regarded scholars; it's silly to suggest that we could weight a book review or a handful of opinion pieces by talking heads as equivalent to some of the most well-respected mainstream discussions of Nazism and Fascism by some of the best historians in the world. In addition to the sources already cited there, I would recommend Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, which goes into detail on the ideological relationship between Fascism and Socialism. It is complex and interesting, but at core Fascists loathed Socialists, bitterly opposing their core ideals of universalism, egalitarianism, anti-nationalism, horizontal collectivism and cosmopolitanism. This didn't stop them from trying to co-opt them at times; as the article says, Fascism presented itself as a "third way" which would combine various parts of existing ideologies. Their core recruiting, though, was from disaffected conservatives, and their core ideology was essentially a more modernist, nationalist version of early-20th century European conservatism, with less emphasis on traditional religion and more emphasis nationalism in its place. This much is uncontroversial and well-documented among mainstream historians. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Every history text is an opinion piece. The better sources you suggest reference opinion pieces. You may as well have said "these sources are written in english" which is similarly true and irrelevant. Perhaps your confusion stems from modern usage of relevant terms. It would help to examine the philosophical underpinnings of fascism. The fundamental schism at the time was between "liberalism" which placed primary importance on the individual and self-determination (e.g. "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"), and "socialism" which held that one's primary duty is to the collective. Among the latter a further divide existed with respect to the scope of the collective; whether the state was ideal (proponents argued socialism could only survive when tailored to cultural or national identity) or the whole of humanity (echoing Marx's views.) Both groups fought to brand their ideology as "socialism." You see this in the term "National Socialism" - socialism tied to national identity. "Left" and "right" here are non-specific; the fundamental divide is individualism vs collectivism, the latter encompassing both fascism and socialism. This is not only the view of mainstream historians but anyone with a basic education in political philosphy. To say the collectivists differed in their approach is correct but ignores this more fundamental distinction apparent in their shared opposition to liberalism. 161.202.72.169 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Post-war Nazism: Surviving Nazis, ODESSA, Stille Hilfe ?

The section 'Post-war Nazism' deals exclusively with Neo-Nazism. I think this subsection is incomplete as long as it does not also mention the active post-war community of surviving Nazis (incl. former SS members, known to gather f.ex. in Ulrichsberg, Austria) and refer to our existing pages on ODESSA and Stille Hilfe as alternatives to the 'overt expressions of support for Nazi ideas'. Lklundin (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

Nazism (National Socialism) is a far LEFT movement! See Von Hayek's Road To Serfdom" 2605:E000:7E86:C400:BD16:B45F:CC07:845 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox, under related topics, contains two curious entries:

• Nazi punk
• National Socialist black metal

Do they belong in the infobox? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Quote Hitler

User : DKK

This supports the text on Hitlers views, so it is relevant to the text.

Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”

Please explain why this should not be included. Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

References

If you check back here and on other pages you will find multiple discussions on this. You are trying to make a point through that quotation which is not supported by the third party material on Nazism. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the policies of no original research forbids us from developing our own theories based on our analysis of primary sources. Instead, we let experts do that for us. Anyway, your source is wrong about the attribution. It was actually made by Strasser in 1926.[14] Toland is the only mainstream writer who has ever attributed the passage to Hitler. TFD (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This guy is just pushing a fringe POV, but I removed the 'quote' in part because it's already in the article here. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be removed since it is wrongly attributed. TFD (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. Both looking at the Gregor Strasser wikiquote page, and this source Nazi Ideology Before 1933: by Barbara Miller Lane, Leila J. Rupp. Dave Dial (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User : DKK. Ok, thankyou for the reply.

People1750 (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1945 Nazism

The article describes sources and developed Nazism. What about the last months of the war? Hitler wasn't nationalistic, he didn't care about the Germans, regarded them as loosers.Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Xx236

Hitler considered that the German people had let him down by losing the war. He argued, from inside his bunker, that any left alive at the end were not worth keeping alive, as all good Germans would have died.

People1750 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like this should be written in the article. See e.g. Black Earth by Snyder.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Where does Snyder say Hitler was not nationalistic? TFD (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of words : No source. Vandalism ?

DD2K  : Please provide sources for "privately owned" as incorrect according to literature. Thank you. See below.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and privately owned businesses.

People1750 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would add also that it contradicts the text in the article when talking about Nazism as a regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by People1750 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the text says what the differences are compared to communism but not the simularities. Early in his career Hitler worked for the communist part and derived his concept of state from the communists. As the text says there was no class struggle element in The Third Reich.

This needs some sort of balancing. People1750 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no sourcing for the text, so it is hard to discuss it. I would not object to removing the paragraph, but if you want to put something in its place you would need sources. TFD (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces|TFD]

"After taking power the Nazi party introduced a series of laws in October 1937 that immediatily closed 20% of all small buinsesses in Germany."

The Nazi party cannnot have defended privately owned businesses if they closed 20% of them down in 1937. The remaining companies were then forced under the control of the state.

"The Nazi party appointed The Reich Economic Chamber to control all the nations business interests. National Socialism divided up industry and business into seven national economic groups, twenty-three economic chambers, one hundred chambers of industry and commerce and the seventy chambers of handicrafts."

RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer, People1750 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When researching for an article, you should not use a book written by a journalist over fifty years ago, but consult modern academic writing. Also, you should not provide evidence and state your conclusions, you need to find the conclusions in reliable sources, otherwise it is original research and inadmissable. Anyway, you took the first quote out of context: "The little businessmen, who had been one of the party's chief supports and who expected great things from Chancellor Hitler, some found themselves, many of them, being exterminated and forced back into the ranks of wage earners. Laws decreed in October 1937 simply dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000. This quickly disposed of one fifth of all small business firms. On the other hand the great cartels, which even the Republic had favored, were further strengthened by the Nazis."[15] That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back. TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:The Four Deuces

RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer,

People1750 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all thank you Four Deuces for your views. I'll deal with them one point at a time :

"1. When researching for an article, you should not use a book written by a journalist over fifty years ago, but consult modern academic writing.

2. Also, you should not provide evidence and state your conclusions, you need to find the conclusions in reliable sources, otherwise it is original research and inadmissable.

3. Anyway, you took the first quote out of context: "The little businessmen, who had been one of the party's chief supports and who expected great things from Chancellor Hitler, some found themselves, many of them, being exterminated and forced back into the ranks of wage earners. Laws decreed in October 1937 simply dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000. This quickly disposed of one fifth of all small business firms. On the other hand the great cartels, which even the Republic had favored, were further strengthened by the Nazis."[16]

4. That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back. TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)"

RESPONSE from People1750 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

1. a. A book has more weight than one article in a journal. b. Being written historically closer to the time the events occurred it is more likely to be factually balanced, less likely to be revisionary, and less likely to be influenced by the fashions of today. c. The book its self was very successful in its time and many copies were published, more than most articles quoted in the sources. d. The book meeting WP:V and WP:R standards. e. To clarify and misunderstanding old does not imply 'wrong', in this case where the issues resolve around historical events, the sources written closest to those events in time have the greater WP:R and WP: f. It is a history book.

2. This classic history text refers to a statement of fact that contradicts the Wikipedia lead text and nothing else. Secondary sources cannot be original research.

3. I have compared the meaning of the history book with the meaning of the text in the lead. " It is not out of context but a summary of a longer passage. If you read beyond your quote you will see that the great cartels were divided up into economic groups so they could be controlled by the state. This again supports my position that the text clearly states the opposite of what is written on the Wikipedia website that “Nazism protected private business.”

4. " That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back" a. You might be correct, but it is not the point here. ( As an aside I am sure many left and right leaning individuals have been dishonest - not us, we are better than that.) b. The text clearly states the fact that Hitler destroyed many private businesses, this is in direct conflict with what is written on the Wikipedia website that “Nazism protected private business.”

5. Finally there is no source quoted for the current text, WP:PROVEIT.

People1750 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dubious source

An editor added a paragraph entirely sourced to an opinion piece in American Thinker.[17] that magazine publishes fringe theories, and is therefore not a reliable source. Nor are their opinions viewed with any credence by academics. For example, it has articles that say things like, "Is Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate a forgery? Definitely yes...."[18] I have reversed it. TFD (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph 3 - Contradictory

Lead Paragraph 3 - Contradictory

TEXT : The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and privately owned businesses. The third sentence seems to have been added in because the third sentance is contridicted by the second : the whole notion of Volksgemeinschaft implied that every German had some claim to equality, regardless of social background or occupational position.

Rejected sounds too strong a word. Fascism was based to a large degree on communism.

THE THIRD REICH, Politics and Propaganda by David Welch

The differences between the Communism and Nazi Germany were of degree, not kind. Ruud van Dijk, "Bracher, Karl Dietrich," in Kelly Boyd, ed., The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Vol. 1, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999, pp. 111-112.

I would delete the final sentence of Para 3 because it seems invented. WP:proveit

People1750 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First, Bracher's view represents a tiny minority. Second, his comparison with Communism is on the basis of totalitarianism, not socialism. We can all find snippets to support anything we want. TFD (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces|TFD

1. "Bracher's view represents a tiny minority"; WP;PROVEIT, he is a highly respected professor at the University of Bonn, has editorial roles on many main stream and important historical and scientific journals, has written and published extensively about Nazi Germany. An Alma Mater of Harvard. You couldn't get more main stream and respected than that.

