Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 4

Balance
The Political Position section currently gives a brief explanations of the reasons why some people disagree that the Nazis were right wing. I think that is OK, in itself, but we are missing the other side of the coin, i.e. a brief explanation of the reasons why many more people think that they were right wing. As this is the majority view, I think two or three sentences are justified on this. At the moment we are giving the minority view more coverage than the majority view, which is not right. As the section is rather short, expanding coverage of the majority view seems the most sensible way to fix this. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think it eventually needs to clearly state all of these:


 * that far-right is the dominant view;
 * why it is widely seen that way;
 * that some people dispute the rightist label by pointing out the socialist components
 * and that some of those people (over)emphasize the (pseudo)socialist aspects
 * that some people feel that, given all of the above, it is useless to try to apply the left-to-right-spectrum metaphor to Nazism, because it muddies more than it clarifies, for example, many readers do not come away with the meaning that the author intended (which is one of the hallmarks of bad communication)


 * Until it covers all of those, it will continue to be incomplete, thus misleading, thus controversial, thus argued about angrily and repeatedly on the talk page. We can do better than that. Just will take some work to get there.
 * — ¾-10 02:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section. Apart from the title, which maybe used again if the section is being re-created, it exclusively contained unsourced claims and misleading language. Cs32en   Talk to me  20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf" as Literature??
"Mein Kampf" see "* ." should be removed from the literature. This is not a valid source for any information about the NSDAP, only a self description of Adolf Hitler. Has anybody a different opinion? Plehn (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Idealogically it has to be viewed as VERY important. 84.215.96.217 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why it is being mentioned in the text. It is not a reference, however. I have removed the item. Cs32en   Talk to me  19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gleichschaltung
Gleichschaltung is not the "seizure of power". This is Machtergreifung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.82.43 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's correct. Gleichschaltung, with regard to Nazi Germany, means the centralization of state power in the hands of the central government, not the seizure of power by the Nazi party. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nazis was NOT "far right"
Suggestion that nasism was in any way right-wing is not even not objective. It's just simple LIE. Wikipedia is not a place for leftists propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.18.99 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. See the big friendly FAQ section at the top of this page. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is in FAQ: "Almost all historical and present-day academic literature describes the Nazi Party's policies as far-right and fascist". What exactly does it mean by "fascist"? Italian fasciscm was left-winged as well. Francoism was not. Sorry, I don't buy all of that. I've heard many "arguments" trying to prove that Nazis was in some way "right wing", most of that is propaganda lies from leftists and nothing more. Well, what else CAN it be? When the party is called "Socialist Party of Workers", how naive you have to be to belive that calling it right-wing is something more than propaganda by people, who just don't want to admit that their ideas are in some areas similiar to Nazi ideas? It's wrog that Wikipedia becomes a source of obviously false information. That's all. 89.229.18.99 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit clash) Sorry but you are arguing with the wrong people. We are not the ones who write "historical and present-day academic literature". We just write Wikipedia according to the reputable sources available to us. If you really believe that the academic consensus of the last 70 years or so is just propaganda and lies then you really need to be talking to professors of history and political science about your epiphany. When you have succeeded in persuading them that you know better than the people who actually study this stuff, and all the history books have all been pulped and reprinted, come back here and remind us to change the article to reflect the changes. Good luck with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide us with any academic sources that say that fascism is usually referred to as "left-wing"? TFD (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an old argument but meaningless. Economically, he's right but a bigger difference was nationalism.  The far right also wanted a "workers state" but did not want to be subjugated by Moscow.  He needs to be careful not to apply today's meanings of left and right.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

G`day, here is a book which says fascism is left wing. Winners and losers: social and political polarities in America look on page 209. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.88.24.73 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the book, you would have seen that the author was talking about U.S. politics in the 1980s! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Horowitz is clear that he is using his own terminology and anyway refers to these groups as extreme Right. His point was that some right-wing groups had adopted left-wing practices.  TFD (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Liberal = permissive = left wing. Nazis are right wing because they sought to dictate every thing in each persons life - the job you could have, the people you could marry, etc. etc. etc.  It is that simple and it is undisputed.--Riluve (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not that simple. The job you could have is about economics, and extreme left and right were both repressive that way.  They still are.
 * On the subject of people you could marry, gay marriage wasn't on any party's ticket back then. Ernst Röhm and his faction might well have been for it.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just about gay rights, it was about racial intermarriage. Homosexuals obviously did not have the right to marry because they did not have the right to live.  Additionally, the rights to hold a job were racial or national as well.  For example, only Germans we allowed to work at any News paper or hold a government job.  These are not economic issues, they are political issues in that they are designed specifically to deny people political power.  These are obviously not permissive or liberal political policies.--Riluve (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that was the Nazis. Italian Fascists were also called "far right," and they weren't any more racist than the communists.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this an article about the Nazi party or about Fascism in general? I honestly fail to see how your point is relevant.  Are you arguing the Italian fascists were permissive?  I am not familiar with their brand of Fascism, but it seems trying to engage severe social and political control is an essential part of Fascism and thus no Fascist party could ever be considered permissive.  How could any military state be permissive?  Like: "We are forming an armed service to make sure that you explore all of the natural rights afforded to you by our national policy."?  It seems to me an armed political service is formed to restrict civil rights and enforce strict civil laws and is antithetical to a permissive (left wing) political ideology.  --Riluve (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I need to remember to add " undisputed" to my list of terms that mean "in my opinion" Carptrash (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that is cute except in this case it is based purely on the definition of the word(s). Certainly any person could theoretically dispute the definition, but generally definitions arise only after scholarly source reach agreement and require extra-ordinary arguments against them, not just an individuals strong desire.--Riluve (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cute is good, but are you saying that "Liberal = permissive = left wing" is indisputable? That the Stalinist Soviet Union or Maoist China, being the far left are thus the most permissive governments? An interesting definition. I believe, based on a fair amount of study that these two regimes (and probably many more "left wing" regimes) are about as likely "to dictate every thing in each persons life" as were the Nazis. Your statement "It is that simple and it is undisputed." brings to mind Oscar Wilde's statement (I paraphrase) that the truth is seldom pure and never simple. Hmmm wonder if Wilde would be considered a reliable source for wikipedia? 17:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Carptrash (talk)

This question has already been discussed at length at this talk page. Please read the archive and refer to specific arguments made there, if you think that further discussion is necessary. Cs32en  Talk to me  17:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideology - three edits
First of all, of course I meant refrain. Second: Discussion whether it is fascism or nationals socialism is rather pointless, as both lack an accepted or widespread definition. In contrast to let's say communism and monarchy, people could not in any point define each of them without referring to the parties wielding the names. And looking it up on Wikipedia doesn't count (and wouldn't help anyway). Basically Fascism is what Mussolini did and National Socialism was what Hitler did. Yet, the fasci of Mussolini were more or less dissolved when he came into government and from then on "Fascism" was a style of government, but not an "ideology" in that it had no basic system of beliefs and philosophies on which the decisions were made. It was mainly nationalism and imperialism. Same for National Socialism. This could be defined easier. It was somewhat socialist as those positively included received social security and benefits unbeknown to mankind before. It was less national since it excluded great part of the nation as well as being spread in regions which were not part of the nation.

Both name-things are basically defined by what they are not. Democratic, communistic and so on. But when boiled down to what they were, when trying to focus what made them unique as political ideologies, they are imperialistic semi-military authoritative dictatorships of a single political party with a leader (i.e. a man not qualified by rank or anything else but parts consensus) a sovereign Head of State and Head of Government. Racism can utterly excluded. It was p.e. not featured in Mussolini's movement. But all those things have already names. Imperialism, Military Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, Monarchy. For as much as I care, the ideology-line could include all this, because then people would at least understand. I also think that racism should be included, because I can't see any party lacking it. But...it is not me who is quarreling. Make it out amongst yourselves.Dakhart (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

historical use of the word "Nazi" plus an editing question
I'm a media historian, and I note the current entry uses the term "Nazi" even when discussing the party's earliest years. I did a quick search of several major U.S. newspapers from the early 20s, and did not find that the term "Nazi" was in common use before about 1927. Should we mention that the term "National Socialists" or "National Socialist Party" was what the mainstream press used when discussing them in the early 1920s? I don't want to mislead readers into thinking a term was commonly used before it actually came into popularity. Secondly, the current entry contains a statement that says the National Socialist party (Nazis) "...claimed itself as the protector of Germany from Jewish influence and corruption." Phrased that way, it makes it seem as if this is a true statement and that there really was Jewish influence and corruption. Might we add the word "alleged" or "purported" into the statement? Thanks. DonnaHalper (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)DonnaHalper


