Talk:Nazism/Archive 13

Private property under the Nazis
The Journal of Economic History 				 					(2006), 66: 				            									 						 						               	  			390-416 The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry CHRISTOPH BUCHHEIM a1 and JONAS SCHERNER a2 a1 Chair of Economic History; University of Mannheim; L 7, 3-5; D-68131 Mannheim; Germany. E-mail: buchheim@rumms.uni-mannheim.de. a2 Seminar of Economic and Social History; University of Mannheim; L 7, 3-5; D-68131 Mannheim; Germany. E-mail: scherner@rumms.uni-mannheim.de.

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

Thanks.-Souviens (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't resist pointing out that I know of no country that treats private property as a 'fundamental right'. See eminent domain used for all sorts of things (and abused a lot). I don't think the phrase should be there as it applies that other countries do treat private property that way.Doug Weller (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the right is more fundamental in some societies than others. The statement was from the paper but I can take it out without harming the idea. -Souviens (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision of Lead
It is clear that a majority of editors think that the current lead equating Nazism and national socialism is not the best form. There is no attempt to remove the term "national socialism" from the lead. I invite the majority editors here to help rewrite the lead to reflect the majority viewpoint.--Cberlet (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Majority view is reflected in sources, not in personal opinions. -- Vision Thing -- 08:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a rule here that one cannot go against the wishes of the majority? --Souviens (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes. Vision_Thing has repeatedly violated basic Wikipedia policies and continues to engage in tendentious and disruptive edit warring. All it would take to stop this, would be for other editors to ensure policy is followed by reverting Vision_Thing's improper edits.--Cberlet (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could I please see this rule that one must go along with majority? --Souviens (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It involves asking for comments and holding votes, both of which have been conducted. See above. The basic policy is [here] --Cberlet (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can point me to a specific section? Because I don't see it say that consensus is required before a person makes a change to an article. --Souviens (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is considered appropriate on a controversial article, and there have been numerous times that this issue has been discussed, voted on, comments requested, even mediation. Vision_Thing simply ignores these procedures and reverts all edits back to the lead Vision_Thing prefers, even though Vision_Thing is well aware that the majority of editors and the majority of reputable published scholars hold the opposite viewpoint.--Cberlet (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipiedia is based on verifiability, not on democracy and original research. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading through the policies I have to disagree. I don't see anything saying that a person has to go along with the consensus. A person can edit an article as a lone dissenter if he wishes, and when he does he has not violated any policies. --Souviens (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not a democracy but we're not a dictatorship either. We function by consensus, as Cberlet has stated. In the consensus lead, WP:Verifiability is met by the reliable scholarly sources which attest to the blunt historical fact that Nazism is not the only movement to have described itself as N-S and is not equivalent to N-S. However, Vision's lead violates WP:NPOV by treating Nazism and N-S as equivalent terms. So I have a proposal for discussion. What exactly would be the objection to a lead in something like the form "Nazism, commonly known as National-Socialism..." which simply and succinctly says what Vision wants it to say WITHOUT saying that the terms amount to the same thing? (And leaving the rest of the paragraph to expand on what that means.) Gnostrat (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would go along with that as a compromise as long as National Socialism was wiki-linked to the disambiguation page. Not ideal, but a reasonable compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We could make it a little more ideal as the exact wording can be discussed and fine-tuned if necessary. The wikilink to the disambig is essential, I agree. Gnostrat (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All sources in the lead treat National Socialism as an equivalent to Nazism. None of the sources talks about other forms. However, I can accept the lead which says “Nazism, also known [or called] as National Socialism,” as long as phrase “by its supporters” is excluded because it implies that editors of Britannica, Columbia and Encarta are National Socialists. -- Vision Thing -- 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a compromise. --Cberlet (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He is correct that National Socialism is usually used as a synonym for Nazism. There's no dearth of sources that show this. Maybe if it wasn't capitalized it could be a more generic term, but capitalized it is Nazism. --Souviens (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority of editors here disagree. That is why National Socialism is a disambiguation page. We have had this debate repeatedly over several years on multiple pages. The consensus is always the same. We just had comments from outside editors on this page. The consensus was re-affirmed.--Cberlet (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And I'll re-affirm it again. The present lead takes into account that NS is commonly used as a synonym for Nazism. Restricted use of a term may be widespread without being taxonomically correct. (Lots of people still imagine that reptiles don't include birds, for example.) Even Vision Thing would, I think, acknowledge that the Union of Revolutionary National Socialists and the Austrian Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei were national-socialist in the full ideological sense, not merely in the sense of happening to combine the words "National" and "Social" in the name of a party. But they were not the same national-socialism as Hitler's NSDAP. I regularly use lower case for the broad overall concept (i.e. including, but not confined to, NSDAP national-socialism), much as we distinguish communism from the Communist Party. Following MOS guidelines, organisations should be capitalised but generic ideologies put into lower case. We capitalise (Nazi) National Socialism as the ideology of a specific organisation, but we have the problem that parties or movements outside the NSDAP have named their organisations National Socialist and we have to capitalise their specific ideologies too. Gnostrat (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged meaning of colours
The claim that the red and black colors of the symbol of the NSDAP would represent "Blut und Boden" (blood and land) was inserted by an IP at 3 June 2004. Is there any source for this claim? --Schwalker (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blut Und Boden: The Ideological Basis of the Nazi Agricultural Program by Clifford R. Lovin seems to discuss Nazi symbolism in relation to this doctrine of Blood and Body. As does Path to Collective Madness: A Study in Social Order and Political Pathology by Dipak K. Gupta, this latter one actually links the flag itself to this. However there doesn't appear to be any reputable history sources that I can find online. SGGH speak! 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cites please
The addition of POV commentary without cites is not acceptable, even if I agree with you. I have reverted recent edits.--Cberlet (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention please: antipolonism
PLEASE KINDLY READ!!! Please add to description of NAZISM a word : antipolonism. Nazis (Nazi Germans in the times of Hitler rule ) started 1939 GENOCIDE AGAINST POLES. Genocide against Polish (GENTILES) women, gentelmen, children. Nazi Germans were murdering POLISH POWS (1939), POLES IN HOSPITALS (1944, Warsaw), POLES (POLES GENTILES) IN Nazi German CAMP AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU,AND OTHER NAZI GERMAN DEATH CAMPS. thanks Bill Will see if I can find well enough documented evidence. And hopefully add to that list Slavs, homosexuals, Catholics, gypsies. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.178.90 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Irena Sendler-ATTENTION
(added link) Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Please add to the description of Nazism name: Sendler. This Polish Woman was rescuing Jews. She rescued (succeed) above 2500 Jewish Children from Nazi German prison called "Warsaw Ghetto".In 1965, Sendler was recognized by Yad Vashem as a Righteous Among the Nations, which was confirmed in 1983 by the Israeli Supreme Court. She also was awarded the Commanders Cross by the Israeli Institute. Sendler WAS POLE GENTILE (1919-2008). Sendler is Polish and Israeli hero. Please kindly ADD Sendler to description of Nazism AS ENEMY OF NAZI GERMANS OR ENEMY OF NAZISM. Perhaps You could write in Wiki: Polish Anti-Nazi fighter or hero. Thanks! :) 83.6.178.90 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Bill However, other than point out, here in discussion, that Irena Sadler has her own page already, I don't know what I can do about this one. I am not experienced in the more subtle judgements of what links can be added to pages outright, and I just can't see adding one within the main text. A shame, it is a heartwarming story, but I think this one is a no go. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting Pages
The page on Nazism states "The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party on February 24, 1920,[23] against Hitler’s choice of Social Revolutionary Party." (bold added) The linked page on Anton Drexler states "At Hitler's behest, Drexler changed the name of the Party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) early in 1920."

Did Hitler want the party name changed to NSDAP or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.186.201 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the short answer is, we don't know because the sources contradict one another. You might want to read through the section When did the DAP become the NSDAP? above, which also relates to the question you raised. I left the text as you found it because the issues are complex and I had other articles needing attention. If anybody wants to have a go at sorting it, be my guest and...well, good luck. Gnostrat (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Two citations on the matter: "At this early stage, Hitler brought up the idea of renaming the party, and he proposed the name 'Social Revolutionary Party'. However, Rudolf Jung insisted that the party should follow the pattern of Austria's Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei. As a consequence, the DAP was shortly renamed the NSDAP." von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik. Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time. Caxton 1952, pg 259. Heiden, Hans. Les Débuts du National-Socialisme, Revue d'Allemagne, VII, No. 71 (Sept. 15, 1933), p 821. Dr. Fabricius, Hans. Geschichte der Nationalsozialistischen Bewegung Berlin; Spaeth, 1937, Vol II, p 15. It is he that convinced Hitler to use the term 'National Socialist' since Hitler wanted to rename the Munich DAP, the 'Social Revolutionary Party'. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik. Leftism Revisited Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., 1990. pp 147-149. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.186.201 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

DAB
Uh, you don't notice that the DAB is actually at the top of the page where people can find it, and that including this link doesn't show that NS isn't only a synonym of the Nazi Party, but that the DAB on top of the page does exactly that? THis is what the top of the article says, the DAB at top does exactly what you think the link to the DAB 3 lines below does. The DAB at the bottom doesn't do what you think it has to be in for--it's just a confusing link, people come here, see it's not what they want, find the handy link to the DAB, click on it. Or people come here, like me, from the DAB, think it's what they want, see the prominent link to National Socialism, are totally confused because that's what they thought they just came from, click on the link, and get sent back to the DAB, which they would have gone to by clicking on the top, if that's what they wanted. You're just making navigation difficult for those who are not interested in the invited, but rather the article, like me.--Blechnic (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"

Nazism, commonly known as National Socialism"


