Talk:Nazism/Archive 25

Reworking the lead
I'd like to propose a change to the second paragraph of the lead, and would like to know if there are any sources backing it - since there are no refs there (which is kind of strange). I wouldn't want to rewrite anything that's sourced without knowing what the source states. -- Director  ( talk )  03:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Should I assume its just unsourced nonsense? -- Director  ( talk )  04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lede summarises the article and does not need sourcing directly.  You need to show that said material is not in the main body, or that it misrepresents that material.   Snowded  TALK 09:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's why I'm asking the folks who wrote the thing if they can point me to where they got the second para from.. Incidentally, I do not think this is the kind of article that should go that extreme in terms of WP:LEADCITE recommendations. Nvm, though. Suggesting the following as an alternative version of the second lead para: ""German Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism, asserted the superiority of an Aryan master race, and criticised both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism. It aimed to overcome social divisions, with all parts of a racially homogenous society cooperating for national unity and regeneration, and to secure territorial enlargement at the expense of supposedly inferior neighbouring nations. The name 'National Socialism' arose out of earlier attempts to create a nationalist version of 'socialism', as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazi version of 'socialism' would propose to eliminate neither private property nor class distinctions, but would provide economic security and social welfare programs for workers; employment, a just wage, and protection from capitalistic exploitation. In the ideal Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, classes would exist (based upon talent, profession, property, etc.), but there would be no class conflict. Different economic and social classes would live together harmoniously and work for the common good, subordinate to the collective needs of the nation. Although such socialistic concepts were significant parts of Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis came to power. Ultimately, many of the ideals and programs remained unrealized.""

One sentence has been rewritten, and several were added.
 * The wording of the added text ("The Nazi version.." and on) is more or less drawn directly from A History of Nazi Germany (and could be further rewritten if deemed necessary), but is ofc supported by numerous sources (quoted above & otherwise) in the general outline provided. The word "socialism" as relating to National Socialism is in quotation marks, and I did tone down the position of the source in other ways ("socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of Nazi ideology..").
 * One sentence was rewritten
 * "The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism." is now
 * "The name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts to create a nationalist version of “socialism”, as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism."
 * I agree with objections raised in the discussion above about referring to the socialist policies of Nazism as "reactionary" or "right-wing". Whether Nazism as a whole can be called "reactionary" is a different matter (probably yes; though they certainly did not consider themselves such).

-- Director  ( talk )  10:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I must oppose this suggested rewrite. My reasons are listed below, but I would first like to say that if we are to follow your broad idea of mentioning the "socialistic" aspects of Nazism in the lead, they should be mentioned in the third paragraph, where the National Socialist Program is mentioned, because they are related to it. In fact, two arguably "socialistic" aspects are already mentioned in the third paragraph (land reform and the nationalisation of some industries).


 * So, having said that, my reasons for opposing your proposal are as follows:


 * We must mention who was involved in the earlier attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, so that it is clear that we are talking about nationalists adopting socialist concepts/rhetoric, not the other way around. "National Socialism" was created by right-wing nationalists who began to also call themselves socialists - not by socialists adopting nationalist ideas. The current wording makes this clear, but your wording would leave the issue ambiguous. If you don't like the term "German right-wing figures", we can think of other ways to define the people who first sought to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”. But we must define them somehow.
 * As I've said before, we cannot simply assert that the Nazis advocated a "version of socialism" or that certain ideas of theirs were "socialistic concepts" as if this was uncontroversial fact. It is only the opinion of some sources. And even leaving the whole issue of the Nazis aside, Wikipedia should never refer to anything as "socialistic concepts", in any article, as if there was some kind of universal scholarly consensus on which concepts are socialistic. There is no such thing. We should never, ever, call anything "socialistic", in any context. Instead what we should say is that [some sources] refer to X as socialistic (and identify which sources, if appropriate). So we could have a statement saying something along the lines of, "According to A, B and C, these aspects of Nazi ideology were socialistic, and..." but I would oppose any statement unequivocally referring to something as "socialistic".
 * You do not define "Volksgemeinschaft". We cannot introduce a new word (especially a word in a different language from the one this article is written in) with no explanation. Granted, this is a minor point.
 * Most important of all, I don't see why the issues that you bring up are significant enough to be discussed in the lead at such length, when we devote only two sentence fragments to the Nazis' antisemitic ideas and policies ("...would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent"; "...under which Jews, political opponents and other 'undesirable' elements were marginalised, harassed and eventually imprisoned and exterminated"), we have just one part of a sentence to describe their broader racial views ("...asserted the superiority of an Aryan master race..."), we do not mention their views on the disabled or the T4 "euthanasia" program at all, we do not mention the Stab-in-the-back myth, we only briefly and vaguely touch upon the subject of Lebensraum (by mentioning territorial expansion), we do not mention the Führerprinzip at all, and so on. There are many important aspects of Nazi ideology that get only a brief mention or no mention at all in the current lead. As long as that remains the case, it would constitute extreme undue weight to expand the discussion of their "socialism" (and/or lack thereof) even further. If anything needs to be discussed in more detail in the lead, it's the antisemitic and racial views of the Nazis. They are the most important aspects of the ideology, but are currently given a minor role in the lead.


 * In brief, I would support something similar to your suggestion only if the lead was much longer, and dealt with other important aspects of Nazi ideology in the same detail that you want to devote to their "socialistic" concepts. If we had one paragraph about antisemitism, one about broader Nazi views on race and "racial hygiene", one about their anti-parliamentarism, the Führerprinzip and governance ideas in general, and one about pan-Germanism and Lebensraum, then it would be appropriate to have an entire paragraph about the "socialism" in "National Socialism". -- User1961914 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the lead is far too long and delves into insignificant topics. I think we should agree on a reliable secondary source about nazi ideology.  Then we can use it to explain the main points and any significant controversies that exist.  Otherwise the lead becomes what we find important, which is contrary to neutrality.  I do not see any reason to discuss the lead further without reference to sources.  TFD (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I think the lead is more or less ok the way it is now (not perfect, not the way I would like it, but acceptable). My ideal lead would be somewhat longer, and have between four and six paragraphs (one to introduce Nazism, one about antisemitism, one about Nazi racism, one about expansion and Lebensraum, and possibly one about "socialism" and one about anti-parliamentarism/Führerprinzip). However, I have no intention of insisting on this if other editors disagree. Regarding the idea of finding a single reliable secondary source to tell us the main points of Nazi ideology, I don't think that's possible, because there are so many of them. Which one of the numerous academic books about Nazism should we follow? The choice of one book is just as much of an exercise in personal preference as choosing the main points ourselves. I suppose we could look at all the books... but I certainly don't have the time for that kind of gargantuan project. -- User1961914 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On a different topic, Director has provided a number of sources claiming that Nazism had socialistic elements, and I keep saying that this is only one viewpoint among reliable sources, so I feel obligated to provide some other sources that illustrate the opposing viewpoint. I think the best example is Robert Paxton. In The Anatomy of Fascism, he repeatedly refers to Fascism and Nazism as "nonsocialist" and "antisocialist":
 * Many other reliable sources write about Nazism being opposed to socialism. For instance:
 * The two books quoted above also mention the Nazis' support for private property, in case a source is needed for that - Paxton on pages 10, 141, and 142 ("Fascists [including Nazis] wanted to revolutionize their national institutions in the sense that they wanted to pervade them with energy, unity, and willpower, but they never dreamed of abolishing property or social hierarchy.") and Weiss on page 61.
 * I'm sure more sources can be found if necessary, but, just to reiterate, my view is that the lead should be a summary of the most important aspects of Nazism, with due weight given to each, and the importance of X cannot be established by merely pointing out that some number of sources happen to mention X. There are many reliable sources which say that Nazism had occult religious elements, for example, yet this topic is not even mentioned in the lead. And it should not be. -- User1961914 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Many other reliable sources write about Nazism being opposed to socialism. For instance:
 * The two books quoted above also mention the Nazis' support for private property, in case a source is needed for that - Paxton on pages 10, 141, and 142 ("Fascists [including Nazis] wanted to revolutionize their national institutions in the sense that they wanted to pervade them with energy, unity, and willpower, but they never dreamed of abolishing property or social hierarchy.") and Weiss on page 61.
 * I'm sure more sources can be found if necessary, but, just to reiterate, my view is that the lead should be a summary of the most important aspects of Nazism, with due weight given to each, and the importance of X cannot be established by merely pointing out that some number of sources happen to mention X. There are many reliable sources which say that Nazism had occult religious elements, for example, yet this topic is not even mentioned in the lead. And it should not be. -- User1961914 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure more sources can be found if necessary, but, just to reiterate, my view is that the lead should be a summary of the most important aspects of Nazism, with due weight given to each, and the importance of X cannot be established by merely pointing out that some number of sources happen to mention X. There are many reliable sources which say that Nazism had occult religious elements, for example, yet this topic is not even mentioned in the lead. And it should not be. -- User1961914 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@User Also, bear in mind that the proposal keeps the word "socialism" in quotation marks, as in "socialist" aspects, and Nazi version of "socialism". With the state of the sources in mind, I think that's a considerable concession on my part, since quotation marks pretty much say "its just the word, not actual socialism".
 * Well I don't know what source that's from so I couldn't elaborate further. Who are these right-wing figures that espoused "socialism"? I wonder myself. But I think this point could be easily addressed.
 * One must differentiate between the claim that Nazism was "socialism", and the position that it had socialist aspects (and yes, the Nazis were certainly opposed to any other movement we could refer to as "socialist", but so were anarchists e.g.). And understanding this is really the crucial bit about understanding what the ideology proposes. As far as I can tell - the latter position is pretty much uncontroversial, as surprising as that might be. Scientists often do not dispute things that politicians and the media do. The entire thread above is basically me asking time and time again if there are any sources that actually disagree. I did considerable research on this topic, and I don't know of any. So far as I can tell, no one disputes there were "socialist" or "socialistic" aspects to the ideology of National Socialism.
 * While we do have Wikilinks for that sort of thing, I agree that Volksgemeinschaft could be defined further.
 * Well, there are certainly many aspects to Nazism, but social and economic policies are really the core of any such ideology. The peculiar society that the Nazis proposed to build is what distinguishes them from the vast majority of other ideologies, that's really what Nazism is about. Pan-Germanism, Anti-Semitism, Lebensraum, while certainly espoused by Nazis, are by no means concepts unique to Nazism (or invented by Nazis). There should be, I think, a slightly more pronounced focus on things which are exclusively "Nazi", and which cannot be read about on other articles. That said, I certainly agree that the lead should focus more on actual ideology than other things. I would support an expansion along the lines you propose, in fact I might write it.

