Talk:National Democratic Party of Germany/Archive 2

Fascism and the right
'''There is open debate on rather facism is rightwing or not. People like F. A. Hayek, as well as many others state that these parties are state controled collectivists, and therefore leftwing.' -- posted by user:68.57.33.91, moved to talk by Ferkelparade &pi; 08:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)''


 * A comment on this: user:68.57.33.91's edits are an example of WP:POINT and it's only a matter of time before he gets blocked ofr this. The proper place to discuss the issue of whether fascism beomgs to the ight or not is the far-right page, which does, indeed discuss this.  --- Charles Stewart 15:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This should be discussed any where an unsubstantiated claim of far right or far left is mentioned. I don't see any sources quoted when these labels are used. It is the author's point of view. I think on individual articles, people should refrain from using far-left, far-right, right or left, because that is a point of view of a person, or maybe even an opinion of society as a whole. Those terms should be used only on the far-right, far-left, left, right, left-right politics pages, est. And when mentioned on those pages it should be stated as to why they may be considered left-right and by whom, and to ensure nuetrality, any varing body of thought and whom expresses it. Only when everybody related to a topic are represented do you have true nuetrality. I haven't seen an encyclopedia yet that is nuetral in its articles. - user:68.57.33.91


 * I apoligize for changing rightwing on pages, but froem my understanding of the rules, I thought people were allowed to edit content of an article. Do you have to talk about it first, before any edit. I, also thought, you could state NPOV on a page, then talk about it on the talk page. I'm sorry I stated it on the article page, but I was trying to explain the reason I stated NPOV. - user:68.57.33.91

Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism, because it requires supreme devotion to the state as supreme concern and focus of all citizens. The citizen serves the state and promotes the states interest. It is not the state promoting the concern, protection, interests and individual liberties of the citizens. It is anti-communism, because it allows capitalism and personal ownership of property or capital, as long as the companies and individuals do what the state tells them to do with the capital or property, like oscar Schindler. He snuck behind the Nazi's backs to help the Jews, so he wouldn't lose his property. Socialism isn't just the state ownership of capital; it is the state control of all capital. If it were just the state ownership of all capital, then it would be Communism. They hated communists because the communists wanted to have the state own all capital. The National socialists just wanted to control everything, that way they wouldn't be responsible for all the upkeep of capital, they could have the companies and individuals do that. Plus, it is easier to play policeman(or macro-manage)over private owners[national socialism], than to try to fully control(micro-manage) every action of the people running state owned property[communism]. Socialism is: n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or run by a centralized government that controls the economy. state socialism: n. < stAt 'sO[sh]&"liz&m > : 1. An economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed. -neutral nobody Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party" (Neutral nobody 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

Well, then why not just claim Hitler a socialist? Yes, The NSDAP must have been such a leftist party!! By looking at any encyclopedia not right-wing biased, you're most likely to find fascism being classified as a rightist phenomenon. It is without question the term used (by far) mostly classifying fascism. You could also argue about whether a strawberry is red or not (yes it is green sometimes), still not a reason to not write that strawberries are red.

This rubbish makes Anti-Communism left-wing, too (Anti-Communism was an important issue in every facist movement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some kinds of Anti-Communism are, indeed, left wing. Democratic socialists such as Norman Thomas and George Orwell, for example. And Mussolini regarded himself as a man of the Left, always. I agree the discussion about what fascism is should be moved to that page, but will just say that the case for it being 'right wing' is mostly made by people who can not deal with the idea of a mass movement of the Left that is national rather than class-based. °°°° —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.141.83 (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This tired nonsense is only 'controversial' among certain low-information American conservatives, who are invariably informed by the regurgitated ideas of Cleon Skousen and the John Birch Society that they pick up from cable news and talk radio. In the real world it is the universal concensus that fascism is the quintessential ideology among the modern far-right.  If your mind is so averse to nuance that you can't stand simply being on the same side of the political centre as fascists, that is your problem and no one else's.  Your feelings have no place in this discussion.  For the sake of your own dignity, give it up.  Trilobright (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

In the ‘real world’ fascism is radical-nationalism enacted by means of the total state. It draws some of its supporters from more traditional rightist groups, but is not of them. As for the Birchers you mention, their curious conspiratorial fantasies have little to do with anything.

