Talk:Nazism/Archive 11

page numbers
What's the page number from Payne? On page 147 of the book Payne makes mention that "Many who use the term fascism are referring not to the Italian movement led by Mussolini but to German National Socialism," but this not really supports what is being said in the article here. Or does Payne discuss this on some other page? Also, Ian Kershaw's 2000 book, The Nazi Dictatorship, says that there is still a considerable controversy over seeing Nazism as a form of fascism (pages 40 and on), and that much disagreement still exists between scholars. Intangible2.0 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have to go through this again? How many times do we have to have this same discussion with a tiny handful of editors? How many times do Intangible and Vision_Thing and a few others get to raise the same marginal views and suggest that they represent the majority views of scholars. How many mediations? How many sanctions? How many scores of hours wasted? My response is that to raise this again on Fascism, Nazism, Far Right, or related pages is tendentious and disruptive. Would you please list the prior votes, mediation requests, and sanctions involved over the past two years? That would be both constructive and instructive.--Cberlet (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From the Fascism entry on Wikipedia: "Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism," citing to:


 * Kevin Passmore (2002 p.62):


 * "There are sufficient similarities between Fascism and Nazism to make it worthwhile applying the concept of fascism to both. In Italy and Germany a movement came to power that sought to create national unity through the repression of national enemies and the incorporation of all classes and both genders into a permanently mobilized nation. http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/people/kp/"


 * Most scholars agree, despite the continuing controversy.--Cberlet (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should stop acting like a spokesperson for all scholars. And Nazism is not a form of Fascism. It's quite different from Mussolini's ideology. Nazism is based on 'what's considered best for the race', and because of that it employs some aspects of Fascism. Remember: &ldquo;National Socialism is politically applied biology.&rdquo; Fascism does not include the racial aspects. Mussolini rejected that. &mdash;  EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does Passmore say there is scholarly consensus that Nazism is a form of fascism? Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the page number from Passmore's book? Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't expect a straight answer. Cberlet never gives any specific citations. He just cites book titles. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus, Edited by Roger Griffin, Oxford University Press, May 1998.
 * "This reader focuses on the definition and ideology of generic fascism, bringing together articles, essays, and political writings by several key figures to lay bare the structural affinity that relates fascism not only to Nazism but to the many failed fascist movements that surfaced in inter-war Europe and elsewhere. In both his introduction and his editorial commentary Griffin locates the driving force behind all fascist movements in a distinctive utopian myth, that of the regenerated national community, destined to rise up from the ashes of a decadent society." --Oxford University Press
 * Try actually reading the books rather than doing Internet searches.--Cberlet (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Max Weber, Charisma, 1947. Discusses Nazism as a variety of fascism. --Cberlet (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Roger Griffin, entry on Fascism in Encarta:


 * "Fascist movements surfaced in most European countries and in some former European colonies in the early 20th century....fascists managed to win control of the state and attempted to dominate all of Europe, resulting in millions of deaths in the Holocaust and World War II (1939-1945). Because fascism had a decisive impact on European history from the end of World War I until the end of the World War II, the period from 1918 to 1945 is sometimes called the fascist era. Fascism was widely discredited after Italy and Germany lost World War II, but persists today in new forms....Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements, from Italian Fascism to contemporary neo-Nazi movements in the United States."


 * Are we clear yet? I am doing Internet searches now to demonstrate how easy it is to demonstrate that most scholars consider Nazism a form of fascism.--Cberlet (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This from a review at a conservative magazine online, The National Interest:
 * "Walter Laqueur's Fascism: Past, Present, Future and Roger Eatwell's Fascism: A History are two recent additions to the growing literature.... Laqueur's Fascism is a sweeping overview of the two paradigmatic cases of "historical fascism", fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.... Eatwell's Fascism tells the story of fascism in four countries: Italy, Germany, France, and Britain. It traces Italian fascism from its birth in the wake of the First World War to near-death experience in the Second World War to mature respectability today, and it follows Nazism and its posterity from Hitler's Munich days to post-reunification...."
 * More to come....


 * You don't have to prove to me that scholars use the concept of generic fascism, which includes Nazism. There is no argument about that. But your cites do not validate your claim that there exists a scholarly consensus calling Nazism a form of fascism. You are just citing individual scholars, and then using your own POV to say that what they are saying holds for other scholars as well. I have already given a reference, Ian Kershaw's book, which shows that the consensus you are talking about, does not exist. Intangible2.0 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Griffin: "Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements."


