Talk:National Socialist Program

Translation of point 24
According to Alfred Knopf's translation of A History of National Socialism by Konrad Heiden (1935), the final sentence of point 24 is "the good of the state before the good of the individual" (A History of National Socialism, page 17). Because this translation was made in a published scholarly study of Nazism rather than a website, and because its date of publication (1935) was closer to the writing of the 25-point program, I believe that the translation provided by Knopf is the most accurate we have so far. -- Nikodemos 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a monkey's uncle
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! I can't believe that my work here on this article has survived. Usually it gets deleted and I can't believe that a majority of my effort in learning about this element has remained part of the article. I'm amazed and floored. Wow. Usually this stuff gets swept under the rug and disappears because people don't like the information. But I am happy to see it still up. Wow. WHEELER (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Yes. Good on you. Wythy (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "trust" in point #13
Point #13 demands nationalization of "trusts". The wiki-link for "trusts" refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusts (personal trust). Shouldn't it point to either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(monopoly) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_company ? Either or both of those meanings of the word "trust" is surely closer to the original intended meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROPWA (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

An error
"Simultaneously, however, he did not publicly support it; in his political biography, Mein Kampf (1925, 1926), Hitler only mentions it as “the so-called program of the movement”."

This is incorrect. It's mentioned several times and not just as "the so-called program", for example, in chapter 8 in part1. As well as chapter 5 & chapter 8 in part2. The reason he thought the program (or a political program in general) should never be changed is laid out in the book as well. Any search in the book will confirm this. Going to cut it.

90.227.183.88 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there may be confusion between when Hitler writes about the "25 theses" and the program of the party. The sources I have read agree with Henry Ashby Turner's view about how Hitler viewed the 25 points, the he did not publicly support it.  Hence there is nothing in Mein Kampf about communalizing department stores, for example.  If you find a secondary source that provides a different interpretation then we could consider it.  TFD (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It said that "in his political biography, Mein Kampf (1925, 1926), Hitler only mentions it as “the so-called program of the movement”." and this can easily be disproven by simply looking in said book. No other source is needed. And what Mein Kampf say or don't say about department stores is completely irrelevant too, as it has nothing to with this claim by Turner.. It's simply wrong and easily proven so.

90.227.183.88 (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My reading of chapter 8 in Mein Kampf shows that Turner was right. You may disagree, but it is not a matter of simply reading it.  You need a source that agrees with your reading.  TFD (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. So if someone were to claim that in a whole book, lets say the Bible - something is never mentioned. Say "Moses is never mentioned in the Bible" and I can simply open said book and see that no, Moses is indeed mentioned, then that's not good enough? Perhaps one should rather ask - what source does this Turner use, because it sure as hell isn't the book he's talking about.