 * Cberlet may be the guy to answer this one. Myself, I'd keep the second link and wouldn't confuse people with the DAB at the top of the page. National Socialism is the broad generic term and so it should, itself, be the disambig. Move National Socialism (disambiguation) to National Socialism and while we're at it, merge in National Socialist party and National Socialist Movement too. There's no reason for keeping ideologies, parties and movements on separate tiny pages, what's needed is one central page to summarise and keep track of all the various uses and definitions of the name. The lack of such a page, or rather, its apparent disintegration is what is at the root of your confusing experiences. Gnostrat (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now your revert of a perfectly sensible edit on my part is at the root of the confusion. Where's the editorial consensus that show's you should send readers from a dab to a dab in two sentences?  Please link directly to it.  And, please, stick to the issue at hand, not all your opinions about ideologies and other pages.  The dab is the central page.  Thanks.  --Blechnic (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Try reading the last three years of edit warring over this issue before deciding that we are all idiots. Sometimes a compromise is just a compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Try considering the reader rather than yourselves before deciding otherwise. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blechnic, I'm just trying to explain a few things. I won't revert you a second time, but I can't speak for others. Gnostrat (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If this endless right-wing edit warring over national socialism does not end (take note Vision Thing) I will support Gnostrat and merge all the pages National Socialism, National Socialist party, National Socialist Movement. I agreed to a compromise to end a three year long edit war by right wing fanatics. I am tired of the bullshit. Please abide by the consensus.--Cberlet (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Who do you think you are? -- Vision Thing -- 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See? That's how easy it is around here to upset the delicate balance, just for the convenience of this, and not that, link to the same bloody fragment of a dab. This is no ordinary article, so you have to make allowances. If you want to ignite another 3-year edit war, Blechnic, go right ahead. Like I said, the navigation problems are caused by separating National Socialism (disambiguation) from National Socialism, and they can be solved by centralising the overview of generic NS on the latter page instead of it redirecting here. Then if you want National Socialism it will take you straight to generic NS where all the meanings are explained and we can have one in-text link from here to there and we all know where we are. But you probably won't get that without an edit war either. Now I'm off to some science articles, where people know how to cooperate. Gnostrat (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame me for your absurd edit war--that's what comes when you individually own an article and rely upon original research, rather than writing an article for the reading audience from well done research available to everyone. This last what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. Any edit wars here are 100% the fault of the participants, and to even try to blame it on people who come here to try to read the article and get information simply shows none of you should be editing the article. This is an encyclopedia article, not your private playground. --Blechnic (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not blaming you. It's advice, like I gave you in my edit summary to begin with. You walked into this unwittingly. Now you know the score. Gnostrat (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Here's a quote from your post, "If you want to ignite another 3-year edit war, Blechnic, go right ahead.  Stop blaming me, or anyone else, than saying, "oh, I was just giving you good advice."  "Walking into" what unwittingly?  My need to quickly use the artile as an encyclopedia article rather your personal playground.  The score is you think you own this article, and apparently you'll do what's necessary to get those away who disagree with you.  --Blechnic (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:No personal attacks says you're well out of order. You know nothing about my motives. The number of edits I have made in what you call my "personal playground" is tiny and, if you'd bothered to check, you'd have seen that my talk page record is one of mediating and proposing compromises in other people's edit wars. I do this shit because it helps stabilise the article, and that was my concern when I restored the link. Damn right I said to go right ahead if you want another edit war. I didn't accuse you of having ignited a thing; I was spelling out the likely consequences you will involve yourself in if you remove the second link. But I won't be the one reverting you, and even less will I be "owning" anything here, because what I actually meant was that I don't give a monkey's fart what you do from here on. I'm wasting my time wading through blind obstinacy and ignorant personal attacks each time I propose a compromise in good faith or explain one that is agreed and working, even if not ideal. Deal with it yourselves. Gnostrat (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you're the one out of line, threatening me and blaming me for this crap. This is not your article.  This article is not stabilized, it's a useless piece of crap being guarded jealously by its owners.  If I make any edits to this article, I am not responsible for your edit warring, so stop blaming and warning editors who come here.  I don't care what the heck you've tried to compromise here, or even care to weigh whether or not to believe you.  As long as you are the guardian warning readers of this article away, blaming them for your edit war, you are the one at fault, not the readers who lamely came here thinking they could read an article.  You attacked me when I came here to discuss a problem with this article, and you continue to attack me under the guise you are the great protector from edit wars.  You're not.  You're the problem.  Stop attacking readers who come here.
 * I'm trying to feel at home on Wikipedia, so I too, make sure that any time someone walks into a landmine field that I am playing in I blame the mines on them under the guised of "warning them." I didn't start your edit war. I don't even know what it's about, and apparently not you or anyone here does either.  You started it--it's yours.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And, you've achieved your goal. I'm out of here, the crap is all yours.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring - Nazism and religion
The issue of Nazism and religion is complex. Please stop edit warring. There is substantial disagreement among scholars. Please stop inserting only one side of the many-sided debate. None of the extended text belongs in the intro. Continue this childish activity and I will ask that this page be locked down. Behave.--Cberlet (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I make you notice that is Gennarus the user who deletes documented information on the basis of his own ideas and propagandistic purposes. The link of Christianity with Nazism is very important, and should be present in the intro. Without Christianity, Nazism would not have ever emerged. --Esimal (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are both acting like total jerks. Please stop edit warring.--Cberlet (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My part in this has been to attempt a sustainable compromise between competing Christian and (apparently) rationalist agendas. The statement itself appears well justified but I'm unhappy with a string of website sources which may, or may not, be reliable. I would prefer to pin it down with scholarly sources (and by the way, Gennarous, pagans and occultists are allowed to be fair-minded, accredited scholars, every bit as much as Christians).


 * While I have tried to stay even-handed, I take great exception to Gennarous' offensive ad hominem attacks. I am in fact of dual faith, which should not be an issue but since you have made it one, I would point out that I am well placed to see both sides of the argument. There are tenuous neopagan inputs into Nazism but they have been blown out of proportion by sensationalist postwar writers. Christians need the integrity to see what is in front of them in their scriptures. Jesus denounced the Jewish religion in the strongest terms, and for what I would consider excellent theological reasons (whether you agree with them or not). But Christians also need the humility to recognise the unpalatable flip side: that centuries of Christian "antisemitism" (a disputable term, but one that we're stuck with) have been rooted in the words of Jesus, and often for very bad reasons.


 * Let's agree to leave these issues out of the lead, but they may well deserve further consideration in a neutral and objective manner in the sections dealing with religio-mystical contributions to Nazism. Gnostrat (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gnostrat, I appreciate your honesty and rationality. I think the issue of Christianity should be kept in the intro to clarify an argument that for decades has been heavily decepted by Christian apologists. As I previously stated, a Nazism without Christian basises wouldn't have ever existed. Paganism has nothing to do with Nazism, since also Ariosophy (Thule Society) was modeled after Christian and Biblical mythology. --Esimal (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with you about Ariosophy. The Ariosophists were doing a form (or several forms) of Christian/pagan syncretism. When I wrote that the pagan input into Nazism has been vastly exaggerated, I include in that statement the supposed Ariosophy connection, which was likewise indirect and tenuous.

Where I will agree with you is that the Third Reich was officially Christian and that paganism was discouraged and sometimes actively suppressed (as also were some Christian groups that didn't toe the line). What is more, while it is possible to find antisemitism in some völkisch, neopagan and Ariosophical groups, you could say that it "infected" them from originally Christian sources. In the absence of Christianity, pagans would still have been (like Jesus) theologically opposed to Jewish monotheism. But it takes a John Chrysostom with his Eight Homilies against the Jews, or a Luther with The Jews and Their Lies, to lay the ideological groundwork for 19th-century Anti-Semitism, which was supported by Catholics and Lutherans, and without which there would have been no Nazism.

Should this be stated in the intro? Ideally, yes. I find it disturbing that edits for which I have now provided adequate citations (and I'm sure the experts here could find more heavyweight sources too) have been removed. This should not happen. But without first securing a rough consensus for reincluding this material in some (perhaps redrafted) form, we will just degenerate into another edit war. If enough people support reinclusion, so will I. By all means let us try. Just so people remember what we are arguing over, here is the text:

Nazism, particularly its antisemitism, found strong ideological roots in Christianity.

And let me reiterate that I personally wouldn't rely on the web articles, especially Online documentation with sources and photos which was published on a Willis Carto site. Also, please ignore the first three, extraneous notes which have slipped in from somewhere. Gnostrat (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, the problem is that reputable published scholars take different positions on this issue, so our task here on wikipedia is not to decide who is correct, but to reflect the diversity of views, which means the one-sided presentation of opinion in the intro is not appropriate. It really is that simple.--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why I spoke of redrafting. A sentence or two, properly weighted to reflect the predominant opinions. Undue weight should not be given to fringe theories (or any weight at all in a brief summary), and you can't tell me there's even a significant-minority of serious support for the idea that Nazism grew out of paganism, the sort of "balance" which Gennarous inserted at one point. Gnostrat (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I re-introduce the issue since nobody else (or nobody among the opponents) is interested in continuing this discussion. --Esimal (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Christianity, Paganism, Occultism
I don't know how much of this is the work of User:Esimal, but the part about religion is currently not acceptable. Goodrick-Clarke and Höhne are misquoted; Angebert (actually a pseudonym of two authors), Pennick, Moynihan, Flowers and webpages like this are not reliable sources. As soon as the current edit war is over, this has to be removed. Zara1709 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, is already someone writing a report for Administrators' noticeboard/3RR about Esimal? We don't need two people doing this.Zara1709 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While don't you mention your Christian fundamentalist friend Gennarous who has reverted four times? Your POV is disgusting Zara; your ability to decept sources is impressive. --Esimal (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Article has been locked, I was about to write the report. I also just now requested the locking admin to remove that reference you brought up. Esimal please take a look at NPA for your edit summaries and the like.--Caranorn (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)At this point I have protected the article for three days so that this unseemly behaviour can calm down. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA still apply. I've directed the two principal editors to WP:3O and if necessary other forms of dispute resolution. I have no intention of getting into a content dispute, I have my own work to do and I'm not meant to be a judge. Keep it off my Talk page unless there's a brach of policy, please. -- Rodhull andemu  20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that saves me the time. After a previous debate I didn't have the article on my watchlist, I just noticed this, since I had Esimal's talk page on my watchlist from the ongoing issue. Esimal, I have repeatedly explained to you that most of your sources are not acceptable or that you are misquoting the other ones. Instead of discussing the issue, you just call me a Christian fundamentalist, which I am definitely not. Zara1709 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Caranorn, please: any edit made by Gennarous in last few hours contains an insult towards me. --Esimal (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking over sources fought over, in addition to the link reported by Zara1709 I think a book market place and Amazon.com are also not reliable sources. The books in those links might be, but definitely not the links. I also have serious doubts that Genarous (I'm supposing he added these, though I could be wrong, with all those edits it's tough to dig through the history) read either of those books, else he would not have resorted to such an odd approach to linking. I think either an admin should remove the unacceptable references during the block or else we shoudl at least try to agree on a consensus how to threat this issue once the block is lifted in a few days.--Caranorn (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, yes for the record. Genarous was also uncivil, conducted personal attacks and participated in edit waring including violation of 3RR.--Caranorn (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nazism and Christianity: Mein Kampf
Mein Kampf, one of the central texts of Nazism, written by Hitler himself, is enough to state that Nazism was a basically Christian movement?
 * My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. A. H.

Wikipedia Christian fundamentalists are attempting to make Ariosophy a form of paganism, while it was mainly ispired by myths and concepts excerpted from Christian Weltaschauung and Biblical mythology (the link between the Aryans and Nephilims, for example). Ariosophy was absolutely not a form of germanic paganism, it was an occult syncretic movement.

--Esimal (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Hitler is not the main reliable source. He was a chronic liar and opportunist.--Cberlet (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Esimal, STOP IT. Aside from Gnostrat, I am the only person who has made substantial edits at Ariosophy, and if I ever get to write a section there on this, I would say that it wasn't Neopaganism, but Neo-Gnosticism. That Hitler himself said that he was a Christian doesn't mean that much, but you would have a point if you would say that Christianity was the majority Religion in Nazi Germany and that many Christians did not oppose Nazism. But you are not saying that. All you are doing is trying to advance the position that Nazism paralleled Christianity in many respects, and you're doing that with inappropriate references. We could sort this out, but this would mean that you'd get better sources. Zara1709 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The quotation above does NOT appear in Mein Kampf. Googling around, I found it attributed to Hitler in a 1922 speech.  I find the whole discussion of religion ridiculous.  A lapsed Catholic, Hitler was simply not a religious person.  --Forrest Johnson (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hitler was simply not a religious person." Gee, really? He thought his own beliefs were better than anyone else, used might and head games to foster that belief and develop a following, and killed people who didn't agree with him. That is the definition of a religious person, and specifically Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble. Lexlex (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring your trollish delusions here. Thank you. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Hardl
 * The topic is Hitler and Christianity and everything I said is verifiable from multiple sources; hardly trolling. Hitler was a Christian and used that to gain favor with the German flock paving his way to power. The techniques he used are used by clergy regularly - "Follow me, give me your money and time and I will make sure you have glory after you die." But Hitler was crazier: his Nuremberg rallies were modeled after Christian services. (Check YouTube videos - it was all filmed) Again, verifiable. Christians have killed throughout history - why do you think he picked the Jews? The inquisition? The Holy Wars? Nutcases killing abortion doctors? Just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it delusional. Sorry if this is uncomfortable. No harm or foul meant, just trying to state the facts. Lexlex (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are generalizing a thesis concerning Nazism in relation to Christianity to religion as a whole, which is as dumb as you can get, and probably makes you more of a Nazi than the religious people you are bashing, while hiding the whole pigsty behind so-called "facts." A cowardly move altogether, and one I am fully familiar with. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I thought we were adults here. You're now insulting me because you don't agree with me and easily verifiable data. I'm not really sure how to respond. The facts stand on their own. Sorry you're so upset. Lexlex (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Nazism
It is a complicated matter with lot's of major disagreements among scholars. There is no one "proper" POV on this page, just fair and NPOV summaries of existing research.

