Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 1

Early discussion
I'm wondering about the usefulness of sticking this under "NSDAP". What was the reasoning behind this? In English, they are far, far, far, far more often referred to as the "Nazi Party". I'd argue that one should put text on a page where it's likeliest to be linked to by accident. By that I mean "Anyone writing an article in which they reference the Nazis without knowing which article has the explanation of them is going to go for Nazi Party or Nazi, not NSDAP ". In other words, this article is never going to be referenced as is, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Good text, though. -- Paul Drye

Well, we can just add a redirect for Nazi Party. The power of Wiki is not paper. I agree it should be Nazi Party, not least because it wasn't the NSDAP at its foundation. The text can be expanded too. David Parker

I've done much of the heavy-lifting on moving this and similar titles around so that the English name is the title of the article and not the German acronym. Gesh... does anyone read our naming conventions before contributing to this scale anymore? Both acronyms and non-English titles are inferior to spelt-out English titles unless the acronym or non-English title is the most widely used, known and least ambiguous term. NSDAP is a double strike-out. --maveric149

Obsolete Naming Discussion
(Is there really no discussion on this yet? Sorry, I'm just discovered this site and am not familiar with it yet.)

I just changed "are called Nazis" to a more clumsy wording, which may even sound as if I had any sympathies towards Nazis.

My point was that a serious encyclopedia should put more weight on official names. I therefore would advocate swapping the main entry from "Nazi Party" to "NSDAP". Sebastian


 * Yes, absolutely, an encylopedia shouldn't adopt idiomatic names for entities that had proper legal names.


 * Also, there are modern movements that call themselves 'Nazi Party' and those ought to be given space, as they are current (if obscure and despised). An example is the   <-- probably not the best example, as it has a doctrine rather than a hate rant at its core - most Nazi Party outfits are just hate groups.


 * "I hate Illinois Nazis" - the Blues Brothers


 * Good point. So we should have one entity "Nazi", reading something like:


 * Abbreviation for national socialist. Originally a mocking abbreviation, it became widely used by opponents as well as some groups with similar idiologies.


 * However, I would rather not include the link. This would be promoting them. Leaving it out is no censorship. Anyone can find it by searching the web.
 * Sebastian 20:02 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * [regarding the link:] I strongly disagree. We should include links to modern nazi parties' homepages -- I haven't looked at the link in question, but some links should be included.  The wikipedia exists to store information, not promote anything, including nazism and anti-nazism. Tokerboy


 * Well, maybe. It should also depend on how important they are. Snatching a catchy URL alone should not be an admission ticket to wikipedia. Sebastian 07:30 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I just realized that it was Maveric149 who moved NSDAP to Nazi Party. His reason was: ''NSDAP is a German acronym!!! This is the English wikipedia folks.''

I disagree. Do we really have a policy not to include foreign acronyms? Or should we? If we chose to include an article on DAX, the German stock index, would we have to call it "GSX"? And if acronyms, why not names? Would you list Hans Blix as "John Blix"? Where would you draw the border? I don't think this would make sense. But I see that 7 months later you agreed to similar arguments in http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:Frei, so I may be preaching to the converted.

Sebastian 07:52 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Goodness gracious! I don't see why this is so difficult; when writing in language X about subject Y, we should use the form of the name for subject Y most often used and recognized in serious writing in language X. Note that language X is the language you are writing in; the form of subject Y's name most often used in language X may or may not be the same as the form of subject Y's name used in some language Z which is or was spoken by subject Y or persons close to subject Y. Hans Blix auf Deutsch is best known as Hans Blix in English; DAX auf Deutsch is best known as DAX in English; NDSAP auf Deutsch is best known as the Nazi Party in English (unless someone can show otherwise?) --Brion 10:44 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. We have a very clear naming convention on this. Sebastian please read the naming conventions that would be violated by this move: Naming conventions (common names), Naming conventions (anglicization) and Naming conventions (acronyms). --mav


 * I'd like to add that a redirect from NSDAP to Nazi Party would of course remain in place. Also, while Nazi Party is the more common form in English, the same is not true in the case of GSX vs. DAX. --Eloquence 11:09 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure that "Nazi" is a mocking abbreviation? I thought it was simply an abbreviation of the German pronounciation of the first part of the adjective "national socialist".

I think that people find the general term 'NAZI' sinister without understanding what it means. Obviously, when we say 'Nazi' we are referring to an adherant of the political creed of National Socialism, so a Nazi is a National Socialist.

There, that's much less 'sinister sounding' isen't it?

Regards,

Louise

When spoken in German, the first portion of the word "National" is pronounced 'nazi'.

-- Harald

Size of Nazi emblem
Does the swastika emblem have to be quite so large? Why not reduce it in size by about a third?


 * emblem large? It's not that big ... it's only 200 x 200 Pixels
 * reduce it a third? I'm not sure if it show up well (@least not here) ... it's already kinda small ... but others display may vary on that ...
 * I take it that you uare talkin about the top one ... the bottom one is 160 x 160 Pixels
 * Sincerely, reddi

Page Title
Since this is a page specifically about the party, can we move it to National Socialist German Workers Party, or what not? john 05:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * good idea Sam Spade 19:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

DAP party organization
Even though the beginning part of this article mentions a few of the first members, it isn't really clear on their categorization. Also, a lot of literature makes Anton Drexler the first head of the DAP, and he's mentioned more predominantly at the top of the article as it is now. But information I've come across places top position squarely on Karl Harrer;

"Organizational Comitte: (Sept 16, 1919 to february 20, 1920):

1: Karl Harrer, founder and President. 2: Anton Drexler, co-founder and Vice-President. 3: Gottfried Feder, Economic Affairs Specialist. 4: Dietrich Eckart, Ideological formation of the Party. 5: Hermann Esser, Relations of the Party 6: Emil Maurice, security 7: Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Secretary.

After the reconstitution of the Party in 1925 A. Hitler received the member number '1'"

No Snarky Barks
(a variant of fascism under a misleading name)

What is this supposed to insinuate? Fascism is a variant of socialism. The Fascist Party in Italy grew out of socialism; Benito Mussolini's political career started as a socialist; only later did he style himself a fascist. The Nazi Party was founded by socialists. Both parties, Nazis and the Italian Fascists, were understood to be working implementations of socialism by their contemporaries. The fact that the outcome of each of these socialist parties coming to power led to negative results should not be glossed over by conveniently mischaracterizing them as non-socialist. That the experiment in socialism failed in the two aforementioned instances does not grant one the right to ignore empirical evidence in favor of personal preferences. MSTCrow 14:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Here we go again. Yes, Fascism started against a background of the socialist movements starting at that time, and the NSDAP even appropriated the term in their name. However, in practice, and by their own statements, both the Italian Fascist movement, and Hitler's Nazi movement, were parties of the political right. We have recently spent several months debating this, and can quote primary sources in evidence that this was the case. Oddly enough, what both did practice, among other things like killing millions of people, was corporatism; again, evidence for this assertion is easy to provide from primary sources. -- The Anome 14:51, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nazi Germany did kill approximately 8 million people, but the USSR killed at least 80 million, so I'm not sure how the body count is relevant here, unless you're trying to insinuate that fascism is somehow more desirable that socialism. It also isn't of much importance whether the Nazis claimed to be on the so-called right or left, as actions speak louder than words, and in actions, Nazism was most certainly socialist syndicalism.
 * MSTCrow 18:38, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've edited the entry on the topic page in an attempt to present a more balanced survery of viewpoints regarding the issue of Nazi socialism, while removing any wording that posits a POV (the Nazis were NOT socialists, etc). There are arguments and many proponents on either side, and to sweep one or the other aside as non-existent or inconsequential is biased, unscientific, and not in the general spirit of the Wikipedia.
 * MSTCrow 15:40, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