 * In my view, both of your content development insights are valid, and you should feel free to tweak the existing wording to address them. Thanks for the suggestion. — ¾-10 16:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation and "Nazi" abbrev.
Currently the article states that "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialist which is vaguely referenced. It is, however, clear that Nazi is short for Nationalsocilist (something like Natsional-sotsialistishe in German). Though I didn't manage to find a source that supports my claim (after spending many seconds on Google, maybe even a whole minute), I guess I should point out the factual error, so if anyone wants to find a source for this, it'd be nice. :) BytEfLUSh &#124; Talk!  22:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. The bolding of "na" and "zi" needs to be removed (it's wrong and not supported by the citation). Also, currently it contradicts the article Nazism. I tried fixing it earlier (see the talk archive) but got reverted. Totsugeki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Sources say that it combines "na" and "zi". If you think that the sources are wrong, then find sources that say something different.  TFD (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently an earlier German abbreviation for the "Internationale", Inter-Nazi, may have contributed to the adoption of the term Nazi. --Martin (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You believe that? TFD (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's what's published in reliable sources, and I confirmed it in the online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. --Martin (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, TFD is only too right, but that's the problem in this case ("Sources say that it combines "na" and "zi". If you think that the sources are wrong, then find sources that say something different"). The problem is that, regarding whoever wrote a source claiming the combination idea, that author was actually wrong. Most likely they were just assuming that their own notion was correct. It does happen in life (more often than we realize) that RSs are just wrong. Written by one particular person who thought he was right but wasn't. The problem here is that finding an RS to refute it may be hard because it may just be a detail that no other reliable source has found reason to comment on yet. Maybe or maybe not, would have to spend time researching to find out. But many of those who are fairly familiar with German and also with basic linguistics would recognize that "Sozi" (/zotsi/) is simply a truncation of [the sound in speech of] "Sozialist" (/zotsialˈɪst/) [with orthography to match] and that "Nazi" is a truncation of [the sound in speech of] "Nationalsozialist" [with orthography to match]. It may have echoed the earlier pattern of the truncation ending in /tsi/, but that's not *because* it's directly taken from the -zi- further into the word. The only reason it's spelled "Nazi" instead of "Nati" is because of standard German orthographical convention that predated its coinage. In order to write (i.e., graphically transcribe) the sound /natsi/ by itself in German orthography, the obvious and natural way to do it is to spell it with -zi and not -ti. This is because the -ti- combination only has the sound value /tsi/ when it's occurring inside words using the -tion suffix. By itself it represents the sound value /ti/. This is directly analogous to the orthographical "shift" that could well have occurred in English (-ti- shifting to -sh-) if the English words "socialists" and "nationalists" had become conventionally truncated and transcribed to end up as "soshies" and "nashies" (although they didn't). In other words, the speech sounds themselves remain unchanged (just truncated), but their orthographic representation would reflect a "shift" using the [preexisting] norms of the language's [preexisting] orthography. This is also why in Spanish you arrived with a -g- (llegó) but I arrived with a -gu- (llegué). The sound remains unchanged; its orthographical representation shifts in order to "preserve the sound". I don't have any RSs at hand to cite on this, and I'm not going to spend time searching for one right now, although maybe sometime I will. And I won't even bother trying to change the article namespace here, right now (simply because of lacking an RS and being reverted for that reason alone). I am just explicating what's much more obvious per Occam's razor than the misguided (even if RS'd) idea that the -zi in "Nazi" comes directly from (as opposed to being indirectly analogous to) the -zi in "Sozi" having come directly from the -zi- in "Sozialist". — ¾-10 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the evidence points to the term being derived from "nationalsozialist", OED implies this with the reference to a term "inter-nazi" being used at the time for the Internationale. --Martin (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't meant to start a debate like this one, I just thought that the information as presented here was false. The thing is - it may have originated from Sozi in Germany, but as it spread westwards - it lost its meaning and everyone thought that it's just an abbrev. of the "National... SDAP". Most sources (evidently) do track the original meaning of the word "Nazi" and judging from the responses so far - it does seem that they are right. However, "Nazis" became (in)famous during WW2 and most of the English-speaking people learned of them during the war, and especially in its aftermath. Maybe we should state that the root of the word comes from National and Sozialist while also mentioning that it became widely known for Nationalsozialistische... BytEfLUSh &#124; Talk!  23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I recalled this debate a few days ago while watching a documentary about a german court case in which the lawyer quoted from a Nazi publication called "Nazi Sozi"" http://www.archive.org/details/NaziSozi written by goebbels. Here we have it as it were from the horse's mouth - or at least the horse's official spokesperson. The two terms Nationalist and Sozialist are clearly separate and are not combined to form "Nazi"  This is cleary OR though, so how can we fit it into article? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 142.177.234.116, 23 August 2011
Dear Sir and/or Madam, I wish to make a request to have the Ideology and Political Classification of Nazism changed from the current "Right Wing" to its' proper foundation of Ultra-Left Wing. Nazism, like Communism, is a Collectivist Ideology where "Volk" or German People replaced the German individual hence Individualism (Right Wing) vs Collectivism (Left Wing). Socialism, as you know, is "Left Wing" while Conservatism is "Right Wing". Ultra-Left Wing political ideologies are dictatorial government domination in form, top down in practice naming Communism, Nazism and Fascism as three examples of Ultra-Left Wing Socialist platforms, each being modified as the needs arose for their founders to attain personal, and party, Power. Right Wing political platforms are anti-Government, anti-Dictator, Freedom replaces government induced "equality" and are bottom up in practice. Extreme or Ultra-Right Wing examples, moving from Right to Left within the Right Wing political spectrum, would included Anarchism; being Extreme Right-Wing, then Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism, Republicanism and finally Conservatism.

The only real difference between the three Ultra-Left Wing extremist, dictatorial and totalitarian positions is the additions, or changes, made to the same Socialist platform by each of their founders; Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler. All were life long Socialists. An example of one such case would be Hitler's combining many of the two platforms; Communism and Mussolini's Fascism to make Nazism inclusive of the racial and occult teachings of The Thule Society.

Another example in this mythology of Hegelian Dialectical "Left Wing" vs. "Right Wing" and the myth that Nazism was "Right Wing" is that of its views toward Capitalism. Without doubt the followers of Right Wing socio, political and economic theology are staunch Capitalists and followers of the Free Market System under those like Milton Freidman, Ludwig von-Mises or F.A.Hayek while followers of the Left are followers of such socioeconomic theory of Marx or self proclaimed Bolshevik, supporter of Hitler's Nazism and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes; "Keynesian-Economics".

Hitler, as a political tactic to coax many voters from the "center" or extremes renamed the German Workers Party to the "National" Socialist (Socialism) Party to appeal to both Right and Left.

People seem to forget that the West was at war with Communist Ideology since before they assisted Lenin to power to end WW1. Communism had always been recognized as Left Wing. During the Early Days of the Nazi Party - before Hitler attained personal power and got himself into power politicking for lead between dictators of the day, Hitler was partnered with the Communists and Socialists. This can be noticed through various Nazi paraphernalia; pamphlets, posters, pins and radio propaganda expressing a thorough Collectivist/Socialist platform.

The big crux of the matter is that the West was at war with Communism and Communist Russia before WW2. Before Hitler partnered with Stalin both Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were known as Left Wing dictatorial anti-West/Capitalist/Individualist Freedom loving West to which America, Canada, England and even France were extremely weary of the entire lot. It was this "Pact of Steal" that caused WW2. People seem to forget that it was this Pact between Left Wing Communist Russia and Left Wing Nazi Germany that both started WW2 and while Hitler was invading Poland from the West, Russia was invading Poland and the Baltic and/or "White" "Russian" States from the East.

Both were enemies of the West - and recognizably so - until Hitler decided to play his move for extreme Dictator and launch Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941.

The fact that this Nazism is "Right Wing" mythology is attested to the fact that the entire West recognized this fact prior to Barbarossa as did the continual propaganda pumped out by the Communist Party International and the Nazi Party and its International. After the invasion both of these entities worked against one another and our enemy; Left Wing Communist Russia suddenly became our "Ally" to which War Propaganda had to now paint under a different, more 'positive' light, to make our "ally" more palatable to the former Westerner enemy. Now you have a war time propaganda position fabricating a relationship and "common bond" between Stalin's Soviet Communist Russia and the Allied Western Democracies plus the propaganda painting this, now tolerable "ally": Communist Russia, as a dialectical opposite to their now enemy "Right Wing" Nazi Germany lead by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.

The Birth and - hopefully - Death of the Myth that Nazism is Right Wing...

Ref: "The Rise of Radicalism" by Eugene Methvin, "Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler" by Antony Sutton, "Tragedy and Hope; A History of the World in Our Times" - Carrol Quigley, "Modern Times" by Paul Johnson, "The Occult and the Third Reich" by Jean Michael Angebert, "The Naked Communist" by Skousen and various biographies of Adolf Hitler by Adolf Hitler ("Mein Kempf"), John Toland, Samuel West etc.