The question for the article is whether this group is fascist or not, not the nature of fascism. Fascism does not have to be racist, or anti-Semitic, or xenophobic, but is more susceptible to these ideas because of its nationalist slant, and the total govt. control it calls for makes it harder to change course once set. The NDP looks to be all that - likely because they are following the Nazi model of fascism, which *was* all that. It has been suggested that the NDP are making just enough democratic noise to avoid breaking German law. A documented and properly sourced statement showing this would improve the article.

It is worth noting that the founder of the British Union of Fascists, Oswald Mosley, left the Labour Party to do it. In fiction, Sinclair Lewis had fascism come to the USA by way of the Democratic Party in his book “It Can’t Happen Here”. There is enough nuance there for anyone. 86.178.33.78 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

National Socialism is LEFT-WING
Right-Wing Socialism? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.181.138.18 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. Just forget the "socialism" part of the name (it’s not a very fitting translation anyway, in my opinion). Cheers ✦  hugarheimur 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that National Socialism, Nazi-ism, is Left Wing, it's hard to call socialists right-wing and nationalism and protectionalism and anti-globalism is substantially present in left-wing parties throughout the globe. I didn't know anything about the NDP before I read this article, but I see in the article they "reject the liberal capitalist system" therefore I believe they are not right wing. I think left-wing nationalism is the best term if we have to use a left-right term. Ideally, I think the NDP and similar groups are outside the left-right spectrum and should not be classified as such. The problem is the left-right spectrum is one-dimensional. Even a two-dimensional spectrum is hard to place the NDP and similar parties on. For example, Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom as discussed in that party's article, has been mapped as the 2nd most centrist in the Netherlands by Andre Krouwel, a researcher, and professor on the subject. Therefore, it takes a 3-dimensional spectrum to map the NDP and parties like it. Unfortunately, this fallacy is so ingrained in Wikipedia it's beyond me to try to fix.--Ldurkin (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * National socialism is left-wing? Please go and read any book on political theory or political ideologies, and stop making a fool of yourself here. As someone from the field of political science, I cannot overstate how wrong you are. Sideshow Bob 06:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Mussolini's writings state that Fascism is left-wing, anyway. He was a former follower of Lenin ( praised by Lenin as 'just the type of young man we need in the movement'), who replaced Marxism with nationalism as a guiding principle.

Hitler greatly admired Mussolini, borrowing his salute, coloured shirts for Party members and economic collectivism. He also appealed to a section of the German Nationalist right who both saw discipline and militarism of the Kaiser's type as the true Germany, and were willing to drop some of their more antique ideas about rank, caste and class in favour of a new idea of the nation. Whether the resulting hybrid of National-Socialism is 'left-wing' has been argued about ever since.

The anti case was often made by orthodox communists, who believe that all varieties of Fascism are capitalist plots, designed to bolster the supposedly-failing capitalist system. Most people outside this increasingly select group, however, are willing to do more critical thinking on the subject. 213.205.251.63 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mussolini began as a Marxist-Leninist. But is Trump still a Democrat? Mussolini's politics evolved over time. To call Mussolini's fascism Marxist-Leninist is to betray your own ignorance of what socialism actually is. The "socialism" of the Nazis and Italian fascists was about as socialist as North Korea is a democratic people's republic. The "socialism" of the Nazis and Italian fascists had nothing at all to do with Marxian socialism, and had more to do with rebranding corporatist capitalism to get gullible naifs who will believe literally anything that a reactionary populist says on board with their BS.


 * Nazism is not leftist. If it were, they would not have purged leftists during the night of the long knives, nor would they have purged leftists in the Holocaust. There is syncretic fascism out there that incorporates certain strains of nominally leftist economic ideas (national bolshevism), but Nazism is not one of these.


 * How about this: Instead of getting your politics from some paleoconservative demagogue on youtube or television, read an actual history book. Read the source material. Actually read what fascists had to say. Actually read what anti-fascists had to say. The authoritarian left certainly has its crimes, failures, and atrocities to answer for, but this chestnut that the most gullible, anti-intellectual end of conservatism keeps trotting out -that leftism is responsible for all the world's ills and that the right couldn't possibly be at fault for fascism, Jim Crow, or whatever else- is patently false.