No Snarky Barks
The view that the NASDAP were socialists is scarcely taken more seriosuly than those of holocaust deniers or The Flat Earth Society. It is enough to warrent mention that some people hold this view, but we certainly shouldn't have sentences like, "many people today as well as the past have pointed out that their policies were indeed socialist in nature."

The opinion that the NASDAP weren't fascists is even less widely held which is why I removed sentence reading, "To call the NDSAP fascist is common but misleading."

I don't think this article is really the place for such comments at all, they would be more at home in the article on Nazism than one on the Nazi Party.

Rallies
I think this article is incomplete without discussion of NSDAP rallies. 119 02:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Post World War II Nazi Party
There are big discrepancies between what is written here about the NPD and what's written on the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) page. According to the former, it has been forbidden, according to the latter, it hasn't. Which version is true? Sebastian 09:05, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


 * I think the article on Wiki is true. The source I had was pretty old and might have spoken of an initial disbandment.  Article should be changed to reflect the current status of the DAP -Husnock 4 March 2005

Apostrophe
I don't want to move such a page as this without at least bringing it up on the talk page (and I can't actually, because the place I want to move it to has an edit history), but shouldn't this be at "National Socialist German Workers' Party"? It's the Party which belongs to National Socialist German Workers (plural), surely? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 04:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think thats a valid reason to move the page. The full German title of the NSDAP doesnt have an apostrophe and very few english translations use it either. -Husnock 6Mar05


 * Well no of course the German title doesn't have an apostrophe. I think you've misunderstood my point. Ho hum. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 07:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And I would dispute that very few English translations use it. I have seen it often. Those that don't use it, I suspect, do so not because they have thought about it but because, like many people, they don't understand how to use the possessive apostrophe.
 * "Mary is the cat's friend." = "Mary is the friend of the cat." (singular)
 * "Mary is the cats' friend." = "Mary is the friend of the cats." (plural)
 * "Mary is the cats friend." = nonsense
 * Workers is a noun, not an adjective. It's not the "Party which is Workers" in the way that it's the "Party which is National Socialist". It's the "Party of the Workers". I just checked Britannica and they use an apostrophe. They're not alone. I'm not some sort of grammar pedant by the way, but we ought to be able to get the title of the article right. Can anyone back me up here? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 08:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the first line of the article uses an apostrophe. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 08:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Trilobite, please tone down the sarcasm of your replies and we dont need a grammer lesson. Husnock has done FAR more for this article than you have will. You should not attack him so as he was just answering your question. -User:A Concerned Citizen


 * Sorry Husnock, I don't see any sarcasm in what I wrote, but if you did then I sincerely apologise. I wasn't attacking you, questioning your undoubtedly positive contributions to the article, or suggesting that I could do a better job. I was merely suggesting that you could have misunderstood my point. The whole thing was a constructive suggestion anyway, not an attack. I outlined some grammatical rules as I see them to illustrate why I thought the article needed an apostrophe in its title. Please assume good faith. I am not attacking anyone. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 09:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its always nice to have a fan club, but whoever that was did not post on behalf of me. I think you should mention the syntax info on the move page that the other user has started. Its a decent point. -Husnock 6Mar05

Requested move
National Socialist German Workers Party → Nazi Party -- Please see Naming conventions (common names). Can there be any doubt that Nazi Party is by far the more common name?--Pharos 07:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Naming conventions (common names) is not just something for this article.  Is Soviet Union "wrong"? No, because most people will search for the abbreviated name.  Remember, Wiki is not paper, and this situation is rather different from a printed reference work that is not typically accessed through a google search.  The full title "National Socialist German Workers Party" should of course be given in the first sentence of the article; indeed it should remain its very first words.  As to "Nazi Party" being POV, then I suppose Nazism and Neo-Nazism are also POV, as well as indeed the many uses of "Nazi" in this very article.  BTW, I really think it would be better to shift discussion to the 'comments' section.--Pharos 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Philip Baird Shearer 00:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Use common name. Jonathunder 00:20, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * 4) Support! At the moment, I guess there has existed one and only one party in the world that is commonly thought of as the Nazi Party. I don't understand, and I can't understand, why this article should be given another name. Ruhrjung 23:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the decision section below instead of voting