Herausgeberschaft

Nach 25 Jahren, Eine Deutschlandbilanz. Mitherausgeberschaft

Staat u. Politik, m. Ernst Fraenkel (Fischerlex. II) 57, Neubearb. 64; Bonner Histor. Forsch, seit 60; Schr.-R. Staat u. Polit. seit 62; Die mod. Demokratie u. ihr Recht 66 II; Intern. Beziehungen 69; Bonner Sehr. z. Politik u. Zeitgesch. seit 70; Dokumente z. Deutschlandpolitik seit 71; Gesch. der Bdesrep. Dtld 81-87 VI: Nationalsoz. Diktatur 83; Die Weimarer Republik 1918-1933 87; Quellen z. Gesch. des Parlamentarismus u. d. Polit. Parteien, Reihen 3 u. 4; Schr.-R. der Vjh. f. Zeitgesch. seit 78; Deutschland zwischen Krieg u. Frieden 90; Staat u. Parteien 92; Deutschland 1933-1945 92. Mitherausgeberschaft von wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften

Neue Polit. Lit. seit 59; Polit. Vjschr. 60-69; Dt. Rdsch. 63-64; J. of Contemporary Hist. seit 65; Government a. Opposition seit 65 (Ed. Board); Journal of Contemporary History seit 69 (Ed. Board); Vjh. f. Zeitgesch. seit 69 u. 78; Societas seit 71; Zs. f. Politik seit 74 (Ed. Board); Tempo presente seit 80; Risorgimento seit 80; Europ. J. of Intern. Affairs seit 88. Veröffentlichungen über Karl Dietrich Bracher

Demokratie u. Diktatur. Geist u. Gestalt polit. Herrschaft in Dtld u. Europa., Festschrift f. K.D. B. 87; Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 82, 92; Zeitschrift für Politik 87.

Honors

   Emeritus of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
   Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.
   Member of the American Philosophical Society.
   Member of the Historische Kommission zu Berlin.
   Member of the Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung.
   Member of the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie.

2. "his comparison with Communism is on the basis of totalitarianism" This is quite reasonable and correct for Prof. (em.) Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Karl Dietrich Bracher to use totalitarianism as a form of comparison for communism and Nazi Germany, it is semantically correct.

People1750 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not have to prove that a theory has little support, you need to prove it has support. With a quick google books search I find that "the totalitarian approach came earlier to gain general acceptance as an 'established' and 'establishment' theory before being subjected to a damaging challenge in the 1960s."[19] As Stanley Payne explains, the new consensus is in support of the generic theory of fascism[20] which, according to his Wikipedia article at least, Bracher opposed. Before making recommendations, you should be aware of things like that.

Incidentally, the totalitarian theory is explained in the article and it does not unfortunately defend your "they're socialists!" thesis.

TFD (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The google book search or a single source does not prove anything conclusive. It is my understanding that the consensus among historians and economists is that nazism represented a variation of socialism and not capitalism. People1750 had provided numerous sources to substantiate this and I also feel that the third paragraph's highlighted sentence is contradictory. 147.129.149.251 (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"It is my understanding" Well ok let's all just take your word for it then. --JBL (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead is misleading ! Nazism same ideology "as well as other far-right groups"

This is a fallacy argument:

1. Far-right groups are not neccessarily Nazi or Facist. 2. "Other" is not a helpful descriptive term in defining Nazism. 3. There are better alternatives that define Nazism : National Socialism rejected rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes.

I propose removing the text refering to far right groups because 1. There is no reference. 2. Reasons stated above. Point 3. I propose incorporating this explanantion of Nazism in the lead, after line three.

Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Nazi party only existed in Germany but there were far right groups outside Germany that held the same ideology, for example the German American Bund. If you want to recommend changes you need to provide sources. I and most other editors are well aware of the "They were socialists!" argument originally developed by Cleon Skousen, but you need to show it is a consensus view in mainstream sources before the article can be changed to say that. TFD (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And there are those that to do this day call themselves "National Socialists", and express sympathy for Hitler and his ideas, who are pretty much always classified and identified as being on the far right of the political spectrum. A page listing such groups past and present is linked via the hatnote of this page. The "far right" terminology is accurate and does not preclude the inclusion of more specific detail on the characteristic features of Nazi beliefs and practice. N-HH talk/edits 10:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:N-HH

User:The Four Deuces|TFD

Yes, I agree with you, but I am making a different point that this article is not about far right groups. It is misleading because the link takes you to all modern far right groups, and many object to the policies espoused by the Nazi party.

In addition quote " Mudde adds: "the terms neo-Nazism and to a lesser extent neo-Fascism are now used exclusively for parties and groups that explicitly state a desire to restore the Third Reich (in the case of neo-Fascism the Italian Social Republic) or quote historical National Socialism (fascism) as their ideological influence" " Mudde, Cas. (2000). The ideology of the extreme right. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 12-13

As of then, many of the policies espoused by the Nazi party were similar to policies espoused by left wing parties. WP:WEIGHT !

It is POV/imprecise generalisation, rather than a clear undisputed fact.

So it is misleading to have it in the lead. What I'm also saying is the lead should be as non-controversial and factual as possible.

I was not aware Cleon Skousen espoused that view, I am not aware of any evidence that he origionally developed the argument that the Nazis were leftwing WP:PROVEIT.

People1750 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:N-HH

Refering to your comment "A page listing such groups past and present is linked via the hatnote of this page." did you mean this page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_%28disambiguation%29 ?

People1750 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with People1750 because as written it unnecessarily imputes a bias. Aspencork (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Right wing?

We have been over this far too many times! Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article takes the position that a socialist political party is right wing. This is factually wrong and can not stand. Someone appears to have deleted this criticism from the talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC) The issue has been brought up many times. Mainstream sources do not consider the Nazi party socialist. And even if it were, it would not preclude it from being right-wing. TFD (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC) This is incorrect and misleading WP:UNDUE "Mainstream sources do not consider the Nazi party socialist." More recent sources, on analysis of what the Nazi's actually did, are coming to the conclusion that they were left wing as their name suggests. The reason for this denial is modern political bias - there are few right wing dictators. The left do not want to acknowledge this. This section of the article concentrates on trivia mostly, he said that or they said this, statements by Hitler are quoted regularly but we all know politicians adapt their speeches for their audiences. It seems to avoid the main questions relevant to left and right definitions. The only one it refers to is genetics which is a minor differentiator between left and right. Syncretic is not helpful in defining left or right - it is a distraction from the thrust of the arguement and a minor point.wp:undue.WP:BALASPS. The statement that the majority of the literature states that Nazism is right wing is over 15 years old, and is misleading. Any analysis of the literature would be out of date by now. This needs to be corrected or removed. Some of the sources used to back up the right wing argument are obscure : Oliver H. Woshinsky. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2008. p. 156. In 8 years it only had 26 official citations, it should have over 300 if it was a main stream source or respected source. "Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements". This is neither mainstream thinking or even correct. The left wing do exactly this not the right wing - look at Mao, Lenin, Stalin ???? I think this is article is misleading in many places. POV.WP:BESTSOURCES. I also note that most of these "Nazi are right-wing references" are not easily checkable ie not online. In its self this is fine, but given the obscurity of the example above, this article needs be be reviewed. Something on why the Nazi's are considered left wing would be more accurate and helpful. People1750 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC) The number of citations a book receives is irrelevant. Woshinsky's book is a standard textbook that explains politics drawing on the literature and therefore does not contain original research or theories that are not already available. If you think that recent literature has revised its views and now considers nazism socialist then please provide a source that says that, i.e., not an argument. TFD (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”. Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/ https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/the-nazi-party-a-left-wing-liberal-movement/ These points are valid and need to be incorporated in a new section on leftism and Nazism. People1750 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC) None of the sources are considered reliable per reliable sources policy, and drawing conclusions from them is not allowed under no original research policy. If you think the bulk of Nazism scholars are mistaken, then you need to submit your views for publication elsewhere and when you succeed in changing scholarly opinion, we can change the article to meet those views. TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC) On this point there is no source for the first few paragraphs. Ie Not WP:V. I have checked the facts and many are correct but there are a few dubious words that are WP:NOR. + None of the sources are considered reliable per reliable sources policy, and drawing conclusions from them is not allowed under no original research policy. If you think the bulk of Nazism scholars are mistaken, then you need to submit your views for publication elsewhere and when you succeed in changing scholarly opinion, we can change the article to meet those views. TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC) − The Telegraph is a reliable source. They are direct quotes from the sources. So can not be WP:NOR. "The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and businesses." The literature does not support the final clause..... "and sought to defend private property and businesses". The thrust of the article misses the point these and other sources make. I agree that there seems to be more articles which discuss the well known fact that Nazism was against communism. But this is a fallacy in the leftism argument - just because two parties are against each other does not mean they share some of the same characteristics. There has been no detailed comparison in the literature of the policies of the Nazi state in comparison to those of the left. For this reason I think we should allow some dissent as to the assumption that many articles make. As Jimmy Wales says - if its cited it can be included somewhere in the article - the question is where ? People1750 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As greater people than any of us have noted, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, but expecting different results." Please can we just stop this? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DanielRigal

The reason this keeps coming back is that a large number of people know that itis not correct. Despite all the good work done to date by many people the article still ddoes not represent a balanced view.

