Talk:Führerprinzip/Archive 1

from possible copyright infringements

 * Fuhrerprinzip. After Ed created this as a stub I turned it into a small article and added some more external links. Now an anon user (i think) expanded the article. But I clearly remember many of the sentences used in the article from one of the external links I listed. I don't remember which one, I will check it and I will update. Now the article is a mixture of possible copyright-infringement and original work. Optim 14:47, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Just revert to the non-violating version. Pages that were previously alright are not deleted. Angela. 22:31, Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Do you want to apend to the second sentence of the introduction "and other fascistic regimes and movements" - many of the regimes mentioned in the Fascism group of pages make mention of this.

Milosevic?
A subsection "comparisons with other doctrines" was previously in the article, containing:


 * "In 1999, United Kingdom's Prime Minister Tony Blair likened the Serbian régime of Slobodan Milošević to Hitler's Germany and his Führerprinzip. "

If we included in that list each time someone compared a regime or whatever to nazism & fascism... It perfectly belongs in Milosevic article though. Tazmaniacs 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Original research
Much of the text on the origin of the fuhrerprinzip smells like original research. Some of the sources referenced say nothing of what the article says. For instance, if one want to show that "the Will to Power" was influential on the fuhrerprinzip, you have to reference a work which says that the book was influential on the fuhrerprinzip, you can not reference "the Will to Power" itself, and then just make a claim that it influenced the fuhrerprinzip.

I am leaning toward removing most of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.7.177 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 23:34:15 2006-12-14


 * Anon, you are invited to research the sources yourself, either supporting or contradicting the current article text. There is nothing in WP:NOR about your smell test. patsw 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The anon is actually right. To make of Hegel the inventor, or even a "source," of the Führerprinzip because of his understanding of the state is, at best, a gross misunderstanding, at worst, a deliberate manipulation. Same goes for Nietzsche, who, by the way, has never written such a book as "The Will to Power. This so-called book was assembled by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Peter Gast under more than suspicious circumnstances. The Nazi did "invent" the concept of Führerprinzip. Another thing is that they claim Hegel, Nietzsche, Wagner or all the German philosophers as members of their Volk, in the same way that Heidegger rejected Spinoza as a "foreign body in philosophy." This needs work, and the use of Primary sources concerning such matters is OR. I've put a "disputed" tag. Tazmaniacs 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just move the part:


 * There were essentially three sources for the Führerprinzip, the first being the Hegelian idea of the State. This was devised during the Napoleonic wars by the German philosopher Hegel and is best expressed by the summary of it put forward by Giovanni Gentile, the Italian philosopher and ideologist of Fascism. He said 'nothing above the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State.'


 * The second source was the Superman (Übermensch) concept put forward by the German philosopher Nietzsche. Nietzsche's ideas were grossly distorted both by the Nazis and by Nietzsche's own sister, an enthusiastic Pan-German.

It is false. Tazmaniacs 05:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I add that the comment according to which (I paraphrase) 'Hegel's philosophy is best expressed by Giovanni Gentile' is not only ridiculous, but worse than that? Tazmaniacs 06:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous bio info on Hermann Graf Keyserling
Article contains some biographical information on Hermann Graf Keyserling which would be appropriate in the main article on him but is not appropriate here. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this material belongs on the Keyserling page. -chris Thank you for the changes, redthunder. Much improved. -chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.186.72 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "One of Keyserling's central claims was that certain 'gifted individuals' were 'born to rule' on the basis of Social Darwinism." Exactly where did Keyserling make that statement?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.57.62 (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

debunking public perceptions
There is lot's of myth around the "Führerprinzip" and they need to be debunked and explained. I'm missing the term "delegation" in the article. And also how decisions were made. Show trials are a bad source for this I think. --41.18.57.62 (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

übersetzung
the german article has quite a bit of material not here; the complaints above about OR, etc. would be addressed by translating that and a general reworking, which I may getto later. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Führerprinzip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.shoaheducation.com/befehl.html
 * Added tag to http://www.shoaheducation.com/befehl.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930231654/http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/germany/lectures/29nazipolitics.html to http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/germany/lectures/29nazipolitics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the dead links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Nuremberg Trials"
"During the post-war Nuremberg Trials, Nazi "war criminals" used the Führerprinzip concept to argue that they were not guilty of war crimes by claiming that they were only following orders."
 * No matter how often this garbage statement gets repeated, it simply isn't true as a general statement, which one can easily see once one goes through their defense statements during the trial. Generally they've accepted FULL responsibility for what they were doing and ordering, but not for claims they didn't have any knowledge of or were outright false.--41.145.155.107 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the above statement by an IP editor is completely false. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When your society is organized by Fuhrerprinzip and actively contemptuous of the rule of law, abuses become inevitable, and they will be slid under the rug because the underlings you have put into position of fuhrer over other by definition can't be held to account, the atrocities they ordered are above any rule of law so of course they will not be reported. So there's no way to really discipline atrocities, which obviously causes them to multiply. A leader is responsible for the atrocities his underling commits by definition when they allow their society to be run in this manner. You can only escape responsibility if you have a well defined system of law that is seriously enforced and the people who commit the atrocities are capable of being punished according to rule of law. If you give your underlings carte blanche and scream at their underlings to just shut up and do whatever they say because the fuhrer is always right and so the law doesn't really matter, then fuck off, how the fuck did you think this would turn out? You were so obsessed with cutting through red tape you gave madmen carte blanche and trained their underlings into obsequious silence, you 100% have full responsibility for the things your underlings did given the system you set up which was designed in a way inherently in which they couldn't be held accountable.


 * This principle was literally implemented all throughout society, the German-American Bund even implemented before it was banned. They had a fuhrer that literally embezzled from them and they refused to prosecute him because they operated according to fuhrerprinzip, and so the embezzlement was legal by definition as it was his will. Think of such absurd logic! Now implement that on a mass scale and use it as your organizing principle for waging total war, it is clear and obvious that blood will flow, this was perceivable, and you are responsible for what they did absolutely. You did not care and thought that it was more important that leaders hands be unrestrained than that the law be upheld, you are fully responsible for the inevitable results that sort of mentality bred. I don't care if nobody told you about your underlings actions because they were too terrified of questioning their fuhrer, you should not have terrified them all into silence as you did.2601:140:9500:7F00:9181:36D5:482:73B7 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)