Oppose
Please see the decision section below instead of voting
 * 1) Oppose. While Nazi Party may be used commonly, NSDAP was its formal title and so is more suitable in a reference work. 119 20:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *That doesn't matter. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy. -- brian0918    12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the full name of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Articles should not be listed by abbrviation.  In addition, every professional text I have seen written regarding Third Reich history (I am a World War II historian) usually indexes "Nazi" as "See: National Socialist German Workers Party".  This is the full academic title of the political party and should remain so in this article. -Husnock 6Mar05
 * 4) Oppose.NSGWP is the official name of the German Party,there are many Nazis.
 * 5) *Incorrect. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy.  There are plenty of pages that are abbreviated for the reason that the abbreviation is the more commonly used name.  -- brian0918    12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Note: This page has been renamed back and forward at least twice in the last two years, as can be seen from the above chapter, which I called - optimistically - "". (I don't know when it was renamed to the current title - I don't see this in the page history.) Sebastian 21:08, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
 * 7) *Noting that this has occurred before is not a reason for opposition. -- brian0918   12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose due to the fact that while common name is good, the name is, more or less, POV. It'd be better if the article remains here -- there's already a redirect in place. Penwhale 21:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) *That doesn't matter. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy. -- brian0918    12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Showing up only because someone with whom I frequently edit Nazi-related articles expressed concern that this is at the risk of being hijacked by abbreviation freaks.  We don't title the Republican Party in the United States by its familiar moniker "GOP", or the Conservative Party in the UK by the familiar nickname "Tories" (though we do have an article on the historical phenomenon of the Tory).  Likewise, NSDAP...the more familiar associative abbreviation inside Germany at the time contemporaneous to the Third Reich...redirects. Typically, the M.O. around here is eschewing abbreviation or acronyms for organizations (like I said many times previous about CIA, FAO, etc.). &mdash;ExplorerCDT 05:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) *"Republican Party" is currently more common than "GOP". The currently common title in the English language is the preferred title, according to policy. -- brian0918    12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose see Husnock Trödel| talk  01:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Don't let the common names policy get in the way of accuracy. Moreover, what's common in one corner of the world may be less common somewhere else (hence the danger that common names can be seen as POV); the official name is unaffected by such considerations. --MarkSweep 23:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) *The currently common title in the English language is the preferred title, according to policy (as opposed to your personal wishes). -- brian0918   12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Nazi is abbreviation. Should not be using abbreviations for an article title -User:ConcernedCitizen March 11, 2005
 * 16) *Incorrect. The currently common' title is the preferred title, according to policy (as opposed to your personal belief). There are plenty of articles which have abbreviated titles because the abbreviations are the more common names. -- brian0918    12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Leave the article where it is and dont fix whats not broken
 * 18) *That isn't a reason. -- brian0918   12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Under Nazi party I'd expect a list of all nazi parteis, not just one. There were other parties like that back in the '20s, '30s and '40s, and there are others now. -- AlexR 08:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) *That doesn't matter. The currently common title is the preferred title, according to policy.  When anyone talks about "the Nazi Party" in the English language, it is obvious to any layman that they're talking about the party in Germany in the 30s and 40s, in the same way that "the Holocaust" is an article on the genocide during WWII, as opposed to a list events called "____ Holocaust".  Of course, at the top of Nazi Party would be a link to a disambig page where articles on other Nazi Parties are listed.  This is all pretty standard, and in accordance with policy.  -- brian0918    12:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments
In an encyclopedia I would expect NSDAP. 119
 * Again, please read Naming conventions (common names). The goal of titles in Wikipedia is, in large part, for the article to be most easily found from a search.  This includes from search engines like google, which of course do not register redirects.--Pharos 08:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you get down to it, Nazi is actually an abbreviation. We went through this until the cows came home with Schutzstaffel vs. SS. I can see you're point, though. I suggest starting a disucssion on the "rename page". I dont know the exact link, but is over on the SS link. -Husnock 6Mar05
 * I've put it up on Requested moves now, as you should see from the template at the top of this page.--Pharos 08:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont see the move notice on the main Move page. It should be put in ther alert section and then discussed here, if Im reading the page right. -Husnock


 * Yes, apparently someone accidentally deleted it. I've readded it now.--Pharos 20:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've created the following headers because I can see this being a quite even debate. I've taken the liberty of adding your vote, Pharos - hope you don't mind. I'm abstaining for now. violet/riga (t) 20:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the formatting, Violet; yes, that is my vote. Can I request that the votes remain in the appropriate 'support' and 'oppose' sections but 119 and Husnock move their comments down to this section to make discussion and response easier? Thanks.--Pharos 21:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed the section heading to "Requested move" because that is the name under which these moves are often titled on other pages linked to WP:RM and as this section is quite a way down it will be more quickly found by lurkers from RM. Philip Baird Shearer 00:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not about abbreviations, it's about common names, because information on Wikipedia should be as accessible as possible from search engines. It would be ridiculous to put Republican Party (United States) at GOP, but it is also a little ridiculous to use a title that not one in a hundred English speakers can name over a common name that virtually all can.--Pharos 05:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you grossly underestimate English speakers. The information is still accessible, albeit by redirects.  Which in this case work admirably.  As for your comments above enquiring as to why Nazism over "National Socialism"...the disambiguation page for National Socialism proves that need admirably. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A more spurious argument I don't think I've ever seen. Either we should move Nazism to National Socialism or this page to Nazi. Your argument is either that you should use the official name or that you should use the common name. Either way, they ought to be consistent. Having said that, my vote is for "don't care". It's of absolutely no consequence what the actual title is, so long as the other one redirects. Dr Zen 00:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course Dr Zen is right about consistency. But naming does matter because this is a fine and informative article that is unfortunately unlikely to be found from a google search, when the great majority of people would simply type "Nazi Party" into the search box.--Pharos 00:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And if they did, the redirect would take them here. -Husnock 11 March 2005
 * No it wouldn't; redirects only work inside Wikipedia. A redirect page is never going to have a high google ranking.  To make the page easily findable from a search engine, the actual article would have to be at the common name.--Pharos 10:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decision
After a week of voting the decision has been to leave this article name as National Socialist German Workers Party. violet/riga (t) 18:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously wrong. It doesn't matter what it used to be called (duct tape used to be called duck tape), or what it was formally called, or what it's proper name was (P.G.T. Beauregard's full name is Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard, but nobody called him that), or anythign else.  The only thing Wikipedia cares about is how common the name is currently . "Nazi Party" is orders of magnitude more common in usage than "National Socialist German Workers Party" or an acronym.  Therefore, this article should be at Nazi Party.  It's as simple as that.  -- brian0918    03:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose the argument can be made, but consensus is even more important, and if there was a consensus, it was to keep it where it is. I would add that, while in some contexts, it is more normal to talk about the "Nazi Party," in more formal contexts "NSDAP" or "National Socialists" or whatever is the more common usage. john k 03:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Policy overrides whatever "consensus" there may be, especially when nearly all of the opposers are claiming reasons which go against policy. (NOTE: this was a vote, not an attempt to reach consensus) Also, we're talking about "common" in normal contexts, not in formal ones. We're not trying to help WWII scholars learn from our pages, only the layman, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that "Nazi Party" is the usage among 99.9% of laymen.  -- brian0918    12:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In the first place, "consensus" is a policy. For instance, "there has to be consensus to move an article," is generally considered to be a policy.  Who is to judge whether an article title is a violation of policy unless a consensus finds it to be so?  Who has made you the arbiter of wikipedia policy?  Furthermore, your basic view here is flawed.  Laymen will easily find this page, because Nazi Party redirects to here.  At any rate, the question of what we mean by "most commonly used" is very much not black and white.  For most other Weimar-era German political parties, there is no "layman-used" term, so we have to use the names used by scholars.  It is awkward to have articles like German National People's Party, but also Nazi Party.  Furthermore, scholarly contexts are important, as are the ways other encyclopedias do this.  Columbia's article is at National Socialism.  Encarta's article is at National Socialism.  The Britannica article is at National Socialism.  Our article is actually at Nazism, but I think the party, which was an entity which was rarely referred to as the "Nazi Party," should be at its full title even more than the philosophy.  john k 14:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This was a vote, not any attempt at consensus. Also, it doesn't matter what the party was called when determing the name of the article. All that matters is what the currently most common name is.  "Nazi Party" is more common now than any of the other terms by orders of magnitude. Other encyclopedias don't matter.  Following Wikipedia policy is all there is to it.  The rest is just conjecture.  -- brian0918    15:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Relax, the name of the article isn't of such extreme importance. If we went with the current most common name for every article, homosexuals would be perverts and marxists would be godless commies. The redirect that's in place works for anyone who is looking for the information in this article. Also, I didn't vote because I really don't care what the name of the article is. I'm just saying you need to calm down and review your position. AngryParsley 16:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm obviously not a sufficiently frequent Wikipedian. In principle, however, I'm convinced Brian is right. If Wikipedia has a policy, then we as Wikipedians ought to strive for adherance to that. --Johan Magnus 22:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Socialist parties
This is a bit of a stretch. Apart from the name, the NSDAP has nothing in common with socialist parties, and no historian I've ever read classifies them as socialists. If you insist on the category, I'd like to see some references. -- Ferkelparade π 09:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, since nobody replied to quote any references (I suspect that's because there aren't any), I'll remove the category -- Ferkelparade π 01:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The nazi party was a socialist party like any other socialist party. they were anti-capitalists and anti-communists. --Haham hanuka 12:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, see Talk:Nazi_Germany. Cheers, Sam Spade 13:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's definition of Socialism is rather broad, and it's certainly big enough to include Nazi Germany. Small corporations were abolished, and the larger ones were forced to join trade organizations.  They even used wage and price controls to direct the economy.
 * Wikipedia also defines Socialist economics as "a term which refers in its descriptive sense to the economic effects of nations with large state sectors where the government directs the kind and nature of production." That sounds a lot like Nazi Germany.  IMHO, the only reason not to include it in the list of socialist nations is because socialists are overly sensitive.
 * Randy 15:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Sam Spade 15:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not this again. The Nazis were not socialists in any real sense. We've been over this many times before. john k 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * when you consider their economic policies, they WERE socialists, please don't insert the post 1945 socialist POV in here by claiming that the NSDAP was right wing, which it was not. If you argue that the Nazis were not socialist then please explain the Nazis socialist policies which they implemented. They differentiated themselves from other socialists by also being avowed nationalists and having an official 'racial' platform (though neither racism nor nationalism can be exclusively defined as right or left wing). --Marcel1975 21:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be considering Haham hanuka's opinion. From his last failed self-nomination for Adminship, it was revealed that his user page was locked on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and it lists all the charges brought against him by their admins, including that he had vandalized the Hebrew Village Pump and put pornographic content on the main page, among other things, according to Danny. I'm not totally convinced that he's Jewish, or, if he is, that he cares about contributing to Wikipedia. The admins on the Hebrew Wikipedia certainly think so. They appear to have banned him completely. On this page he has already shown that he doesn't care about consensus, as he just reverted again. -- brian0918   02:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm so sick of this argument. The Nazis had little in common with socialists. I don't think Sam Spade is ever going to admit that he's mistaken here, but it's useless to argue. Please keep this claim out of articles. Rhobite 23:34, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats not a persuading point you make there. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a very good reason for not including the NSDAP as a socialist party. Firstly Hitler in "Mein Kampf" defined a socialist as a person who beleived in and worked toward thesupremacy of Germany. Clearly he's talking about something other than Marx and Engels.