 * Griffin: The issue, Intangible2.0, is your insistance on cherry picking the tiny handful of scholars that insist that Nazism was not a form of fascism, and then demanding that I find a scholar that states in a precise way that there is a consensus. If by consensus you mean 100% agrteement, then indeed there still is a controversy involving a handful of scholars. But I am talking about the overwhelming majority view among contemporary scholars, which is that Nazism was a form of fascism. If you prefer, to be precise, let's follow Griffin's argument. In that case Nazism was not a form of (Italian-style) Fascism, however according to Griffin, Nazism was a form of fascism. We have had this discussion before, yes?  Would you please confirm that we have had this discussion before here on Wikipedia?--Cberlet (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look man, let's not play stupid, all right? There are many "scholars" who consider Islam a form of fascism. Nazism is simply based on the race and Aryan ideals. Fascism has nothing to do with this. The only thing Nazism takes after Fascism is totalitarianism and nationalism. That doesn't make Nazism a form of Fascism. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man, for sharing your uncited original research POV. However, even Intangible2.0 is asking for actual cites to reputable published scholarly research.--Cberlet (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can call it original research POV as much as you like; that doesn't make you factually correct. You are in fact just trying to add a political POV into the article. For instance: Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements. &mdash; Those who insist that Fascism is limited to Italy under Mussolini, are right. Fascism is Mussolini's creation. If you're going to "broadly include many movements" and categorize them all under fascism, you are in fact just aping the Leftist media. This is a political POV, and it has no place on Wikipedia. And the same thing goes for those who call Nazism a "right wing ideology". This is another Leftist POV. And for the last time, I've told you, stop acting like a spokesperson for all scholars. If anyone is making a lot of uncited original research POV, then it's you, Mr. Berlet. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to disagree with the theory that the word "fascism" applies only to the Mussolini dictatorship. If you look, for example, at Shirer's "Berlin Diary" (first published in 1940) you can see references to fascist movements in Austria, England, France and Spain.  Hitler's dictatorship is also described as fascist.  I am sure that there are academics who prefer the more narrow usage, but that doesn't matter.  Webster calls fascism "any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition," which reflects the common usage.  I don't think the Wikipedia should get into the business of reforming the English language: It isn't for us to say whether the common usage is right or wrong. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

<-Professor Roger Griffin: "Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements." I was citing Griffin, one of the world's leading scholars on the subject. Hardly "uncited original research POV."--Cberlet (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Griffin, R. 1991. The nature of fascism. New York: Routledge.
 * Griffin, R. ed. 1995. Fascism. Oxford Readers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 * Griffin, R. ed. 1998. International fascism: Theories, causes, and the new consensus. London: Arnold.
 * Griffin, R. 1999. “Fascism Is More Than Reaction,” Searchlight; online at .
 * Griffin, R. 2001 ‘Fascism’, in Brenda E. Brasher (ed.) Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism (New York: Routledge), pp. 171–178.
 * Griffin, R. and Matthew Feldman, eds. 2003. Fascism. Vols. 1-5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, New York, NY: Routledge.
 * Griffin, R. 2003. “From Slime Mould to Rhizome: an Introduction to the Groupuscular Right.” Patterns of Prejudice 37:27-50.
 * Griffin, R. 2003. “Shattering Crystals: The Role of ‘Dream Time’ in Extreme Right–Wing Political Violence,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 1.
 * Griffin, R. 2004. “Introduction: God’s Counterfeiters? Investigating the Triad of Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:291-325.


