Talk:Nazism/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Wrong comma

In the section "Position in the Political Spectrum" there is a falsely put comma. "The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels, hated capitalism,.... " The first comma should go, it should read "The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels hated capitalism,.... " 193.61.27.97 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Major Omissions in the Influence Section

The influences section is devoted to the racial mysticism of people like Rosenberg that was intended for the masses and not enough is given to the scientific foundations for their actual programs. Hitler and other top-ranking Nazis made a distinction between what knowledge was suitable for the masses and what was suitable for the elite. If you read the Table Talks, Hitler is constantly praising science and reason over religion and faith. And their eugenics program, for example, was based on what was considered cutting-edge science at the time. There was no obscurantism involved.

Key names that should be mentioned are Georges Vacher de Lapouge and especially Hans F. K. Günther, the former influencing the latter.

Also, are people seriously erasing any reference to Nietzsche? Look, I like the guy and his writings, but claiming he exerted no influence on the Nazis whatsoever is like denying any connection between Rousseau and the French Revolution. Yes, I've read the scholarship. I know Nietzsche opposed German nationalism and anti-Semitism. But there was much more to Nazi ideology than nationalism (which was really more of a springboard for establishing a supranational race-based aristocracy...) and anti-Semitism. Once you look past that, there is a lot of overlap between Nietzsche's views and the Nazi's. Their common hatred of egalitarianism, democracy, liberalism, socialism, and the legacy of the French Revolution. Their admiration for heroism and Great Men as well as their hatred for the utilitarian "comfortable life" of the last man. Nietzsche also flirts with eugenics here and there, though the Nazis didn't need him for that. And, again, if you read the Table Talks, Hitler refers to Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche as Germany's three greatest minds and describes Christianity as a Jewish "slave revolt" intended to undermine the Roman Empire. Where have I heard that before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.165.105 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be based on secondary sources, such as the conclusions of scholars rather than our own research, reading through what Hitler said, or in this case what he is claimed to have said. TFD (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Misleading citations

Darkstar1st has just added three references to the article. These are only partially complete, noting author, title and page but not publisher, date, or edition, making it extremely difficult to verify them. However, the second page referred to, page 141 241 of Francis Nicosia's Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, is available on Google Books preview. The page has no content whatsoever which could serve to verify the statement "Farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed", to which it was added as a reference. I have therefore removed this misleading reference, and replaced the citation needed tag. Since this is not the first instance of Darkstar1st adding a source which does not confirm the material it is alleged to verify, I am very sceptical of the validity of the other sources added, and indeed of all such citations added by this editor. Could anyone who has access to the works in question (Germany, 1871-1945: A Concise History By Raffael Scheck, and The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe's Twentieth Century by Sheri Berman, or indeed to any other works cited by Darkstar1st, please check to see if they do indeed confirm the content they are alleged to support. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

that is because the page i referenced is 241, plz self revert. [1] University of California Press, 2003 Darkstar1st (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Page 241 does not seem to support your claims. Dolescum (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

last paragraph, Agricultural retraining for Jews should follow previous practice in operations with Jewish owners as well as in limited numbers in non-Jewish operations perhaps you feel not all of the edit was addressed by this one citation, if so, simply move it up, and i will provide a dif cite for the remainder. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As the text goes on to make clear ("In other words, Jewish-owned farms were to be used for agricultural retraining programs, and only where none was available were the programs permitted to operate on farms owned by aryans") , this is about exclusion of Jews from the mainstream economy. It has nothing at all to do with farm ownership, or discretion over operations and residual income, which is what you adduced it in support of. It seems that, once again, you are citing random works in the hope that other editors will be unable to prove that you are misleading us. This is, at best, tendentious editing, and I urge you to cease this and start to use references appropriately. RolandR (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

discretion over operations, and from the source, agricultural retraining programs...as well as...non-Jewish operations Darkstar1st (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else understyand what the previous comment means; or is it, as I suspect, just more obfuscation? RolandR (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

it means the owner was no longer in control of his operation and was forced to follow the party's wishes Darkstar1st (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That is a totally ridiculous and unwarranted reading of the text, which states that the Nazis proposed retraining Jews in agriculture, in order to deport them to Palestine, and that this retraining was if possible to be carried out on Jewish-owned farms. It is totally irrelevant to the paragraph in which you cite it. Either you are aware of this, and are deliberately trolling, or you are unable to read and understand plain text, in which case you are not competent to be an editor at all. In either case, please stop wasting everybody's time. RolandR (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

why the training took place is irrelevant to the cite, which merely states the farms(Jew and non-Jew) were no longer in the operational control of the owner Darkstar1st (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say that, and even if it did (which, I repeat, it does not), that would have no relevance whatsoever to your use of it in the article. The book does not support your edit. RolandR (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

are you suggesting the farm owners could have simply opt-ed out of the free retraining to be conducted on their land? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, and nor have you. If this overextended extrapolation of a text is the only evidence you can offer that "Farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed", then the entire sentence should be removed from the article. If the sentence is true, find a source that says so. RolandR (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Scheck page 167 In the short run, the regime wanted to protect the German farmer from speculation and therefore passed a law that forbade the selling of family farms. is pretty clear. Can't confirm the others, but Scheck is not far off. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Scheck p167 is cited to verify the sentence "To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited". What you quote refers just to family farms, not to agricultural land in general, and it makes no mention of "tying" farmers to their land. This seems like OR to me. RolandR (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sheri Berman's work supports the existence of the marketing boards. Dolescum (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the tern "Nazi"

The recent edit on the origin of the term, asserting that it comes from a derogatory German term for peasant, strikes me as dubious. The source is a newspaper article. German Wikipedia does not suggest that origin. And there are numerous examples of Nazi usages of the term (e.g., Goebbels' pamphlet "Der Nazi-Sozi"). Anyone in favor of keeping it? Bytwerk (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not. I have heard that claim before, but the source here is not RS. Now it is true that the term "Nazi" has been used more by English sources over the years. Kierzek (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is an article in The Telegraph about a book that explains the origins of various expressions. But that book is not academic, has no references and the author clearly states that when sources disagree, he picks the one he finds most credible. One of the sources is Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is an article in a respected newspaper explaining the findings in a book published by Penguin and those types of sources are always accepted at RSN. TFD (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

It appears that there is a consensus against Darkstar1st's suggested edits, yet he continues the argue the point. I have therefore set up Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, which, if other users certify, should help us avoid these long unproductive discussions in future. TFD (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Rationing and shortages

I would like to includes a few words about such in the economics section, without objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem I thought was with the way it was presented; that it did not give an explanation and correlation as to the statement. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a different edit that only mentions rationing and shortages, do you have any objection to such? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Different how? Without seeing it, I (nor anyone else) can give an informed opinion. Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please propose the edit here and allow other editors time to examine your proposal. I'm sure if other editors see your proposal as an improvement to the article, you could gain consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

different as this edit is exactly half of the other. Shortages of food and clothing were addressed by rationing. feel free to word it however you like. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(out) Could you provide a source and, since this article is about Nazi ideology, could you explain whether this was consistent with, against or tangential to their ideology. TFD (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nazi Organisation of Women By Jill Stephenson, page 198-200. Consistent, part of the "National Socialist approach to living", work that into the edit however you like, or leave it out, i care not. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of the book, but a search of its contents on Google books shows that none of the words "shortage", "food", "clothing" and "rationing" are found in the book. Also, you need to explain why a thirty year old book on Nazi women is the best source on can find for nazism and economic policy. BTW were you aware that the allies (UK and US) also had rationing during the war? TFD (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

so you acknowledge that rationing existed "(UK and US) also", yet dont like the source, even though you have not read it? all of those words appear and on the very pages i gave you, if you would like the specific paragraph and line, i will be happy to supply those as well. What is the best source one can find on nazism and economic policy, i would be happy to cite that book instead. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot acknowledge anything because I do not know. Again, why are you using this source? TFD (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

were you aware that the allies (UK and US) also had rationing, TDF. i would be happy to use the source you think would be best for nazi econ. which source is that? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please cite the exact text in this book, which you wish to cite in order to verify your edit. That shouldn't be hard to do. RolandR (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

page 199 Rationing foodstuffs and clothing in 1939 revealed the failure of the 1936 four year plan to achieve autarky. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to mention the failure of a plan that is not even mentioned in the article. Also, this appears to be an opinion rather than a fact. Since the plan was to achieve autarky by 1940, it seems odd to say that it failed in 1939, especially when its objectives were achieved between 1941 and 1944. An how is rationing a failure of autarky? Can you provide any sources that discuss the writer's opinion and explain the degree of acceptance they have? TFD (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

bizarre indeed since i did not mention it, merely responding to request for the exact text from those who have not read the book and are unable to do so. see above for the specific text of the edit i am proposing, feel free to alter it. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is "Shortages of food and clothing were addressed by rationing." Since the article is about ideology, you need to explain how this relates to nazi ideology, otherwise it is just a snippet of trivia. Why not mention that knackwurst became more popular in relation to bratwurst during the Nazi years? TFD (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"National Socialist approach to living", page 199, specifically calls for the sharing of resources for the benefit of country, central to the National Socialist ideology. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not in the article, and what does rationing have to do with sharing of resources for the benefit of country? TFD (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

it is, page 199. have you read it? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, and the point is it the text insertion needs to be clear in how it relates to the article and whether it is expressing a fact or an opinion. You have to explain it to the reader, not to me. Since the Nazis were not known for altruism, it appears to be an opinion and you need to establish the degree of acceptance it has. TFD (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Rationing foodstuffs and clothing in 1939 is a fact, if there is a different way you would like to word it, plz do. if you have an issue with the source, plz identify that here. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to explain why it is relevant to the article. TFD (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

relevant as any shortage and rationing would be relevant to an economics section. shortage is the very bane of economy. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this article is about Nazi ideology, could you explain whether this was consistent with, against or tangential to their ideology. TFD (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

consistent, see above, i answered/you ask this question already. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Britain and some other countries had rationing around that time too; it was not unique to Nazi Germany. It was a response to the situation they were facing at the time, not a policy based on ideology.Spylab (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Spylab. Darkstar, I've read through the whole exchange for the first time. I can't see how you have answered the question.----Snowded ^TALK 02:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, can you provide a source that says it was consistent with their views? TFD (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Spylab, Snowed, the source very clearly states is was part of National Socialist approach to living. The equal distribution of goods for the benefit of the nation, see above. I am making no claims this ideology was unique, simply it was part of the economic ideology. TDF, i have, specifically their view of National Socialist approach to living, which is very clear in the context of the book, specifically the chapter, and easily identified in the 3 pages i have listed. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2nd source

Heinemann Advanced History: Hitler and the Nazi State By Martin Collier, Martin Collier Philip Pedley page 144

• ...Nazi leadership intended to avoid a repetition of scarcities in basic foodstuffs and clothing which caused so much unrest during WWI
• The rationing system introduced in late 1939 was generally considered fair and sufficient... Darkstar1st (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find similar statements of rationing in the UK. You need something which ties it to the ideology and you don't appear to be even attempting that despite requests. To be honest you seem to be in one of the OR/Syth patterns you seem to like. Nazi's rationed, rationing is about equal distribution, socialists are about equal distribution, socialists are nazis - or some variation. Its tiresome ----Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if you would read the sources instead me retyping here, you could form a better opinion, example, on the exact same page.