142.177.234.116 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You would need to show that this represents mainstream thinking. You provide Cleon Skousen's book as a source, but his writings are considered fringe.  Skousen ignores the fact that the European Right was collectivist - think kings, established church, aristocracy, standing armies, corporatism, welfare state- while individualism was associated with liberalism.  TFD (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hitler and the Nazis openly associated and allied with Mussolini and Italian Fascism, a movement that openly declared itself right-wing: here is the reference: Benito Mussolini. Fascism: doctrine and institutions. Rome, Italy: Ardita Publishers, 1935. Pp. 26. Quote: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." Hitler endorsed Italian Fascism, saying that "with the victory of fascism in Italy the Italian people has triumphed [over] Jewry".--R-41 (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The word "liberalism" in it's conservative meaning is still associated with individualism, and liberalism in that meaning it is definitely right-wing. W.J.M. (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Individualism is not always a right-wing trait, just as collectivism is not always a left-wing trait. The original right-wing in France was very collectivist - it supported Catholic collectivism and feudalism.--R-41 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing a gratuitous pipe
Another editor piped the term Nazism in the infobox, to make it display as "National Socialism" instead. Since the article on Nazism is under Nazism, I see no justification for piping it to display under some other name, unless to make the recurrent claim that "Look, they called themselves 'Socialists', they were really ultra-left, not right-wing at all!" If the editors in question cannot provide a justification for the piping, I say it has no place there. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * R-41 certainly would not do that, he probably preferred to show a long form name. But since the most common name is "Nazism" that is what the info-box should say.  TFD (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the most common name should be used in the info. box; no reason for ambiguity, keeping in mind the general readers herein. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have provided sources for the Nazis official position as syncretic, but have included that they are identified as far-right in practice by scholars
I have provided two sources that state that the Nazis officially presented themselves as neither left-wing nor right-wing, but syncretic. I have also included a statement in the intro by Hitler in Mein Kampf where he is attacking both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany. I have included the position identified by the majority of scholars that the Nazis were far-right in practice.--R-41 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to you pointing out that the inventors of the Big Lie claimed to be syncretic, within the body of the article; I only objected to its inclusion in the infobox as if the postures and pretensions of the Nazis had any validity. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Infobox is for "what it is", not "what it claims to be". --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I should point out that the "Big Lie" idea was not something that Hitler officially supported but was part of his anti-Semitic attacks on Jews, accusing Jews of creating a "Big Lie". Plus, while I agree that the main basis of the Nazis' agenda, their volkish nationalism was far-right, they pursued an authoritarian centrist and perhaps centre-left economic program of social welfare for the unemployed, granting some (though taking away other) privileges to workers. This economic policy was moderate, though prior to the 1934 Night of Long Knifes there were revolutionary socialist-oriented members of the party who wanted a proletarian Germany, the purging of right-wing reactionaries, and the dismantlement of capitalism. Hitler himself hated capitalism - he effectively supported mercantilism, but was not in favour of revolutionary class socialism, and neither was the conservative-oriented German army that he sought to woo to his side, and thus Hitler purged the revolutionary socialist camp of the Nazi Party.--R-41 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to include the official position, for instance the Communist Party of China article states its official ideology of "Communism" and "Marxism-Leninism" - that is its official policy. Of course in reality the Communist Party of China's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", is little more than a shell of Marxism-Leninism that is in all but name state capitalism that is far more similar to neoliberalism than communism. But we mention its official ideology, and I think for good reason - it shows its basis of appeal. Including the Nazi Party's officially stated position is valuable, it allows readers to understand the party's basis of appeal.--R-41 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that should be included within the article, not in the infobox. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Communist Party of China article includes communism and Marxism-Leninism in its infobox. It is a de facto state capitalist party. It's official ideology and position shows the basis and aim of its appeal.--R-41 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Syncretic means an ideology that harbours a range of views, be they far right on some issues, to centrist or far-left on others. It means that the ideology is not wholly left-wing, right-wing, or centrist but mixed. It is not as if what I have included is stating something bizzarre, like that the party is completely far-left, that it certainly is not. Some scholars on fascism such as Ze'ev Sternhill and Roger Eatwell support the theory that generic fascism, including Nazism, is syncretic. Regardless, I followed what the majority of scholars view, I put in "(official)" behind syncretic and "(in practice)" behind far right, so there is no problem - both official and in practice positions are shown allowing the reader to both understand the party's official basis of appeal as well as its position in practice.--R-41 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) Please assume we're intelligent enough to understand words like "syncretic". (b) Please assume we saw exactly what your edits were; you don't have to describe them. (c) Probably shouldn't have all those things in the Communist Party of China article either; it serves to confuse rather than edify the reader in this one. --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, the scholars Zeev Sternhell, Roger Eatwell, and the very prominent Fascism historian scholar Stanley Payne consider generic fascism, including Nazism, to be neither left nor right. Payne recognizes that Italian Fascism declared itself right-wing but considers generic fascism to be neither left nor right. For Payne's statement, see here at page 214: .--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They were writing about fascist ideology, not fascism in power. Social Credit for example is neither left nor right but the Social Credit Party of Alberta was right-wing.  But Jonah Goldberg puts them on the Left.  TFD (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But the behaviour of the Social Credit parties in Canada was altered by the fact that social credit didn't work, they abandoned it and became economic liberals. Any government in power has to alter its agenda, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom even in the early 20th century could not fulfill all its promises and became more or less a liberal party; or the fact that George W. Bush enacted some of the most Keynesian economic policy in history in spite of the fact that he was officially a neoliberal. I guarantee you that if you look through the references by Sternhell and Payne that you will find the material that they are referring to about Nazism being neither left nor right in their view, as they are talking about generic fascism a focus of study that is largely focused on both Italian Fascism and Nazism. Payne and other scholars such as Michael Geyer even claim that Nazi policies were highly similar to Soviet policy - whose government was communist and obviously far left - and claim that the Nazis borrowed and copied Soviet policies.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between altering an agenda due to circumstances and failing to follow promises. The Labour Party for example did not become a liberal party, it remained a labour party that followed liberal policies, just as the Tories remained a conservative party following liberal policies.  Their rationale for following the same Butskellism polices differed - Tories and Labour maintained separate ideologies.  TFD (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know its contentious to say this on a topic of a political party that initiated a mass genocide, but doesn't it sound like POV ommission against the claims of the party to remove its official position of being syncretic? I mean especially since there are prominent scholars like Sternhell and Payne who support the claim that it is neither left nor right but syncretic as the party's supporters stated it was. As for the issue of the Nazis not living up to their promises, remember that multiple governments have failed to follow promises: many governments or leaders are elected claiming that they will not raise taxes because saying otherwise would aggravate the public, but they typically always have to do so when they come to power due to political realities.--R-41 (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware, they were writing about fascist ideology, that is, what Fascists in Italy preached before 1921, and have been criticized for concentrating on that rather than fascism in power. It would be the same thing as basing an article on Bush's foreign policy on what he said in 2000 rather than what he said and did in office.  TFD (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that we cannot include the party's officially stated position on the political spectrum? What are we to do about the Communist Party of China article then? Based on this we would have to change the Communist Party of China article by removing communism and Marxism-Leninism from its position and state that it is a nationalist and state capitalist political party - its proponents will claim it is communist and Marxist-Leninist and demand that changes claiming it is nationalist and state capitalist be reverted, just as in the days when the Nazis were strong in support, that its proponents would reject claims that it was far-right and claim that it is syncretic as it claimed it was. The party ideology and position in the spectrum also relates to the ideas of the people it is trying to represent and it did initially represent the likes of the radical socialists of the party like Ernst Rohm and many members of the SA prior to 1934, the Strasser brothers, and Joseph Goebbels until Rohm and the SA began to go rogue from Hitler and wanted to persecute the reactionary right, whom Hitler had relied on the support of in the army to gain power. of At present, including both the official position and the position that most claim it is is a solution to this issue of possible NPOV violation by excluding the party's own position.--R-41 (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not excluding anything; we're making an editorial decision where in the article to put something. The only relevant discussion is, "does putting 'syncretic' in the infobox inform or confuse the reader?" The discussion about the actual vs. the averred philosophy of the party is quite appropriate for the article as a whole; it's misleading to put it in the infobox. Discussion about the China article can go on its own talk page and is not our concern here. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a person of strong political opinions, and for that very reason strive valiantly to maintain proper NPOV; but I reject the theory that NPOV extends to pretending that the NSDAP was not a bunch of lying violent thugs whose every word must be presumed to be a manipulative lie. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No the issue of the Communist Party of China article is the same as that of this article. And the fact is that most people in both Western democratic and Eastern communist states are by the nature of our believes hostile to racial supremacist Nazis who would defend the political spectrum position of their party, but are less hostile to hear out rebukes by Chinese Maoists who would defend the ideology of the Communist Party of China as communist and not state capitalist as others claim. I agree that we must be cautious with the issue of POV, but also not jump to judgement that they have lied on a specific subject, unless we have strong proof that they lied on a specific subject. By not including the official statement of syncretic politics, which Orangemike should know has been claimed to be an accurate assessment by some scholars, we thus cannot include that the Communist Party of China has an ideology of "communism" or "Marxism-Leninism - it's claim to be communist or Marxist-Leninist would have to be put in the article and the ideology that most observers view it as: "State capitalism" and perhaps "Nationalism" would have to be put in the infobox. This opens up a lot of things to be changed that will be rigidly resisted on the Communist Party of China article by those who accept the literal pronouncement of ideology of the party. There are many violent thugs in politics - Stalin was a violent thug, we still accept that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under him was officially far-left and communist - in other words, how do we know that the Nazis were specifically lying about their syncretic stance - because they are violent thugs and did lie about other things? Sure they lied about things but we can't assume they lied about "everything", after all they didn't lie when they said they hated Jews, they didn't lie when they said they would re-arm Germany, they didn't lie when they said that they wanted Germany to have "living space" in Eastern Europe, etc. The Nazis were known to have many members in their party who were committed to revolutionary socialism alongside racist nationalism, Ernst Rohm and Joseph Goebbels are examples. It's presumptive guessing to say that they lied about being syncretic. The scholars who back up the claim of Nazism as syncretic a.k.a. an eclectic and heterogeneous mix of left-wing and right-wing positions and acted in a manner outside of the typical left-right spectrum such as Cyprian Blamires states in the World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia are not violent thugs, we can't say that they are manipulatively lying now, can we?--R-41 (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Misconception of the Nazis.
I wish I had time to be here all day and discuss the many things that are stereotypical about this generalization of the Nazi Party, but I don't. The one thing I do want to clarify and request that more research be put into deleting this bit of false information is that the Nazi were NOT racist towards blacks. They viewed the Jewish population as a virus because they were taking all the good jobs etc everyone knows the story. The source of their hatred had absolutely NOTHING to do with racism of the blacks or hatred of handicapped persons this is just ridiculous. Nazi AMERICA is the party which used the original Nazi symbol to represent their "organization", which hated everyone all immigrants to America, Hispanics, blacks, Jews (think "American History X") Come on people, get your facts straight I've been slandered my whole life for being German when the Nazi party consisted of politicians from all over Europe and NOT just Germans why is it that an Italian, or a Polish person wouldn`t be called a Nazi when their politicians were in on it as well doing most of the dirty work as a matter of fact, it`s about time the truth came out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.18.248 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * this section was being deleted, but raises a good question. Italian, or a Polish person wouldn`t be called a Nazi, perhaps we could better define the separation between the average citizen of europe, and those who were actual members of the ruling party.  example, apx half of the usa is opposed to the current ruling party, same as the last presidency.  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Italians and Poles weren't allowed to join the Nazis even if they agreed with them. The Nazi ideology despised Poles, and the Italians had the Fascisti. This anonymous person knows nothing about German or European history, and his pointless screed is full of false "information" about Nazi policies, European history, etc. I don't know why you're bothering to answer a troll like this, Darkstar. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * since he is an ip he may be a new user, deleting his first post would wp:bite, since he is german, why not allow discussion of what nazi party membership actually meant, specially did everyone who voted nazi want to murder civilians? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that's not at all the purpose of this talk page. But there's so much nonsense in his posting, I can understand the desire to remove it. For example, he's totally wrong about "the Nazi were NOT racist towards blacks"; they quite certainly were, as described in Nazi racial policies: "“The fate of black people from 1933 to 1945 in Nazi Germany and in German-occupied territories ranged from isolation to persecution, sterilization, medical experimentation, incarceration, brutality, and murder." --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointless discussion. TFD (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nazis were extremely racist towards blacks and exterminated disabled people in the T-4 Euthanasia Program. The Nazis called ex-colonial black soldiers who immigrated to Germany and largely settled in the Rhineland the "Rhineland bastards" and ordered them to be sterilized because the Nazis believed that otherwise they would have sexual relations with white Germans and create "contaminated" mixed-race people. As I said, the Nazis exterminated disabled people in the T-4 program.--R-41 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2011
hi i would like to correct some of the things in this article