People1750 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Most people know"? Really? Got a source for that? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty lame to change comments that have already been replied to. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources have been quoted but there is a reluctance to use any sources that argue that the Nazi party was left wing, or had policies in common with communists, even if they are legitimate sources. If there are two major views then both views should be represented in an article.

People1750 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The article, as written, is dishonest and biased. It's part of the historical record that Hitler claimed that Nazism was a socialist movement that had its roots in Marxism. So, it's preposterous to claim that making that annotation to this Wiki article is somehow "vandalism". It's also preposterous to ignore that Engels called for the extirpation of the Slavs in his article "The Magyar Struggle," and how Stalin actually conducted pogroms against the Jews and Kulaks. Hence, it is substantively obvious that "ethnic cleansing" is not solely a tenet of right-wing movements as this article presently -- and lyingly -- states. Aspencork (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing from your personal opinion. That counts for nothing here. (Don't take that personally though, neither does anybody else's!) The key point here is that you can't make an argument out of bits that you feel fit together. That is original research and original synthesis. We can only include content that accurately reflects reliable sources which, for this subject, is mostly history books (by reputable historians). Your problem is that none of the reputable history books agree with your line. They all describe Nazism as a far-right movement. Sure, there are many excessively vocal presences on the internet who just want to rewrite history to suit their own political aims, irrespective of any facts that get in the way, but we are not obliged to give such fringe groups and opinions parity with mainstream sources. That is pretty much where the story ends. You can disagree with the reputable historians if you like but that is a story for you to tell on your own blog or website, not on Wikipedia.

As for Stalin and his cronies, you will find their crimes adequately covered in the various articles about them. We don't need to cover them here as well. To do so would be to distract from the crimes of the Nazis (which is what we are meant to be writing about in this article) and to have a hand in minimising their significance. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The problem is that this article pretends that only Nazis promoted racist, genocidal policies, when it's a well established fact that Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao also promoted racist, genocidal programs, and that they argued that only a certain elite -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- could properly rule for an indeterminate period over the masses for their own good. Stalin was purging "undesirables" before the Nazis fielded a single death squad or built a single one their infamous death camps. The Katyn massacre in Poland predates Babi Yar. So, it's pure equivocation on your part to argue that one need only read additional Wiki articles to realize the truth. That you prefer to edit this article in such a manner as to require one to read additional articles to learn the truth reveals that you are consciously aware that you are actively engaging in obfuscation. Hitler bragged that he was a genuine student of Marx, and Goebbels wrote in his diary, in 1941, that "genuine socialism" would replace Soviet Bolshevism in Russia. Even the astute observer George Orwell noted that Nazism and Soviet style communism had much more in common with each other than either do with western democracies; hence, one must wonder why you are afraid for other people to learn that. "The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power," 1984. Aspencork (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of presenting theories you need to show that they are supported in reliable sources, that is policy. TFD (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, considering how Germans into Nazis by Peter Fritzsche is misused to support the current "theory" advocated in this article, as presently written, when Fritzsche, according to another reviewer, actually "rebuffs the assumption that the Nazis represented the reactionary, elitist authoritarianism of the German middle class. The Nazi party drew voters from every corner of German society with a program for national reform, not a plan to return to a stratified world" (review).Aspencork (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

His book is used as one of several sources that the Nazis were right-wing, which he calls them in his book. It could be that he should have concluded, based on his analysis, that they were left-wing, but he did not. TFD (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you've been so quick to discount a professional reviewer's comments about Fritzsche's book, perhaps you would be kind enough to take the time to edit and annotate the footnotes citing Fritzsche's book and post the page numbers wherein Fritzsche claims that "genocide" is solely the provenance of "right-wing groups" -- as is fallaciously stated in this article. Aspencork (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not discount them, they did not support your theory that Fritzsche called Nazism left-wing. And nowhere in this article does it say genocide is solely the provenance of right-wing groups. TFD (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong! This is what the article says: "Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements." Engels advocated genocide for the Slavs. Stalin advocated genocide for the Kulaks. Etc., etc., etc. Hence, genocide is not solely a "far-right theme" as stated in this article. And please do edit the footnotes and insert the applicable page numbers to support your claim so that you can be verified.Aspencork (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That statement is not sourced to Fritsche's book. Also, can you please read "No original research." While your argument is easily refuted, the discussion page does not exist to discuss your theories. TFD (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So, you're admitting that the statement is in the text of the article. Furthermore, you claim to be citing Fritzche's book, and I'm citing George Watson's book wherein he recounts what socialists actually wrote, said and did. That includes Hitler's remark: "I have learnt a great deal from Marxism ... as I do not hesitate to admit." So who do you propose is guilty of "using original research"? BTW, I've requested Fritzche's book, which I expect to receive in about a week; so, the page numbers are still necessary to properly support the remark cited in this article. Aspencork (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Watson's book is fringe. He was an expert on Victorian literature and did not publish this book in the academic press and it went unnoticed. Have you read the book or just snippets? Or do you collect all these snippets from a website? Please stick with mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, "Victorian literature" includes Marx and Engels (who lived and wrote in Victorian England) and other socialist works of the 19th century. I own and read the Watson's book. There is, btw, more literary comment about Watson and his works than there is about Oliver H. Woshinsky, and his work, Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior, who is passing as a so-called "qualified expert" cited in this article. Beyond the blurb at Amazon, there almost nothing about Woshinsky that makes him remarkable, or less "fringe." A nearby flagship university doesn't even stock Woshinky's book on its shelves. Aspencork (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have a copy of Watson's book, you will notice that he does not contain this Hitler quote, which turns out was bogus. And being in a library has nothing to do with reliability. And Watson thought that both Nazism and socialism were conservative, which contradicts the theme of this thread. Also, I imagine you never took a course in Victorian literature. They do not cover German political journals. TFD (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong when you claim the Hitler quote is bogus. You are wrong when you claim that Watson didn't include that quote in his book, because an educated and knowledgeable reader can find the Hitler quote on page 72 of Watson's book. You are also wrong when you claim that Hitler's remarks regarding the origins of Nazism can be found in Marx and other socialists' works have nothing to do with the theme of this thread. You are superciliously wrong when you pretend to judge Watson's expertise on 19th century Victorian literature -- including Engels and Marx who lived and wrote in Victorian England. Watson's expertise trumps your predisposed, wrongheaded and biased opinion. And like your opinion, you 'imagine' wrong. Now that we've established your credibility, please do edit to add the missing page numbers in the citation. Then let us discuss the absolutes in this article that can be proven demonstrably wrong with but a single exception. Genocide is not solely a "far-right theme" as this article fallaciously states. Let's start with:

"Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements."

Which, in the interest of disseminating the truth within the next twenty-four hours, should read something like:

"Nazi doctrine included the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements." Aspencork (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the chapter that contains page 72 and as you can see the quote does not appear. The quote is from Hitler Speaks. Anyway lots of fun to discuss obscure books and dubious quotes, but we need to be guided by the mainstream literature and its interpretations. TFD (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should try page 72 of the 1998 edition in Chapter 7 entitled "Adolph Hitler." Perhaps you should consider how you're the one promoting "obscure books with dubious quotes" by continuing to promote Woshinsky as your font of all knowledge and interpretation in this matter. Furthermore, Watson's authorship and his credentials at St John's College at Cambridge University are, and will remain, better than yours. BTW, you still haven't provided the page number(s) from Fritzsche's book you claim repudiates the comments -- "rebuffs the assumption that the Nazis represented the reactionary, elitist authoritarianism" -- by a professional reviewer. Aspencork (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to rely on standard textbooks published by the academic press than books written by people with no relevant credentials published by the popular press. Further I prefer secondary sources that explain general consensus in the social sciences to books promoting conspiracy theories. That is what the policies of reliable sources and weight require. Lots of editors think it is wrong because it keeps out the truth, for example about 9/11 and where Obama was really born. But the place to argue is at the policy pages. TFD (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, Watson's academic credentials as a published author on politics and literature and his Fellowship at the prestigious St John's College at Cambridge University speak for themselves and are superior to Woshinsky's and yours. The only "conspiracy theory" is the one promoted by those who actively reject Hitler's ascribing to Marxism the origins of Nazism. And your notion that you only rely on "standard textbooks published by the academic press" is overshadowed by the fact that many of the books and all of the newspapers cited and used to support your point of view in this Wiki article do not meet that standard you are 'conveniently' imposing on Watson. BTW, you have yet to properly source and provide the page number(s) from Fritzsche's book you claim repudiates the comments -- "rebuffs the assumption that the Nazis represented the reactionary, elitist authoritarianism" -- by a professional reviewer. Likewise, you still choose to ignore that some of the 'absolutes' stated in this article are easily proven false by some of the historical facts Watson addresses in his book, e.g., Engels' call for the extirpation of the Slavs and Stalin's pogroms against Jews and kulaks, and there is Mao's persecution of the intelligentsia, Pol Pot's liquidation of ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese, etc., etc., etc. Aspencork (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is possible that a Victorian English literature professor has found a connection between "lost" articles written by Marx for German newspapers and secret conversations of Adolph Hitler, which fascism scholars have ignored. But you do not have to persuade me, you need to persuade fascism scholars. TFD (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Watson is a subject matter expert on Marx and other socialist and communist literary works, and Watson's position is that the works of Marx and Engels weren't actually "lost." Rather, Watson's concern relates to how the works of Marx and Engels have been wholly ignored in the intervening decades by posers who pretend to have some prescient knowledge of Marx and Engels without reading what they actually wrote ... much like some people here pretend to know what Hitler said while wholly ignoring what he is on record as saying. BTW, it must be horribly inconvenient for you to admit that several scholars -- scholars who need no persuasion -- still believe that Hermann Rauschning is a credible source, and that the man maligning him has in turn been discredited for poor scholarship. Regarding "poor scholarship" -- it's poor scholarship to cite a book without referencing the page numbers, and it's poor scholarship to advance easily discredited absolutes as facts. When are you going to agree to post the page numbers and intelligently admit that genocide isn't solely a 'far-right theme'? Aspencork (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