These are the pages where a compromise should get synthesized. Text on these pages should only be summarized here, and then opened up for debate among editors who have read all those other pages.--Cberlet (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nazism was basically Christian. Many of its aspects were inspired and supported by Christianity. Look at these photos, in particular that depicting a Nazi assembly with an enormous Chrismon on the front wall. --Esimal (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to risk jumping into this fray again. In fact, due to an edit conflict, I'm just going to throw in my tuppence-worth without having read the newer posts. First, the website sources are not reliable and should not be used. Secondly, I added Jones & Pennick, Moynihan & Flowers as academic substitutes for the websites, they are neopagan authors but also accredited scholars who take objective, nuanced and fair-minded positions and I regard them as essentially reliable. However, edits are being made by Gennarous which attribute opinions to these sources which the sources don't support. The same with Hohne, which supports the SS being organised on Christian models (Teutonic Knights, Jesuits etc.) and is misused if it is cited for anything otherwise. The same with Goodrick-Clarke, who is being cited by Gennarous to establish "occult roots of Nazism" which the book itself demonstrates are largely imaginary.


 * To be fair, I do not accept Esimal's use of Ariosophy as a "Christian influence" on Nazism either (not without qualification – it was only partially Christian and a very minor influence), but Esimal does not bear the major responsibility for the misuse of sources here, and Gennarous' bias and bigotry are plain from his edit summaries. As long as the sentence is edited into a form like the one by Bytwerk ("Nazism, particularly its antisemitism, found some ideological roots in Christianity"), it is an acceptable summary statement for the intro. On the other hand, adding anything about pagan or occult ideological roots is not acceptable in a brief summary and contravenes WP:Undue weight unless these were significant influences and a significant minority of scholars interpret the evidence in this way. Goodrick-Clarke is the main authority in this area and his book actually says almost the opposite.


 * Please note also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity where the essential idea of Esimal's edit is supported by all the respondents, and this is the position which I also have taken from the beginning of this dispute. Gnostrat (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that everyone is taking Hitler's statements literally, not recognizing the intent. Nazism is not a Christian movement because (1) Christianity is not its focus and (2) Many other movements, ideologies, and political parties have made links to religious supporters, but that does not make them religious-oriented. For example, in my country, Canada, we have a social democratic party called the New Democratic Party which had a leader in named Tommy Douglas who from the 1930s to at least the 1960s linked up Christian values (especially in the United Church of Canada) to the social democratic agenda. Many have recognized that this "social gospel" attitude was an element of the NDP but certainly wasn't its sole element, nor its leading element. I am not trying to link a social democratic party to a fascist one, nor am I saying that Tommy Douglas was dishonest about his religious convictions as I believe Hitler was, but what I am trying to say is that at the time it was politically smart to establish connections with the Christian religious community in predominantly Christian countries. Of course Hitler had to make up his own version of Christianity which denied that Jesus Christ was ever a Jew, but look at the direction of what Hitler was trying to do. He wasn't endorsing Christianity of the day, he was trying to remould it to fit the Nazi cause. On the issue of Nazi paganism, there were differing factions, SS leader Heinrich Himmler and a number of members of the SS saw a return to paganism as a means of ellimating all possible traces of Judaic influence on Germany. However a key point is that Hitler was not in favour of a return to paganism, why? he claimed that because paganism collapsed as Christianity replaced it, paganism was an inferior religious concept. Hitler had his differences with Christianity but he was politically smart enough to know that he would lose enormous public support if he publicly challenged Christianity. I read somewhere that Hitler in fact disliked Christianity for not being neither as strong, heroic, or carrying the devotion as he perceived Japanese Shintoism and Islam as being. Nazi endorsement of Christianity was used to draw more support for him and the Nazi movement. If anything, I think it would be reasonable to say the Nazi religion was Nazism itself, Hitler was idolized in propaganda all over Germany by the Nazis, portrayed by them as a holy saviour. Nowhere near the amount of attention Hitler got from the Nazis was devoted to spreading Christianity. And that is why I can say that Nazism is not a Christian movement and it is not a pagan movement, it's ideology is its religion.--R-41 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of this (though respected scholars have argued, and still argue, that Jesus was not a Jew, and Himmler's paganism would surely be contested). Nazism certainly had religious attributes – messiah, holy book, militant orders... But the fact that Nazis could be Protestants or Catholics, or neopagans (within limits – no secret societies, no high office and no official endorsement!) or even atheists (Bormann, apparently) shows why it would be misleading to call Nazism a religion, even a religion sui generis. On the other hand, the ideas which went into this peculiar brew had a pre-existence within established religious traditions before they became ingredients of the Nazi world-view. This, and not simply or only that Hitler exploited Christian reflexes, is what is meant by saying that Nazism has roots (its major roots, anyway) in Christianity. Honest Christian writers know this. (Repentance is no sin; the capacity for self-criticism is one thing which does Christianity credit). Gnostrat (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a debate over the influence of Christianity on Nazism. Here is my take on it:


 * Nazism itself clearly picked up themes and styles historically used by Christianity, but it was not a form of Christianity, even though there were many Christian collaborators, as Steigmann–Gall has amply documented.(i)= These collaborators fashioned a hybrid of Christianity that coexisted with paganism and secularism within the German Nazi version of fascism. This is not the same, however, as the Rumanian Iron Guard, Croatian Ustashi, or Hungarian Arrow Cross, which were hybridized from one religious tradition to the exclusion of all others. I agree with Griffin when he argues that the German Nazis were a secular political movement that was not a hybrid of an ‘established religious or metaphysical tradition’ but operated ‘entirely within the sphere of historical notions of the immortality of the nation or the race’, while they nonetheless extensively used religious language, and liturgical–style ‘displays of theatrical politics’, as part of their mobilization of masses around palingenetic myths.(ii)


 * Steigmann–Gall suggests many in the Nazi movement thought they were locked in an apocalyptic battle, and that this idea of ‘defending good by waging war against evil, fighting for God against the Devil, for German against Jew’, was ‘predicated on a dualistic understanding of human behavior hegemonic in Western Christian civilization’.(i) Dualism and apocalypticism, however, existed before the rise of Christianity, and exists outside of Christianity. While Christianity profoundly and directly influences the forms of dualism and apocalypticism in Western Culture, these tendencies have long escaped their roots and established themselves in various secular modes and in non–Christian religions.


 * Chip Berlet. (2004) “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement.
 * Citing
 * (i) Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 19, 189, 261, 265. quote from p. 261.
 * (ii)Roger Griffin, e–mail to author, 10 November 2003. Here and in the following paragraphs I am relying on extensive e–mail dialogues between Griffin and me concerning taxonomy and terminology starting in 2001 and continuing through 2003


 * See also:
 * Redles, David. 2005. Hitler’s Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation, New York, NY: New York University Press.
 * Rhodes, James M. 1980. The Hitler Movement: A Modern Millenarian Revolution. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.


 * --Cberlet (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read Steigmann-Gall yet but this seems a fair summing-up to me. As Esimal has now resigned but Gennarous may continue pushing for the form of words in the "locked" text (which misuses sources and gives undue weight to the occult/pagan angle), perhaps we could think about moving towards a summary statement in line with, and citing, your sources? On that basis, I would be happy to delete my sources (Jones & Pennick; Flowers & Moynihan) to forestall any unnecessary distraction or contention. (This doesn't imply agreement with Zara's view that they are unreliable, but maybe we can have that discussion another time.) Gnostrat (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you have now suggested it verbatim; I would be happy too if we could postpone the discussion about the reliability of Jones & Pennick and Flowers & Moynihan for a while. I can probably grant some reliability for Jones&Pennick, although the Table of Contents of the German Edition of their books doesn't suggest that they talk about Nazism at all:
 * Chapter 11 for the Nazis; the citation was for the record of Christian antisemitism. Gnostrat (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But I have strong views concerning Moynihan. Someone who has edited and republished the writings of James Mason (National Socialist) is not a reliable reference for an article on Nazism. Ok, I am using his Lords of Chaos (book) for the whole Early Norwegian black metal scene stuff, too, but I really think that the ideological undercurrent of that book should be included in the article about it. The interviews are authentic, but what Moynihan himself writes is extreme. But it seems that other editors have real difficulties understanding that...
 * Hey, we weren't going to do Moynihan! Don't tempt me :) 'Cause I'd have to get in the point that he's "republished" Wiligut too, and I can't imagine how anybody who reads this groundbreaking publication of actual source documents for the only effectual SS occultism can come away thinking Moynihan is actually promoting these SS fantasies. I haven't read Lords of Chaos, but you haven't read The Secret King. We can compare sometime. Gnostrat (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, that's another problem. I only fear that I have to deal with it sooner or later. Concerning the case here, I would say that we remove all references about Nazi religiosity except for Steigmann-Gall, Goodrick-Clarke and probably Höhne, and actually write what they say. I wouldn't have a problem if we then use Jones & Pennick and Flowers & Moynihan in the Nazi occultism article, as reference for the point that Neopagan authors have opposed the view of Nazism as some sort of Neopagan religion. (Now, if we would only knew who held such a view in the first place...)
 * Lewis Spence, they reckon. Gnostrat (talk)
 * I guess I can write what has to be said about Neopaganism in the religious aspects of Nazism article based on Höhne and Goodrick-Clarke, so we would get completely around of having to discuss the reliability of Jones & Pennick and Flowers & Moynihan. (Taking them as example of Neopagan authors who hold the view that Nazism was not neopagan of course doesn't imply anything about their reliability.)
 * We can do that, although we can't shelve the reliability question indefinitely. Regardless of religion or irreligion, a scholar is a scholar. Gnostrat (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections to this (especially from User:Gennarous), I guess we could unprotect the page, then. User talk:Esimal has quit Wikipedia, without waiting for the result of Requests for comment/Esimal. Zara1709 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently you can't get a permalink from www.buecher.de. If you can read German, got to and scroll down to "Buch öffnen" for the Table of Contents of the book by Jones, Prudence & Pennick, Nigel. Zara1709 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unprotect the page, remove the misleading sentence, and work it up here, I'd say. We could elaborate around Bytwerk's wording (above), since it conforms roughly to what's in the sources you want to keep in. Gnostrat (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems that the page is unprotected now, but I can't work on it, because I have to do something in RL....Zara1709 (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, nobody else seems interested in drafting a new summary about religion since I removed this one. As far as concerns the lead, I reckon I'll let sleeping dogs lie. We can say it better in the Religion section anyhow. Gnostrat (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote part of the religion section to replace the wikipedia editor's opinion on anti-clericalism with cited sources, but I tried to incorporate the original in where I could. I also retained all cited statements as well as the citation needed tag I added earlier. Madridrealy (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazism and collectivism
Why is a an economist being cited for Nazism being collectivist? Bobisbob (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing collectivism as one of Nazism's "main features" is unjustified. Although some have labelled Nazism as collectivist in its nature, others have argued that it is non-collectivist. Thus, as there is no general agreement on whether National Socialism is collectivist, it can not be stated that it is a 'main feature', that's ludicrous. Like Bobisbob has mentioned, citing an individual for Nazism being collectivist is silly and laughable at best. One could cite Karl Marx to argue a case that "capitalism's failure is inevitable", but that doesn't make it true... - PaineReason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.86.56 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Listing collectivism is no differnt than the idiots at town hall meetings calling Obama's health reform policy a "nazi policy". Please remove collectivism from there.