• There were also xmas (meat ration)bonuses...such propaganda stunts of course masked real difficulties... and plz wp:agf Darkstar1st (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Been here too many times before with you Darkstar; onus on you to provide evidence, prior history means onus is higher ----Snowded ^TALK 12:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

what exactly would qualify to include such text? maybe if you gave me a hypothetical sentence form an imaginary source, i could provide the passage for you if you are unable to access the sources i listed. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Read up on the 5 pillars, its all there.----Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, however i am having trouble understanding exactly what you need? If using propaganda to manipulate the population to meet the goals, expectations is not ideology, i am afraid i do not know what would be. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am confused as to whether you really think that "rationing" related to shortages and war...is actually the same as "rationing" as an ideology intended to spread resources to create "equal sharing", akin to Socialist/Communist ideology? Because if you are...then that's just plain stupid. Chris Christie did not impose gasoline "rationing" on New Jersey as part of a Socialist/Communist agenda. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2nd time: Rationing was not due to ideology; it was a policy due to shortages. Time to move on.Spylab (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This, in proper context, would relate to the Nazi Germany economy, but not ideology. Kierzek (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

source 3

Rationing was most certainly part of the ideology as Jews received separate cards and less rations. Working men received larger rations than women and elderly. Jews in Nazi Berlin: From Kristallnacht to Liberation, edited by Beate Meyer, Hermann Simon, Chana Schütz page 92 Darkstar1st (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That establishes that antisemitism was part of the ideology, not that rationing was. RolandR (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

workers received more than those who could not work, men more than women, young more than old. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IOW the same as everywhere else in the world. TFD (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

i do not understand your objection to the source or edit? plz clarify your comment. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to use the concept of "rationing" as a way to paint Nazism as Socialist/Communist/Left-Wing. You are misrepresenting sources in order to advance this agenda. It's now pretty clear to everyone here that we can see through your "ruse." I have to wonder if this was brought up by Glenn Beck recently or something, as that's where these silly conspiracy theories usually seem to originate. Maybe your next edit can "connect" Nazism to "FEMA Camps" or chemtrails? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

plz wp:agf and since you have not read any of the sources, it would be impossible to know how i have represented them. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to elicit whether you truly believed the nonsense you're spewing, and you ignored it. "WP:AGF" only applies when there is a chance that the person isn't really advocating something absurd...but it's now clear that you are indeed advocating that absurd position. Therefore, it's clear that you have no "good faith" in creating these edits (...unless you truly believe that Chris Christie is promoting Nazi policies! LOL). Furthermore, the sentences that you yourself have quoted from the sources show that your intention is to misrepresent them. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

which sentence? misrepresented how? chris who? have you read any of the sources, which one? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For example, you quote simply the fact that "rationing" existed in Nazi Germany as an "example" of the idea that it was somehow connected to Nazism as an ideology. (Ex. "...Nazi leadership intended to avoid a repetition of scarcities in basic foodstuffs and clothing which caused so much unrest during WWI"; "The rationing system introduced in late 1939 was generally considered fair and sufficient...") And I have pointed out that Conservative Republican governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has recently adopted "rationing" plans to deal with the fallout from "Superstorm Sandy". [2] Does that mean that "rationing" is part of the Conservative, Republican ideology? Or is it simply that Christie is a "Nazi"? You cannot promote your edits without choosing one of those absurd propositions, or your logic fails. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

correct(excluding new jersey nazis, i have no idea what you are talking about here), a Political Ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work rationing was how the Nazi's dealt with shortages, politcal because different ethnos, age groups, social class, and sex, received different rations. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The US and UK also had rationing during the war. The US government oversaw rationing in Iraq. In what way does this make nazism different from other ideologies? And what website did you get this idea from? TFD (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

the US/UK did not ration based on race. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Which again establishes that the Nazis applied rationing in a racist manner, not that rationing is per se part of Nazi ideology. RolandR (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

as well as by age, sex, social/party status, and ability to work. how it was applied is irrelevant, that is was applied to meet the goals of the party(ideology) is germane Darkstar1st (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think rationing was applied because that is what all governments did at the time. That the Nazis were racist in virtually all laws and policies is already explained. The US btw denied rations to interned Japanese Americans and otherwise also has had many racist laws. TFD (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

not race, age, sex, social/party status, and ability to work. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(out) I think we all agree that the nazis believed in and practiced discrimination. Since that point has already been made in the article, there is no need to add it. TFD (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nazi ideology influenced how rationing was carried out, but Nazi ideology was not the reason behind rationing. Attempting to somehow prove that rationing itself was a component of Nazi ideology will only keep leading to dead ends.Spylab (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nazi ideology influenced how rationing was carried out, therefore it merits a few words in the article about Nazi ideology. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

source 4 The Nationalization and ideology of rationing

The German people were to come before all other peoples for food, Nazi memo, German nationals were to receive 100% meat rations, Czechs 86%, French 51%, Serbs 36%, Slovenes 29%, Jews 0% The Daughter of the Reich: The Incredible Life of Louise Fox By Louise Fox, Cindy Dowling, Cindy Dowling, page 73 Darkstar1st (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To which the response is exactly the same as many others made above. You've established that the Nazi's discriminated against other people and that applied to rationing as it did to many other things. This is an ideological crusade on your part, stretching evidence and wasting other editors time. Its not the first time and I really think you need to back off before the patience of the community wears thin and you end up subject to a topic ban or similar. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

since you now acknowledge the sources are reliable, and that rationing was part of the nazi ideology, plz clarify your specific objection. and you may want to strike thru your wp:threat Darkstar1st (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is acknowledging that rationing was "part of the nazi ideology". You have either not read, or not understood, the comments above. Nor is anybody threatening you. You have simply been warned ─ and I second that warning ─ that you are trying the patience of other editors here. Unless and until you can bring a reliable source to establish that rationing was required by Nazi ideology, rather than by the exigencies of the economic situation, then you cannot make the edit that you seem bent on. RolandR (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

have you read the source above? 0% meat for Jews and 29% for Slovenes is not an economic exigency, it is an ideology. Political ideologies have two dimensions: How society should be organized. The most appropriate way to achieve this goal. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

YES, we all agree that Nazi Germany was a racist society, and applied rationing in a discriminatory manner, guided by Nazi ideology. Now find a source that establishes that rationing itself, not the way that it was imposed, was part of Nazi ideology. Or else stop wasting our time. RolandR (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

the way it was imposed was the ideology. (see webster's or stanford's def of political ideology) Darkstar1st (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a meaningless comment. I repeat, unless you can bring a source to show that rationing was part of Nazi ideology, stop wasting our time. RolandR (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

what is your definition of ideology? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Time wasting Darkstar1st, you are in a minority of one on this and you are either refusing to, or are incapable of understanding the points which are being put to you. If you don't stop then I think the only option left is to seek a topic ban. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"unless you can bring a source to show that rationing was part of Nazi ideology", i did, see above. by the Nazi's giving less rations based on ethnicity, the goal of ethnic cleansing was forwarded. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Price and wage controls

proposed addition: Nazi's attempted to manage the economy with wage and price controls. The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938 By R. J. Over page 49 Darkstar1st (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Hitler had a mustache. Mother Theresa had a mustache. Mother Theresa is Hitler!" [3] You're selling...but nobody's buying. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 06:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the source is WP:RS then it is not up to us to say "you're selling but nobody's buying" - it is up to us to accurately represent what reliable sources say, and not to take a position ourselves. Collect (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That a source is RS is not the issue, but rather the interpretation...and nobody's buying his absurd interpretation of sources to mean things that the authors did not intend to convey, and which no reasonable person "gets" from reading the statements he's using. This is nothing more than "quote mining," and not even a very good job of it, at that. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And by now this has become tediously tendentious, and classic IDHT behaviour. Some 5000 words over the past three days, with one editor battling against at least seven others who are telling him the same thing. This has to stop. RolandR (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryon/Roland, have you read the source? ...the most important of these additional controls were over prices and wages and foreign trade. is is the very 1st line of page 49 Darkstar1st (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The source clearly mentions price and wage controls in the same context as my proposal, maybe Bryon could explain how that is an absurd interpretation? If not, and there be no other objections, i will add the text soon. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

At least six editors above have objected to this edit, and not one has supported your view. So adding this text will be quite clearly editing against consensus, and is impermissible. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There's really no point in explaining things to people who are either incapable of understanding, or unwilling to make the attempt at understanding those explanations. As noted by RolandR, every other editor posting responses to your silly "interpretations"(Read: OPINIONS) of resources has pointed out your (likely deliberate) errors. You refuse to listen to reason, and you seem to think that, when every other editor disagrees with you...you can just wait a few days and say, "Well, since nobody else is arguing with me anymore...I guess I'll just add the text..." That's going to do nothing except get you banned AGAIN. You've already been banned for your deliberate disruption of this page...so go right ahead, Sport: Commit Wikipedial suicide AGAIN. I'll get the popcorn. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

revised proposal

we are in agreement the source is reliable, however two editors have expressed concerns i have mis-interpreted the text from the source: ...the most important of these additional controls were over prices and wages and foreign trade. I ask these two now to help me correctly cite the source, perhaps they would be willing to supply the text. If not, maybe the following would address their concerns, revised proposal: Nazi's implemented controls over prices and wages . Darkstar1st (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Per multiple comments above, you are wasting people's time. Please stop. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. TFD (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh look! CONSENSUS! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Must agree, as well with Snowded. Darkstar please heed WP:DEADHORSE on this matter; at this point. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is neither productive nor desired to have multiple groups of editors trying to out-"vote" one another, treating editorial decisions on content and topics as popularity contests. please limit your comments to specific objections, should there be none, i will reinsert the material as it is RS and relevant Darkstar1st (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You really think that's how Wikipedia works, eh? You lost. There is consensus, and nobody supports your ludicrous position. Coming back after a month has passed, with one of your trademark, "If nobody objects with criteria that _I_ feel is relevant in the next few minutes, I will reinsert the material" charades, is not even close to how things are done here. I'm going to enjoy watching you get banned again. It's hilarious. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also advise you to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, where your tendentious editing, refusal to listen to other editors and accept consensus, and misleading use of citations have been under discussion for three weeks now. Your failure to do so, while continuing the same behaviour on the same articles, reinforces the complaints against you. RolandR (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nazi control of farm income

proposed additional citation to address tag in economics section, Hitler's Economy: Nazi Work Creation Programs, 1933-1936, Dan P. Silverman page 43 published 1998 ISBN 978-0674740716 Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That page? Dolescum (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, Nazi ag price policy increase prices by 30%..., there is too much to retype here, but i will be happy to address specific concerns. the isbn # will hyperlink to the book as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is relevant, to tell you the truth. MAFF in the UK did something very similar after the outbreak of war. Are you saying MAFF implemented their policies for ideological reasons? Dolescum (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

define ideology? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are you attempting to evade my question? Dolescum (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, Political ideologies have two dimensions: Goals: how society should work Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How does this relate to the article? And why are you using a book about "work creation programs" for an article about farm income? TFD (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