History is written by the posers and they control the media and promote global warming theory, relativity and evolution. And Wikipedia articles reflect their bias. If you want to change that, you need to argue your point at the policy pages. TFD (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you now saying you're not and have not been defending this article as written, and that you have no problem eliminating some of the fallacious absolutes? Aspencork (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No. TFD (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So you admit that you support fallacious and unnecessarily biased absolutes that are easily repudiated. Aspencork (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No. TFD (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but you are supporting a fallacious, biased, and easily repudiated absolute when you continue to defend the statement: "Far-right themes ... include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements." Pol Pot wasn't 'right-wing'; in fact, Pol Pot "planned to create a form of agrarian 'socialism' which was founded on the ideals of Stalinism and Maoism." Pol Pot perpetrated genocide in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 wherein an estimated one and a half to three million people were killed for the stated purpose of 'purification of the populace'. Your biased absolute is repudiated by that one example alone; hence, the biased absolute in the article needs to be changed to a more neutral tone -- as required by Wiki -- that doesn't impute a fallacious bias. Only certain kind of people blindly support blatant lies. Aspencork (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the conversation has gone on long enough and further discussion would be wasteful. I would point out too that your discussion about Pol Pot is synthesis which is specifically not allowed in determining article content. It says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." So unless you have a source that says Pol Pot is relevant to the definition of Nazism, then leave it out. I did not write the rules, but endeavor to follow them. IF you disagree with them then please raise the issues at the policy pages, but not here please. TFD (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You'd be the one in violation one of Wiki's five pillars: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Despite your weak attempt at deflection, my example remains quite relevant to this discussion since it factually demonstrates how your biased absolutes in the article are nonsensical lies. Per your argument, Pol Pot must have committed genocide employing a 'right-wing theme' of 'purifying the populace' of undesirables, but since Pol Pot was a communist -- he was in no manner, in today's parlance, 'right-wing': ipso facto your claim that all who perpetrate genocide in the name racial purification are 'right-wing' is a lie. The Wiki pillar states that Wiki articles are to be written in a neutral tone and show no bias. This article, as written, reeks of bias in violation of that Wiki pillar. Until that bias is removed from this article, this discussion will not end, and that's evident in how this subject has repeatedly come up for discussion. I am not the first editor to address this issue, and I certainly won't be the last. Rather than you, and others like you, keep offering weak and nonsubstantive excuses, this article needs to be revised to remove that bias. Aspencork (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Neutral point of view "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We do that by consulting books such as Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, which received essays from most of the leading fascism scholars and you dismissed as "a single source [that] does not prove anything conclusive," before producing "[your] understanding." If you think your Pol Pot theory has validity, get it published, because "Wikipedia does not publish original thought.' TFD (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. We've already established that you are not being truthful and presenting a view "without editorial bias." A cursory check of Websters for the definitions of 'racism' and 'genocide' shows that those terms are not described as being either 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' themes, as you so wrongly and with bias do here, and the preponderance of respectable authors likewise do not make such assertions. It's also notable how you are hanging your hat on a "single source" as you argue that "a single source does not prove anything conclusive." Aspencork (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

Request to replace the inaccurate use of the term "far right groups" on the third line, with much more accurate and descriptive term "authoritarian" or "statist" groups. Watticus (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree This has been discussed already. TFD (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Watticus

This is agreed. It is discussed above and needs to be implemented.

Please see above "Lead is misleading ! Nazism same ideology "as well as other far-right groups""

The seven day response time has expired and no further arguments have been put forward to refute this correction.

People1750 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't agreed, you advocated a position and didn't gain support. Until you do there is no consensus for change ----Snowded ^TALK 13:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Intro's description description of Nazi racial conceptions is refuted by material in this article

This is what is in the intro:

"Germanic peoples (called the Nordic race) were depicted as the purest of the Aryan race,"

The article shows that racial theorists that the Nazis adhered to, such as Hans Gunther, considered Germans to be an Aryan people of several Aryan subtype races and considered the Nordic subtype to be the most superior of them. Don't see where in the article it says that they considered Nordic people as "the purest", but appears that they were viewed as the most superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.122.103 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Collapse discussion thread started by sock of blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which did the Nazis support? an Aryan master race or a Nordic master race? The intro is currently unclear, it says that the Nazis supported an "Aryan or Nordic master race". The intro material is intending to summarize the article. The article sometimes says "Aryan master race" but it also appears to indicate that the Nazis believed in a Nordic master race within the broader Aryan race. Also it is known that the Nazi regime identified people with Nordic characteristics to be people of ideal racial stock.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Note CanadianWriter5000 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of R-41 [21]. --TFD (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Both terms appear to have been used, usually to refer to much the same thing in this context, hence "or" is fine. The content initially added about "Nordic" being one of five subtypes of "Aryan", as well as being too detailed for the lead, misrepresented the source it was relying on. The book by Baum says that Hans Gunther divided Europeans into five races, not "Aryans" into five "subtypes". It then says that the Nazis made the "minor alteration" of replacing Gunther's "Nordic race" with an "Aryan race myth". As often happens, different people appear to have used different terms to refer to similar things. This inaccurate material also currently appears in "Racial theories" section of the body (I don't know how long it's been there or who put it there; it also appears on multiple other pages such as the Master Race one and needs to be removed). Another book cited in that section, Anne Maxwell's Picture Imperfect, uses the terms interchangeably, talking in the introduction about the Nazis "exalting of the Nordic or Aryan race" and later saying "Aryan (i.e. Nordic)". N-HH talk/edits 09:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC) From what I've heard and seen, the Nazis use of the term "Aryan race" is roughly the same as what is today identified as white people whereas Nordic is a section within it. Otherwise if Aryan only means Nordic that would mean that the Nazis considered all non-Nordic Europeans as not being Aryan at all, from what I've read I doubt they were that narrow in who they defined as Aryan. Still, I agree that the current sources appear to show ambiguity.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC) I have no interest in going too far into all this, as it makes me queasy, but the point is, as noted, about different people using the same term to mean different things in different contexts. "Aryan" is probably used by most racists and neo-Nazis today to mean, more broadly, non-Jewish white people; it sometimes appears to have also been used, even more widely, to mean Indo-European. Anyway, as far as I can tell the Nazis did indeed consider many other European groups not to be Aryan – or at least not fully Aryan, which is the key point. Even many non-Jewish Germans were thought to only have "diluted" Aryan heritage, albeit enough. There are plenty of other sources that show the near-interchangeability of the terms Nordic and Aryan as far as Nazism was concerned. As noted, the material being cited to make the point about subsets was miscited. N-HH talk/edits 09:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Part of the problem is that at that time, i.e. prior to the discovery of DNA, the whole race concept was totally unscientific and making about as much sense as phrenology. I think f.ex. that the Nazi ideologists would not have been pleased to learn that a typical Viking Y-chromosome, R-L165 of the Haplogroup R1b has a relatively close relative (R-V88) common in northern and central Africa. Lklundin (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC) I have reverted this change. As noted, it goes against the discussion above, and is anyway, as with the last attempted change, too detailed for the lead. Worse, it misrepresents the source cited, just as the previous insertion did. The writer does exactly what the other sources noted above do and identifies "Aryan" and "Nordic" in Nazi usage (see p96). It says nothing about Nordics being the "purest" Aryans or some kind of subset. Please note that WP:FRESHSTART explicitly expects a user to avoid the areas they used to edit in and the behaviours they used to exhibit. The constant addition of misleading and miscited material into pages relating to Nazism and Fascism, despite talk page discussion, is a rather obvious breach of that. N-HH talk/edits 07:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC) I recognize that I have made mistakes in paraphrasing content and deserve criticism for that. I have rushed too much to get content down and make mistakes in doing so, therefore I will look more carefully over my edits and do less major edits per day to ensure that such mistakes do not happen.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Aryan as a term reserved for nordic people

In the american holocaust museum and in my history books the nazis were described as believing the German race were a master race.

When you read this article, you could misunderstand and think the nazis belived European peoples are a superior race. This is obviusly not what they thought, especially if you take a look at their ideas about the Slavs (Russians etc.).

Shouldn't this be changed?2A02:2121:42:8820:0:36:AF50:9901 (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There are sources for this. Here on Britannica, they say that the nazis belived the german race were a master race, or something they called herrenvolk. Link: http://global.britannica.com/topic/Herrenvolk. The same they claim on the Holocaust museum, one example: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143

From what I read, you can misunderstand, and think they meant Aryan to mean a general European. But race were something different back then, and they talked about races in the same way as we talk about nations and ethniceties. I can remember a youtube film where they asked Milton Friedman (Economist) if disliked the German race after the things the nazis did to the Jews (he said no).