 * WP:RS states that claims of consensus need to be sourced. I already provided a source to the contrary, namely a section from Ian Kershaw's book. Intangible2.0 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Autarchy
As of now, the first paragragh under reads that the Nazis wished to create a largely homogeneous and autarchic ethnic state. Where I could be mistaken, this seems highly unlikely, as autarchism rejects the value of government, an idea largely opposed to nationalism. Is this a misspelling of autarky, or was there in fact a little known goal of some form of liberty within Nazism? 24.24.90.148 (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! Good catch. The word should be "Autarkic". I made the change. The setion still needs better cites.--Cberlet (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When did the DAP become the NSDAP?
"The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party on April 1, 1920" &mdash; I have one generally reliable authority, at least on factual details (Goodrick-Clarke 1985: 150), who dates the name change to "the end of February 1920" but without being precise. Follow the link to 1920 and you will find that on February 24, "Adolf Hitler present[ed] his National Socialist program in Munich", which indeed is the date given in the Yad Vashem reference only a few sentences earlier ("Nazi Party Established"). I've altered the date in the article and sourced it to Y.V. Come to think of it, April 1 does look like somebody's idea of a joke. Gnostrat 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a disputed point. In "Mein Kampf," Hitler referred to Feb. 24, 1920 as "the first great public demonstration of our young movement," and it was indeed on this day that the 25-point program of the party was presented.  In many histories, it is named as the founding date of the N.S.D.A.P.
 * However, some historians dispute this version of events. In "The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler," Robert Payne notes that Hitler was only one of several speakers.  He quotes a newspaper account of the event: "Herr Hitler (DAP) developed some striking political ideas, which evoked spirited applause, but also roused his numerous already prejudiced opponents to contradiction; and he gave a survey of the the party's program, which in its features comes close to that of the Deutsch-Sozialistische Partei."
 * In "Nazism, A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts" (v.1 p.18) by J. Noakes and G. Pridham, I read that the party was renamed in February 1920, but further that Hitler was officially only propaganda chief, not yet the "Führer."
 * According to Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (p.41)"its name was altered on April 1, 1920, to the National Socialist German Worker's Party." The source, so far as I can tell, was Konrad Heiden, "A History of National Socialism," a book which is not available to me.
 * Alan Bullock, in "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny," p. 42, dates the re-naming to August, 1920.
 * I am able to confirm Bullock's version from a Nazi-era publication, Daten der Geschichte der NSDAP by Dr. Hans Volz, published in 1935 by the publishing house A.G. Ploetz: der "Deutschen Arbeiterpartei"(seit dem Salzburger Parteitag [7./8. August 1920]: "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" [NSDAP]). That is the best information I have. --Forrest Johnson 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It is most interesting that details of such a basic kind are not, even yet, done and dusted. We should, I think, stick with Feb 24 but add some short acknowledgment of competing views, and reference your several sources in a footnote. That should keep anybody and everybody happy. Gnostrat 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it very frustrating that I cannot come up with any definitive answer to this question.
 * The German Wikipedia supports the Feb. 24 date: Später wurde der Abend des 24. Februar als Beginn der nationalsozialistischen Bewegung hochstilisiert. An diesem Abend wurde die Bezeichnung NSDAP von Hitler etabliert (das Kürzel „NS“ sollte die Besonderheit der Partei hervorheben und wurde von Hitler, Eckart, Esser, Heß, Röhm und Feder an der Parteiführung vorbei eingeführt) und das 25-Punkte-Programm wurde als Grundsatzforderung der Partei vorgestellt. []
 * This is the most widely accepted version. Having spent some time in the library today, I turned up Joseph W. Bendersky's "A History of Nazi Germany," which gives a similar version (on p.35): "At the first successful mass meeting, at the Hofbräuhaus in Munich on February 24, 1920, the spotlight was on Hitler rather than on Drexler or Harrer.  Hitler, himself, had the honor of introducing the new party program and proclaiming a change in the party's name.  Henceforth, the DAP was to be known as the National Socialist German Worker's party (NSDAP), from which the term 'Nazi' was derived."
 * There is a serious problem here: As Payne points out, the local paper continues to refer to the DAP, it doesn't take any note of the supposed name change. Could this be another example of Nazis rewriting history?  The 25-point program was later adopted by Hitler as the "unalterable" platform of the NSDAP; it would hardly do to admit that it was in fact the program of the DAP under Drexler.
 * During my library visit, I also found a copy of Heiden's 1935 book. P. 23: "Through the intermediary of Dr. Alexander Schillings the Party had come in contact with the National Socialists of the former Danubian monarchy [i.e. Austria -- fj].  These were engaged at the time in disputing as to whether they should call themselves the National Socialist Worker's Party; the word "Worker" was a cause of some offence among the Viennese.  In Munich, again, the word "Socialist" was under dispute, but eventually adopted, against the wish of Hitler.  From April 1920 Anton Dexler's Party, which had hitherto been known as the German Workers Party, was called National Socialist German Worker's Party.
 * Payne agrees with Shirer and Heiden, that the name change took place in April, but makes Hitler the sole author. P. 152: "After his return from Berlin, the party became little more than an extension of his own person. He was the chief speaker, and he held all the strings in his hands."
 * Bullock also attributes the name change to an arrangement with the Austrians, but pushes the date forward to August. P. 42: "In May, 1918, this Austrian Party adopted the title of D.N.S.A.P. -- the German National Socialist Workers' Party -- and began to use the Hakenkreuz, the swastika, as its symbol.  When the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was broken up, and a separate Czech state formed, the National Socialists set up an inter-State bureau with one branch in Vienna, of which Riehl was chairman, and another on the Sudetenland.  It was this inter-State bureau which now invited the cooperation of the Bavarian National Socialists, and a Munich delegation attended the next joint meeting at Salzburg in August, 1920.  Shortly afterwards the Munich Party, too, adopted the the title of the National Socialist German Worker's Party."
 * This appears to be the same Salzburg conference mentioned by Volz. That there was another claim to the name NSDAP was probably something the German Nazis did not emphasize in their histories.
 * I find myself at a loss to resolve this question. It would take, at the least, a lot of "original research," which is anyway forbidden here.  If you want, I can correspond with our German colleagues and ask if they have any better information. --Forrest Johnson 08:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles on Austrian National Socialism, the Sudeten German Party and the Czech National Socialist Party collectively indicate that the concept of national-socialism originated with Czech nationalists in the 1890s and was emulated by Austrian-Germans (same basic idea, but rival national movements?) who were sensitive about actually using "National-Socialist" in the party name until 1918. The Austrian party was founded in 1903 as the DAP, and the Bavarian DAP was evidently inspired by the Austrian, even down to its party programme which was largely borrowed from the latter. When the Austrian DAP finally overcame its reluctance to use "National-Socialist" in its title, the Bavarian DAP followed suit. If Hitler opposed even the name, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is just about nothing in German National-Socialism which derives originally from him, except for the totalitarian twist. Backdating the name change to coincide with Hitler's delivery of the party programme would have both allowed him to take the credit and helped to conceal the actual source of the name.