TDF, perhaps you have a better source for farm income either supporting, or rejecting the edit, plz share. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again these things may have a relevance and be better suited for other articles, such as, Nazi Germany as to economic and racial polices applied therein; but not a nexus to ideology. Kierzek (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

not my edit, rather attempting to provide a source to address a source needed citation which has been dormant since may, on an edit which has been part of this article for years. to control an economy is the very definition of a political ideology. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So...it's part of the U.S. Republican Party's ideology in 2001 to temporarily shut down airports, create intensive security measures at airports, and raise the price of oil? These "justifications" are becoming Comedy Gold. Keep on truckin', as this is hilarious. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar, it is similar to other entries in the article which try to show ideology through governing or other decisions; it a slippery slope which we discussed earlier, for example, as to the religion section. Ideology can influence such decisions but too much can be read into them, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

if political ideology is not present in governing, then where? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a striking example where explaining government economic policy would give a misleading impression of the governing (communist) ideology. TFD (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

a laughable example, hong kong was successful precisely because it was not under communist control, rather a special semi-autonomous jurisdiction guided by the capitalist brits until 1998. you are also dodging the question, if political ideology is not present in governing, then where? pending an answer, the material should be restored as it is relevant and sourced. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that one cannot study the policies persued by Hong Kong, or for that matter the economic policies of China as a whole, and assume that it reflects Communist ideology. Even if you could, you would need a secondary source that draws the connection. So even if your theories had merit, you would need to show that someone has already made the same observation. My suggestion is to post your theories to a blog and restrict your activity here to improving articles. TFD (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

you are not challenging the source or the facts within, rather trying to make the point it does not belong in the article, which is not what this section is about. i supplied a rs to address a very old tag on an older edit which is not mine, unless you have a problem with the source, i will add it and remove the tag. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you, you lack editor consensus on your edit because it violates policy. While your synthesis is reflects faulty reasoning, synthesis is not allowed whether good or bad. I suggest if you want to explore your theories, you try posting them to a blog. TFD (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

as i have pointed out to you, thrice now, not my edit or theory. what is remarkable is this material has been in the article for years, and tagged for months, yet you only notice it when i attempt to fix the tag, why? perhaps you could find fault with the original editor and the original source, Philip C. Newman (August 1948). "Key German Cartels under the Nazi Regime". The Quarterly Journal of Economics 62 (4): 576–595. doi:10.2307/1881766. JSTOR 1881766. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

About the lead

From the second centance the article states: "It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism. Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism" . To begin with I think that describing nazism as "a variety of fascism" does not tell readers much. Biological racism and antisemitism is better, but far from enough, I feel. And then the ideology of nazism turns into some details of means, that should be moved. Use of "anti-communist Freikorps" for instance. That deals with the way Hitler attempted to reach power, not ideology. Whithout a concise describtion of the nazi ideology at the very beginning,the entire article looses value. This is not done by starting to compare nazism with other ideologies. And the main issue is forgotten - that nazism was a german ideology. Or rather that Germany as such is totally imperative for the existence of (the original) nazism. Without Germany the nazi ideology cannot exist ! Not the original nazi ideology - and only of importance. In Italy Mussolini talked about the great Italian history, refering to the roman empire. But for Hitler (born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire with 500 years of great Habsburgian history) - such matters wasn't importaint. Hitler fills two books, known as "Mein Kampf", with talk about the German blood - and it's "superiority" that excluded jews and others. And perticulary the Jews was not just "of bad blood" but "dangerous" - it goes far beyoynd any previous antisemitism i Europe. History is importaint to Hitler only if it's German. Already the first centance of Mein Kampf suggests this. "Nowadays I feel it as a historical destiny, that I was born in exactly in Braunau am Inn, because this little town lies at the border between the two German states..." (translated from the Swedish 1992 edition) and then he points out the fact that Johan Jacob Palm (a bookshop owner from Nuremberg, that also printed books and wrote an anti-French folder during the French occupation of Bavaia during the Napoleon wars) was executed in the same town that Hitler was born. But only German history is of interest to Hitler. Germany, Germany and Germany again combined with the fanatic antisemitism (which he seems to have a huge difficulty to separate from Bolchevism and Marxism) is what nazismis about. William L Shierer (an American diplomate that lived in Berlin until December 1941, and that wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich") even states that school subjects was substituted not only from "history" to "German history" but also "German mathematics", "German physics", "German athletics" and so on. I feel that article is in a large degree built upon neo-nazism, not the real nazism that Hitler struggled for. Atleast in the lead - it simply is leading in the wrong direction. Boeing720 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

nazi

Nazism (German: Nationalsozialismus; English long form National Socialism) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4] It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[5] Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany.[6] It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.[8][9] Nazi philosophy claimed that an Aryan master race was superior to all other races.[10] To maintain what it regarded as the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews and Romani, and the physically and mentally disabled.[11] Other groups deemed "degenerate" or "asocial" received exclusionary treatment by the Nazi state and included homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses and political opponents.[11] The Nazis promoted German territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum ("living space") for German settlers and to bring labor, food and materials into the nation for growth.[12][13] Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name as Hitler at the time instead preferred to use "Social Revolutionary".[14] Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined socialism as meaning a commitment of an individual to a community.[14] Hitler did not want the ideology's socialism to be conflated with Marxian socialism, and claimed that true socialism does not repudiate private property unlike the claims of Marxism, and claimed that the "Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning" and said that "Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism."[15] Nazism favoured private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class differences.[16][17] The Nazis outlawed strikes by employees and lockouts by employers, because these were regarded a threat to national unity.[18] Instead, the state controlled and approved wage and salary levels.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.209.75 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Vacher de Lapouge, Alfred Ploetz, Hans F. K. Günther

The section on race really needs a mention of these people. Until then, it's woefully incomplete.

Here's a journal article on Vacher de Lapouge and Gunther, for starters: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v061/61.2hecht.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.91.82 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is available in full for free at JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.91.82 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article needs to include Hans F. K. Günther. Though not as well-known in public media as figures like Himmler, Goring, Goebbels, etc., Günther was a very important figure in developing Nazi racial policy. Compared with the diatribes of people like Goebbels in passionate propaganda speeches, Günther's racial research although now recognized as having pseudoscientific assumptions was very methodical, empirical, and rational in comparison with the hastily made propaganda speeches at Nazi public events. Hitler and other Nazis appreciated and used Günther's research.--R-41 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It will take time to configure the article though.--R-41 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Günther himself cites Lapouge and not Gobineau as the true founder of racial science, and makes many references to him, so any discussion of Günther would have to also include Lapouge. Alfred Ploetz's elaboration of racial hygiene is also important.

Among the ideological texts of Nazism, Walther Darré's Neuadel aus Blud und Boden should also be listed. Not only did Darré serve in Hitler's cabinet for most of the regime's existence, but the chapter on him in How Green Were the Nazis? makes clear that even after he was dismissed, his ideas continued to inform Nazi eugenic and resettlement policy in the East.

Nazi, NaZi, NAZI

I'm sure this is a high-traffic page where editors have strong opinions, so bringing this here as well as my edit summary.

Wikipedia takes a very loose definition of acronym that includes words like So(und)N(avigation)a(nd)R(anging) and H(yper)t(ext)M(arkup)L(anguage) as well words like N(orth)A(tlantic)T(reaty)O(rganization) that actually meet the word's definition (both the first letter of each word AND pronounced as a word). That's fine: people get confused and just think acronym means "uses the first letters" or even "some of the first letters".

Still, even by that (very loose) standard, Nazi simply isn't an acronym. It's not even a pseudo-blend like UNI(ted Nations Development)F(und for Wom)E(n) ... (so)M(ething). It's just a contraction of a single word, whose misspelling (/phonetic spelling) make it slang or shorthand. (Really, though it can be sickening to think of, it's basically a pet name.) It's not nearly the most important controversy re:this page, but (even while we all hate prescriptivists) meanings are important and (worse) confusion about how to treat real acronyms means that I've started seeing people writing Nazi in all caps as though it were... well, what this page misleadingly took it for. — LlywelynII 10:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally

Minor point for article improvement: the article currently uses some unhelpful passive phrasing. Who coined it? popularized it? Do we have a source? — LlywelynII 10:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

we really don't have an answer. i attempted to discover the same here and was told it is the wp:commonname, end of story. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[23] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements" - It is a fundamental tenet of right-wing politics that all men are created equal. That is a far cry from Nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.251.230 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The Right historically supported absolute monarchy and aristocracy, not egalitarianism. In fact most modern conservatives reject equality. TFD (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I am surprised that you even let yourself in for this discussion. You know very well that it is completely pointless, unproductive and will lead nowhere. This whole left-right thing has been discussed in circles over several articles' talk pages again and again. It has bound the productivity of several users for many, many hours. In the future, the best bet is not to answer unconstructive comments like the above at all. --RJFF (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the best thing is to let academic scholarship win the day...rather than just submitting to the hurt feelings of modern Conservatives, their revisionist fake-history, and their unsupported attempts to whitewash the history of the Right. It's the most blatant form of Orwellian newspeak on Wikipedia. Truly, this nonsense by Conservatives to "redefine" the Left-Right spectrum is as ludicrous as if Leftists were going into the pages for Stalinism and saying, "But it was REALLY a Right-Wing ideology!" You can't just change the definitions of words in order to "rehabilitate" your image. That is the very essence of propaganda, not scholarship. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't that simple. German conservatives at that time supported the Nazis (generally speaking), but were always very much distinct from them - and presented the only potential internal threat to their regime. An interesting parallel with Napoleon, there... That is not to say that the constant mention of Hitler in conservative anti-liberal/anti-left rhetoric isn't incredibly annoying, but propaganda of all sorts is insidious: its usually based on facts, but facts presented in a biased manner - and one must be wary of letting his distaste for the bias lead him to rejecting the facts beneath. While there is no question Hitler was politically closer to conservatives, ideologically there was certainly a leftist, populist element in Nazi ideology - one the conservatives generally detested.