I am the person above JacobBaggins (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The text is sourced to a book about racial identity (p. 156)[22] It is not very helpful because it talks about one writer who influenced Nazism and does not mention the master race. The racial categories used by Nazis were typical of the time. Germans were a type of Nordic, who were a type of Aryan, who were a type of Caucasian. All these terms remain in use, except that Aryan has been replaced with Indo-European. Feel free to change the text, using sources. TFD (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The page does not say, in the lead or elsewhere, that German Nazism viewed Europeans as an undifferentiated whole as a superior race, so I am not sure how it is misleading in that respect when contrasted with the links being cited or with a more precise focus on German Europeans. The point for pseudoscientific Nazi ideologues was about a mythical, historical race, which they and others before them referred to as Aryan or Nordic (the terms were interchangeable more or less in terms of what they actually meant, per the above discussion and cited sources, not about subtypes), whose descendants were supposedly prevalent among Europeans, but whose inheritance had long since been diluted – less so among Germans and Scandinavians, but to a greater degree the further east and southeast you went in Europe. The recently added link cited in the lead explains this, but admittedly does not address the specific question of a "master race". As also noted above, the term "Aryan" is used to mean different things in different contexts, and in modern times is used more widely (as it was historically even more widely by non-Nazis), but in 1930s Nazi-speak, it appears to have the more specific meaning outlined. N-HH talk/edits 21:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Even Hitler would have known that Aryan meant Indo-European, and the swastika was taken from India. He got his racial theories from Chamberlain and Gobineau who posited an Aryan race.[23] Even Slavs were Aryans but they were degenerated, in his opinion. TFD (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Gobineau later in his life excluded non-Germanics from Aryans(so that Germanics meant Aryans), and had extreme anti-Slavic views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not sure that Aryan was a term widely used in those times, and rather recently got a defenition. There is not doubt what Hitler thought were the master race, and that was the people of Germany, Aryan = Nordics or Germans. 2A02:2121:45:47EC:0:6:605D:1601 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

By widely, I meant not necessarily more frequently but in a wider sense, ie that the term sometimes encompasses a broader and/or looser concept such as simply "all white people" or Indo-Europeans as a whole (as noted here in the previous section). The point for Nazism was about hierarchy and degrees of "Aryanism" or Aryan/Nordic "purity" within individual nations or peoples. Germans and some other nations supposedly had a lot of Aryan heritage; others, even some other European people, not so much, if any – the latter would be classified as only partially Aryan (or, as noted, "degenerated") or not Aryan at all. N-HH talk/edits 13:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Aryan is from the Sanskrit word ārya ("noble"). The term was applied to Persians (hence "Iran"). 19th century social scientists found a connection between the languages of India and referred to people from India, Iran and most of Europe as "aryans."[24] Nordic otoh comes from a Germanic word for north[25] and refers to Northern Europeans, i.e., excludes Italians, French and Irish except to the extent that Nordic people colonized parts of their countries. So effectively it was Germans, Scandinavians and English. Not all Europeans btw would be Aryan, there were also Finns, Hungarians and Jews. TFD (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the etymology and of the definitions described, and also noted that not all Europeans would necessarily be thought of as Aryan. The point is more about the usage in this context. Regardless of the different origins of the terms, and the varying uses to which they are sometimes put, Nazis and many of those who influenced their racial ideas appear to use the terms "Aryan" and "Nordic" to refer to pretty much the same thing. Some preferred one term over the other; some used both more or less interchangeably (see the sources cited in the section above). We should also acknowledge of course that none of this stuff comes with much scientific precision, let alone accuracy. Plus this is all getting a bit academic anyway, and it is not clear what changes to the article itself are actually being sought. N-HH talk/edits 16:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should write that they used Aryan as a term for nordic peoples or Germanic peoples in the top of the part about racial theories and antisemetism. I think that part can mislead people to belive the nazis thought all Europeans were a part of an Aryan master race. While they in reality belived only Germans and to a lesser extent Germanic people were so. Clearly prooven by the fact that the slavic peoples (Russian, Polish, Ukranians etc.) were one of the lowest races. 2A02:2121:4B:1BD:0:6:6370:2701 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Racial theories .." section is a subsection under origins – the main section about Nazi theory per se is lower down on the page, here. I agree that like most political entries here it is overdetailed and sloppily and confusedly written, but as noted previously neither explicitly states that all Europeans are (pure) Aryans. The opening sentence of the first section merely notes pre-Nazi theories about Europeans being "descended" from them; while the main, second, section notes the differentiation between Europeans, eg through reference to Jews, Romani and Slavs etc. Also, you seem to be using "Nordic" people to refer to "modern Scandinavians" as a whole. That's not quite the sense it has here. N-HH talk/edits 09:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon reviewing material, it is clear that the Nazis very clearly officially referred to the Aryan race, such as the Aryan paragraph, but do not appear to have officially referred to the race as Nordic. It is apparent from their beliefs and policies though that this referred to a Nordic race. The article's section on racial theories is jumbled and doesn't get to the point, i.e. it doesn't get right to the point about what the Nazi views were about the Aryan race, instead from the start it immediately talks about specific policies of racial discrimination and other specific policies, and then it goes off-topic talking about persecution of homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses - that is not about racial theories.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note CanadianWriter5000 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of R-41 [26]. --TFD (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not too sound too disparaging of the Nazis, they typically borrowed terms from pre-existing linguistic, ethnological, racial, and political theories. The end result was not always that coherent. Mein Kampf (1925-1926) by Adolf Hitler is, despite its reputation, not entirely devoted to racial ideas. But its uses of the term "Aryan" are somewhat illuminating of the mindset of the author. The following are parts of the 1939 English translation [27] by James Vincent Murphy, available in Project Gutenberg Australia.