"Arab Nazism"
This is simply hilarious. Except for being grossly pov, it doesn't relate to the article topic. Hostility to Jews or cooperation with the Axis during the war is not Nazism per se. --Soman (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, I agree. Ba'athism could better be compared with Arab Nazism. The IRA had some sympathy for the Germans as well, not because they were Nazis, but because they were anti-British. The sources given for the "Arab Nazi" passage are all highly POV e.g. American Christians for Palestine and even Bejamin Netanyahu. Perhaps "Arab sympathy for Nazism" might be closer, for reasons which can be seen in subsequent history. Most of the fighting in the Middel East was the British against the French.--Streona (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to discussing the impact of Nazism in different parts of the world, but it would need adequte sourcing and be in balance in the rest of the article. Nazism did have an impact outside of Europe, but often its difficult to separate between what was an influence from Nazism and what was influenced by fascism. Certainly Baathism and Kemalism had partial inspirations from European fascism. In Lebanon, the Kataeb was built up on fascist lines. --Soman (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the material is too POV and too large to remain on the page at this time. There is scholarship about these topics, but we need to make sure we are considering the role of the current wave of Islamophobia and Arabophobia in this editorial insertion.
 * If we are to carry such material, it would be better to start editing it at Fascism as an international phenomenon until there is consensus there, and then move mentions of it with links here and to one of the various Fascism pages.--Cberlet (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reread the section I put in and realize I did a sloppy job and included things that were not appropriate and not neutral. Criticism well taken and apologies rendered. Please hear out my case for an improved section on Arab Nazism.  The proper solution is to improve it and shorten it, not delete it.

It is an obvious truth that hostility to Jews or cooperation with the Axis is not in itself Nazism. If working directly, even personally, for Hitler and contributing directly to the annihilation of the Jews doesn’t make you a Nazi, what does? Arab Nazis were key allies to the Axis powers, comparable to Mussolini, not to the IRA. They were not Nazi sympathizers, they were a crucial part of the successes of the National Socialists. Yes, of course they were motivated by hostility to Jews, as were other Nazis, but that was not the limit of their activities. They received funding from the National Socialist Party, had youth groups called Nazi Scouts and paid for by Hitler, had an espionage network that reported to German intelligence, raised Moslem legions for the Wehrmacht, fought allied troops and killed Jews in the Balkans and Crimea, and contributed to Nazi policy. They developed a popular song, “Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth.” I repeat, If working directly for Hitler and contributing directly to the annihilation of the Jews doesn’t make you a Nazi, what does?

The American Christian Palestine Committee was a 1947 organization, a blue ribbon panel with members such as Mayor Robert Wagner, Fiorella LaGuardia, Paul Tillich and Prof. Reinhold Neibuhr. Do not confuse them with Evangelicals in today’s political scene. In any event, the sources they cite, such as Churchill and British military sources, can be judged on their own merit. I will be happy to add some more sources.

Please – do not project fears about “Arabophobia” backwards in time anachronistically, and censor this important chapter in Nazi history. I would argue the reverse is true – That the Arab role in National Socialism has been censored and ignored for decades, and is only now being addressed.

Here are some reasons why it is important to include section on Arab Nazism: 1. German National Socialists directly funded the riots in Palestine that were carried out by the Mufti of Jerusalem. This was crucial to the success of the Final Solution. It is not a minor incident. To repeat, the Final Solution would not have worked without it. It must be part of the story. 2. The Mufti met personally with Hitler. We have photo of meeting, Nazi documents and the Mufti's diary, all documenting that he and Hitler agreed on program to close down Palestine as a refuge for Jews fleeing the Final Solution, eliminate Jews in Palestine and make the Mufti the Fuhrer of the Middle East. This was a crucial part of Nazi success. 3. The Mufti worked in Berlin during the war and raised Muslim SS troops in the Balkans. This was an important part of the Nazi war effort. 4. The Mufti personally went to Iraq and organized an Axis coup there, to cut off petroleum supplies to the British. This was a key arena to the Nazi war effort.--Cimicifugia (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia
 * National Socialism is a political ideology, and a political movement. It is not a term to be used for people who had links with the Axis, nor for hostility to Jews. Nazism is not limited to the context of the World War II, being 'Nazi' is not just about WWII alignments. Except for the mentioned 'Nazi Scouts' (source?), you haven't been able to produce any material on an Nazi political movement amongst the Arabs. --Soman (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Morse writes "After Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Al-Husseini proceeded to set up a Palestinian Arab Youth Group , known as the Nazi Scouts." This means that 'Nazi Scouts' was a name given to the group, probably by its political opponents. --Soman (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cimicifugia again: Agreed, National Socialism is a political ideology and program, which the Mufti of Jerusalem and his supporters were a part of.  This Wiki article  defines Nazism this way:

1.”refers primarily to the ideology and practices of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler” 2. “not a monolithic movement, but…a combination of various ideologies and groups 3. “Historians often disagree on…whether Nazism can be considered a coherent ideology”. 4. “much of what is thought to be “Nazism” is in line with Hitler’s own political beliefs – the ideology and the man remain largely interchangeable in the public eye” 5. “The core concept of Nazism is that the German volk is under attack from a judeo-bolshevist conspiracy, and must become united, discipline and self sacrificing (submit to Nazi leadership) in order to win. So, to apply these criteria to the Mufti of Jerusalem and his recruits: they subscribe to the core concepts of being under attack by a a judeo-bolshevist conspiracy, and becoming united, discipline and self sacrificing (submit to Nazi leadership) in order to win. They adding Arabs alongside German volk, and want a Greater Palestine as Hitler wanted a Greater Germany, with domination of the entire world as the final goal – these modifications were discussed personally with Hitler and agreed to by him. The Mufti and his followers were supporters of Adolf Hitler, the man and his ideology. The Mufti met personally with Hitler to coordinate mutual support; he was paid by Hitler; his programs were funded by the National Socialists and coordinated with them; he undertook propaganda, sabotage, military recruiting and organization, reviewed German troops, promoted Final Solution policies, conducted espionage and fomented a coup under Nazi orders. In common use of the term Nazi, if you support Hitler, you are a Nazi. The Mufti went far beyond support – he was part of the Nazi hierarchy, based in Berlin. What more could you want to call someone a Nazi? And lastly, the success of the Final Solution depended on his contributions. He should not be excluded from an article on Nazism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimicifugia (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, simply sympathies for Hitler doesn't equate Nazism. Nazism is an ideology. The fact that the term 'Nazism' was definition problems, doesn't mean that we can apply the term arbitrarily as to our own liking. 'Nazism' cannot be reduced to a general slur against people we don't like. I'd say that a few minimum criteria for being defined as a National Socialist are; 1) belief in racial conflict, supremacy of the Aryan/Nordic race, 2) militarism, seeking we restruction of society along military lines, 3) corporativism, 4) rejection of democracy, liberalism, postmodernism. Many movements were inspired to some degree by Nazism and Fascism, but that is not the same as being a Nazi. As you can read from the article on the Mufti, his relations with Germany and whether he was an ideologically convinced anti-semite or simply playing realpolitik are debated subjects. --Soman (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Soman. I wish someone else would weigh in on what is becoming a dead end.  Soman and I obviously disagree.  He doesn't even include antisemitism in his definition of Nazi, and questions whether the Mufti was an antisemite, which seems to me an unusal pov and indicates this discussion will never get anywhere.  How is this resolved?  I agree to improve the section on the Arab Naziam, which I admit was badly done.  It could be short with links.  But no article on Nazism in 2008 is complete without covering this very important part of the story.  My basic argument is if someone believes in Nazism, met with and worked for Hitler, reported to Eichman, spread Nazi ideology, wore the swastika, killed Jews as part of the Final Solution, advocated teh Final Solution to others...that person is a Nazi.  It's simply word games to claim he isn't.  The fact he had his own motives of Arab nationalism doesn't make him not a Nazi, it makes him a Nazi Arab nationalist versus a democratic ARab nationalist.

so, to Soman: You say ”simply sympathies for Hitler doesn't equate Nazism”. I totally agree. But by what stretch of the imagination can you equate “simply sympathies” with this kind of activity on the part of the Mufti: is is a paid agent of the Nazis, recruited by Eichman, he makes speeches saying he agrees with the Nazi regime and want to see it extended to other countries, he works tirelessly to make that happen and to make teh Final Solution happen, he is effective at this work - the troops he recruited and extorted wiped out Bosnian Jewry. He used the Swastika as his emblem. He described himself as in teh Nazi camp. He is credited with being one of the two key players in bringing German Nazi ideology into the Arab world and fusing it with religious fundamentalism. This is not what "simply sympathies" means in the normal world, is it?

from The NAZI RooTs of PAlesTINIAN NATIoNAlIsm ANd IslAmIc Jihad by David Meir-Levi, Professor, formerly Professor of Near Eastern History and Archeology, Hebrew University of Tel Aviv and is currently the director of research at the Israel Peace Initiative in San Francisco: “… he assured the German consul in Jerusalem that “the muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist, anti-democratic governmental system to other countries.”