I think its safe to say many scholars (not to say "most") would agree that Nazism was, on paper, a populist ideology with strong left-wing leanings - but was de facto right-wing. How much right wing is a subject of scholarly debate. Now, one might argue Nazi proximity to conservatives was due to necessity (war) and wonder what would happen had they won and were actually free to implement their ideology in full.. Nazis were fully in power for a mere 11 years, one must remember, 6 of which were war years. The de facto manifestation, it can be argued, might not have been indicative of its actual ideological position. Of course, "socialist-leaning" history tends to interpret the left-wing aspects as just a propaganda ruse by Hitler, who was acting as muscle for the reactionaries.

One can only go so far with this sort of speculation, scholarly or not ("what was Hitler reeaaly thinking" and so forth...). What we do know for certain is that Nazi ideology was much more left-wing than their actual rule turned out to be. Conservatives will therefore emphasize their ideology, while liberals will talk about their de facto rule. Whether the Nazi leadership simply used left-wing rhetoric as a ruse to win popular support, or was genuinely left-wing but didn't have the chance to "go there" all the way.. who knows, really. -- Director (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR: There are a few points to remember:

(1): You agree that the general scholarly consensus is that they were "de-facto" Right-Wing. That's the only thing that matters here. Any original research of you, me, or uneducated dropout Conservative talk show hosts, is irrelevant.

(2): Nobody is saying that there weren't Left-Wing elements in their economic platform. However, their socio-cultural ideology was 100% Right-Wing. (This isn't very surprising, as economic Leftism is Authoritarian, and socio-cultural Rightism is Authoritarian as well...) Are the Nazis generally known for their views on economics...or socio-cultural issues? Which, really, is more important in the grand scheme of things? The scholars and academics have already made their voices known...and that is all that matters here.

(3): The biggest problem here is that Conservatives are so woefully ignorant of the Left-Right spectrum that they fail to realize that they aren't "Far Right." This is largely a result of populist Conservative talk show hosts who have been attempting to rally those ignorant of this terminology to "defend" Conservatism from smears of being "Nazi" or "Fascist." They are unable to differentiate between an American Liberal and a Soviet Stalinist, so it's not surprising that they can't see that the vast majority of American Conservatives are not actually all that similar to Nazis, just as the vast majority of American Liberals are not actually all that similar to Socialists or Communists. They have been "re-educated" to believe that "Right-Wing" means simply, "A belief in Small Government", when such is not historically or currently the case. (Again, it is a disconnect between economic and socio-cultural views: Modern Conservatives are more "Libertarian" in economic issues, while still retaining an Authoritarian mindset on socio-cultural issues).

(4): If the modern American Conservatives are successful in "re-defining" the Left/Right spectrum into a "Big" vs. "Small" government dichotomy, ignorance and propaganda wins. It's nothing more than a ploy to change the rules and move the goalposts, in order to make everything Left "bad", and everything Right "good", and has no basis in academic scholarship whatsoever. Such people should not be given a platform for their uneducated, ignorant propaganda. It must be countered and not given any more respect than Holocaust Denial, which is a similarly-aimed propaganda movement intended to "rehabilitate" past villains.

(::::Bryon Morrigan drops the microphone, then walks out of the room.::::)--Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh no! This is exactly what I feared. I hope you enjoy yourselves. But please remember that articles' talk pages are meant for discussions to improve the respective article. This discussion is not. You have had this issue before, haven't you? --RJFF (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

*DIREKTOR picks up the mike, in bold defiance of all Wiki convention*

• Yes, I agree.. but an ideology is not the same thing as its implementation, as such. The ideological position of the Nazi government of Germany 1933-45 is not equivalent to the position of Nazism as a concept. We can't really disregard the latter in an article called "Nazism"; in fact, the former is more a topic for the Nazi Germany article than this one.
• This could be discussed at great length. Traditionally conservatism (or ultraconservatism) is viewed as the political "right", whereas those who argue for the supposed liberation of the working man (again on paper) can be seen as advocating a left-leaning ideology. Remember that the Nazis instituted all these very-much-socialist kind of "associations" from state unions to bike clubs. These, just for example, can definitely be viewed as "socialist" social reforms.. I would say you're more right (no pun intended) than you're wrong, but 100% is a pretty strong number. The Russian Whites, or perhaps Francoism, would be a better example of "100% right".
• I agree fully on this point. American politics are dysfunctional.. period. Big business twisted it all topsy-turvy: left is right, up is down.. It is precisely Conservatism that traditionally advocated a more authoritarian state apparatus and deference to authority. I hate to say "Americans are stupid", but its a country of extremes definitely.. the "masses" are less informed and educated than in Western Europe, but the elites are also richer and better educated. Though, the sort of bull American "masses" will buy, its unbelievable.

"Far right" is Imperial Russia, Francoist Spain, the Ancien Régime, Carlism, Fascism in Italy (though that too was devised in theory as a more left-wing ideology).. or the Ustase, for an example closer to me personally. Nazism, though, can only be described as "far right" in terms of the ideology's 10-year implementation in Nazi Germany, and that point too is debatable. In conception alone, I dare say most historians would not say National Socialism is "Far Right" (haven't conducted any surveys, though :)).

• For me, as an outsider, just glancing at American ideological terminology is "cringeworthy". You feel like you want to sit the guy down and slowly explain what "liberalism" is, what "socialism" is, "conservatism", etc. Or rather you just want to not even try to untangle the mess. Its like a parallel world. Though, on the other hand, if you really think about it: Americans can write their own rules. So what if they call big government "liberal" or some such nonsense, sure, write your own terminology ("Liberalism (United States)" e.g.). The only problem there is when folks like Beck reach out to non-contemporary, non-American examples and draw ridiculous propaganda "parallels". I understand where you're coming from.

In terms of actual modifications to the article, my only point is that more emphasis should perhaps be placed on the concept of Nazism, rather than its implementation. We already have an article for that -- Director (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

agreed. the concept is not represented as well as it could be. local socialism, socialism attempted within borders, an experiment deviating from international socialism by focusing on a much smaller goal to create socialism inside a nation rather than a worldwide revolution. National Socialism was conceived as something very different than what became Nazi. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Great Odin's Beard! Are we all having an intelligent and moderately polite conversation on this subject? Or am I hallucinating? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, the swastika was probably associated with Odin in the iron age. Perhaps even his beard.. who can say.

At least we might try to fix the first sentence per WP:LEADSENTENCE and try to agree on a definition... Currently we have a sort of definition in the second sentence, but one gets the impression it isn't up front because its not very well supported? I myself have often read there exists considerable scholarly debate on the issue of whether Nazism is indeed a sub-form of fascism, or a similar but separate ideology (one can probably provide sources for the latter rather easily). Either way, I don't think its a good idea to have "Nazism is the ideology of those who adhered to it" as our lead. A good start might be to look-up the best dictionaries and try to concoct a definition derived therefrom, e.g. [4][5][6][7]. Interestingly enough dictionary.com, and both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries actually avoid defining "Nazism" as such, kind of hinting at the problem this really is.

Additionally, I've had a look at Britannica's entry, as well as our own WP:MOSINTRO. As the term "Nazism" is in fact an (informal) abbreviation, I'm leaning towards the opinion that we should probably use the full term "National Socialism" in an encyclopedia first, followed closely by "Nazism". I'm not positive on this issue, though.. Thoughts? -- Director (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I'd also like to modify the lead to include a (sourced) sentence to the effect that "Nazi ideology was more left-wing in theory, but the practice was more right-wing". Imo its a balanced intro to the debate regarding the position of Nazism on the left-right spectrum that follows below. -- Director (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the order, but, yes, it needs defining more precisely, with the 'socialism' explained. Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@Rothorpe. I've been searching for a while to find a summary description of Nazi ideology precisely in that regard, one that we could conceivably use without much interpretation. Here's Bendersky, Joseph W. (2007). A Concise History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945 (3rd, illustrated ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 35. ISBN 0742553639. Retrieved April 17, 2013.:

"...their [Nazi] version of socialism did not offer the sweeping economic and social revolution advocated by the Marxists. National Socialism would eliminate neither private property nor class distinctions. It would provide economic security and social welfare programs for the workers; employment, a just wage, and protection from capitalistic exploitation would be guaranteed. But economic equality and and a classless society were never Nazi goals. What workers would receive, aside from economic justice, would be enhanced social status. The new image of the worker would be one of honor and pride in his station in life. Workers would no longer constitute an alienated and despised group. They would again take their rightful place in society; their importance and dignity would be recognized by the rest of the nation. In the ideal Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, classes would exist (based upon talent, property, profession, etc.), but there would be no class conflict. Different economic and social classes would live together harmoniously and work for the common good. A national consciousness would replace the class consciousness that had historically divided Germans and turned them against one another.

Although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis seized power. Ultimately, many of the socialistic ideals and programs remained unrealized. Part of the reason for this was that within the party there was violent disagreement over the essence of national socialism. Hitler, himself, was more concerned with the racial, nationalistic, and foreign policy goals of the ideology than he was with socialism. While he glorified the workers in his speeches, he later downplayed socialism in his efforts to gain votes from the middle classes and funds from wealthy capitalists. However, the left wing of the Nazi party, lead by Georg and Otto Strasser, considered nazism essentially a socialistic and anticapitalistic movement. Their goal was the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist state, and they vigorously protested Hitler's compromises. In most cases, Hitler's views prevailed, but the conflict between these party factions over such issues would last until the suppression of the left wing in 1934. In theory, at least, socialism and anticapitalism remained integral parts of the Nazi ideology, and they continued to play a very important role in Nazi propaganda and election campaigns."

