Talk:Nazism/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

RfC: Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed here?

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

---

• Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, the question has been sufficiently discussed on this page, and the consensus is that the vast majority of mainstream historians do not consider the Nazis to have been part of the left. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, given that the real, but minority, position isn't effectively treated in the article -at all-. Strasserism deserves a sentence or three, the overlap of Nazi social policy with Social Conservatives (and other group's) bourgeoise socialism needs a sentence or two as well. Anmccaff (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Among historians, it's an extremely fringe position. Strasser is mentioned in the political spectrum section, but just briefly and in passing - which is appropriate to the weight most historians give him. New discussions never bring anything new to the table, just the same points over and over; and most of the time they devolve into people using the talk page as a forum to argue over personal opinions and via personal arguments rather than relying on reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry about the header/question conflict - I've fixed that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, has been sufficiently discussed. Essentially, per WP:NOTAFORUM. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, this isn't the place to just spout off ideas. No article talk page should be "just" a forum. The question is whether this has been settled appropriately by discussing sources, and all I've seen here, now, is assertion, and reference to old discussion here on this talk page...i.e.. wiki itself as a source. If someone wants to quash discussion, the right way to do it is to source the article to take account of minority views, not to label them as fringe because they don't like them, and, if need be, to write a brief header explaining why other, fringier ideas are seen as outside what the article can address. The article on hitler's religious views did that fairly well, although there is always a danger that a minority view can then get amplified in the article, as, come to think about it, did happen there. Anmccaff (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the idea that Nazism was a liberal movement is prima facie ridiculous. Anyone wishing to argue that should be treated in the same manner as someone wishing to change the tone of the Cold fusion or Perpetual motion articles: either show up with a boatload of excellent sources for your outlandish claim or stop wasting everyone's time. A Train^talk 08:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea that "liberal" is equivalent to "left" or "socialist" is ridiculous as well. Leaving aside the potential confusion with "classical liberal", the usual left-right dichotomy this comparison is made in is essentially between Hitler and Stalin. Do you see either as a "liberal? Anmccaff (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In your response here you are ignoring the central contention of my argument in order to pick at the edges of it, which seems to be a common practice for you. I have noticed that, in your arguments on this talk page, you are consistently using Wikipedia links to biographical articles support your claims. Do you have any scholarly sources or even popular history books from noted authors that back up your assertions? Because producing some good sources could put this whole argument to bed. A Train^talk 08:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

First, equivocation of "liberal" and "left" is central to your argument, and it's simply wrong. No one raised that position, so attacking it is just scattering straw. Regarding scholarship, Fest explicitly saw Strasserist socialism, especially Gregor's take on it , as a (diminishing) influence on the party, although one that left no real effect after he left the party. George Watson's The Lost Literature of Socialism makes the case that hitlerism was a form of socialism, and was also widely seen as such until the Spanish Civil War. This review covers many of the high points. Anmccaff (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please drop the faux-naive argument that because I said "liberal" I meant "classical liberal". I've asked you to produce sources and not simply name-drop, and you have responded by continuing to name drop. What Fest book should I look at to back up your argument? What page? What passage? You have frequently cited George Watson on this page, but he was a professor of English and not exactly a great asset for your argument that mainstream historians hold this viewpoint. A Train^talk 11:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Since that was mentioned merely to dismiss it from this conversation, your bringing up "classical liberal" now as if I were belaboring it is, frankly, a lie. As for historian's view of Watson, it was positive enough that History Today, scholarly if also popular (Usanians, think, roughly, "American Heritage" or older "Smithsonian"), commissioned "The Eye-Opener of 1939", which makes much the same points. Finally, the points Watson makes about how nastism was seen contemporaneously before the war are unassailable. If Orwell saw a government as a type of socialism, it probably was a type of socialism. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Re Fest, I'd expect most people to think "Hitler", the way Morrison suggests "Two Ocean..". Hitler, pp 233/4 suggest that Strasser and Goebbels were still actively pursuing a very different view of national socialism in 1926, and one which did not center on racial antisemitism. Anmccaff (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Sorry, but reality has spoken and Wikipedia should not be used to conduct campaigns based on fringe speculation. Examples: May 2014 + September 2015 + January 2016 + July 2016 + April 2017. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But George Watson is hardly a fringe source, is he? Anmccaff (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Running through your first example, it is of someone claiming that a widespread scholarly debate is ongoing, which was not the subject raised here. Do all of them continue like that, and if so, what relevance have they? Anmccaff (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes It's on a par with the theory that Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S. TFD (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes It's a fringe view that's entirely ignored or given short shrift in RS. William Avery (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

First define "it" here, since there seem to be about five separate ideas of what this discussion is about. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Broadly construed. William Avery (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes We're under no obligation to continuously re-discuss a position that is clearly and obviously FRINGE, or to entertain obvious POV pushing. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The left-wing/right-wing distinction is an artificial one, that often doesn't help to explain what things actually mean. That is certainly the case here. I don't think you can understand Nazi ideology outside of the context of German nationalism, which isn't going to be simple to translate for a non-German audience. Hitler was a political chameleon who adopted a lot of different stances just because it proved convenient at the time. And some of those were undoubtedly socialist. He needed the support of the German working classes after all. Asides from the name "Nazi", another example of this is that in Mein Kampf, Hitler expresses sympathy with workers unions as being the only tool working people had to ensure their voices were heard (although he was also quite suspicious of them at the same time, my memory is a little hazy about what he actually said). You could say the Nazis were more like "right wing people today" than "left wing people today" but so what? It would be far better to just say what they actually were: nationalists, militarists, opportunists etc. Woscafrench (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, overall they would fit into that category; see the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" section on the talk page for Nazi Party. Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• No - I'd suggest simply not going there, but if things do then say what is the majority and also convey what the minority or debate is about. SImply put, I don't beleive a 2-dimensional or modern reading of 'left' and 'right' serves well here, and both sides use the term as a pejorative on the other. Markbassett (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, and just about everywhere else as well.Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. The question needs to be answered but not in a laboriously manual way each time. We need a nice clear FAQ we can point people at (or ideally which they are likely to find for themselves). Those who are genuinely confused or misinformed can read it and either understand why they were mistaken or alternatively understand that their ongoing dissenting view is not a mainstream one. (After all, it is not the holding of non-mainstream viewpoints which is disruptive. It is the unending insistence that those non-mainstream viewpoints should trump all others that is disruptive.) Of course, those who are only here to knowingly push POV in bad faith will just try to argue with the FAQ but they can go and pound sand. The main purpose of the FAQ is to help those people who come here in confused good faith. The FAQ needs to explain not only what the mainstream view is but also that Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to seek to overturn it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• No I tried to look up the answer to this question in the encyclopedia but it said "Nazism was neither left-wing or right-wing", perhaps a brief and to the point answer to the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left could be added at Nazism, so that when the question comes up again, I can look it up there. Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• When you say "in the encyclopedia", what are you referring to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, almost universally described as 'far right'. That Nazi Germany adopted some policies that might sometimes be considered 'socialist', and that they co-opted the term for presentational reasons is neither here nor there. The proper place to cover such details is within the text, not by misrepresenting the general descriptor. Left-right is always a fairly crude divider and many govt.s or political groups may adopt minor elements of both poles. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, probably. I don't spend time on this page, but I have been at Talk:Far-right politics where this has been frequently discussed. I think that the Wikipedia community, as a whole has discussed this sufficiently. Though I have very serious issues with the whole left–right spectrum and think there is room for categorizing many "leftists" as Fascist. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Enough is enough. Buffs (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, Nazis were neither Left nor Right. The idea that Nazism is a right-wing conservative movement is pushing a political agenda. It is clearly possibly to not belong to either the right wing or the left wing when it comes to politics, and it does not have to be so black and white as everyone tries to make it. Nazis were an abomination to politics, just as communism/Stalinism was (which is also neither left nor right)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:33AA:AF90:9477:581B:5D41:8C67 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes This is not something which we are given to decide. This question is decided by the consensus of RSes, which is clear that Naziism is a right-wing ideology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Question: How long should this RFC run? I think everybody has had plenty of time to give opinions and discuss. Is it not time to call the (obvious) result? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would say so. Some uninvolved editor (doesn't need to be an admin) should close it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This RFC is neither brief nor neutral, thus violating WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• If enough people agree with you (I don't), I'll withdraw it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• add me to the list of people for withdraw. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Previous discussion on this page: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. I probably missed a few in there. Also, see Talk:Nazism and socialism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is to say, a vast failure to properly manage the talk page with a decent opening FAQ. Anmccaff (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing compared to a vast failure to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What "reality" do you think you are talking about? The fact that a surprising number of wikipedjits behave like the proverbial medic giving recruits shots? ("Dammit, I told you people yesterday!!!") Nah, seen that before. Anmccaff (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- as it happens, Talk:Nazi Party already has a handy Q&A on the topic. I suggest it be copied over here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that would be a Good Thing Anmccaff (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, hell must have frozen over, because I agree as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A brief FAQ might help, but the one at Nazi Party is way too convoluted and TLDR. It also makes the mistake of attempting to argue the underlying issues, often slightly oddly – which simply encourages people to continue arguing them, but from the other side. The point should be to shut down this perennial debate/trolling each time it comes up, not prolong it. It should simply state something like: "because left-right is the standard spectrum commonly used in political classification, and most mainstream analysis places the Nazis on the far right". It can then address the "but they called themselves socialists" and "but they believed in big government" with one line each (roughly by "so what/different sense of the word" and "that's not necessarily what divides left from right, especially historically"). N-HH talk/edits 10:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A FAQ section at the top of the talk page, akin to the one on the Nazi Party page is a good solution, as K.e.Coffman has suggested. If you guys want to tweak it before adding, do so. But with that said, in the end, as Beyond My Ken has pointed out this really has been discussed many times over and should be a dead horse. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If the past "discussion" has followed the pattern here recently, it hasn't been discussed at all, and the horse is quite likely well on it's way to winning the Derby. Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, an objective evaluation of the "race" below would indicate that your horse is going the wrong way around the track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I also thought the 'Nazi party' FAQ excellent, though it is 'party' rather than -ism, so would need adapting. Even if it fails to discourage repeated discussion, it is still inherently informative. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