Furthermore one of the main planks of socialism is the unity of mankind. Nations, religions, races and creeds are irrelevant constructs. The only true division is that of the classes. it is the duty of the workers of the world to unite overthrow their oppressors and form a worldwide classless entity. Nazis (and Fascists) by defintion reject this idea. For them race and the nation are the ideal. Their philosphy is that mankind is divided into races and that some races are inherently (genetically) stronger than others. You cant be a socialist and also be a racist. Besides didnt Hitler KILL all of the Left leaning members (like Strasser) in the "Night of the Long Knives"? Xerex 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Xerex.

The Nazis were socialist in the strictest sense of the word, that is they believe in collective action but they were not socialist in the modern sense - they were not concerned with social justice (not least because they strongly believed in the superiority of some over others) and they were certainly not internationalist.- Zagrebo 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, why do we have to repeat this issue over and over again. "Right" and "Left" are meaningless unless placed in the political spectrum of a specific country at a specific time. Collectivist equals left might be a factor in the current US spectrum, but that cannot be transported into 1920s Germany. The NSDAP had its S in the name, but whether it was actually socialist depends on the definition of socialist and the NSDAP doesn't fit into the common definition. The economy of the Third Reich certainly was not socialist. Str1977 (smile back) 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

National Labour Law of January 20, 1934
 "National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government." Large public works projects, 100% employment, these sorts of things are socialist.

Sam Spade 20:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh, not again. Sam, we've been through this before.  Do you really want to do this again?  Statism is not Socialism.  At any rate, Category:Fascism is clearly appropriate, and far less controversial than Category:Socialist parties, so i reverted you. john k 20:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats your POV, politics necessitates statism when it comes to practical imprementation, even w a state of anarchy, such as somalia. Please review NPOV. The nazis considered themselves socialist, and they fit the definition of socialism laid out in socialism. 'nuff said. Sam Spade 21:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not my POV - it's the view of most (all?) historians who study Nazism. Our basic definition of socialism, at socialism, by the way, is "Initially, it was based on the organized working class, with the purpose of building a classless society. But eventually, it increasingly concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. " The Nazis were not based on the organized working class, and were not interested in building a classless society. Neither were they interested in social reform within (ha) modern democracy. Nazism doesn't fit the OED definition ("A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.") either, nor does it fit the Merriam-Webster definition ("A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all."), nor does it fit the American Heritage definition ("Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."). The Nazis were never in favor of government control of the means of production. Unlike modern socialist parties, who also are not in favor of government control of the means of production, the Nazis do not have a lineage back to parties that did support this. Nazism, in fact, derived mostly out of far-right anti-semitic movements. There was a Socialistoid left wing of the National Socialist Party, led by people like the Strassers, but to call the party as a whole Socialist is utterly misleading. And we've been through this before. We had a whole article called Socialism and Nazism, which it was decided to redirect to Nazism because it was so misleading. Why are you insisting that we go through this again? john k 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1068131/posts]. Sam Spade 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, nice, a freerepublic article. Did you find that looking up "Nazism + Socialism" on google? john k 02:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sam Spade 10:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of socialists claim to care about the working class even though they don't. That doesn't mean we don't call them socialists.
 * "Men of the Labor Service! For the first time you appear before me for review and therefore the entire German nation.
 * "You represent a great idea, and we know for millions of our fellow followers the concept of labor will no longer be a dividing factor but one of unification and that no longer will there be anybody in Germany who will regard manual labor less highly than any other form of work. The whole nation will have to go through your school.
 * "A time will come when no German will be able to join the community of this nation unless he has first been a member of yours first. And you know that not only the hundreds of thousands at Nuremberg are looking at you, but, at this moment, that all of Germany is looking at you for the very first time. And I know just as you are serving Germany in loyal devotion, Germany today sees, in proud joy, its sons marching with you in your ranks!"
 * -- Adolf Hitler (Triumph of the Will)
 * But like I said, socialists are hypersensitive. We might as well keep it out.
 * -- Randy 00:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This doesn't show either that the Nazi movement was based on the working class, or that it was trying to create a classless society. It certainly doesn't show a will to nationalize the means of production.  That Nazism tried to appeal to the working class does not make it socialist. john k 02:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No way, appeasement isn't part of my paradigm, and it has nothing to do w NPOV. Sam Spade 00:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I'm ready to fight this one, but I'll give you a hand if there's an opportunity to lend-lease. And I'll vote to call it what it is if there's a plebiscite. -- Randy 00:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam, why do you have this compulsion to fight and lose the same argument every few months? It's clear that you are in opposition to the consensus among historians. Take your arguments into academia, publish a few articles, convince a few experts that they are wrong and then come back with your proposed changes. AndyL 02:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But he has a free republic article backing him up! john k 02:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