What I'd like to get out of this, first and foremost, is support for a sentence or two in the lead that would serve as an introduction to the debates on the position of Nazism in the left-right scale. As I said, something to the effect of "in theory, socialism and anticapitalism remained integral parts of the Nazi ideology" + "although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis seized power. Ultimately, many of the socialistic ideals and programs remained unrealized" from the above quote. Its interesting that the author uses the term "socialistic", I think we should definitely take our cue from him in that regard. -- Director (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But there isn't much debate in the real world about where Nazism sits on the left-right scale and how it is described by the vast majority of mainstream sources in terms of that; nor is there much evidence that the terminology has shifted over the decades or been quietly revised in any way. Equally, in reality, even before they came to power the NSDAP was associated with the radical nationalist right, and aligned itself in opposition to socialists and communists. There were of course elements that pushed a more "left-wing" agenda when it came to economic matters, especially in the earlier years, and there is an undoubted influence from socialist ideas, but the idea that there was some kind of decisive shift or split between ideology and practice in power is massively overplayed. As a whole, I'd argue the lead focuses far too much on the "socialist" issue, both in terms of trying to highlight and diminish any connection. It's not the place to have a huge debate about this slightly esoteric yet relatively simple point. N-HH talk/edits 10:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

actually some rather significant debates have been made to the contrary, Hayek made a great deal about the socialist beginnings of Nazi. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Fascism, Hayek is one voice, and a highly opinionated and polemical one at that, whose views are not usually treated as mainstream analysis. In any event, I am not sure even he says that Nazis are socialists. He does, however, indeed talk about the socialist – and non-socialist – "roots" of Nazism and offer his opinions about their similarities. That is not the same thing. N-HH talk/edits 11:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there is a distinction between how Nazism was implemented (in the one decade it held power), and Nazism as a concept and ideology. Its something that's perhaps to be expected.. the same is more-or-less true with Communism and Socialism in general. I do not propose to tackle the right-left issue directly with statements like "Nazism was left/right-wing" and such, all I think we need is a brief description of the differences between "de facto and de iure" National Socialism, so to speak (as described above). -- Director (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And, as I said, that distinction is very easy to overplay and not something that should be made too much of on this page. It's not as if the party as a whole had some grand, declared and ideologically socialist programme that they aimed to implement but were forced to abandon or even simply limit once constrained by the practical realities of being in power. There was some socialistic rhetoric aimed at the workers, and elements within the party may have been more inclined towards more radical economic policies; but even the latter were not socialists as such, were always at the margins of the movement and were pretty much entirely expunged in 1934 by Hitler and the party hierarchy, who had always been suspicious of them. N-HH talk/edits 12:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

actually there was a grand, declared and ideologically socialist programme National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

Yup, I am aware of that document, but the first 10 points of it, and 10 of the remaining 15, don't look much like anything to do with socialism to me. Yes, it includes a couple of brief sentences of general principles that would not be out of place in a socialist party's bullet points, but it was certainly never a "grand .. ideologically socialist programme" (nor will you find serious mainstream sources suggesting anything of the sort), and Hitler was anyway already hedging over it long before the party assumed power. N-HH talk/edits 13:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I always find it amusing when people point to the 25 Point Program as "proof" of their Socialism...yet are often the same people who claim that the Nazi Party was not a Pro-Christian party (and usually claim that they were a "Pagan" and "Anti-Christian" party, because they read some lurid conspiracy theories about it...)...when Point #24 of that platform includes, "The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination." The modern American Republican Party is not even as blatantly Pro-Christian in their platform! You can't have it both ways!  :) -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Using the 25 Point Program for anything other than a direct quote would be OR.. This discussion seems to be veering off course somewhat. We have reliable sources for the following:

• "in theory, socialism and anticapitalism remained integral parts of the Nazi ideology [even after 1934, and more so before the suppression of the left wing]"
• "although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis seized power. Ultimately, many of the socialistic ideals and programs remained unrealized"

I would propose briefly explaining to the reader the difference between the ideological position of Nazi regime, and Nazism as a concept. Not to say its a huge difference, but its a difference nonetheless. It is at the heart of the confusion regarding their position.

In addition, the source above provides significant insight into the socialistic aspects of Nazi ideology. It would be a good idea to utilize it in that respect as well. The only thing I ask is that we keep to sources and do not start putting forward our own opinions as "counterweights" to published scholars. -- Director (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources matter but we need to be very careful about plucking statements, phrasing and analysis from one chosen source and assuming that it represents an agreed standard position and/or is a "fact" rather than one writer's opinion, however well respected that writer might be. Suggesting straight up that socialism is an "integral" or "significant" part of Nazi ideology is an incredibly loaded value judgment, which not all sources will agree with (not all will even agree there is an "ideology" at all or agree that they failed to live up to whatever ideology they did have when in power), and is hence unsuitable for use in any WP entry, at least if included literally. And it's not the difference between what Nazis (mostly) said as against what they did in power but often simply modern-day politics that's at the heart of whatever confusion there might be claimed to be about what Nazism is vis-à-vis socialism. N-HH talk/edits 15:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. As you've accurately put it, the subject of Nazism is indeed difficult primarily due to the differing views present among scholars - there isn't even a general definition. The main problem is finding the "majority view".

However, I believe my position is rather mild and "mainstream". The contention is that 'National Socialism ideology incorporated some elements of Socialism, many of which did not manifest in practice'. And that's it. Imo its important to remember what is not contended - so as to avoid the appearance on the scene of goose-stepping formations of countless straw men. #1 It is not contended that Nazism was "left-wing", #2 nor is it contended that it was a form of socialism. #3 The source uses terms like "significant" and "integral" specifically in reference to the theory of Nazism - and not with regard to its practical manifestations.

As such (per "#3"), I request that quotes brought forth in contradiction be also such that clearly refer to theory rather than practice, or else we'd end up beating a dead horse (it is theory that I propose do describe). Can I see a few of the contradicting views so we can move forward? -- Director (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is very tedious. There are theories describing Nazism as representing the "extremism of the centre". Hitler was not a Conservative. He opposed the Hapsburgs when they were in power (he is quite derogatory about Franz Joseph in Mein Kampf), and did little more than pay pragmatic lip service to the deposed Kaiser, useful to keep the largely monarchist officer corps onside. But he made no attempt to restore such institutions. The real problem we have is the limited, 2 dimensional view of this simplistic "left/right" dichotomy. The term comes from the French National Assembly at the time of the Revolution, with the radicals sitting on the left, and those who proposed more moderate proposals, and who supported the retention of the King, the Church etc sitting to the right. There is no doubt that Communism is a left wing ideology - one that fails to make people equal of course, as the likes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot lorded it over their "comrades", but the aim, and excuse, were left wing, and were accepted as such, even by more moderate left wing organisations. Nazism, though, is harder to fit neatly into a box. The issue is that whilst traditional left wingers divide society by class, and seek to redress the grievances of the exploited working class (BTW, contemporary left wing movements tend to say little on this point, and focus on "disenfranchised" identity groups instead) and Conservatives push for the status quo and continuity with national heritage, the Nazis divided the world into racial/ethnic groups, and promoted the interests of their "race". Both left and right Parties adopted some "race based" policies elsewhere: the immigration quota system in the US was adopted by the Republican dominated Congress, but the Democrats maintained the Jim Crow laws. In Australia, the left wing Labor Party were strong supporters of the "White Australia Policy" - largely to prevent the importation of cheap labour from India and China. The notion of "the left" supporting mass immigration and multiculturalism, and "the right" opposing this is very much a post war, indeed sixties onwards, development, and isn't a neat division even now. Conservatives tended to prefer Nazis to Communists. But that does not make Nazis conservative. The Nazis were a continuation of the 18th and 19th century pan-German movement, which sought to subordinate narrow interests to that of "the Volk". They sought a radical reorganisation of the state (the position of Fuehrer was hardly conservative, and had no predecessor) and to create a brand new elite based upon race, the SS. This is certainly not conservative. However I don't know if it could be truly called left wing either, as it called for a specific elite to be formed, although the Nazis did to through the motions of an "equal society" for all Aryans. They wanted a pure nation, racially and ethnically, and saw the state, and leader, as being the embodiment of the nation, to which everything else should defer, including big business. This was also not the "state" of the Weimar Republic, or even Bismarck's Imperial Germany, but a brand new, and revolutionary one. Nazism is therefore really off the chart as far as "left/right" is concerned. Their main point of connection to the German conservatives at the time was that they viewed the Weimar Republic as illegitimate, and were German Nationalists. The moderate left, in the Social Democrats, supported the Weimar system, and the extremists (Communists) pushed solidarity with an internationalist movement, even to the point of taking instructions from Moscow. Unlike the Communists, the Nazis also didn't propose abolishing private property. We will never know (thankfully) what the Nazis would have done to thoroughly "Nazify" German society if they'd held power for longer than the 12 years they had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.170.142 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say that the nazis were "conservatives." In any case, this is not a blog to discuss our opinions. TFD (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section of this article still seems to be a little unbalanced. It should summarize the defining and most important facts about the article's subject. Of course, it is verifiable that some Nazis supported the idea of pan-Germanicism. But that does not mean that it was a defining or very important point of Nazism. Google books finds me 7 (!) hits for pan-Germanicism + Nazism. Given the huge mass of books dealing with Nazism, this seems to be only a minor aspect. Of course you will always find some (reliable) sources mentioning that (some) Nazis had pan-Germanicist ideas, fancied Paganism, were vegetarians or liked dogs (please forgive the admittedly flawed comparison). But that does not necessarily make these defining and essential parts of Nazist ideology. On the other hand, essential aspects of Nazism, like the Führer principle or the Volksgemeinschaft idea, are not mentioned in the lead. The questions of whether or not Nazism was far-right and how National Socialism is related to (proper) socialism might be interesting to some North American editors and readers (probably because there are widespread misconceptions on these issues), but they are never discussed in Germany. Do they really belong in the lead section or can they be treated somewhere further back in the article? --RJFF (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much on the "socialist or not" question, including the rather over-desperate bids to "disprove" it. Most of the third of the of three current paragraphs in the lead is taken up with details of this meta-debate about etymology and also with riposte-style detail about Nazi attitudes to the economy. The current phrasing re far right in the first para, re "major elements .. have been described as" is also impossibly woolly and weaselly. It either needs to say "usually described as far right" or some such or be dropped altogether. I think pan-Germanism, as an aspect of Nazi nationalism, is important and worth mentioning, both in its influence on Nazism's development and its practice (is the lack of hits a spelling issue?). I agree that it needs more on the Fuhrer principle, among the other issues mentioned. N-HH talk/edits 12:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean pan-Germanism or "pan-Germanicism"? Pan-Germanism is without doubt a major influence. "Pan-Germanicism" is something different: it means to unite all Germanic peoples (i.e. Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons). And this is mentioned very rarely. Currently, the lead mentions the (in my opinion unimportant) pan-Germanicism, not pan-Germanism. --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pan-Germanicism" did not even have a WP article until User:R-41 created it on 5 February 2013. On the same day, the very same editor added the mention of pan-Germanicism as the fourth introductory sentence of this article. --RJFF (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't spot that that was the exact word used in the lead; nor was I tbh aware of the technical difference, if indeed there is one as opposed to it all being slightly made up (on which point, the history you've explained there kind of clarifies the problem). I agree it should not be there then, although something about pan-Germanism should be. Nor does it appear to be in the cited source - something btw which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding very common in most politics leads, due to initial mis-citation, then compounded as successive editors switch and change text while leaving earlier footnotes in place. N-HH talk/edits 13:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose to add the following sentences:

• Both the Nazi Party and the Nazi-led state were organized under the Führer principle ("leader principle"), a pyramidal structure with the Führer Adolf Hitler at the top who appointed sub-ordinate leaders for all branches of the party and the state and whose orders had the force of law. (ref: Kuntz, Dieter (2011), "Hitler and the functioning of the Third Reich", The Routledge History of the Holocaust, Routledge, p. 75)
• Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle and instead promoted the idea of Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community"). Nazis wanted to overcome social divisions which they considered artificial, instead all parts of the racially homogenous society should cooperate for national unity. (ref: Judson, Pieter M. (2011), "Nationalism in the Era of the Nation State", The Oxford Handbook of Modern German History, Oxford University Press, p. 515)

Instead, I would cut or condense the mention of pan-Germanicism, and the lengthy discussion of Hitler's views towards (Marxian) socialism. In my opinion a verbatim quote of Hitler in the lead section should be unacceptable. --RJFF (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All the above looks OK to me, further to previous comments, subject perhaps to replacing pan-Germanicism with some reference to pan-Germanism. N-HH talk/edits 13:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead needs to be re-written based on how normal, neutral sources would present the subject. At present, it presents the view that Nazism was a clear, coherent ideology on the same intellectual level as liberalism or Leninism. TFD (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. When something is viewed as an "ideology", the starting point is to assume it is "coherent" by definition - or else its not one. There are scholars that advocate the point of view than NSDAP had no coherent ideology, but I would need to be convinced that placing them in the forefront would not be WP:UNDUE. That way lie problems: that position in effect denies that "Nazism" as such actually exists, and to write an article fully in accordance with it would probably require us to rename the article or perhaps even to delete or move it.