right vs left designation

This nonsense has been debunked many, many times, and does not need another go-round. I recommend that, in the future, ignorant comments such as this are deleted on sight with no response. We are not required to give any amount of credence to this crap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was going to delete this tag but I guess responding to it is a better way to go. I am going to look through the history and see how much the person who did this tag has been involved in these over and over and over andover again discussion. I find nothing inappropriate about this post. Carptrash (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC) so, @Underneaththesun:, I went back several thousands of edits and did not find this editor (you) who placed the tag (Underneaththesun) was ever involved in these discussions. What makes them (you) think/feel that they are competent to make the determination that this edit is inappropriate? ? Carptrash (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC) And check out this editor's stance in support of Willis Carto and the American Free Press. "Carlo was most politically involved in his career throughout the 1960's. He is notorious for his extremist ideologies in white supremacist and anti-semitic movements." Well Duh. Carptrash (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC) TBH, It would have been best to undo this tagging (which borders on vandalism) and explain/ask questions at the user talk page. There's broken formatting, and BMK's comments have been altered from a close rationale to what appears to be the opening comments of this section. @Carptrash: would you mind terribly moving your comments to the user's talk page so I can fix this section? For what it's worth, I'm quite interested in the answers, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Historians are divided on whether nazis were right or left, why does this say one way or the other when its so much of a conflict? I suggest this is removed. Traditionally Nazis were classified as being on the left because left referred pos rates with more state control and the right referred to less state control...so businesses had freedom. Any state could be nationalist or fascist or egalitarian or matriarchal or patriarchal etc. While some people have created matrices that have two variables fascism and level of state control or government involvement it leaves out so many other variable like level of nationalism etc. We can't put them all onto a grid, so people are still arguing to keep right and left with the original meaning of more or less government involvement. So wither we need a discussion of this or we could just take the classification out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.141.63 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Historians are divided on whether nazis were right or left, No, they aren't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC) 71.223.141.63, you have made more less the same point on three different talk pages. You are incorrect on all three. To say "Traditionally Nazis for instance were classified as being on the left" is simply not true. The mainstream academic consensus since 1945 has put the Nazis on the far right. Even historians who are right wing themselves have tended to agree with this. It is only in recent years, and only really in the USA, that there has been a concerted attempt at revisionism to promote this rather fringe view for what are clearly tactical political reasons. We are not going to ignore this view completely, as it does have one or two respectable adherents who pre-date the current wave of cynical revisionism, but it can not expect parity of esteem with, never mind to override, 70 years of mainstream international scholarship. Also please read the FAQ on Talk:Far-right politics. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on the talk page of the article Neo-Nazism which may interest readers of this article. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

This is inaccurate. National Socialists are far-left. Never in the history of political ideology has there been a far-right socialist. This article is a blaring smear of conservatives and an out right lie. 2600:8803:D400:7A0:20D3:D77A:4BDE:5043 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done, please read the FAQ and the extensive talkpage archives. Acroterion (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Far-right talking points keep coming back, over and over again. Two basic facts keep getting overlooked:

(1) Nazism was never a self-consistent ideology, it was a hodge-podge of ideas and prejudices floating around at the time. There were "socialist" aspects to the 25 points (which were never amended or nullified) but Hitler and the Party pretty much did as they wished depending on the circumstances and never upheld a consistent socialist agenda. In fact, I suspect that Hitler added "Socialist" to the party name simple to draw off some members of the SPD and the KPD - there was a lot of party-switching going on at the time, especially in the paramilitary wings.

(2) Calling something "Socialist" doesn't make it socialist, any more than calling a country a "Democratic People's Republic" makes it democratic, or a republic, or a state for the people, for that matter. This is the old problem of confusing the name for the thing.

Of course, there's little point in my writing this, since the whole "Nazism is left-wing" idea has been debunked over and over again, and the kind of people who believe it don't actually take the time to explore the history, or even read FAQs or talk page archives, they just believe it, because someone told them so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that conservatives are far right? Mayber you're the one who's smearing them. TFD (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that the idea that "Nazism is far-left" is a conservative talking point? I have more respect for true conservative than to believe that. No, conservatives are on the right side of the (notional) aisle, just as liberals are on the left side, and I don't confuse conservatives with the far-right, the alt-right, the radical right, whatever you want to call them. I was clear in saying that "Nazism is far-left" is a "far-right talking point". How would you get from that statement than I am ascribing it to conservatives or in some way smearing them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

TFD was replying to the IP/OP. Dave Dial (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, of course he was. What a dope I am. My error, and my sincere apologies to TFD @The Four Deuces:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh, no big deal, and TFD probably agrees with everything you said anywho. heh --In any case, it's gettting hard to tell the difference of any ideologies these days. I think it's more like people who believe in facts, reality & those stuck in some kind of alternate reality made up of alternate facts. Time for bed, Happy Easter! Dave Dial (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"In fact, I suspect that Hitler added "Socialist" to the party name simple to draw off some members of the SPD and the KPD - there was a lot of party-switching going on at the time, especially in the paramilitary wings."

Hitler did not get to name the party. He assumed leadership of an already extant party in June/July 1921. The party founder and original leader was Anton Drexler, whose ideas included some notions of socialism. Per our article on the Nazi Party:

• "Drexler saw the political violence and instability in Germany as the result of the Weimar Republic being out-of-touch with the masses, especially the lower classes. Drexler emphasized the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism with a form of economic socialism, in order to create a popular nationalist-oriented workers' movement that could challenge the rise of Communism and internationalist politics."
• "On 5 January 1919, Drexler created a new political party and proposed it should be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). To ease concerns among potential middle-class supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists the party supported the middle-class and that its socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race. They became one of many völkisch movements that existed in Germany. Like other völkisch groups, the DAP advocated the belief that through profit-sharing instead of socialisation Germany should become a unified "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) rather than a society divided along class and party lines. This ideology was explicitly antisemitic. As early as 1920, the party was raising money by selling a tobacco called Anti-Semit."
• "From the outset, the DAP was opposed to non-nationalist political movements, especially on the left, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). Members of the DAP saw themselves as fighting against "Bolshevism" and anyone considered a part of or aiding so-called "international Jewry". "
• "Hitler's first DAP speech was held in the Hofbräukeller on 16 October 1919. He was the second speaker of the evening, and spoke to 111 people. Hitler later declared that this was when he realised he could really "make a good speech". At first, Hitler spoke only to relatively small groups, but his considerable oratory and propaganda skills were appreciated by the party leadership. With the support of Anton Drexler, Hitler became chief of propaganda for the party in early 1920. Hitler began to make the party more public, and organised its biggest meeting yet of 2,000 people on 24 February 1920 in the Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München. Such was the significance of this particular move in publicity that Karl Harrer resigned from the party in disagreement. It was in this speech that Hitler enunciated the twenty-five points of the German Workers' Party manifesto that had been drawn up by Drexler, Feder and himself. Through these points he gave the organisation a much bolder stratagem with a clear foreign policy (abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, a Greater Germany, Eastern expansion and exclusion of Jews from citizenship) and among his specific points were: confiscation of war profits, abolition of unearned incomes, the State to share profits of land and land for national needs to be taken away without compensation. In general, the manifesto was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist and anti-liberal. To increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party). The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers." Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me a cite for Hitler objecting to "Socialist"? I recall distinctly reading that Hitler initiated the name change. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Why Hitler?: The Genesis of the Nazi Reich" (1996) by Samuel W. Mitcham, page 68. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well you are right, I remembered it backwards:

Meanwhile, on February 20, 1920, the German Workers' Party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party. ... Hitler did not like the addition of the word "Socialist" but acquiesced because the executive committee thought it might be helpful in attracting workers from the left.

So, I had the right motivation, but the wrong actor. Thanks for the correction, I'll try to remember that properly for the future. (It also points out that there was little serious intent on the part of the party to actually be socialist, it was more about what they call in modern marketing "positioning". I'm sure the socialistic elements in the 25 points had much the same purpose, considering that no one in the party ever made a serious effort to carry them out.)