Conman0723 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, if you want to be able to edit it yourself you need to be autoconfirmed or confirmed-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
I reversed a group of edits. One of them said that Hitler moved to establish a totalitarian regime only after Hindenburg's death, which does not appear to be supported by the sources. TFD (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Far right in practice? Is this a joke?
Actually calling NSDAP "syncretic" can be took as a compromise in that issue, but saying that it was "far right in practice" is I presume some joke. Why there is nowhere mentioned about left-winged, socialist views on the economy? It's like the economy views were no important at all, if they aren't took under consideration in the note about political position of the party. Also I think it should be considered, if the fact that "majority of scholars identify Nazism as far right" is really justifiable opinion, or it's just caused political correctness and ignoring social and economical views of this party, which actually happens quite often. W.J.M. (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see. First thing they did, broke the unions. Jailed socialists, labor activists, communists, when they didn't kill them outright. When their quasi-left-wing patsies demanded crackdown on conservative businessmen and conglomerates, pulled the Night of the Long Knives and purged them. Acted at all times as the hitmen for the Abwehr, absorbed all the brutes of the Stahlhelm movement and gave them better uniforms and weapons. Doesn't sound like mere political correctness to me, WJM. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * did the factory owners have a choice what to produce, or were they restricted by wage and price controls? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wage and price controls are ideologically neutral on the left-right spectrum; they've been used by deep reactionaries and of course by Stalinists. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * However taxes were cut, companies were privatized, inflation was brought under control and the military was rebuilt. TFD (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * wage and price controls are anti-free market. which companies were privatized?  rebuilt the military means the government forced private factories to make weapons?  Darkstar1st (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read about it in "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany". And of course wage and price controls have been used by parties of the Left and Right.  TFD (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, Darkstar? Not all conservatisms are free-market; "liberal" outside the U.S. means pro-freemarket policies. All the original right-wingers were statists and more or less virulently anti-freemarket; even an anarcho-socialist like me acknowledges that, whatever we think of raw capitalism. It is an American delusion that conservatism is an exclusively free-market ideology. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * O, left/right spectrum is a flawed expression which changes meanings relevant to geography and decade. tdf, i did read it, they use the term re-privatization which one would assume means the factory is given back to the person it was confiscated from in the previous decade, instead the assets were divided among party members, not quite the "privatization" most people associate with the free market.  You are inadvertently implying the police/fire/water/elec dept were sold off to the public, when actually the steel, rail and banks were seized by the government, then divided up among bureaucratics a few years later.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's exactly what happens in most privatizations: the publicly-owned goods and jobs are given to the already rich and powerful elite entities with the best connections among the ruling class and its politician puppets. In the U.S., that means people like the Koch Brothers, Blackwater, MAXIMUS, for-profit "school" operators, and whatever Sodexho Food Services calls itself nowadays. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Re-privatization" in Nazi Germany meant that failed industries that had been bailed out and bought by the government were sold back to private investors in order to finance tax cuts and military spending. TFD (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nazis called themselves syncretic, some scholars agree that they are syncretic, a large body of scholars classify them as far-right. However, certainly the major theme of the Nazis: their racial supremacism, is far-right. It is best to show both its official syncretic stance that some also perceive as accurate and the far right stance that many scholars identify it as. Nevertheless, it is not our business to debate what left-wing or right-wing is here with our theories, it is to relevant sources to back up claims. I'm tired of people bringing up the idea that Nazism was left-wing, there is a quote in this article from Mein Kampf where Hitler visciously denounces left-wing politics in Germany as treacherous as well as condemning right-wing politics as cowardly - the Nazis appealed to a populist syncretic stance - that did definately include far-right stances on race, disability, and sexual orientation.--R-41 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Denouncing conservatives as cowardly is not a luxury reserved for the left or middle; read any ultra-conservative or reactionary blog. (Same goes for the other side, of course: how many liberals and progressives nowadays, including myself, regularly rant about the gutlessness of the Democratic Party's "leaders" like Reid and the entire DNCC/DSCC Coalition of Timorousness who are terrified of being perceived as actually standing for anything but not being Republicans?) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking from scholarly sources to promote this doesn't help (For example, Griffin describes fascism rather firmly as revolutionary right). It is important to also note that some academics who refer to them as being, to use the terms of Sternhell, 'Ni droite, ni gauche' are actually simply saying their politics were outside the conventional spectrum but out to the right. Ultimately the mainstream view is that the Nazis are far right, that there is debate is good - include it in the text. It is just too controversial to present as fact within an info box without that surrounding debate. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The official syncretic statement is important nonetheless to state. Hitler in Mein Kampf was accusing the left with treason and the right with cowardice and giving up to conspiratorial international Jewry, hardly appearing to be a minor disagreement, and note that he attacked the entire left and the entire right, not just components of them. As long as we recognize that most scholars view Nazism as far-right, then the article is accurate. I believe including the official syncretic position that other scholars identify helps readers to understand what the Nazis appealed to. The Nazis fiercely sought to keep the label of reactionary off of them and sought to emphasize that they were anti-reactionary and emphasized differences between themselves and what they considered the "bourgeois" "reactionary" German National People's Party. Hitler along with Mussolini unlike conventional right-wing leaders took great pride in emphasizing that they had lived in poverty as struggling youth and had associated with poor and homeless people whom they claimed had been driven into poverty by modern bourgeois liberal capitalism.--R-41 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nazi regime despised intellectualism and truly any cultural expressions which "clashed" with Nazi ideology were put down (and/or prohibited). The Nazis were cultural reactionary. As we all know, the Nazis were obsessed with race (Blood and Soil), sports and rallies. Rallies for feelings of inclusion, of something bigger than ones self and to project power to the population (and later the world). Further they were keen on mythology and symbolism; again towards racial purity and Nordic paganism (but not overt occultism, but for Himmler and a few others). They were not an organized cult, but did have aspects of one. In the end, it is hard to easily "pigeon-hole" them into one nice neat little box. Kierzek (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true that they cannot be pigeon-holed neatly into one category. Nazis and fascists in general have to be viewed beyond mere left and right issues. Generic fascists' extreme social Darwinism preaching survival of the fittest and ellimination of the weak through war (that would both elliminate the weak on their nation's side and if in victory eliminate their weak opponent) is far right. However other ideas were not far-right, their economic policies of class collaboration, social welfare for the deserving, and recognition of the contributions of the working-class to society ranged from centre-right (i.e. social welfare only for the deserving) to centre-left (class collaboration and recognition of working-class contributions). All fascists were influenced in some way by the tactics of Marxism even though they denounced Marxism - fascist political language spoke of the bourgeoisie and proletariat and the existance of class conflict but called for the need for class collaboration to eliminate attempts by different classes to attain dominance and therby resolve class conflict. The political language of the Nazis and fascists in general was very syncretic.--R-41 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are taking nazi writing as definitive of their ideology. Right-wing extremists typically stand for the little guy against the elites and the minorities and claim that the established parties are the same and that they themselves are beyond left and right.  TFD (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But the definition of right-wing extremism you define as being the embattled common person against elites and established parties could just as easily be ascribed to communism of the far-left as being on the side of the embattled proletariat against the elites.--R-41 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say "fascist"? I think everybody could agree on that point. But regarding the discussion about left elements in their policy: The parts of the party, which called for implementing left elements to some degree, where imprisoned or killed in 1934 ("Röhm-Putsch", "Night of the long knives"). There was also no economic theory, on which nazis could have relied on to intervene into economy. When they did, it was to prepare war. In my opinion, you cant mean to declare that a leftist opinion. 217.50.239.213 (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

logo size
why did someone have problems with my "200px" edit, it looks much better than "150px" Ocnerosti (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted because it fits better at 150px. The size reduction of the image allows the infobox to be shorter, thereby the structure and flow is better. And, you need consensus to revert it back to 200px. If you get it, so be it. Kierzek (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, the logo at 200px is out of balance in presentation for the page. Kierzek (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Title of the article
I think the title should be changed to "National Socialist German Workers Party" because this is the real name of the party. Ich901


 * If I recall correctly (without combing through the archives of this talk page to confirm), I believe that this very topic was decided in favor of the current title per WP:COMMONNAME. Not that your suggested name isn't logical (it definitely is), just that an alternate logic is what keeps it at the current name. Hope this helps. In the end, both titles could work, so unless a swelling of sentiment to move the page builds up, the alternate suggestion would probably just remain as "duly noted". — ¾-10 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

do you realise that the real name is used as title in every other language version of this article. at least NSDAP would fit more as a title. Ich901


 * Yes. It has been discussed more than once. Anyway, there are redirects from all the other names so that people searching on the other terms will still find the article. There is no good reason to rename it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

the best reason to rename it, is to give it the correct name. What about to name it "National Socialist German Workers Party" and redirect from "Nazi Party"? Ich901
 * agreed, NSDAP is a better title. wp:commonname is not applicable since a more specific naming convention exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(political_parties).  Darkstar1st (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (political parties) says, "Where acronyms are far more commonly used than full names in international news media, the acronym should be preferred". TFD (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * correct, so the correct title would be NSDAP, adding the word "party" after is redundant. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Nazi Party is more common than NSDAP.  TFD (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the general reader, Nazi Party would be most common. 6,650,000 hits on Google, for example. Remember this is suppose to be written for general readers on about an 8th grade level. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: Google searches aren't exact science. When you search for "Nazi Party", you get a lot of results that are related to many other Nazi parties than the NSDAP. NSDAP-searches include foreign articles, Google searches pretty much only tells us that both names are reasonably common. Combined with the fact that I can't seem to find any other article on Wikipedia where a party's nickname is used as the title, I can't get myself from not questioning whether this title is wrong.46.9.65.93 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * a ridicules debate given there is already a nazi and nazi germany article. this page should have been merged long ago.  Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not have a "nazi" article, that page redirects to Nazism. So we have separate articles about a party, its ideology and its period in government.  TFD (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * exactly, no other subject gets such treatment in wp and this article is a perfect example of redundancy. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! We have articles about Communism and various individual articles about various Communist parties. We have articles about Liberalism and articles about various individual Liberal parties. We have articles about Socialism, Conservatism, Fascism, InsertYourFavouriteIsmHere, etc, and still have articles about individual parties that adhere to those ideologies. Far from being inconsistent, it is totally consistent and sensible for us to have an article about Nazism as an overall ideology and an article about various Nazi parties, of which this is the main one. Admittedly Nazism is a bit different in that the one party pretty much defined the whole stinking ideology while the others were just gimps and fanboys but it still makes sense for us to cover the ideology and the parties, as organisations, separately.
 * Having a third article for Nazi Germany also makes sense as that covers the whole Nazi German state, not just the party as an organisation. Sure the party was meddling in pretty much every aspect of the state but that doesn't affect the way we structure our articles. Again that is perfectly consistent with other articles. For example, we have separate articles on the Roundheads and the Commonwealth of England which was their state. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Adolf Hitler nor any other party member never officially used the term 'Nazi' and the word is used to bash the party. While the term is technically a contraction, the term has a disparaging context as the term 'Sozis' was used to disparage the Socialist Party in Germany. I can understand having a statement like, 'usually referred to as the Nazi Party' or something at the beginning of the article because that's what it's usually referred to. But it was never actually used by party members themselves and therefor has no place in an article that attempts to assume an academic standard.

In summation, entitling this article, "Nazi Party" is the intellectual equivalent of naming the article about the Communist Party, "The Pinko Party" or so.

66.234.60.131 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, more like if the CP article were named "Commie Party," and that was the common usage of people today, including academics and RS. It says "Nazi Party" for the same reason that the article for Deutschland is titled "Germany." -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  13:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, 'Pinko' is just as much part of the vernacular as 'Commie', your point is moot. The article is called Germany because it is the English translation of Deutschland.  If you go to wikipedia.de, you will see that the article is entitled, 'Deutschland.'  Also, NSDAP redirects to 'Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei' as it should because 'Nazi' is not a translation of anything. 66.234.60.131 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