As for "levels" of ideologies.. is there a hierarchy of some sort? Something like Liberalism > Conservatism > Socialism > Communism > Fascism > Nazism? -- Director (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say there's no coherent and intellectual ideology of Nazism – at least to the same level that there is with, say, Marxism, in that there's no serious voluminous literature by its adherents, explaining, expounding and expanding the idea. There are ideas behind it of course, but ultimately Nazism is as much about what the NSDAP said and did as much as anything else. As to more specific points in terms of the lead, I think RJFF's changes (most of which, as noted, followed discussion above) help, even if we think a more broad overhaul is also necessary. I'd repeat again that I still think something needs to be done about the "major elements .. have been described as far-right" phrasing and also say that I'm still not 100% sure about the claim that Nazism opposed democracy on the basis that Jews "used it for their self-preservation", even though the wording there is now better than it was at least. N-HH talk/edits 11:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition

I would propose seeking for a proper, scholarly definition of "Nazism" and using it in the first sentence. A definition equivalent to "Nazism is an ideology of its adherents" does not sit well with me. I would also propose a structure where we avoid describing it as a "form of socialism/fascism" in the first sentence, but instead discuss that complex issue (princeton.edu) in the following sentence (as is the case now, in fact). -- Director (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not go any further in the article after reading in the first setences that nazism is a racist ideology and not even mentioning socialism, also saying it is right wing. Completely wrong. Nazism before anything is a socialist ideology, ans so, left wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.14.46 (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Passing over the latest volley in the "but Nazis are left-wing socialists", and per some of the points above, surely we are slightly bound by the facts that a) there is no clear, expansive "ideology" of Nazism and b) the idea of Nazism is inextricably bound up – from its name onwards – with the German Nazi Party. Inevitably, we are going to end up with defining it primarily as what that party said and did. I think we should also very much be describing it pretty much from the opening of the lead as a form of fascism, or at least noting that it is usually characterised as a form of fascism (although I'm not sure it makes much difference whether that's the first or second sentence). This, again, is the mainstream consensus in both academic and non-academic discourse. N-HH talk/edits 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's comments like that made by the anonymous IP that make me feel that it is necessary to completely eviscerate these "arguments" when they appear on WP. As long as they are treated with the tiniest element of "respect," such nonsense will continue to flourish, like a viral infection. It's no different from Holocaust Denial, has the same purpose, and should be treated exactly the same. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah.. that's something I've always cautioned against on this subject. The goal is to be emotionless in your approach, to view the facts (i.e. sources) alone. I would not dream of supporting the IPs position in the extremes where it stands, but is most certainly not "nonsense" to describe the ideology of National Socialism as having elements of Socialism. That is very much an undeniable fact, or at the very least, I hope you'll grant its a position taken by reliable sources to an extent it cannot be ignored. I'd go so far as to say that National Socialism is arguably a variant of Socialism (the name kind of clues you in), with a brief ten-year term in power that manifested in a much more right-wing regime. Indeed, if you just type in "definition of Nazism" in your Google browser, you will likely be pointed to this definition featured by princeton.edu.

Fellas, this isn't World War II we're fighting here. We're writing an encyclopedia. I've said my piece (-Dir steps down from the pulpit-), now I'll be leaving you to be eaten alive by your consciences :). As I don't want to fight the Second World War here (on the wrong side!), I'll be taking a break. Cheerio -- Director (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Re the point that Nazism (and fascism) thought was influenced by socialism and contained elements derived from or usually associated with it: no-one is suggesting it was not or that the page should not note that (which it does). Re the claim that Nazism might itself be a form of left-wing socialism (and one that suddenly swerved to the right when faced with the exigencies and practical limitations of being in power): that is both a very different argument and, as ever, simply not the mainstream categorisation or analysis in serious sources, by a long, long way. Pointing to one random and unvouched-for webpage definition, even if it comes with a .edu doesn't really help with that much. The endless attempts to revive this claim, and conflate these two separate points – whether more calmly and rationally as you are, or in the more crazed posts by passing IPs – is both a distraction and worryingly indicative of a fringe worldview which should not be allowed to influence this page. And please, let's not drop the old name gag in again. Do you think this hasn't crossed the mind of more serious thinkers in the last 80-odd years who nonetheless have come to the conclusion that Nazism is not generally bracketed alongside socialism, as commonly understood? You know that English words always have different meanings in different contexts, right, and are not always taken literally, or even meant to be? See LDPR, DPRK etc. N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. As I've pointed out a bajillion times on this page, if "National Socialism" means that Nazi Germany was truly "Socialist," then "German Democratic Republic" means that East Germany was a "Democratic Republic," and not Communist at all... -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And of course, beyond that, far greater minds than any of ours have spent many decades looking into these points and have come to their broadly agreed conclusions. They've actually saved us the trouble of having to go over all this ground over and over again ourselves from what we claim to be first principles (or should have done). Brilliantly, we can both comply with WP policy and make our editing and talkpage lives much easier while doing so. It's a win-win. N-HH talk/edits 11:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "Democratic" had different meanings in different Cold War blocks. "Democratic" in general simply means "rule by the people", not necessarily entailing a Western-style multi-party system. The communists claimed that the people ruled through the party, which was the vanguard of the people. Highest party officials were indeed elected by the party membership, whereas communist party membership was intended to reflect the politically active element from the entirety of the people. In theory. You need not worry - the communists had a very well-elaborated ideology and did not pick their terms arbitrarily. One might be cynical and claim it was all propaganda, but one must also then be cynical towards a system claiming to be "Democratic", where the people are ultimately presented with no more than two candidates - both elected by their two political parties. Instead of having one party elect one guy, you've got two parties electing two guys between whom the people supposedly choose ("sure its the 'rule of the people', here - pick one of these two"). I see little essential difference in terms of applicability of the adjetcive "democratic". Some - but little.

All that said, I would not dream of claiming that National Socialism was a form of Socialism simply based on its name. I was merely pointing out - using sources(!) - that this is a legitimate view, and not "nonsense" that should be "eviscerated". My position is more moderate, though: merely that National Socialist ideology unquestionalby included elements of Socialism, that there are reliable sources for that, and that it should be mentioned clearly. For the record, I usually vote for social democrats myself, but I'm a Wikipedian first over here, and do not care whether some hick right-wing commentator in the US will or will not use Wiki to further his nonsense. I want our reader to understand why they called it "National Socialism". (Yes, I am so high up here on my moral high ground, I can barely read your posts. :))

P.S. I notice, N-HH that you insterted "left-wing" in front of "Socialism" to emphasize your point. Neither I nor thesources ever said that Nazism is "left-wing". Fact is, Nazism is often described as being "right-wing" in terms of the left-right spectrum - but you can have a right-wing socialistic ideology as well (its called the "Third Position", Strasserism e.g., a sub-form of National Socialism entertained by the left wing of the Nazi Party). And I see you frequently calling on "broadly-agreed conclusions", however, despite requesting them above, I've as yet not seen any sources that indicate you are backed by such support. Remember - we are here talking about the ideology itself, not the de facto regime in Nazi Germany. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

agree and good point. since we already have nazi germany, AND nazi party, this article would be a good place to discuss national socialism, which was about socialism being attempted within a border, instead of a global workers revolution. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an incorrect definition of why the word "National" is in front of "Socialism." It has to do with "Nationalism," rather than simply geography. It wasn't a geographic term, as in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People," but a political one, referring to the philosophy of Nationalism. Nationalism was the primary word in that phrase, and changes the entire meaning, as with "National Anarchism" or "National Bolshevism". -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

national is not a geographic term? Adjective Of or relating to a nation; common to or characteristic of a whole nation. Noun A citizen of a particular country, typically entitled to hold that country's passport: "a German national". Nation Noun A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan is right. Geographic, but more. National + -ism. Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of National Socialism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated. [8]. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

NATIONALISM: "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups" (Merriam-Webster) [9]; "patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts, an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries, advocacy of political independence for a particular country." (Oxford Dictionary).[10]

Look, Darkstar, we all know that you think Socialism=Everything-Bad-In-The-World=Nazism, and you will not waver from that ideological POV...but stop trying to pretend you don't know what words like "Nationalism" mean. I know you're more intelligent than that, and just trying to be a smartass. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

the term is national socialism, not nationalISM socialism. nationalism is a noun, national in front of the noun, "socialism" must be the adjective form, Of or relating to a nation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

One -ism is enough to evoke 'nationalism'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the term is "Nationalsozialismus". It is the combination of "Nationalismus" and "Sozialismus", put together into a single word. In German, it would be ridiculous to contract it to "Nationalismussozialismus." The modern Far-Right party in Germany is called the "Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (National Democratic Party of Germany). It's the same thing: The "National" part is the important part. You DO realize that we're talking about a GERMAN word, right? You can't treat German words like their English equivalents, and it's clear, at least...that you do not speak German. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has continued to argue this position over a range of articles and should know when to stop flogging a dead horse. TFD (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They also appear to be confusing/equating National Socialism and Socialism in One Country and, furthermore, doing so on the basis of rather obvious, one would have thought, original research as to what "National Socialism" means. As noted earlier, the brilliant thing here is that not only are WP editors not meant to waste everyone's time conducting their own, often idiosyncratic, analysis of words and concepts but we don't even have to, since proper historians and political scientists have already done it for us! What part of this basic principle is not understood? N-HH talk/edits 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fellas... the only point here is that National Socialist ideology included elements of socialism. I believe this was well supported by sources, and is an accepted moderate view. The Nazi regime was much more right-wing than the ideology, and the sources point this out. These are essential basic facts on this topic, that imo ought to be included in the lede.