 * I have another observation which is perhaps worth following up. Most of the original founders including Drexler were associates of the Thule Society (Hess seems to have been an actual member). These men were progressively marginalised from 1920 onwards (except Hess, whose devotion to the Führer was perhaps a clever survival strategy?). Hitler's scorn for secret societies is well documented and, after 1933-4 (when the Thule founder Sebottendorff attempted to claim the credit for Hitler's revolution) could it be that a decision was made to lay this ghost to rest once and for all?


 * I agree that this leads us into original research, but I wonder if we have uncovered something significant here, which perhaps deserves to be brought to the attention of people who can do the research and publish it so that we can get a definitive answer on Wikipedia! There's another detail which has me no less perplexed: Bullock's claim that the Austrian party adopted the swastika in 1918. According to Goodrick-Clarke (1985: 151), the swastika emblem was first proposed by the Thule Society and Bavarian DAP member Friedrich Krohn in a memorandum dated May 1919 ("Ist das Hakenkreuz als Symbol nationalsozialistischer Partei geeignet?"), although it didn't make its first public appearance until 20 May 1920. So if both authors are correct, then not only was Krohn referring to the Bavarian DAP as the "National-Socialist Party" four months before Hitler joined, but the Austrian DNSAP was openly using the swastika a full year before Krohn's memorandum!


 * By all means please do confer with your German colleagues. I would be very fascinated to know what they make of all this. Gnostrat (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, because I am presently in the U.S., my access to historical sources is somewhat limited. I have, however, posted a query with the German Wikipedia editors  and ordered a rare book  which may help to clear things up. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I got an answer to my post, which I'll subject to a hasty translation: "There is something in this. You only have to read 'Mein Kampf' to see how Drexler is depicted -- Hitler mentions him only parenthetically and superficially as a person of no importance.  At the beginning of 1920, Hitler had a certain importance in the party as an agitator, but was not yet officially the leader (which he first achieved in July 1921 after a power struggle with Drexler and Harrer).  The renaming of the NSDAP certainly took place on the initiative of Hitler, who also imposed the swastika symbol, but it is not easy to reconstruct the exact course of events, because the early history of the party is overgrown with legends.  In the [German] article on the DAP one reads, 'The National Socialist name was supposed to distinguish the party from its rivals.  It was pushed on the party leadership by Hitler, Eckart, Hess, Röhm and Feder,' which may come close to the facts.  The name issue could also have become one of the issues in the leadership conflict with Drexler.  In hindsight, Hitler was naturally disposed to present the party history so that his leadership role appears at the earliest possible point and the early times under Drexler took up as little space as possible." --Forrest Johnson (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Socialism' and right wing conservatism in National Socialism
I moved this from above where I wrote it because the debate over this seems to be an ongoing one and the section I put it in seems to have died, I have studied in detail Germany in its rise to power, and am just (trying) to clarify some common misinterpretations and why Hitler's NAZISM is mainly classified as a right-wing/ partially conservatism (conservative because it draws on a lot from past authoritarianims). Its a bit of a long winded piece of writing but to explain why NAZISM in in essence right-wing. I have no personal stake in the game of political pass-the-parcel that editors here and some historians seem to engage in, i.e. was the right or the left responisble. The awnser to that is that many left-wing working class and right-wing elitists supported the NAZIS, so they are both responsible (although ultimately it was the right that placed Hitler into power). I am also ready to accept that in essence Stalin was a left-wing dictator who was in many repsects worse than Hitler.