Just what the hell is this nonsense? Is this some sort of political crap? The book itself IS a source (and a pretty relevant one) and I even gave chapters. Here's a direct quote from chapter5, part2: "That is why the programme of the new movement was condensed into a few fundamental postulates, twenty-five in all." It doesn't matter one bit what some Turner says about a book, when that can be disproven by looking in said book. 90.227.183.88 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Turner does not say the 25 points programme was never mentioned, in fact the text sourced to his book that you question indeed says that it was mentioned. TFD (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, a strawman argument too.. Turner says that "it is only mentioned as the so-called program of the movement". It can be shown, with the same book, that such a claim is plain wrong. But obviously, this whole discussion is pointless. For some reason (I guess some weird political reason) you don't give one sh-t about the facts. 90.227.183.88 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WP:RSN. I would point out that policy says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." (See WP:PRIMARY.) It may be that your reading of Hitler is correct and Turner was wrong. However you need to provide a secondary source that supports your reading. TFD (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While it's right that we go with secondary sources rather than our own reading of the primary source, isn't the problem here that Turner's assessment is slightly being misrepresented in the text which appears to be sourced to it? He does not say "[Hitler] did not publicly support" the programme – indeed, he says that Hitler "proclaim[ed] the correctness of the program as a whole". Equally, Turner does not say that Hitler's only mention of the programme is when he refers to it as the "so-called program". If we lose the first claim about lack of public support – or at least find another source for it – and drop the word "only", doesn't everything fall into place?  N-HH   talk / edits  13:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * N-HH is correct. The text referred to Turner does not appear there.  So there is no need to refute it, but only to correct it.  What Turner really said was "He conspicuously omitted its text from Mein Kampf where he alluded to it disparagingly as 'the so-called program of the movement'" (no claim that this mention was the only one).  Turner is referring to Chapter 1 of Volume II, where it can be seen that "disparaging" is a fair description:
 * One must try to recall the miserable jumble of opinions that used to be arrayed side by side to form the usual Party Programme, as it was called, and one must remember how these opinions used to be brushed up or dressed in a new form from time to time. If we would properly understand these programmatic monstrosities we must carefully investigate the motives which inspired the average bourgeois ‘programme committee’. (page 290 of the Manheim 1939 translation)
 * Then he goes on for more than a page poo-pooing the committees who developed the program, calling them things like "the party astrologists and horoscope readers, the so-called ‘experienced men’ and ‘experts’". Zerotalk 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be pleased if one of you would re-write it. TFD (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had a go. We could maybe bring in more of Turner's analysis. Also I removed the following para because the first half purports to represent Turner's views, but sources them to this page, which does not mention Turner and is probably not an ideal source for anything anyway. The second part was supposedly sourced to Turner but was very confusingly written and, with snippet view only, I can't check it. I might ordinarily take the material on trust and just copyedit it, but given the mess all round here, I thought it safer to remove it outright.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, the oh-so-important secondary source wasn't even correctly cited.. it's proponent didn't even bother about that. How very scientific, what great research. And I still can't wrap my head around how a secondary sources interpretation of a clear text could ever be more important or clear than said text. It's like saying that we can't read Moby Dick to know the story of the book, no we can't cite it directly either.

No no, we have to get another guy to read it for us and come up with an "interpretation" that pretty much contradicts the book! The anti-intellectualism and middle-finger-salute to everything that even resembles actual research and scientific method is mind-blowing. But then, maybe that's just me - maybe we who actually worked with research, as well as all such methods, are obsolete in these post-fact (or as some like to call it 'post-modern') times.

Then, I'm not surprised as this obviously is all about politics. Hitler cannot have been a socialist in any way whatsoever, no, he was a "agent of the burgeois capitalists" through and through. That's the way it must be, becaust that's the hobby horse of the modern left.

Wikipedia has just lost my annual donations. I'm never going to support some soapbox that gives facts and science the toss whenever the subject turns slightly controversial. Be proud of yourself, TFD. 90.227.183.88 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Policy says we cannot interpret primary sources, see "No original research". If you want to change that policy then you should discuss it there.  I do not believe Hitler was an "agent of the bourgeois capitalists" and this article does not say he was.  But neither do I believe that politicians who are not agents of the capitalists must therefore be socialists.  I imagine you do not either, because you would not describe yourself as falling into one of those two categories.  TFD (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire program
The section National_Socialist_Program contains the entire program. I don't believe that it's necessary, as the ext links section provides access to the program. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's kind of the main reason to come to the page. Hppavilion1 (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ
I believe that "GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ" is more properly translated as "Common good before self-interest" or "Common good comes before self", rather than either "The good of the community before the good of the individual" („Das Wohl der Gemeinschaft vor dem Wohl des Einzelnen“) or " "The good of the state before the good of the individual" („Das Wohl des Staates vor dem Wohl des Einzelnen“). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should replace it with the translation in The Third Reich Sourcebook (2013): "The common interest over self interest" (p.14). Translation is always difficult because words have connotations familiar to native speakers. Also, it's not part of s. 24 but is a heading for s.25. TFD (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wondered about that. It makes more sense that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)