 * You are what people used to call a "useful idiot." 72.181.99.6 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Left and right both have their faults - when they abandon democracy. Not quite sure what to make of this rant - most commenters here have read widely, in actual history books, and others. Leftists often purge other leftists is one thing that can be learned from these books (and then claim the purged are really secret fascists - look what happened to Trotsky). ‘Corporatist’ was Mussolini’s way of controlling the economy by leaving it nominaly under private ownership, but really controlled by the state. Lefties have claimed it was all a capitalist plot to control the workers, but it was really an attempt by radical-nationalists to control the capitalists, and the workers, in the name of the nation. It is true that it was not done using Marxist theories of exploitation.

Who said Mussolini’s movement was Marxist? I think you misread the above comments in this section. He says he used to be one, but stopped believing in it during the first war. It’s all in his autobiography, so no need to argue. 86.178.33.78 (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would add: ‘leftists’ were not purged as such in the Holocaust. That was aimed at Jews, whatever they thought. 149.254.250.248 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's stop using subjective words about political stances
Even if seems wrong to use the term "far-right" to right wing fanaticism, let's stop using more adjectives to the same topic like ultra-nationalism. Is pointless, facts shouldn't use subjective words et all.

We need to find some logical way to say this. For example, Marine Le Pen from my side is left wing populist nationalism. Most others would tag as "far-right" just because has nationalism sentiments.

Please be clear to use properly nationalism and right-wing, and avoid using "far" or "ultra" subjective words, there is no way to way to measure when far or ultra begin or ends.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NDP seems to me more like Prussian fanaticism like NLP rather a far-right ultra-nationalism mega whatever. Is nationalism, of course they are, is pointless to use some adjective to push forward the meaning of nationalism, "fanaticism" or "populism" should be a better word.

Waltercool (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Position on Islam
Currently, the article contains contradictory statements. In the body it says this;

"During the Gaza War in 2009, the NPD planned a "Holocaust vigil" for Gaza in support of the Palestinians. Charlotte Knobloch, the head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said "joint hatred of everything Jewish is unifying neo-Nazis and Islamists." Knobloch claimed German-Palestinian protestors "unashamedly admitted" that they would vote for the NPD during the next election.[65]"

But then we include it within the category "Opposition to Islam in Germany."

This organisation would appear to have a more nuanced position on Islam than the Alternative for Germany/Pegida who are more alligned to the pro-Israel, Islam-baiting thing in Germany. I don't know whether we should put them in the category "Opposition to Islam", if they are just opposed to the immigration of millions of Turks into Germany, when in other cases, they have stood with the Palestinians, etc. We could debate whether Shia are actually Muslims, but this organisation has also met with Hezbollah in recent times. Ishbiliyya (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelParkTaylor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

National Democratic Party of Germany → The Homeland (Germany) – The party appears to have undergone a name change. Wondering whether other editors can confirm this and whether or not to move the page to this new name, an alternate one, or leave it as it is. Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The German article was already renamed, so I think it is correct. Marval703 (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the English name used somewhere? Wouldn't it be better to use Die Heimat (German political party)? Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Die Heimat would be better than The Homeland. Aficionado538 (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is a specific Wikipedia policy regarding this or not but I think its standard practice on the English Wikipedia to use English language titles. For example, we use the title The Left (Germany), not the German language name, Die Linke. Helper201 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the name changed did happen, though I would too be in favour of renaming the page to "Die Heimat" or "Die Heimat (political party)" instead of an English translation. --JonahF (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (use English). Helper201 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming per WP:COMMON. This is an obvious attempt by the NPD to rebrand itself to something new/less familiar, even if the new name is thinly veiled Nazi concept of Heimat as well. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wait to see if the name change actually sticks - and "The Homeland (German political party)" would be the choice if it does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your ideas. And I think the name change it’s something permanent because, for instance, the party also changed his logo (see the German article). Marval703 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2023 (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.

Dresden bombing
This page is about the NPD, and is inappropriate for the discussion of the various estimates of casualities of the WWII bombing so exhaustively discussed in the talk pages of Bombing of Dresden in World War II. If you dispute the estimates given in that page, the place to discuss it is *there*. If you don't try to argue there, or fail to win your arguments, don't cry when your edits here are reverted without argument (all arguments which have appeared here have been raised there). --- Charles Stewart 14:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of online sources which might help people who do not trust a wikipedia article:
 * The Bombing of Dresden in 1945:Falsification of statistics, by Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, a detailed critique of the statistics used in the Bombing of Dresden.
 * Historical Analysis of the 14-15 February 1945 Bombings of Dresden (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm) Prepared by USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air University. Section: The Immediate Consequences of the Dresden Bombings on the Physical Structure and Populace of the City. backup site. Paragraph 29. The comparisons use data extracted from "Fire Raids on German Cities", United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Physical Damage Division, January 1945. Supporting Document No. 34.