Anyway, thanks again, and for the cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Workers Labor Party

These terms have been removed from the lede. I suggest we replace and or revert this revert [29]. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

good question, something as widely known as the party name should not require a source, perhaps it was an error or the editor was confused? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Dave Dial (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

looks like it has been fixed, thanks for your help! feel free to hat. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nazis were explicitly OPPOSED to "social darwinism"

Hitler had pretty much "socialist" speeches and points regarding how everyone should help one another, whereas "social darwinism" is "laissez faire" taken to the extreme, "charity is harmful". "Social darwinism" is not something that has appeal to a larger lower class that elected nazis into power, instead they favored the "25 points", including things like "ee demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens" (welfare policies, diametrically opposed to SH), "the activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all" (whereas SD is more of a "every man for himself" thing, even though mutualism is compatible with biological darwinism, SD refers more to the "survival of the fittest" slogan), "we demand a division of profits of all heavy industries" (is Hillary Clinton a social darwinist?), "the state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions [...] we demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession" (is Bernie Sander's "free education" program social darwinism?), "state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor" -- definitely does not look like social darwinism to me. I'm not defending nazism, for God sake, it just happens that SD is used as a some sort of wildcard term for "evil" things, possibly here editors got confused with the biological tenets of racism and the biology of "darwinism", hence "social darwnism", but this is a mistake, social darwinism is barely related with about biology, it's not even "darwinism" to begin with, but a term that was coined to be derogatory to "laissez faire"/no-government-welfare policy views, views that didn't stem from darwinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.133.71 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of reading Richard J. Evans' trilogy on the Third Reich, in which he explicitly states on numerous occasions that Social Darwinism was one of the basic underpinnings of the Nazi worldview, and, indeed, of the way Hitler structured the Third Reich to function, by giving State and Party entities overlapping responsibilities and allowing them to compete for power and his approval. I am absolutely certain that that view is also held by Kershaw, Shirer, Overy, Bullock, Burleigh, Fest et al. I'm hard-pressed to think of any reputable historian who specializes in this subject area who would disagree with that contention. So, unless you can provide citations from reliable mainstream sources (i.e. not WP:FRINGE ones) which support your unique thesis, there's is little to no chance that the article will be altered along the lines you suggest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Socialist" name

The lede should clarify the Nazis only called themselves socialists in order to gain working class support. (31.50.130.48 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC))

It's in the article, which is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It belongs in the lede as so many Americans try to pretend Nazism was left-wing. (31.50.130.48 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC))

Not "Americans", per se, right-wing Americans attempting to distance themselves from Nazism by spreading the disinformation that the Nazis were left-wing. Make no mistake, this is a deliberate disinformation campaign, and when the subject is brought up, the person doing so is either purposefully spreading the false meme, or is some poor deluded schmuck who has no knowledge of history and believes whatever they read in the right-wing media. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It's sort of in the lead already: The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. We could potentially clarify or expand on that sentence slightly, although the lead is already massively-long so we'd probably want to keep it brief if we did. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It's also there in the part about renaming the party to "broaden its appeal". I'll add a few words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideally such point would be based on recorded statements of key leading figures revealing their true intentions, rather than just on historical "psychoanalysis" of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.133.71 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, this canard would die the death that it deserves and not continue to be brought up by partisan commenters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

The NAZI party in Germany was factually NOT a far-right ideology, it was a socialist/left ideology. Historical fact. RPM509 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Discussed ad nauseum on this talk page. Please read the FAQ at the top. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why we don't ban these types of people yet. Honestly. We should just make anyone who makes these types of claims from now on to be fully banned from editing any articles relating to fascism for the next year. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I started an RfC recently which made a very similar suggestion, and it drew a plethora of "oppose" !votes. There was not a single "support" !vote except for mine when I withdrew it the next day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I started a list here of how many times we've had to deal with this issue just in the last year, all from red linked editors, but it was deemed to be unsportsman like or something. Perhaps I will re-post that list everytime one of these shows up? Carptrash (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Got a diff to the final tally? (I'm curious to see what was said and who opposed it.) I would have supported it, myself. Because the people arguing that Nazism is "liberal" or "left" or "socialism" all run afoul of WP:CIR pretty obviously. I mean, all you have to do is google the question "were the Nazis right wing?" to find a million obviously reliable sources saying "yes" and a half a million obviously unreliable sources saying "no". Any editor incapable of doing even that level of research with the competence necessary to distinguish between the majority of reliable sources and the minority of unreliable ones has no business editing WP, at least not on this topic. Seriously: after Snopes and the WP article (both of which say pretty clearly that the Nazis were right-wing), you get this piece, reveling in the "schooling" by a history teacher of some rando on twitter who said the nazis were socialist, followed by this, written by an actual historian, this one, titled in order to draw in those who want to believe the Nazis were left-wing, but which goes on to deliver a lesson in sophistry, using the ignorant rantings of Dinesh D’Souza as an example of how unsophisticated successful sophistry can be, this example of what appears to be class notes or possibly a thesis declaration, which refers to the claim as "vile propaganda", and Newsweek directly answering the question, all before you get to the first serious (if laughable) claim that they were. Made by D'Souza, by the way. The guy whose idiocy was covered in one of the higher results.

I'm dead serious. Anyone capable of doing that search and not coming away with the conclusion that the Nazis were right wing, or incapable of even doing that search before commenting here is not competent to edit this article. Full stop, no exceptions or caveats. They might be competent to edit other articles, but not this one, and not any other articles touching upon left-vs-right-wing politics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The "final tally" was infinity to 1. You can find the RfC here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Yes, I would not have supported that particular proposal. I would, however, have supported a proposal to page ban anyone who insists that the nazis were left-wing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban might be better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

While I think that quite a lot of the people who make this request are intentional trolls or propagandists, it is likely that some others have fallen down the wrong rabbit hole on YouTube and genuinely mistaken a certain right wing fringe vlog channel for an actual university. If they truly know nothing about the subject then they could completely fail to realise that what they are watching is a lunatic fringe opinion piece and not an unbiased overview of the subject. They could wind up here making the request in utterly clueless good faith looking to impart their newly discovered "knowledge". Even though they are are a regular and ongoing nuisance, this second group of people are the victims rather than the (intentional) perpetrators of propaganda. They are also victims of an inadequate education system that seemingly fails to teach either basic facts about major historical events that affected their own country or the basic research and critical thinking skills which would allow them to find out for themselves. So, yeah, that is a WP:CIR issue. The question is how to handle it.

I think it is unlikely that anybody who uses "Historical fact" as a full sentence immediately after making an uncorroborated assertion is serious but we can't be sure and I think that it is best not to try to make that call unless there is a clear pattern of trolling or propagandist editing in the users' history. If we respond with a polite but firm "Please read the FAQ" then we are covering both possible situations. If they are trolling then they will be in no doubt that they are being tersely brushed off. If they are clueless dupes then they might actually read the FAQ and maybe a few of them will be able to use that as a jumping off point for discovering what the actual situation is and come to the conclusion that they have been deliberately and cynically misled. I think that serves society better than just banning them and sending them off to go and make trouble somewhere else.

Of course, if any user shows a clear pattern of deliberate trolling then that is very different. The FAQ won't help them. Those are the ones to block. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've dealt with a lot of the trouble on left-right spectrum articles, and my views are similar to DanielRigal's. I see a fairly even mixture of trolling and genuine naiveté. Since we are an encyclopedia, part of our mission is to educate where we can. It's tiring, frustrating and our success rate is probably low, but I don't think summary banning is the answer. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that the source of their incompetence is really immaterial: the proposal to ban such people isn't about doing what's fair to the editor, but about doing what's beneficial to the article. In many cases, it would indeed be unfair. But as much as that may bother us, it's not the problem we're here to solve. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The article's indefinitely semi-protected, and we're not obligated to take these endless edit requests seriously. In most cases of this kind on Wikipedia, distant politeness is all that's required and a pointer to the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't so much see it as an appropriate response to edit requests like this, but to established editors who show up here trying to push that claim into the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Some cleanup

After reading the discussions above, and seeing how often we get new users and anons making this claim that Nazism is left-wing, I started to wonder whether some of the content in the article itself might be leading them to that mistaken conclusion. So I went to check the sections on Economics, Social Class, and the position of Nazism within the political spectrum, together with the sources they use. As it turns out, although the sources are from leading experts in the field, they were often quoted selectively or misrepresented (particularly in the Economics and Social Class sections) in a way that over-emphasized the left-leaning aspects of Nazism and neglected to mention its right-leaning aspects. In one case I even found a paragraph and a half (in the Economics section) "based" on citations that actually had nothing to do with the wiki text. The wiki text was talking about Nazi celebrations to honour German workers and about social welfare measures under the Third Reich, but the citations referenced pages 45-51 from the book Germans into Nazis by Peter Fritzsche. Those pages are part of the chapter entitled "July 1914" in that book, and they talk about the beginning of the First World War and how the German population reacted to it. Other egregious problems included: One quote that didn't have any source at all; another quote that reversed the order of the sentences in the source, and also joined together sentences that occur in separate paragraphs in the source; a place where the wiki text said that the Nazis promised "state-provided health care", while the source says that Hitler offered "a guarantee to maintain health care and pensions" (emphasis mine); a place where the wiki text called Ernst Röhm a "revolutionary socialist", while the source says no such thing and describes SA radicalism as being "nihilistic", "without concrete goals or limits"; and a paragraph about the Harzburg Front that focused almost entirely on the mutual accusations between the NSDAP and DNVP when the Front broke down and somehow neglected to mention that the NSDAP came to power the following year with DNVP support. In addition, the section on Social Class did not explain the concept of Volksgemeinschaft (which should be, in my opinion, the primary focus of that section), and the article as a whole said nothing about the relationship between the NSDAP and leading German industrialists.