needs section on party finances over time and specially around 1933
article needs a serious section on who financed the party at various points. it's a crazy story most fundamental for understanding the medium-deep causes of hitler's ascension... see vhttp://sauber.50webs.com/kapital/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Naziism
naziism is a left wing socialist ideology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.205.78 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  02:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bryon Morrigan is right. The party's name is hardly more than a bad joke. -- • Certh 45a.svg • hugarheimur 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yes. 66.234.60.131 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking the Nazis' word of being "socialist" at face value because they said they were is just like taking the name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) at face value, this is addressed above in the box at the top here that the anon user did not read. One could easily and ignorantly say: "ah, well North Korea says that they are democratic, a government of the people, and a republic, so they must be" - any serious person knows North Korea is a totalitarian clique absolute monarchy run by and for the family relatives of Kim Il-Sung and that all of its heads of state have been family relatives of Kim Il-Sung. Stalin officially promoted workers' rights in his propaganda while he used slave labourers from his Gulags to construct factories and canals. If we took Hitler's and Stalin's words at face value, then both Hitler and Stalin would then have to be considered as peaceful, benevolent leaders who were democratic and caring people who only resorted to violence to deal with the "bad apples" in society and to ensure their people's survival, only a devout neo-Nazi or a Stalinist would be able to believe such nonsense out of blind faith. Never take something at face value without investigating it.--R-41 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well guess what, Hitler also promoted workers right, does that makes Stalin "far right"? Someone before said that Nazis broke all unions. OK, and how many independent unions were in USSR? Hitler jailed and killed socialists and communists - yes, and so did Stalin. So I guess that makes Stalin "far right" as well? Anyway North Korea is probably more democratic than Nazis were right-wing. It's hard to look at all these phoney rhetorical ploys which are supposed to convince that words "socialist" and "workers" in the party name and all of socialist stuff in its program are just "a joke". You people just will say and belive any kind of unbelievably stretched crap just to avoid admitting that Nazis were in fact left-wing. Myth of "right-wing Nazis" is simply not true, and no rhetorical fallacies will change that. This is pure propaganda and false political corectness, that's all. W.J.M. (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are like a creationist in dispute about evolution. W.J.M. (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm an educated person, having to deal with statements that no educated person would ever consider.  YOU are the "creationist" in the room, chief.  You've obviously made up your mind, but your OPINION is irrelevant.  The only things that matter on Wikipedia are RELIABLE SOURCES (i.e., the kind written by people with doctorates in the field at hand) and SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS.  Your opinion is based on NEITHER, and you have no case.  You keep bringing this up, and your opinion will never somehow become more valid or meritorious than the scholarly consensus of the experts in history and political philosophy who find said opinion to be utterly absurd.  Grow up, and deal with it.  You're selling, but nobody's buying...and it isn't because of a "conspiracy," either, sport.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  23:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You keep bringing up these arguments. Please follow the links that have been provided on your talk page.  We are required to follow what reliable sources say, not what we believe.  If you disagree with that policy, then get Wikipedia to change it.  TFD (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These guys are correct. Our opinions don't matter. What the main historians and consensus concur on, and the evidence shows, is what is followed. See: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, Fringe theories, WP:Consensus. Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These guys are wrong, because this "scholary consensus" contradicts the facts. The best source is the NSDAP program itself, but if you want more, please, George Reisman, Ph.D., Professor of Economics Why Nazism was Socialism. I know this is not peer-reviewed book but it is something I guess. W.J.M. (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Economists are not experts in the fields of history or politics, and many Austrian school economists take that same position. And while I'm a Libertarian, and therefore sympathetic to the economic views of such economists...it still doesn't suddenly mean that their opinions are somehow more valid than those of people actually in the field at hand.  Judging the Nazis solely by their economic policies is completely absurd.  The policies that generally "define" the Nazis were their social policies, which were 100&% Far Right.  (And I'm gonna bet that you don't even know what "Right" or "Left" actually mean...or where the terms originated...etc.)  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  19:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Judging you from your social viewpoints, you are a liberal/communist. 66.234.60.131 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My "social viewpoints" are directly consistent with the platform of the US Libertarian Party.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the US Libertarian Party has borrowed its social viewpoints/positions from liberals/communists.66.234.60.131 (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and if you believe that, then I guess you must have borrowed your social viewpoints from the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi Party, and Taliban. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  17:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What does the KKK, et al. have to do with the fact the US Libertarian Party's social positions are virtually identical to that of liberals/communists?66.234.60.131 (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) "Libertarianism," as practiced in the USA, is the political philosophy of being Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative...in other words: Always Anti-"Big Government Authoritarianism." (2) The groups I mentioned are all Socially Conservative.  If you look with such disdain upon Social Liberalism, then I'm assuming you're a Social Conservative (Big Gov't Authoritarian), and have the same beliefs as the KKK, et. al.  (Anti-Gay, Pro-Big Gov't Involvement With Promoting Religion, etc.)  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  11:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bryon, the discussion is over, this anon user appears to be a stubborn troll, you will never convince a stubborn person of anything. All I can say is that there were far right people who declared themselves to be socialists all the time, as I noted and added to the F.A.Q. above, French reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand". He influenced fascism - and Nazism is a variant of fascism. And more importantly Oswald Spengler whose Prussiandom and Socialism advocated an anti-Marxist socialism, influenced Nazism, and Spengler was a major member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement. The anon user can take it or leave it, the discussion is over. Bryon, even though I agree with you that Nazism is not left-wing, I believe that the uncivil behaviour of you, User:W.J.M., and this anon user, recklessly drove this conversation into a battleground and all three of you grossly violated the following Wikipedia policies: WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. I am reporting all three of you for this.--R-41 (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how making an observation about someone else's politic views is being a troll. Especially, considering that he has admitted such viewpoints.  I simply pointed it out to emphasize the differences between economic and social perspectives.  To say that you can be hold socially liberal values and economically conservative views, as well as vice versa.  I don't see what there is to argue or convince anyone about.  I suspect that Bryon was trying to troll/goad me into donning a klan outfit.66.234.60.142 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While it is possible that academic consensus is wrong, we cannot second guess them. You mentioned creationism.  Perhaps they are right, but since academic consensus does not support their view.  TFD (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you can't just separate economics from politics. Economic views are one of the most important, and I dare to say that probably the most important in practice, part of any political doctrine. Second, what exactly Nazi policies were "100% far right"? Third, do you have some problems with self-esteem that you have to make absurd comments like this to make you feel better? I'm not going to explain myself to you about my knowledge (that would be taking you seriously, and sorry but don't deserve it at that point), just the fact that you have no idea who am I and make comments like this, speaks for itself, and makes you look pathetic. W.J.M. (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you continue to post these things is prima facie evidence that you do not understand Left/Right. Click on Wikilinks like these: Far right politics, Left-right politics...or maybe just, you know...read a book or something.  Oh yeah, I forgot.  It's all some kind of "conspiracy," and all of the scholars are "wrong."  Except the Austrian School economists.  Those guys are totally right.  Everyone else?  Part of a conspiracy!  Yep.  Totally makes sense.  /facepalm  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, power of your "arguments" is indeed impressive. So far you are the only one here who said anything about any "conspiracy". As for left-right politics I understand it perfectly and I don't have to swagger for that reason. Probably because I have no complexes about it so I don't have to repeat "ohh, I'm an educated person, you don't know anything, but I do know blah blah blah" in every statement. Somehow being so educated doesn't change the fact that your only argument is "I'm right and your'e wrong because I say so". It sounds almost as inteligent as saying that this article is called "Nazi Party" for the article "Deutschland" is titled "Germany". Yeah, you are logical as hell. Anyway, I tried to take you seriously and to discuss, you don't want and apparently don't deserve it, so I'm not going to continue this squabble anymore. The article is biased, at least at that point. W.J.M. (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WJM stated, "As for left-right politics I understand it perfectly and I don't have to swagger for that reason." No, you don't.  If you clicked on the Wikilinks, or looked them up on anything other than some modern American Right-Wing website, you'd see that the definition of "Far Right" is basically the support of "supremacist" politics.  It has nothing to do with individualism, small government, equality, or anything else.  The term "Far Right" is only applied (by scholars) to those who support social hierarchy and the "supremacy" of certain groups over others.  The term originated with those who supported the Right-Wing counter-revolution to the French Revolution, favoring restoration of the monarchy and aristocracy.  So no, it certainly sounds like you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about, sport.  And I haven't taken YOU seriously from the beginning, because your arguments are childish and absurd, and should be treated with absolutely no respect whatsoever.  You come back to Wikipedia every so often and post the same adolescent garbage, and you are always told that it has no place here, because it is unsubstantiated OPINION (and completely false as well)...and yet you always come back and do the same thing.  Can you not see that nobody here is impressed?  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you not see that I am no the one that try to impress someone? Yeah, thanks for reminding me what is obvious about where terms left and right wing came from. No shit, Sherlock. If you really belive that this knowledge makes you so special and I didn't know this before, well go on, live in your own world of delusions. And... what do you mean by "you come back to Wikipedia every so often"? I wrote literally TWO times about this before you started your pathetic playing bumptious. I have no idea what are you talking about. Is there something wrong with you, or what? W.J.M. (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to assume in good faith that (as you say) you are not any of the many dozens of people who have come to this talk page over the years since this article was created. But each of them makes the same tired meaningless arguments, and each is equally unable to find any serious sources for these tired old assertions which contradict the clearly established facts about the NSDAP: where they came from, who they were funded by, who they allied with, and what they did when in power. Bryon is simply weary of having to have the same fruitless argument all over again, when there's nothing new about it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Two times prior, separated by multiple months, constitutes a perfectly reasonable example of "you come back to Wikipedia every so often". He may not be the only one, (though we'd never know, since most of them are cowardly, anonymous IPs...) but he has certainly established a pattern here.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And who's the one looking for conspiracy now? You're hopeless... W.J.M. (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "far right" refers to nazis, fascists, etc. The name was chosen because these groups literally sat on the far right in legislative assemblies and still do.  Socialists and communists sit on the left.  Whether or not the descriptions are accurate is beside the point.  Cleon Skousen would have nazis sit between the socialists and communists - not a good idea.  TFD (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. Nevertheless this is misleading and confusing. Terms "right-wing" and "far-right" have very little to do with each other. It's like term "far atheism" would mean "fanatical belief in many gods", it's just absurd. W.J.M. (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me address this pointless rehashed discussion that happens every time user who is associated with the political right irrationally perceives the the noting in the article that the Nazis had a far right character (largely due to their far-right political emphasis on race), as being an "affront" to everyone on the right. If you are right-wing but not a far-right supremacist, then you have no reason to feel affronted. But I get the attitude, I've heard it again and again, the user believes that everyone else are "all wrong" and that he/she is the only one who is "correct" and is fighting some evangelical crusade against us "evil" "communist" people who are "distorting the truth" about Nazism. And if you do not believe that the Nazis are right-wing or believe that right-wing totalitarianism is impossible, perhaps you should look at a very prominent historical example of an openly right-wing totalitarian conservative movement in Spain, whose leader attended Nazi Party Nuremberg rallies as a guest and studied their tactics, it was called the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right.--R-41 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Word. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whenever the whole right/left argument ever gets used in a publication it is always meant to skew the truth. The Nazis being right wing means nothing as they were not the same as other right wing parties across the globe even in that era. Even today the right wing parties in Africa are no where near the right wing of America when it comes to social issues (African parties will openly kill people they disagree with). Many issues such as race & homosexuality are always attributed to the "right wing" but, there are just as many on the "left" that harbor those issues. Today I see a lot less fighting against those issues by alleged right wing leaders & more fighting for religious freedom that gets misconstrued to be those issues by their opponents. I think putting "far-right" in texts about the Nazis was meant to spur such a heated discussion & offend people on purpose as noted above. The whole "left/right" label has always been a slander historically & modernly so it has no factual basis when describing politics. It is for those reasons I myself don't ascribe to the whole "left/right" as you would have to be an idiot to do so. This confusion is the exact reason of why there are political parties. It is so people don't look at each politician individually & just accept the label.74.248.48.84 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The other main right wing party in Germany in the 1920s and 30s didn't agree with you. The Nationalists, who were right-wing monarchists and conservatives (they were specifically the successor to the old German Conservative Party of the Empire), saw the Nazis as perhaps a bit uncouth, and worried a little about the possible radicalism of their economic policies, but basically saw them as nationalist, right-wing allies in the struggle against the left.  They were the ones, in fact, who brought Hitler to power, thinking they could harness his mass popular support for their reactionary right-wing agenda. Somehow I never see anybody saying that Alfred Hugenberg and Franz von Papen were left-wingers - probably because nobody who calls the Nazis left-wingers has ever heard of those people. Similarly, the Italian Fascists (Hitler's closest allies internationally) got their start as hired thugs for right-wing landowners to suppress left-wing labor agitation in the Italian countryside, and Mussolini came to power because conservative elites thought he would be a useful tool. The Nazis supported the right-wing monarchist Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and installed governments of the right in the countries they took over.  Governments dominated by right-wing parties in Romania and Hungary allied themselves to Hitler.  Obviously the Nazis were "not [exactly] the same" as other right wing parties, but they were similar enough that they all saw one another as kindred spirits and natural allies.  john k (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And the IP's contention that modern Right-Wingers are defenders of "Freedom of Religion" is absolutely hilarious. Denying other people Freedom of Religion does not equal "Freedom of Religion."  That's like saying that white supremacists are fighting for Civil Rights!  LOL!  Regardlesss, the IP's little WP:SOAPbox is not even worthy of discussion.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP says the Nazis "were not the same as other right wing parties", then, "I myself don't ascribe to the whole "left/right" as you would have to be an idiot to do so". So why do you use the term to begin with, even describing nazis as right-wing?  TFD (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead too long
Like the one of the article Nazism, the lead section of this article is too long. Instead of focussing on main information that is essential to understand the subject, it collects a lot of secondary and over-detailed statements that belong further back in the article. That Spengler and Van den Bruck have influenced the Nazi Party's ideology is relevant, but not for the lead. That Hitler attacked both left-wing and right-wing politicians may be brought up and explained somewhere in the article, but not in the lead which should be reserved to the essentials. --RJFF (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Much of it is POV as well.  For example that "Hitler attacked both left-wing and right-wing politicians", while true, implies that he treated them in the same way.  While all Communist deputies were arrested, conservatives were invited into a coalition.  TFD (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FAQ
This one of the worst FAQ sections I have seen. I recommend we delete it. TFD (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? These are perennial questions, as this talk page evidences; and the responses, while brief, are clear. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the question about UHC come up. The answers to why nazism is considered right-wing and pro-capitalist are too long and appear to be a personal view.  Reference to "the Nazis' official position as being syncretic (neither left, right, or centre)" is confusing when explaining why it is "far right".  Saying the Nazis "attack[ed] left-wing and right-wing politicians" implies that the attacks were similar in nature.  The question on socialism implies that nazism was a form of socialism, albeit a "right-wing form".  TFD (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, it appears to you to be the worst FAQ sections you have seen because you know that I have substantially edited it, and you are currently in several arguments with me where you are frustrated and angry with me.--R-41 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think, R-41, that the reason for TFD's frustration is as personal as you claim it is. I don't know you, and have never knowingly encountered you in any of my editing, and to me this FAQ is just totally confusing.  If you substantially edited it, then you did not do a very good job.  The answer to the question "Why is the Nazi Party labeled a far-right party?" just left me scratching my head.  The answer is all over the map, and doesn't clarify for the reader why the Nazis are right wing.  Eastcote (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing picture?
Hi, everyone.