The following is what I wrote...

(A bit of OR, but just gonna give 2 cents) I would say that Hitler was very much a right-wing conservative, that does not mean all elements within the party were right wing conservatives. the whole reason for the night of the long knives was to suppress the 'socialist' supporting left within the NAZI party, who advocated for further socio-economic reform. I would definetly not call Rohm a right-wing conservative, for on he was homosexual which Hitler oppossed and gave as a reason for his removal. However Rohm's removal was precisely because he was a socialist and left-wing who had power over a huge left-wing mob (SA), and Hitler was A: more supportive of the right and conservatism B: Needed the support of the right more than the left. This does not mean that Hitler did not implement programs which helped social deprevation, however if he did not implement these programs (which appeared sucessful on the face of it, but were flawed) his power would have been much less secure. After the night of the long knives the only ideology relevant in the NAZI party was that of Hitler's (the left had been suppressed, and the right had been cautioned), and Hitler was a right-wing conservative in essence.

Reasons for claiming Hitler was a right wing-conservative:

1. Hitler was a supporter of the idea of Indo-European Araynism, and later eugenics that linked in with this, Indo-European Araynism was a movement supported mainly by radical right wing Germans who were conservative A: because they supported the idea of conservative German values and 'features', supporting an idea of 'racial purity' B: linked onto this they were extremely xenophobic/anti-immigration, and supported traditional German values something which can be considered conservative.

2. Hitler drew most of his support from the right, from people such as Von Papen and Hugenburg, the right-wing elite of Germany who obviously saw Hitler as more in favour of the right (otherwise they wouldnt have supported the NAZIS over the other parties).

3. Hitler linked up with parties on the right-wing of the spectrum to form majorities, these right-wing parties did not all support socialism

4. Hitler drew most of his popular support from the right, buisnessmen and nationalists, he used the SA (despite being left in some senses) to attack left-wing opposition such as Communists or merely democratic socialists.

5. Hitler was anti-semitic, something that was opposed mainly by the left in these days and upheld manly by the right (at least in Germany).

6. Hitler tried to relate Germany back to a 'golden age' and forged phony links between modern Germany and the previous 'Reichs' as well as the Teutonic Knights. These links with past eras and (again, a bit of a cliche) 'traditional Values', believing modern Germans should emulate the behaviour of past Germans, something which is definetly (conservative).

7. Linked in with the previous point Hitler oppossed the liberalisation that had taken place under Weimer Germany, he viewed it as immoral and corrupt, and disliked modern movements in general including Jazz which he viewed as 'negroid'.

8. He originally drew most of his support from the countryside, an area which had been traditionally right-wing conservative. In many propoganda posters NAZISM can be seen to contrast the beauty of Germanic rural life with the dingy existence of city, proletarian life. Socialists generally supported the urban working class over the agricultural life.

Ergo the fact that after the Night of the Long-Knives Hitler had consolidated his power completly over the state, his personal ideology was the main driving force of domestic and foreign policy, NAZISM took a firm right-wing conservative stance. However I am not saying that Hitler was conventionally right-wing, he implemented public works schemes such as the autobahns to gain support with the masses when it suited him, he also supported modernization (although arguably moderniation was a pre-requesit for militarisation, again something that, in Germany, was based on a right wing-conservative desire for the greatness that Germany had in eras gone by).

In so far as conservatism is an ideal which supports maintianing of a traditional or past political or social enviroment, NAZISM was conservative, it supported the trational politcal authoritarian rule of Germany (like that of the Kaiser before them), opposed the 'new' idea of democracy, and wished for a return to older values such as maternity, opposing feminism (a very 'modern' movement). However considering that NAZISM was willing to capitualte to the social demands of the people of Germany it can be described as oppertunist. Perhaps, considering the repeated but reformed conservatism of previous eras, NAZISM can be described as one of the first instances of neo-Conservatism, however it is not always helpful to add a modern political term to a past context.