pre long knives the NSDAP was a lot more socialist
Prior to the night of the long knives there were more socialists in the NSDAP. People like Gregor Strasser, Gottfried Feder, Ernst Röhm etc. pressured Hitler to institute social policy. On the night itself, these people were either killed or forced to flee. Only thule society members like Gottfried Feder were allowed to remain in nominal positions of power. Sam Spade 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There were, indeed, socialistic elements within the NSDAP. The party itself was not, as a whole, a socialist one, though. Fritz Thyssen, certainly, was no socialist. john k 00:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were anti-socialists amongst them it is true, but there were many socialists, they called themselves socialist, and socialist policies were enacted. Sam Spade 16:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They called themselves socialists, but also assured their backers that they weren't really socialists. "National socialism" was envisioned not so much as a different kind of socialism, as as a philosophy in opposition to socialism, which was, in interwar Germany, identified pretty closely with Marxism. I also find it hard to see how abolishing labor unions, engaging in a massive rearmament effort, and conscripting a lot of people to (indirectly) deal with unemployment can qualify as socialist policies. john k 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually directly ending unemployment was always one of their central goals, and one they largely succeeded in (until the train wreck of the wars end, of course). Sam Spade 22:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In what sense is full employment a "socialist" policy? john k 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Who knows? I was responding to your insinuation that it was less than a direct goal of theirs. Sam Spade 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except I cant find where it was insinuated that full employment was less than a direct goal. .. Now answer the question. Is full employment ONLY a socialsit goal?Xerex 23:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)xerex

Lets just say their fascists but incorporated many socialist policies. Both of which are obvious and truthful. So a small sub-section labeled 'Nazi Socialist Policies' or something wouldnt be a problem and probably should be there, but the whole article being filed under socialism instead of fascism is stretching it too far.--64.75.187.197 07:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Sayings
A bit heavy on the anti-Jewish quotes. The party members honestly didn't go around denouncing Jews nearly as much as we like to believe these days. The Jews actually didn't figure that largely in their plans, other than wanting to expel them from Germany.

It's a bit silly that half of the sayings are aimed at Jews, and nothing about the "Nationalsozialistic bewegung", which Hitler especially liked to talk about.


 * The party was, principally, an anti-semitic party. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. john k 00:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats simply not accurate, but I don't see the point of arguing about it, yours (John Kenney's) is the common opinion. Sam Spade 23:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is also the opinion of most historians. Of course, it's more complicated than that, but this person is obviously a Nazi apologist ("the Jews actually didn't figure that largely in their plans"?!  This is clear revisionist nonsense. ) john k 23:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that nearly everybody and every govt. was an extreme racist prior to 1945. I think the nazi's are meerely the scapegoat for the perpetual persecution of minorities historically. As I point out to my german friends, the americans killed indians, the dutch killed africans, the jews killed the amalek, the french killed algerians... what group hasn't commited genocide? Maybe the San Bushmen? Anyhow, of course they were racist, but who wasn;t back then? Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to africa, for crissakes. Sam Spade 23:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that you have no idea what you're talking about, but who cares about personal opinions? Wikipedia's job is to report on reputable sources, not the sentiments of editors. john k 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, whose adding any of this to the article? You disparaged the anon, I defended him, and now you disparage me and invoke unrelated policy. Lets get back to editing and keep the snarky barks to ourselves, eh? Sam Spade 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to report on reputable sources, not the sentiments of editors.-I second this, and I have proved conclusively that anti-semitism was the central plank. But John Kenny- why don't you stick to what you say and not allow the abuse of it at Hitler on 15 December by Str1977? Please persuade me that I am wrong and it was as tagged, my POV, for excision ?EffK 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Photograph "early leaders of the Nazi Party"
Shouldn't be the names of the persons photographed be listed? From left to right: Heinz Pernet, Friedrich Weber, Wilhelm Frick, Hermann Kriebel, Erich Ludendorff, Adolf Hitler, Wilhelm Brückner, Ernst Röhm, Robert Wagner. These were the persons accused of treason. They tried to seize control of the Bavarian government in the so called "Beer Hall Putsch" in 1924. Source: This photograph was published in Spiegel magazine: DER SPIEGEL - (16.8.) 33/1999, Seite 72:. http://globalfire.tv/nj/03de/zeitgeschichte/ah_sta.htm Andreas Schmid

National Socialist Driver Corps paramilitary?
This section has been moved to: Talk:National Socialist Motor Corps

My changes
Here is the changes I made in this article. Please give here reason/s why it should be removed if you think so, if you don't please do not revert my edits. --Haham hanuka 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welfare, social policies and ecological issues See the request on the listing or elsewhere on this talk page. Once the improvements have been completed, you may remove this notice and the page's listing.

The Nazi party done a lot to reduce the unemployment rate in Germany, Hitler even used the 1936 Berlin Olympics for it. The nazi party was based on ecological issues and enacted some laws regarding to ecology. Many people see the Nazi Pary as a Green Party. Before ascending the throne Hitler declared he would forbid experiments on animals and non-humanitarian slaughter.

Hitler's desire that almost anybody should be able to afford a car coincided with a proposal by car designer Ferdinand Porsche, Hitler named the car Volkswagen.

It should be removed because it's poorly written nonsense. "The Nazi Party was based on ecological issues"??? Hitler ascended the throne? john k 16:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my poor English (I'm not a native speaker), but instead of reverting this text you could improve it. All the facts I mentioned here are right. --Haham hanuka 16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Facts are inherently right. The question is, have you stated any...  -- brian0918    00:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly like to see a quote for the idea that the Nazis were seen as a "green party." That is inherently ridiculous. john k 05:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The NS party certainly was not "based on ecological issues" - though there were links to neo-paganism, "alternative medicine", esoteria etc. and some Nazis were vegetarians (including Hitler, but that might have been for medical reasons). Also such links between right wing extremists and ecological thought still exist, but that doesn't make the NSDAP a green party. -The "many" that see it that way are probably using it as a polemic against green parties.

I haven't heard anything about whether Hitler announced to "forbid experiments on animals and non-humanitarian slaughter", but given the Auschwitz experiments, I very much doubt this.