I'm not completely sure if this is the right place to ask, but it was the only location that seemed to fit.

At my job, we use the Wikipedia Picture of the Day pages to create test data. I am currently going through the past pictures, and one of the pictures that links to this page, for a 1932 Nazi Party campaign poster, seems to have been taken down. (The Picture of the Day link is here.)

Can any of you tell me what happened to the picture, and if it's possible to reupload it? If this isn't the right place to ask, can you let me know who/where I should? I'm not sure how long ago the file was deleted, and am fairly new to interacting with wiki for more than browsing and simple edits.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopthatgirl (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It was a "possibly unfree file" and has been deleted. You can find the details here. • Certh 45a.svg • hugarheimur 14:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

NSDAP
The Name of the Party is National Socialist Workers party Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei NSDAP. "Nazi" is just a polemical name for National Socialists; invented by other Socialists. --41.150.63.77 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed, the slang term "nazi" already has several entries in wp. most people refer to the republican party as the grand old party[GOP], yet it's wp entry carries the official name. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is "Common names." This article is called "Nazi Party" because that is the term most commonly used by reliable sources, while reliable sources do not usually call the Republican Party the "GOP", except in newspaper headlines, where they call the other party the "Dems".  TFD (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In Britain, very few people refer to the Republicans as the GOP, or even know what that means. But everyone calls the NSDAP the Nazi Party (and probably few would know what NSDAP means). RolandR (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You left out the work "German" in their full official name, Darkstar; which I assume is an oversight. However, as to the real matter at hand, this is English Wikipedia, so the TFD is correct per the policy he cites above. It should be "Nazi Party". Kierzek (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Kierzek, you have confused me with the ip who started this thread, i know german is part of the parties name, i also know common name uses the nazi party as the very example. i am saddened to think the original term/meaning/intent will eventually be lost to popular slang. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "saddened"? Why? It was just part of the scheißkofpen Big Lie technique. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I read too quickly, it was the ip who made the oversight error; sorry for that Darkstar. As to the main point, the name will not be lost as it is stated in the article, proper. However, the common term used by English RS sources in reference to the article title herein is proper. Kierzek (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Successor Party to NSDAP
Currently, the infobox says that there was no successor to the Nazi Party. I think the Socialist Reich Party should be mentioned. The SRP considered itself the successor of the Nazi Party, and its founder and most of its members were former Nazis. The SRP, due to its national socialist stances, was the first party outlawed by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1952. In my opinion, the infobox should be changed to say this — Succeeded by: None (de jure), Socialist Reich Party (de facto), Neo-Nazism (ideologically). If someone here can read German, it might be a worthy undertaking to look up the 1952 decision to see if the Federal Constitutional Court considered the SRP to be the successor party of NSDAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.68.215 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a splinter of a a party that claimed to be a successor of the Conservative Party. To be described as a successor party it would need to have a closer connection.  TFD (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Major Ronald von Brysonstofen?
Under Military membership this man is mentioned as a member of Nazi Party. However, the name sounds very suspicious, and a Google search gives only hits that are copied from this Wikipedia page. The name was added back on 31 May 2007 in this edit:. See also this edit by the same editor:. Probably a troll somewhere is still snickering how his vandalism has managed to stay on this page for over five and half years. 88.193.88.170 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. I checked the links given above. First the name was added as Ronald, then later changed to Reinhard by the same editor back in 2007. I checked Google, Wikipedia.de and Axis History Forum and nowhere does this name under Ronald or Reinhard come up. It is uncited and doesn't fit the point of the sentence, anyway. That being, Nazi Party members who joined the Wehrmact. Kierzek (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch Shot info (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Freikorps and lead
This edit not only reinstates grammatical errors that I had only just copyedited out – and adds new ones – but reinserts the assertive statement that there is no link between the Nazis and the Freikorps. At least this time it tries to add a reference for that claim, by citing a book: William L Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". However, even leaving aside the mis-spelling of the author's name, that book does not support the statement. Indeed, if you search for "Free Corps" in the Google books preview, you will find statements that confirm quite the opposite, which is what our lead said for some time. Eg "the free corps, from which so many Nazi leaders had come" ... "the storm troopers ... were recruited largely from ... the free corps" etc.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Kierzek (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. TFD (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Far right or far left
I fail to see the point of labeling NSDAP -party as left or right. Usually "left-right" issues deals with economic distribution. How much rich people needs to pay in taxes compared with social benefits for less fortunate persons, health care, schools (especially higher edjucation) and so forth. In this sence nazism was not right. And certainly not far right. It's not even true that "most historicans labels nazism as far-right". Who ? But anyway the issue is beside the point, and lackes importance. So many other matters, that cannot be balanced at the left-right-scale is of far larger importance. Is antisemitism left or right ? Is school-subjects like "German history" (not "History"), "German Mathematics" (not "Mathematics"), "German Physics" (not "Pysics") etc. - read William L. Shierer, "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", the part "Life in the third reich". Is labeling of school subjects, like exemplified, left or right ? People on the right thinks nazism was left, people on the left thinks he was right. But really - does it matter ? Is thinking "in order to feed our growing population, we must conquer more territory - and never mind them, who we conquer. The strongest people will survive" left or right ? '''Continuing the debate of left or right (including giving any kind of answer to this "non-question") will only lead to sevear historical misconceptions. To the benefit of Nazism. I fear.''' Boeing720 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue comes up time and again. We do not pick a definition, compare it with nazi policies and decide where they fit on a left-right spectrum, which is synthesis, but rely on sources for that.  Sheyer btw calls them right-wing - see p. 51.  TFD (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and furthermore, Boeing720 is completely incorrect in his attempt to "redefine" the Left-Right spectrum into something that is not, and has never been, accurate. "Economic Distribution" as a main determination of Left-Right labeling neither makes any sense whatsoever, nor is it used by any reputable historians.  (A few economists...but then, economists are not historians...and by definition, tend to see things solely from a...well...ECONOMIST'S point of view!)  Rather, this is just the tired old argument advanced by Right-Wing talk show hosts who dropped out of school.  And if Boeing720 actually HAD read the opinions of historians, he'd see that they ARE pretty much in agreement regarding the labeling of Nazism.  Once again, this is just more attempts by the Right to "rehabilitate" the past, and no different from Holocaust "Revisionism", in terms of motivation or accuracy.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Boeing720 may not see the point of labeling Nazis as far right, but it would appear that many if not most serious, real-world sources do, and of course that is what matters here, as it does most everywhere else. We are neither going to rewrite the definition of the left-right divide, nor the usual placement of Nazism on it, simply according to the whims of random anonymous WP contributors.  N-HH   talk / edits  00:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article on fascism (can we agree that Nazis are fascists?) states "Although fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left-right spectrum, fascists themselves and some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate." "Usually placed" is good enough for me. Carptrash (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well our friend above seems to dispute that initial assertion (see Talk:Nazism). Plus you might be surprised – or not? – at the effort it took even to get that qualified, but relatively accurate, statement into the page on fascism.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We can most certainly not agree that fascism equals nazism - or the other way around. 1. Nazism by default German (in NSDAP the "D" stands for "Deutch" (German). Hitler clearly definates his National Socialism as a movement for people with German blood only. History, in the sence of "old and proud" doesn't matter much to Hitler. History is something he want to change (nazi history is about the future, and Germany and the true Germans, as the strongest race will conquer the territory that the German people need to survive.) 2.There is not anything of this whithin fascism. Mussolini instead appeals to the great old Roman history. With this I do not state anything about the far left-right issue at all. I only explain some of the most basic differencies between nazism and fascism. (And that nazism were worse, if You didn't belong to the correct blood - but that is no defence for Mussolini, Franco (Spain), Papadopolous (Greece, may be spelled wrong), Videla & Galtieri (Argentina) or Pinochet (Chile)). 3.There is no ideological link between nazism and fascism, apart from militarism. To argumentate that nazism is som kind of fascism or the other way around, is like stating that lemons and oranges are the same fruit, since they appear alike (never mind the taste, colour and shape). But militarism also applies to communism, like the 1st May parades at the Red Square in Moscow. And this is mainstream (in the sence "most of the published wrighters" from Shierer, Bullock and Churchill himself to "modern day wrighters" like Guido Knopp, Overy, Liljegren etc). Further Nazism as idea vanished with Hitler ("mainstream" anyhow, and 99% of so called neo-nazists rather follow the concept of Ernst Röhm and SA, than Hitler and his ideas. Many neo-nazists even attempts to decline the Holocaust.) While fascism atleast survived 50 years longer. Fascism (in most cases) also has a link to the Catholic Church in most cases (seldomly with responce though). Hitler was babtised as Catholic, but speaks nothing of it in Mein Kampf ("the living God" is the closest he comes in religios matters, well aware of that the border between catholicism and protestantism goes strigt through Germany). By the way, I usually only use a dictionary if editing, but I do atleast attempt to use English words. And I urge some people to actually read more history, before making sevear errors in writing, and damage the reputation of English Wikipedia. Boeing720 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is little support, outside Stalinist writing, that Papadopoulos, Videla and Galtieri, or Pinochet were fascists, and division on Franco's dictatorship. Nor is it correct to say that Hitler cared little for the past, Teutonic history was glorified.  