I have spelling issues (dyslexic) and am no good at proof-reading, so if you want to correct any mistakes please do. Sorry for such an OR essay, but I was merely explaining and proving logically that NAZISM, excluding certain elemnts of the party such as the SA) was a right-wing movement. I can provide sources for this if neccessary but what I wrote was not designed to be entered into the article, but to state why NAZISM was right-wing conservative.172.143.124.86 22:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I would just like to add my support for keeping the article name NAZISM, as NAZI is an abreviation for the German spelling of National Socialist, nothing more, nothing less. It is not the German abbreviation of NSDAP, however it is the English abreviation of the German name for national socialism, N a tionalso z i alismus. Therefore it would be incorrect to abbreviate it as Nazi in German, as it is an anglophide abbreviation, however as this is the English wikipedia, and Nazi is used far more often than national socialist (and scholars/authors also write about Nazism, so it is not simply a colloquialism) nthe anglophide abbreviation is more suitable.172.143.124.86 22:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to say that NAZISM is a useful way of describing German national socialism during this period, thaere may be ideologies distinct from Hitler's NAZISM which advocate national socialism, it also is useful to attribuute NAZISM specifically to those who support the German/Hitler model of national socialism, for instance neo-NAzis. In the Uk you could say that Nick Griffin is a national socialist (its what he advocates) although he probably would deny being a Nazi (even if this label wouldnt be entirely off the mark).172.213.23.217 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole argument over whether Nazism was a "conservative" movement should be avoided. In the present political context "conservative" refers to a loosely related group of political policies -- laissez-faire, tax cutting, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, etc. -- having hardly any connection with the Nazi movement.  Hitler's conservative supporters were "conservative" in the sense of contemporary German politics: They were landed aristocrats of the Junker class, industrialists, extreme nationalists, kaiserists, colonialists, WW1 veterans, anti-Semites, debtors, shopkeepers threatened by the growth of department stores . . . the application of the word "conservative" in our present context can only be misleading.


 * I object equally to the persistent efforts to depict the Nazis as leftist. The socialist wing of the Nazi movement had hardly any influence after 1934.  (This was a finding of the Nuremberg Trials: Members of the SA could not be held responsible for the crimes of the Nazi government, because they had no political power.)  Nazism was not a political movement which can be so easily identified with present-day parties and positions.