The references to unemployment and the Volkswagen however are basically correct, but they should be integrated into the entry better. Str1977 13:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A word of critique about the original
"The NSDAP set up the Third Reich after being democratically elected to lead the German government in 1933."

This article on "Gleichschaltung" gives a different picture of the coming to power of the Nazi party. The article "The Nazi Party" seems bious and dishonest as a whole. It was not democratic but was based on violence and indoctrination thus making the democracy in the process unexistent. Suggesting that the rise to power was democratic suggests that the author is trying to give unrealistic picture of nazism and the Nazi party by stating invalid facts and using positive connotations. I'm not calling for negative approach but a neutral and objective one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung


 * technically speaking it was all legal --Marcel1975 23:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's debatable for example the Enabling Act of May 1933 was supposed to be renewed, but it never was.

"Politics in Germany" Template
Does it really make sense to include that template here? The "Politics in Germany" articles exclusively deal with modern-day, active parties and the political structure of modern-day Germany, not with historical issues. Would anyone object if I removed the template? -- Ferkelparade π 09:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops...just noticed that the template has been updated to include a link to pre-1945 parties which makes my point kind of moot...I don't think that's the ideal solution, but I'll take the discussion elsewhere :P -- Ferkelparade π 09:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But then we should remove the federal coat of arms from the template since it is a sign of today's germany...

Questions
Can someone elucidate under 'Seizure of Power' - "A further decree enabled for preventative detention of al the Communist  Deputies.." . Some historians say Hitler illegally arrested Deputies  in actions  just prior to the  actual Reichstag Fire, some say 'arrested' , and some question arises here. Is it the case that the Reichstag Fire Decree as here suggested could not allow legal arrest of deputies ? What is the date for the further decree that here  says  it does allow ? Analysis needs to clarify this "seizure". Famekeeper 09:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Why a 'socialist workers party'?
I found my way to this page looking for the answer to the following question. I know the National Socialists were rabidly anti-marxist, anti-communist, anti-bosheiveik, etc. Additionally, I know they were against class warfare and instead all about uniting all classes behind nationalism. So, without getting into the minefield of whether 'nazism' is a type of 'socialism'-- assuming for the moment that it is not, can someone answer this? Why did the Nazi party, which was so anti-marxism, choose a name which, to the modern ear at least, sounds so marxists/communist/socialist? In the name "National Socialist German Workers Party", sure National and German make perfect sense, but where did Socialist Workers come from?!? To use an analogy, it's almost as if the Ku Klux Klan were to spontaneously name themselves the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Is this confusion merely a product of 'mistranslation' from german to english or 1920s to 2005? Would a contemporary german citizen, upon hearing the name NSDAP for the very first time, assume it was a marxist party, only later finding out otherwise? Or did words like Socialist and Worker only later become synonmous with marxism. Alternatively, if the party name was indeed confusing to germans, why did the nazis choose such a name for their party? Alecmconroy 00:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Variety of reasons.

Firstly it is worth noting that Hitler in Mein Kampf defined a socialist as one who beleived in and worked for the supremacy of Germany. Clearly this is not the Dictionary definition.

Aditionaly the Party was originaly called the German Workers Party. It was a tiny group trying to build support among the unemployed soldiers in post WWI Germany. Hitler added the National Socialist, as a means of 1. Claiming that his party was a "third way" borrowing from the Socialist Left and Nationalist Right. 2. "Socialist" wasnt considered a bad word in Germany the way it is in modern America. It was simply a label used to attract the support of the working class. 3. "National " was also important because most of the right wing parties in Bavaria (where the NSDAP was founded) were also Barvarian seperatist. By claiming the national label he was opposing the Barvarian seperatists. He wanted a united Germany. 4.Related to point 1. In the 25 pt programme Hitler copied wholesale the popular policies of the right and left. Of course once in power Hitler promptly abandoned the Socialist part of their 25 pt programme. Xerex 23:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)xerex


 * A few thoughts. The name was part of the deceptive nature of the Nazis. Actually there was debate among these fascists and Hitler even threatened to resign over the name change, specifically because of the inclusion of the world "socialist." He was convinced later and changed his mind about using it, the reason being strictly propagandistic, to attract workers because socialism was very popular. Similarly they tried to appeal to a revolutionary sentiment and used some slogans about wealth distrubution, which motivated some youth elements and others like the brown shirts, to join something that appeared revolutionary but was infact counter-revolutionary, reactionary, and anti-socialist, right wing. The Nazis did some house cleaning among their adherents afterwards for those who were fooled about any real wealth distribution, but moved to protect private property and capitalism, esp. of big bussiness. Giovanni33 02:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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

Man you're trying my patience. Nationalism is not rightwing? what fool told you that? By definition Nationaism "supremacy of the nation-state" is right wing. While socialsim "supremacy of classless state" is left wing.Xerex 13:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)xerex


 * What fool told you it is right wing. buy a dictionary. Stop believing what your leftwing professor told you to distance his ideology from socialist he hates, because of those socilistist racist views. (Neutral nobody 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Your biases are showing, and YOU wantto argue about neutral point of view? "leftwing professor" ? Try every single textbook written about the Nazis.I reccommend Rise and Fall of the Third Reichbtw where is your proof there are not rightwing? I notice you dont seem to have any sources.Xerex 20:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nazis are the radical left, like the Communist Party of China. http://www.gargaro.com/nazi.html  70.48.251.7 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Right wing party is a Biased point of view, please do not remove the NPOV until this has been throughly discussed!

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 05:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Dude this definition you gave " 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,"  is pratically a textbook definition of FASCISM. Which is right wing. Nationalism is also right wing. It doesnt matter if you disagree. It is right wing. Also check my above posts where I fully explain why Nazis arent socialist becuase socialist do NOT believe in nationalism or race supremacy but in class .Socialists deny the validity of a nation-state. The Nazis were primarily concered with racial supremacy and believed in the supremacy of the nation over class. Socialist believe in the supremacy of class solidarity over the national solidarity.Xerex 13:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)xerex


 * many socialist may be against racism, but some were not. Most all dictionaries define socialism as state owned or state ran control of the means of production and capital i.e.economy. They do not deny the nation-state, they may deny individual nation-states, because socialism wants a no border world nation-state. The state in control is nationalism. You are quibling with words. Socialism puts the interest of the state first for the good of all the citizens(in theory). The fact that I practically gave the textbook definition proves my point that facism is leftwing.

So, racism is rightwing. What nonsense. Biased Rubish. -This is from a centrist. I don't know who is worse the far-left or the far-right propaganda. (Neutral nobody 14:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Dude, chill. It looks like youre finally discovering REALITY. Yes, the belief that one race/nation/ethnic group is superior to other is right wing. That's why Nationalists are always described as right wing.

Secondly, are you even reading what youre writing?Do you know the definition of a nation as opposed to a state? A global state cannot be nation-state because it would consist of more than one nation and be a multi-national state. And you gave te textbook defnintion of Fascism not Socialism. Or are you now going to argue that fascist are actually socialists ?