There are of course some historians who try to rehabilitate fascism, but it has little acceptance and nazism is generally considered to be a version of fascism, although it had some differences from Italian Fascism and was far worse.  TFD (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And to User:Bryonmorrigan. I simply attempt to describe the historical truth, as I have studied and red about history from around the French revolution and further. I'm most certainly not a rightwinger. And I'm very against Nazism - as I see from Your talkpage also applies to You. I feel a certain cultural difference between us, although we feel the same abot Nazism. I recon You have adapted Your historical knowlidge in the United States. I have not (I'm from Sweden, or as I prefer to say, Scania, the southernmost ex-Danish province of Sweden.) Concerning what's right-left in Europe, the economic balance (or how I shall put it) , is the prime factor for deciding wheather an idea is right or left. (taxes vs wellfare) People that is in favor of high taxes and social benefits are concidered left. While people that is in favor of low taxes and poor social benefits are concidered right. This applies not only to Sweden but to entire Europe, I would argue. But I know this isn't the case in the USA, where it's more a question of liberals (Democratical Party) vs conservatives (Republican Pary) - a bit simplified perhaps, but You understand my general point of view. When it comes to Nazism I strongly feel that putting Hitler and Nazism (including the Holocaust) at the same "level of evil" only makes Nazism more legitime. I simply mean that arguing of left or right (however You may define that issue), it's still not of importance if Hitler was right och left. More importaint is then the words "far" and "extreme". Even if I (here and now at this talk page) made some simplifications, I most firmly belive that simplification is the wrong way to deal with the subject of Hitler and nazism. And I most certainly do not work for any kind of revision of what the nazists did. But it's an error of the most sevear kind to downgrade nazism to fascism, both in the light of the war and the Holocaust. Best reg. Boeing720 (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are confusing policies and ideology. Advocating higher or lower taxes does not make on left or right, it is merely that those are issues that may currently divide the left and right.  Hitler's economic policies were no different from that of any other government, whether of the left or right, during a severe depression.  In fact, right-wing governments provided economic stimulus following the 2008 bank failures.  And of course his coalition partners, the Conservative Party, were not left-wing.  In the end however, it does not matter how we analyze them, but what sources say.  TFD (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Boeing - It almost sounds as if you feel that you are the only one here who has studied any history. Wrong.  To me you sound like a 15 year old who just read not two but THREE history books and now knows it all.  You earlier wrote "read William L. Shierer, "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"".  First of all, his name is spelled Shirer  -  - in English and Swedish.  Secondly, I first read that book in 1963 or1964 and have read a lot more since.  For example, about Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg it is written that he was "a far different sort of Fascist than Hitler." And we could go on and on with these references but won't.  At least I won't.  Carptrash (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Nazi Party in Germany was a far left party. It is in German in the very first sentence of this article:  Nationalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which translates as the National Socialist German Workers Party.  Socialism and Workers movements are left-wing movements.  Adding a nationalist "touch" does not make it a right-wing organization.  To say so means that no left-wing organizations may be nationalist, and therefore are anti-nationalist, or rather against your nation, nation's people, or national interests.  Hitler was a socialist and a fervent labor supporter;  he said as much in Mein Kampf.  It was the West's belief, and most importantly, Roosevelt's and his administration's belief, that since he and his administration are opposing Hitler, thus, Hitler must be of the opposite political orientation.  That belief was also necessary in order to sell and fight the war.  It was not true, however.  Hitler and Roosevelt were very similar and came to power in exactly the same circumstances.  Both rose to power on the financial and economic crises of each respected countries.  Both initiated socialist programs for their respective economies.  Both were successful.  While the United States had already suppressed blacks, suppression of Jews was a new phenomenon, but Hitler partly justified it based on America's Supreme Court ruling of "separate but equal". There was nothing right-wing about Adolf Hitler at all, as right-wing nationalism has always been expressed on a liberation mentality movement (freedom movements, one man one vote, emphasis on the individual);  whereas, left-wing nationalism is based on institutionalism indoctrination mentality (all up or all down; emphasis on the group, society, community; the individual is selfish).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.55.201 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned many times, focusing on the name of the NSDAP is ridiculous, as it was (and is) common practice for German political parties to use terms in a meaningless fashion. For example, the DDR (i.e, Communist East Germany) was known as the "German Democratic Republic", and the current Neo-Nazi party in Germany is called the "National Democratic Party".  Nobody except dropouts and non-historians are "buying" what you are "selling".  And don't vandalize the FAQ, either.  This has been discussed a bajillion times, and has always been shot down.  If you want to peddle propaganda based on uninformed and misleading Conservative pundits, there are many outlets for your screeds.  Wikipedia is not one of them.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  13:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it appears that we have two more red linked editors, User:Capitalist Christian and User:Sonny1998 bent on clearing the Party's name from under the fascist cloud. It seems that this fight will never be won.  Eternal vigilance  . . ...... is what?  Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Byron, I agree with you that focusing on the name is ridiculous for reasons you mention (names don't always match policy). But, despite that, the NSDAP was fairly honest about who they were and what they were going to do, and they followed that up once they were given the power to do so. Most of their first acts when they gained power was to enact socialist policies, they reformed the German society using a socialist template. They were a little slower to ramp up the nationalist aspects, but they certainly did that in short due course. Just because the nationalist aspects are what most people focus on doesn't mean that's all they were. Look at the policies they enacted. Look at their party planks. Who they allied with and who they opposed. They were not just socialist in name, they were socialist in action, and very proud of it. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ^ That's a pretty good example of WP:Synthesis. It doesn't matter what your opinion is...It matters what the clear majority of scholars and academics have written, and they emphatically disagree with your interpretation.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Who they were allied with were mostly the Conservative Party with whom they merged, although Christian Democrats and libertarians joined in voting them dictatorial power. And who they opposed were Communists and Social Democrats, who they killed.  TFD (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The opening statement in our Socialism article states, "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy" Is that what the Nazi's did? I don't think so. Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As ever, the point should be less about anyone here explaining why Nazism is not a kind of socialism, as the latter term is commonly understood or defined elsewhere on WP, but about the fact that it is, as Bryon Morrigan and 100s of others have pointed out, simply not understood to be that in mainstream academic analysis. That is the end of the matter; we don't need to have the underlying debate ourselves. And on that point, I think the current FAQ at the top of the page is needlessly convoluted, while being simultaneously woolly and arguably inaccurate itself, with its R-41speak about Nazism "having substantial far-right policies" and "superior and inferior people".  N-HH   talk / edits  23:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The traditional "far right" are ultraconservative parties and movements, not fascists and certainly not Nazis (whether Nazism is a form of fascism is the subject of another debate among scholars). And while you are correct in pointing out that we are not to here to argue the underlying debate ourselves, I believe the issue here is that the debate in sources isn't accurately portrayed, and that we are introducing a slant. I have not seen anything in any of your posts that would make me think you have the majority of reputable sources behind you. Can you tell me why you believe otherwise? -- Director  ( talk )  11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you actually suggesting that a significant minority of academic and other reputable sources – or even a majority – will describe Nazis and fascists as being on the far left of the traditional political spectrum? Or will not place them on the far right? I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for that ..  N-HH   talk / edits  11:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to answer provocations like that. I am "seriously suggesting" that the Nazi Party (and that's what we're discussing here, not Fascism) had a significant left wing, which a large number of sources  describe as adhering to a Third Position, or use terms like "socialistic" and "anti-capitalist" to describe its ideology. Sources that deal with factions in the Nazi Party explain that its entire northern and western segments belonged to this wing, and that prominent Nazis like Goebbels, Röhm, and Strasser were its strong adherents. That Nazi propaganda was socialist-leaning until 1929, that its membership up to that point was predominantly among workers and lower classes, etc, etc.. You're taking one side of the coin too far. --  Director  ( talk )  12:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a provocation, it was a question, albeit one to which I rather obviously do not believe anyone could answer "yes". You're the one that queried what view "the majority of reputable sources" were behind, in a thread about whether Nazis were far left or far right. Anyway, yes the Nazis had a "left wing" in a relative context, just like the British Labour party is said to have a "right wing" while being overall a "left wing" party (supposedly). Even if they had been in the ascendant – which they never were, especially by the 1930s – that would still not necessarily make the Nazis a left-wing party. Also, anti-capitalism btw is not the preserve or the defining feature of the left. Finally, we come back to the basic point. For all the complexities, varying rhetoric and real factional in-fighting –all of which is, as noted elsewhere, covered already on these pages – historians and other mainstream sources place the Nazi party, throughout its existence, on the far right. Done.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you, I know that the "left wing" of a party means "left-wing" relative to the party (honestly I'd be lost without these frequent clarifications of yours). That is why I pointed out the ideology of said wing (we can call it "chicken wing" if it makes you feel better) as described in sources, as well as its prominence in the party, especially in the 1920s.