The youth organization established by the mufti used Nazi emblems, names and uniforms. … most significantly, the German Propaganda ministry developed strong links with the Grand mufti and with Arabic newspapers, creating a propaganda legacy that would outlast husseini, hitler, and all the other figures of World War II. In september 19 7, Adolf eichmann and another ss officer carried out an exploratory mission in the middle east lasting several weeks, and including a friendly productive visit with the Grand mufti. It was after that visit, in fact, that the mufti went on the Nazi payroll as an agent and propagandist…. The Grand mufti was a bridge figure in terms of transplanting the Nazi genocide in europe into the post-war middle east and creating a fascist heritage for the Palestinian national movement. … during the “Great Arab Revolt” of 19 6-9, which al-husseini helped organize and which Germany funded, the swastika was used as a mark of identity on Arabic leaflets and graffiti. Arab children welcomed each other with the hitler salute, and a sea of German flags and pictures of hitler were displayed at celebrations. The identification was so strong that those bliged to travel through areas involved in the Palestinian revolt soon learned that it was prudent to attach a swastika to their vehicle to ward off attacks by Arab snipers. …husseini fielded some ten thousand fighters, an active propaganda unit, and modern weapons, thanks in large part to Nazi money and military assistance. …(may, 1941) in Berlin, the Grand mufti worked tirelessly on behalf of Germany and Nazism. he played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in instigating a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941, in urging Nazis and pro-Nazi governments in europe to transport Jews to death camps, in training pro-Nazi Bosnian brigades, and, after hitler’s cause was lost, in funneling Nazi loot into post-war Arab countries. … his muslim “hanjar” division was credited with the murder of roughly 90% of Bosnian Jewry. he became a familiar voice on Germany’s Arabic- language radio propaganda station, broadcasting from the town of Zeesen near Berlin, to convince Arabs and muslims in europe (and especially the muslim populations of the Balkans and Albania) that muslims and Nazis were brothers, and that these two kindred peoples needed to unite against their common enemy: the Jews. from Germany, the mufti effectively wielded his weapons of religious power, mob incitement, and assassination to silence opposition and eliminate moderate rivals. he succeeded, almost single-handedly, in engraving on the Arab consciousness the image of the Jew as the demonic apotheosis of all things evil. Not only was everything Jewish evil; but under al-husseini’s deft diatribe, everything evil was Jewish. After meeting with hitler on November 21, 1941, husseini praised the Germans because they “know how to get rid of the Jews, and that brings us close to the Germans and sets us in their camp.” on march 1, 1944, the mufti called out in a broadcast from Zeesen: “Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your teeth if need be. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor.” his goal, with the help of the Nazis, was “to solve the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine and in other Arab countries as required by national interests, and in the same way as the Jewish question in the Axis lands is being solved.” 10 his own memoirs, and the testimony of German defendants at the Nuremberg trials later on, showed that he planned a death camp modeled on Auschwitz to be constructed near Nablus for the genocide of Palestine’s Jews. … It was the mufti who urged hitler, himmler, and General Ribbentrop to concentrate Germany’s considerable industrial and military resources on the extermination of european Jewry. The foremost muslim spiritual leader of his time helped in his own way by lobbying to prevent Jews from leaving hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, even though those governments were initially willing to let them go. As eichmann himself recounted: “We have promised him [the mufti] that no european Jew would enter Palestine any more.”

1 But with the cold War looming, the British and the Americans sought to curry favor with the Arab world (and prevent the UssR from making political headway there) by allowing him to escape. he fled first to egypt, and later to syria. from damascus, hajj Amin al-husseini reestablished himself as the foremost spokesman for the Arabs of Palestine. … Al-husseini’s Nazi ambitions, even though they were now seen as part of the holocaust that he had helped in his small way to engineer, continued to be a source of pride for his Arab supporters after his death in 1948. ________________________________________ … Nazism was eradicated in europe after World War II, but it was alive and well in the Arab world. The new amalgam of Nazi and muslim Jew-hatred created by the preaching of hassan al-Banna and husseini continued to grow in influence." from David Meir-Levi, Professor, formerly Professor of Near Eastern History and Archeology, Hebrew University of Tel Aviv and is currently the director of research at the Israel Peace Initiative in San Francisco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimicifugia (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There were indeed Arab fascist movements that cropped up in the Middle-East during the thirties, in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Most of these movements, however, died away fairly quickly, and were replaced by more viable forms of Arab nationalism.  These movements' focus was anti-colonial, anti-Persian, and generally anti-Jewish.  (Saddam Hussein's father figure, Khairallah Talfah, was involved in one of them, the ideology of which may have contributed to Saddam's politics).
 * Ironically, the only Arab fascist movement that survived the thirties was the Falange in Lebanon, which sided with the Christian government and its U.S. and Israeli allies against the Shi'a militias during the eighties.
 * Also don't confuse fascism, Arab or otherwise, with the more mainstream forms of Arab nationalism such as Nasserism or Ba'athism. First, the fact that Arab nationalism cropped up in the Middle-East and not Europe means there were a certain number of cultural differences between the two (such as the role of religion in each movement).  Second, fascism was mostly a product of the German and Italian middle-classes; the Arab world had no equivalents at the time, and the mass movements that supported nationalism in the fifties came mostly from the poor and working classes.  Third, they differed on economics - Arab nationalism was socialist and involved the nationalization of most sectors of the economy, while fascism recognized and respected the independence of the business sector.  147.9.228.235 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Vichy French are not called Nazis. They did all the things that you speak of here, and more.

Furthermore neither Vichy nor Mufti would not be called Nazi without a modifier because they are first and foremost, other things. Example: a host is making preparations for an outdoor party, and complains of bees flying about. "Those are wasps", he is told. He replies, "bees, wasps, whatever". Although he is correct in classifying them both as annoying insects, if he further takes issue with scientists for labelling these obviously, both annoying creatures with the same species name, or ignores the fact that they are different species when telling others that they are the same, then he is wrong.

Political scientists label Mufti correctly, as a muslim etc. Not a nazi. Although he has many characteristics in common with a nazi, he is not one. He could be called a muslim with nazi sympathies, or even tendencies, or a nazi collaborator, or any number of phrases with nazi in it, but muslim would be the most accurate designation and can not be replaced, and nazi is a distinction that he can never have in the absence of other qualifying distinctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not mere POV but sounds like propaganda. Just because some one is against jews does not make one a Nazi. Apart from that fact, I dont see any other reference or argument that proves that many arabs were nazis. As the old saying goes, "Enemy's enemy is a friend". That is the only logical relation between the Arab society which is very religious and tradional with the to agnostic and so called progressive nazis. This is an attempt to associate arabs with everything considered evil in civilized societies just because they are at odds with jews. --122.164.252.207 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)--122.164.252.207 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

lead
I put the elements of Nazism as the last line. It fits with the context of the second paragrah. And it should also be noted that Nazism took many elements from the right, not just formed alliances with them, but still is not linked to conservatism. 69.179.59.208 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead to which I'm reverting was established by consensus and it is supported by the sources. -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

VisionThing you keep reverting my edits. it's not enough to say the Nazis allied with the right they also took elements from them. Together my edit of "while it incorporated elements from both political wings, it formed its most solid alliances on the political right." is viald and notr redundent? Please stop reverting it. Bobisbob (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Post WWII group
I recall reading that there were "a group of Nazis/Wehrmacht etc" who persisted in post-WWII Germany causing assorted damage and assassinations etc - what was the name given to them? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that be Werwolf? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably. One of the "uses of Wikipedia talk pages" is to resolve topics that have gone to the edge of memory: one can remember the area but not the particular detail.

Can "someone" do an archive of this talk page. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - some of us prefer to "just add pages and adapt text" (g).

Should there be a link to the Werwolf (and some of the other related terms)? Is the article getting long enough to split? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

national socialist
why does national socialism link to nazism? socialism and communism have their own links. Nazi is not an -ism in the first place. (Why does nazi link here to?) It is a proper noun, a proper noun can't by definition be an -ism. Nazi should go to National Socialist German worker's party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party). National Socialism is certainly not limited to the views of Hitler's party. There are national socialist experiments all over the world that vary greatly from hitler's ideology. According to this, "Nazism, commonly known as National Socialism refers primarily to the ideology and practices of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler..." It's one thing to say 'nazism' refers to hitler's practices, it's quite another to say national socialism refers primarily to...

This flagrantly in violation of POV, b/c national socialism is a much broader definition. Lihaas (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The article does state that Nazism is only one of many National Socialist movements and National Socialism does not link to the Nazism article. Bobisbob (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was off my rocker with that last comment ;) but the intro para does say the same in that it "is also referred to as (nati soc)" Nati Socism is cetainly a part of Hitler's ideology but its not what national socialism is though. Still think we should have a seperate national socialism article. Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree in principle that it should have its own page. However, are the differences between the national socialists smaller than their similarities? If not, it might perhaps devolve into an ever-expanding list of distinctions between them, rather than defining a common definition of national socialism. Anarchangel (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nazism is the nickname developed from the National Socialism of Hitler's Germany. However, Wikipedia is using the minor exceptions (i.e. some other rare uses of "National Socialism" in non-Hitler organizations) as major reasons to write two articles "Nazism" and "National Socialism". When such splits occur because of minor points, it weakens Wikipedia's scholarly credibility. Please reunite the two articles under a heading which contains both words "Naziism" and "National Socialism". Any non-Hitler usage of either word should only be an article sub point.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
Does 'Nazi' really come from "Nationalsozialistische," the first two syllables, as the article states.

I have always been under the impression it was the "Nationalsozialitsche." This way the letters are identical and the phonetics are retained. It just makes sense. Is this a common misconception I have? D Boland (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's common, but it's certainly a misconception. Just say "National..." a few times in German, and you'll note that you're starting with "Nazi" every time -- it's how it's pronounced. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So the change to the letter 'z' is just to make it more obvious to use the /ts/ sound, alright then. Thanks for the reply. D Boland (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there any relation to the hebrew word nazir, meaning "consecrated" or "separated"?? --131.174.17.91 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It actually IS a "Nationalsozialitsche." It was a play on the ideology, as German Socialists were known as Sozis. Kolm H (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is "Nationalsozialismus", and counterposed to "Inter-Nationalsozialismus i.e Communism (Ger. Rat / Rus. Soviet), Both Totalitarian and Athiest. Roots deep in Greco-Roman and Charlemagne Feudal culture. Explained by I.Kant b1724-d1804 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.146.22 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No ! The entry is simply wrong. The term "Nazi" does not come from "Nationalsozialist". Read the German Wikipedia article to see where it really comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.210.216 (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

economy
I have replaced

According to some, Hitler extended state controls over prices, labor, materials, dividends and foreign trade, limiting competition and private ownership in attempt to direct all segments of economy towards "general welfare".[85] From the 1930s state ownership increased in both war and non-war sectors of economy.[86] Others however claim that the Nazis largely tranferred public ownership into the private sector only nationalizing certin ineffective industries, while still extending government control over the direction of the economy.[87]

with this

While the Nazis transfered public ownership and services in the private spector, they increased state control, regulation, and inference in economic affairs.[85] Under the Nazis, free competiton and regulation by the market greatly decreased.[86] Nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to disregard competiton and private property.[87]

the former makes it seems like there's a debate. They all agree that the Nazis privatized but they also argee that they made extensive control. There is no contradiction. As far as deleting sources, I am merely replacing then with new ones. Bobisbob (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add the other sources if they are saying the same thing. But the to remove certain sources WITHOUT putting it up for debate was bordering on censorship. Certainly if you maintain they say the same thing then the sources can't hurt.
 * ps- I changed the debate because you hadn't replied to the query in a week and it appears you agreed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus) Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction description for Nazism needs an edit
"Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism...." Since this refers to Nazism of the past, and not the specific Green Nazi Party of today which encourages ethnic, and not just German, nationalism, the phrase "ethnic nationalism" needs to be replaced with "German nationalism". The article is semi-protected and I am unable to edit it myself. LeobenConoy (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't specify it clearly enough, because although Austrians, Sudetens, Danzigers, etc, were not technically "German", I replaced "ethnic nationalism" with "Pan-Germanism". LeobenConoy (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right." Putting a random citation isn't explanation. This statement is historically murky at best, inaccurate in my view, and it is obviously slanted POV. Absentee (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Foreign reaction
"In his early years, Hitler also greatly admired the United States of America. In Mein Kampf, he praised the United States for its race-based anti-immigration laws and for the subordination of the “inferior” black population. According to Hitler, America was a successful nation because it kept itself “pure”[ citation needed ] of “lesser races”[ citation needed ]. Nevertheless, his view of the United States became more negative as time passed."

According to USAToday at http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-09-14-book-usat_x.htm and Wikipedia's article on Hitler's Secret Book, Hitler is said to have changed his mind concerning the United States sometime after Mein Kampf. The text I quoted refers to his feelings in context with Mein Kampf, i.e. "In Mein Kampf... according to Hitler...." which is not true according to the Wikipedia article on Hitler's Secret Book (Zweites Buch). I don't know if it's appropriate for someone new such as myself to pull out the material in that section of Nazism's article although it is nonfactual. It needs to be rewritten to reflect Hitler's feelings towards the US before he learned of US eugenics programs, and then to reflect Hitler's feelings after. LeobenConoy (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that a sentence about the connection between Nazi ideology and the theory of evolution should be added to this article: "Nazi ideology was inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution and the idea of survival of the fittest." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.124.183 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Post WWII Nazism
I was surprised by the exclusive focus on Nazim during (and just before) WWII, as the term Nazism is still frequently used as it does exist now. At a minimum there should be one section on this with links off to relevant main articles on this topic. Mathmo Talk 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WWII
This section is long, opinionated and has litttle to do with "Nazism". I would recommend the following change:

In 1939, in the midst of the Nazi era, World War II began. Six years later, the Nazi regime came to an end with Germany's defeat in the war. The Party was declared a criminal organisation and Nazism was outlawed as a political ideology in Germany, as well as forms of iconography and propaganda from the Nazi era. Nevertheless, neo-Nazis continue to operate in Germany and several other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.218.74 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also a minor error in the WWII section about the events of 1939. Current wording is:

In 1939 Germany attacked Poland; France and the United Kingdom declared war on Germany in response. The Soviet Union then attacked Poland from the east as promised. Poland was defeated but the war between Germany, France and the United States continued.

The correction is that the war "between Germany, France and the United Kingdom continued." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.177.26 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism
The consensus that anti-capitalist is not a sufficiently deep aspect of Nazism to merit inclusion in the lead paragraph exists independently of my agreement on a talk page. It is the reason that the anti-capitalist rhetoric section is titled as such, and it is clear from that article that all instances of anti-capitalism are inseparable from anti-jewish statements, ie in order to criticize jews, criticisms of capitalists or simply labelling jews as capitalists was used. Nazism used the capitalist system to further its ends; those capitalists who did not follow the party line were imprisoned and their property seized. Again, the Nazi interests were more paramount over any considerations of capitalism as an ideology. Please refrain from reverting the edits to the lead article to include anti-capitalism. If you wish, you may refer also to the talk page, there is an additional argument there against using anti-capitalism. Anarchangel (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nazi economics was anti-capitalist, please refrain erasing it. It was somewhere between social democracy and communism, allowing private enterprises to exist under heavy regulation and taxation if they benefited the state.Valois bourbon (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Socialism is not merely state control of the economy; it is a whole complex of political ideology, including that notion along with many others. After all, a king may exercise rule over the economy in his kingdom, but that doesn't make absolute monarchy a form of socialism. The same is true of Nazism. --FOo (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then, disect the arguement.
 * "Hitler attacked what he called “pluto-democracy,” which he claimed to be a Jewish conspiracy to favor democratic parties in order to keep capitalism intact.[58] The “corporation” was attacked by orthodox Nazis as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism, with the role of Jews emphasized" Heck the whole quote is nationalization, by definition against capitalism. Lihaas (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I would like to apologize for my, and Bobisbob2's, use of the word consensus in edit summaries. Having looked at the wiki rules more carefully, it is clear that consensus is only a description of a phase in the discussion process, and can not be used as an argument against or for editing, because any additional changes of merit to an edit, by definition, void the consensus. Consequently I have removed the word Consensus from this discussion title, and Rhetoric; although it is a strong part of my argument, it does not represent all the views currently here. However, consensus has not, as can be seen, been part of my Discussion here, and my arguments here are unaffected by this retraction.

(outdent)I see a lot of statements here that confuse non-capitalism with anti-capitalism. Valois' argument is that they were social democrats / communists therefore they must have been anti-capitalists. This is not so. See the first sentence of Anti-capitalism. Not only is it defined as the total eradication of capitalism, but there are no groups such as socialists included in that lead paragraph. It is a policy defined neither by the ideologies nor the political structure of the groups that used it. Because Nazism most clearly did not eradicate capitalism, I also put it to you that your argument in this discussion must be whether or not Nazism was -partially- capitalist, as per the A-C page. Can we agree on that? I will of course be continuing my argument that it was not anti-capitalist. Anarchangel (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You make some very valid points here. THere is a difference between not-advocating a capitalist method like many of he industrialized placed did in their process (and do today) and that of strict anti-capitalism. Perhaps saying non-capitalist would be better. How would that look? Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that there were capitalists, major manufacturers even, who were allowed to continue their operations under the Nazis, we would be considering putting a manufactured and therefore WP:OR term in the lead article. Anti-capitalist and -ism are mentioned, in a qualified manner, many times in the article. I am reluctant to send you away empty-handed, but our problem is that we need a word that hasn't been invented yet, as far as I know. We to say, took state control of capital whose owners did not support the state's policies - in a phrase much shorter than that. I honestly can't think of a way. Anarchangel (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have here, just found it online, a quote in regards to the fact that while it was not capitalist it wasn't anti-capitalist:
 * "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption.
 * [But] the difference between the systems is that the German pattern 'maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets.' But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. 'Market exchange,' says Mises, 'is only a sham.'
 * (I have edited a bit to remove quotes, etc. But other than 'but' nothing was added)
 * At any rate, there are strains of both sides of the capitalist picture. Lihaas (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, and good evidence. I agree it does show a lot of totalitarian control of capitalism, and I am more and more wishing we had a word for it Anarchangel (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several commonly used terms for centralized government economic control, including corporatism and the most common, fascism, as The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics explicates: (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)Nicmart (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between Nazism and National Socialism
This is erroneous. South American National Socialists are not "Nazis", nor are Asian National Socialists. Only Germanic National Socialists are actually "Nazis", even though some uninformed racist Americans have called them selves American Nazis, etc.

The word "Nazi" comes from 'Ashkenaz', the Hebrew (and carried on into Yiddish) word for Germany.

Ashkenaz was Gomer's first son, brother of Riphath, and Togarmah (Gen. 10:3, 1 Chronicles 1:6) and is believed by some to be the ancestor of the Germanic, Scandinavian and Slavic peoples. One reason people believe this is that Ashkenaz's father is Gomer who is associated with the Frank and Germanic tribes due to his name.

The name Ash comes from the Hebrew origin. In Hebrew The meaning of the name Ash is: Diminutive of Asher: Happy. In the old Testament, Asher was one of Jacob's sons.

In Yiddish "K'naz" or "k'nas" means "fine" or money penalty, the suggestion possibly being that Germany was considered an expensive place to live among Jews in medieval times. It may also be suggested that a "Nazi" is one who made Jews pay (dearly) for living in Germany.

Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim are descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland, "Ashkenaz" being the Medieval Hebrew name for Germany.

This could all even be interpreted to mean that the word 'Nazi' meant Germany without happiness (to Jews at the very least), or that "Nazi" simply meant "Theif" as in one who fines you when you don't owe them anything. This is Like calling someone a "bastard", not because they don't have a father, but to suggest as an insult that it appears that their father did not raise them properly.

Nazi is meant as an insulting term of derision, because calling them "National Socialists" almost sounds like a valid political party. Jews and friends of Jews who were being persecuted and escaped relayed the news of these "Nazis", and we (USA) used the term in our War Propaganda to have a derogatory name for the enemy.

Hitler never called them the 'Nazis'- he called his party the NSDAP. --24.1.12.223 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what I believe your point was, that although Nazis called themselves national socialists, not all national socialists are nazis, ie, National socialism is not another word for Nazism, exclusively. And additionally, that there is a problem with a potential conflation of socialism and nazism. Bob and I are aware of this problem and he especially has been working to keep it at bay.

However, as you can see below, assuming I understand you both correctly, your argument has been confused with a misstatement, namely that Nazis did not call themselves national socialists, ie National socialism is not another term that the Nazis used. With more than due respect, I blame this misunderstanding on your Section heading, which more closely resembles the misstatement than what you wrote following the heading. I have replaced its previous title of ""Nazism" is NOT short for National Socialism!!" with "The distinction between Nazism and National Socialism" Anarchangel (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The party was called the NSDAP or the National Socialist German Workers' Party.  The party was nicknamed the Nazi Party because NSDAP is not pronounceable in German.  The Hitler family was Roman Catholic.  Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right. 65.101.140.158 (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He didn't mean that, as far as I can tell. See above. Anarchangel (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The following web address is an unsigned comment by 66.233.221.197 at 23:27, 30 November 2008 : Summary notes: Thank you wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone could edit if the page wasn't locked. Guessing 66, like 78, is not a fan of the silver lock, and/or doesn't want a User name/etc. I don't want anyone thinking I submitted this detritus for any consideration.Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

NATIONAL SOCIALIST AMERICAN LABOR PARTY

Obviously we can only speculate as to 66's reason for inserting this, but it definitely goes to the point that anyone can decide to call themselves national socialists, and the reasons can be varied. Apparently neither the writer of the linked article, nor the Mr Berg he refers to, show knowledge of the fairly common practice of granting dual citizenship to people born abroad from their parents' home country. Nor, sad to say, does the judge that dismissed Berg's case confront Berg with this fact. Imo, what is gained in not dignifying smears with an answer is lost in not dignifying the truth with an answer. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The term Nazi should be disencouraged on a public forum such as this; the title of this entire article should be changed. The term is inherently a slanderous term, used most often by critics of the regime. It would be as if the main article for Communism was "Commie Ideals" or "Red Scum Policies". The term Nazi was used in the same way. The title of this thread should be converted to National Socialism. Kolm H (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is simply an incorrect --to put it as mildly as possible-- assessment of Third Reich historiography and an invalid analogy to boot.


 * In no way is the comparison to "Red Scum" justifiable and the notion of "inherently slanderous" is almost mind-boggling. "Nazi" is simply a phonetic contraction of the full name of the party (from Nati-) while "Red Scum" obviously is intended to carry a negative message on its face. The contraction "Nazi" came about simply because the full name was so long-- the same reason, precisely, that people refer to Philadelphia as "Philly." It is no more and no less that that, plain and simple. As a sidenote, the term "Philly" is often used affectionately by residents or past-residents (such as myself). For those who think "Philly" is pejorative, I give up.


 * The term "Nazi" is no more derogatory than "National Socialist." The incorrect conclusion underlying the claim that the term is pejorative comes from this faulty logic:


 * 1 National Socialism, as practiced by Hitler and his party, was despicable.
 * 2 As a result, Sam hates National Socialism as instantiated by the NSDAP.
 * 3 Sam refers to it as "Nazism."
 * 4 Therefore the term "Nazism" must be derogatory and pejorative.


 * Obviously this argument is logically fallacious.


 * The tactic of attacking the word "Nazi" as pejorative has been attempted numerous times by sympathizers of German National Socialism --for obvious motivations of table-turning (i.e. when Sam points out to Jack that Jack's political views are despicable, rather than argue the merits, Jack attacks Sam's nomenclature, thereby changing the issue)-- and the answer need not change here. The term "Nazi" has been used by reputable historians, in Germany, the US, the UK and elsewhere for many years, in academic works. The fact that the National Socialists of the Third Reich were despicable, and remain so, is not due to the name we call them --whether National Socialist, NSDAP, Nazi or otherwise--, but to their own actions and policies.


 * Is "Nazi" or "Nazism" slangy? It may have been once. However, these terms have been in established usage in reputable works for many years --before most readers of Wikipedia were born.


 * Language changes. English especially changes (it always has). Terms that were slang yesterday (like "car" for "automobile") become accepted as "real" words and find legitimacy as such. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive; they try to define meanings based on "accepted" usage, which is admittedly an art. Just because a term is not "official" (as defined by the Nazis themselves) does not mean that it is "slang." English is simply not analogous to (say) symbolic logic in that way. The terms are in common usage (and are thus part of the English language), as any inquiry into a dictionary will establish. Enough, please.SixBlueFish (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PS As to the (rather subtle, I admit) distinction between "Nazism" and "National Socialism" see the article entitled National Socialism. The name "National Socialism" has been used by other groups besides the NSDAP and in fact the term did not originate with the NSDAP. You would have to say "German National Socialism" or "National Socialism as practiced by the NSDAP" or "NSDAP-ism" (God forbid) to capture the meaning that is readily encompassed within the term "Nazism" (although now we have people referring to "neo-Nazis" which will only confuse you more if you think about it too much, so don't). SixBlueFish (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that I crossed the line with the argument about "Red Scum", but if your argument is the term "Nazi" is acceptable because it is a contraction of a longer phrase, then the argument still stands that under the same guidelines the Communism page can be redubbed as "Commie Ideology" or the Communist Party (USSR or PRC) be retitled, "Commie Party". It has nothing to do with political leanings whatsoever; all parties and ideals should be adressed in their propoer manner, respectfully adressed unless otherwise permitted by the group itself. You wouldn't find a page titled, "LA Po-Po" or "NYPD Pigs", even though they are meaningful wods, as you said. Kolm H (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable source
As per the concensus established on, "Free Inquiry magazine" is not a neutral source due to their avowedly anti-religious aim. Therefore, I have removed the text "This forthright hostility was far more straightforward than the Nazis’ complex, often contradictory stance toward traditional Christian faith." with the reference The Great Scandal: Christianity’s Role in the Rise of the Nazis

This part of Paul's article is not cited (See source with parenthetical citations visible here), it is Gregory Paul's own interpretation. Mr. Paul is an paleontologist, not a historian. WP:RELIABLE prescribes that "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". If you can find a historian saying something similar please replace it. Madridrealy (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New category (Category:Victims of Nazism)
New categories were created: Category:Victims of Nazism and more detailed, Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions. Please help populate.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is one sided and misleading
===== It fails to point out that the Nazi part had Jews among it's senior members!!!. In fact the Jews were the main drivers of the party until Hitler Joined. It was only after Hitler fell out with the main Jewish leaders that some of them left the party. However others stayed. The Jew that left attempted to overthrow Hitler and take back control of the party. They made several attempts to assassinate him. It was this action by the Jews that lead to his hatred of all Jews!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.119.171 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very tempting to delete this, but I suggest not to. Besides, deleting discussion is frowned upon by WP rules. Let it be an inspiration to improve the article in the hope that such spectacular synthesis of misinformation is no longer as fun as reading the article. A Magically Wrong contribution from Mr. Unsigned. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Nazism really only limited to the German Party ending in 1945?
Why are older and modern nazi parties outside of Germany not conisdered Nazi parties?

The opening paragraph of this article strongly indicates Nazism largely related to Gemran NSDAP activity 1933-1945. IS this really correct? Are not other political parties that follow the same of very similar allied ideology both in the 30s and since Nazis as well? Why is the opening statement so narrow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.13.147 (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"nazi" was german based we call non-german based political parties names such as facist. 09jamieboro (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of homosexuality
This article's treatment of homosexuality is disproportionate and seems to have an all too familiar agenda. Firstly, why is the section on homosexuality three times the size of the one about anti-semitism when this clearly does not reflect the degree of 'attention' the Nazis gave each minority group? Why is one source, Oosterhuis, quoted repeatedly? Why are this one researcher's views deemed important enough to be the sole ones cited in the section on homosexuality? Especially as his views are so controversial (to paraphrase 'that Nazis and homosexuals somehow go together'). What is behind the line "The persecution of homosexuals as part of the Holocaust (with the pink triangle) has seen increasing scholarly attention since the 1990s, even though many homosexuals served in the Sturmabteilungen."? Homosexuals were present in all stata of German society (police, Communist party, church, regular army, etc), why is the SA singled out in this statement? In order to discredit the aforementioned scholarly research? It reads so. There is an often seen political agenda on the Right (and also on the Left in parts) of propagating the myth/lie that the Nazis were in essence homosexual and that homosexuals were/are in essence attracted to and responsible for fascism. This wikipedia article currently is being used to further this pernicious view. The official, murderous policies of the Nazis regarding homosexuality are clear; pity this article fixates on isolated homosexual personalities and homosexual activity in all-male Nazi-organised groups in an effort to fundamentally distort history. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. I feel like I am at a gay rights parade when reading this article. I almost lost track of the real Jews being murdered with all the coverage of homosexuals. Dontdeletecontent (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone could edit if the page wasn't locked
The "World War II" section remains ridiculous. Again, I propose the following change:

''During the Nazi era, World War II began, in 1939. Six years later, the Nazi regime came to an end with Germany's defeat in the war. The Party was declared a criminal organisation and Nazism was outlawed as a political ideology in Germany, as well as forms of iconography and propaganda from the Nazi era.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.218.74 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a gold lock at time of writing. Silver lock means registered users can still edit. Grab yourself a [|'handle']. Anarchangel (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The page is locked.


 * Overall, this article has a few problems. In general, there are a few heavy-handed, (presumably) emotion-based edits. The section anon mentioned is one example, but here is another:


 * The Nazis scapegoated the German-Jewish community — and by extension, world Jewry — for all of Germany's ills. for all of Germany's ills? Of course, this is inaccurate, but I'm also noting the lack of a reference for this heavy-handed generalization.


 * then there's one sentence that is just...problematic: Nazism was...a combination of various ideologies and groups such as Strasserism and Black Front, sparked by anger at the Treaty of Versailles and what was considered to have been a Jewish/communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany at the end of the World War I.


 * So Strasserism and the Black Front were sparked by anger *over* the Treaty of Versailles and an alleged Jewish/communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany? This sentence is confusing; even if it is supposed to suggest that Nazism (not Strasserism and the BF) was sparked by anger over the Treaty of Versailles and alleged Jewish/com., it is still problematic. There are many other things to consider. Pan-Germanicism, the economy, social corruption, and so on. Even "alleged communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany" is problematic. Is that all the communists wanted, to humiliate Germany? What about the more pressing issue of looming revolution, or the growth of the KPD? Sin cloro8 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "alleged communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany" is not problematic at all as a major component of nazi ideology is the "Dolchstosslegende", the theory that the Communist/Socialist revolution at home basically caused the defeat of the victorious German army in France. Communists were depicted as un-German, especially because many early Marxist leaders were Jewish and the whole notion of World Revolution that didn't really fit into all this Volksgemeinschaft (People's community. I know it is a horrible translation but can't find anything better right now) stuff Hitler talks about all the time. -- anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.31.95 (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte doubtful
Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte is a book written by an architect with strong anti-allied bias. It shouldn't be quoted here, there are plenty of academic texts.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC) The book is unreliable according to Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Romanticism
The section on "Romanticism" is at least half NOT about Romanticism. Or at least it was unclear to me as the section stands why anti-Semitism should necessarily be linked to Romanticism. I was hoping to see more discussion of why Romanticism should have been congenial to Nazism; heroism, nationalism, sentimental notions of the volk (as found in Romantic art and literature) aren't even touched on in the section. "Reactionary" also doesn't equal "Romantic" — if we grant that the Nazis were reactionary, being reactionary isn't what gives Nazis an affinity to Romanticism. Or maybe it is, and I'm just not seeing that explained here. "Tradition" and "classical thought" often are taken as antithetical to Romanticism, which often loves the "non-normal." Militarism has, however, been linked to Romanticism; nothing about that here. And since millions of people have enjoyed listening to Wagner without becoming either anti-Semitic or Nazis, that well-acknowledged connection doesn't seem very convincingly articulated. How did Nazi sources (quoted or summarized) view Wagner in a way that's distinctive (in contrast to the average music lover)? The section as it stands reads as if written by a committee of people who had no interest in and no clue what Romanticism is. Then there's that "Many see" weasel. "Many," but not a single source cited. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Revisiting the page, I see that the section has been deleted. Just wanted to note that deletion wasn't what I was aiming at. Wagner's problematic relation with Nazism does belong here (it just wasn't presented adequately), as do the views of those who see Romantic notions of (to repeat myself) heroism, nationalism, the volk, military glory, and the like as influences on Nazi self-conception. I hope someone with interest and experience in the dark side of Romanticism can revisit the topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
The correct spelling of philosophy in the plural is philosophies, not philosophys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.54.210 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Strongly" is misspelled as "srongly" under the Relationship with Fascism section.

Was Hitler the Hero of USA?
Was Hitler the Hero of USA? Everybody likes George W. Bush. And many people say "Same Shit, different People". That's why i asking this question.


 * Was Slobodan Milosevic the hero of Albanians? Excuse my unorthodox comparison. :P --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning "godwin's law" in this article adds a false authority to that so-called law. It is only a probability statement. Essentially, in a heated discussion (particularly a political discussion) there's the chance someone might label their opponent a "Nazi". But the label "you're a Nazi" should be repudiated by facts--not by a mere chanting of the phrase "godwin's law".Victorianezine (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Henry Ford was a hero to Hitler and the sentiment was returned. Hitler made the cover of Time magazine. - so perhaps to some in the US - But in any case, you're assuming that people act as one - they don't. Each person has their own opinion. Some people like Sarah Palin and call her a hero, others don't. It is never unanimous. Lexlex (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cover of Time hardly means "hero to some in US". As Time has pointed out every time someone unpopular makes their "of the year" cover, that person is the most influential person that year, not the best or most popular person of the year. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? If so..i dont even need to say whats wrong with that 'question'. 75.179.186.249 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Jade Rat

THE SENTENCE CLAIMING NAZIISM WAS HEAVILY LINKED TO RIGHT-WING POLITICS NEEDS EDITING
Naziism came from the Left. As the Leftists became more radical, they touched the extreme Right. Eventually the anti-capitalist and anti-democratic followers of the Right and Left combined, forcing out the middle ground in Germany and giving birth to Naziism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosie122 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article even contradicts itself in claiming this link to the right wing at note 32, when it states, "...fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the "far right" or "extreme right"."

Conservatism IS the far/extreme right! Fascism actually attracts support from the far/extreme LEFT! All its tenets are extreme left positions! All these attempts to link the NAZI's with the politically conservsative right are simply negation-ism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.5.66 (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that Nazis came from the left of the political spectrum is difficult to prove, as the Nazis abolished trade unions, persecuted homosexuals and liberal democrats, and violently opposed communism. Also the preponderance of right wing organisations such as the British Union of Fascists who backed the Nazi government tend to suggest that the Nazis didn't come from the left of the political spectrum. While attempting to portray any current political idealogy as Nazism is untenable, attempting to portray the Nazi movement as "From the left" surely is.Orsoni (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do some reading about political history- the right has always been associated with economic nationalism, protectionism, racism, imperialism, etc- all the things that the Nazis were. You think they were left-wing because they used the state to interfere in the economy, that is a ridiculous notion. Traditionally the protectionist conservatives have been on the right and the liberal progressives on the left- Disraeli oversaw the first major nationalization in Britain, for example. It is only from the bastardized right-wing form of libertarianism that this silly idea has sprung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.237.34 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is problematic to assign such an extremist ideology exclusively to either the right or the left, but it is worth noting that the Nazis themselves referred to their movement as 'socialist'. (Before you lefties freak out, I know, virtually all socialists will ardently disagree with this characterisation today, as do I, basically.)


 * Argument - The Nazis do not stem from the right: As far as I can discern, many conservatives of the time - often members of the Centre party, the DNVP and the diminished German army - found Nazism repulsive. This is the impression I get, for example, by reading Richard J Evans's The Coming of the Third Reich.  After all, Hindenburg, that ultimate embodiment of traditional German conservatism, couldn't stand Hitler, and apparently the feeling was mutual.  Hindenburg ran against Hitler, and the Nazis had to tiptoe around him until 1933 lest he, as Commander-in-Chief, turn the Reichswehr against the Nazis.  When he finally did grant Hitler the chancellorship, it was under conditions of extreme political pressure and possibly senility.  It is also worth noting that many people who abandoned the DNVP in favour of Nazism did so because Nazism was more populist and less aristocratic - not exactly traditional conservatives.


 * Argument - The Nazis do not stem from the left: The Nazis were engaged in all out war with the communists, the ultimate lefties, for most of the 1920s and early 1930s. The less violent Social Democrats were arguably the Nazi's biggest political opponents in the early 1930s.  No love lost there.


 * The sad truth is that the Nazis probably attracted some voters from both the populist right and left. One can therefore only conclude that any exclusive association with the left or the right is highly problematic, and if that is what this sentence attempts, it should be revised. Dflandro (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we really so stupid as to equate current politics to nazism? In my opinion they were more leftists FOR THE TIME. But I'm not going to sit here and say things like rightists are racists since we all know who ran the KKK, the Democratic Party in the USA. Here's the point: Being a liberal or conservative has to be taken in context. Dontdeletecontent (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhh, not so fast. Nazis and, America's far right have more in common than you might want to admit. Both tout an uncompromising loyalty to one's country, God, and a total rejection of queers, weirdos, and foreigners. In fact, if you were to translate many of Hitler's early speeches into English and replace 'German' with 'American' some could be used today by Sarah Palin! No kidding! However, the main difference between then and now is that Hitler engineered loyalty to himself personally - he could do no wrong and was not only the president and chancellor of the country, but the head of the courts. In our case America's right wing are fiercely independent folk and tout things like individual freedom, gun ownership, and independent business. Nazis wanted (and got) control over everything. That concept is extremely offensive to America's Right. In that way, I don't think you could make any sort of true equation between the two parties and to further continue this discussion is just mental masturbation. Lexlex (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Egalitarianism
I removed opposition to egalitarianism as a key element of Nazism because Nazi opposition to egalitarianism is not clear-cut. For example, Götz Aly in his Hitler's Beneficiaries states that: "Though based on an odious and thoroughly discredited vision of racial superiority, the Nazi devaluation of individual freedom and indifference toward personal autonomy did not radically deviate from many others forms of egalitarianism. The Nazi movement represented the drive to couple social equality with national homogeneity, a concept that was popular not only in Germany." Some other authors also talk about their racial egalitarianism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the opposition is good, but maintaining that "support for" does not pop up would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.197.75 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Racial egalitarianism? So the Nazis believed that all races were equal? Which authors wrote this, are they that dense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.237.34 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Was nazism an ideology?
Can nazism be described as an ideology? I think it's a political movement, whose ideology was fascism. --NicoBolso (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nazism had some ideological positions that were not present in fascism, the most important being a racial approach of the society, impacting the relations between people and between nations. And I do not even speak from the antisemitic ideology of nazism.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Kriegsverbrechen ..." is unreliable
According to the text should not be quoted here.Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Nazism officially in German as National Socialism... is there a word missing there? Either add known or remove as? SGGH ping! 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Lexlex (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section on Nazism in Egypt
I recommend eliminating this recent addition for two reasons. First, one can't say everything, and this material is not central. Second, it has a limited source base. Historian Jeffrey Herf has a book titled "Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World" due out from Yale University Press at the end of this year, which will help strengthen the article — but I still recommend cutting. Bytwerk (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My thought is that a few well sourced sentences are acceptable but not this whole section. The article it links to, Nazism in Egypt - The New Research by Matthias Kuntzel is also problematic for the same reasons. If anybody has any ideas on how to deal with that please discuss them on its talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The importance of the section on the role of the Nazi regime founding the modern jihadi movement is that while it is not "central" to the period of World War II, it is central to Nazism in todays world. It is the one impact of the Nazi Third Reich that was not discredited and defeated. It is the one continuity between Hitler and the geopolitics of today. It is not a minor legacy, but a major one, not a minor part of todays geopolitics, it is a major part. Yes, there is a limited source base for English speakers, because most of the research is still in German. Herf's book will be a welcome resource. There will be others, and the linked article can be improved over time. The linked article has been somewhat improved already and retitled "Nazism in the Middle East: The Third Reich's Role in Founding Modern Jihadsim." Cimicifugia (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia

This material should be better contextualized and probably integrated into a section on Nazism's effects history and culture. As it exists at the moment of this comment, the prevalence of anti-semitism in contemporary Egyptian culture seems like a strong focus. This is a separate area from the historical topic of Nazism, and I do not see the relevance to this particular article of the concluding quote. Ben Kidwell (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Nazi"
When pronounced in German, the first two syllables of "National" are "nah-tzi". Previously extant in Germany during the relevant era was the term "Sozi" for "Socialist", which term in the native tongue begins "soh-tzi". Thus "Nazi" from "National" was a linguistic counterpoint to "Sozi", and this is the origin of the term. The idea that the Germans would pluck a syllable out of the middle of the second word in order to form an abbreviation, is a common English-speaker's fallacy regarding the origin of the term "Nazi". I move that this be modified in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.43.187 (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that exactly what the article already says? --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong! Originally the term 'Nazi' was used in the Bavarian German dialect as a notation for buddy, good friend or good comrade. The members of the Hitler party later liked to adopt this term as an abbreviation for 'National Socialist' and called themselves 'Nazis'. Needless to say, that today nobody still uses the term in the sense of the original meaning and it sounds very strange to find the term in an old German novel, written long before the 'Nazis' in the original sense, when not knowing the history of this term. It's a good example for a missused word, which subsequently changed its sense. --Henrig (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing letter
The word is "Naziism," not "Nazism."Lestrade (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Google Search shows 2,590,000 hits for "Nazism", 134,000 for "Naziism". The online Merriam Webster dictionary shows "Nazism" as the preferred spelling (see here), with "Naziism" listed as a variant.  This is a dictionary of American usage, so perhaps it might be an instance of WP:ENGVAR.  CosineKitty (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?" Mark Twain, Following the Equator, vol. I, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar.Lestrade (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * You can't expect people to take you very seriously if you don't bring any evidence in support of your claims and then are rude and dismissive when people take the time to look into them and to answer you. For the record, I have only ever noticed it spelled as "Nazism" and my British English spell checker is accepting "Nazism" but flagging "Naziism" as a spelling mistake. It also does the same when switched to American English. Wiktionary has the same as MW. Google Books has 11,919 hits for "Nazism" and only 1,251 for "Naziism". Google Scholar has 44,700 hits for "Nazism" and only 1,820 for "Naziism". I don't think all those authors, academics, publishers and lexicographers can be fools, do you? Clearly, the extra "i" is valid as a variant but it certainly is not in common use.
 * The good news is that we already have Naziism redirected here, so anybody using the variant spelling will still find the article without any difficulty. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should not assume rudeness... it is a funny quote. I'm a big Mark Twain fan myself.  When you think about it, the written English language is a really screwed up, illogical mess, and correctness is defined merely by mass usage.  I prefer to save my indignation for the really important things, like which way to put the toilet paper on the roll!  :) CosineKitty (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What the Germans Say
Many points which are frequently disputed here are addressed by the article "Nationalsozialismus" in the German Wikipedia. This reads in part:

"The propaganda term 'Nazism' and 'National Socialism' derived from the program of the German Workers Party (DAP), founded in 1919, which changed its name in 1920 to NSDAP. Already in May 1918, the German Workers Party, founded in Austria in 1903, renamed itself the German National Socialist Workers Party (DNSAP).  Its supporters called themselves 'National Socialists', disparagingly known as 'Nazis' by opponents.

"Both parties presented 'National Socialism' as a counter to international socialism or social democracy. They combined a race-based nationalism with anti-capitalist demands borrowed from socialism. Thus, they distinguished themselves from the conservative and leftist parties and presented themselves to their constituencies, workers and the middle class, as an alternative.  In addition, since 1920 the German National Socialists called themselves a 'Movement', not as a party, in order to attract protest voters and those disenchanted with politics.

"Today, the term refers most often to the particular ideology of Adolf Hitler and his followers in the NSDAP. Hitler used the words 'nationalism' and 'socialism' in an unusual way: 'Nationalism' was his term for an individual's dedication to his racial community, while 'socialism' was the responsibility of the racial community to the individual.  In particularly, he strongly rejected seizing the means of production, the main goal of the original socialists."

The Germans do not distinguish between 'National Socialism' and 'Nazism.' The latter is simply a contraction of the former. They do refer to post-1945 Nazis as "Neo-Nazis."

It is my personal conviction that the militant racial nationalism of the Nazi Party does not fall either on the right nor left of our political spectrum. Hitler's program does not closely resemble the platform of any major American party.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It may not come close to any political party on the American spectrum, but Nazism is part of the European far-right, with its focus on both anti-capitalism and anti-communism coming extremely close to the ideologies of the Parliamentary Non-Inscrits. Therefore, it is positioned on the political spectrum. Regards, UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Europeans take a different view of these things. For example, the Germans call themselves a "Volk," which is an ethnic group.  Americans, however, call themselves a "people," which derives from the Latin "populus," referring to a broad class of persons who are neither slaves nor aristocrats.  It does not imply any racial distinctions.  In Europe, nationalism is often associated with race, but in the United States, racial nationalism is limited mainly to fringe groups, such as the Aryan Nations.  It would be pretty silly to refer to the Aryan Nations as "liberal" or "conservative," they just have nothing to do with normal politics here. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)--

The use of the word "Nazi" in other context
I think there should be a section in the article for the use of "nazi" outside the context of the nazi party and it's policies. For example "I'm not a nazi in regards to letting you take a break, relax." Another example is "You have to make three copies and stamp them all, the government are a bunch of nazis about this stuff." Dontdeletecontent (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

such a small section
they germans are allege to have had this huge conspiracy to exterminate all the jews of europe and yet in this article on Nazism there is what? five sentences? I find that very odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.155.124 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Allege" is the wrong word. The German article relies heavily on information from the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, generally considered a nonpartisan and reliable source of historical information.
 * I only translated what I considered the most relevant part of a longer article. (If you want more, try the Google translator.)  Also, this is not an encyclopedic article on Nazism, but only one of several related articles.  The Holocaust  has its own article. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)