 * The word "Nazi" is commonly used in Germany and has been for a long time. I have already referenced it to a 1935 Brockhaus dictionary, but it is certainly much older than that.  The English word "Nazi" is simply a borrowing from the German, according to Webster: "G. abbr. representing pron. of first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische (Partei)."  A German dictionary, which I do not have available at the moment, gives a slightly different etymology: Nazi = NAtionalsoZIalistisch, taking the form of an older abbreviation: Sozi = SOZIalistisch.
 * --Forrest Johnson 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. I'll give my 2 cents on this. Nazism is neither left nor right wing. It is an ideology based on Indo-European (or Aryan) ideals, traditions religions and history. It is an ideology based on what is considered best for the race. Therefore, in practise, Nazism employs whatever necessary that will further the cause of its race (in this case, Germanic peoples). Examples are, anti-abortion, anti-feminism, anti-semitism, etcetera. This does not mean Nazism is a right wing ideology (or left) just because other right/left wing ideologies employ similar aspects. Nazism is not based on socio-economic systems as its main focus, therefore, economically, it can neither be left or right. It is not a materialistic ideology, but rather an ideology that puts all of its emphasis on the race. Is Nazism conservative? Only in the sense of preserving the race and its culture. Nazism is not conservative in the sense of the Christian churches, and similar aspects that are considered right wing today, since Nazism opposes Christianity because it is considered a Jewish/Semitic religion incompatible with Indo-Europeans. All in all, Nazism has aspects found in both the political right and left, but it is neither left nor right wing since it's not part of such a spectrum because it has entirely different political goals than socio-economic features. Nazism does not have Capitalism or economic policy as its basis, but everything that matters in its ideological core is the race and how it supposed to be preserved. Does that make Nazism right wing? It's a good question, but I would say no. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 06:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I am seriously sick of people saying that being an anti-semite and racist makes one right-wing. It doesn't!!! Karl Marx was a racist, he felt blacks were racially inferior. Stalin was a known anti-semite. Are they suddenly right-wing? No! Hitler supported government ownership of all the means of production (socialist!), he outlawed private ownership of firearms, he was pro-abortion (although he preferred Aryan women not to have them, so as to make plenty of Aryans to populate the new lands he planned to conquer), and he named his party the National Socialist German Workers Party. Hmmm... not a very right-wing name. As a matter of fact, it sounds down-right left wing. Also (and I feel bad that I don't have the full quote, but I'll get it and update this tomorrow) Hitler stated that the red field of the Nazi flag was to make sure that no Nazi forgot the Socialist origins of the Party. As for the support of right-wing parties, many of the right-wingers who supported him initially thought that he would essentially be a puppet they could control. Many right-wing businessmen and faithful church-going rural conservatives supported Eamon de Valera and the early Irish Republican Army, even though their stated goal was the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic. It was a matter of perspective. The right-wingers would rather support Hitler, who was a nationalist and a socialist, over the Communists. So I must state that, unless anyone can produce some real proof, I must conclude that Hitler was a left-winger.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You sure about Hitler being pro-Abortion? That contradicts some of his views in his second book. And the reason why they call Nazism a 'right wing ideology' is of course because of a leftist POV. The Marxists simply want to group together everything that opposes their ideology as right wing, intentionally ignoring the fact that Nazism is much closer to their own ideology than conservative Christians. Anyone who is dumb enough to believe that Nazism is right wing, doesn't really understand what Nazism is all about. It's not about being conservative, it's a radical ideology that wants to do away with the church, evolve its race through eugenics, and many other aspects that have nothing to do with conservative elements or economical aspects such as capitalism versus communism. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Hitler was personally opposed to abortion (mostly for reasons of trying to increase the Aryan population) but he tolerated it, which is to say it remained legal in Nazi Germany. So it might actually be more that he didn't oppose it enough to outlaw it, which, I believe, is the same as tacitly approving of it. He though it should be an option for women, although he didn't like it personally.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well abortion does have its pros and cons. I personally dislike abortion, but I think some countries like China and India desperately need it since they are extremely overpopulated. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hitler supported government ownership of all the means of production." This would have been big news to the Krupps, among others, who continued operating huge private enterprises throughout the Nazis era.
 * "he outlawed private ownership of firearms" Only for Jews.  Private weapons continued to be privately sold and owned throughout the Nazi era.  I have seen newspaper advertisements from 1945 offering firearms for sale to the public.
 * As for abortion, here is what Richard Grunberger wrote in "The 12-Year Reich" (p.261): Immediately after the seizure of power, the advertisement and display of contraceptives was banned (their manufacture and sale, on the other hand, were not limited) and all birth-control clinics were closed down. Abortions were termed 'acts of sabotage against Germany's racial future,' involving commensurately heavy punishment.  Whereas in Republican Berlin fines on abortionists sometimes did not exceed 40 marks, Nazi courts imposed jail terms of six to fifteen years on doctors found guilty of abortionist practices." --Forrest Johnson (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, private companies still operated, because Hitler hadn't been able to nationalize them yet. He did intend to, however. I quote from the Nazi Party's official manifesto "We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels." This manifesto, by the way, was written by Adolph Hitler, not some party lackey. Hmmm... As for guns, in order to have a gun, you had to have a permit issued by the government, meaning by the Nazi Party. Pretty effective means of gun control, huh? Anyone Hitler didn't like didn't have a gun. And Heinrich Himmler, the head of the German police (both secret and non-), had this to say about guns. "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA-- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." --Heinrich Himmler Pretty cut-and-dry. And as I stated, Hitler opposed abortion for Aryans, but supported and encouraged it for non-Aryans. In fact, in many areas (especially in the ghettoes and in German-occupied Eastern Europe) abortions were compulasary.
 * "In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."

That was a policy statement issued in 1942 by Hitler. It was brought to light by Dr Tessa Chelouche of the Sackler Facility of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, in her article, "Doctors, Pregnancy, Childbirth and Abortion during the Third Reich," which appeared in the March 2007 issue of the Israel Medical Association Journal. So while it is true that abortions were illegal for Aryans, but for most everyone else in the Reich, it was encouraged, or even mandatory. Also, don't forget that at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, ten Nazi leaders were indicted for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the Tribunal ruled was a Crime Against Humanity. Doesn't really sound like Hitler and the Nazis were anti-abortion now, does it?