AND LASTLY as I stated above. Hitler in Mein Kampf defined a socialist as one who believed in German superiority. Nothing to do with economics. Everything to do with racism. Of course you youeself admit that socialsim is an economic theory so Hitler's definition of socialism is bunk. So when he used it to describe himself and his followers he was LYING. Or are you know going to trust Hitler's word?Xerex 15:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the belief that "one race/nation/ethnic group is superior to other" is not right wing. There are racists in many politaical spectrums. Facists are socialists, that's what I've been arguing. They are just racist socialists, not racial equality socialists.


 * A nation and a state are the same thing: The Nation of Israel - The State of Israel. Hello.


 * No, a global state can be a nation-state because it would be a borderless one govenment nation-state.


 * And no I gave the definition of a socialism:


 * 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.

(Neutral nobody 16:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

You need to look up the definition of nation and state. The two are not synonymous. A State is a self-governing political entity with a defined territory. A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture, common language,institutions, religion, and historical experience. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

Sometimes a nation does not have a State (see Kurdistan or Tamil Eelam.) Sometimes a State comprises two nations (see Belgium or Canada) or many nations (see Russian Federation.)

You also need to do more research into the writings of Mussolini, Hitler, Marx and Lenin. You're talking nonsense.Xerex 17:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to read more authors, like Hayek, Ravi Zacarias and others of their kind. You are talking nonsense. (Neutral nobody 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

So you accept that you were mistaken about nations and states?

and whereas I reference the founders of the ideologies in question, you point to who? a preacher ?Xerex 18:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to read more authors, like Hayek, Ravi Zacarias and others of their kind. You are talking nonsense. (Neutral nobody 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC))


 * You have that backwards: Sometimes a Nation comprises two or more states like (the United 'States' of America - which is a nation made up of fifty states). I guess, they are not always synonymous, but they usually are used interchangably.


 * The definition of a nation as "a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture, common language,institutions, religion, and historical experience.", is only one definition of nation. The other definition is "a self-governing political entity with a defined territory." (Neutral nobody 18:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

So, now religion excludes you from this societal debate.


 * He's not just a preacher, he is a philosopher who extensively covers socio-political forms and movements, and how they effect society. So, now religion excludes you from this societal debate


 * no I don't accept I was wrong about nations and states. I stated their are excaptions, but read the other stuff I wrote two or three lines up about you having it backwardson nations being in states. example the U.S. (Neutral nobody 18:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Firstly ,you're telling me that you're countering the FOUNDERS of the ideologies in question with this guy? tell you what. Rather than accepting HIS interpretations, why dont you read the original Nietchze, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Hitler, Lenin, Trotsky and Mussolini and decide for yourself what they meant.

Secondly stop being so hard headed. Take a look at the definitions of 'nation','state' and 'nation-state'- right here on wikipedia. Double check them with a dictionary or encyclopedia. Note that there are two types of states -soveriegn entites like France or subordinate entites like New York. The USA as a whole is a State and is divided into 50 states. Youre confusing the meaning of two and youre dead wrong with your defintion of a nation.Xerex 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Xerex 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If have read them, though not extensively. The so-called founders of these ideologies are not the only experts on these ideologies, but their adversaries know alot about it too. Others sight experts that aren't the so-called original founders. These Ideologies have been around for centeries in one incarnation or another.


 * No, the states in the united states were soverign states that united into one unit like the soviets did and now the european states are doing now. The u.s. states are now not seen as sovereign states, but they started out that way, and some would argue are still that way. Virginia is a state just like france is a state. - Neutral nobody

I see you're to lazy or too scared to even search Wikipeadia for the meaning of state, nation and nation-state. Oh well. Your loss.Xerex 20:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not to scared or lazy to search wikipedia. I will when I can, but I rather search more valid sources than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a good project, but it can be full of Bias and POV. I know the meanings, I've studied them an looked them up. Can't you realize that people can have different understandings of these terms, eventhough it doesn't make both people correct regarding the terms. I have even included definitions in some of my posts.


 * 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.


 * You look up socialism and state socialism! Neutral nobody

p.s. Xerex, why are you so vindictive, you take this to personally. You seem to really get upset. Don't get upset. Don't do it, I don't. (Neutral nobody 21:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Here are examples on more definitions of nation than you mentioned:


 * na·tion
 * n.


 * -A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
 * -The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
 * -The government of a sovereign state.
 * -A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).


 * -A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
 * -The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

LOL no citiations I see. Also you're the one claiming some preacher knows more about Naziism that Hitler. what next ? Pope Benedict knows more about Christianity than Jesus Christ ? Xerex 15:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nazis are the radical left, like the Communist Party of China. http://www.gargaro.com/nazi.html  70.48.251.7 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If Nazis and the left are so apart, how come a) the German Socialist party offered the German Workers' Party an electoral alliance?;b) the Soviet Union had a Pact with Nazi Germany that virtually made it a founding member of the Axis! - having reverted the treaty only after Hitler was sneaky enough to break it?;c) if socialists and nazis are so intrinsically different, then why every single Communist Party in the world refrained from opposing Nazi Germany while Molotov-Ribbentrop was standing? Remember that the conflict between both groups, as well as participation of communists in the Resistance began long after Conservative parties throughout Europe had voiced opposition to German policies or effectively started the Resistance (Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, and even the former Catholic and Liberal parties inside Germany.)

Separation of POV from NPOV in this Article

 * Quite apart from the above conversation,I believe the fact that foreign treaties were negotiable through the enabling Act should not have been excised by Str1977, and am glad to see it there still.

The article here is ridiculous so here, to help good will editors I itemise my concerns piece by piece.
 * There is still no clear reference to the cardinal party(Hitler) 25 point program. its lack after I have mentioned it, is a POV massage to diminuish truthful clarity.
 * Hitler was appointed Chancellor of a coalition government by President Paul von Hindenburg in January 1933 ignores the Trials consideration that this was within the Conspiracy to Institute Toatalitarian power, therefore is a POV reduction/massage.
 * His coalition partners ignores the fanatastic agreement brokered thru papen and the banker Schroder and the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. The coalition only existed through this greater conspiracy, and this is simplistic child level massage to a simplistic level:The Trials affect WP reality whether you like it or not.
 * and arrest its leaders. is a POV massage suggesting, since it it not otherwise clearly stated, that it was an illegality. Shirer says it succinctly enough, so this is unacceptable gloss/ massage,
 * A decisive step on Hitler's way is simplex /POV massage: it was THE decisive turn, no less.
 * certain guarantees to the Centre's chairman simplex/POV massage: Hitler did not give the fianl guarantee, and the vote was not agreed upon the basis of no guarantee, therefore factually wrong
 * Centre Party's thirty-one votes is factually wrong/and I know editors here know the score, which is 74+18 Bavarians it is extraordinary bad faith it is massaged in as along with some substantial middle class bloc therefore utter disingenuous POV massage
 * and even to make changes to the Constitution. is POV massage even like he took another cookie? especially or importantly, more of the same-it adds up dunnit?
 * After all parties were either banned or pressed into dissolving themselves, is massage POV: ignores vatican bargain against ALL source.
 * Hitler also tried to incorporate the Churches into his new regime. On March 23, 1933 he had called them "most important factors" for the maintenance of German well-being. In regard to the Roman Catholic Church, he proposed the Reichskonkordat between Germany and the Holy See, is POV massage. The catholic Church had long wished to incorporate itself into the reich via concordat, for hundrds of years is it.. Hitler as with the entire conspiracy tried at the Nuremberg Trial or tribunal, the appearance of legality included this bargain, called a bargain, between the church and Hitler. Hitler therefore did not offer the Concordat f himself, he bargained the vatican wish for it, quite monstrously as sourceable.