 * The first is a devastating critique of David Irving's Dresden numbers (typically 135K), which were used against him in his British libel court case Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat. The second is interesting because using statistical analysis the number of dead mentioned by modern authoritative historians fits within the range of %ages of dead against populations in other German cities in which fire-storms were generated.


 * Two authoritative books, the first in German
 * Götz Bergander, Dresden im Luftkrieg: :Vorgeschichte-Zerstörung-Folgen (Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, Munich, 1977)
 * Taylor, Frederick. Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945. By Frederick Taylor;
 * US review, Pub (NY): HarperCollins, ISBN 0060006765.
 * [http://www.bloomsbury.com/BookCatalog/ProductItem.asp?S=&isbn=0747570787 UK
 * Appenix B Counting the Dead. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I have deleted the following line in this article:

'''"Later the same year the party used the slogan "Marx statt Hartz" (Marx instead of Hartz), a phrasing suggestive of sympathy for socialist ideas." '''

The above statement is wildly speculative and without any merit. It is also suggestive of the NPD's support for Marxist type Socialism (ie. Communism ) which is highly unlikely if not laughable.

Peter Marx is the NPD's parliamentary manager in Saxony. The slogan "Marx statt Hartz" ( Marx instead of Hartz ) is in all probability a reference to Peter Marx, and to either Peter Hartz, who is the personnel director of Volkswagon, or to the set of unpopular new labor laws known as the Hartz Concept ( Hartz I-IV ) which Volkswagon's Peter Hartz helped pushed through in Germany. --Joanneva 5 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Dispute Section
I have marked two statements as being dubious as relating to certain facts being in question. It appears that for some portions of this article, the investigative process went no further than to relate data from certain web articles which were also in error.

1) The NPD person who used the phrase "holocaust of bombs" was not Holger Apfel but rather Jürgen Gansel. This is clearly designated in the minutes and actual speech text from the Sächsischer Landtag (Saxony Parliment) in document 4_PlPr_8_201_1_1_.pdf. I do not know if it would be a violation to upload the document therefore I am not but I do have a copy in my posession.

2) The original writer of this article also claims “He went on to call the Social Democratic leader of the parliament, Cornelius Weiss, "an old Jew",

Again using the same document as recorded by the Sächsischer Landtag and the same 4_PlPr_8_201_1_1_.pdf file where the complete comments of Jürgen Gansel's reference to a 'holocaust of bombs" (not Holger Apfel ) were recorded, I find that nowhere does he refer to Cornelius Weiss, as "an old Jew" nor did Holger Apfel for that matter.

--Joanneva 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

The document I am referring to can be located by visiting the web site of the Sächsischer Landtag here

The document is:

AktDeb NPD PlPr 4/8 21.01.2005 S.460

PlPr 4/8 S. 462 463

--Joanneva 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Irredentism VS. Pan-Germanism
In order for "Pan-Germanism" to occur, the areas that they are going into have to be German speaking. In order for "Irredentism" to occur it requires it to have a historical connection in which these territories do. The former Kingdom of Prussia which is now in Poland and Russia and is filled with those ethnic groups (Not Germans) So giving this party the name Pan-Germanism just because they say they want to reclaim land with immigration (some of it has been German since the Holy Roman empire era up until WWII when they were ethnically cleansed by the Russians) is demonizing to say the least. For those doubting Germans ever has a presence in the area I'm going to post maps to prove otherwise.- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Acprussiamap2.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/German_Empire%2C_Wilhelminian_third_version.svg/800px-German_Empire%2C_Wilhelminian_third_version.svg.png
 * Holy Roman Empire: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Holy_Roman_Empire_ca.1600.svg/482px-Holy_Roman_Empire_ca.1600.svg.png
 * Brandenburg Prussia:
 * German Empire:
 * Ethnic Groups in German Empire:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Sprachen_Deutsches_Reich_1900.png/800px-Sprachen_Deutsches_Reich_1900.png -- Wolvian93

Party name
Why is it that, in sections before the name change, is the party still referred to as "The Homeland" when it was still the "National Democratic Party" at the time? 20Hydrax04 (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)