And I'm sorry to say, but the main reason many people now think Hitler was a left-winger is because of the way historians (like Richard Grunberger, who was a card-carrying Communist) have portrayed him. I prefer using his own words to what others who never knew him said.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "'We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.' This manifesto, by the way, was written by Adolph Hitler"
 * He also guaranteed the independence of Czechoslovakia, but so what? A Hitler quote doesn't prove much.  These big Konzerne remained untouched throughout the Third Reich.  In fact, they grew larger through government contracts and SS-provided slave labor.
 * "As for guns, in order to have a gun, you had to have a permit issued by the government". The Nazis had no gun law, except for those in force under Weimar, until 1938. At that time, Hitler decreed a "German Weapons Law" which significantly relaxed the rules on gun ownership: (1) Permits were no longer required for rifles, shotguns or ammunition. (2)The number of persons exempted from the permit requirement for handguns was expanded.  (3) The legal age for gun ownership was lowered.  (4) Permits were valid for three years instead of only one.  (5) Jews were forbidden to manufacture firearms or ammunition.
 * "In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Another Hitler quote.  Never put into practice. The Nazis found it much simpler to sterilize people, starve and shoot them.
 * "Also, don't forget that at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, ten Nazi leaders were indicted for 'encouraging and compelling abortion,' which the Tribunal ruled was a Crime Against Humanity." Never happened, see for yourself.
 * "Richard Grunberger, who was a card-carrying Communist" Nothing of the kind.  Having fled Austria to Britain in 1938, he joined a communist youth group Young Austria, but remained politically a social democrat.  His text is a standard work on the subject.
 * --Forrest Johnson (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, I will give you this: You may be at least partially right on the gun law issue, however, I do want to point out two facts;1) The 1938 German Gun Law clearly states that ownership of firearms was restricted to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Meaning that the government could in fact deny ownership of a firearm to ANYONE they saw fit to, not just Jewish people. You still needed the Nazi Party's approval to own a firearm, which is about as effective a means of gun control as any I can think of (imagine if you needed Hillary Clinton's approval to own a gun!), and 2)the only people exempted from needing a government permit (ie approval from the Nazi party) were: holders of annual hunting permits (which were issued by the government), government workers, Nazi party members, and employees of the government owned national railway. So, even though "2)The number of persons exempted from the permit requirement for handguns was expanded", all the people exempted were still either directly employed by the government, or needed the express approval of the government (meaning the Nazi Party). So while the law didn't say "no civilian guns", it was still an effective means of gun control, keeping weapons out of the hands of those whom the Nazis thought were untrustworthy.

As for the gov't ownership of production and abortion issues, you aren't making any sense. You are saying that the stated opinions and goals of the Party, as laid out by it's founder and sole ideological leader in official party mainfestos and party statements, don't mean anything. Hitler's opinions WERE official party policy. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Joesph Stalin's opinions and goals had no bearing on the policies of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during his reign. No offense, but that is pure, unrefined B.S. All the signs are there. If it looks socialist, sounds socialist, acts socialist, and states it IS socialist, it must be... SOCIALIST!--SpudHawg948 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nazis are against abortion because they see it as something that weakens their race in terms of numbers (and they are right about that, it does). They are not against abortion because of "conservatism" or because of any Catholic dogma or anything similar. They are simply against abortion because they think it keeps them down. Their anti-abortion stance has nothing to do with right wing Christians who oppose abortion; they have entirely different motivation for being anti-abortion. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So Paul von Hindenburg, Franz von Papen, and Alfred Hugenberg decided to put a crazy left-wing socialist in power? Let's get serious here. A couple of additional points. Also, whatever Hitler's position on gun control, it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. More broadly, socialism is not equivalent to "anything libertarians don't like." john k (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Hitler's opinions WERE official party policy."
 * Only when he wanted them to be. The same 25-point program, announced by Hitler on Feb. 24, 1920, which you cited above, declared the Nazis in favor of national self-determination, freedom of religion, the equality of all citizens, land reform and abolishing the professional army.  Hitler said some things, and then did what he damn well pleased . . . his speeches did not necessarily have anything to do with his actual programs.  Hitler quotes are acceptable for illustrating Nazis policies, where these can be established from other sources, but NOT as a guide to what the Nazis actually did.
 * Regarding gun control, the Nazis law was the same as the Weimar law only much looser. As I noted above, only handguns were covered, and these were of no great military importance.  If you look at pictures from the Kapp Putsch or the Beer Hall Putsch, you will see people carrying the standard German military shoulder weapon of the time, the Gewehr 98.   If you wanted to pull off a coup, that was the weapon you wanted to use, and under Hitler's law, anyone could own one, without any government permission.  Hitler waited until 1938 for this decree because he was no longer afraid of an armed uprising.  The truth is, the Nazis ruled through fear of the Gestapo and the concentration camps, and also by bribing the complacent masses with Volkswagens and other material benefits, but not through any monopoly on firearms. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The only revelant point here is that scholarly sources, the media and most people in general think so and that's what wikipedia basis itself on, not original research or personal views. --Neon white (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazism is absolutely right-wing. Conservative is perhaps the first quarter of the right wing of the spectrum, then you get to fascism which is undoubtedly what Hitler was, a fascist. Indeed extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing governments will have likenesses, as with many extremes. You could say that Hitler even borrowed certain Communist ideals as they were perfect for driving pride and moral. Perhaps it is best to imagine the political spectrum coming full circle and almost connecting fascism and Communism. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much discussion on abortion and gun control laws, when these have nothing to do with socialism? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)