As far as the "Nationalism" thing is concerned.. it seems a red herring. From my own research to me it appears evident that Nazism was indeed "nationalist", just what this "nation" was might be debated... but I think that the accepted view is that Nazism was indeed a German nationalist movement and that dissenting voices shouldnot be given much space in the article. Though I have heard it said in lectures that Nazism was internationalist in that it advocated the union of "Aryans" and that "nationalism" refers to "Aryan nationalism".. e.g. the internationalist nature of the Nazi Party's military wing. Reportedly, Hitler believed that the Germans were simply the "last best hope of the Aryan peoples" etc.. No matter though, as I said, that's a different subject and a red herring. -- Director (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nazism, like all right-wing movements contained elements of nationalism, conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Weight requires however that we do not zero in and overplay any particular influence. And as observed, nazism was not a coherent ideology on the same level of the others. TFD (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly for those people deemed "Ayran", nazi policy was for the creation of a classless society, which is as I understand, is a socialist goal. From Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler, page 210:

"For the majority who were neither politically nor racially marginalised, Nazi policies elevated them into a realm where previous markers of social distinction, although those hardly disappeared, would not matter. Nazi social policy, the execution of which the regime's racial categories obviously defined, aimed to transcend all manner of local identity, privilege, and social distinction, thereby eliminating previous barriers to an integrated nation. It would unite all Germans around their common racial superiority."[11]

In other words, only those who were deemed as belonging to the "German nation" would enjoy the benefits of socialism. --Nug (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is all OR. It may make perfect sense to you, but you need to show that reasonable sources draw the same conclusion. Incidentally, "social distinction" refers to the class system - dukes, barons, etc., which means by your logic the U.S. would be socialist too. TFD (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is "That is all OR" the new euphemism for "I don't like it"? I'm just reporting what reliable sources say. --Nug (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your sources do not mention "socialism". And you are misinterpreting "previous markers of social distinction" as Marxist classless society. Germany was a monarchy until 1917 with clear markers of social distinction based on inherited class. Look it up. Do you think that by abolishing hereditary titles, the U.S. is socialist? TFD (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ofcourse you are aware that the view that Nazism is a form of socialism isn't OR. See Ludwig Von Mises' book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis[12] on page 572

"It is important to realise that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships"

and in the the chapter on Nazism on page 578 he begins:

"The philosophy of the Nazis, the German National Socialist Labour Party, is the purest and most consistent manifestation of the anti-capitalistic and socialistic spirit of our age."

I guess Nazism is like the bastard child where everyone denies paternity, but it seems apparent that socialism is in fact the father. --Nug (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A Libertarian source is hardly objective; you'll be using the dreaded Ayn as an authority on the human rights of Native Americans next. It is apparent that you have an opinion which is not supported by sources and you are wasting people's time on a subject which has been done to death. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Native Americans, so your reference to them is rather bizarre. I'm not presenting any opinion but just presenting a source. This source quite clearly presents the view that Nazism is a form of socialism, no point denying it. Your opinion that this source is not objective is just your personal opinion that carries no weight, unless you can supply this mythical "objective" source that states this. The view is published, we can name the proponents of that view thus it cannot be considered fringe, all that we can do is to determine the due weight of that view. --Nug (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are presenting a partisan source heavily promoted in Libertarian web sites. The other reference is the the West Point speech by Ayn Rand, apologies for that I shouldn't make assumptions about the political knowledge of editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing about Conservatives: Left-Wingers do not deny their villains, like the Stalinists and other dictators. But Conservatives won't take responsibility for ANY of theirs...like the KKK, Franco, or any of the Fascist/Nazi groups. Rather than saying, "Well, they're Far Right...but we're not like them at all..." they say, "Nope. Not us. Must've been you Libs!" and find some partisan, POV source to back up their uneducated fringe views. I'm sure I could find fringe views saying that Stalin was "really" a Right-Winger...but I'd never attempt to "prove" anything on WP with such nonsense. This is nothing but butthurt. Sweet, sweet butthurt. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing about Leftists is their tenaciousness in holding the view that Nazism was essentially "reactionary" conservative movement, no doubt due to their assumption that the concept of revolution must refer ipso facto to good revolution, but revolutions are frequently destructive. Stanley Payne writes in Fascism: A Comparative Approach Toward a Definition:

"National Socialism in fact constituted a unique and radical kind of modern revolutionism."

Jacques Ellul writes in Autopsy of Revolution:

"Informed observers of the period between the wars are convinced that National Socialism was an important and authentic revolution. De Rugemont points out how the Hitler and the Jacobin regimes were identical at every level. R. Labrousse, an authority on the French revolution, confirms that"

It seems some what contradictory to state that conservatism should claim ownership of a revolutionary ideology. --00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Strawman argument. First, stop calling mainstream thinking "Leftist." Second, no one calls nazism "conservative." Third, your source does not mention socialism. It is just something that your imagination has read into it. TFD (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You claiming the view that Nazism was essentially a "reactionary" movement is a mainstream viewpoint? Stanley G. Payne writes in Fascism: A Comparative Approach Toward a Definition that it is a leftist viewpoint. I certainly did provide a source, Snowded said it was "A Libertarian source is hardly objective", but given that he hasn't provided a source that articulates that, his view is OR. --Nug (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Stanley Payne used the word "Leftist"? That would INDEED be some very important information for this article! Please point to the exact sentence and page where he uses the word "Leftist". Even "Left-Wing" would be acceptable. There are many examples of RS using the words "Right-Wing" to describe the Nazis, so a historian like Payne using the term would be indeed quite important! What stellar research skills you must have to have found such a "gem"! On the other hand, if you are just using OR and "interpreting" words like "revolutionary", then well...we all know how "important" OR is on Wikipedia... -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

More strawman arguments, Nug. I did not "claim" that the view that Nazism was essentially a "reactionary" movement is a mainstream viewpoint, although Payne does. He wrote, "many commentators...argue that [National Socialism] must necessarily have been "reactionary," not revolutionary. Such an approach is held more tenaciously by leftist commentators...." (p. 99)[13] TFD (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You certainly did, you stated "First, stop calling mainstream thinking 'Leftist.'" in reply to my "Leftists is their tenaciousness in holding the view that Nazism was essentially 'reactionary'", so therefore the implication of your statement is that "Nazism was essentially reactionary" is a mainstream viewpoint. You can't even reliably recollect your own words so I don't see how anyone can possible rely upon what you say about what published authors write. Payne states "many commentators", not "most commentators", so your claim that Payne calls it "mainstream" isn't supported by this source. --Nug (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Mainstream" does not mean "consensus", it merely means that the view is held by many scholars. In any case, it is of no relevance to your argument. TFD (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion section and other recent edits

A whole slew of edits have been made to the article recently, especially re race and religion. However, this one, to pick merely the latest one at random for review, appears to take far too much from the source by suggesting that Hitler took direct inspiration from the named figures and their words. The book cited actually makes a far less direct and several-stages-removed connection, based more generally – and speculatively – on the general atmosphere in which Hitler grew up in and what it calls a "narrative arc": "Hitler was less the beneficiary than the product of religious and racial assumptions that had their origins, perhaps, in [the people and sermons mentioned]". Nor does the book say anything about Hitler "connecting" Christianity to anti-Semitism. N-HH talk/edits 21:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to see what has been changed because the editor will make a series of edits and I have no patience to examine each of the hundreds of edits to determine which are wrong. Your example however is typical of this editor - finding a source that supports whatever he happens to believe this week and adding it in. The book is not by an academic and we have no way of knowing how widely held is views are, even if they are correctly reported. It seems that Hitler developed his hatred of Jews from his personal experiences, not by reading Luther, and after all Hitler was Catholic. TFD (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple more examples from this page (there are also issues on Italian Fascism):

• "Nazism claimed that Jesus was Aryan and that Christianity was an Aryan faith that had been usurped by Jews" is sourced to p37 of The Aryan Jesus: christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. However, that page is not discussing Nazism but Ernest Renan. It also says nothing as explicit "an Aryan faith .. usurped by Jews".
• "It rejected the Old Testament of conventional Christianity, viewing Paul the Apostle as having usurped Christianity and attached it to Jewish religious heritage" is sourced to p285 of Metapolitics: From Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler. That page says nothing explicitly about Nazism, or indeed anyone, accusing Paul of "usurping" Christianity or "attaching it to Jewish religious heritage". It in fact simply notes in passing one Nazi – Alfred Rosenberg – and his approval of Paul de Lagarde's vague comments about St Paul and the Old Testament.

Given that, a roll-back of the edits pending clarification would seem to be appropriate. I'm beginning to wonder further whether an RfC/U is not needed (taking in their tendency to switch to anonymous editing once problems with their main account's edits are highlighted), followed by wider scrutiny of the voluminous additions they have made to much of WP politics space over the years. They've begun asking for the former. N-HH talk/edits 09:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I screwed up okay. I'm tired of this stuff, okay I quit. You two think I am scum. Well let me tell you something TFD, you treat newcomer users like crap and regularly use prejudice - assuming they are extremists, etc. how about we spend hours talking about that, or talking about how cynical you are and how you jump to conclusions. Let's talk about your cynicism even further TFD, since this is a hate-in on R-41, let's talk about you TFD and Collect acting like childish idiots to each other, insulting each other all day, and never taking it to an AN/I. I am going to do you guys a favour, I am going to delete everything that I have written for these articles, since I am scum who is always wrong, and everything I added must be dubious, that you need to scan to confirm your view that I am an idiot. So I'll do your work for you.--R-41 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I may start going through some of these when I have time. I'm not sure though how much I will have; it's a big task, given the prolific activity of the editor involved, although at least we may be able to approach the problem a bit more dispassionately now. I'm sure much of the content in question will turn out to be more or less fine, but the problem is that, given the problems that have been revealed in those parts put under closer scrutiny, we can't be sure what the ratio is. And, in the meantime, WP politics pages may well be full of superficially well sourced, but seriously dubious, content. N-HH talk/edits 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this section and frankly the article as a whole needs ce work and edits for concession; so have at it. I did some work on it many months ago, however, it got frustrating due to the large volume of additions, deletions and re-additions that occurred. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The citations are in a hella bad state as well, formatting-wise, but the primary concern is to get the content verified and properly cited -- Dianna (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