 * All that taken into consideration, I would like to see why you think that "historians and other mainstream sources place the Nazi party, throughout its existence, on the far right". On what grounds do you make such a claim of universal support? Because somehow I think having a huge socialist wing kind of makes it debatable whether a party belongs in the "far right". -- Director  ( talk )  12:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, you do understand the point about relative contexts, I believe you. The problem is that it's not always easy to discern that from some of the things you say and hence it seems worth explaining it with a bit more emphasis. I made the claim about what historians and other mainstream sources say because that's what I see in said sources. Maybe I read the wrong things, but I don't think that's an uncommon experience. Your last argument doesn't follow, since you move from what sources might or might not say to your own suppositions and deductions: "You can't have seen the majority of sources say A is a kind of B, because I reckon A is more likely to be a kind of C". Anyway, I want my Saturday back.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'd have more of your Saturday available if you just answered others directly. The word "evasive" comes to mind. I take it you can't present any evidence of widespread support for your position? -- Director  ( talk )  18:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Director, it is not our role to defend what mainstream writers say, just to report it. The Reagan administration also had a socialist wing, that does not stop observers from calling it New Right.  TFD (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * More lessons on how Wikipedia functions.. its getting a little insulting. This time not from a user who's posted six times less contribs, but around half. Do you fellas ever stop to consider I may know all this, and perhaps know more than you do on the subject? :)


 * Again, I am aware we are not here to debate these issues for the sources. I am expressing doubt with regard to N-HH's claim that "historians and other mainstream sources place the Nazi party, throughout its existence, on the far right". I lay out my reasons as to why I doubt this, pointing out that sources discuss left-wing socialist ideologies present within said party, and that the "far right" is traditionally associated more with ultraconservatism. I would like to see whether there is any foundation for N-HH's position, and I would like us to stop beating about the bush. -- Director  ( talk )  21:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Type in ""right-wing" "weimar republic"" to Google books and see what comes up. One book for example says the political Left of the Weimar Republic consisted of the Social Democrats and the Communists.  The Right consisted of the right of the Christian Democrats, right-wing liberals, conservatives and nazis.  These terms were used at the time, and parties were seated in the Reichstag according to whether they were left, right, or center.  TFD (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * if you are challenging that 'historians and other mainstream sources place the Nazi party, throughout its existence, on the far right' - shouldn't you just leave a booklist here, to RS, preferably with reassuring publishers like Yale University Press or Oxford University Press - not to novels or globalresearch or any garbage, -and perhaps highlight where they say it was considered in 1925, or 1931, or 1933, whenever, as a leftist or liberal party.  they discuss Otto Strasser and men like that but where do they say ' otto strassers political career exemplifies the fact that at this point the Nazi party was a liberal, or leftist, party' - these are presented rather in mainstream RS histories, are they not, as  battles fought within a far right party. Sayerslle (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Director, you are just trolling by this point. There are no reliable sources describing the Nazis as other than a member and/or tool of Germany's extreme right, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary.. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  06:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's a few sources that in my mind cast doubt on whether the "far right" attribution corresponds to the mainstream view in sources, at least when "all periods" are concerned. The WP:BURDEN is on the user making such a claim, not on one challenging it, so I would very much like to see if there is any reason to assume such support. And Orange Mike, I don't think that's trolling. As for whether the Nazis were a "tool" of the extreme right, I would say that may well be correct, but that the "tool" and the one who wields it (or rather attempts to wield it in this case), are not the same thing. @TFD, "right" and "far right" are also not the same thing.



""...their [Nazi] version of socialism did not offer the sweeping economic and social revolution advocated by the Marxists. National Socialism would eliminate neither private property nor class distinctions. It would provide economic security and social welfare programs for the workers; employment, a just wage, and protection from capitalistic exploitation would be guaranteed. But economic equality and and a classless society were never Nazi goals. What workers would receive, aside from economic justice, would be enhanced social status. The new image of the worker would be one of honor and pride in his station in life. Workers would no longer constitute an alienated and despised group. They would again take their rightful place in society; their importance and dignity would be recognized by the rest of the nation. In the ideal Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, classes would exist (based upon talent, property, profession, etc.), but there would be no class conflict. Different economic and social classes would live together harmoniously and work for the common good. A national consciousness would replace the class consciousness that had historically divided Germans and turned them against one another."

"Although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis seized power. Ultimately, many of the socialistic ideals and programs remained unrealized. Part of the reason for this was that within the party there was violent disagreement over the essence of national socialism. Hitler, himself, was more concerned with the racial, nationalistic, and foreign policy goals of the ideology than he was with socialism. While he glorified the workers in his speeches, he later downplayed socialism in his efforts to gain votes from the middle classes and funds from wealthy capitalists. However, the left wing of the Nazi party, lead by Georg and Otto Strasser, considered Nazism essentially a socialistic and anticapitalistic movement. Their goal was the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist state, and they vigorously protested Hitler's compromises. In most cases, Hitler's views prevailed, but the conflict between these party factions over such issues would last until the suppression of the left wing in 1934. In theory, at least, socialism and anticapitalism remained integral parts of the Nazi ideology, and they continued to play a very important role in Nazi propaganda and election campaigns.""


 * "...no one spoke in stronger socialistic terms in this period than Hitler's protege, Goebbels, who attempted to conquer the proletarian districts of Berlin with his National Socialist message. The socialistic orientation of the party [the NSDAP] from 1925 to 1928 was reflected not only in its propaganda but also in its membership. (...) This decidedly socialistic orientation was, for a variety of mutually reinforcing reasons, reversed by Hitler in 1929."

And there's more, of course. Have a look at sources discussing the "Third Position" of the Nazi left wing. It seems clear to me that some variation of the term "socialistic" or "Thid Position" is applicable in describing the party's ideological position, if not throughout, then at least for certain periods in the (extremely powerful) left wing. I would like to see how this corresponds with the "far right" claim. -- Director  ( talk )  12:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so after acres of text and dragging people round the houses, you are in fact questioning whether the Nazis are, or should be, defined as a far right party – despite accusing me of provocation when I asked you that specific question at the start. And you accuse me of being evasive? Either you genuinely don't accept and understand that "far right" is simply the standard taxonomy and language of mainstream discourse in this context, regardless of "left-wing" factions or claims about the "Third Position" (I genuinely don't understand what evidence you want me to present in support of that; if you haven't worked it out yet, I don't see what else I or anyone else can do to convince you) or, as someone else has also suggested, you are just trolling the page.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The "provocation", as you well know, was not whether I doubt the Nazis are "far right", but rather when (in response for me requesting sources for "far right") you asked if I'm "actually suggesting" that the majority of sources state the Nazis are "far left" . Maybe it wasn't a "provocation", but there weren't any sources there either, and you yourself seemingly admitted its an absurd question . I also think its very obvious to anyone at this point that the claim which I question is the one regarding universal support for the "far right" description. So in short, I have no idea what you're talking about in the first part of your post (unless you're just trying to make others look unduly silly?).


 * Now to set all the endless evasion aside, can you, or can you not, provide any kind of support whatsoever for your claim that "historians and other mainstream sources place the Nazi party, throughout its existence, on the far right"? -- Director  ( talk )  13:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whuh? In the post you've even kindly linked to, you did notice, right, that my question was also whether you thought "a significant minority ... will not place them on the far right"? And I only suggested the question was absurd in the sense that I really, really do not see how anyone can claim either that or the even more unlikely far left point. As to evasion, I have no idea how to prove to your satisfaction that most sources do indeed describe the Nazi party as being on the far right. I could spend hours digging up and listing 100s and you'd no doubt just say "that's not all/most". As a rough statement about how the political terms in question are deployed, as a matter of basic language and categorisation, it seems so blindingly obvious to anyone with even a basic political knowledge that demanding "proof" of it is frankly bizarre.


 * The bottom line here is that you're the one peddling an outlier and novel view: so how about, instead of badgering everyone else and repeatedly accusing them of being evasive, you prove your apparent case, ie that most sources do not describe them as far right. Or you could just Google the phrase Nazi with the phrase "far right" or "right wing" yourself (and "far left", "radical centre" or whatever else would help) and read the excerpts that come up. Then, in the unlikely event you do find the evidence you seek, please explain in what way you want this to affect the actual content of the page itself. Otherwise we're just going round in circles having semi-abstract discussions about the nature of Nazism, which is not what WP talk pages are for (yes, I'm telling you how WP works again).  N-HH   talk / edits  14:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In order to question whether the nazis were described as far right, you need a source saying that they were not. You said the traditional "far right" are ultraconservative parties.  If that is true, then perhaps you could provide an example.  The term "far right" today generally refers to parties that have a connection with historical fascism.  TFD (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So.. you can't support the claim that they're "far right"? Well, as you probably know, when text is challenged, it needs explicit support in sources or keeping it is against WP:V. -- Director  ( talk )  16:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is already sourced. If you want to change it, then you need a source that says that description is wrong.  TFD (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm having trouble verifying the sources, presumably there might've been some OR at work.
 * 'Fritzsche 1998' doesn't seem to use the term "far right" at all. Numerous instances of "right-wing", though.
 * 'Blum 1998' uses the term three times but I can't verify that he refers to the Nazi Party as such. Of these three, two instances do not appear to be relevant, as Books points to a reference listing, and a page concerning Neo-Nazis. In either case the ref needs a new page number, and preferably a quote, - because none of those three instances occur on the cited page (page 9).
 * The Oxford English Dictionary does not define "Nazi" as "far right", at least not currently. It uses the term "right-wing".
 * My current theory is that the listed references were brought in support of "right-wing" or some such phrase, not specifically "far right", and that the text was changed later (didn't check history though).


 * To be sure, I don't doubt there will be sources that say the Nazi Party was "far right", but I propose that amending to "right-wing" per Oxford et al. might more accurately reflect the sources. I'll do some more research and provide additional tertiary sources when I catch the time. Further, there is the unresolved issue of the significant left wing of the Nazi Party, the ideology of which is manifestly not represented at all in the current infobox summary... -- Director  ( talk )  23:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So there's a possible disconnect between some content and the specific sources attached to it? That's nothing new on most of these pages unfortunately. However, that doesn't back up the broader claim that the Nazi Party is not usually described as or thought of as being on the far right. The sources as used don't contradict the "far right" assertion – nor have you yet revealed any additional ones that do so – and there are plenty of other sources that make it more explicitly. If you think that Nazis are generically "right-wing" but definitely not, more specifically, "far right", where within the right-wing do you suggest that they stand or that sources place them: on the centre-right?  N-HH   talk / edits  09:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If by "disconnect" you mean the sources are misquoted and introduced on the basis of OR... I must also point out once again that statements like "the Nazi Party is not usually described as or thought of as being on the far right", are thus far nothing more than you talking. -- Director  ( talk )  10:11, 20 November 201
 * There is no misquotation and no OR. By disconnect, I mean that the sources cited happen to not back up the specific point being made at that point. As I said, this is a common problem. It doesn't mean the point itself is wrong, it just means a more directly relevant and explicit source is needed at that point to avoid all this sort of nonsense. Something which has now been sorted. Btw my position is not of course that the party is "not" usually so described; that's your position, which is, indeed, just you talking.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, but if a source says 'right-wing' and one writes ' far right' then "the point itself" is indeed wrong - unless other sources are provided ofc.


 * As I said, there will likely be some sources for "far right", but based on several tertiary analyses, I don't think that's an accurate representation of sources. Either way, to me it seems justified to introduce an "internal factions" subheading for ideologies (e.g. ). -- Director  ( talk )  11:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well no, as a matter of general logic in such circumstances, the point in question may not be right but it is not necessarily wrong. Not least, in this case, because far right is of course a subcategory of right. I'd be fine with more detail on the party's factions and personalities, but as I have said, the page does already include some details about Gregor Strasser and I would also strongly object to any bid to suggest that he and his supporters were "left-wing" in any overall sense as opposed to simply being on the left of the (far right) Nazi party. As for the far right issue, again, please present any evidence you have to counter what is the overwhelming and assumed consensus in political lexicography.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)