Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts/Archive 1

Recent edits
This edit by Sam Spade looks to me to be wholesale reversion of a mostly legitimate edit by Mihnea Tudoreanu. I'm not going to take this up line by line, but, for example, the reversion of Mihnea's normal use of inline notes ("National Labour Law of January 20, 1934 ") into "National Labour Law of January 20, 1934"&mdash;simply not Wikipedia style&mdash;makes me wonder whether Sam even read what he reverted.

Similarly, Sam, what is going on here:

"Since the fall of the Nazi regime, many theorists have argued that there are similarities between the government of Nazi Germany and that of Stalin's Soviet Union. In most cases this has taken the form of arguing that both Nazism and Stalinism are forms of totalitarianism, rather than socialism . This view was advanced most famously by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism."

Given that you have been at some pains to point out in the article that Hayek considered Nazism to be socialist, it would seem to me to be equally important to point out that Arendt (and, for that matter, Popper) did not.

The next edit, by EffK is clearly well-intentioned, but this sentence is kind of a mess: "Wikipedia lists many main-stream sources concerning Hitlerism and Nazism, the concept of Widerstand or internal resistance against Hitler aw well as the study of the Holocaust and Anti-semitism." For one thing, if "Wikipedia lists" this, then where? If you are going to add a see-also, do so in a way that lets people easily follow it up. And also, consider the self-reference issue here: if this is later re-published by someone outside of Wikipedia, why is it specifically notable that Wikipedia has this coverage?

-- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious why you agree w Mihnea's "edit" (partial revert). I admit many of his changes may have been beneficial, and I am willing to examine them point by point. Certainly his stylistic changes can be restored. Lets take things slow, and do our utmost to preserve neutrality. I happen to know Mihnea rather well, he has strong views on this subject, but he's a great guy, and an easy person to edit w. The best thing we can do for the reader is take the time to get this right, and resolve our misunderstandings in a calm and studious manner. Sam Spade 15:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I hadn't noticed that this was mostly a revert, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It was not marked as a revert; I looked at it as an edit in its own right, and judged it a generally good one. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been at it, restoring as many of Minhea's edits as possible. I will continue to edit and discuss. Sam Spade 16:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Both of us have strong views on this subject, Sam. But I don't think it will take very long to sort things out - I think we work well together. Here are the issues I have with your edits to the Nazism and socialism section so far:
 * You modified a sentence in the first paragraph to give the impression that socialist opposition to Nazism is a modern development, when in fact the Nazis and socialists were enemies from the very beginning.
 * You split up the paragraph discussing the narrow vs. broad definitions of socialism. This may not be a big issue, but I'd like to keep that discussion together in one paragraph. It will also make it easier to see the exact differences between our edits if we keep the same paragraph structure.
 * You removed the mention of the fact that, under a definition of socialism broad enough to include Nazi Germany, many other European countries (e.g. most of Western Europe in the Cold War, Scandinavia today) would also be included. This, I believe, is a very important point. And there are people out there who do use the label "socialism" for just about anything that falls short of laissez-faire.
 * You removed the paragraph noting the difference between the Nazi nation-based paradigm and the socialist class-based paradigm. This, again, is very important, because loyalty to the nation vs. loyalty to the working class was one of the biggest fault lines between Nazis and socialists.
 * Finally, a smaller issue: Why did you remove the paragraph discussing Schleicher and Papen?
 * Before you edit, I'd appreciate it if you listed your issues with my text. Thanks. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) The problem w your version is it presumes the Nazi's were not socialists themselves.
 * 2) I am perfectly willing to try differing formats, esp. once we agree on content
 * 3) I think this is misleading, but would agree to its inclusion if it is cited and balanced w a contrary citation
 * 4) This needs to be explained in detail, and we need a new article written on class collaboration. I agree more time and space needs to be spent on this particular.
 * 5) I thought it was excessive, too much content on papen has been finding its way into various articles, you may want to ask EffK about that ;)

Sam Spade 11:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam, can you give any reference for this self-description, i.e. which NS leader called it socialism and in what context and when and where. Thanks! Str1977 18:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused, they were the National Socialist German Workers party... they always called themselves socialist...

Sam Spade 07:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Sam, they called themselves "Nationalsocialist" - in German that's one word and no one disputes that they called themselves like this. But "socialist" on its own is another matter, To simply state, that the Nazis were socialists is, in my view, incorrect. To state that there are affinities with socialism however is valid, with qualifications and all. However, the party's manifesto and its actions should be taken into account and not just the name. I won't enter into this discussion, since I have other things on my mind right now, both inside and outside WP - my previous post was merely a suggestion to you, to make your point more solid. Cheers, Str1977 14:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler said socialism cannot exist without nationalism. Sam Spade 14:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And many communist dictatorships liked to call themselves "democratic republics" but that doesn't mean they were democratic in fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

-


 * Thsnks, comma or solution.  Re socialism, thats just so many hunf=dreds of pages , and what I last read re rebuilding programmes  was that the Nazis in fact were building on Economic policies , loans etc built up in prior administration(s) and its a myth Hitler solved unemployment in by genius or social means.

Its fascinating all. User:EffK

Nazism and religion - a mess
Just a quick note: The religion section needs cleaning-up badly. Note in particular, that this article is supposed to be about concepts and not about who voted when for whom. Anyway, I won't enter into this article now, but I had to make to changes: 1) "Protestantism" cannot vote, so I changed it to Protestants (another thing would be that German Protestantism, being always close to the state, and being a national thing, was more vulnerable to Nazism than Free Churches to the RCC).


 * That's a way of using English actually , but never-mind, it is debateable within  English , but  for the anglo world  the change wd perhaps  forestall your implied  conclusions reachable. good faith as the  ability to be a native speaker, may help, after so long !

2) The statement "Catholic Bavaria supported Hitler" is inaccurate. Nazism first developed in Bavaria, yes, but more specifically it developed in Munich, which is quite distinct from more rural areas of Upper and Lower Bavaria. The deeply Catholic areas (inside and outside of Bavaria) were most resistent against Nazism as a political force - there it was allied to already anti-Catholic forces, as can be typically seen in regard to Dr. Hellmuth, the Gauleiter of Mainfranken - the Protestant areas (Middle Franconia, parts of Upper Franconia) however voted for Nazis and Nuremberg (with Julius Streicher) was a basis. These are just electoral facts you can look up on any electoral map - I have found only this link on the web . This only gives the 1930 elections (page 11), but the tendency remains the same for the elections of 1932 and 1933. Goodnight, Str1977 00:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did try and start an article, jumped on and deleted ,specifically to park such clarifications, Hitler and Bavaria or something , Str?

I made some efforts to clean up the section "Nazism and religion", but it's still a mess. First I was copy editing, then I found myself interspersing more and more questions about what certain phrases even might mean, then I just about gave up on passages I found incoherent. If someone wants to clean this up, feel free, but if no one has done so in a week or so, I will probably prune this back radically. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the stuff on Protestantism because there was essentially nothing on that before I did. The "Nazism and religion" section was pretty much just Catholics before I edited. This seemed really biased and off-kilter. What I said about Bavaria I said because I figured my edits would be deemed suspect because I'm Catholic.(Which has occurred some, oddly enough)--T. Anthony 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think an NPOV ,wide trawl of sources would  help too. I agree that the concepts need to be more to the fore, but it'll be a touchy  job as there is  suggestion that Nazism consciously robbed the  Vatican's power-template  . And, accusation that this was a Jesuit import . It'll make fireworks, but it would be NPOV to report it if published ,no?. EffK 10:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly no. You know many things are published, but many things that have been published about history are total nonsense. I can find historians who said Confucius, not the Latinized name but the actual person, was an invention of the Jesuits and that aliens built the Mayan ruins. I think the credibility of who published what would determine whether it's NPOV and admissible. Whoever edited the Catholic section did it in a confusing, almost unreadable manner. I'll try to edit, but I think you consider me a Vatican agent so I can't guarantee you'll accept the edit.--T. Anthony 11:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, EffK, be more carful with your answering on talk pages, e.g. note the boundaries between my comments and yours (not everyone notices the "plenking" indicator). And yes, this article is solely about concepts and ideas and the respective relationship between them. And PS. Keep on telling me off for my English skills - it's not me that will get hurt by that. Str1977 18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Specific questions
I'm in the process of copy editing, but have some specific questions where the text is too ambiguous to edit and be sure I am preserving intended meaning:


 * "&hellip;other writers have utilized Nazism's occasional outward use of Christian doctrine&hellip;": it is unclear what it means for a writer to "utilize Nazism's use of a doctrine". Would someone please clarify?
 * as part of their theses = ==referred to


 * "&hellip;was hardly recognized by ideologists..." I have no idea what this means. I could form several ideas, I suppose. It is very ambiguous. Hardly noticed? Or they didn't grant legitimacy to the office? or what?
 * Where are we,which section? FK


 * "The existence of ties between Nazism and Protestantism has been hotly debated for decades." Meaning that it has been debated whether there were any, or what was their nature and how deep it went into what breeds of Protestantism. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that none of the Protestant churches in Germany developed any ties to Nazism.
 * Leave out existence?FK


 * "&hellip;just as happened to assist the rightward drift of the Roman Catholic Centre Party" does not make sense to me, could someone reword?
 * Yes,Include of the "nationally suspect.. delete/Roman.. catholic small c  large C Centre Party" . its explained/sourced at Centre article.FK


 * "Hitler also led to the unification&hellip;": "led to" is very vague: would "instigated" be accurate? And, if not, what was his role?
 * "The idea of such a "national church" was possible in the history of mainstream German Protestantism&hellip;": what does it mean for an idea to be possible in a history? This is very confused.
 * "Nazi Party membership was forbidden until the takeover and a policy reversal." How quickly did the policy reversal follow on the takeover? And does "takeover" mean Hitler's chancellorship or the abolition of the Weimar Republic?
 * Co-eval, but un'clear, by 1933 March 28 The German Catholic episcopate, organized in the Fulda Bishop's Conference, withdraws its earlier prohibition against membership in the Nazi ... answer 5 days from empowerment(Kaas went to Rome on 24, day after, returnrd , somewhere I saw words@hurriedly recalled , left Rome 3q1 March, met Hitler privately 2 April, left germany forever 8th met papen secretly in Munich ,travelled together , papen  hiding his mission etc etc see megamemex http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography... FK

I could go on, but that's about all I have patience for right now. I also, a week ago, left a bunch of HTML comments in the text itself, as far as I can tell none have been addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * alot happens, I acn't recall a week, is this note to me, if so , Ive pushed FK


 * I generally second your above objections. Sam Spade 01:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I raise a long-standing pet issue? The absurdly patchy linkage and difficulty of accessing the same old Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. This is basic foundation history, please throw it in as you pass thru pages, and concept led thru their actuality . As I'm not monocausal I'll read this here.EffK 01:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How is that? Sam Spade 01:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes thats it, whats above may need a spit of polish, but this magnates is pure Mowrer pith. I tell you you'd be hard pushed to see links though elsewhere. I was looking at siemens just now . I can't believe this organ, I mean the world. You should see the link into current politics I put up, much hated, you see nothing has changed in Germany  other than a disappearance of the Nazis. Its the same old interests electorally to those which Hitler was allowed to pervert .  FK


 * Effk, please, if you say that nothing has changed in Germany you either don't know Germany or you have never known Hitler. Of course we once were farther away from him, ironically, in the fifites. Str1977 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Yet Protestants voted for Hitler more then non-Protestants"
 * ="Yet Protestant electoral support for Hitler preceded that of non-Protestants." I was into Bullock's spoiled ballots today. 3 million german voters didnt back Hitler in 1933 FK


 * I think concepts is where we really get into the principles of nazism. Ill return with them as a list to show why .Article  tidied as to events Til so .EffK 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But instead of cleaning this up...
EffK, nstead of cleaning this up, you seem to be adding more poorly written material. This is really getting old. From :


 * "Political and corporate engineering, immediately prior to the 30 January Hitler presidentially appointed Chancellorship": what is "Political and corporate engineering" supposed to mean?
 * It relates behind the scenes machination such as the recorded  meeting with the banker chief, sourced by me much earlier for Str1977, the  engineering of the magnates, the fixing I explain.
 * I absolutely do not understand that answer. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All you are saying is that you require source here. I'll get it to help you understand.


 * "Huguenbergian nationalist?" Never heard the term and, needless to say, the red link does not elucidate.
 * If I said nationalists it wd be no clearer. The party was in his Huguenbergs pocket, the rump of an earlier force . Huguenberg barony of media was a force.
 * But who the heck is "Huguenberg"? Ah, I see below, Hugenberg. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * yes that is avery important correction of the spelling of the name :was that your question. if so all my repeated error is the same error. It was some time since I had been back in the source...very sorry.


 * "Co-alition": how is this different from a "coalition"? Normally, I'd presume a typo, but you use it twice, so I assume you have something in mind.
 * Guess youre right, its not important to me, and I was wrong. OK
 * So it's a typo? I will correct -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Typo,inattention, automatic error along line of Hugenberg, .Does it justify removal of my attempt at shortening text?


 * What on earth is a "pure sufferance appointment"?
 * Briefest way of bringing in the facts - the whole point of the 30th was that Papen painted it so to Hindenburg  who thereby appointed the man he had hitherto considered the  jumped up corporal.
 * This completely fails to answer my question. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed . there are some on WP who do not particularly source the paul von hindenburg innocence in this matter. WP tries a sort of Wikinfo SPOV(sympathetic slant) . At the evry least it is I thought well understood that hindy was at the very least entirely snobbish re: the corporal, and that he allowd this Papen engineered  Hitler placement as chancellor on pure sufferance, hence the large majotity in Cabinet of the Hugenburg Nationalista .That is what I wished to shorten. do you undertand, and do you require source for Hindeburg as well? I could given time repair the whole of Hindenburg too....?

Not to mention adding massive material in a controversial area with no more citation than the oddly formed "(See Wheeler-Bennett]]". I assume this is the same book Sam is citing. Would it kill either of you to actually give page numbers when citing books?
 * A compendium of many books, which makes it very very very irksome to have to repeat source after having elsewhere done so.
 * It doesn't matter what you've done elsewhere. Each Wikipedia article is supposed to stand on its own in terms of citation. don't follow you around looking for what you've written and cited elsewhere, and I shouldn't have to. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK you make your point, serves me right for trying to do serious work on the Wikipedia .I shall do all sources next on my time. I will over-source for some, and sourc will expand the article doubtless, so I will do as you have a right to insist, Jmabel...

And I could go on, but I won't. EffK, I'm dealing with you on two articles right now (the other being The Great Scandal, where I left you a bunch of specific, detailed questions and got a diatribe, largely directed at another contributor, in response), and on both you seem to pour in massive half-written stuff and expect other people either to leave the mess or to clean up after you. This is not fair. I've been trying to work cooperatively with you, but I'm really reaching the end of my patience, and am likely to just start cutting entire paragraphs to the talk page with minimal comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You should go on . if there are other points you can make, you would assist by making them so I ask you to what you refer . I note your use of descriptive language about your mental reactions. I am very sorry if you consider it unfair when I try and clarify that which I saw needing clarification .I will look at that immediately to see that which you characterise as mess.


 * Not sure what to say to you Jmabel. Sam was ,as everyone easily can, confusing the short chancellorships ,is why I corrected  there. I think Sam knows why I did it. If you are at the end of your tether, I'm sorry. I was trying to communicate with you in good faith and relevance , will I therefore not try and do so ? I have to work on many articles, rather more than 2 . Sounds like a tick off to someone who after all has been trying to repair the situation consistently  and under persistent abuse of good faith through actual sourcing. I am not encouraged  that you do not see it as relevant for me  to explain the situation in the editing ranks, actually . And you seem to suggest that I did not source the great Scandal exactly as you required , so why the disparagement there? To be brief , you continue to insult writing  ,in this case which I was at pains to leave in a readable and correct state. It is fashionable to do so, but there we are. I believe I have behaved correctly towards you, and hope that your impatience now  will only remain with the history. It is so complex that no one here on WP can or did or will be able to state it more briefly . I do not determine this, Papen and Hitler do . Please- Give us a break ,Jmabel, and direct yourself to understanding the events. Do you say you now understand less or more? .Source is another issue, a drag but possible, to someone who has patience here and sees the necessity for absolute clarity. I write this in good faith, and since I do not like lingering doubt I shall present source.I will say that obviously this history should be elsewhere, and unless you assist in over-sight of fair play, it is considered inadmissable. This page could then develope the concepts theme. I cannot say I find it other than easy for you to disparage (I answered your points exactly in fact|) and recognise that simple knifing would eleiminate all issues this time here. Your choice, but we'd have to face the issues elsewhere. It is also shorter to criticise than it is to explain. Diatribe by the way borders bad faith assumption, so please don't repulse my good faith so smartly, unless you actually have your mind made up to so do. EffK 10:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK 10:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Schleicher
315:continuing Arthur Rosenberg,1936 History of the German Republic.Papen loses his most potent support-the Army General Reichswehr Minister Schleicher, was the type of political officer who had developed in the atmosphere of semi-obscurity and intrigue that encompassd the Republican military policy.He had for years been in the van of those fighting for the Conservative counter-revolution....

Declares sudden opposition to Papen's methods and evolved a programme of social pacification under military leadership....H'urg appoints Schleicher..


 * Thus about the turn of the year 1932-3, there occurred a curious political entr'acte .Schleicher appeard in the role of'Socialist General',and entered into relations with the Christian Trade Unions , the Left [NSDAP], and even with the Social Democrats . Schleicher's aim appeared to be a sort of Labour Government under the direction of the General.It was an utterly fantastic idea as the Reichswehr officers were hardly prepared to follow Schleicher on this path, and the working class felt a very natuaral distrust of their future allies. Meanwhile Schleicher aroused furious hatred in the ranks of the great capitalists and landowners by these plans .

316:


 * In revenge Schleicher made sensational disclosure about the Osthilfe scandal, about the squandering of government money for the benefiit of the bankrupt landowners in Eastern Germany. The landowners and capitalists determined to act quickly . The situation was only to be saved if the counter-revolutionaries could once again show a united front, if papen and Hugenberg became reconciled with Hitler. After the serious set-backs that[[NSDAP] had suffered during the past six months, its pretensions had been considerably modified . Hence a compromise was reached. Hindenburg, who disapproved strongly of Scheicher's campaign against the Prussian landowners, dismissed him. Schleicher played with the idea of a military coup d'etat-of eliminating Hitler,Papen and Hindenburg, and with the support of the Labour organisations assuming the Dictatorship himself . But Schleicher, a seconfd and lesser Wallenstein, could not take the decisive step either. He retired quietly into private life. Schleicher's fall, however, by no means implied the defeat of the Reichswehr as a whole. the Generals merely dissociated themselves from the plans of their venturesome colleague.

January 1933:Curious epilogue Arthur Rosenberg
pg: 316 Arthur Rosenberg's 1936 History of The German Republic, fair use/educational


 * On January 30, 1933,the new coalition government of the paries of the Right assumed office. ....The balance of power within the the coalition appeared to be wholly on the side of the Nationalists{Hugenberg's DNvP]. The fact that Hitler had at last become Chancellor nevertheless gave the NSDAP mass movement a tremnndous upward impetus.At the Reichstag elections, which took place in March, the NSDAP obtained seventeen million votes.They and the Nationalist together constituted aa majority in the Reichstag.The Government induced the President and the Reichstag to grant them authority to issue decrees having the force of law.The [hitherto Presidential] dictatorship had thereby given itself a new legal form.


 * continues The [NSDAP] mass movement soon proved to be beyond the power of the [[majority] Nationalist Ministers to control . Unchecked by the police the S.A indulged in acts of terrorism throughout Germany. Communists,Social democrats ,and the Centre were everywhere ousted from public life. A violent persecution of the Jews began, and by the summer the [[NSDAP] felt itself to be in scuh a strong positionthat it could do away with all the other parties and the Trade Unions. The Nationalist Party was among those suppressed. The [NSDAP] thenceforward ruled alone in Germany . The Reichswehr had remained untouched by all these occurrances. It was still the same State within a State that it had been in the Weimar Republic. Similarly ,the private property of great capitalists and landowners was untouched, while the administrative and judicial machinery was only very slightly tampered with .

Fk:Along with Edgar Ansel Mowrer, the above Berlin History Professor is viatal for us to reach some understanding of the forces (each with their concepts) at interplay arounfd the NSDAP] . It seems evident that this Rosenberg left Germany in haste. Mowrer who published his thorough portrayal of the forces and concepts  in 1933 itself, was ejected by Hitler before even the [[Enabling Act, and thus is equally unable to explain the denouement which only post Nuremburg Trial history conceives. Apart from [[Avro Manhattan perhaps, who came from a  Roman viewpoint, and seems to have smelled the same  that Mowrer only published much later in 1968. The suggestion that Manhattan is hate literature'' may or may not be purely a function of the danger his knowledge and publication represents still.

What is sure is that Margaret Lambert's 1934 book I sourced at The Great Scandal shows the effect of what is absent Centre-accusation in Arthur Rosenburg. As Lambert shows, the Saar acted as adelay-filter upon NSDAP ability to fool the whole world, something I FK find still affecting us all here in Wikipedia. Hence the 'educational use for Wikipedia as a whole. This should inform all editors in future as source.

The section on Magnates shows the later revelations of banking and corporatist capitalism, same old same old companies from Nuremburg.

The Reichswehr is subject worthy of our attentions as readers and Wheeler-Bennett in 1953's the Nemesis of Power, avails of his personal presence in pre-war Germany, and at the  post-war Trials. Klemperer and the Widerstand begin the over-lap of scholarly interest from take your pick what year beyond 1930. Shirer and Toland I have sourced extensively. Lewy's Catholicism study is brought to us in detailed fashion by the Megamemex timeline, which I cannot dispute, and no one else has here yet. User:John Kenney confirmed Tallet ? only post 23 March  re Vatican quid pro quo, but Cornwell and Kershaw seem to contradict this and edge close towards Manhattan.

I still say the Magnates are getting insufficient notice in Wikipedia. I personally regret that delving there enters a string of positively American accusations, just as I regret the situation brought on with the vatican. I think people should read more source. I think sam may remeber that I have sourced Rosenberg before, and others more modern re: the text I produced here. (bye Sam, Jmabel) .EffK 14:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)