@TFD, while I like the way you think, I don't believe a single solitary source would be in line with WP:WEIGHT. And in the end - its always up to us and what we think is more important. That might reflect in the source we select, or in the method we choose to select it. Perhaps choosing several sources would be a better approach? -- Director  ( talk )  01:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So I'll say it again, because I think this is an important point that was missed in writing this article.
 * It is one thing to claim Nazism itself is "socialism" or a "form of socialism". It is one thing to claim that Nazis weren't opposed to proper "socialists" (in perhaps the more narrow sense). It is another to claim that Nazism did not have socialist or socialistic aspects. And consider this: no one was more opposed to Social Democrats in Germany than the Communists, and vice versa, and the Anarchists in Europe hated them all.


 * So Nazism was not "socialist", but it espoused a certain version of socialism as part of its ideology. It was "antisocialist" in terms of opposing movements that were "socialist", but it had socialistic aspects to its ideology. As far as I can tell - that's the elusive middle ground on the subject in sources, a view which no significant number of historians oppose. -- Director  ( talk )  01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We can find a single reliable secondary source to tell us the main points of Nazi ideology by using review articles, metastudies or historiography. These types of sources do not present their authors' theories, but summarize existing theories and explain the degree of acceptance they have.  Often the same information is contained in works containing original arguments, since nazism scholars presenting new ideas need to acknowledge existing views.  Otherwise we are reinventing the wheel and placing emphasis on what individual editors find important.  And if those editors get their ideas from books that represent an segment of opinion that has extremely narrow acceptance, then we will have a biased article.  TFD (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Director, unfortunately I am pressed for time at the moment, but here is a quick reply to your main points:


 * When sources A and B disagree with each other, they almost never explicitly deny the exact wording used by the other. So yes, I don't have any sources with the exact quote "Nazism did not have socialistic elements", but it is unreasonable to say that if no historians use that exact wording, that means no historians dispute the idea of Nazism having socialistic elements. Statements to the effect that Nazism was "antisocialist" or "opposed to socialism" or other things along those lines clearly count as disputes over the "socialism" in "National Socialism". Even among the sources that do agree that there were socialistic elements in Nazism, there is no single concept of what those elements were, how important they were, to what extent the Nazis took them seriously, etc. Basically, what we have are a number of sources calling Nazi ideas X, Y or Z "socialistic", usually in passing and without making a big point of it, while other sources do not call these ideas "socialistic" and refer to the Nazis as "antisocialist" or "opposed to socialism". I see this as a clear-cut case of lack of agreement among sources.


 * Regarding your final bullet point, it seems self-contradictory to me. You say that "the peculiar society that the Nazis proposed to build is what distinguishes them from the vast majority of other ideologies." But any "socialistic" aspects of Nazism are by definition aspects that Nazism had in common with other ideologies (namely, socialist ones), and therefore cannot be the kind of distinguishing characteristics you describe. This whole time you have been arguing that the lead should emphasize things that the Nazis had in common with other ideologies, so I am confused by your statement that we should focus on what made Nazism unique.


 * As it happens, I do agree that we should focus on what made Nazism unique, but surely that does not mean talking about things like social welfare programs, employment programs, or wage regulations! If anything, those are the least unique aspects of Nazism, seeing how they are advocated by almost every single mainstream political party in Europe today (and at least half the political spectrum in the Nazis' own time). The concept of Volksgemeinschaft itself is not unique to the Nazis either. Things like the desire to conquer Europe or the drive to exterminate entire ethnic/racial groups are what made Nazism unique (not because the Nazis had any kind of monopoly over expansionism or antisemitism, but because they took these ideas to never-seen-before extremes). -- User1961914 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014
Hitler was working on setting up a new Pagan Nazi religion called the "National Reich Church" and outlawing all other religions.Listed below is 30 Point Program For Germany's National Reich Church By Alfred Rosenberg

1. The National Reich's Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich; it declares these to be national churches:

2. The German people must not serve the National Reich Church. The National Reich Church is absolutely and exclusively in the service of but one doctrine: race and nation.

3. The field of activity of the National Reich Church will expand to the limits of Germany's territorial and colonial possessions.

4. The National Reich Church does not force any German to seek membership therein. The Church will do everything within its power to secure the adherence of every German soul. Other churches or similar communities and unions particularly such as are under international control or management cannot and shall not be tolerated in Germany.

5. The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

6. The existing churches may not be architecturally altered, as they represent the property of the German nation, German culture and to a certain extent the historical development of the nation. As property of the German nation, they are not only to be valued but to be preserved.

7. The National Reich Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

8. National Reich Church services are held only in the evening and not in the morning. These services are to take place on Saturday's with solemn illumination.

9. In the National Reich Church German men and women, German youths and girls will acknowledge God and his eternal works.

10. The National Reich Church irrevocably strives for complete union with the state. It must obey the state as one of its servants. As such, it demands that all landed possessions of all churches and religious denominations be handed over to the state. It forbids that in future churches should secure ownership of even the smallest piece of German soil or that such be ever given back to them. Not the churches conquer and cultivate land and soil but exclusively the German nation, the German state.

11. National Reich Church orators may never be those who today emphasize with all tricks and cunning verbally and in writing the necessity of maintaining and teaching of Christianity in Germany; they not only lie to themselves but also the German nation, goaded by their love of the positions they hold and the sweet bread they eat.

12. National Reich Church orators hold office, government officials under Civil Service rules.

13. The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.

14. The National Reich Church has to take severe measures in order to prevent the Bible and other christian publications being imported into Germany.

15. The National Reich Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuhrer's "Mein Kampf" is the greatest of all documents. It is conscious that this book contains and embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

16. The National Reich Church has made it its sacred duty to use all its energy to popularize the coeternal "Mein Kampf" and to let every German live and complete his life according to this book.

17. The National Reich Church demands that further editions of this book, whatever form they may take, be in content and pagination exactly similar to the present popular edition.

18. The National Reich Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.

19. On the altars there must be nothing but "Mein Kampf", which is to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book, and to the left of the altar a sword.

20. The National Reich Church speakers must during church services propound this book to the congregation to the best of their knowledge and ability.

21. The National Reich Church does not acknowledge forgiveness of sins. It represents the standpoint which it will always proclaim that a sin once committed will be ruthlessly punished by the honorable and indestructible laws of nature and punishment will follow during the sinner's lifetime.

22. The National Reich Church repudiates the christening of German children, particularly the christening with water and the Holy Ghost.

23. The parents of a child (or if a new born child) must only take the German oath before the altar which is worded as follows: The man: "In the name of God I take this Holy oath that I the father of this child, and my wife, are of proven Aryan descent. As a father, I agree to bring up this child in the German spirit and as a member of the German race". The women: "In the name of God I take this Holy oath that I (name) bore my husband a child and that I its mother am of proven Aryan descent. As a mother, I swear to bring up this child in the German spirit and as a member of the German race". The German diploma can only be issued to newly born children on the strength of the German oath.

24. The National Reich Church abolishes confirmation and religious education as well as the communion the religious preparation for the communion. The educational institutions are and remain the family, the schools, the German youth, the Hitler youth, and the Union of German girls.

25. In order that school graduation of our German youth be given an especially solemn character, all churches must put themselves at the disposal of German youth, the Hitler youth and the Union of German girls on the day of the state's youth which will be on the Friday before Easter. On this day the leaders of these organizations exclusively may speak.

26. The marriage ceremony of German men and women will consist of taking an oath of faithfulness and placing the right hand on the sword. There will not be any unworthy kneeling in National Reich Church ceremonies.