There is only one conclusion I have ever made which is not sourceable but which all that is sourceable leads the mind to believe. I will state this clearly here as my one disallowable' and open admitted POV or personal conclusion:

My POV is here:Ludwig Kaas made the deal with Hitler that Hitler would promise the final letter of Written Constitutional Guarantee, simply as appearance of the doing so. that Kaas knew that it would not be given, but that Kaas was following Pacelli longstanding papal instructions, and that the promise of this guarantee was simply to swing the vote whilst Kaas cynically tricked his own party into believing him it would appear. He knew that it would not. The deal was clear from 15 march to these two men in Berlin, although the final manner of the deal was not formulated until c 21 Maarh. The deal that Hitler made for the vatican emanates from at least the Papen Kaas Hitler axis of 6 March. The papal records would confirm this, as they would confirm Edgar Ansel Mowrer for the same bargain preceding into 1932. Avro Manhattan does not seem to say this of the trickery of Kaas with the letter, but in every other way he is entirly clear upon the long vatican preceding history. Cornwell does not appear to do so, nor Kershaw. I therefore believe that it is I alone who make this the actual agreement in the over-allquid pro quo. Hitler said we'll make you look alright, and the Church alright, don't worry, Kaas, we''l say we'll have a Guarantee, so you'll be in the clear. As we know, there was an unacceptable Hindenberg letter sent to the Centre leaders, one of most sardonic hypocrisy(Wheeler-Bennett). The trick was that Kaas all along knew the real Hitler Letter of Guarantee demanded by the Centre Party would not arrive.

NPOV is here :All that is  short of this accusation of papal collaboration with Hitler, is NPOV. This alone is POV. I have never tried to include it in any article, though I have said it.I repeat the rest is all NPOV. Wikipedia articles on our history here -History that is mine anyway- are utterly shameful sub-standard, and by some, wished for, excreta. Urghh.

EffK 13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorporation of excised material from Nazism in relation to other concepts
Relevant to the Nazi/Hitler history is the following text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Off-topic_content,[]. It may be as User:Str1977 reasons, unsuitable for that situation of Wikipedia, but he does not actually criticise this piece as POV. I suggest that it be incorporated into the central history somehow, retaining the clarity of its presntation, rather than disappear from view. I would in fact say that this user himself replace it in entirety where it is perhaps more appropriate- here for instance? I remind this user that I consider the view presented of the history here on WP, and his qualifications of it, are a subject of some considerable dispute. EffK 19:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1939 – 1945
Im not sure if its appropriate to speak of a federal government, werent federal structures largely replaced by centralistic ones? --84.159.158.42 21:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Problematic passage moved over
For years it has been known that and a number of Hitler's high-ranking henchman were homosexual and as far back as 1931 the Munich Post reported that "every knowledgeable person knows that inside the Hitler party, the most flagrant whorishness contemplated by paragraph 175 is widespread." The newspaper attacked "the disgusting hypocrisy that the Nazi Party demonstrates--outward moral indignation (against homosexuality) while inside its own ranks the most shameless practices prevail." In what is considered the definitive history of Nazi Germany, the 1960 book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer states that "many of the early Nazis were homosexual - who flocked to the party as if to a natural haven." As well, there were early suggestions that Adolf Hitler himself might have been gay and in 2001, German psychology professor Manfred Koch-Hillebrecht published "Homo Hitler. Psychogramm des deutschen Diktators." in 1999 and in 2001, Lothar Machtan, historian and professor of Modern and Current History at University of Bremen, published ''Hitlers Geheimnis. Das Doppelleben eines Diktators with an English translation by John Brownjohn titled "The Hidden Hitler''." In his work, Professor Machtan presents a documented study of Adolf Hitler's homosexuality. Fulbright historian, professor, and noted author Gabriel Jackson, a former department chairman at the University of California, San Diego listed eminent scholars who provided extensive scholarship demonstrating the existence and significance of "homosexual Nazi leadership." Professor Jackson concluded that "there is simply no historical doubt about the important role of homosexuals and bisexuals in the upper ranks of the Nazi movement from day one to the end."

Contradiction
According to the article: "from 1923 to 1925, the Nazi Party ceased to exist." Yet, according to this article the Nazis won 32 seats in the May, 1924 elections. According to this article the Nazis won 14 seats in the December, 1924 elections. The Nazi Party could not have won seats in parliament during a period of time when it did not exist.


 * I believe the votes were won by parties with similar positions, but calling themselves something other than NSDAP... john k 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I saw this on the page: "And said to have had a big head and mouth ! He was very freaky and nasty.. He loved little girls and licked booty all day." and I think maybe this article should be closed for umregistered or new users. But as I don't know how, maybe someone else with the know-how could.

Proposal to merge DAP into this article
Geopgeop has proposed merging the German Workers Party article into this one because that "article now is still too small."

Disagree. The German Workers Party is a separate topic. It has a lot to do with the Thule Society and with Rudolf von Sebottendorff, and little to do with the NSDAP. The articles on the German Workers Party, the Thule Society and Rudolf von Sebottendorff, taken together, provide a reasonably detailed picture of an episode that is interesting, but not of great significance--at least in comparison to the NSDAP itself. Mark Sedgwick 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Pre-Hitler it was a totally different, rag-tag party. Carolynparrishfan 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree- I think there should be mention of the DAP in the NSDAP article and a link, but the DAP should have its own separate article. For instance- History AS level students, such as me, need to understand why Hitler was attracted to the DAP, and for that important reason there needs to be an informative article relating to its policies before Hitler joined. 14:49 13 Sept 2006 (GMT)

This is a very poor article, and I am writing a new one to replace it. Any edits made while this notice is visible will be overwritten when I post the new article. Adam 04:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article spends most of its time talking about racial doctrines, and not about the orgin of the name National Socialist. (yes, it does have a meaning that refers to the successful economic system they put into play begining in 1934) user:Pzg Ratzinger

When the article on "Batman" is longer and seemingly more informed than the article on Nazism, we have a problem. I for one eagerly await your re-write and hope it will be far better than what we currently have now. 24.218.131.28 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)