So I did some cleanup of the three sections mentioned above, removing phrases and sentences that were not found in the sources. In the process, since I was reading the sources anyway, I ended up also adding further material (largely from the same sources that were already cited before), dealing primarily with the Volksgemeinschaft, the relationship between the NSDAP and business interests, and Nazi views on war and racial conflict as being positive and inevitable aspects of the human experience, the Nazi destruction of the KPD, and the fact that the primary aim of Nazi economic policies was military rearmament (an aspect which figures prominently in Tooze's The Wages of Destruction and in other sources on the Nazi economy, but which was only barely mentioned in the article before). Most of my edits focused on the sections on Social Class and Economics, which were the ones most in need of work, but I also edited the "Position within the political spectrum" section somewhat, to combine the two different texts about the SA into one paragraph, to mention what happened after the dissolution of the Harzburg Front, and so on. -- Amerul (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are good changes. I think we should use a neutral source and rewrite the lead to emphasize what reliable sources say. In particular they say the ideology was ex post facto, inconsistent and poorly developed compared with say liberalism or socialism. I don't see any need to spend a lot of space addressing the conspiracy theory that it was left-wing. It might however warrant its own article. TFD (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with the idea of rewriting the lead, but it would have to be a collaborative effort from the start, because the issue of due weight looms large. Which particular things about Nazism are important enough to be mentioned in the lead, and how much space should be devoted to each one? I'd have to think about it and hear others' opinions. The current lead is pretty good, although it could be better. It hits all of the important points, but racial theories are only given one sentence and antisemitism is only named without being elaborated upon, while the history of the Nazi Party is given three paragraphs. There's definitely a question of appropriate weight there. I think I remember reading some comments above about the length of the lead, but I don't think that's a problem - precisely because Nazism is such an eclectic mix of ideas, it can't really be summarized briefly. As for the conspiracy theory that it was left-wing, I've never seen a reliable source specifically talk about the conspiracy theory itself (i.e. I've never seen any study of where it came from, who promotes it, why they believe it, etc.), so I don't think we can directly say anything about it anywhere. But we can report what reliable sources say about Nazism - namely that it was far-right. -- Amerul (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

Please correct and add or incorporate this to the first paragraph. Nazi's and Fascist are Left-Wing. There has never been an American Right-Wing in Europe. The Right-Wing in Europe is within the Left-Wing Spectrum. Communist, Socialist, Nazi’s, Fascist, all Left-Wing. The Nazi’s were National SOCIALIST! The Soviets were Left-Wing yet Nationalist too. The Right in America promotes small government, a Dictator cannot arrive out of the American Right but only the Right within the Left-Wing. There is absolutely no comparison between the Right in America to the European Right. .. 50.53.72.162 (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done, no reputable scholarly source makes such an argument. Wikipedia isn't a forum for your views on politics. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

ISBN

Hi Beyond My Ken. Thanks for fixing the ISBN number. I got the one I used from this page. Presumably it looks different because it's a different format or something. Anyway, looks like it's working now, I just wanted to explain that I didn't change it maliciously at all. › Mortee _talk 21:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't think you did, I assumed it was something like that. Since I added the book to the bibliography, I wanted to make sure that the ISBN was the correct one for the edition that I used, which is at the side of the sofa as I type. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/),[1] is the ideology and practices associated with the Nazi Party – officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) – in Nazi Germany, and of other far-right groups with similar aims.

The reference in the last line (in Nazi Germany, and of other far-right groups with similar aims) is an inaccurate statement.

This needs to be changed from far right to far-left and here's why. Traditionally and in common practice today it is far left groups seeking social change have a desire to control society at large through large centralized governmental social control. However at the other end Traditionally far-right groups both past and present seek the decentralization and reduction of governmental control believing people should not be forced to others ideas but that people should have the right to work for themselves and decide for their future (this is called liberty). Nazism/socialism/ and communism are all similar bedfellows from far-left thinking. Each group or ideology seeks to control the populace at large forcing people by authoritarian means to their social and political ideology. Until in full control Nazism, socialism, and communism demean and deprecate all those who disagree.

In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct (we know now that's not true). The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right in order to cower any conservative opposition.

Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the "F" scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label "fascist" has subsequently meant anyone liberals (Left or far-left thinkers) seek to ostracize or discredit.

Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. (far right conservatives deplore these ideas) Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.

While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.

I am not sure if you need more? While I know this may be disagreeable to some we really need to be accurate considering how many people use Wikipedia. Ashhistory (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been very frequently discussed, so please see the FAQ at the top of the page. Wikipedia goes by reliable, published sources, not original research. There are some dissenters, but the majority of historians and other reliable sources describe Nazism as far-right for a wide variety of reasons. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Original research can be quite interesting when it is informed by a broad understanding of the topics at hand. This thread, on the other hand, bores me to tears. It contains nothing resembling a rational argument; merely a false conclusion perched upon postulates formed from equal parts naval-gazing vacuity and the caricatures of American politics frequently screamed in shrill tones at uneducated audiences eager for a black-and-white morality that paints them as unquestionably righteous by talk-radio shock jocks who have staked their careers on the slim hope that no-one will ever call them out on their bullshit.

Owing to my deep seated sense of altruism, however, I will lower my dignity to respond to one particular point: Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. I would note that Russia, England, France and the US were led by (and their armies populated by) predominantly people of the "white race", and that Spain, Italy, Argentina and Germany were all possessed of sizable anti-fascist resistance movements during the lifetimes of those named leaders. IO would further note that I learned these facts in high school, and thus that my 14 year old self could have pointed out the incredible ignorance of this comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See No original research. Even if I agreed with your analysis, you would need to show that it has any acceptance in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"However at the other end Traditionally far-right groups both past and present seek the decentralization and reduction of governmental control" Bullshit. The far-right is synonymous with authoritarianism, conservatism, and traditionalism. See also right-wing authoritarianism. Dimadick (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Note also the claim that the Left supports "large centralized governmental social control." That means anti-pornography, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-feminism, anti-crime, pro-segregation, etc., which were positions of the Nazi Party but also of American conservatives. While they holler states rights over universal health care, they ask the central government to enforce social control. TFD (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

the Left supports "large centralized governmental social control." That means ... anti-LGBT" That part is correct. See LGBT history in Russia, concerning the Soviet Union's anti-LGBT policies.:

• " Along with increased repression of political dissidents and non-Russian nationalities under Stalin, LGBT themes and issues faced increasing official government censorship and a uniformly harsher policy across the entire Soviet Union. Homosexuality was officially labelled a disease and a mental disorder in the late 1920s (specifically over a period from 1927-1930). In this climate, Commissar Semashko reduced his support for homosexual rights and Dr. Batkis and other sexual researchers repudiated (in 1928) their own earlier scientific reports of homosexuality as a natural human sexuality."
• "In 1933, the Soviet government under Stalin recriminalised homosexuality. On 7 March 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code for the entire Soviet Union that expressly prohibited only male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labour in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding lesbianism. During the Soviet regime, Western observers believed that between 800 and 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121."
• "Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism and that Article 121 may have a simple political tool to use against dissidents, irrespective of their true sexual orientation and to solidify Russian opposition to Nazi Germany, who had broken its treaty with Russia."
• "More recently, a third possible reason for the anti-gay law has emerged from declassified Soviet documents and transcripts. Beyond expressed fears of a vast "counterrevolutionary" or fascist homosexual conspiracy, there were several high-profile arrests of Russian men accused of being pederasts. In 1933, 130 men "were accused of being 'pederasts' – adult males who have sex with boys. Since no records of men having sex with boys at that time are available, it is possible this term was used broadly and crudely to label homosexuality". Whatever the precise reason, homosexuality remained a serious criminal offense until it was repealed in 1993."
• The Soviet government itself said very little publicly about the change in the law and few people seemed to be aware that it existed. In 1934, the British communist Harry Whyte wrote a long letter to Stalin condemning the law and its prejudicial motivations. He laid out a Marxist position against the oppression of homosexuals as a social minority and compared homophobia to racism, xenophobia and sexism. The letter was not formally replied to. A few years later in 1936, Justice Commissar Nikolai Krylenko publicly stated that the anti-gay criminal law was correctly aimed at the decadent and effete old ruling classes, thus further linking homosexuality to a right-wing conspiracy, i.e. Tsarist aristocracy and German fascists."
• Note also that the decriminalization of homosexuality was one of the major reforms of Boris Yeltsin (term 1991-1999). Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless you're trying to make the case that the left supports anti-LGBT laws in the Western world as well, then Russia's anti-LGBT past is not a feature of left wing politics, but of Russian politics. I would note that Russia has become rather conservative (to put it mildly) in recent years, yet LGBT rights in Russia are still not exactly respected. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You have to view this in the context of the times and the individual countries. In the Weimar Republic, both Communists and Social Democrats opposed the criminalization of homosexuality. Conservatives, Nazis, Christian Democrats and liberals did not. You mention that Stalin re-criminalized homosexuality, but fail to mention that Lenin decriminalized it, making the Soviet Union probably the only country to do so. An article in Quora, "Did the Soviet Union persecute homosexuals?" explains the shortcomings of the Wikipedia article. TFD (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And don't forget the implications of the Horseshoe theory when you're looking at (actual) far-left governments like the USSR... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

Chang far right to far left ChillyWilly563 (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ToThAc (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of political spectrum affiliation

Before reading this I referred to the Wiki political spectrum definition on socialism, "Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism, “progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best ..." The political left is supporting of socialism, gun control to the point of disarming citizens, and controlled education with the demonization of any that disagree with what is being taught. The Nazis were the National Socialist Workers Party, key word Socialist. The Nazis enforced gun control and took all guns away from their citizens. The Nazis controlled education and burned any books, demonized any authors, and stopped any dissenting education that they disagreed with. The political positions of the Nazis does not fall in line with the political right, by Wiki's own definition, instead it falls perfectly on the political left's definition.