27. The National Reich Church declares the tenth day before Whit Sunday to be the national holiday of the German family.

28. The National Reich Church rejects the customary day of prayer and atonement. It demands that this be transferred to the holiday commemorating the laying of the foundation stone of the National Reich Church.

29. The National Reich Church will not tolerate the establishment of any new clerical religious insignia.

30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels within the Reich and its colonies and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol of Germany the "Hakenkreuz" (swastika).

204.186.240.234 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no source for your statement that Hitler was working on this. Also, there is no reason to post long extracts from primary sources as you have recommended or carried out over several articles.  TFD (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This topic is already discussed in several articles on Wikipedia, including Protestant Reich Church, Religion in Nazi Germany, and Kirchenkampf. The information in the Religion section of this article is not intended to provide comprehensive coverage of the topic - that's why there links to five other articles right at the top of the section. If you think that a specific addition should be made here feel free to suggest the exact change you would like to see made, but this request certainly isn't it. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What is Jewish Materialism?
In the second paragraph of this article, the term "Jewish Materialism" appears without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.245.16 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014
It should be noted that the idea of the National Socialist Party being tied to ‘right-wing’ groups is modern day fiction. As with all socialist and communist groups the National Socialist Party was and is extreme left-wing.

149.32.192.37 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Our articles are based on what reliable sources state. Reality/sources state Nazism is a right-wing Fascist ideology, not left-wing. So the old Nazi line of "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth", isn't going to work here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a mistake.
In the first sentience of this article it says that Nazism is on the far right. This is wrong. Nazism is on the far left side. Nazism is a form of socialism. That is a far left idea. If you have line Nazism is on the left side of the line. Constitutional Republic (what the USA is suppose to be) is on the right. The line looks like this.

1________________2____________________3_____________________4____________________________5______________6

1.Dictatorship,Communism, Monarchy 2.Nazism/Socialism 3.Democrat 4.Republican 5.Constitutional Republic 6.Anarchy

Please make the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anestho (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the John Birch Society definition, which is drawn from Cleon Skousen's 1962 article "What is Left? What is Right?"  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Skousen reversed the terms left and right.  The supporters of the King in the French revolution were on the "Right", while the opponents were on the "Left.", not vice versa as Skousen said.  TFD (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, check the archives in the talk page. There is no mistake.--Windows66 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In reply to Anestho (and old friends). First though, Window 66, Wikipedia articles are "alive" and as new inputs arrive, old matters must be possible to be discussed and changed. I do not quite understand the suggested scale, but I do feel that describing nazism as "far right", isn't correct. The word "Socialistic" in NSDAP wasn't a fake. Nazism believed in a kind of social equality between people within the German "aryan" population. It was manifested in things like Volkswagen (OK few were made before the war, but "a car to all Germans" was a part of the agenda). Holidays at the Baltic Sea coast was also a great matter. In northern Germany (in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, I believe) a 5-6 floor hotel building , with a lenght of more than a kilometre was build up, and do still exist. Hitler also disagreed with the capitalistic system and a plausable reason to why his hate towards the Jews became so extreme may wery well be that many Jews in Germany aswell as in the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire, were very rich people. An "upper class of their own", so to speak. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler wrights about "the Jewish bankers". However he also hated the "Bolchevistic Jews" in the USSR. But being anti-Bolchevist doesn't equal "far right". I've actually neve come across any real proof that supports nazism as "extreme right". "Extreme" - yes, but "right" (as opposite of "left") - no ! Can we not accept that Hitler and nazism just doesn't fit in on a common left-right scale ? Independant of nation or continent. And also the phrase "Usually characterised as a form of fascism..." is indeed very doubtful. Please let me ask following logical question. If fascism = F and nazism = N. Which alternative is then most proper? (just add one Yourselves if You find an other alternative)
 * 1. N equals F
 * 2. N shares some elements with F, but also has ideas of its own.
 * 3. N fits fully whitin F, but F are larger.
 * 4. F fits fully whitin N, but N are larger.
 * 5. N and F are different.
 * I myself think that number two is the best way to describe the nazi-fasci relationships. But the part where nazism shares ideas with fascism is too little to be mentioned in a lead.I think. Rembember that Nazism also shared some ideas of the British-French colonialism, didn't it? But still in the 1930's Africa and large parts of Asia were concidered of different and lower human value, in comparission with European nations. Hitler, just like Bismarck, differed by wanting "lifespace territory" inside Europe. In any case (if number 5 isn't correct), how do we then define this fascism, that is connected to national socialism, nazism ?
 * 1. Fascism includes only outspoken believers (i.o.w. Italy 1922-1943 & Spain 1939-1976 only)- and the suggested nazism (in a certain or entire degree)
 * 2. Fascism includes all nations in history (or atleast after WW1) that seems similar to Mussolini's version.
 * 3. Are there any other options ???
 * But if numer two - what about f.i. Austria and Poland in the mid 1930's ? Mussolini was during a long time very friendly

with Dolfuss in Austria and Pilsudski and Beck in Poland. After the nazi assasination of the fascisticish Austrian chancellor Dolfuss Mussolini held a famous speech in Bari, a speech were he stated "With a serene contempt can we reguard some doctrines from the other side of the Alpes, doctrines which has been created by a people that even didn't knew the art of wrighting, and couldn't write their own history at the same time as Rome had Caesar, Vergilius and Augustus ! It is indeed at the shores of the Mediterranian Sea that they all have been born, the great religions, the great philosophers, the great writers and an Empire which has made an indelible impact on the history of all civilized peoples !" Source (taped on DVD) is French television documentary labeled as "Mussolini - Hitler" by Jean Christope Rosé. Artfire & France Télévision, producer Olivier Mille. The speech is filmed with sound, and is an undoubtful source. My conclution is that the opportunistic and "fraudful" (did I invent a new word now ?) Mussolini didn't share much of Hitlers ideas until he saw how Germany began to rise above his own "oh so very victorious nation" in 1938. But a new European war was still not anything Mussolini would gamble on. And Mussolini actuially was the last statesman that attempthed to avoid a full world war after Germany's attack on Poland. However in late May 1940, Germany after the horrific and very sudden fall of France (keep in mind World War I at the Western front, four years of meaningless butting and butching, but now France fell after 5 weeks - and already on the fifth day of the German offensiv, the French high-command realized that they were defeated), gave Mussolini inspiration. There were no threats left, with exception of Germany, Mussolini believed. He may even become scared (If he did not join Hitler's war, Italy could later become a future prey... ??). But where is the nazi - fasci ideological connection to be found, I cannot help asking. Boeing720 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles are based on reliable sources not editors' views. If you want to persuade the world that fascists are left-wing, get your ideas published and accepted by the mainstream and then we can include them.  TFD (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry - but when have I ever stated that fascism is left-wing ???. Nazism do though shares some elements of socialism (but theese shared elements are entirelly abscent within fascism). Yes - articles are based on reliable litterature, documents and TV-documentaries ! (No problem there ?). There is a lot of support against avoid putting the nazis in on a common left to right scale. The main factor reguarding this political scale and the nazis, is that nazism indeed includes is a mish-mash of strange ideas, (seen from our Western point of view) which are no common parameters for the left-right scale. Above all, the biological racial ideas does not fit in - left or right ! Nazism was also both anti-capitalisic and anti-Bolchevistic. This makes it even more diffucult to locate any NSDAP at the left-right scale. Italian fascism didn't include any racism , but was anti-Bolchevistic without being anti-capitalistic. Hence I believe that fascism actually can be located at the far right end of the left-right scale.
 * My previous text was in response to two editors that I've not have had the pleasure of meeting before. And I did infact also use new inputs. I here retake it in bold this time - "With a serene contempt can we reguard some doctrines from the other side of the Alpes, doctrines which has been created by a people that even didn't knew the art of wrighting, and couldn't write their own history at the same time as Rome had Caesar, Vergilius and Augustus ! It is indeed at the shores of the Mediterranian Sea that they all have been born, the great religions, the great philosophers, the great writers and an Empire which has made an indelible impact on the history of all civilized peoples !", Beniti Mussolini after the nazi murder on the fascistcish Austrian chancellor Dollfuss, in Bari 1934. After 12 years of fascisic ruleing in Italy. It clearly demonstrates that the fascistic ideology didn't include any German-, Nazi- or Hitler- ideas by 1934. And if You study "Mein Kampf" (available in English at the internet), the words "Italy", "Italian", "Italic", "Italish" only appears 7 or 8 times. And words like "Fascsism", "Fascist" or "Fascism" etc only occur towards the very end of the second book. But then as (a wrongful assumption) that "the Fascists in Italy are currently dealing with the Jewish issue" as an example. (Since Hitler isn't believed to lie in "Mein Kampf", he is most plausable badly enlightened about the situation in Italy as of 1924 or 25.) And in any case there was nothing going on with the Jews in Italy. So the basics of nazi ideology only shares few elements with fascisic Italy. Not untl far later Mussolini and Hitler became personal friends, and that is no ideological connction. (Any one that wants to see and listen to Mussolini's speech in Bari, in Italian with Danish subtitles, just mail me at pontus.eriksson4@comhem.se, add your username if You want. File will be in MOV-format) Boeing720 (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is any dispute whether nazism is a form of fascism. While you may argue that it is not, we have to go with what sources say, per "no original research".  TFD (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do You imply is OR here ? I didn't make the French TV-documentary, and I didn't wright "Mein Kampf". But the french documentary prooves that the Italian fascists not were amused by the rising of nazism. And nothing of Hitler's thoughts (presented in "Mein Kampf") do suggest that he was inspired of fascism. The axis-pact from 1938 would be woth as much as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact became in June 1941, if France and the UK had managed to defeat the nazists in 1940. In such event Mussolini most plausable would have joined the anti-nazi nations insted. This was the nature of both iItalian fascism and Mussolini himself. The war-coallition 1940-43 is no proof for ideological likeness. I and others have presented several authors that doesn't share the ideological statement in the lead. Boeing720 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are taking a statement in Mein Kampf, which is a primary source and only reliable for what Hitler wrote, and concluding that Hitler was not a fascist. I could find a quote from Charles Manson to "prove" he was not a murderer.  (He said he did not kill anyone.)  If there is a consensus in expert opinion that nazism was a form of fascism, then that is what we say.  TFD (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Slavic peoples