• Chapter XI:Race and People: "If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile. History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants--who mainly belonged to the Latin races--mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood."
  • In other words, Hitler thought that interbreeding between Europeans and Indigenous peoples of the Americas in Central and South American resulted in an inferior race. While the "Teutonic" North Americans kept their racial stock pure and produced a dominant race. Not exactly the most accurate description of Canada and the United States, is it?
• Same chapter, later paragraph: "All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood."
  • In other words, "racially pure" creative races build great civilizations, while those who practice interbreeding fall into decadence. What a theory of history.
• Same chapter, later paragraphs: "It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to what race or races were the original standard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the real founders of all that we understand by the word humanity. It is much simpler to deal with this question in so far as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is simple and clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity, therefore he represents the architype of what we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish and the world will become a desert."
• "If we divide mankind into three categories--founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture--the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first category. It was he who laid the groundwork and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture. Only the shape and colour of such structures are to be attributed to the individual characteristics of the various nations. It is the Aryan who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race. Within a few decades the whole of Eastern Asia, for instance, appropriated a culture and called such a culture its own, whereas the basis of that culture was the Greek mind and Teutonic skill as we know it. Only the external form--at least to a certain degree--shows the traits of an Asiatic inspiration. It is not true, as some believe, that Japan adds European technique to a culture of her own. The truth rather is that European science and technics are just decked out with the peculiar characteristics of Japanese civilization. The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, although this characterizes the external features of the country, which features strike the eye of European observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, of Aryan peoples. Only by adopting these achievements as the foundations of their own progress can the various nations of the Orient take a place in contemporary world progress. The scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America provide the basis on which the struggle for daily livelihood is carried on in the Orient. They provide the necessary arms and instruments for this struggle, and only the outer forms of these instruments have become gradually adapted to Japanese ways of life. If, from to-day onwards, the Aryan influence on Japan would cease--and if we suppose that Europe and America would collapse--then the present progress of Japan in science and technique might still last for a short duration; but within a few decades the inspiration would dry up, and native Japanese character would triumph, while the present civilization would become fossilized and fall back into the sleep from which it was aroused about seventy years ago by the impact of Aryan culture. We may therefore draw the conclusion that, just as the present Japanese development has been due to Aryan influence, so in the immemorial past an outside influence and an outside culture brought into existence the Japanese culture of that day. This opinion is very strongly supported by the fact that the ancient civilization of Japan actually became fossilizied and petrified. Such a process of senility can happen only if a people loses the racial cell which originally had been creative or if the outside influence should be withdrawn after having awakened and maintained the first cultural developments in that region. If it be shown that a people owes the fundamental elements of its culture to foreign races, assimilating and elaborating such elements, and if subsequently that culture becomes fossilized whenever the external influence ceases, then such a race may be called the depository but never the creator of a culture."
  • In other words, only "Aryan" Europeans and Americans can create original human culture. Every other race is simply imitating them or assimilating elements from them, incapable of producing anything new on their own. And Hitler cites as evidence the "Aryan" influence in Culture of Japan and its previous lack of progress.
• Same chapter, later paragraphs: "Aryan tribes, often almost ridiculously small in number, subjugated foreign peoples and, stimulated by the conditions of life which their new country offered them (fertility, the nature of the climate, etc.), and profiting also by the abundance of manual labour furnished them by the inferior race, they developed intellectual and organizing faculties which had hitherto been dormant in these conquering tribes. Within the course of a few thousand years, or even centuries, they gave life to cultures whose primitive traits completely corresponded to the character of the founders, though modified by adaptation to the peculiarities of the soil and the characteristics of the subjugated people. But finally the conquering race offended against the principles which they first had observed, namely, the maintenance of their racial stock unmixed, and they began to intermingle with the subjugated people. Thus they put an end to their own separate existence; for the original sin committed in Paradise has always been followed by the expulsion of the guilty parties. After a thousand years or more the last visible traces of those former masters may then be found in a lighter tint of the skin which the Aryan blood had bequeathed to the subjugated race, and in a fossilized culture of which those Aryans had been the original creators. For just as the blood. of the conqueror, who was a conqueror not only in body but also in spirit, got submerged in the blood of the subject race, so the substance disappeared out of which the torch of human culture and progress was kindled. In so far as the blood of the former ruling race has left a light nuance of colour in the blood of its descendants, as a token and a memory, the night of cultural life is rendered less dim and dark by a mild light radiated from the products of those who were the bearers of the original fire. Their radiance shines across the barbarism to which the subjected race has reverted and might often lead the superficial observer to believe that he sees before him an image of the present race when he is really looking into a mirror wherein only the past is reflected."
  • In other words, Hitler claims that small numbers of ancient Aryans conquered "inferior races" and formed a new class system. The Aryans formed the ruling classes and guided the creation of local culture, while the conquered people formed the working classes and followed orders. In time the small ruling class would interbreed with the larger working class and be assimilated by them. The result would be a culture which has lost its creativity and driving force.
• Same chapter, later paragraphs: "The most obvious example of this truth is furnished by that race which has been, and still is, the standard-bearer of human progress: I mean the Aryan race. As soon as Fate brings them face to face with special circumstances their powers begin to develop progressively and to be manifested in tangible form. The characteristic cultures which they create under such circumstances are almost always conditioned by the soil, the climate and the people they subjugate. The last factor--that of the character of the people--is the most decisive one. The more primitive the technical conditions under which the civilizing activity takes place, the more necessary is the existence of manual labour which can be organized and employed so as to take the place of mechanical power. Had it not been possible for them to employ members of the inferior race which they conquered, the Aryans would never have been in a position to take the first steps on the road which led them to a later type of culture; just as, without the help of certain suitable animals which they were able to tame, they would never have come to the invention of mechanical power which has subsequently enabled them to do without these beasts. The phrase, 'The Moor has accomplished his function, so let him now depart', has, unfortunately, a profound application. For thousands of years the horse has been the faithful servant of man and has helped him to lay the foundations of human progress, but now motor power has dispensed with the use of the horse. In a few years to come the use of the horse will cease entirely; and yet without its collaboration man could scarcely have come to the stage of development which he has now created."
• "For the establishment of superior types of civilization the members of inferior races formed one of the most essential pre-requisites. They alone could supply the lack of mechanical means without which no progress is possible. It is certain that the first stages of human civilization were not based so much on the use of tame animals as on the employment of human beings who were members of an inferior race. Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa, as some people would have us believe. At first it was the conquered enemy who had to draw the plough and only afterwards did the ox and horse take his place. Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider this fact as a sign of human degradation. Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization which these apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world pay attention to their rigmarole."
• "It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilization arose there where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilization. Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow. As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organized channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose. By imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing their powers he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered but probably made their lives easier than these had been in the former state of so-called 'freedom'. While he ruthlessly maintained his position as their master, he not only remained master but he also maintained and advanced civilization. For this depended exclusively on his inborn abilities and, therefore, on the preservation of the Aryan race as such. As soon, however, as his subject began to rise and approach the level of their conqueror, a phase of which ascension was probably the use of his language, the barriers that had distinguished master from servant broke down. The Aryan neglected to maintain his own racial stock unmixed and therewith lost the right to live in the paradise which he himself had created. He became submerged in the racial mixture and gradually lost his cultural creativeness, until he finally grew, not only mentally but also physically, more like the aborigines whom he had subjected rather than his own ancestors. For some time he could continue to live on the capital of that culture which still remained; but a condition of fossilization soon set in and he sank into oblivion. That is how cultures and empires decline and yield their places to new formations."
  • In other words, Hitler claims that ancient Aryans where conquerors who enslaved other populations and used them a slave-labor force to create new cultures and empires. In time the slave owners interbred with the slaves and lost their identity, merging into a single population. The lack of racial purity supposedly prevented them from further progressing.
• Same chapter, later paragraph: "The adulteration of the blood and racial deterioration conditioned thereby are the only causes that account for the decline of ancient civilizations; for it is never by war that nations are ruined, but by the loss of their powers of resistance, which are exclusively a characteristic of pure racial blood."
  • In other words, Hitler claims that wars were not the cause of the decline and fall of ancient civilizations, but only interbreeding and lack of racial purity. He also seems to imply that racially pure civilizations can not collapse. Nowhere does Hitler identify his "Aryans" with Europeans and he seems to believe ancient Aryans formed the ruling class of every human civilization that he was aware of. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Socialism

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate to make the point that the “Socialism” in “National Socialism” was about social welfare for Aryans, NOT Soviet style socialism, and to make this point in a subsection called 'Socialism' in the 'Ideology' section. DD2K reverted my edit (shown below) on the grounds that "100%" of what I had written was already in the article, and Nazism has "nothing to so with 'socialism'".

Socialism The “Socialism” aspect of "National Socialism" meant social welfare for Aryans, not the nationalization of German industry as in the Soviet Union.[cite] However, the radical left wing of the Nazi Party (see Strasserism) largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for the nationalization of major industrial firms, the expansion of worker control, the confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy, and social equality.[cite]

After Hitler came to power in 1933 the radical leader of the SA, Ernst Röhm, pushed for a "second revolution" (the "first revolution" being the Nazis’ seizure of power and purging of the far-left communists and socialists) and organized attacks against individuals deemed to be associated with conservative reaction without Hitler’s authorisation.[cite] Hitler considered Röhm’s independent actions a threat to his leadership which jeopardised the Nazi regime by alienating the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg and the conservative-oriented army that Hitler needed to consolidate power.[cite] This resulted in Hitler purging Röhm and other radical SA members in July 1934 (about 200 were murdered) in what came to be known as the Night of the Long Knives.[cite] After this purge the SA was no longer a major force in German politics.[cite]

Hitler said equality of opportunity for all racially sound German males (see Völkisch equality) was the meaning of the “socialism” of National Socialism.[1] However, the radical left wing of the Nazi Party (see Strasserism) largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for the nationalization of major industrial firms, the expansion of worker control, the confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy, and social equality.[2]

After Hitler came to power in 1933 the left-wing leader of the SA, Ernst Rohm, pushed for a "second revolution" (the "first revolution" being the Nazis’ seizure of power and purging of communists and socialists) and organized attacks against people deemed to be associated with conservative reaction without Hitler’s authorisation.[3] This led to the left wing of the party being eliminated by Hitler in July 1934 in what became known as the Night of the Long Knives.[4]

[1] MacGregor Knox, ‘Common destiny: dictatorship, foreign policy, and war in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany’, Macmillan, 2008, p.208. [2] Eleanor Hancock, ‘Ernst Röhm: Hitler’s SA Chief of Staff’, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. [3] Joseph W. Bendersky, ‘A Concise History of Nazi Germany’, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2007, p.96. [4] Joseph Nyomarkay, ‘Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party’, Minnesota University Press, 1967, p.133.

Much of what I wrote was already in the article but if one is going to have an ideology section it needs to be stated in this section what the word "Socialism" in "National Socialism" means and expand on it, while my edit made the point that Nazism was NOT socialist so DD2K was wrong to suggest that I was saying it was. My edit also included a link to Strasserism whose supporters (radical left wing of the Nazi Party) wanted Nazism to incorporate elements of socialism - the first time this link was used in this article. So I had hoped other editors would be supportive of the inclusion of this subsection or give a good reason for opposing it. CodeBadger (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be using a section heading to make a point which has already been rejected by many editors over the years. What you have written is a mix of synthesis and original research and the second paragraph really has little to do with the section. Overall it is no improvement to the article ----Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever they mean by "socialist," I do not think anyone has suggested it meant social welfare. It is clear though, whatever they called themselves, they were not socialists or a labour party or that matter. TFD (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I thank Snowded and TFD for taking the time to comment, which caused me to do some more research. I found that Hitler said equality of opportunity for all racially sound German males was the meaning of the “socialism” in National Socialism (on the Völkisch equality page); while it seems appropriate to make the point that the left wing of the Nazi Party supported socialist-like policies including the nationalization of major industrial firms but was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives. Thus I will rewrite the proposed subsection with sourced information from the Ernst Röhm page, Nazi Party page, Strasserism page, and Völkisch equality page; and would appreciate comments from editors. CodeBadger (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read up on original research and synthesis. Your proposed edit seems to be in breech of both ----Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I thank Snowded for his comment. It seems to me that it is not original research as I provided credible sources for the small amount of information in the subsection which has been accepted on other Wikipedia pages and is non-controversial in my opinion. Likewise, I don’t believe it is synthesis as all the information is widely accepted as fact and is not promoting a minority/radical viewpoint. That said, if other editors don’t like what I have written so be it. CodeBadger (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If "Nazism=socialism" is "widely accepted as fact" then you should be able to provide a reliable source that says that. Instead, it is just your opinion based on your analysis of the material. TFD (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I did not say "Nazism=Socialism", only that Hitler said the "socialism" in National Socialism meant "equality of opportunity for all racially sound German males", and that there was a left wing of the Nazi Party that had socialist tendencies but it was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives. CodeBadger (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That's cherry-picking: choosing sources to support what you think the article should say. Equality of opportunity is a liberal concept, so you would need to explain what Hitler meant. Did he even use that term? TFD (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. According to MacGregor Knox, the author of ‘Common destiny: dictatorship, foreign policy, and war in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany' (Macmillan, 2008, p.208), that is what Hitler claimed. This source was accepted by editors of the Völkisch equality Wikipedia page for this claim. Thus Hitler clearly did not mean socialism in the true sense of the term which primarily means social ownership and control of the means of production. Thus Hitler meant that Aryans should view each other as equals but treat everyone else as inferior to a greater or lesser extent.

Whether Hitler believed that or not is another thing. He was clearly someone who sought power and did not much care about anyone else including fellow Aryans (the Aryan race was a social construct based on pseudoscience) if his actions are any guide. It seems entirely appropriate to include this comment on the Nazism page and does not strike me as being a minority/radical view as I am not saying that Hitler was a socialist or supported socialism in the true meaning of the word, only that he said that the "socialism" in National Socialism meant equality for Aryans. Hitler also supported the old age pension for Germans of the Aryan race, but that does not make him a liberal as discriminating against people who were of another race was inherently illiberal and racist. CodeBadger (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What another Wikipedia article says is irrelevant. Cherry-picking means looking for sources to back up what you want the article to say rather than identifying the best sources and reflecting what they say. And before you add anything to an article, you need to be familiar (i.e., have read) the source. If you can provide a cite for the words that your source interprets, then we can determine whether other authors have formed the same conclusion. Most sources I have read say that the Nazis had no definition for what the socialism in National Socialism meant, although there were some ex post facto explanations, often contradictory. The most likely explanation is that they adopted the name of an Austrian party which had been formed as a workers' party in the 19th century that was virulently nationalistic. They seem to have copied their ideology, although the Nazis were not (despite their name) a workers' party. TFD (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll track down a copy of MacGregor Knox's book for more detail. CodeBadger (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is cherry-picking. You are looking for sources that support your views rather than allowing the article to reflect mainstream views. If an opinion is widely held, then it will appear in the majority of sources. If you think that most sources have failed to mention some aspect of Nazism, this article is not the place to correct the record. TFD (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, a parallel discussion has opened up on this here ----Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This is profoundly depressing but thanks for drawing our attention to this none the less. It seems that this is one stick that refuses to be dropped even though the horse is not merely dead but long decomposed. I feel that this nonsense is becoming more than just a timesink. It is an attack on Wikipedia and on history itself. People can't just change history by repeated assertions. We have indulged this long enough. I'd be inclined to recommend that we just deem the question answered and roll up any further repetitions with a polite but terse comment suggesting to see the established consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Trying it on elsewhere was my view. It may be time to get a community restriction on this? ----Snowded ^TALK 02:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts a lot of editors with fringe views who think this is a good place to correct the record. Climate change articles are probably the worst example. There should be a mechanism for keeping them out. TFD (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more effective to have some sort of mechanism rather than each attacked article having to deal with it themselves on an ad-hoc basis. Having said that, I don't have a good suggestion for the correct mechanism.

Part of the the difficulty is that we get this trouble from two quite different sorts of people who can be very hard to tell apart: First up there are the deliberate propagandists and revisionists, who are well aware that they are seeking to bend history away from what it says in the history books for their own perceived advantage. These need to be blocked as they are clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia (at least not one that reflects reality anyway) and deserve no sympathy as they know that what they are doing is contrary to our aims as an encyclopaedia. Then there is the second category who are essentially the victims of the first. These are people who have been exposed (maybe exclusively as far as these subjects are concerned) to the propaganda of the first group and who fetch up here thinking that they know the truth and that our articles must be badly incorrect. They are unaware that the "truth" they know is just a load of fringe twaddle, some of it even cynically contrived to deceive them. No matter how much of a nuisance they are to us, I do feel genuinely sorry for them, and I wish that there was an effective way to help them but I am not sure that there is or that it would fall within our remit if there was. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the difficulties you face regarding climate change deniers and revisionism in general, however, this is not a revisionist theory, and painting anyone with the position as part of a quack fringe group is dishonest. The claim (i.e., explicit statement that National Socialism included Socialism) wasn't revisionist in a 1938 Quarterly Journal of Economics article by Frieda Wunderlich[28], and it wasn't revisionist in a 1991 Economic History Review article by Peter Temin [29] (Cf. front page, though his argument is a bit more nuanced than that statement), to say nothing of Hayek or the articles I can't find to link immediately. There are very few articles--as far as I've seen, none--which explicitly state (or really imply) the National Socialism did not include any form of Socialism, and numerous articles which state that it is Socialism, on top of the fact that 'Socialism' is, well, in the party name. Furthermore, especially as this relates to the sidebar template, the fact National Socialism was not Marxist does not mean that it is not a form of socialism.

I reiterate that, to start, I'd like to see an academic article arguing that it is not any form of Socialism (and if I've missed any such articles that have been linked here, please let me know). If necessary, I will request inter-library loans for physical records, scan, and link the scans here as necessary, including any you say will prove that it was not socialism. Original research from Wikipedia editors will not suffice, nor will this motion for what clearly equates to censorship. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisionist theories are published in reliable sources, and sometimes become the new consensus. But what makes theories fringe is that they receive little or no acceptance in reliable sources. Wunderlich (and your link does not contain the claim that nazism was socialism) and Temin are/were not Nazism scholars. Our approach should be to use the most recent reliable sources to determine the weight of different opinions. Your approach is to start with a belief and search for evidence. Thanks to Google, you can prove pretty much anything by finding obscure papers that express views held by tiny minorities. Hayek btw, while a noted economist, also wrote polemical books that have never been taken seriously. TFD (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course new evidence should impact historical discourse and consensus... hence this conversation. If this debate has been had before on Wikipedia, you should have a plethora of articles meeting the criteria to link me. So clearly we're getting somewhere.

I have not, as a matter of fact, used Google to find my sources. Everything up until now has been found exclusively through my Ebscohost search portal using terms that should also return evidence that it is not a form of socialism, hence my request that they be linked. I did plan to use Google to find translated primary sources, however, such as Goring's "Nationalism and Socialism"[30].

The conclusion of Wunderlich's paper, for reference, was this: "National Socialism is based on an ideological socialist foundation. In limiting profits and wealth, in abolishing privileges, it achieves greater equality than the socially minded democratic govemment was able to achieve. But while Socialism in pre-Nazi Germany was demanded in the name of freedom. National Socialism uses socialistic institutions for the sake of the totalitarian state which suppresses freedom. It thereby reveals, just as does Russian Bolshevism, that Socialism as an institution carries no value in itself. Such value as it may have, derives solely from the ethical idea with which it is connected. If used for war, it loses its character as mankind's redemption, drawn from Christianity and from idealistic philosophy; the equality it achieves is the equality of slavery."

Obviously it's a very strong statement, but it was explicitly said during-the-fact in what is currently one of the most-referenced economics journals, so again, not fringe.

Also, the requirement that 'primarily National Socialist scholars should say that it was or was not Socialism' means that the scholars also must be an expert in Socialism/be a verifiable economist (as Temin is), which obviously also limits the number of sources that can be used to say it was socialism. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You will, as noted, find writers who make connections with socialism proper and remark on the similarities between some aspects of Nazism and some forms of socialism. You are extremely unlikely to find any mainstream writer make the explicit statement that Nazism was, as a whole, a form of socialism as commonly understood or as commonly categorised in political science. There is no need to provide sources that explicitly state that, any more than there is to provide sources that the Pope is not a lizard. N-HH talk/edits 10:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This is actually the best refutation to my assertion so far, in that it gets to the important issues (other than the fact the Pope doesn't have 'the Lizard' in his title): Actually, I'm not saying National Socialism is easily paralleled with any standard international definition of socialism--clearly, it's a unique(ly awful) blend of various economic systems. I am saying, based on the name at minimum and the party's own definitions of the socialism aspect in general, it is a form--even if mostly their form--of Socialism. Because (a) this thread was started recently based on an edit that looks to be properly sourced, (b) I obviously won't be convincing certain editors present due to their political beliefs, and (c) it seems like this is an irritatingly recurring issue on this talk page, I propose that we clear this up by (re)adding a section that specifically discusses the non-disputed facts relevant to its Socialism. Even if it includes redundant information that can be found elsewhere on the page or related pages, that is hardly as harmful as repeatedly having this debate. I'll gather my sources and post an example here in the next few days. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You should know better than to suggest that. I now anticipate that the prove the Pope is not a lizard dispute will end up at arbcom ----Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Conducting searches, whether using Google or any other search engine to find evidence for (or against) your opinions is in violation of WP:WEIGHT. Why? Because the article is not supposed to provide undue weight to opinions. If there are no sources that refute the obscure sources you found it is because they are obscure. BTW one of the sources you provided (Kurlander) specifically says nazism was not a form of socialism, and explains how their economic policies were similar to other pro-capitalist parties. I explained that to you already. TFD (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I was, as a matter of fact, about to mention the undue weight of the positions in the article, or at minimum the talk pages which obviously have dictated what goes into the article. As Mr. Wales said, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." If there are no sources that refute the descriptiveness of half the party's name it may be that they do not exist.

Regarding Kurlander's article, could you point out where it says National Socialism was not any form of Socialism? Clearly I wasn't paying attention when reading it. Plus, now that you're pointing out that fact, I'd like to know what criteria that Kurlander's article meets for mainstream notability that Temin's doesn't, considering that according to Google Scholar one has 54 references and the other has 0. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is that you are cherry-picking sources without even taking the time to read and understand them. I have explained the policies to you. Apparently you either cannot understand them or refuse to follow them. It is tendentious to expect me to read and explain Kurlander's article to you, when you have either not read it or cannot understand it. Incidentally, do you understand the difference between liberalism and socialism or capitalism and socialism for that matter? TFD (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

So... you can't quote it? As a matter of fact, I do understand them. WP:IUC. WP:NOR. WP:NOCON. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The subtitle "A Left Liberal "Third way" in the Third Reich" provides an unsubtle hint that the author is writing about liberalism not socialism. The text says, "What differentiated National-Social liberals most starkly from moderate Social Democrats was the former's belief in the merits of economic competition, a dedication to building a classless Volksgemeinschaft, and an unabashed liberal imperialism." TFD (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, the full title of that article basically sums it up, that the ordoliberals advocated neither capitalism nor state socialism but that 'third way' (Kurlander p. 299), and that their view (along with a few other forces) impacted the economics of post-war Germany (p. 303-304). The paper does provide some commentary on what National Socialism's economic practices were (although there are better sources for that specifically), e.g., "Foreign observers might disparage the Four-Year Plan as “state capitalism” on the one hand or “state socialism” on the other, Winschuh continued, but the fact remained that no other major industrial nation had created such a symbiotic corporatist arrangement between the state and entrepeneur, capital, and labor.⁷⁷" (p. 298).

As I noted above, I'm gathering my sources so that we can continue work towards the addition of a well-sourced section specifically addressing their view on/implementation of 'socialism' so that we can avoid repeating this debate; I'll of course post here first for input, possibly below the one at the bottom of this talk section. Currently I'm looking at compiling the Nazi stances/rhetoric of anti-Marxism, history of mixed capitalism, pointers to the articles on Volksgemeinschaft and the strand of Strasserism etc, and social programs such as the currently-absent-from-the-article Strength Through Joy. It may also address their words versus their actions. It may go by the current section of Economics, and we can transfer more-relevant sections of the Economics section to it. If it has some redundant information, that can be worked out. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Foreign observers might disparage the Four-Year Plan as “state capitalism” on the one hand or “state socialism”" [in 1940] does not say that it was either one. Incidentally, it is clear from the previous sentences that Winschuh was referring to the "state socialism" of Bismarck, not to "state socialism" as practiced in the USSR. You need to distinguish between facts, opinions and the reporting of opinions. If an article for example says that conspiracy theorists believe the moon landing was faked, it does not mean the moon landing was faked. TFD (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said, that's commentary. Not an argument of the paper. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No it was not commentary, it was the author of the paper reporting what someone said about commentaries in the 1940s, which btw had nothing to do with socialism. The author commented that the Nazis pursued liberal policies just as do almost all governments today outside North Korea. TFD (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Just checking in so that this isn't closed; I've requested a copy of a book (Tooze's The Wages of Destruction), which takes some time to arrive, and I'm looking into a few others. Although I'm confident any inaccuracies in the section will be corrected once it does exist, I want to avoid that situation if possible, so I've asked a historian here for his help summarizing the matter (i.e., not original research, but to find proper references). I'll make a ping once I've added my section here for review. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Balancing aspects", which is policy, says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." That means that if views of a topic are not routinely mentioned in basic textbooks or anthologies about the subject, they do not belong in the article. AFAIK, Tooze does not argue nazism=socialism. TFD (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't selectively use policies to suppress content you dislike. Clearly the Nazis usage of the term is an important/controversial issue (also, half of the ideology's name) and, without a direct and somewhat concise summary on a site like Wikipedia, this leads people who are learning about 'Nazis and Socialism' to research positions which support their beliefs (e.g., Mises, Hayek, blogs/blurbs, or just personal bias), despite such positions not standing up to academic rigor; this ends up spilling over here. There's a good chance that Tooze won't argue that it wasn't socialism, but I expect the book will provide some analysis of the issue.

Much of what I'm summarizing is already spread around the article, e.g., the paragraph mentioning Goebbels under 'Position in the Political Spectrum'. Much of the new information that I may add is already cited in references currently in the article. I also don't believe the balancing policy has been equally applied to the existing article; I'd like to know which textbooks or anthologies you've read which go into the depth that, for example, Response to World War I and fascism goes into. Thanks. -Zerim (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not selective. If each editor could determine what he or she thought was important about a topic, we would endless conflicts as people of all different views battled to get articles to reflect them. Every wiki has its own standard to follow, for example the Ludwig von Mises Institute wiki insists that their articles follow their views. And the standard here is that articles give priority to mainstream views and only discuss fringe views to the extent they are reflected in mainstream sources. The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany is a good starting source, because it explains the various views of Nazism and the degree to which they are accepted. For fascism in general, I recomment Kallis' Fascism Reader, which contains articles by almost all the leading fascism scholars. TFD (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion; I've requested the book. -Zerim (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Quick update--Still working on this. I'm scanning pages on the topic (there are quite a few) as I come across them in my free time, so that I can hopefully upload/share them as requested. Thanks. Zerim (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is an interesting source, a 1923 interview with Hitler where he gives his definition of Socialism and explains why he chose to add it to the name of his political party instead of the word "Liberal". [31] ... Cheers! Meishern (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Nazism, does anyone actually use that term?

I think wp:commonname may have been misused here. nazi is a common term used to describe a person or party, yet is it really used as an ism? Encyclopedia britannica make the distinction here [32] and here [33]. Using an abbreviation to describe a party is understandable, using such to describe a philosophy is unnecessary. I realize many of you disagree that nazis were either nationalist or socialist or both, that is not what is being suggested, rather the marriage of the two may have an entirely different meaning than the singular usage of the component terms. What source is the basis for the claim nazism (not nazi) is more common than national socialism when describing the ideology? If such a source does not exist, i suggest we follow common usage and rename the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A google book search of nazism returns 10 books on the first page that use the term in their title.[34] You are possibly experiencing confirmation bias. TFD (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

perhaps the bias is yours? A search of National Socialism returns 3 times more books than Nazism, 775,000 compared to 283,000. [35] Darkstar1st (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not that raw Google numbers necessarily prove anything by themselves anyway, but feel free to redo the search with inverted commas/quote marks around the phrase "national socialism", and let us know how the numbers go then. N-HH talk/edits 15:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I got 206,000. What is also apparent is that the term Nazi is understood by more people than National Socialist. It gets 987.000 hits, as opposed to 237,000 hits. Of course there is an overlap between sources that use either term and I suspect that most reliable sources that use the term "National Socialist" use the term Nazi more frequently. TFD (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

TFD, I see where you got confused, we are discussing the ideology, not the person, so search books for Nazism, and National socialism, you will see the latter is far more common. N-HH, thank you for your lesson on searches, although I fail to see your point, national socialism still far more common even with your magic upsidedown comma trick. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what search engine you are using or where from, and that results will vary, but on basic Google where I am sitting right now, Nazism yields 4,870,000 and "National Socialism" 450,000; on Google Books, Nazism yields 202,000 and "National Socialism" 200,000. There's no particular magic as such of course to adding quote marks, but it does mean that you get results for the actual, composite phrase and not for everything with the separate words "national" and "socialism" in proximity to each other. I know you and others like exhuming this debate every few months, but can we at least close it down now until next time? Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 12:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Clear lead for Nazism on Google ngrams: here William Avery (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, unless you put "National Socialism" in "quotes," your hits will include books that use the word "national" and use the word "socialism" although not necessarily together. The quotes limit the search to books where the words are used together. Compare with "round square." It gets 130,000 hits, while removing the "quotes" results in 1,080,000 hits. That is because people who write about round objects often also write about square objects, but not a lot of people write about round squares. TFD (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous suggestion of renaming

Should the page not be called "National Socialism", with "Nazism" redirecting there, instead of the other way around? No national socialist would call themselves a "nazi", and this alternative name for the ideology is meant to be a pejorative term. Using it to label the article does not sound very objective and unbiased, something which should definitely be the goal if the aim is to write an encyclopaedia of everything.

I moved this suggestion of renaming from the top of the article. Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We follow the policy o WP:COMMONNAME, using terms most commonly used and understood. TFD (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, i agree with suggestion to change the name. The word 'socialism' is mis-used by the 'nazis'. I think its importend to point such out. It was not social at all, in anyway. Maybe thats why the abriviation is not "NaSo" but "Nazi" from NAtional-so-ZIalismus. It might have hurt very much to call them 'social'. But thats just a thought and not (yet?) a fact. 213.17.27.144 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)