I, therefore submit that this wiki definition of Nazism political spectrum affiliation be corrected to match the current Wiki definition of the two political spectrum's. As it an inconsistency this article should either be amended or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B125:CC54:9581:C5A7:F7DD:8CE1 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed time and time again. To change this article, you’d have to provide reliable sources (which nobody before you has been able to manage, for some obscure reason...). On a personal note: if you use your own special definition of words, you can of course "proove" whatever you want (doublespeak). Instead, you should start by reading articles like left-wing politics and perhaps a book or two. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 19:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Economics ?

The section doesn't explain how Germany financed its existence - by plundering, killing and slave work.Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018

All references on this page to "far-right" are incorrect. Nazism is FAR-LEFT. Someone is trying to redefine history and terminology on this page by labeling it incorrectly. Socialism is a left-leaning social ideology, not right-leaning. It doesn't matter what sources are referenced to defend this lie or "mis-truth" because many articles and books are wrong, some of them intentionally in efforts to reshape thought. Nazi philosophies are LEFT leaning, very far from being RIGHT. The only reference required is Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" in which he displays the same ideological thoughts as left-leaning politicians and social engineers display today. Sragsdill (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been repeatedly discussed on this talk page. See the FAQ at the top of the page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No consensus will support this, since reputable historians and reliable sources all agree that the Nazis sit on the far right wing. The "far left" canard is a neo-Nazi talking point. In the future, edit requests such as this should simply be deleted as disruptive and not given legitimacy with a response.Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Other countries

Nazism had a powerful influence on neighboring European countries. It seems to me to be appropriate to include some reference to this such as: It was also contemporaneous or promoted in other European countries, particularly those with large ethnic German communities such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia

• Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera(2001) The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gsKbQgAACAAJ&dq=nagy-Talavera&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zJ2UU5OaMYal8AHY-4GACA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 13:43, June 8, 2014

Edit request: CS and Hungary

I don't think it's appropriate to equate Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the lede as countries where Nazism took hold. Hungary as a nation fell to Nazi governance in its entirety and conducted itself as a Nazi state, whereas Czechoslovakia only did so after German invasion. An element (the German minority) within Czechoslovakia supported Nazism, but the same could be said for the United Kingdom. Czechoslovakia should be removed from the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk • contribs) 04:51, July 21, 2014

The "zi"

The first two syllables of nationalsozialistische are pronounced identically to "Nazi"; to me it seems obvious that this is the origin of the term. This does not deny the connection to the earlier Sozi, but pulling out the zi sound from sozialistische instead of from national needs, at the very least, a reliable source. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen both theories, although at the moment I'm having a hard time finding either one: all the dictionaries I checked, English and German (including Etymonline, which our article cites), just say it's an abbreviation of the longer word, influenced by Sozi, without specifying which syllables it's abbreviating one way or the other. (But that national is sometimes abbreviated Nazi can also be seen in e.g. the former newspaper names "Dr glai Nazi" and "Nazi-Zyttig", which predate Nazism and were shortenings for children of "National-Zeitung".) -sche (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

However, the first reference our article cites, Lepage's book, specifically says it's from how national was pronounced. Etymonline makes no claim about where the syllables are from, nor does the Sourcebook we cite, which instead says the term was borrowed from the pet form of Ignatz, as does the Telepgraph article. Kluge/Seebold, in turn, seem to have been sourced (judging by a link at the end of our own citation of them) through Etymonline, which again, doesn't support the "...so[zi]..." theory. I'll change the article to reflect what the sources it cites actually say (which is, as you edited it to say, mostly the more general claim that it's from "Nationalsozialist", without specifying which syllables, and that it was influenced by another abbreviation of the first two syllables of a word, Sozi). If other sources do support the "...so[zi]..." theory, then that could be added as a second possibility, alongside the "[Nati]onal" theory. But that Nillurcheier even misspelled "Social Democrats" as "social democrates" does not inspire confidence in the quality of their edit. -sche (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, anyone can make a typo. That said, Nillurcheier's theory makes little sense on its face, and seems to have exactly zero support in the references that are easily available to check. --Trovatore (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Things are quite difficult. Image we were in Germany in the year 1925. There is a long time established short name "Sozi(s)" for Social Democrats or Socialist, generated by simply abbreviating their German names Sozialdemokraten or Sozialisten. Also, at least in southern Germany, there the old and widespread first name Ignaz (German version of Ignatius of Loyola), which often was transformed into the nickname Nazi. At the same time this nickname had the connotation of hillbilly or goofy, at least in Bavaria. And now the Nationalsozialisten appeared on the political stage and their opponents started to call them Nazi(s) (maybe already in 1923 or as late as 1929), familiar with the established abbreviation Sozi and well knowing about this negative connotation at least in Bavaria, where the Nazis' origin was. The first documented use of the word Nazi for the Hitler-Nationalsozialisten was probably in 1923 by the famous Kurt Tucholksy according to this source: http://www.sprachauskunft-vechta.de/woerter/nazi.htm. According to http://www.webarchiv-server.de/pin/archiv01/0401ob26.htm the history of the word was even a bit more complicated, since 1918-1930 it was also used for Austrians pushing into Berlin, the "Kakanazis" (artists often named Ignaz from the former KuK-monarchy). With this information we could say, that "Nazi" was neither a direct abbreviation of the first two syllables nor of the first and the fifth, but a alliterative transfer of the already existing term Sozi and a transfer by meaning of the also common word Ignaz-Nazi. But if you insist in deciding this issue, "zi" stems clearly from "SoZIalisten" and "na" stems undiscussedly from "NAtional". Sorry for delayed sources, for typos in former posts and also for not being a native English speaker. BR --Nillurcheier (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nillurcheier: Your English is much better than my German, but I can work through German given time. Please point to the particular sentences in those references that you feel support your claim that the "zi" stems from Sozialisten rather than national. As for it being an alliteration with Sozi, no one has disputed that, but that is a rather different claim from the one you are making. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither consensus nor reliable sources support your position regarding the unstressed "zi" in "sozialisten". Please stop edit warring; if you do not gain consensus for your position here on this talk page, please do not keep inserting it into the article. (It would make it pretty simple if the Duden Herkunftswörterbuch or DWDS broke the derivation down, but the latter does not, and I don't have my copy of the former handy.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: sorry, but I cannot follow your argumentation. I did not start an edit war, I gave a well sourced contribution to the ongoing discussion. Please refer to it and my arguments. Don't blame me to do thing I did not; no, a one or two times revert is not an EW. Here are some more sources: https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi: Kurzform von Nationalsozialist,[1] analog gebildet zu (früher gebräuchlicherem und ideologisch gegensätzlichem) Sozi für Sozialist beziehungsweise Sozialdemokrat --Nillurcheier (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree you have given sources. What is not obvious to the rest of us is that those sources actually support your position. It's such an odd position on its face that you really need sources that directly support the specific claim. Who ever heard of abbreviating an eight-syllable word (if for the sake of argument you'll allow me to syllabize it as na-ti-o-nal-so-zi-a-list) by taking the first and sixth syllables, with the sixth syllable being unstressed? Particularly when the second syllable is right there and sounds exactly the same?

Yes, the allusion to Sozi is well-sourced and should be mentioned, but pulling out the zi from Sozi is another matter entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Precisely so. I have not seen a single source indicating that "zi" stems clearly from "SoZIalisten" and "na" stems undiscussedly from "NAtional". If it is so clear, it should be easy to find supporting sources, especially since the first-sixth syllable pattern for a nickname like this is uncommon enough I don't recall hearing another, but then, I'm not well versed in the naming and nick-naming of German political factions; are there other examples? Like, are the Social Democrats called "Socras"? And why would "Sozi" be the obvious first and second syllables but "Nazi" be first and sixth? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ongoing in-depth discussion. First an argument, why the "zi" does not stem from the "ti": As already mentioned, why should a "zi" change to "ti"? No good reason for this was ever formulated. Even more relevant. "Nazi" in German is pronounced with a long a and a soft z. "Nati" like in "Nationalmannschaft" would be pronounced with a shorter a and a harder t (however still pronounced like ts).

definitely more important is the fact that the concept of a simple abbreviation is misleading. The abbreviation for "Nationalsozialismus" has always been "NS" (pronounced en-es) and nothing else. "Nazi" is more like a short form of a longer word, which was formed in association and alliteration of the well established word "Sozi" (already well sourced). That's why the "zi" is clearly indicating towards the "zi" in "Sozialisten". However we should formulate a sentence which avoids the word "abbreviation" and prefers the explanation "is a short term/form of/for Nationalsozialismus".--Nillurcheier (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So briefly addressing "why should a 'ti' change to a 'zi' " — that would be because they sound (at least approximately) the same. You claim that there is a distinction in the quality of the [t] sound and the [a] preceding it, and that may be true (I am certainly no expert on German phonology). However, German Wiktionary does not see fit to mention any such distinction between the ts clusters in national and Sozialist, rendering the former as [ˌnat͡si̯oˈnaːl] and the latter as [zot͡si̯aˈlɪst], so it seems that even if the ts sound in Nazi is not exactly the same as the one in national, it is also not the same as in Sozialist.

Getting back closer to the questions we're supposed to discuss here, namely what to put in the article, I am not sure what distinction you are making between "abbreviation" and "short form of a word". An abbreviation is precisely a short form of a word. --Trovatore (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Art

How come this article mentions nothing about the Nazis stance on art and music? Degenerate art and music were attributed to the Jews. HRKent444 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Presumably because no one has written about that aspect yet. Who's going to do it? Could be you. --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We have an entire article on Degenerate art, but for some reason it's only mentioned in passing in the Nazism#Reactionary or revolutionary? section. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Front mot Bolsjevismen — Hvor star du idag?.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

"Position within the political spectrum" section of this article needs to be completely rewritten as the NAZI party was not Right but Left wing party! I.E. National SOCIALIST party - the clue is in the title but I will provide some more evidence below:

Goebbels diary 1924 (Part 1 Volume 1 Page 27) he states - Inflation. Wild times. The dollar climbs like an acrobat. I feel quiet pleasure. Yes, chaos must come, if things are going to get better. Communism. Jewry. I am a German communist. and also - To be a socialist means that I subordinate the 'you', that I sacrifice the individual for the general good. Socialism is in its deepest sense service. Abstention for the individual and challenge for the totality.

Adolf Hitler speech 01 May 1927 - We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic order for the exploitation of the economically weak, with their unfair wages, with its valuation of a human according to riches and property instead of responsibility and achievement. We are all determined to destroy this system at all costs.

Adolf Hitler speach 01 May 1934 - The hammer will once again become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the symbol of the German farmer.

The Holocaust organiser and SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann wrote in his memoirs - My political feelings leaned towards the left, the socialist at least as strongly as the National Socialist.

Historians also confirm this, for example Arnulf Baring said - The whole chatter about it, that there was, as it were, a serious radical right-wing threat… I ask you: were the Nazis right-wingers? I consider that a basic error, from you also. The Nazis were not right-wing, the Nazis were a left-wing party! 2A02:C7D:5211:F600:A0D2:DE33:B086:1898 (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

These quotes were assembled by Michael Stürzenberger in his 2017 article in Politically Incorrect, "Broder: Were not the National Socialists left-wing extremists?" I cannot find any evidence that any of these statements were actually made. In any case, interpretation of original sources must be reliably sourced. It's very easy to cherry-pick sentences from political figures and present a misleading image. TFD (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I found the alleged Hitler quote. He didn't say it, as explained in Snopes.[30] TFD (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Snopes attributes the phrase to Gregor Strasser (d. 1934), one of the victims in the Night of the Long Knives. Gregor and his brother Otto Strasser are considered the co-founders of Strasserism, an anti-capitalist offshoot of Nazism. "The Strasserites advocated the radicalization of the Nazi regime and the toppling of the German elites, calling Hitler's rise to power a half-revolution which needed to be completed." Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Strasserites were not Marxian socialists, and were not anti-capitalist; they were Spenglerian - meaning they believed in class collaborationn and that their "socialism" was capitalism that benefited the nation-state (and that excluded Jews from owning capital). It is a wholly separate political tradition, much like how libertarian communism and libertarian liberalism are wholly separate, yet share a common name. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

Socialism is not far right it is far left. Mandine Croix (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 10:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism, other than appropriating its name. Nazism is part of Far-right politics, alongside other ideologies which combine Ultranationalism, Nativism, and authoritarianism. Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2019

The below text needs a "citation required" tag added to it. It appears to be part of reference 4 but reading that reference (Feldman, Gerald. The Economic Origins of European Fascism)it does not talk about a conscious effort to take ownership of the word socialism away from other political parties. I was curious to find a history of the Nazi use of this word but cannot find any original sources.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free market capitalism. Ger876452334 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Ger876452334: I'm not sure the citation was intended to apply to that sentence. There is some ambiguity on Wikipedia over whether statements in the lede have to be cited if they're explained later in the article. In this case, it seems to be explained here: "The first party that attempted to combine nationalism and socialism was the (Austria-Hungary) German Workers' Party, which predominantly aimed to solve the conflict between the Austrian Germans and the Czechs in the multi-ethnic Austrian Empire, then part of Austria-Hungary. In 1896 the German politician Friedrich Naumann formed the National-Social Association which aimed to combine German nationalism and a non-Marxist form of socialism together; the attempt turned out to be futile and the idea of linking nationalism with socialism quickly became equated with antisemites, extreme German nationalists and the Völkisch movement in general." I also think you might be inferring the wrong thing in that a nationalist redefinition of "socialism" doesn't necessarily imply that they're "taking it away", just that they were creating a new definition. If you still feel a citation is needed in the lede with this explanation, though, then feel free to reopen your request; more clarity isn't a bad thing. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Typo

Hello – I noticed I typo, but I am just an anonymous user and cannot edit the article. It is in the section 'Reactionary or revolutionary?', second quote, "dispain" should be "disdain".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.8.239 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I have fixed that. I wouldn't normally edit a quote without access to the source to check it but that is such an obvious spelling mistake or typo that I don't see a problem. If anybody else wants to check it then please feel free. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have nothing but dispain for your edit! (Just kidding. I believe I added that quote, and you were correct to fix the typo. Thanks!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nazism

I am not sure who wrote this but they are misinformed regarding Nazism. They state it is far right in its polices. I would submit it is far left and here is why. Hitler was the head of the German Socialist workers party. Both Socialist and Union organizers are leftest andCordel72 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Hitler was both. Take Russia for example: Vladimir Lennon was a member of a Soviet. A soviet in Russia is a committee of the leaders of the working trades. i.e union leaders. Nothing in their political beliefs suggest capitalism or free market ideology s as is true of anyone on the Political Right. If Hitler is counted as far right then Vladimir Lennon, Fidel castor and Bernie sanders would be far right as well. So I submit that Nazism is leftist and Hitler took it as far left as he could. Whether you are politically left or right you must admit that either one can be taken too far and history proves that it has happened.

We get asked this quite a lot. Please have a look at the FAQ at the top of this page which addresses these very issues. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of völkisch

@Beyond My Ken: you recently went through and capitalized all instances of the word völkisch. Just curious why? My German grammar is not very nuanced, but I can tell that völkisch is an adjective, and not one based on what in English we would call a "proper noun", so I don't think it would ordinarily be capitalized in German. I suppose there could still be some reason it would be capitalized in English, but I don't know what that reason would be. --Trovatore (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Strike the "proper noun" bit; doesn't look like that matters. From a quick search, it looks like adjectival uses of (for example) deutsch are lower case. --Trovatore (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the word is German, not English, and is capitalized in German. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yrovatore is correct, adjectives are not capitalized in German. FYI "völk" is cognate with folk, which "isch" is cognate with ish. The adjective folkish would not be capitalized in English either. TFD (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

But "Völkisch movement" is a noun, not an adjective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we were speaking German, we'd capitalize the Movement part of it, but not the völkisch part. At least I think so. It might be different if it had been an organization with a defined structure, like a party, but I don't think you'd capitalize the adjective just to name an unorganized movement.

Not that I'm really sure of any of that; it's beyond my competence in German. In English, though, my strong intuition is that you wouldn't cap it, at least not when using the lightly capped style of Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just took a quick look at the index to Kershaw's Hitler, and it's not capped there, so I'll undo my changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for the hassle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Rename Page to "National Socialism"

"Nazism" is a nickname for National Socialism, the page should be called "National Socialism", since that is the name of the ideology. (I do not believe "Nazism" is used in Germany) Gravestep (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say probably no, because of WP:COMMONNAME. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, it's not very relevant what name is used in Germany. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

Change far-right groups to far-left groups since Nazism relies on government control which can only be achieved through a leftist government Hein781 (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense and contradicted by history. If you had references to a number of academic political scientists backing you we might discuss it, but you don't and can't, so no. Read the top of this page. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding a date to the quote from Adolf Hitler in section "Position within the political spectrum"

There's a clause asking for "when" for under the section "Position within the political spectrum" regarding a quote from Adolf Hitler. The quote is from January 27, 1934, from an interview with Hanns Johst . As far as I can tell from Amazon preview for the book "The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary," it is the same documented interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangmungi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Lacking in some areas

Hello! From I read, the article has a lot of information on propaganda and the ideology's ideas on race and geopolitics, but nothing regarding its views on, for example, the economy and how to run it. It focuses on a lot of race relations--and dont get me wrong, that's important (ESPECIALLY when it comes to National Socialism)--but not much else. HistoricallyAccurate (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The Nazi's view on economic issues were not central to their ideology. When they came into power they did this and they did that but without any central concept behind it -- whatever they thought would work or would serve their political purposes. The economy-related parts of the 25 Points were ignored and never put into operation. Ultimately, Nazism was not a coherent ideology outside of ultranationalism, racism, anti-communism, lebensraum, the fũhrerprinzip and so on, the rest of it was a catch-as-catch-can accumulation of miscellaneous stuff, especially when it came to the economy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exactly. The articles for the Nazi Party, Economy of Nazi Germany, and Economics of fascism may also be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Economics never was addressed in their ideology. Generally they believed in small government. TFD (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A big part of Nazism was their views on the economy, such as how to recover from the great depression. Socialism is even in the name. Gravestep (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times before, the "socialist" in the name is no more accurate than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The economics minister, Hjalmar Schacht, wasn't a Nazi, he was a classical liberal. TFD (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Future generations will thank us"?

Might you know of substantive documentation of an alleged claim by the authors of the death camps that "Future generations will thank us for" eliminating the Jews, communists, Gypsies and handicapped, who were "sucking the life blood of good hard-working Germans"?

I saw claims like this in, I think, movies about the holocaust. It's hard to imagine people building and operating the death camps without believing something like this. It would be good to have serious documentation of such -- in this article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen any such claims. However, psychopathic political leaders frequently justify their actions on the basis of public interest. TFD (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

historian Timothy Mason concludes that "Hitler had nothing but slogans to offer the working class."[187]

I'm gonna be bold and remove this bit from the article, because the historian Mason made an obviously incorrect conclusion. If you disagree and wish to revert it, please read up on the whole 'massively reduced unemployment' bit, 'made paid leave for labor workers mandatory' bit and all the other bits mentioned in the article and by my humble self here on the talk page. Then, please try to make a convinving argument here on why you think this amounts to "nothing but slogans" and talk it out with your fellow editors.Kuiet (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be your own personal opinion. Either way, that isn't how it works. You can't just remove sourced information because you personally think or believe it to be an obviously incorrect conclusion, merely because of massively reduced unemployment; and the same source is also used elsewhere. Furthermore, the author is attribuited. So I'm reverting the deletion unless there's consensus to remove it.--Davide King (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Davide. The quote is sourced and attributed. If there are reliably sourced countervailing views, they can also be mentioned, subject to WP:FRINGE. --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The criterion for the inclusion of opinions is note whether they are right or wrong but whether they are have weight. TFD (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Social policies

What makes you think Wikipedia talkpages are an appropriate outlet for Nazi propaganda? If it weren't for contributions from another editor besides User:Kuiet, I'd remove the whole thing. Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does anyone want to join and help me with creating a paragraph dedicated to National Socialist social policies?Kuiet (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Social has different meanings in the U.S. and Europe. Which type of social policy are you referring to? TFD (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Some concise subset of EMPLOYMENT During the first twelve months of his administration, unemployment declined by nearly 2.3 million. In 1934, 2,973,544 persons were still out of work, but by November 1935, 1,750,000 more Germans had found full time jobs. September 1936 mass unemplyment has been overcome. Aamong other civilized nations, of the 20 million people out of work in 1932, only two million had returned to the work force over the previous four years (The statistics did not include the USSR, since no figures were available). HOUSING An estimated four to six million houses required modernization. A large percentage lacked electricity, hook-up to municipal water lines, or facilities for bath and shower. "At present around 300,000 children annually are never born, just because the miserable living conditions rob parents of the heart to bring them into the world." Home owners received a grant covering 20 percent of the cost of each project, including repairs and additions. The government provided borrowers coupons to reimburse them for the interest on the loans. FAMILY Men who had been out of work the longest or who were fathers of large families received preference in hiring. None were allowed to work more than 40 hours per week. The Labor Procurement Law provided newlyweds loans of RM 1,000 at one percent monthly interest. The loans came in the form of coupons to buy furniture, household appliances and clothing. For each child born to a couple, the government reduced the loan by 25 percent and deferred payments on the balance for one year. For larger families, upon birth of the fourth child, the state forgave the loan. It financed the program by imposing surtaxes on single men and women. By June 1936, the government approved 750,000 marriage loans. The state imposed no property tax on young couples purchasing small single family homes. FEMALE OCCUPATION From 1934 to 1937, the number of women in the work force increased from 4.5 million to 5.7 million. Despite programs to encourage women to return to traditional family roles, the government did not restrict those choosing a career. They were equally eligible for tax incentives offered for starting small businesses. FARMERS With 17 million members, the Reichsnährstand's principle objectives were to curtail the gradual dying-out of farms in Germany, and prevent migration of rural folk to concentrated population centers or industry. Controlling the market value of foodstuffs, the organization gradually raised the purchase price of groceries by over ten percent by 1938. This measure was not popular among the public, but greatly assisted planters. The Reichsnährstand not only arranged for a substantial reduction in property taxes for farms, butwiped the slate clean on indebtedness. This gave heavily mortgaged farm owners a fresh start. Another organization, the Landhilfe (Rural Assistance), recruited approximately 120,000 unemployed young people to help work farms. The government financed their salaries, training and housing. It also arranged for temporary employment on farms for school graduates and students on summer break. The Landhilfe permitted foreigners living in Germany, primarily Poles, to enter the program. The government provided interest-free loans and grants for the purchase of farm implements along with special marriage loans for newlyweds. The debts were to be forgiven after the family had worked the farm ten years. WORKERS' RIGHTS Regulation of salaries and managerial privileges. Government arranged (for the first time) for blue-collar workers to have compensation when missing work due to important family measures, plus a subsidy in case of illness. The Law for Regulation of Wages introduced guidelines to guarantee a decent standard of living for everyone who worked hard, irrespective of their occupation. The regulation further called for an adjustment in salary for employees with unavoidable financial hardships, in order to guarantee their standard of living. Even time lost from work due to weather conditions became a factor. It also required that every citizen receive pay for overtime. They included paid holidays for labor. The wage law established a minimum monthly income per person, sufficient to guarantee a decent living standard. It affected 96 percent of all salaries nationwide. The record of court proceedings for 1939 demonstrates that the labor law primarily safeguarded the well-being of employees rather than their overseers. During that year, the courts conducted 14 hearings against workers and 153 against plant managers, assistant managers and supervisors. In seven cases, the directors lost their jobs. HOLIDAYS Few Germans could afford to travel prior to Hitler’s chancellorship. The KdF began sponsoring low-cost excursions the following year, that were affordable for lower income families. Package deals covered the cost of transportation, lodging, meals and tours. Options included outings to swimming or mountain resorts, health retreats, popular attractions in cities and provinces, hiking and camping trips. In 1934, 2,120,751 people took short vacation tours. The number grew annually, with 7,080,934 participating in 1938. KdF “Wanderings" -- backpacking excursions in scenic areas— drew 60,000 the first year. In 1938 there were 1,223,362 Germans on the trails. These activities were only possible because Hitler, upon founding the “Strength through Joy” agency in November 1933, ordered all German businesses and industry to grant sufficient paid time off for employees. Prior to that year, nearly a third of the country’s labor force had no union contract and hence worked without vacations. In 1931, just 30 percent of laborers with wage agreements received four to six days off per year. The majority, 61 percent, received three days." 99 The National Socialist government required that all working people be guaranteed a minimum of six days off after six months' tenure with a company. As seniority increased, the employee was to earn twelve paid vacation days per annum. The state extended the same benefits to Germany’s roughly half a million Heimarbeiter, people holding small contracts with industry who manufactured components at home. Also among the possible vacations for blue-collar workers were cruises abroad, to England, Norway or Madeira, something unheard of at the time. During 1935, over 138,000 Germans took KdF cruises. SPORTS The sports office of the DAF sponsored labor’s involvement in other “exclusive” activities such as tennis, skiing, horseback riding and sailing. It offered inexpensive courses in these sports and built new facilities. In 1934 alone, 470,928 Germans took part in DAF sports courses. In 1938, the number had swollen to 22,474,906. CULTURE Also included culture for blue-collar workers. 70 music schools offered basic instruction in playing musical instruments for members of working class families. The KdF arranged theater productions and classical concerts for labor throughout the country. The 1938 Bayreuth Festspiel, the summer season of Richard Wagner operas, gave performances of Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal for laborers and their families. The KdF also established travelling theaters and concert tours to visit rural towns in Germany where cultural events seldom took place. STIPENDS Reich's Career Competition was launched in 1934. Half a million boys and girls displayed their skills in trades and crafts. The best-scoring contestants received financial grants to pursue higher learning.The number of children taking part grew annually. In 1938, 949,120 girls and 1,537,373 boys competed. The DAF awarded RM 527,000 in scholarships that year. ANTI-CORRUPTION The opportunity for public servants to favor certain private commercial interests in exchange for gratuities was particularly troublesome to Hitler. He enacted laws making it illegal for public servants to possess stock portfolios or to serve as consultants to private corporations. The law also affected members of the armed forces and the National Socialist party in positions of procurement. It was a violation for anyone leaving public sector to accept a job with a private concern that he had previously contracted with in an official capacity. Even as private citizens, former civil servants were forbidden by Hitler from investing their personal wealth in stock shares.Kuiet (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC) The article is about Nazi ideology, rather than specific programs carried out. Governments frequently adopt policies contrary to or tangential their ideology based on circumstances and political pressure. Hitler's 1933 economic policy for example was developed by German industrialists. You would have to show that these policies reflected Nazi ideology. Also, your information appears to be taken a self-published book, Hitler's Revolution, which is not a reliable source. I can find for example no reliable sources that discuss the Labor Procurement Law 1933. TFD (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Excellently put. Taking care of its 'superior Aryan' Volk is one of the core tenets of Nazi ideology. I appreciate you're already thinking ahead and inspecting sources that will fit the article, I recommend not using Richard Tedor's book but rather directly the 70 or so sources he cites while describing the social policies. You seem able and willing, will you join and help me? I can help you with finding a reliable source about the Labor Procurement Law of June first, 1933: https://www.google.com/search?hl=sl&tbm=bks&ei=-GRyXsO_I8mk3AOS97KgAg&q=third+reich+Labor+Procurement+Law+of+June+1%2C+1933&oq=third+reich+Labor+Procurement+Law+of+June+1%2C+1933&gs_l=psy-ab.3...54791.54791.0.55598.1.1.0.0.0.0.110.110.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.xLUVpdsqlrw Many books here mention it, I'm sure we can find one to your liking.Kuiet (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC) We can't do that because of weight among other things. Tedor assembled various pieces of evidence to defend a thesis and we cannot assemble the same evidence for his thesis without giving him credit. By the way, I know how to do a google book search. The problem is that it does not return any sources for the Labor Procurement Law of June first, 1933. TFD (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Oh, well if you think we should give him credit, then sure, I guess. And you're right, no sources provide intel on 'Labor Procurment Law of June first, 1933', that is problematic. So how about we scratch that and opt for "the law of June 1, 1933, for the reduction of unemployment" (as per hits 1&2) and "the gigantic employment program of June 1, 1933" (hit 4) instead; does that solve the problem? If not let's just skip it for now; so much work to be done, no reason to fixate on one puny little law.Kuiet (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC) I want to reiterate that we are not here to write an essay, but to describe how Nazism is generally described in modern reliable sources. So we shouldn't even look for revisionist histories or congressional reports from the 1930s, but contemporary books from academic publishers. Furthermore, this article is about ideology, not government policies. Government policies in a crisis may or may not be indicative of underlying ideology. Hence the left-wing Syriza in Greece cut state pension, while the right-wing government in the U.S. is introducing a massive relief program. TFD (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC) You're right, this page is not for essays and the article is for the ideology. Perhaps I've made my point unclear, let me make it plain: To spare me from the necessity of writing an essay , please read National Socialist Program points 7. 11. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 20. 21. So the nazis stated 'social policies' (or however you want to phrase that haha) are a key tenet of their ideology. Given how many points address it, given all the policies they've implemented to achieve it, I find 'embettering the social aspects of life' (subject to rephrasing) to be one of the major ideas of nazism. So I propose to include that in the article about the nazi ideology. Now to prevent further communication timeloss I implore you in turn to also make your case clear. Do you object to it (provide reasons), do you wish to help (provide material)? No more "may or may not be" platitudes, please.Kuiet (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC).

