[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Nazism/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism

The birth of fascist ideology: from cultural rebellion to political revolution, By Zeev Sternhell ISBN 0691044864, page 4. Currently Nazism is described in the lead as a variant of fascism, citing Mark Neocleous. I suggest we remove this passage. Sternhell notes the fundamental difference being biological determinism. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we retain it, unless and until you can provide any evidence that the majority of mainstream serious sources do not usually define Nazism as a variety of fascism or as closely associated with it, albeit with important differences. I'm also not sure what you hope to achieve by constantly, across multiple articles, citing one-off comments and opinions – however well respected the author – and suggesting that WP should suddenly drop everything and follow their lead. Some of the viewpoints you tout are borderline WP:FRINGE. You've surely worked out by now that no WP article will ever fall into line with such ideas, right? N-HH talk/edits 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Sternhell's view has obtained little support, except among the European Right. It should be mentioned, but preferrably by a third party that covers the range of views on the issue. TFD (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
TDF, were you able to find a 3rd party fulfilling the requirements you stated above? If not, would you object to adding text from Zeev himself? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree entirelly with user-Darkstat1st. Nazism is most certainly not a kind of fascism. This idea has two very different roots. First, within communistic (USSR) vocabulay "fascism" was the only prase used. This later suited some American interests aswell. The USA was during the entire "cold war" involved in Latin American countries like Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador etc, and supported fascistic dictatorships in military juntas. And by equal nazism and fascism, it fitted US well. Everone knows that Pinochet in Chile not was a nazi etc.However he indeed was a fascist, and Chile was after the military coup in 1973 ruled by generals, fascists. Fascism also survived second world war in Europe. Spain (until 1976), Portugal (until 1974) and Greece (1967-74) has all been ruled by fascists after the war. Buit they were not nazists. Mussolini joined Hitler's war, at a point when he feeled that "it was safe" (and attacked France after Dunquerque). However "the great fascistic council" sacked Mussolini in august 1943. The country officially remained fascistic even after Italy changed side, some week later (led by Badoglio). The war link during May 1940 and September 1943 is not at all a reason to equal fascism and nazism. There were no antisemitism in Mussolini's Italy (prior of 1943).Mussolini never spoke about the Italian blood, but of the "proud Italian history". And Hitler never used any historical arguments, instead "the German blood" and "the strongest people has the right to conquer". Also how the national economy was dealt with differs very much. Fascism is based on capitalism, while this isn't quite true concerning nazism. The nazi economy would not have worked with "raw" capitalism. To a large extent the larger German factories were put under war laws long before the war began. If the nazists ordered a battleship from a shipyard, the nazists decided the price. Etc. The differencies between nazism and fascism are huge. Boeing720 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
As has been explained, WP pages are not written around the theories or analysis of individual contributors here; they are written to the mainstream consensus views of reliable sources and authorities, which in this case is that, for all the acknowledged differences, fascism and Nazism are related, with the latter indeed usually treated as an extreme form of the latter. Your personal viewpoint, arguments and deductions, on their own, carry very little weight I am afraid. N-HH talk/edits 23:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
But this is mainstream, taken from f.i. William L Shierer, Winston Churchill, Guido Knopp, prologues to "Mein Kampf" etc. Do You deny that the Italian fascist's changed side in september 1943, after thrown Mussolini aside ? Or that Franco never wanted to participate in Hitler's war. Do You deny that fascism survived second world war ? Do You deny that in september 1973 ,the elected president of Chile, Alliende, was killed and a fascist junta under Pinochet took the power in Chile ? And Papadoupolos did the same in Greece 1967, didn't he ? But were Franco, Pinochet oor Papadoupolos nazists ? NO ! And thats mainstream knowlidge (atleast in Europe) Boeing720 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You have failed to explain where and in what way those authors support your position. Indeed, if you mean William L Shirer, his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich explicitly describes Hitler and Mussolini both as a "fascist dictators" on p297. I have no idea what the relevance of your comments about Franco and Pinochet etc is, or how they support the conclusion you seem to be pushing at, regardless of whether I agree with the suppositions or not. I think we are done here. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Page 297 of Shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" deals with "Hitlerjuged", and the entire chapter page 295-299 is about the edjucation in the third reich. Nothing is mentioned about Mussolini at these pages. Even if I have a Swedish edition , I strongly doubt that the page numbering can differ that much. Next chapter is about agriculture, preavious about control of newspapers, radio and film. 83.249.173.100 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Sorry.

Of course the book is splitted in four parts, which all restarts the numbering of pages. But Part 4 doesn't reach longer than page 273. In part 2, page 297 deals with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. And in part 3 , page 297 deals with "avoid intermezzo with the USA". Mussolini is abscent at, and around all three possible page 297. So please tell me which part You refer to, and also name of the chapter. If possible. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the version/edition of the book visible here on Google books. The reference I highlighted is at p 297 in the chapter "The First Steps 1934-1937". At p 217, in the chapter titled "The Nazification of Germany: 1933-34" it refers to Mussolini as being Hitler's "fellow fascist dictator". Just before that, p 209 of that same chapter describes Germany as "a second fascist power" after Italy. Given that such descriptions and assumptions pervade the text, I could go on. Or you could actually read the book that you appear to possess properly before endlessly posting irrelevant musings on talk pages here and mucking around with article text. N-HH talk/edits 07:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Pinochet and Papadopoulos are generally not considered to be fascists. Marxist theory in the 1930s held that fascism was the final stage of capitalism, where the bourgeoisie had to use dictatorship and repression to prevent socialist revolution. That analysis btw held that the nazis were fascists. But fascism is now seen to be something other than mere pro-capitalist dictatorship, and the term is usually only used to describe inter-war dictatorships. TFD (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually they can and are, as well as Peron. Unless, of course, "Marxist theory" is the governing rule by which Wikipedia is to be edited? I can not find that as a principle in any Wikipedia policy or guideline - so I assume that this is simply a personal preference? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I read TFD's comment as actually making the point that "Marxist" analysis – which btw would probably be more likely to describe the post-war regimes mentioned as "fascist" – is merely one viewpoint and, indeed, a viewpoint that is not generally accepted, especially now. I certainly didn't see them saying we should write WP entries to such viewpoints. Maybe your powers of comprehension and inference are greater than mine. In any event, from the moment these names were first raised as part of some convoluted and rather odd personal theory about the (lack of a ) relationship between fascism and Nazism, this discussion has had nothing to do with this article or with improving it. N-HH talk/edits 14:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Karl Marx was infact long time dead 1930, and also when fascism appeared in Italy 1922. What's Marx got to do with this ? TFD must be confusing Marx with Lenin or Stalin. (but the statement would still be wrong) Indeed Spain, Portugal and Greece were fascistic (not even "fascisticish" but pure , so to speak). This is very well known, atleast in those countries. Also most Latin American countries, have at some time been ruled by fascists after 1945. Argentina even went to a war agains the United Kingdom 1982, over the Falklands remember ? And Pinochet not a fascist ? Come on ! What was he then ? A democratical nice elected president perhaps ? The people of Greece and Chile may take offence of stupid comments like that ! /John 92.33.167.51 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Marxists are people who follow Marx - here is a link to an article by Dave Renton which explains Marxist theories of fascism. I do not understand why the people of Greece would take offense that their dictators are not considered fascist any more than Germans should take offense at the claim that nazism was not fascism. Incidentally I suggest your read WP:NPA which explains you should avoid making personal attacks and also WP:RS which explains why sources are need for changes to articles. If you want to persuade other editors to make changes to the article you need to show that they reflect what experts have written about the subject, not your personal conclusions based on what you have read or heard. TFD (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has ever followed the thoughts of Marx. They belived that "the workers themselves, in all nations, should take control of the factories etc". Not even the Bolchevists belived in that, and the USSR was founded by elite-thinkers, that were not workers themselves. And it was the state (nation) that took control of production and agriculture etc. Perhaps some users refers to Leninism, when wrighting Marxism. (or possibly Marxist-Leninism, as communistic vocabulary usually do state) 83.249.173.100 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not they are really Marxists is irrelevant, we use the descriptions used in reliable sources. One may doubt whether all the people who are called "Christians" follow the thoughts of Christ. TFD (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
More importaint. In William L Shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" has the following Swedish layout (hastly translated)-
  • Part I (page 17 to 322 excl. notes/refs)
    • ADOLF HITLER'S ROAD TO POWER
    • 1. Birth of Third Reich
    • 2. Birth of the Nazistic Party
    • 3. Versailles, Weimar and the coup at Bürgenbräukeller
    • 4. Hitler's ideas and the roots of the Third Reich
    • TRIUMPH AND CONSOLIDATION
    • 5. The road to power 1925-1931
    • 6. The last days of the republic 1931-1933
    • 7. The nazification (process) of Germany 1934-1934
    • 8. Life in Third Reich 1933-1937
  • Part II (page 9 to 395 excl. notes/refs)
    • THE ROAD TO WAR
    • 9. The first steps 1934-37
    • 10. A (an unusual adjective I cannot translate, abcesnt in my dicionary aswell)+ "middle-game"- Blomberg, Fritsch, Neurath and Schacht are overthrown
    • 11. Anschluss, How Austria was raped
    • 12. The road to Munich
    • 13. The fall of Czeckoslovakia
    • 14. Time for Poland
    • 15. The German-Russian pact / alliance
    • 16. Last Days of Peace
    • 17. The Outbreak of the Second World War
  • Part III (page 9 to 324 excl. notes/refs)
    • THE WAR - INITIAL VICTORIES
    • 18. Poland goes down
    • 19. Sitzkrieg in the West
    • 20. The ockupation of Denmark and Norway
    • 21. Victory in the West
    • 22. Operation Seelöwe - that never happened
    • 23. Barbarossa - Time for Russia
    • 24. Wind Change
    • 25. Time for USA
  • Part IV (page 9 to 273 incl. epiloge, excl. notes/refs)
    • THE HUGE TURNNING POINT AND THE BEGINNING OF THE END(something like that)
    • 26. The Turning Point - Stalingrad and El Alamein
    • 27. The New Order
    • 28. The Fall of Mussolini
    • 29. The Allied Invation and the attempt to kill Hitler
    • THE FALL OF THE THIRD REICH
    • 30. The Conquest of Germany
    • 31. (A word from Scandinavian mythology meaning "Appocalypse") - The Last Days of the Third Reich
    • Short epilogue

Each of the four main parts restart the numbering of pages. However main chapters keep numbering But the chapter "The First Steps 1934-1937" (Also unnumbered "subchapters" /headlines are included in the numbered chapters.) There are also several "bunches" of photos, localised according to the printing, I assume. These photo pageas are not numbered. The book is thicker than a common brick. The chapter "The First Steps 1934-1937" reaches only to page 43 of the second part. Must I read the entire +300 pages, if You mean the entire part ? And the chapter titled "The Nazification of Germany: 1933-34" in part I startes at page 223. Anyhow please stydy chapter 28 instead, here Shirer both citate several nazi persons, and how they look down at "the silly fascists" like Dino Grandi, Gioseppe Bottai and Pietro Badoglio, "the Crown Prince" as they described him. Also the fascist foregin minister/secretary of foregin affairs count and nephiew of Mussolini Galeazzo Ciano should be arrested (and was indeed later executed by the nazists. I fail to see how such matters just can be overseen. In a book thick as this, the wrighter needed to vary his wrighting. But Shirer does most certainly not state that "nazism is a varity of fascism". Besides - it isn't very smooth for the readers to get the primary explination of nazism through a different ideology Boeing720 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As ever, I have no idea what these lengthy postings are meant to prove. You quite clearly do not understand how WP works. We are not here to rewrite the English language or how terms in it are ordinarily used, or indeed mainstream scholarship, based on our own theorising and guesswork (hence I'm not even going to bother picking apart either your premises or your deductions from them). Please, save yourself, and the rest of us, all this time and bother. Probably time to hat this thread and move on. N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Boeing720, when you gather information and present an argument that the nazis were not fascists because, for example, Ciano "was indeed later executed by the nazists" (he was actually executed by Fascists), it is synthesis and cannot be added. Only sources that explicitly state that the nazis were not fascists can be considered. TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
the primary explanation of nazism through a different ideology, excellent point Boeing720. i suggest we at least remove the phrase and better explain the pre-1934 National Socialism. i disagree with the above editors accusations of wp:syn, a typical argument when the source cannot be refuted outright. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The criticism of synthesis is being directed at Boeing720's bizarre arguments (the latest of which are on a par with "Churchill is a communist because he allied Britain with the USSR and Tito" or "Hitler was not a Nazi because he had Ernst Rohm, a Nazi, arrested and killed") not at any particular "source". What source, specifically, are you referring to? If you mean the one you started with, no one is trying to "refute" Sternhell's analysis; the point is simply that his view is one interpretation among many, and one that stands outside the mainstream in this respect. If you mean Shirer, as cited by Boeing720, it should be obvious by now that he has the wrong end of the stick with that one and that Shirer says the opposite of what he claims and in fact follows the mainstream in taking Nazism as a variety of fascism.
Also, the page does not seek to make the "primary" explanation of Nazism through a "different" ideology. It simply starts by noting the relationship, as commonly viewed, with the broader concept of fascism. Like "heavy metal is a form of rock music" or "an orange is a type of citrus fruit". And, of course, by talking about a "different ideology", you are assuming that which you are seeking to establish. N-HH talk/edits 22:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth !? Suggesting that I've made anything like stating "Churchill was a Nazi" etc. Please do not get to the personal level, NN-HH. Chapter 28 in Shirer's "Rise and Fall of third Reich" very clearly differers the fascists from the nazists. Both as how the wrighter himself expresses himself, and by the citations - from both sides. I was asked to explain how I could use Shirers work as proof of the difference. I do not think that Mannerheim (Finland) was a nazi just because he also fought the USSR, or - even more bizzare, that Stalin was a nazi because of the Molotov-Rippentrop pact etc. These are simply stupid allegations. What I mean is that nazism cannot be described as a varity of fascism only. Apart from the absense of Hitlers totally unreasonable antisemitism (which by the way lackes explination in "Mein Kampf" and elsewhere, it's like he took it for granted , as a law of nature), the Italian fascistic ideology also was pro-monarchy, conservative, reactionary and close to the Catholic church. It was infact the fascists that created the Vatikan (around 1928 or so). While Nazism just had to wait for the death of president Hindenburg, in order to declare Hitler as "Füher" (leader), didn't mind religios matters (with exception of Jews ofcourse, even a muslim brigade or batalion of Waffen-SS was used at Balkan - see "Guido Knopp, SS-the Tool of Evil"). Nazism also was full of reforms (often at the expence of Jews, again), Volkswagen, Autobahn, the Baltic Sea gigantic hotel and projects like "World Capital Germania" and above all there were no one above Adolf Hitler, as the Great Fascistic Council, that fired Mussolini, changed side in the war etc. Only at the surface nazism may appear to look like a varity of fascism. (And one must disreguard from the fact that Mussolini became a personal friend of Hitler, since it has nothing to do with the different ideologies) Dig just a little bit deeper - and it will become obvious. Please end the simplification, is really one single source that state "the fascist-variety theory". And read chapter 28 again. Boeing720 (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Mussolini was ousted by some of his former supporters and that Italy subsequently changed sides in the war – or, rather, that those running the part of Italy no longer under Mussolini's (nominal) control signed an armistice – has zero relevance to anything here. Even if it did, as has been pointed out a thousand times, the personal views of one WP contributor about what all sorts of their own random observations might mean or what "becomes[s] obvious" is neither here nor there. In any event, Shirer does not use this to conclude that, for all their differences, Nazism is fundamentally distinct from fascism; nor, more importantly, do most other mainstream sources make that claim. In fact, they – it is not "one single source" – tend to say quite the opposite, and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary in your voluminous and discursive postings. Your contributions here are basically just the latest in the series of disruptive and distracting nonsense that gets posted on these pages. Best ignored really (which I shall now do, since nothing seems to sink in with you). N-HH talk/edits 08:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Boeing720, I explained synthesis to you and you have replied with more synthesis. You need to present sources that make your argument, otherwise you are just being disruptive. If you have a new theory of fascism then you should take it to another forum. TFD (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
To TFD. I appriciate parts of what You have written. However I have at the same time been accused by N-HH of "not red my sources", and even that I've suggested "Churchill was a nazi" etc. Please take that in concideration. However I cannot agree with You about what's "mainstream". If the idea of nazism as a varity of fascism really is "mainstream", more than just one (too me totally unknown) historican ought to be refered to. I think. And besides, the current definition "through fascism" really is very poor in a lead. Isn't it ? (And may also be offensive for f.i. Jews that managed to escape through fascist Spain during the war) Boeing720 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
See for example The Fascism Reader, that contains articles from a range of scholars, including the most prominent.[1] Nazism is clearly included and there does not appear to be any dissent. Any, rs does not require that sources are written by famous people or that they must be checked against other sources. The onus is on you to provide other sources that challenge them. You cannot challenge the statement that the earth is round by saying you have never heard of the author of the source used and you want to see evidence that lots of other people hold that view. No idea why Jews would be offended. Franco btw believed in the "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy". TFD (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The Fascism Reader is interesting as it looks in some depth at the specific question of how the relationship between fascism and Nazism as understood at an academic level. Like the vast majority of serious sources, without ignoring the obvious differences, as a whole it broadly appears to accept/assume, in the preface and many of the contributions, that Nazism should, at the very least, be taken as related to fascism and/or part of the broader concept of fascism, although commentary is included on the views of those, such as Sternhell, who take a more dissenting line from that. If you want other sources, you could try:
  • Roger Griffin, who at page 18 in The Nature of Fascism says that Nazism is "for taxonomic purposes, fascist".
  • Here is Griffin again, discussing fascism and Nazism as one.
  • In Fascism: A History, Roger Eatwell, at page xxiii of the Introduction, asserts that the two are linked as a "family ideology" and has whole sections devoted to German Nazism
  • Plus, as noted of course, there is Shirer, who clearly associates them, regardless of the differences and disagreements that he, like most others, notes (ideologies and movements do not have to agree unanimously to be nonetheless of a sort; often of course the most virulent disputes are between those who are actually closest in many ways)
It would also be astonishing to find a serious, general-use tertiary source focused on fascism that excluded Nazism or did not associate the two of them. See this or Britannica (although, to be fair, it equivocates a bit more than our version). N-HH talk/edits 09:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Association yes,but that relies also towards Communism (from 23rd August 1939 until 22nd July 1941). It's of course always easier to find wrighters that supports a certain idea, than the absence of the same idea. I would argue that 95 out of 100 pubished historical wrighters, doesn't define nazism as "a varity of fascism". Or any of the kind, at the ideological level. In Mein Kampf Hitler only mentions Italy very biefly at perhaps five different pages (among them as possible future nations get in alliance with. And in the same centance "England" is mentioned together with Italy.) The word fascism/fascistic only appear once in Mein Kampf, and then in a misconcepted manor. Something like "Jews should be delt with as currently is done in fascist Italy" (but we do know that official, public, enforced antisemitism not appeared in fascist Italy prior to when the fascist party fired Mussolini as their leader, the Italian fascists changed side in the war and Nazigermany declared war at fascist Italy). All Hitler ever borrowed from Italy or fascism was the old Roman "Ave"-greeting. Point is, Hitler does not reguard the Nazi movement or the NSDAP party as related to fascism, in any kind of way. This is very clear. (Know Your enemy, by study him. Wrighters that not has not red Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches has no possibility to make a facsist-nazi connection, based on reality and facts). Shirer was also very clear of not confusing nazi and fasci- ideologies. The association was limited to the war, axis-pact (but Hitler also made a pact with the USSR, remember ?) and the fact that Hitler began to concider Mussolini as a friend after Italy joined Hitler's war. Fascism and nazism appear rather alike. There are association, alliations, some other connections and similarties between fascism and nazism, but on the ideological level nazism stands alone. And fascism cannot be limited to the Italian varity eighter. Here follow some links of post-WW2 fascism.
  • Margret Thatcher and the fascists in Argentine

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1418651/Former-Argentine-military-dictator-Galtieri-dies.html http://libcom.org/forums/news/what-argentinian-claim-falklands-18062011

  • photo of current Pope and Jorge Videla, stating "Videla, the head of the Argentine fascist junta"

http://aangirfan.blogspot.se/2013/03/italian-fascist-pope-francis.html

  • "Hundreds of left-wing Peronist students and unionists were among the victims of the neo-fascist Argentine junta that launched the Dirty War in 1976."
  • "1973-75: The Right Gets Dirtier

With neo-fascist takeovers in Chile 1973 and Argentina 1976, followed by the collapse of European dictatorships in 1974-75, Latin America becomes the new center of neo-fascism and a hotbed of repression and death squads.

  • Fascist Chile (period 76-80)

http://www.enter.net/~torve/trogholm/secret/rightroots/Timeline1969-82.html All links contain relevant info of fascism, but none of nazism. Even if this is Wikipedia, some logical thinking must be alouded. Boeing720 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Relevant issue

Despite all the above, I would accept that there is a more minor practical issue here. I am not sure that this edit, which switched the order of the opening sentences was necessarily the right move and there could be a case for slightly more subtlety in how the fascist point is phrased. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Burleigh

Hardly considered "right" and a well respected historian, The Third Reich was intended to be a racial rather than a class society. This fact in itself makes existing theories, whether based upon modernisation, totalitarianism, or global theories of Fascism, poor heuristic devices for a greater understanding of what was a singular regime without precedent or parallel. The Racial State, by Michael Burleigh, pages 306, 307, ISBN0521398029 Darkstar1st (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So what. He does not say nazism was not fascism although he debunks another of your fringe theories, that nazism was socialism. TFD (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Working backward, by induction, toward a definition or explanation of "right" as opposed to "left," my research has shown that in 1933 the American media viewed Adolf Hitler and his party as both "left" and Christian. The first can be looked up in The Ladies' Home Journal for October, 1933 under the title "Homemaking Under Hitler," p. 73, by Anne O'Hare McCormick. The article is based on direct observation and is reasonably objective in describing the movement as of the political "left." Just as easy to look up is Time Magazine of June 6, 1932, quoting Hans Kerri referring to Hitler as "Germany's Jesus Christ." To a visitor from another planet it would seem that German national and Soviet international socialism differed as to whether the supreme being were a Christian supernatural entity or a materialist political state rather than on the ownership and control of trade and the means of production. Furthermore, work on DNA was incomplete and by "blood" it is safe to understand Germans referred to genetic material. Reading German ideology one is left with the clear impression that altruism is viewed as a hereditary trait present in Germans but lacking in Semitic people. To state this too bluntly would have ruined all chance of exploiting Islamic rivalry with Israel, but this view of hereditary predisposition is as clear as could be made without knowledge of chromosomes and DNA. Writer Michael Crichton points out in State of Fear that eugenics was popular in America at the time, and a comparison of expressions used by Theodore Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler is most disconcerting. Because the Soviet view is so ingrained, reference to prewar utterances of the German-American Bund extolling Christianity are instantly attacked and if at all possible "rectified" in the Orwellian sense of the word. It's a pity. translator (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote from McCormick's article. Did you read it or get your information from a secondary source? It seems unlikely that she would have used the term "left" as it was fairly unknown at the time. Eugenics btw was banned in the Soviet Union and outside Nazi Germany was most commonly used by right-wing governments. And calling Hitler a Christian is not the same as calling him left-wing. There are plenty of right-wing Christians. TFD (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Use of the term, "Hitler as 'Germany's Jesus Christ' ", doesn't mean it was being used in a classical Christian sense. Members and supporters of Nazism used it. Hans Kerrl, who you mention Interpreter, was a Nazi who did try to some degree, to reconcile Nazism and traditional Christianity, but failed in the end. Further, he was a believer of Positive Christianity. Hitler and others, such as Martin Bormann, were antagonostic towards Christianity. As Ernst Bergmann once stated, "Either we have a German God or none at all." Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nazism and Race

I think some information from this pamphlet on Nazi racial theory should be incorporated in the main article. According to the link, it was used to educate schoolchildren, so it reflects the Reich's long-term goals:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rassenpo.htm

Collapse extremely long quotation from pamphlet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work. Ideas about humanity and peoples that have endured for millennia are collapsing. The Nordic spirit is struggling to free itself from the chains that the Church and the Jews have imposed on Germandom. And it is not only a spiritual battle, for it finds expression in National Socialism’s struggle for power, as well as in the today’s battlefields to the east and west. The coming victory will bring a fundamental change in our view of the world, and opens the way for Nordic mankind to a new and greater future.

The Enemies of the National Socialist Worldview and their Doctrine of the Equality of Humanity

The Churches

The Christian Church taught the quality of humanity from the beginning, and realized it in the areas it dominated. The Jew Paul was above all responsible for the idea, despite his pride in his pure Jewish ancestry. He won the inhabitants of the Roman Empire for the new faith. The Roman Empire experienced considerable racial mixing, which encouraged the rapid spread of the doctrine of racial equality. Anyone could become a Christian, whether Roman, Greek, Jew, Negro, etc. As Christians they were all the same, for the important thing was that they belonged to the Church and accepted its teachings. The only differences that counted were those between believers and unbelievers, and between priests and the laity within the Church. Since all men were created in God’s image, all needed to be won for the Church. The goal is a unified humanity united in an all-encompassing Church led by the priests. The clearest expression of this comes in Pope Pius IX’s statement on 29 July 1938: “One forgets today that the human race is a single, large and catholic race.”

In over a thousand years, Christianity has not succeeded in raising the cultural level of Negroes or South American Indians. But the Church has built walls where none should exist, for example those between Germans of varying confessions. And it has torn down walls that nature established by blessing marriages between Aryans and Jews, Negroes and Mongols. It took millions of valuable people from their god-ordained roles in the people’s community and put them in monasteries or the priesthood. Its doctrines are responsible for the fall of races, peoples and cultures. The healthy instincts of the German peoples resisted its foreign teaching from the beginning, or tried to give it its own stamp. Nordic people fought against it for centuries. Meister Eckhard said over 600 years ago: “The divine is in me, I am a part of it; I can recognize God’s will without the help of priests.” Luther told Christians to listen to themselves and act according to their consciences. But the tragedy of the Reformation is that began as a German revolution, but ended in a battle over dogmas, and Luther finally bound the conscience to the Jewish teachings of the Bible. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and many other scientists began the battle between modern science and Church dogma, The Nordic scientific spirit can only accept as true that is in accord with science and experience. Today even the once immovable Church is asking questions about the equality of humanity. The National Socialist worldview, based on the knowledge of the laws of inheritance and the inequality of the races, will succeed in overcoming this ancient false teaching and return the German people to its native worldview.

The Racial Question as the Decisive Question for our People Whenever the existence of a people is threatened, the foundation of their development and rise becomes important. The history of every great nation shows a clear idea of its uniqueness and a rejection of foreign races. This attitude is as innate in people as it is in animals. This becomes problematic only when peoples disobey god-ordained laws, when the destructive ideas of equality destroy their instincts, when racial mixing develops. It is then usually too late to turn around, and the decline of the peoples can no longer be stopped. Warning voices were raised in the 18th and 19th centuries when Liberalism began to destroy the peoples of Europe. Gobineau recognized with sure perceptiveness the danger of race mixing. H. St. Chamberlain followed him, as did many others, above all F. K. Günter, who wrote The Racial Nature of the German People.

We owe these Nordic scientists this revolutionary knowledge: Humanity is not equal. Just as plants and animals are of different types, so, too, are people. Each of these types inherits certain characteristics, which distinguish it from all other types, from all other races. Racial differences are physical, spiritual, and intellectual. The most important differences are in the spiritual and intellectual areas, in life styles. Racial science is further supported by advances in genetics. Nordic scientists probed ever deeper into the secrets of life and nature. Gregor Mendel was the first to discover the laws of genetics, opening the way to understanding one of God’s greatest secrets, the nature and continuation of life.

Genetics tells us that characteristics are passed unaltered from generation to generation, and that spiritual and other characteristics are inherited along with physical ones. The environment can only influence what is already present in the genes. Unlike animals, a person does not have a single environment, but also lives in the cultural world of his race and people. This too determines the development of his inherited traits. His culture comes from his inheritance. Therefore, the race to which we belong determines the life we are born into, and the life we pass on.

Race is the Decisive Force in the Life of the Peoples Race is the decisive and molding force in the life of the nations. Language, culture, customs, piety, traditions, life style, but also laws, governmental forms and economies, the whole variety of life is racially determined.

Only racially higher peoples are creators and bearers of a high culture. Only they determine the course of events. Inferior races have no history. They lack the necessary ability, the ability to master their own fate. Only racially advanced peoples have this ability. Races that do not have the courage to make history have no history. The life of a people does not develop mechanically, nor does it develop steadily. It is a constant struggle with nature and the environment, and above all with other peoples. It is an eternal battle, an eternal struggle. There is no unified, gradual development of all peoples to a common goal. Cultures rise and fall, and peoples vanish without others being able to build on their foundation. Each people has unique racial elements that determine its life style and culture, elements that only it can develop and fill with new life.

Peoples are creative and significant only as long as they preserve and keep pure their racial inheritance. The decline of a people’s culture is always the result of race mixing and a decline in racial quality. Any change in the racial makeup of a people leads to a change in its nature and its culture. If the race that gave a people its nature is debased by mixing with foreign and inferior races, the people’s culture will perish and can never again be restored to full life.

A philosophy that assumes human equality and teaches that all of humanity is part of a common, step-by-step process of development, is an error or else a conscious lie. There is no common development of all of humanity. The results of all serious investigations provide evidence against this viewpoint.

Human history is the history of peoples.

The history of peoples is racially determined. It is racial in nature.

It is equally false to think that cultures, like individual organisms, follow the laws of growth and decline, that every culture must eventually perish. History provides many examples of peoples that endure for millennia, reaching ever new levels, as long as they maintain their racial purity. Only those peoples perish that ignore their culture, that act against the law of blood, that do not maintain the purity of the leading and guiding race.

Since the rise or fall of a people’s culture depends above all on the maintenance, care, and purity of its valuable racial inheritance, every responsible statesman must be concerned with racial policy, and do everything possible to maintain the purity of the racial inheritance for the future. Adolf Hitler was the first statesman in history to recognize this and base his policies on it. The world-spanning war that the German people are waging under his leadership is the battle of the Nordic Race against the forces of chaos and racial decay. It is decisive for the future of our Germanic culture, for the purity of the racial elements that make our culture, and for the fate of Europe as a whole.

The Triumph of Racial Thinking

The new scientific understanding of the importance of blood for the existence of the German people and its culture did not win without a struggle. Our people’s thinking was misled by the forces of the Church, Liberalism, Bolshevism, and Jewry. Only the victory of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist worldview enabled the German people to think racially. The worldview appeals to the Nordic blood inheritance of each German. We have it to thank for the enormous progress of our people after 1933, and for the unprecedented triumphs of its army in building a new order in Europe and the world. Destroying Jewry will remove the final cause that led to the decline and fall of Europe and its culture.

When National Socialism took power in Germany, most citizens did not understand the revolutionary significance of racial science and genetics. The victory of racial thinking in so short a time is astonishing. Scientific knowledge often requires decades, even centuries, so enter a people’s thinking. The worldview Adolf Hitler developed, based on these incontrovertible scientific results, enabled the greater part of our people to be persuaded of the correctness and decisive significance of racial thinking.

Even in other parts of the Germanic world where the influence of Liberalism has been the strongest and most persistent (Sweden!), people are realizing the historical significance and value of common Nordic blood and the importance of keeping it pure. They recognize that even today the North Germanic peoples are endangered.

The other peoples of Europe too, above all our allies, are recognizing the importance of racial thinking. A racial manifesto of leading Italian scientists in Fascist Italy on 14 July 1938 affirmed racial thinking clearly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.33.149 (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles are required to be based on secondary sources, that is what experts say, rather than primary source documents. See WP:RS. TFD (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
A slight overstatement, alas. The relevant sentence is All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors, Thus we can directly say "this (primary source) says 'this'", We can not say "This (primary source" 'means this'". Collect (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any opinions on how this source should be used or do you just want to be argumentative? TFD (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
200 proof snark does not impress many editors. Collect (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It impresses me. And it's certainly more "constructive" than most of the garbage that's been posted to this talk page over the past few days. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nazism and fascism

I have reverted the recent changes to the lead, which was based on a single tertiary source. I suggest User:Boeing720 reads up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources especially Wikipedia:Tertiary sources. But also WP:Exceptional. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It raises alarm bells when someone reaches for obscure sources, in this case an article in a 1958 concise encyclopedia. Considering there are probably millions of articles about fascism, one could probably find something to support anything. However in this case, the author was comparing nazism with the ideology of the Fascist Party of Italy, not claiming that nazism was not fascism. Liberalism in the two countries also differed (See Guido De Ruggiero, History of European Liberalism, 1927.) That does not mean that liberals in Germany were not really liberals. TFD (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The source is NOT obscure. This is THE historical book that is used across univerities all over Europe. The book is renewed with new chapters about evry second decade or so. Mine is printed in London in 1958. See article of John Bowle. Publisher HUTCHINSON & CO Ltd, 178-202 Great Portland Street, London, W1. Also published in Auckland, Bombay (Mumbay), Toronto, Melbourne, Sydney, Johannesburg and New York. It's written by John Bowle (MA) and professor of Political Theory, JS Weiner (M.A., M.SC., PH.D) Departement of Human Anatomy, Oxford, John Davies Evans (M.A., PH.D, F.S.A) Professor of Prehistoric European Archeology, University of London, George Forrest (M.A) Lecturer of Ancient History, R.H Pindel-Wilson, (M.A, E.S.A) British Museum. A.R Burn (M.A) Senior Lecturer of Ancient History, P.R.L Brown (B.A), Fellow of All Souls Collage, Oxford, P.M Holt (M.A, B.LITT, D.PHIL) University of London, John Plamenatz (M.A.) Fellow of Nuffield Collage, Oxford etc, etc, etc The 20 chapters that covers from 38000 BC to the 1950's. If it's unknown in America, I cannot help. But it surellt outranks some wrighter in Minneapolis. Tertiary or secondary whatever You want! Boeing720 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The qualifications of a writer do not determine whether they have significant weight for inclusion in an article. OTOH, a modern academic source that explains the is a reliable source for the relative weight of different opinions. An opinion expressed by a writer is a statement of opinion. A summary of how various writers view a subject is a statement of fact.
1958 btw was a long time ago - we are no longer living in the 1950s.
In any case, you have misrepresented your source, so the discussion is moot.
TFD (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
What You are saying is, that in the 50's there was a difference - that now has disappeared ! And here http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5647233-the-concise-encyclopedia-of-world-history You will find the current version. And here the 1971 edition http://books.google.se/books/about/The_concise_encyclopedia_of_world_histor.html?id=vUKPcBnDFeQC&redir_esc=y .Like I stated before, about evry second decade "The concise encyclopedia of world history" is renewed to current date, as of (almost) printing time. It's written by professors and lectiors at highest possible academical level. And a guarantee for its high level is the fact that the chapters are written by experts of each period. That's far beyoynd one singe unknown university teacher across the Atlantic. European history is best written by Europeans, or others that has lived here, like Shirer did. I strongly feel we both oppose nazism but You want to enforce a new American stylish variant of European history. I do not agree, and unliky You and N-HH, I have kept myself to the same line during this entire "debate". Whatever I may provide in the future, I'm sure that You will reject it by eighter this or that. While fact is that the used source is accepted elswhere in Wikipedia, by far more users than me. And nothing You have come up with (You and N-HH) gives any support to this new "nazi-fasci varity" - suggestion. Encyclopedia Britanica do not support what N-HH states. Of course there was similarities between fascism and nazism, but not any more than that. "Fasci-varity" in misleading readers. Please reconcider ! You are faking with history (and if was only above my head, then so it would be. But disreguarding English (and European) professors is simply too much) Boeing720 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, discussion of the source is moot, because your source does not support what you want to put into the article. TFD (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Again - it is a direct citate, taken from a context that clearly differs fascism from nazism. Even if is was, as You suggest, "moot", why maintain the far more moot suggestion of "nazism as a varity of fascism" ? Help me working out a lead that is undisputable. Boeing720 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You are taking a quote out of context to misrepresent what the source said. In the context he was not saying that nazism different from fascism but that German fascism differed from Italian Fascism. Despite the author using an upper case "F", you linked it to the "fascism" article. Fascism of course differed in each country, just as liberalism does. TFD (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The edit also contained at least one mis-spelled – or rather totally made-up – word, eg "Nazistic"; used loaded words such as "fraud" and "unreasonable"; chucked in a lengthy quote/commentary from one obscure tertiary source for no apparent reason and without attribution or indication that it even was a quote; and inserted those words in random Italic text. The lead is in places pretty weak at the moment, but any changes should aim to improve it, not make it even worse.
On that point, the lead probably needs to lose some of the more precise detail and maybe gain some historical context and information about the sources of Nazi ideology, such as it was. N-HH talk/edits 10:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
the source is academic, scholarly, therefore reliable. arguing to restrict such relevant sources is edit-warring, wp:own. it is fine to present contrary opinions to a source, but not fine to exclude it on an editors personal opinion the source is obscure, which is untrue anyway as it is widely published. multiple troutslap. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to read what the objections actually are to the attempted addition and to what the source is being used for before piling in and declaring "multiple troutslap", whatever that means anyway. N-HH talk/edits 17:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
First I was accused of not have red my stated sources. Then it was WP:this and WP:that, And when i finally find an English source (written in English) then the source is obscure, and later too old, etc etc. Especially N-HH jumps from A to B to C etc, without even explaining anything. While I have kept myself to one single line, it's an error to confuse the Wikipedia readers with a lie. I can within limits accept "nazism reminded of fascism" or something like that. But as idology there are too different. "All nazists are fascists, but not all fascists are nazists", I red - at a question page for children. It's a simplification that doesn't fit at academical level. I also have noticed (at another school-page) that "Fascism" and "fascism" differs somehow, and that Mussolini got into power in 1919 ! I urge You to reconcider the parts of the articles that at ideological level directly connects nazism with fascism (or Fascism). And f.i. Swedish historical wrighter, Bengt Lijegren (in "Adolf Hitler" from 2008, ISBN 978-91-85507-33-7) clearifies the differencies between nazism and fascism. Briefly he states that Hitler (after 1933) gradualy reguarded Mussolini as a friend, but cared little for facsism as such. He even regretted his support to Franco disappointed of his support for the "reactionary" church (as with Mussolini from the beginning), Hitler even stated that he hated Franco and that he had nothing against the Spanish socialists. Hitler did though fear that Spain would become a satellite state of the USSR, hence the support. Liljegren supports this with what is stated in Hitlers political will/testament and by Herman Giesler in "Ein anderer Hitler. Bericht seines Architekten Hermann Giesler. Erlebnisse. Gespräche. Reflexionen page 478" Published in 1977 by Leoni am Starnberger. (Probably only available in German. Giesler was an architect in the Third Reich) Liljegrens work is probably only available in Swedish. Of cource only because Hitler didn't connect his National Socialism with Fascism doesn't make it true. But this is yet another disprovement of the eledged "mainstream". Boeing720 (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You need to read the Wikipedia policy Neutral point of view: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Aristotle Kallis' 2003 book, The Fascism Reader presents the writings of approximately 50 of the foremost experts on fascism, and explains the relative acceptance of different views. We cannot agree among ourselves that these experts are wrong and find outlying opinions and put them into the article. It really does not matter if all these experts happen to be wrong and have overlooked vital evidence. If you want to change the way fascism and nazism are presented, you need to write to the experts and persuade them to change their minds. Or post to the policy pages to persuade them to change the criteria for including opinions. TFD (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
And I haven't jumped from anywhere to anywhere. I've consistently said anyone wishing to challenge it needs to present evidence that the mainstream consensus view out there in the real world is that Nazism is not, more or less, an extreme variety of fascism or that most discussions of Nazism do not take place within the general assumption that it is part of the wave of interwar radical nationalism that is usually discussed by academic and other third parties these days under the generic and broad term of "fascism"; just as Italian fascism is too. Yes, the underlying issues may be complex, but the basic point here really is that simple and you have conspicuously failed to come close to doing anything of the sort. Expending huge effort to basically just say: "Mussolini and Hitler sometimes disagreed with other" or that "[the specific manifestation of] Italian fascism is different from [the specific manifestation of] German fascism" is missing the point. We know that. People keep acknowledging that. No serious source would dispute that. But for WP editors to draw their own wider conclusions from such truisms is not how pages are written here. Nor are they written to the direct assertions of individual sources, even less so to bolster individual editors' interpretations of what those sources might mean. Several people have continually tried to point all this out to you – and have even suggested that they would be open to some tweaking of the precise wording – but thousands of wasted words later, on both sides, we are still at Square One when it comes to the fundamentals. I can't see how this is ever going to get through to you, frankly. N-HH talk/edits 11:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: I have read about this from several sources and have heard lectures on the subject from respected historians. Not once did I hear/read it said there is currently no consensus on the issue of whether Nazism is or is not a "variety of Fascism" or a similar but distinct ideology. In fact, I gained the impression this point is hotly disputed among historians: left-wing historians follow the old WWII Soviet line that Nazism is a sub-form of fascism; right-wing historians generally like to claim its not (and often imply to varying degrees that its close to Socialism). The Nazis certainly considered themselves a separate ideology. Imo we shouldn't take sides in a debate like this, per WP:UNDUE. Far be it from me, however, to expend much (of my very limited) time on such issues - not much point in the long run. -- Director (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

TDF. Do You really think that my rejected edit now was not NPOV ? I could concider something like "Among the expertice there are different opinions of Nazism asideology..." Something like that. And both suggestions are briefly mention in the lead, and then more in detail later down. Boeing720 (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Director, you need to provide sources. FYI few if any historians today "follow the old WWII Soviet line". The old Soviet line, which pre-dates WWII btw, was that fascism was merely capitalist dictatorship. No mainstream writers at the time questioned that nazism was a form of fascism. Boeing, articles are supposed to represent what normally appears in mainstream sources, and not provide parity to fringe theories. Anyway, although I have not read your source, Darkstar's source merely said that there were differences between the ideologies of the German Nazi Party and the Italian Fascist Party, not that nazism was a type of fascism. Similarly liberalism in Germany and Italy also differed. TFD (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

TDF Why should Your (to which You made a link) book be of greater interest that my examples ? Besides it doesn't seem to deal with ideology, as "The Concise Encyklopedia of World History" infact does ? Any serious litterature that deals with Nazism and Fascism at the ideological level will differ them apart. Enough to support my suggestion that the current lead isn't mainstream thoughts among those that has history as their profession. Litterature made for edjucation of the subject must be concidered of higher value compared to more popular wrighters. I'm not the least surprised of what Director has contributed with. One reason for (as I see it) the confusion is that the USSR used "Fascism" only. That started during the Spanish Civil War 1936-39, by the way. I still wonder if You can concider my previous suggestion. You must atleast agree that the formulation is unsmooth ? Wikipedia is ment to be red as an encyclopedia, not to use for any kind of possible hidden agenda. Like what fits which American party best. Or something like that. The complete lack of interest of facts, is whats makes me wonder. To oversight the Nazi antisemitism and very obviuos different approach to the church are two major problem for the "Fasci varity idea". Ayrian blood vs Roman history is another ideologigal differency. And the social projects that actually German Germans could benefit from. National economics (or atlest the view at that subject) were very different aswell. And this is taken from wrighters like Bullock, Shirer, Overy, Knopp and even Salmaggi&Pallasvini and Churchill. The last two, Churhill's annual war books and "2194 days of war" (I belive it's labeled in English) are pure chronological works. But even from them, it becomes obvious that nazism is something different (and worse). Churchill even got the litterature prize of Alfred Nobell in the 50's. I begin to belive in a hidden agenda Boeing720 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
My source is better than yours because it "presents the writings of approximately 50 of the foremost experts on fascism, and explains the relative acceptance of different views," while your's, assuming it actually says what you think it does, is the opinion of one person that has received little attention. TFD (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


(edit conflict) @TFD. I didn't mean to imply historians actually follow Soviet directives :), don't get hung up. The question, Deuce, is how does one decide what is "fringe" - and that's usually Wikidemocracy, so Imo I would be wasting time to actually go and look for individual sources that say this or that (à la poor Boeing up there).
Ask any single historian to voice his opinion on this, and he'll have one - but ask him to summarize the position of scholarship and he'll say "its disputed". My word of advice would be to look to tertiary sources to provide a summary of the (truly numerous) sources on this, e.g Britannica: [2]

"National Socialism, a totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice..."

Seems to me as good an intro as we are likely to find on this.. -- Director (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We determine what is fringe by whether (a) it is called fringe by scholars, or (b) it is ignored by scholars. Can you provide any scholars, "right-wing" or otherwise who question whether nazism is a type of fascism? TFD (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It is at all times fallacious to demand negative proof. Any scholar that covers the subject and does not refer to Nazism as a variety of Fascism is a contradicting source. No doubt if I were not stranded on an island writing from a smartphone I would have no trouble at all finding you such. Indeed, on what grounds do you ignore Britannica?
I say again, however: there are far too many sources covering this issue. This model of debate, involving only several sources at best, has no chance whatsoever to render an accurate and unbiased result in terms of wording on such a complex and polarizing issue. This is my main point (and I hope it shall not be ignored in response): we should scan reliable tertiary sources to find a professional summary of the position of scholarship on this matter. To quote policy:

"Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight."

As another example I submit Encyclopedia.com, that (like Britannica) lists numerous bibliographical sources in support and makes no mention of Fascism in defining National Socialism, or Nazi ideology specifically. Dare we take a stronger position on this than Britannica? -- Director (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

.

Encyclopedia.com presents an article from the 1968 edition of the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. It says, " The urban workers (unlike those of other countries under Fascist rule, such as Italy) played only a very minor part in whatever resistance groups existed in Nazi Germany.....There is no doubt that the inflation of the early 1920s and the depression that began in 1929 had a deleterious effect on German democratic institutions. But economic depression is, in itself, no necessary general cause of fascist totalitarianism."
I get the impression that you are mining for sources that fail to overtly state that nazism was fascism. Can you provide an current reliable secondary sources that support your opinions on the subject? You say that I am asking you to prove a negative. But sources such as Kallis not only say nazism is a type of fascism but says that scholars say that.
TFD (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
And I get the impression you're just going to ignore whatever sources anyone posts. I have submitted two highly-reliable tertiary sources summarizing dozens of the best publications on the subject - that have not arrived at the conclusion that Nazism is variant of Fascism. You can call that "mining", "scuba-diving", or "finding in a mere five minutes sources against the current wording", whatever you like.
As for "overtly stating", those are just word games. Sources in question say Nazism is something else, and not a form of Fascism - and thus are against your position and for another ome, there's nothing "covert" about that. Clearly you wish to change the rules of sourcing and logical debate in demanding that sources overtly deny your contention. This is a "POV", biased approach to the question, that would allow you to ignore 95% of the sources that have something to say on the definition of Nazism, and do not support your positive claim.
Our lede sentence must be based on an objective representation of all sources, without excluding those that don't directly negate your claim. The demand to prove a negative ("Nazism is not a variant of Fascism") is an absurd one by definition - and it is biased. Definitions other than your own are indeed against your position. -- Director (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Your second source clearly states that nazism is a variety of fascism - I just typed in for you what it says. I do not know why the EBs nazism article fails to say that nazism was a variety of fascism, but it's "Fascism" article does not make that omission.[3]Does that mean that if EBs article on England fails to say they speak English that we should ignore that fact in the England article? TFD (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Now you're just doing WP:OR. The point is that EB doesn't define Nazism as Fascism, you are free to consider it an omission, but allow me the liberty of disagreeing with your interpretation. As for Encyclopedia.com, I have no idea on what you're talking about there? -- Director (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


The last time I was here, Nazism was not defined as a "variety of Fascism" - just like apparently in every reputable encyclopedia. I've not been able to find a widespread WP:CONSENSUS on such a hugely-important and highly-controversial change. This talkpage and its archives are full of threads voicing (source-based!) opposition to it. I've reverted the apparently non-consensus POV edit, restoring the old definition pending some kind of agreement. The whole thing appears to be based on the tertiary analysis of a single publication. -- Director (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I see four editors - Saddhiyama, DD2K, N-HH and myself - who think the sources say it is a form of fascism. TFD (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I see three opposing that change: Boeing, Darkstar, and myself. That's no consensus at all for the introduction of such a controversial edit. The current wording details similarities with Fascism per Britannica in the second sentence. Imo its a decent place to leave things until there is a consensus for the "variety of Fascism" bit. -- Director (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Direktor, the "variety of fascism" wording has been there for a long time. It is not a recent "change" that you can declare has no consensus "for its introduction" and start edit-warring over. You are also totally incorrect to say that no evidence has been presented or that you are restoring "the old definition", or that the wording it based on a "single publication". The sentence itself has a source, while the tedious and voluminous discussion above references plenty of scholars, other writers and collective sources, including Roger Griffin, Roger Eatwell, William Shirer, the Kallis-edited book, Britannica etc. If you want to make the change, make the case and get consensus. That's the way the burden works. N-HH talk/edits 08:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. An edit without consensus is an edit without a consensus behind it, and can be reverted on such basis later as well as immediately. I see no "time limits" in WP:CONSENSUS (least of all some of your own devising) and Wikipedia does not function on the basis of "sneaking" edits past opposing editors and then demanding a "consensus" for their removal - the edit was non-consensus in the first place. The burden of building one - is squarely on your shoulders. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
What a totally bizarre response, which flies in the face of logic and the comments made about the numbers on each "side", the sources highlighted and the length of time this sentence has been in the very first paragraph (during which time thousands of people have read and edited the page). Who "sneaked" anything past anyone? You do realise quite how long it has been there don't you? Also, despite your claims about what the consensus policy says, it rather clearly says "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it ... Consensus is a .. usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus".N-HH talk/edits 08:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for the first para

Can I propose the following? It represents a slight tidy-up and copyedit, as well as taking account of the fact that the fascism/Nazism relationship is a little more nuanced across scholarship as a whole than perhaps we have it currently (which I have long accepted; but rather than actually engaging constructively to discuss such practical points, some people here instead just dive in with acres of bizarre verbiage and amateur theorising):

  • "Nazism, or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th century German Nazi party and state as well as other related far-right groups. Usually characterised as an extreme form of fascism that incorporates biological racism and anti-Semitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many nationalists felt had been humiliated by the Versailles treaty".

The rest of the lead still needs help too. N-HH talk/edits 08:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reducing absolute claims on controversial issues? I like it. I would prefer simply "form of Fascism" as opposed to "extreme form": imo we ought to keep qualifications to a minimum when claiming to represent the majority of the scientific community. With that, I'm for it. Its a good compromise. -- Director (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I rather suggest
Yes, this is the version that you were edit-warring in, which three or more people already reverted and rejected. The use of the non-word "Nazistic" has already been noted. The reference to "unreasonable antisemitism" was just as odd, and you have now been explicitly called on that too. And myriad sources and explanations have been presented for a stronger statement of the link between Nazism and fascism as a whole (as opposed to mere comparison with, specifically, Italian fascism). What I have proposed is a compromise which is, to be frank, probably both better written than anything else on the table currently and which acknowledges some of the concerns expressed about our being too definitive re Nazism/fascism. You're just saying, "use my version". Again, you have some way to go on how things work here.
That said, of course the lead needs to set out in more detail at some point what Nazism meant, but that should probably follow afterwards. I'd suggest a second para as follows, again based primarily on tweaking what we already have :
  • 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 rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, promoting instead the idea of "Volksgemeinschaft", or "people's community". 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. Under Nazism, the needs of the individual were subordinate to the needs of the state, the nation and the leader.
N-HH talk/edits 07:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, "unreasonable" anti-semitism :); always practice moderation: don't eat too much, don't drink too much, and keep your racist hatemongering at reasonable levels.

Anyway I'm for N-HH's elegant solution, sans the "extreme" bit. Lets keep the wording encyclopedic and limit unnecessary appellations when purporting to describe the majority position of global scholarship. -- Director (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

First, the rejection was hardly due to bad grammar, was it ? "Unreasonable" wasn't the importaint part, neighter "Nazistic". "Unreasonable", I actually got from a Swedish encyklopedia from the early 50's (the first that I've got after WW2). The latter is an adjectivisation of "Nazism". I've seen stranger words in this Wikipedia (Anyone that knows what "Oblast" is ? or "Surströmming" , the latter is rotten herring, concidered as delicate dish in northern Sweden. Yesterday I removed the word from a list of Swedish words imported to English language, the other word is by some Polish users used instead of "county" or "province"). Anyway all I have said from the start is that Nazism isn't a varity of Fascism. And that it was a very bad centance in a lead, that is unsmooth for the readers. I've never ever said "use these words" - that's just a silly allegation. And the explination of the first rejection was pure nonsence, I still think. Anyway I do though agree with N-HH, in his brief and concise definition. I actually find it splendid. Well done, old boy! (stated without any kind of irony, it is good). Somewhere further down, I still think that the nazi(stic) ideology and movement ought to be separated. Whithin Nazism as movement (but not at the ideologcal level) it can be compared with Fascism/fascism. (Black shirts vs Brown shirts SA etc) Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If you are relying on encyclopedias from the 1950s that you admit are outdated or do not translate very well, then you obviously have not done proper research and are wasting my time. TFD (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I simply said that the word "unreasonable" wasn't the importaint thing. Besides antisemitism has roots that are thousands of years old. But previously no one before Hitler, Himmler & Co, the NSDAP and SS has actually taken the anisemitism to that magnitude. Parts of old encyklopedias indeed gets outdated. F.i. the number of inhabitants of city X. But from a historical aspect, newer encyklopedias often tend to reduce their coverage of historical events, by time. As an example I have (less than two years ago) compared the article of Alfred Dreyfus (or better have a look at the size of the French article http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Dreyfus ) in four different encyklopedias (all Swedish). Nordisk Familjebok sedcond edition (arund 35 volymes) edited and printed approx. 1880-1920, third edition (23 volymes) 1925-1939, Bonniers "the Apple" 15 volymes, from the 60's and a digital ecyclopedia from 2000. In the first, the story covers several pages. The second os a litte shorter, but includes thing that wasn't known when the frist was written. The third is almost a short simplification, and just a few lines in the digidal one. So I would argue that the encyclopedical reliability often even is better in older ones (when fairly fresh), but also in high degree, it depend upon what article that is supposed to be relied to. But this is all beside the main issue now. I find N-HH's suggestion better than mine. Can't we now ever get on ? Daskstar, Director , N-HH , and a few others, what say You ? I strongly suggest we use the lead that N-HH so elegantly has come up whith. And please, The Four Deuces, let us finally go further ! If Saddiyama makes further rejections ,then he must recive a warring wdit warning, aswell. Of little more severe kind, since he doesn't participate at the talk pages. Boeing720 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
No serious scholar asked to write an encyclopedia article about Dreyfus is going to base it on a summary of another encyclopedia article, let alone one written decades ago. Instead he will use recently published scholarly books and review current scholarly articles to see if any thinking on the subject has changed since the books were published. And he is not going to say to himself, "I think he was guilty" then search through decades of literature to find someone who agreed with him. TFD (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Which sources are the suggestion by N-HH based on? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"*"Nazism, or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and movement associated with the 20th century German Nazi party and state as well as other related far-right groups. Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many nationalists felt had been humiliated by the Versailles treaty. 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 rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, promoting instead the idea of "Volksgemeinschaft", or "people's community". 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. Under Nazism, the needs of the individual were subordinate to the needs of the state, the nation and the leader."

Here is a complete suggestion of a new lead - obviouslly to 98% "stolen" fron N-HH, but put toghether. I also avoided the confusional "fascism" - until we come down to the Nazi movement (the Nazi ideology and movement differed, especially after 30Jan-33) There will be no difficulties finding relevant world-spread doubtless sources to a text like this, and its author is NN-H, not me. And TFD - I used Dreyfus only as an example of whithin encyklopedias, that contradicts Your statement, which I interpreted as "only developed diffrently from the movement like the SA). So some further lines about the Nazi movement can be added, and there be compared with Italian (and Spanish) Fascism. (Wich else Fascism ? before 1945 ?) der encyklopedias are not reliable (END !)" In reallity the reliability depends of the article, I think. Older ones often are more accurate and detailed and less simplified on old articles. (If written in countries with free journalism of the time, I ought to have added). Let's focus on the main issues within this article, please, TFD. Then I wouldn't need to use examples that belongs otherwise. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Again we do not write whatever we happen to believe, even if it happens to be the truth, then search for sources in support. Articles are supposed to reflect what current mainstream secondary sources say. TFD (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
"There will be no difficulties finding relevant world-spread doubtless sources to a text like this", I just wrote. And stand by. Where do I find WP:mainstream , by the way. And who is desciding what is , and what is not, mainstream. And is a poular article really of same academical value, as litterature used at historical faculties at university level ? And Director has told You all about that already. There is no Führer at this Wikipedia, not even of this article. Boeing720 (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a number of policies and guidelines which you are expected to follow. If you disagree with those policies then you may ask that they be changed. However, most of them follow common sense. Your tone btw is becoming offensive. TFD (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad start... Tweaking just a hair:

Nazism (German: Nationalsozialismus) is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th century German National Socialist ("Nazi") party and government, and occasionally to other extremist groups. It is usually described as a form of fascism that incorporates biological racism and anti-Semitism. Nazism developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture found in Germany after the Treaty of Versailles, which many Germans viewed as humiliating in nature.

We do not need to repeat variants of "extreme" and I tried to tighten the wording a bit as well. Collect (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


If we do not really need the long German word at the start, then we can really improves readability a great deal (see [4]):

'Nazism is the ideology of the German National Socialist ("Nazi") party. It is also applied to other extremist groups. It is described as a form of fascism incorporating biological racism and anti-Semitism. It combines parts of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture. The Treaty of Versailles, which many Germans saw as humiliating, also weighed in its growth.

Gets readability up to 27 and grade level down to 12. Collect (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a constructive position from start, Collect. Your first suggestion is better than the latter, I think. (But not due to the German phrase. I would rather suggest removal of "It is usually described as a form of fascism", since that's an unnecessary simplification. And the movement level isn't mentioned. I think the lead needs to differ nazi-ideology from the more larger movement. Especially since the latgest part of the original nazi-movement infact were separated or killed at the Night of the Long Knifes, late June 1934. Based on Your first suggestion, I think Nazism (German: Nationalsozialismus) is the ideology and movement associated with the 20th century German National Socialist ("Nazi") party and government, and occasionally to other extremist groups. The nazi-movement is usually described as similar to Italian fascism, but differed at the ideological level by also incorporate biological racism, anti-Semitism, and social Darwinism. Nazism developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture found in Germany after the Treaty of Versailles, which many Germans viewed as humiliating in nature. Also is good. (But I still prefer the suggestion by N-HH, which I find splendid )Boeing720 (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well no one's outright knocked my suggestion on the head. It's not easy to follow in what way any of the subsequent alternative suggestions improve on it, not least because several people have just thrown another, slightly different again, ready-formed paragraph into the mix and said "how about this instead?", rather than actually explaining what precise aspects of the initial proposal might be better changed and why. I certainly don't think there's much to be gained by paring the text back too much, especially as far as some of the latter alternatives. As to the more specific points that were raised, one at a time:
  • Losing the qualifier "extreme" – although it is a description that is found in other texts, that makes sense to me, not least because including it could be read as suggesting other forms or fascism are moderate (what it really means is "more extreme", I guess). Such qualifiers usually say too much and too little simultaneously.
  • Sources – as I said, it was mostly a tweak of the existing lead, which is quite heavily footnoted. That said, actually my preference would be to lose most of them anyway, since the content is already sourced and footnoted in the body: the lead is meant to be a distillation of the detailed information found subsequently on the page and shouldn't need independent sourcing. The issue with leads is how to summarise and prioritise information we already have sources for; after all, you can write a lead with an impressive number of citations and footnotes that is nonetheless full of trivial and/or fringe nonsense. For example do we really need five separate citations for the suggestion that National Socialism is associated with the National Socialist party?
As noted, I also think the lead needs more by way of brief summary of the history and practical context (eg the official party programme, Hitler's, writings/speeches the actual practice of the Nazi state etc). I can try to do something on that too. N-HH talk/edits 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, complete proposal here, for those who wish to look. Happy to hear comments/observations. N-HH talk/edits 18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That is an improvement and I support it. I wonder however if it would not be better though to re-write the article from scratch. There were several other problems with how the existing lead is written. It treats nazism as a coherent ideology, when it was not, and does not mention that few people understood it or believed in it, even among nazis themselves. It is also too long and detailed. TFD (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to acknowledge that to some extent, eg by referring to "practice" in the opening sentence as well as simply "ideology" and by focusing a bit more on the historical and practical context rather than doing what the current lead does by, as you say, going into lots of specific detail about what Nazis supposedly firmly believed in and why. I was wary though of being too instructional about it or relying on commentary to make the point. Maybe it's something that can be built on more a bit more explicitly in the main body (which, again as you say, probably needs a total rethink too and a rebalancing away from theory and ideological analysis, given that there is not really an extensive "Nazi" theoretical canon and that for many of those involved, it was all rooted in opportunism as much as anything else). N-HH talk/edits 18:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
OK I see Your point, suggesting small changes in wrighting is perhaps not the optional way to go. So - I think You are on the correct way. (And the second paragraph of Your first suggestion was indeed very good, I think). However the article subject is "Nazism", which to me suggests that nazi ideology cannot be excluded. Am I wrong ? And as ideology nazism cannot be tied to fascism. There are nore any mainstream modern history wrighters that suggests that. The "varity" or similarity is limited to the movement level. (That might very well be mainstream) But one has to take this serious subject above the movement level. Nazism wasn't inspired of fascism. I think You can make this separation easilly. Any reader must not get the impression that nazism emerged from Italian (or any other) fascism. That my only concideration. Boeing720 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is about the ideology not the movement and, yes it was a form of fascism. TFD (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Title

The term "Nazism" is as scientific as calling Democrats dems or Republicans Reps. There is no such thing as Nazism, there is only NATIONAL SOCIALISM. The term Nazism is a term of obfuscation, I don't see a "Commie" series of articles here on Wkipedia. The term "Commie" is as much a term of use as "Nazi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.223.181 (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is what reliable sources call their ideology. (See WP:COMMONNAME]].) And we normally refer to the people who took power in Russia in 1917 as "Communists", rather than "Social Democrats", which is what they called themselves. TFD (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Nazism is a common short-form for National Socialism. Even if you do not personally accept that, a brief Google Books search should set your mind at rest, revealing as it does that there are large numbers of books that use the term in their title, let alone in their text. It is more than mere slang or colloquialism, supposedly equivalent to "Commie". N-HH talk/edits 19:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The communists of the Russian revolution were at least intellectually based on the ideology of communism, a term used by one of their important ideologues, Karl Marx, who wrote "The Communist Manifesto". The term Nazism might be in use - but it is not used by people who identify with the ideology. These people have and still use NATIONAL SOCIALISM to name their ideology. The term Nazism is used by writers who criticize it. It is a common slander word in Germany as well. The point is: At no point in time did NATIONAL SOCIALISTS refer to themselves as "Nazis". The term Nazi is an inventions of enemies of National Socialism. It is unclear to me why Wikipedia should employ and use this term, as it is not the reference used by the fathers and followers of the ideology referred to: NATIONAL SOCIALISM. The term Nazi is therefore a biased term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.220.14 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"History is written by the victors." Are role is to report what historians write, not correct their biases. If you are unhappy with them, then write to a history journal and persuade them to stop using the term nazi. Incidentally, Rockwell renamed his party the American Nazi Party, because the "World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists" was too confusing. TFD (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that is an explanation. Wikipedia is just there to roll out the war victors illustration of an - to them foreign - ideology. Rockwell is an american and National Socialism is a german ideology. The term Nazi serves to obfuscate the substance of National Socialism, which is why the left uses it, to erase socialism from the name. The term Nazism pretends to represent a doctrine, with an -ism. It does not, it is a slander word used by the enemies and post National Socialists. If wikipedia was to portray National Socialism, it would name it correctly by the name given by its inventors. It does not so and hence the quality of the presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.58.21 (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It i referred to as nazism in reliable sources written by authors across the political spectrum. Name one mainstreaam writer who objects to calling it nazism. TFD (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


For the record, "Nazism" gives me 1,260,000 hits on Google Books, while "National Socialism" renders 751,000. That said, and hating to play the devil's advocate once more, I will nevertheless point out that WP:POVNAME explicitly advises against "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". "Nazism" is undoubtedly a colloquialism of "National Socialism". As for "encyclopedic", I can't find a single major encyclopedia that uses such a title in loo of "National Socialism" [5][6]. There are definitely grounds for a WP:Requested move here, but since those almost-exclusively turn into exercises of democracy :), the term that sounds kinda "worse" for the Nazis can be expected to come out on top. -- Director (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a difference between an alternative or abbreviated form and an outright "colloquialism" – as noted, most serious sources use it, which clearly moves it beyond mere colloquialism. And we have no serious explanation of how it is not a "neutral" term, other than the wibblings of our IP friend(s). I'm still of the view btw that this thread should be closed and capped off. We've clearly got someone trying to make a politically motivated point here which has only a tenuous connection to being a serious suggestion for the page. N-HH talk/edits 13:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Abbreviations and colloquialisms are not mutually-exclusive. An abbreviation is often colloquial, as in this case. The issue, as I said, is not sources' usage, which I do not dispute gives a somewhat distinct advantage to "Nazism", but rather the application of WP:POVNAME, in us here using a manifestly unencyclopedic term. "Encyclopedic" meaning of course "suggestive of an encyclopedia's methods of treating or covering a subject".
Regardless of whether or not the IP gentleman above is or is not politically motivated (and he kind of obviously is :)), he does pretty much make the point advocated by policy in this regard. I don't see a point in capping-off a relevant discussion on such a subject. -- Director (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Your examples of major encyclopedias are Encyclopedia Britannica and the 1968 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences . The latest 2008 edition of the Social Sciences encyclopedia calls the article nazism.[7] So too does World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia[8] But WP:COMMONNAME applies. Everyone knows what "nazi" means, but "national socialism" is confusing. TFD (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you look more carefully at the Encyclopedia.com link, you may notice it provides the entries of several major encyclopedias. The thing claims to search "over 100 encyclopedias and dictionaries". But I'm sure many more examples could be provided if an RM were to be seriously in the works. (I may also dispute the applicability of the term "encyclopedia" to World Fascism.)
The whole point of quoting WP:POVNAME is in arguing that this case is one of (many) exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME. And I do strongly dispute that many people on this planet would regard the term "National Socialism" as "confusing" in some way :). The prevalence of 1,260,000 vs. 750,000 isn't all that impressive a score. -- Director (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
But POVNAME is not an exception to COMMONNAME. The primary and fundamental point behind it is, in fact, that we can and even should use seemingly POV names in many cases when they are the genuine common or standard name. And, as pointed out, no one has explained properly why "Nazi" is a POV term anyway. The argument that it is not encyclopedic was pretty weak given that even your own figures acknowledged that it seems to be the more popular term by a margin of 2 to 1 in Google Books; it simply falls apart when we have evidence that encyclopedias – including semi-specialist ones focused on the broader topic of fascism – use it (and on a minor side point of logic/definition, yes, many terms can be both abbreviation and colloquialism, but that doesn't meant that all abbreviations or short-forms are colloquialisms; hence why I talked about and distinguished "outright" and "mere" colloquialism earlier). Seriously, unless someone's going to put in a formal RM, shall we just drop this? N-HH talk/edits 16:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Colloquialisms are words not used in formal writing. Lots of political terms began as colloquialisms but are now acceptable, for example, whig, tory, liberal. TFD (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
So if a word happens to get used in formal writing, its no longer a colloquialism? :) I'm afraid I don't accept your definition there. But the point is that the policy helps make it clear what such a "colloquialism" might be in this context. The issue is "encyclopedic-ness"; WP:POVNAME:

"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: (...) colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious."

It certainly can be argued "Nazism" falls under that heading, as most reputable encyclopedias seem to have concluded. Its not at all cut-and-dried as you fellas make it out to be. But, as N-HH rightfully points out, since I don't intend to post an RM, nor have the time to push one through, best leave it at that. -- Director (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
agreed, Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, really needs no explanation, nazism is the colloquialism, national socialism is the accurate encyclopedic alternative. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If a word is the predominant usage in formal, academic writing, it is indeed no longer a colloquialism, as that description is commonly understood, or at least surely intended in POVNAME. What Direktor and Darkstar1st, or any random IP contributor, between them wish to personally define as "colloquialism", or by contrast supposedly "accurate" or "more encyclopedic", is of no interest. Please, are we done yet? N-HH talk/edits 21:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
A colloquial title would be more something like "Them geezers wot led the jerries and what they was rabbitin' on about." TFD (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi this is a quite good article on the term "Nazi" in german. "Nazi" was a bavarian slander word for dumb or simpleminden persons and for germans of a certain foreign origin. It then became an abbreviation for Nationalsozialer - analogueous to "Sozi" being the abbreviated term for Sozialist - even before the rise of the Nationalsozialisten as a party. Later it was used by some root party members as a word to name the newly arrived party members, who did just after success had began entry the party ( Friedrich Christian Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe (National Socialist in high position) in his book „War Hitler ein Diktator?“). The german jewish social democrat Konrad Heiden later coined the term Nazi instead of Naso out of a leftist position. In the east german socialist republic the term Nazi was used instead of Nationalsozialist to hide the sozialist-aspect. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Nazi As someone above stated, wiki articles are not founded on original material, rather on mainstream secondary sources, just stick with your favourite slander word, don't use the actual term of the inventors of National Socialism. The article does not even explain the etymological root of "Nazism" correctly, making it appear the term "Nazi" was an abbreviation of self describing nature rather than what I described above. This is poor and plain wrong. But as it seems to have a strong support, jog on. And some people wonder why wikipedia is not taken seriously by some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.29.39 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's always open to you, or anyone else, to add such details to the existing and admittedly short Etymology section, which follows on immediately from the lead, as long as you can support everything with reliable references and sources. Something like that would be a useful addition to the entry (plenty of people have noted the multitude of problems with the article as a whole; you're not some genius who's showing the rest of us all up you know). As to the title itself, as noted, it matters less that the term's origins and use might have been in part pejorative or politically motivated, especially in the German language, than that it nonetheless has become the standard, predominant word in the English language. Maybe Churchill, when he used it regularly as far back as the 1940s, was indeed cognisant of German vernacular and/or hoped to provide cover for his new buddy Stalin, but even that wouldn't alter that basic point. Nothing you can say, however logical your reasoning might seem to you as you set it out, will either. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The nickname for Ignatius may or may not have influenced adoption of the term Nazi. But even if it did, its reporting in reliable sources is so rare, it does not deserve attention in this article. No idea why the IP brings up that Heiden was Jewish. TFD (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I will admit the Ignatius diminutive theory was all news to me. Scouting around the web, as you say, doesn't reveal much coverage of the claim, let alone any clear confirmation of it. This book (at p.247) quotes the OED as saying no more than "it may have .. influenced" the use of the term Nazi. There may be some value in adding a brief mention in those terms to the etymology section, as well as the broader opinion that the term may have been initially used primarily by opponents. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It is the wrong article though. While it may have been the short form for the party, the ideology was named after the party. TFD (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead changes

To explain my broad revert of these changes and removals in more detail:

  • The punctuation switches at the end of the first para lose the connection of the Versailles treaty to post-WW1 Germany and instead connect it to the ideas/theories of Spengler and Plenge etc, which is a separate point in the genesis of Nazism
  • The idea that Nazism saw the individual as subordinate to the state and nation is not controversial and is surely a key feature of Nazism and other totalitarian ideologies
  • The comment about the limited modern application of the term "National Socialism" at the end of the lead is also fairly uncontroversial

On the last two points, I can add more detail to the body, since I accept that currently not much is made of either point. Waiting a couple of days and/or perhaps suggesting amendments to the precise wording would seem more sensible than just removing the sentences outright. N-HH talk/edits 16:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ending of the lead.

The Night of the Long Knifes is was already mentioned, but that didn't make Hitler "Führer". The death of president Paul von Hindenburg (that had defeated Hitler in the 1932 presidential election) was essential. Lead doesn't mention anything about how the different German countries were nazified. Perhaps not needed in a lead. But the use of the NSDAP-Svastika flag as the German national flag, is needed, I think. (Do not confuse this with the March 1933 re-use of the Imperial flag). There are also still problems in the beginning of the lead. I would argue that most historical authers has not digged deep in the Nazism vs Fascism (or right vs left issue). But Michael Burleigh has indeed in "The Racial State". (First introduced by Darkstar.1st in last archive). The German state during "The Third Reich" was builded on One Leader (Führer), Biological Racisme and Social Darwinism. Only the first applies also to fascism (but also to Communism). To put Hitler rigght or left is impossible to do, especially if the scale isn't defined. In my oppinion he was neighter, Hitler was outside all today (or in the past) known political scales. A certin amount of socialism in the 25 point programme (fully available at German Wikipedia) and anti-capitalism points towards left but the as anti-bolchevism puts him towards right. But ironically Hitler saw both capitalism and bolchevism/communism as Jewish, and we come back to the Biological Rasism. Further I care little for stars and credits, I only attempt to (by sources [where have they all gone ?] and NPOV) find the truth (without any kind of hidden agenda). It sure mustn't be my words, as long as they are correct and supported. Boeing720 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article already says that Hitler became Fuehrer when Hindenburg died. And their definition of capitalism was not the same as the one used by the Libertarian Party of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about the lead - it wasn't the Night of the Long Knifes that made Hitler "Führer" but the death of the president. I havn't the foggiest what the Libertarian Party is. Apart from Democrats and Republicans, I have only heard of "Whighs" in the19th century. (and something about a different Republican party, long before Lincoln's) Have I stated that NSDAP was even remotly close to this [to me] unknown US party ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The lead never said that the "Night of the Long Knifes" [sic] made Hitler Fuhrer. As for your other points here, this has all been discussed at length previously. As for sources, they are not required for uncontentious summary in a lead, especially when the sources to back up the basic information can be found in the body. It profits no one to keep going on about it or to talk about finding "the truth". And, finally, I would make the point that contributions to the main page and this talk page really need to be in better English if they're going to add anything. This addition, for example – "The nazification process of Germany was fulfilled by 1st September 1935, when the NSDAP Svastika flag become incorporated as the national flag of Germany. Now Hitler could begin thinking about other countries" – contains an unverified definitive statement about what constituted the fulfillment of Nazification, is written in awful English and closes with a bizarre novelistic turn of phrase. N-HH talk/edits 09:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not too pleased with my phrasing about the flag. It rather should be (approx) "As a final act of propaganda and showing (the world ?) that NSDAP no longer feared any internal enemies, the Nazi-Svastika flag was incoporated as the national flag of Germany from 1st September 1935 (which must nit be confused with the re-enforcing of the German Imperial flag in March 1933)". (Something like that). Reference is easy. In a Swedish encyclopedia "Nordisk Familjebok" Second Edition 20 volumes 1925-1937 + 3 suplementary ediotions 1938-39 (usually called "bruna utgåvan" or "30-talsupplagan" - "brown edition" or "1930's edition"), the Spanish civil was is covered in the supplementary volumes, but nothing is stated about WW2. (Suppose "deadline" was 30th June 1939) And in the article "flagga" ("flag") a colour poster of all nations (as of 1939) is presented. Above "Tyskland" ("Germany") the old imperial flag represents Germany - but beside of it the Svastika flag also is shown. The text trates "(efter 1 sept. 1935)" , "(after 1st September 1935)". I rather not scan the encyklopedia poster due to its formate, but I can sure take a picture. Of course this does only prove the fact and date when the flag was changed. But it stands to reason that the NSDAP changed the national flag when they felt safe enough to do this. National flags are seldomly replaced, usually after revolutions. But if there was a Nazi-revolution, it wasn't by 1st September 1935. 83.249.160.230 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Sorry Boeing720 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think that (having the word "concise" i mind) the lenght of a lead very well can be rather long, if the article is long and/or complex, or if parts of the global views of the article differs. Michael Burleigh clearly defines nazism as "a singularity" without any comparable ideology. And he is not alone. The same applies to the, in my mind rather silly question of left or right. Swedish author Bengt Liljegren states in his "Adolf Hitler" (Swedish ISBN 978-91-85507-33-7) that Hitler and Nazism was more to the left, than the right (I do not state that I fully concur, my humble opinion is that he was both left and righ, and that the question lackes importance). However Liljegren cites a Karl-Wilhelm Krause (who late become one of Hitler's bodyguards) , at Hitler's First of May speech in Berlin 1926 he (Hitler) said "We are socialists, we oppose the capitalistic system of today, including its exploatation of the economically weak, unfair wages, the wrongful appraisal of a human being from the point of wealth and possessions, instead of its duties and prestations. And we are determined to destroy this system at all costs". (But he mentioned nothing of trade unions). Among the 25 points of the NSDAP-party programme several points in the left direction, but none at all (to my knowlidge) towards the political right. My point is only that it was of little (or none) importance whether nazism was right or left. I sometimes get the feeling that the article lead is used (in a certain degree, atleast) for other purposes than pure history wrighting (even with sources). Hope I'm wrong. Boeing720 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

When the Svastika became national flag of Germany

I only introduce these images (stored at Commons)

Photo from Swedish encyklopedia "Nordisk Familjebok" 3rd edition, article "Flagga" eng "FLAG". Headline "Flagg- karta" means "Flag map". Several national, merchant, war and navy flags from 1935.
A closeup of last picture. In Swedish "Germany" is spelled "Tyskland". The middle of the image shows German national flag until 31st of August 1935, German national flag from 1st September 1935 (and the War-flag from the Imperial time). It's a source of the exact date at which the Nazi-svastika became not only the NSDAP-flag but also the German national flag. (Not to be confused with the change of flag in March 1933, when the Imperial flag was reinforced by the nazists)

I hope this is sufficient as source in order to state that "the svastika became enforced as Germany's national flag at 1st September 1935. If it belongs in the lead, or further down is of course a different question. But my personal thoughts are that the (second) changing of the national flag was an importaint symbol - that Hitler now no longer feared internal problems. Boeing720 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Some other comments. "Förenta Staterna" was the prefered term, but today only "USA" is used. Note that Austria still is a free nation (flag at bottom right "Österrike" in Swedish, "Ö" is the last letter of the Swedish alphabet) Also note the how the Spanish flag looked like before Fascist Franco through out the socialists during the civil war, the Spanish flag as of 1935 is found to the left of Union Jack. (Spain in Swedish is "Spanien") Boeing720 (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The party flag of the NSDAP (variant with the centered swastika) was introduced as the national flag in 1933, and was held co-official with the old tricolour of kaiser Germany, now re-introduced. In 1935 the tricolour was again scrapped as reactionary (conservative), while the centered swastika flag was replaced with the off-centre variant, and at that point became the sole national flag. The centered variant remained the party flag, however. See the relevant article. -- Director (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the spelling error of "swastika". However it was not intoduced as national flag of Germany already in 1933. From what source did You get that ? As You can see in below the German flags at the second image, below the Imperial tricolor is stated "Tyskland N" and "före sept. 1935", which mean "Germany" N=National Flag and "before sept(ember) 1935". And under the swastika "Tyskland N" and "fr.o.m sept. 1935", "fr.o.m" is short of "från och med" which simply means "from" (litterary "from and with"). The fact that the swastika very soon after 30th January 1933 became in use "evrywhere" doesn't change the formal facts. (From March 1933 the Imperial tricolor was reinforced as national flag. During the WeimarRepublic Germany used the same flag as BRD does today, unsure of from what date though.) At certain photos from the earlier years of the third reich, it becomes obvious that the swastika was neighter national, merchant or navy flag prior of 1st September 1935. In the American "Hitler" by Herbert Walther, ISBN 0 86124 133 9 (1978 and 1984, Bison Books Corp, 17 Sherwood Place, Greenwich, CT 06830, USA) at page 146 is a large photo of a German ship, (a "trainingship"), that Hitler is inspecting in Kiel in 1934. In the stem, there is an Imperial flag. At pages 147-148 there are pictures of the early "Luftwaffe" and a warship followed by yachts. Both aircraft and yachts uses the Imperial flag (the joint "sea-flag" is eqviliant to the Imperial war flag [which includes the iron cross], the airplanes are coloured without the iron cross.) The included picture texts includes "Aviso Grille, a training ship visited by Hitler in 1934", "Goering, Hitler and general Förster, commendant of the teaching division of the Luftwaffe, inspect new aircraft". "Hitler and von Blomberg at the launching of Scharnhorst in 1933, a project that began under the Weimar Republic" , "Hitler salutes the fleet in Kiel 1934". Both post-war American and pre-war Swedish sources can hardly be wrong, I think. Boeing720 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The misunderstanding stems from the fact that there were two swastika flags. One with the swastika centered, and another with the swastika off-centre. The centered variant was introduced as the national flag in 1933 alongside the red-white-black tricolour (they replaced the red-gold-black flag, both were co-official and equal in status). In 1935 the off-centre variant was introduced, replacing both 1933 flags as the sole legal national flag. The centered swastika flag however remained the party flag all throughout, since the 1920s all the way until 1945.
So you see the source is not really "wrong", just not very thorough. All this has been covered in great detail on the relevant articles. (The Grille was Hitler's yacht.) -- Director (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
(About the photo texts, I only copied the text) Well , I did as You first suggested, but it was difficult to see which article You refered to as "relevant". Now I understand what You ment a bit better. And You are not really wrong, I see that now. But neighter was I wrong, I think. Hindenburg actually did make a decition and declaration in March 1933, that both the swastika and the Imperial flag to some extent should be used together in certain situations. I was not aware of this before. But Hindenburg still refers to the Imperial flag as "the National". Atleast in the image-text here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Flag_of_the_NSDAP_%281920%E2%80%931945%29.svg. In German about the Swastika-flag - "Flagge der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei von 1920 bis 1945. Wurde von 1933 bis 1935 zusammen mit der offiziellen National- und Handelsflagge gehisst". In English this is translated into "Flag of the NSDAP during 1920 to 1945. Used to accompany Flag of German Reich (1933–1935) as National and commercial flag during 1933 to 1935." But I find the translation to be a little bit incorrect. This is an improvement of the translation, I think. - "Flag of the NSDAP during 1920 to 1945. Became, from 1933 to 1935 together with the official National- and Merchant- Flag of German Reich, risen". I've used German following of words, which even if it as English must be concidered as poor, still may be of help, I hope. (Reguarding the red-yellow/gold-black flag, this was in some kind of use even before the German Empire was founded in 1871. News to me. But I thought it become the National flag some time around 1920. Haven't found out when it was banished)
Conclution(s) - The issue was more complex than I expected (and gets even more complex if involving different versions of the Imperial tricolor and variations of the Nazi-Swastika flag). The Nazi-variants was more than just NSDAP-flags during March 1933 to August 1935. And they were in far more use than the Imperial versions already during this time. But the Imperial flag officially still remained as National flag until 1st September 1935. How importaint the official change of flag really is, is an other question. I still think it can be mentioned further down. Best reg Boeing720 (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of the precise protocol.. its entirely possible the 1933 red-white-black tricolour had precedence while it was in use. If I'm not mistaken, though, the centered swastika flag (i.e. the NSDAP party flag) was certainly official and was used in the capacity of a national flag until 1935. Also note the 1933-35 red-white-black tricolour differed in aspect ratio from the pre-1918 variant. The relevant article is I believe Flags of Germany. -- Director (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. The text I refered to was taken from the text of the swastika flag. I think the translation is incorrect. And that mine is atleast more correct. But ofcourse the swastika was used far more , atleast whithin Germany. Boeing720 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Clemenceau vs Wilson

If comparing president Wilson's 14 points and his entire speech "the Wilson doctrine" with the Treaty of Versailles, then it wasn't even necessary to be a German to see that the treaty was wrongful in several parts. Especially in thecase of giving Germany the entire blame of the outbreak and the gigantic amount of money that Germany should pay to France all the way until 1981, I belive it was stated. When general Ludendorff recommended the Empereror to seak for peace, he had Wilson's speech in mind. That was a fair deal, and after all without the American support during the summer of 1918 the war would have continued. Unfortunatly the president got ill in Versailles and Clemenceau took command of the conference. And his deal (which at that point Germany could do nothing about) wasn't fair, not only German "nationalists" thought. Boeing720 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Slavs were part of the Aryan race

At the moment the article says "It also viewed a number of other peoples as dangerous to the well-being of the Aryan race, particularly Slavs and Romani." - wrong.

According to evidence by the Third Reich's definition of Aryan, the Slavs were Aryans too and whilst the Nuremberg Race Laws forbid any sexual relations between Germans and Gypsies/Romani there was nothing forbidden between Germans and Slavs. Slavs were considered an ethnic threat to the volkisch movement and the view was a depopulation policy but nowhere is the mention that Slavs were considered to be dangerous as to something they were part of themselves (Aryan race). By the definition of 'Aryan' which included the Eastern Europeans/Slavs then this sentence should be changed by either removing Slavs or editing Slavs to blacks since they were also forbid by the racial laws as being dangerous to the Aryan race (Jews, Gypsies, Negroes and their offspring).--212.118.232.4 (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Slavs were considered "inferior" Aryans, and sexual relations between them and Germans was banned under Rassenschande laws, becoming a capital offense by Feb. 1944. The phrasing seems accurate. TFD (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The above IP is a sock of blocked User:English Patriot Man. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Himmler: conservative or radical?

In the section 'Position in the political spectrum' Himmler is labelled as a conservative Nazi. In the section 'Response to World War I and fascism' he is labelled a radical. In Peter Longerich's biography of Himmler (pp. 92-93), he quotes Himmler as saying: "In the course of history periods of capitalism and socialism alternate with one another; capitalism is the unnatural, socialism the natural economic system", "Capitalism seizes control of machinery, the most noble invention of mankind, and uses it to enslave people" and "The National Socialists and the Red Front have the same aspirations. The Jews falsified the Revolution in the form of Marxism and that failed to bring fulfilment. Why, is not the issue today. So, there’s still a longing for Socialism".--Britannicus (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagine the point is that in his 20s as a street fighter he was radical and became more conservative when he reached government. No idea what your point is by providing the quote. If you are interested in the fringe theory that nazis were left-wing, you are welcome to pour through 22 pages of talk page archives. TFD (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If you cannot see the relevance of socialism as to whether a person is conservative or radical then I feel very sorry for your powers of comprehension.--Britannicus (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If you cannot see the relevance of REPUTABLE SOURCES as to whether a person is conservative or radical, then I feel very sorry for your powers of comprehension. No reputable sources believe in your wackadoo fringe theories regarding the Nazis, and like TFD noted, this issue has been discussed many times, and you conspiracy theorists are always left in tears. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If the article contradicts itself I hardly think it's in a position not to be improved upon. It's not my "wackadoo fringe theories" that have made a hash of it.--Britannicus (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Language is not that rigid, nor do people always exist in such rigid either/or categories. It is possible to be radical on one issue and conservative on another or, as noted, to have been radical at one time before becoming more conservative. It is possible for one writer to describe someone in one way while another uses a different term, It is even possible, simultaneously, to actually be "radical" in a conservative context. I'm not sure you've uncovered a fatal flaw or lack of consistency in anything other than a superficial sense. The text can easily be tweaked to avoid any apparent contradiction. N-HH talk/edits 18:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
A very crucial fact that must be kept in mind is that the Nazi Party came to power effectively in coalition with German conservatives (to put it simply). Between 1933 and 1945 the ideology of Germany was really a sort of blend between National Socialism in the strictest sense, and conservatism. Conservative, or conservative-friendly National Socialism if you will. For this reason the most radical left wing of the party began planning a coup and speaking out against Hitler's leadership, and had to be "excised". You will often find a shift in rhetoric of the sort you describe, and not just with Himmler. Goebbels, for example, was very much to the left, but stuck by Hitler's shift to the right "when push came to shove". It also must be kept in mind that the most conservative significant element in German Interbellum politics was the army, etc.. -- Director (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference dictionary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference university was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference university1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference payne1995a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Stanley G. Payne. A History of Fascism, 1914–1945. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. P. 601. (Page shows list of various "National Socialist" parties outside of Germany).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism/Archive_22&oldid=1255541479"