 * I have added this: "One of Hitler's ambitions at the start of the war was to exterminate, expel, or enslave most or all West and East Slavs from central and eastern Europe (five Slavic-speaking nations: Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Czechs, and Russians) in order to make living space for German settlers", but my changes were reverted.

I am just curious. Are Slavs still Untermenschen, the anonymous "masses from the East", whose very names are unpronounceable? as if the Polish, Belarusian or Russian victims of Nazi Germany were somehow not as important. Heinrich Himmler stated openly before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union: "It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply."


 * Timothy D. Snyder: "Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union."


 * Jack Fischel, The Holocaust, Introduction: "Jews were not the only targets of the Germans. They also killed an estimated 10,547,000 Slavs, which included millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Soviet prisoners of war. Others whom the Nazis marked for death included the gypsies, and about 5,000 homosexuals of an estimated million Himmler believed resided in Germany. These numbers suggest that the Nazi genocide was far-reaching in its preoccupation with the creation of a master race and that although the Jews composed the primary category of people designated by the Nazis for extermination, there were many such categories."

On July 13, 1941, Himmler told the group of Waffen SS men:


 * This is an ideological battle and a struggle of races. Here in this struggle stands National Socialism: an ideology based on the value of our Germanic, Nordic blood. ... On the other side stands a population of 180 million, a mixture of races, whose very names are unpronounceable, and whose physique is such that one can shoot them down without pity and compassion. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add an alphabet soup description of Slavic Peoples in the lede. It's better the way it is. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, whilst some historians and authors say the Nazis viewed Slavs as untermenschen (subhumans), I have not found any speeches or documents that refer to them as such. Himmler was anti-Slavic to an extent but he also did include them into the white Aryan race and was on friendly terms with the Russians who fought against the Bolshevik communists.

""He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. 'To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time' (Himmler said). 'This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. . . After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate...I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans...This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race. . . it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race. . . At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness. . . I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer.”"

Artur Silgailis, chief of staff of Inspection General the Latvian Legion, the Latvian Waffen-SS, in his book "Latvian Legion" (James Bender Publishing, 1986, pages 348-349.)

This might be of interest to you in regard to Nazis view on Slavs:

Above is found on several Russian websites.

There is other mentions of Slavs being "Aryan" just like the Germans, and also remember that Slavs could be citizens of the Reich too, all non-Jewish Europeans were the Volk Aryans.

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to mention the five-speaking different Slavs covered when the word 'exterminate' in the article links to the Generalplan Ost which mentions all this information that you want to add and the word 'Slavs' covers all of them already. And this is not about the amount of Slavs killed by the Nazis (this is mentioned on the Holocaust article) but rather Hitler's ambition which is clearly stated.--Windows66 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Nazi policy was a mixture of ideological racism and Realpolitik (divide and rule). The anti-British Indische Legion (which included Indian PoWs captured in North Africa) was part of the Waffen SS while Romani people of Indian origin were exterminated en masse, some black people served in the Wehrmacht in such units as the Free Arabian Legion, and while some gays were interned in Nazi camps, some high-ranking Nazis were homosexuals (Ernst Röhm comes to mind). The Germans also recruited anti-Soviet Ukrainians, Tatars and Russians (in 1944) or anti-Serbian Bosnian Muslims. Yet the Nazi ideology viewed Slavs as an inferior group. It's not my point of view, it's history and backed up by the overwhelming amount of sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If one begins a discussion thread by insulting other editors, one is unlikely to obtain cooperation, regardless of the merits of one's position. TFD (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was not about whether or not the Nazis viewed Slavs as an inferior group or not but the necessity of adding the five-speaking Slavic groups that were to be targeted during the Generalplan Ost when the word "Slavs" covers all what you want to add anyways. What difference would it make? Slavs is already used and the word 'exterminate' links to the Generalplan Ost which gives readers further information on the plan.

In regards to Slavs being inferior or not, this is not what we are here to discuss (your edit has nothing to do with this), anyhow they were still 'Aryan' but all non-Germanic people were considered "inferior" which included other Aryans such as the Slavs and Celts.

The reason some non-Germanic people were serving in the forced was due to shortage of manpower it was nothing to do with the racial policy and theories of Nazi Germany. What is interesting is Nazi propaganda in 1941 published in the Zeitschriften-Dienst said "Do not say that the Slavic peoples are inferior."http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/zd5.htm

Sometimes views on Slavs (depending on which ethnic group) was contradicting, i.e Himmler at one stage called Russians Aryans (1936) and then he called them sub-humans (1943).

Anyway back on the initial thing you suggest, why do you feel this article would benefit from adding what you propose when it is already covered?--Windows66 (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Slavs of Croatia and Slovakia were puppet allies of Nazi Germany. The Nazis specifically targeted the Poles and Soviet citizens. Hitler wanted to depopulate the Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and western Russia in order to gain Lebensraum, or living space, for Germans. ... One-fourth of Belarus's population perished in World War II. Compare to Jehovah's Witnesses - 1,200 died.


 * Artur Silgailis, former chief of staff of the Latvian Waffen-SS, is even less credible than David Irving. His book "Latvian Legion" is pure historical revisionism. "By inventing such posts Jewish writer performs a social order, fomenting bestial hatred of everything German, and encouraging physically destroy German women and children." is a clear example of demonizing the Jewish people. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind, the article is about Nazi ideology. There are other articles about Nazi Germany and the Nazi Party.  TFD (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Drang nach Osten, or "drive toward the East", was part of Nazi ideology. -- Tobby72 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is already mentioned under the Irredentism and expansionism section of the article. This again has nothing to do with adding the five-speaking Slavic nations which you edited.--Windows66 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some Slavic nations were generally one of the main victims of Nazism in Europe, right after Jews. Even Roma/Gypsy people didn't feel the Nazi regime as intensively and on such a scale as the Slavic ethnic Poles felt it. The numbers of deaths are: 6 million Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles, half-a-million Roma Gypsies, and the list goes on decreasing. Slavs were called "subhuman" or "underman", and this term was used by German Nazi soldiers and other German people, even the facist Italians used it towards Slavs, so it were not only Jews who were called this way, Slavs were "undermen" as well. The only exceptions were SOME Ukrainians and SOME Croats, sometimes SOME Czechs. Nevertheless, even Slovaks, Bulgarians and Russians didn't suffer too much, and were in fact very submissive to Germans. Before the Russians attacked Germans, only Poles organized the strongest and the most widespread Resistance Movement against the Nazi Germany. Other nations were submissive to keep their countries in the whole piece, while Poles had their whole country totally devastated. Noone can ever compensate the unthinkably large financial losses of Poland. Only, i repeat, ONLY Polish and Serbian people suffered the strongest persecutions from all the Slavic peoples, and from all other non-Jewish and non-Romani people. Germans considered Poles and Serbs as the first nations to be destroyed, right after Jews and Roma. But the fact that Slavs have a porion of Aryan blood made Germans focus on killing Jewish people who are racially Semitic (non-European). The Romani people for instance are genetically more Aryan than Germans and Scandinavians, which made it a huge problem for Nazis to "handle". But Hitler made up some false non-scientific theories, that Gypsies were expelled from India not on the basis of their deeds, but theor racial origin as a "disgrace for Aryans" and a "tribe of useless genes", just like he considered the Jews. Of course, not all Slavic nations suffered, some even collaborated. The Croats worked with Germany on the very same basis as the facist Italians did. Ukrainian nationalists loved Hitler and were also loved by the Reich as strong and powerful collaborants. Speaking about the friends of Nazi Germany - an interesting thing is that Hitler made some "drastic" exceptions, while there were some "Honorary Aryans" like the whole Japanese nation or some Free Arabian Legion soldiers. Both exceptions were strongly driven by political strategy rather that "genetics". What is more, Hitler had some people around him, like Heinrich Himmler, who claimed that not the Jews, but the Poles are the first ones to be completely perished from the face of the earth. The "subhuman" theories are part of the Racial Policy of Nazi Germany and were regulated by the Nuremberg Laws, according to which, all Slavic people with some small exceptions, are destined to be expelled from Europe to Asia (to extend the "Lebensraum"), or to be slaves (forced workers), while those of them who are weak, old, don't want to work or are disabled - to be killed. Only some Slavic children that happeped to be blonde with sky-blue eyes and light skin were described as a "sufficient material for Germanisation". My grandfather survived the war. He was thrown away from his home as millions of Polish families, his whole lifetime property was taken away or destroyed, and he was expelled to the forced-labor camp near Warsaw. He survived the German Nazi Camp, he saw it all and told me a lot about these times, but my knowledge is largely based on the historical and scientifical facts, not stories. User:Windows66 - I have an irresistable feeling that you are trying to "steer" the historical truth. You are from England, so you are either anti-Polish racist and hate the fact that Poles suffered racial persecution in their own country, or you are Polish and strongly want to be a full-fledged member of the Stormfront forum. That's all. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hitler wanted Poland as an ally against the Soviet Union initially, after this failed to happen he sought out to invade Poland and use the Free City of Danzig as an excuse for the invasion (along with other things in Nazi propaganda urging the German nation to resent Poland such as the invented massacres). Roma/Gypsies felt it much worse than any Slavic nation felt it, for one the Gypsies were stripped from their citizenship and were stateless and were forbid to have sexual relations and marriages with Aryans.

Holocaust Victim numbers is not what we are here to discus, please stick on topic.

If you can show me where Poles were singly called subhumans then go for it. I am aware that in the Posen speech of 1943 Himmler called the Russians sub-humans, whether he was talking about white Russians or not (like he did when referring to them specifically in other speeches and documents) is not able to be defined. Nazi racial theory considered Slavs to be Aryan, the Gypsies were defined as originally Aryan but to be too racially mixed and were given the status of non-Aryan and suffered when the race laws became intact in 1935. Other Slavs besides Ukrainians including Poles, Russians and others also fought for Hitler and some of Hitler's generals were of Polish descent.

Actually no, the "subhuman" concept was used before the Nuremberg Laws became intact in 1935, the Generalplan Ost for the future of the Slavic people was not related to the Nuremberg Laws but began after the war started and was pushed forward in 1942 at its peak. The Lebensraum "living space" into the east pre-dates the race laws too and can be found in Mein Kampf. The people that were classified and forcefully went through Germanization were not classed as Slavic people but as Germanic people or at least partially of Germanic descent living in Poland, Ukraine, etc.

I'm not being funny but we are not here to discuss your grandfather.

You claim to know about historical and scientific facts yet when I am showing you evidence which refutes your claims you say I do not understand it, please understand... the Aryan race was not just Germans but all Europeans, including the Slavs. Clear evidence is available which I have already told you that Poles were Aryan - if you want to ignore this then that is your own choice but your own opinions which do not go with genuine information that publish the truth will continue to be removed from articles.

I have warned you before several times now, refrain from WP:PA, you are now accusing me of being anti-Polish racist or that I am Polish and want to join the Stormfront forum, I am not going to put up with this any longer and will now report you for this. Discussing articles is not an excuse to personally attack some other user, I have warned you and you chose not to listen so I am now going to pursue it. Insulting other editors will not get cooperation.--Windows66 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a man named Wilhelm Brasse, who was a photograph, and the Germans took him from the ghetto to be the photograph of Auschwitz. He was saved not only because of his skills, but mainly because he was of half-Austrian descent. If he was fully Polish, he would never be let to be so close with the Nazis. That's why I'm asking you, please give me the examples of Hitler's generals of Polish descent. Give me names. I want to know that. Yatzhek (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't even start lying again. He was not discriminated against because of his racial origin but because he would not declare his loyalty to Hitler. It was nothing to do with him being half-Polish. A few people of the Third Reich of Polish descent are; Erich Kempka, Otto Skorzeny, Gerda "Dara" Christian, born Gerda Daranowski, Erich von Manstein and many more. Stop playing little mind games now because we are not here to discuss Nazis of Polish descent. You might also want to stop accusing me of "manipulating historical facts" when it is clear that I am not but rather YOU are the one making up because someone was half Polish that was why he was not saved when this was not the case in the slightest.

Are you also aware of Hitler's arranged funeral when the Polish leaders Józef Piłsudski in 1935?

You might also be interested in what was found after the second world war in regard to Hitler's view on Poles:

""The Poles are the most intelligent of all the people they met the Germans during the war in Europe ... Poles in my opinion, and based on observations and reports from the General Government, are the only nation in Europe that combines high intelligence with cunning unheard. This is the most talented people in Europe as still living in extremely difficult political circumstances, made a name for himself a great sense life, unparalleled anywhere. Based on recent research, Reichsrassenamt powadzonych by German scholars came to believe that the Poles should be assimilated into German society as a racially valuable. Our scholars have concluded that the combination of German regularity with flair Poles would give excellent results "- wrote Cat Poles.

Polish:

„Polacy są najbardziej inteligentnym narodem ze wszystkich, z którymi spotkali się Niemcy podczas tej wojny w Europie... Polacy według mojej opinii, oraz na podstawie obserwacji i meldunków z Generalnej Gubernii, są jedynym narodem w Europie, który łączy w sobie wysoką inteligencję z niesłychanym sprytem. Jest to najzdolniejszy naród w Europie, ponieważ żyjąc ciągle w niesłychanie trudnych warunkach politycznych, wyrobił w sobie wielki rozsądek życiowy, nigdzie niespotykany. Na podstawie ostatnich badań, powadzonych przez Reichsrassenamt uczeni niemieccy doszli do przekonania, że Polacy powinni być asymilowani do społeczności niemieckiej jako element wartościowy rasowo. Uczeni nasi doszli do wniosku, że połączenie niemieckiej systematyczności z polotem Polaków dałoby doskonałe wyniki" - pisał kat Polaków."

Let me just tell you, I've never once denied the Poles suffering and nothing else you like to throw at me, accusing me of being racist, anti-Polish and a white supremacist yet you are continuing to ask me questions which you could find out for yourself. And the funny thing is you've not once apologized for your terrible accusations against me yet continue to expect me to answer what you ask.--Windows66 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A few people of the Third Reich of Jewish descent are; Emil Maurice, Erhard Milch, Bernhard Rogge, Walter Hollaender, Carl Orff, Paul Ascher, Werner Goldberg, possibly Albert Göring, and many more. Despite this, Jews were labelled by the Nazis as sub-humans. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but we are discussing ethnic Poles and not ethnic Jews. Polish people were "Aryan", ethnic Jews were not. Poles were not subject to any race discrimination after the Nuremberg race laws became intact and ethnic Poles could be citizens of the Reich, ethnic Jews could not (and all Jews—even quarter Jews—lost their citizenship). The sexual relations between Germans and foreigners (including other Aryans) was only towards the slave laborers of the Reich, see for example the Polish decrees policy.--Windows66 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazismo and socialism
I would like to discuss this section. References are texts of political science and they have literary references. Leandro LV (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Geopolitik missing in "Origins" section?
Hi,

I believe that "Geopolitik" deserves explicit mention either under "Origins" (a new 3.4?), or at least a brief mention under section 4 (4.1.1,"Irredentism and expansionism"). This would give a better understanding of why or how the concept of "Lebensraum" was adopted, and also why the racial theories became a necessary part of this Lebensraum project. There is more on this in "Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler" by Edward W. Earle (editor), Princeton, 1943. Practically (if inclusion would bloat the present article) it could be solved with a brief reference to the topic and a link to the Wiki page on "Geopolitik" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik) where this is discussed as a source of Nazism.

Personally, I find the connection interesting, in that it shows that Nazism wasn't just one man's hodgepodge of random ideas, it was one man's hodgepodge of _commonly accepted contemporary ideas_, which makes at least me look over my shoulder to try to see how this is playing out today.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new first paragraph of section 4.1.1: (New text in /slashes/)

"The German Nazi Party supported German irredentist claims to Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, the region now known as the Czech Republic, and the territory since 1919 known as the Polish Corridor. /Possibly modelled after ideas current in contemporary German Geopolitik (linked), a / ... major policy of the German Nazi Party was lebensraum ("living space") for the German nation based on claims that Germany after World War I was facing an overpopulation crisis and that expansion was needed to end the country's overpopulation within existing confined territory, and provide resources necessary to its people's well-being.[84] Since the 1920s, the Nazi Party publicly promoted the expansion of Germany into territories held by the Soviet Union.[85]"

I'd have boldly edited it meself, if the article wasn't edit protected. Anyway, here, for the addition of mere nine words, the reader gets another link in the chain.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarities with socialism
An editor has added a new section, "Similarities with Socialism." It is primarily an unsourced commentary followed by a table sourced to "Diffens" a non-rs website, which is comparing communism and fascism, rather than socialism and nazism. I recommend this section be removed. TFD (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first source is a site of political science and the second source is a specialized website in comparison concepts. Both have literary references.Leandro LV (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Communism is the goal of socialism and Nazism is a form of fascism.Leandro LV (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While Nazism is a form of fascism, saying that Communism is the aim of socialism is flatly wrong and smacks of talking points. Socialism predates Communism by quite a way and while similar in some ways, they are very different in others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.121.192 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

These are the sources of the first reference:
 * 1) Gilbert Pleuger, “Totalitarianism”, New Perspective Vol 9, No 1
 * 2) Websters, “Corporatism”.

Leandro LV (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is the site: http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/comparing-political-ideologies-socialism-facism-nazism-communism-and-capitalism-10350/ .Leandro LV (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

These are the sources of the second reference:
 * 1) Fascism. (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
 * 2) Communism. (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
 * 3) Fascism - Wikipedia
 * 4) Communism - Wikipedia
 * 5) http://history.howstuffworks.com/cold-war/communism.htm
 * 6) http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/fascism-movement.htm
 * 7) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism
 * 8) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

Leandro LV (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is the site: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism . Leandro LV (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This thread can be kept for a few days? I can find another text if the current sources are not accepted. However, the two sites have have important literary references. I believe both are acceptable within a reasonable default. Moreover, Nazism is a form of fascism, I have no problem with these concepts.Leandro LV (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to familiarize yourself with reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not accepted and several of your other sources are not reliable.  Also, if you want to compare fascism it makes more sense to do it in the fascism article rather than here.  And your main source actually allows you to compare fascism with socialism, which would be more sensible for a section comparing nazism with socialism.  In Brazil for example, private property, freedom of religion and free elections are allowed as they were in the U.K. under the previous Labour government, despite having socialist governments.  TFD (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand, the sources are important sites, encyclopedias and scientific articles. My text explains that there are various forms of socialism and it also addresses Communism and Nazism. The text establishes a relationship between them and the author of the orginal text cited two important literary sources. Leandro LV (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This section can be maintained if I remove the comparison chart? Leandro LV (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would keep these original sources:
 * Gilbert Pleuger, “Totalitarianism”, New Perspective Vol 9, No 1
 * Websters, “Corporatism”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandro LV (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Totalitarianism" does not meet rs and a dictionary entry on corporatism is not a good source for comparing nazism and socialism. What does that tell us anyway, that nazis were corporatists, while socialists are not?  There is already a section in the article on totalitarianism, and the emphasis should be how nazism meets that paradigm.  But it is irrelevant to your section, because socialist parties are not typically totalitarian.  France and Brazil for example have socialist governments but are not totalitarian states.  TFD (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Brazil has a government with socialist trend, but the way the state is not socialist. But, if you search on Google, all sites will say that Nazism and Socialism are totalitarian systems. I'm talking about countries with totalitarian states, political scientists cite both Germany and the Soviet Union as examples. My goal is simply to prove that the two systems are totalitarian, I do not mean that Nazism is bad and Socialism and good or vice versa. This section is significant because of the great confusion between the concepts of Socialism and Nazism. Research proves that the resemblance is state intervention. I believe the first source makes this clear. Leandro LV (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This suorce is better for you? Leandro LV (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When choosing sources you should pick ones that are about the topic, in this case nazism. Those sources will show who how important what you want to add is.  In choosing sources, you should also look at quality.  The best sources are academic papers or advanced university textbooks, and should be used if available.  TFD (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I searched academic texts, but the best sources I could find were those that showed you. All of them describe Nazism and Socialism side by side, showing that the similarity between them is totalitarianism. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a source of basic information, so I believe that current sources are sufficient. The Encyclopedia Britannica is certainly an acceptable source. Leandro LV (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I could do a direct quote from this site, which has many references.

The relationship between the two systems is described this way by TheFreeDictionary site:

''Various totalitarian systems, however, have different ideological goals. For example, of the states most commonly described as totalitarian—the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany, and the People's Republic of China under Mao—the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China sought the universal fulfillment of humankind through the establishment of a classless society; German National Socialism, on the other hand, attempted to establish the superiority of the so-called Aryan race''.

(...)

''Despite the many differences among totalitarian states, they have several characteristics in common, of which the two most important are: the existence of an ideology that addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, and a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. The party is generally led by a dictator and, typically, participation in politics, especially voting, is compulsory. The party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military, communications, and economic and education systems. Dissent is systematically suppressed and people terrorized by a secret police. Autocracies through the ages have attempted to exercise control over the lives of their subjects, by whatever means were available to them, including the use of secret police and military force. However, only with modern technology have governments acquired the means to control society; therefore, totalitarianism is, historically, a recent phenomenon''.

Leandro LV (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union, totalitarian China, North Korea, etc. can not — and must not — be used as synonyms or short-hand for socialism.Spylab (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus
Well, I kept the first source because I think it is clear, objective and synthetic. I hope that other employees give opinions and decide to keep the section due to the importance of linking the two concepts. Leandro LV (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside for a moment the reliability, or lack thereof, of the sources, none of them support the text you have added to the article. The sources discuss totalitarianism and mention Nazism and the USSR under Stalin; but your text refers to socialism, not the USSR under Stalin. A mention of the USSR under Stalin the "Totalitarianism" section might perhaps be warranted (although I think a link to the "Comparisons of Nazism and Stalinism" article might well suffice), but the more general connection with socialism drawn in your addition is purely your own original research.VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is going to be some kind of a "Similarities with socialism" section, then there has to be a "Similarities with capitalism" section, a "Similarities with feudalism" section, a "Similarities with monarchism" and other similar sections. Otherwise, it is POV-pushing original research and undue weight that does not belong in an encyclopedia.Spylab (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, my text is not POV. All texts indicate totalitarianism as the link between Nazism and Socialism, it is a matter of political science well pacified. The source I brought is a text of a site of political science, is a signed text and cites literary sources. There are references to Socialism, Nazism and Communism, the text is more objective and accessible that I could find. Perhaps the name of the section should be compared with Socialism. Leandro LV (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's POV-pushing. Claiming that Socialism is necessarily totalitarian is just a lie.
 * I feel offended me because of the statement that brought a point of view without fonts. The text has its sources, and is a cientific article, I can not understand the criticism of colleagues from Wikipedia.Leandro LV (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This text is actually a point of view, is not free and can not be used here. If we make a comparison between Nazism and socialism, the only way is to quote totalitarianism as a link between the two systems. Leandro LV (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the texts say that the link between nazism and totalitarian socialism (i.e., Communist states) is totalitarianism. Also, scholars are divided over the value of the concept of totalitarianism and whether it applies to either Communism or fascism, and also whether the "socialist states" were actually socialist.  If we present one view, we need to explain them all.  TFD (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I found some books, but they are dry texts that advocate viewpoints. The truth is that we should write as little as possible, we run the risk of selling ideologies when we write too much and resort to sources like I stated above. I like to keep this section with minimal text, a sketch that other editors may eventually expand. The relevant of this section is indisputable. Leandro LV (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a proposal for a minimum and objective text.

The similarity between Nazi Germany and the socialist states (such as the Soviet Union) is that they are all totalitarian. Totalitarianism is characterized by a political leader who controls the government, the military and society, through a single political party, closely linked to the structure of the state. Socialism, seen as a form of totalitarian state, sought the direct control of the workers, with the ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. Rewards are based on merit and individual productivity, as opposed to capitalist exploitation of labor, which concentrates resources and wealth for the privileged few. The regime of Stalin was a form of totalitarianism that concentrated power in the party and ideology.

Leandro LV (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your source which compares Communism and Fascism says,
 * Political system:
 * Communism No leader, directed directly by the people. This has never been actually practiced, and has just used a one-party system.
 * Fascism One charismatic leader has absolute authority. Often the symbol of the state.
 * So Communist states did not generally have "a political leader who controls the government", according to your source.
 * TFD (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the Soviet Union was a socialist state, communism was just the goal that country. A communist state is contradictory, there can be no state in this type of scheme. Leandro LV (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The relationship between Socialism and Nazism is very complex, the only thing we can can safely say is that totalitarianism is a link between them. This is the reason I choose a basic text, avoiding authors who create extravagant theories. Most of the material found on Google has no credibility to WP. Leandro LV (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. This article already has a section on totalitarianism. It does not need a new section with extravagant theories and original research.Spylab (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Claiming that Socialism is necessarily totalitarian is just a lie.
 * The connection of the two systems through the totalitarsmo is not a fancy theory. This link is found in all texts of political science. The section is critical because of doubts about the association between Nazism and Socialism. Leandro LV (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very clearly pushing a far-right POV. Claiming that socialism is automatically totalitarian (or that Nazis were socialists) is just lies from the "everything bad was the left's fault" revisionism of Skousen.

Can we use this article as a source? It's a text signed and has its sources, that are reputable. Leandro LV (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It's not even close to being acceptable by WP standards.  The author has no credentials (and she seems to write mostly reviews of cell-phones for this webpage that you linked).  It's not a scholarly work, nor a scholarly webpage.  Et cetera...  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. And the source does not even compare nazism and socialism.  TFD (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And what about this site? Leandro LV (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Or this? Leandro LV (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The articles compare Stalin and Hitler not socialism and Nazism. Note that mass killings are not an essential policy of socialist politics.  No mass killings for example by the Brazilian government.  TFD (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Poles

 * I have attempted to add the following sentence: "In the Nazi-occupied Poland the Poles were treated as second-class citizens".", but my changes were reverted.


 * My position is that the text in question is correct and should not be removed. The Poles are Slavs, thus regarded by the Nazis as "subhumans", see Polish decrees. The Nazis definitely wanted to wipe out the Polish nation for sure, and deport and murder a large percentage so that they'd be more Lebensraum for Germans. Part of the destruction of the Polish nationality included reclassifying some Poles as Germans.




 * Tobby72 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is about nazi ideology, not their policies. TFD (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me Tobby72 is that for some hidden reason you are wanting to add more regarding Nazis policy on Poles and other Slavs. But what you mention is already covered in other articles such as the Polish decrees so why would it need to be added here? The Nazis views on Poland and the Poles is contradicting and depends on the time scale, for example Hitler originally wanted to have Poland as an ally against the Soviet Union but when the Polish government refused to co-operate with Hitler then he decided to use the Danzig situation to his advantage and the so-called German massacres by the Polish as an excuse to invade Poland. The Poles that were reclassified as Germans were not ethnic Poles but people of German ancestry living in Poland to be "re-Germanized" by the Nazis. Poles were 'Aryan', in the districts the ethnic Poles were placed into the 'Aryan side' and were subject to laws such as being forbid to buy or engage in any sort of interaction with Jews, any ethnic Pole helping Jew(s) were given the death penalty. The Rassenschande (race defilement) was applied not only to Poles but all foreigners (non-Germans) after the start of the war. The implementation of forbidding sexual contact to the foreign workers was not because of racial theories but because they had a duty and that was to work not to have interaction with Germans. No "racial theory" could be used to discriminate against the Poles, after all they were Aryans too.

The book "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany and Occupied Eastern Europe with Special Regard to Occupied Poland, 1939-1945 (1033p) by Diemut Majer it pays special attention the policies towards the Poles and others in the conquered territories.

Another thing you might want to know is that the Ahnenpass which was the "ancestors passport" for all citizens of the Reich used Poles as an example:

This is not actually even worth adding anyways, Poles and other non-Germans were not going to be treat like second-class citizens because they were to be equally citizens of the German state just as much as Germans, the Ahnenpass proves this. Sorry but this is not worth adding in my opinion.--Windows66 (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Doris L. Bergen, The Holocaust: A Concise History, p.168 : "Nazi racial theory considered Poles, like all Slavic people, to be Untermenschen, "subhumans". Polish gentiles occupied a higher position on the ladder of Nazi racial theory than did Jews, but they nevertheless counted in German eyes as inferiors, worthy at most to serve their "Aryan" masters as slaves. Hitler's Germans considered the northern Europeans over whom they would come to rule — the Danes, Norwegians, and Dutch — to be racially related. Accordingly they tried to preserve what they considered their valuable "Nordic blood" and to co-opt them into their system of world domination, but they had no such intentions for the Poles, whose lives they regarded as worthless."


 * Adam Jones, The Scourge of Genocide: Essays on Reflection, p.74 : "The Nazi vision of a racially pure empire in which “Aryans” (Germans and select northern Europeans) held sway led inexorably to campaigns of mass violence against Untermenschen - designated “subhumans,” such as Jews, Slavs, and Roma/Sinti (Gypsies). Some of these peoples were to be consigned to helot status, serving the German overlords; but the vast number, and Jews in particular, were to be systematically exterminated."


 * Lucy Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historians, p.10 : "In the hierarchy of Nazi racism, the "Aryans" were the superior race, destined to rule the world after the destruction of their racial archfoe, the Jews. The lesser races over whom the Germans would rule included the Slavs — Poles, Russians, Ukrainians. ... Hitler's racial policy with regard to the Slavs, to the extent that it was formulated, was "depopulation." The Slavs were to be prevented from procreating, except to provide the necessary continuing supply of slave laborers."


 * Casper Erichsen, David Olusoga, The Kaiser's Holocaust: Germany's Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism, p.335 : "In 1942 the SS issued a pamphlet titled Der Untermenschen (The Subhumans) that stressed the racial differences between Slavs and Aryans. Der Untermenschen was designed to harden racial attitudes against the Slavs within the ranks of the army by setting photographs of supposed Aryan perfection alongside images of Slavic subhumanity. Four million copies were printed, helping to bring the phrase Untermenschen into the lexicon of wartime terminology."


 * Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany and Occupied Eastern Europe, with Special Regard to Occupied Poland, 1939-1945.. Reviewed by Elizabeth Morrow Clark : "Racial laws were first applied to Jews, and then later to Slavs. ... Fear of Polish fertility resulted in prohibitions, not just against Polish-German mixed marriages, but against marriages between Poles. When this was challenged, the marriageable age was raised from twenty-one to twenty-eight for Polish men and to twenty-five for Polish women (p. 247). "These measures not only reflect[ed] the erroneous belief of the racial fanatics that by such means they would achieve the 'choking off of the foreign Volkstum'; the measures also cast a distinctive light on the simple-minded methods with which the local population was ruled" (p. 248). ... The Nazi Regime, argues Majer, was built upon a racial community that presumed a profound ethnic threat from the Slavic peoples."


 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again this article is about Nazi ideology, there are other articles about Nazi policies and actions. TFD (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is about Nazi policies towards homosexuals, German women, German workers or Catholics.


 * I have added this: "The Nazi ideology defined ethnic Poles as "sub-humans". " yet my changes were again reverted as "unnecessary edits".


 * Tobby72 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are going about this backwards. The correct approach is to get sources on nazi ideology reflect the key points.  Instead you have decided what you consider important and looked for a source.  Also, it is not the type of source one would normally use.  Ideally, one can follow the links in Wikipedia sources to secondary sources which will themselves provide sources for statements made.  One can then find out for example the author determined the nazis considered a specific group subhuman.  TFD (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because it is in a book it does not make it 100% correct neither, you need to check the authenticity of the published material. First, Doris L. Bergen is incorrect in a couple of ways for example she has confused the term Aryan with the master race, only the northern Europeans or "Germanic people" (which in the Nazis eyes equaled Nordic people) were the 'master race' but others still counted as Aryan. I mean, not even all Germans were actually Nordic. Secondly, Lucy Dawidowicz is also clearly incorrect because under the Nazi racial hierarchy all Europeans were racially the same, so Germans and Slavs were the same 'racially'. Thirdly, Casper Erichsen and David Olusoga are repeating old lies which can be found in other books such as "Hitler's Ethic" by Richard Weikart which also states the same, but if you read the pamphlet yourself of Der Untermensch (The Subhuman) of 1942 you will find the term "Slavs" "Slavic" "Slav" nowhere to be found, a view can be found here and the front cover is a Soviet of an obvious non-European background not a Slavic background, this pamphlet is what some historians/authors have confused anti-Slavism with anti-Bolshevik/communist with. Lastly, this is probably the most accurate thing you have posted from the book I told you about which I never once denied that Hitler and the Nazis had a policy of "depopulation" against the Slavs but there was no racial motive and the race defilement was not just to Poles but also other Aryans "all foreigners".

Majer: "From a purely racial standpoint, however, this was incapable of satisfactory proof, since even according to German ethnology it was impossible to speak of a Slavic race" and he goes on again to say "Even according to National Socialist racial doctrine, all European peoples belonged to the family of the Aryans and were thus fundamentally "racially equivalent", that is, recognized as equal before the law."

Ehrenreich: "all the non-Jewish European Volk are Aryans...".

Any genuine book would not say Slavs were not Aryan, there is several books that state the truth, Slavs were indeed Aryan but racism did exist against them by some Nazi leaders such as Himmler but officially no such racial policy against the Slavs existed. One needs to remember, a large proportion of the pan-German parties in the late 19th century and early 20th century had anti-Slavism policies.

But there is no need to add the specific group Poles were subhumans when "The Nazis because of this declared Slavs to be untermenschen (subhumans)." is already mentioned in the article and Poles are Slavs.--Windows66 (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thing is you might want to know which I have already mentioned is Poles were put into the 'Aryan side' of ghettos and the Kennkarte was issued to Poles who declared themselves 'Aryan' too.--Windows66 (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Windows66: "...Slavs were indeed Aryan but racism did exist against them by some Nazi leaders such as Himmler but officially no such racial policy against the Slavs existed..."


 * Richard Weikart, Hitler's Ethic, pp.73-74 : "Hitler's anti-Slavic racism led him to express contempt for the Poles in Mein Kampf. In his Second Book he reiterated his view that Poles (and this time he included Czechs as well) could never be Germanized because of their inferior racial composition. ... Once Germany occupied Poland and then later some parts of the Soviet Union, its occupation policies reflected anti-Slavic racism. John Connelly [UC Berkeley Professor] has argued cogently that Nazi racial policies toward Poles and other Eastern European Slavs was ambiguous and flexible. One reason for this was because they viewed some Slavs as racially valuable and assimilable into the German Volk, as we have already seen. Another reason was because the Nazis needed labor in areas where the Nazis could not bring enough German settlers to run the economy. Nonetheless, Poles and other Slavs in occupied territories were exploited as slave labor precisely because they were deemed racially inferior. ... In 1942 Hitler told his associates that the Slavic peoples in the East should not receive education, hygiene, or medical treatment. The Nazis introduced many discriminatory laws against Poles, including segregating pubs and restaurants in the Wartheland, a western part of Poland that Germany annexed."


 * Also please don't accuse me of "some hidden reason", this can be regarded as a WP:PA. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to accuse you of anything. Hitler's Ethic is not a genuine book to use, for example it says the published pamphlet in 1942 "Der Untermensch" The Subhuman is describing the Slavs when in fact it is not and Slav/Slavs/Slavic is not found anywhere in the pamphlet. No, the reason Poles and Czechs were not to be Germanized is because they were not German, Germanization is different to 'Aryans', that is the talk regarding ethnic Germans.

Majer's work is far more genuine and pays special attention to Poland and the Poles and admits no racial theory could be used against the Poles, they were still Aryan but not German.--Windows66 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oliver Rathkolb, Revisiting the National Socialist Legacy: Coming to Terms With Forced Labor, Expropriation, Compensation, and Restitution, p.84 : "The European peoples to be conquered were hierarchically ranked into alien and Germanic races. Accordingly, there were plans to give Europe a new structure: In Western Europe a work sharing industrial society under German leadership, in the countries of the East, Southeast and later South the exploitation of raw materials and manpower. Being Slavs the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Serbs were only slightly above the Jews in the racial hierarchy. Their fate was to be enslavement or death. ... The realisation of these aims began immediately after German troops had entered Poland on September 1, 1939. ... Shortly afterwards, the deportation of civilian workforce - men and women - followed. At the same time, the Nazi-party and the Gestapo launched a campaign against so-called Slavic "Untermenschen" (subhumans) and "human beasts". This campaign even reached the farthest schools." -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One historians opinion. Nazi documents proves this to be false, the Slavs were racially equal to the Germans.

Coincidence or not that both you and Yatzhek are now copying and pasting the same material into different article talk pages, I will get this checked out.--Windows66 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please give me an example? Seems like a personal attack to me. Tobby72 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yatzhek copying and pasting can be found in several cases, such as same.

Your (Tobby72) copying and pasting can be found such as same .--Windows66 (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your (Windows66) copying and pasting can be found such as same .-- Tobby72 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to two people posting on similar articles not one person. I didn't personally attack you I even said it could be a coincidence.--Windows66 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So maybe consensus is not with you. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Poles, as one of the Slavic nations, were generally one of the main victims of Nazism in Europe, right after Jews. Even Roma/Gypsy people didn't feel the Nazi regime as intensively and on such a scale as the Slavic ethnic Poles felt it. The numbers of deaths are: 6 million Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles, half-a-million Roma Gypsies, and the list goes on decreasing. Slavs were called "subhuman" or "underman", and this term was used by German Nazi soldiers and other German people, even the facist Italians used it towards Slavs, so it were not only Jews who were called this way, Slavs were "undermen" as well. The only exceptions were SOME Ukrainians and SOME Croats, sometimes SOME Czechs. Nevertheless, even Slovaks, Bulgarians and Russians didn't suffer too much, and were in fact very submissive to Germans. Before the Russians attacked Germans, only Poles organized the strongest and the most widespread Resistance Movement against the Nazi Germany. Other nations were submissive to keep their countries in the whole piece, while Poles had their whole country totally devastated. Noone can ever compensate the unthinkably large financial losses of Poland. Only, i repeat, ONLY Polish and Serbian people suffered the strongest persecutions from all the Slavic peoples, and from all other non-Jewish and non-Romani people. Germans considered Poles and Serbs as the first nations to be destroyed, right after Jews and Roma. But the fact that Slavs have a porion of Aryan blood made Germans focus on killing Jewish people who are racially Semitic (non-European). The Romani people for instance are genetically more Aryan than Germans and Scandinavians, which made it a huge problem for Nazis to "handle". But Hitler made up some false non-scientific theories, that Gypsies were expelled from India not on the basis of their deeds, but theor racial origin as a "disgrace for Aryans" and a "tribe of useless genes", just like he considered the Jews. Of course, not all Slavic nations suffered, some even collaborated. The Croats worked with Germany on the very same basis as the facist Italians did. Ukrainian nationalists loved Hitler and were also loved by the Reich as strong and powerful collaborants. Speaking about the friends of Nazi Germany - an interesting thing is that Hitler made some "drastic" exceptions, while there were some "Honorary Aryans" like the whole Japanese nation or some Free Arabian Legion soldiers. Both exceptions were strongly driven by political strategy rather that "genetics". What is more, Hitler had some people around him, like Heinrich Himmler, who claimed that not the Jews, but the Poles are the first ones to be completely perished from the face of the earth. The "subhuman" theories are part of the Racial Policy of Nazi Germany and were regulated by the Nuremberg Laws, according to which, all Slavic people with some small exceptions, are destined to be expelled from Europe to Asia (to extend the "Lebensraum"), or to be slaves (forced workers), while those of them who are weak, old, don't want to work or are disabled - to be killed. Only some Slavic children that happeped to be blonde with sky-blue eyes and light skin were described as a "sufficient material for Germanisation". My grandfather survived the war. He was thrown away from his home as millions of Polish families, his whole lifetime property was taken away or destroyed, and he was expelled to the forced-labor camp near Warsaw. He survived the German Nazi Camp, he saw it all and told me a lot about these times, but my knowledge is largely based on the historical and scientifical facts, not stories. "Windows66" - I have an irresistable feeling that you are trying to "steer" the historical truth. You are from England, so you are either anti-Polish racist and hate the fact that Poles suffered racial persecution in their own country, or you are Polish and strongly want to be a full-fledged member of the Stormfront forum. That's all. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tobby72 - do you agree Poles were Aryans?

@Yatzhek - you're pretty much just running yourself around in rings now. I've already answered to this ridiculous rant.--Windows66 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -This is getting beyond ridiculous, Yatzhek needs to stop flooding the Talk page with accusations and personal attacks now. And the consensus it that this is not going to be added. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

All policies regarding the Slavs is already covered. The personal attacks have been reported. Thanks Dave Dial.--Windows66 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Yatzhek - Please take a look at WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia:Civility is an official Wikipedia policy requiring that users "always treat each other with consideration and respect."


 * @Dave Dial - There is surely NO consensus in this discussion. Please take a look at WP:DRNC.


 * @Windows66 - do you agree Poles and other Slavs, especially the East Slavic nations, were viewed as racially inferior "subhumans" (second-class "Aryans" ?) destined to be exterminated, enslaved or deported? Does it really matter if some Nazis or ex-Nazis called Gypsies and Slavs "Aryans"? Please take a look at WP:RS. I have provided a lot of reliable sources for my assertions. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * DRNC, which is an article not a guideline or policy and therefore there is no reason why we should follow it, does not even apply to this discussion. That article says edits should not be reverted with the only explanation being "no consensus."  Instead they should be discussed on the talk page, which is what we are doing.  And the details you want to include are not about the topic, which is nazi ideology, but about actions taken by the nazis.  Not everything undertaken by the British Labour Party for example forms part of the definition of socialism.  So you can't say in the socialism article that extending pub licensing hours is socialist just because the socialists happened to do that, unless sources make that connection.  TFD (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, so once again: Richard Weikart, Hitler's Ethic, p.73 : "Hitler's anti-Slavic racism led him to express contempt for the Poles in Mein Kampf. In his Second Book he reiterated his view that Poles (and this time he included Czechs as well) could never be Germanized because of their inferior racial composition."


 * Mein Kampf was the clearest single ideological formulation of Nazism.


 * "Details" I want to include: "The Nazi ideology defined ethnic Poles as "sub-humans".


 * From my point of view this is a NPOV issue. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, instead of finding sources on nazi ideology and summarizing what they say, you have decided what nazi ideology is, and are looking for sources to support your theory. The Second Book btw was not published in Hitler's lifetime.  Hence your summary is POV, because it emphasizes the points that are important to you, not what is important to most experts.  TFD (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hitler's Ethic is not a reliable source, there is many flaws in the book itself. I took a little bit to read it via preview on Google books and found many flaws in it "Hitler clearly thought the Poles were a biologically inferior race", nowhere at all does he mention such a thing and the ancestors passport (Ahnenpass) as mentioned gives Poles as clear examples of 'Aryan', so why would he think an ethnic group was a biologically inferior race when they were Aryans? It says The Subhuman pamphlet published in 1942 was against Slavs - no it was not. This does not need to be added into the article, the Slavs are already mentioned and Czechs and Poles are both Slavs.

PS -t he book is not a neutral point of view at all.--Windows66 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Windows66 is sock puppet of User:English Patriot Man and has been blocked indefinitely. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Windows66 also used the names User:OscarJenke, User:Britannia Nationalist, or User:Teutonic Man. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2014
Nazism is a far left ideology. This is well documented. Hitler only spoke against socialism because of communism. And he only had a problem with it because it was so prevalent in the area and competition for Nazism. The NSDAP 25-point program is just one such proof.

75.138.202.33 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Nazism is a far left ideology"

Not sure if troll or very asinine. ShawntheGod (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither, just parroting a position that's become a popular talking point among the American far right. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly possible to be all three.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)