Claim that the Nazi party was a far-left party

The Nazi party was a far-left socialist group, not a far-right group. Tyson Rodriguez (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tyson Rodriguez: Can you please explain why you deleted this comment?

In particular, was some Wikimedia rule violated by making the claim that you reverted and that I'm just restoring?

An invited 2006 article for a Canadian Library Association journal said that on controversial topics "the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the [Wikipedia] article that both can more or less live with. This is a rare sight indeed in today’s polarized political atmosphere, where most online forums are echo chambers for one side or the other”. I think we stand a better chance of building bridges over walls by treating others with respect and making an effort to engage them before instantly deleting their comments.

@Tyson Rodriguez: How would you compare the activities of the Nazis with the descriptions in the Wikipedia articles on "Far-right politics" and "Far-left politics"?

The former article begins, "Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies ... ."

The official name of the Nazi party was National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), and socialism is more commonly associated with the left. However, it is my impression that most modern references to Nazism emphasize their extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies. Far-left politics meanwhile are vehemently opposed to extreme nationalism and nativist ideologies. Moreover, my reading of the article on far-left politics suggests that very few "far-left" individuals and groups today would support authoritarianism.

??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodriguez added it, not deleted it. It was deleted by an admin probably because this is the umpteenth time that this exact claim has been made here despite the consensus among scholars that Nazism is far-right. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I created wikidata:Q93434458 about that. Feel free to expand it. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit to opening paragraph

I believe my text here is far more accurate and informative. Nazism is not fascism, this is revisionist history.

Nazism (or National Socialism; German: Nationalsozialismus) is a set of political beliefs associated with the Nazi Party of Germany. It started in the 1920s. Party gained power in 1933, starting the Third Reich. They lasted in Germany until 1945, at the end of World War II. Nazism is a form of socialism in that it seeks to socialize the 'Aryan Race' at the expense of races the Nazis deemed inferior and oppressive. Contrast this to Marxism, another form of socialism which seeks to socialize the proletariat at the expense of the bourgeoisie. The Nazis believed that only the Aryan race was capable of building nations and other races, notably the Jewish race, were agents of the corruptive forces of capitalism and boulshevism, both of which the Nazis opposed. The Nazis blamed the Jewish people for Germany's defeat in World War I. This is known as the Stab in the Back Myth. The Nazis also blamed the Jewish people for rapid inflation and practically every other economic woe facing Germany at the time as a result of their defeat in World War I. For this reason the Nazis not only viewed the Jewish people as inferior to but as oppressors of the Aryan people. The nazi's tactic of lazily albeit effectively blaming the Jewish people for all of Germany's problems is a propaganda tactic known as scapegoating and was used to justify the great atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people. Militiaman 1776 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No, we're not doing that, but it's an impressive example of un-selfconscious use of the word "revisionism" while arguing away 80 years of mainstream political science scholarship. And it's unsourced. Acroterion (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

How many times must this be said? Nationalsozialismus does not mean socialism. In fact, rather the opposite. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Recurrent ownership by an editor

@Beyond My Ken: Regarding your edit summary here, perhaps you should see this ANI instead. I forgot that I had to report you twice in 2016. Regardless of the exact nature of my initial edits four years ago, the takeaway point is that reverting good-faith edits without explanation is akin to ownership. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Just because you do not personally see value in somebody's edits does not give you carte blanche to revert and threaten.

As far as your assertion that I'm edit warring and your "Stop now," threat, I'd remind you that I've only reverted once and you've reverted twice. So, look in the mirror... – voidxor 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the box at the top of every MOS page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't say anything about edit warring. Besides, you are doing most of the reverts. Often times, you don't even feel the need to justify yourself with an edit summary. Other times, you make personal attacks at ANI or on talk pages.

Once again, your personal crusade against the MOS and anybody who abides by it is showing through. However, in this case I cited WP:IMGSIZE, not the MOS. – voidxor 00:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• 1.2 The Jewish Bolshevism Image.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It was published in Germany in 1921 and in Engish in the UK in 1923, so it is out of copyright. Please do not remove the image from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My Edit in Etymology Section

It appears the edit previous to mine by Alcaios moved and slightly mangled the sentence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&diff=960706822&oldid=960397314) I merely returned it to its previous status. Editor2020 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed it entirely as it is OR. To say that "X book does not contain the word Y" while only citing the book itself as a source is definitely OR; one would need a secondary source which says "X books does not contain the word Y" or the equivalent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. Editor2020 (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

In etymology section, in the Nazi Party image, change the link attached to "flag of Nazi Germany", to the page of Nazi Germany flag, instead of modern Germany flag. Arish00100 (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Grayfell (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Nazi being Far-right is incorrect. If they were far right, that would be an anarchy with no government and law, let alone any form of socialism whatsoever. 101.180.95.122 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, just because they have the term socialist in their name doesn’t make them socialist any more the the official term Democratic People's Republic of Korea proves that North Korea isn’t a dictatorship.--67.68.208.64 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Being Far-right has nothing to do with anarchy. They are completely seperate issues. Far-right generally refers to the economic and cultural axes of the political spectrum, usually indicating a strong belief in free markets, etc. Anarchism is the opposite of authoritarianism. Fascism is by definition authoritarian. Therefore Nazis are not anarchists.--86.121.173.108 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Nazis were not economically far-right, they were Keynesians (of course, in every other aspect, they were far-right, which by defination refers to Fascism and Nazism), and in fact Adolf Hitler critised American capitalism for supposedly eroding American culture. They were not Socialism either though. I believe the Socialist in the NSDAP name is simply a leftover from when the party used to have a strong Socialist wing which was long gone by 1933. 86.5.158.68 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That's questionable since the "left-wing" economic policies of the Nazis were a continuation of the policies of the German Conservative Party, the Nazis' coalition partner. TFD (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

the use of the term "Nazi" and Nazi symbols in US popular culture (and in other parts of the world)

Can someone add a section on the hyperbolic usage of the term "Nazi" (as in grammar Nazi, soup Nazi, feminazi etc.) and on Nazi symbols just to shock and upset people in popular culture ? It seems to have started in California, when Hell's Angels motorcycle brigades were sporting swastikas and young surfers were wearing a Nazi-themed pendant as the "Surfer’s Cross in the 1960s.
For research purposes, one may consult, these two sources first:

• Chapin, Sasha (Sept. 5, 2017). "First Words - Americans Are Confronting an Alarming Question: Are Many of Our Fellow Citizens ‘Nazis’?", in New York Times.
• Sean, blogger (December 25, 2009). "Fads: The Surfer's Cross", in brainstormbrainstorm.blogspot.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.169.177.144 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done This article is about Nazism, the political ideology, it is not about the general use of the word "Nazi" or Nazi symbols otherwise. Try Nazi (epithet), Nazi analogies, or Nazi symbolism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hitler Interview 1923

Hitler in 1923: "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party." https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

This does not prove anything, in the same thing you cite he says he is not an internationalist and that his "socialism is national". Nazism as a whole is the furthest thing from what most reliable sources would consider "liberalism". Mynamz (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Per policy and guidelines we cannot determine anything by what someone said, we need reliable secondary sources to interpret it. It is though an interesting interview. The interviewer's son said that while populism is liberalism gone sour, right-wing populism is populism gone sour. So ultimately, Nazism was a form of individualism that mythologized German barbarian cooperation. Sort of like a 1930s German Tea Party. TFD (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

The section on totalitarianism contains a lot of editorializing which violates the rules. imo this section needs to be rewritten.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:A0A1:9709:37B5:5E78 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please be specific. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)