For example, the material he sourced to Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, P. 37, is not on page 37. I can see bits of it on page 38 in Google snippets, but none of it is on page 37, which Google is allowing me to see in its entirety. -- Dianna (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This morning Google allowed me access to the relevant pages for Heschel, and it turns out the information provided pertains to the late 19th and early 20th century and thus is only peripherally related to Nazi Germany. I have removed the material for now. The book is about the activities of the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life, a group founded by some influential Nazi ministers etc. They helped with propaganda campaigns of a religious nature. They do not seem to have been an official Nazi organisation. here's an abstract. It does not seem to be available in any library in my intra-library loan network. -- Dianna (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than correcting the article's numerous misrepresentations of sources and undue weight on different aspects, it is probably better to re-write it. I suggest first re-writing the lead based on what a standard textbook on political ideology would say, then use that as a guide for writing the rest of the article. I am having difficulty however finding sources that provide a general overview of the topic. TFD (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I can get things in on intra-library loan if I know what to ask for. Also if I win an Amazon voucher in WP:The Core Contest I could buy some books if I know what to buy. This one looks promising. I will ask for it on intra-library loan. This one also looks good, but it will have to be bought. The more books we can locate the better off we will be, as we need to present a variety of views. Normally I write the lead last, depending on how the article turns out, but if the current one is extremely lacking it might be best to start there and tweek it later. The article is getting 125,000 hits per month. -- Dianna (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Gregor book looks good. This article has been written as if nazism were an ideology, but the sources appear to treat it as a movement, and say little about the ideology, except that it is seen as a form of fascism with extreme racism. The structure of the article may have to change to reflect its perception as a movement. Also, the holocaust is not mentioned in the article and the Second World War is only mentioned in passing, as if they were just minor incidental aspects of nazism. TFD (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The research I did for Einsatzgruppen and Nazi Germany shows that one of the main tenets was the perceived need for Lebensraum, which led directly to the events of WWI and the Holocaust, so the material will have to be covered. How much depth we can afford to give to those topics will depend partly on the article size once we get the main points of National Socialism itself covered -- Dianna (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest there are three overall problems here, which seem to chime with what others are saying: first, the lack of overall coherence; secondly, the preponderance of historical, background material; and thirdly, the fact that many of the individual statements currently here go beyond what the cited sources can bear. Ultimately, they all derive from the fact that much of the content has simply been strung together, piece by piece and fairly arbitrarily.

As to where we go from here, I'd agree that we need to start with understanding what we mean by Nazism and, hence, what the entry should, overall, be saying and covering. To me that means starting with the lead and then building and expanding on each of the key points in that. Whether we gut the article first, or replace as we go, is another practical question I guess.

As for the ideology/movement distinction, I suppose it has elements of both, and I'm not sure we have to choose too explicitly between them. Although as noted a while back, it's not a coherent intellectual ideology in the way that say, Marxism, is, there are elements that take it above mere practical politics or "whatever the Fuhrer says". A slightly inchoate fascism with extreme racism is the general perception and description, although there are of course academic disputes about that. Beyond that, there are all sorts of esoteric and quasi-mystical ideas that were pushed by some Nazis more than others, eg Himmler. N-HH talk/edits 10:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

But my main concern is that it will again be filled with "Ancient Aliens"-style claims regarding the occult, particularly since so many editors cannot distinguish between Christian-oriented esoteric occultism (such as that promoted by Himmler), and actual "Neopagan" religious belief (i.e., the worship of Wotan/Odin, Donar/Thor, etc.), which were actually attacked by the Nazis. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, due weight and everything (I'm not suggesting huge amounts or lengthy discourse on it), and the specific content itself needs to be accurate. But, as long it stays within that, it's worth at least noting some of the fringier stuff at the margins of "Nazism" – as with Strasserism, say, when it comes to the socio-economic front – if only to point out how it contrasts with "mainstream" Nazi practice. N-HH talk/edits 22:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology is wrong, nazi was a pejorative

The Nazi Party article has it more accurately:

The term Nazi was originally used by southern German opponents of the NSDAP, and may have been influenced by the Bavarian term Nazi, which was a familiar form of the name Ignatz, which was used colloquially to mean a "clumsy or awkward person". The earlier term Inter-Nazi, which was a German abbreviation of Internationale, may have also contributed to the adoption of the term.

Members of the NSDAP referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis. In 1933, when Adolf Hitler assumed power of the German government, usage of the term Nazi diminished in Germany, although Austrian anti-Nazis continued to use the term as an insult. Many Neo-Nazis still refer to themselves as National Socialists. According to Joseph Goebbels in an official explanation of Nazism, the synthesis of the words nationalism and socialism was to "counter the Internationalism of Marxism with the nationalism of a German Socialism".

The third reich actually never called themselves "nazi". It's kind of like if the 1804 Haiti Massacre article refered to the black people in it who killed their white rulers by the n-word, or calling their government the government of [n-word]. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be neutral and not use insults for everyone in history who does a something bad. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of terms for ideologies began as pejoratives. In any case we use WP:COMMONNAME. The "n-word" btw did not originate as a pejorative and is not a common name among educated people today. TFD (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Weasel word to cover controversy? "far-right?"

In the Lead section is says: "Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as..."

That's confusing AND misleading. "Major elements" is a weasel word seemingly used to maintain accuracy (avoid controversy?) regarding the possibly (or not) too-strong term; "far-right." Suggest changing to either; "Nazism has been described as far-right," or "Nazism has been described as right wing." Furthermore, "has been described" is a weasel word that should be replaced with either "is" or "was." Even more accurate: "After 1934, Hitler and Nazism had abandoned their socialistic pretexts and beginnings and became utterly far-right. ("Major elements" is also misleading, —the proper concept of mixed elements is Nazi change over a time period, not a simultaneous stew or aggregate.)

Perhaps the main constant in Hitler's life was his extreme hatred for socialism and communism. He was working undercover for Hindenburg's right-leaning Army to destroy socialism and communism when he discovered & founded (named) the Nazi Party for the intention of furthering these ends. (see William Shirer, 1959, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich")

Context: One of my reasons for highlighting this aspect is the embarrassing fact that a huge portion of the modern American population believes that the Nazis were socialists! ...in part because "socialist" is in the name, and seemingly in part due to (post-1988) partisan American propaganda (...that anything of evil or of failure; must be liberal or Leftist). (After hundreds of hours of political Internet debate over the last 15 years, I've observed perhaps 70% Republicans, and 95% Libertarian Party members believe the Nazis were socialists. (In fact the longest "thread" I've ever seen; was on this topic, -over 1,000 replies.) True, political Internet debaters are not a true representation of America, however....)

Both Britannica and World Book encyclopedias early-on describe Hitler's term National "Socialist" as a gambit (misleading trap) to falsely attract the many real socialists of the working and middle classes (that were also gaining popularity outside of Germany, including the USA). After Hitler's 1934 "The Night of the Long Knives," mass-murder & purge of the Nazi socialists (such as the Strasserists and the Sturmabteilung (SA) factions,) all NAZI-as-socialist pretext was abandoned. By about then, strong Nazi funding was coming from wealthy anti-union industrialists. It is true that Hitler's despicable pre-1934 Brown Shirt leadership had been strongly socialist-leaning. 1934 was a huge turning point in the Nazi's image and political functioning, and should be in the lead section. To ignore that, and act as if "Nazism" had not utterly changed its face (and major sub-Hitler leadership) in 1934 is both wrong and extremely confusing—it defies coherent explanation.
--68.127.92.76 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I agree that the wording you highlight is problematic and have long thought so, particularly in respect of the "some elements of ..". Most sources and authorities are not quite so weaselly. I have less of a problem with the "described as", since the terms left and right are, ultimately descriptive and somewhat subjective terms to start with, but it should simply be "Nazism [as a whole] is usually described/classified/categorized/whatever as far right". N-HH talk/edits 23:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Bashford. The article's wording presents a compromise between what reliable sources say and a fringe view. I do not agree with N-HH that the term "right-wing" is subjective. It merely means that they opposed the Communist and Social Democratic Parties and worked with their conservative, Christian democratic and liberal allies, i.e., the Right. It does not mean that these ideologies had anything else in common. TFD (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the point about "subjective", I would stress the "somewhat" – by saying it, I wasn't really trying to do much more than emphasise the point that it's a descriptive classification. I certainly wasn't aiming to suggest that it's a meaningless, illogical or random label. Yes, Nazis worked with the traditional right (and they did of course have quite a few things in common ideologically, if not everything); but they also moved against them and, in any event, could have co-operated from, say, the "radical centre". The point is though that no one really follows the analysis that posits them as the latter. N-HH talk/edits 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

ps: and where does that leave us with the page itself? I did have a quick think about how to improve the phrasing here, but the more I stared at it, the more a total rewrite rather than a simple tweak seemed necessary. Any suggestions welcome ... N-HH talk/edits 08:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A total rewrite!? Egads! Yet I must admit, reading that lead section, I'm not reminded much of what I know about Nazism. The facts seem right, but often random, chaotic, not held together by a common thread. Obviously I think a time-line with 1934 as it's fulcrum would give it much needed coherence. ...the two different Nazi Parties! When readers see this: "...the Nazi Party staunchly supported its official socialist, ...positions," they will be expecting the: "in 1933.[34]," rather than thinking; WTF!? ...and likewise they won't forget the date as meaningless.

Probably irrelevant & unwanted opinions; SOAPBOX ON: I also think Hitler's xenophobia started more as a propaganda tool, and his genuine extreme hatred later grew to fill that(...& similar with many of his other propaganda tools). Hitler's core was of two things: personal power, and German power (prolly aka nationalism?). Toss in some revenge for WWI, and silently twist tightly by his (historically undervalued) being maimed. His main genius was twofold: 1) his uncanny ability to tap into the doggie instincts: territoriality, blind loyalty, willful doggie intelligence, obedience, alpha-dog worship, pack mentality, clannishness/xenophobia, etc, 2) and Hitler/Goebbels's uncanny insight to harness that relevant propaganda to cutting edge technology; the loudspeaker, single-opinion radio, and the airport whistle stop. His first speech, Hitler was most proud not of his rhetoric, but his voice's ability to reach the back of the room. I think the Nazi genocide belongs in the very important *things Nazis did* category, but not so much a truly core distinguishing value of say, fascism or Hitler. People above talk about "right wing" It's also my opinion that the willingness to unabashedly and overtly appeal to the doggie instincts is a core right wing characteristic. ...a core worldview is that natural Mankind (and Nature to a lesser degree) is Evil or dangerous, thus needs to be controlled, so evil people need Religion, abortion laws, protective guns, more jails, rivers need endless dams, wolves and criminals need extermination, meadows need paving, etc....OK, SOAPBOX OFF.

I mention all that not because it should be in the article, but because I think the article very much needs some sort of theme or thread to tie all of those seemingly unrelated and often seemingly contradictory facts together. That theme works for me. In fact, it's often predictive. Problem is, Wiki policy suggests it can't be in the Lead section unless it's in the Body.
--68.127.89.221 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford