Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Hitler and Rothschild(a possible relation)

See [[1]], and particularly [[2]]. Form many historiagraphers, Rothschild was the family where Maria Schicklgruber was a servant and the father of Alois Hitler was Baron Rothschild. Rothschild was an important Jewish family of bankers, that lived in Germany. The article of Adolf Hitler refers to this event. Hiltler's politic oppositors probably have taken the name of the Jewish family, they accused Hitler to be part. XXX

Any Rothschild relation is nonsense. According to those who claim a Jewish descent (Hans Frank) the supposed Jewish landlords of Miss Schicklgruber were called Frankenberger. The Rothschild family originated from Frankfurt and moved from there as bankers to other capitals, certainly not to a town like Graz. Str1977 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quibbles

Yep, looks good. Well done to all. One quibble. :-) Did the Third Reich 'collapse' or was it 'destroyed'? "The Third Reich which he proclaimed would last a thousand years had collapsed in just twelve." Michael Dorosh 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Most historians do tend to use collapsed. This is partly to avoid sensationalism but likely also refers to the intangible qualities of any government, as in "the Third Reich's influence and authority to govern collapsed" and so on. Wyss 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite - one more quibble. All the points that I made regarding six years of persecution have not been addressed at all. -- Simonides 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

PS Michael I think destroyed is a bit journalistic. Most scholars also use 'collapse'.

Simonides, with all due respect, the points you made about persecution have been discussed and it was agreed by at least four editors that those six years of persecution are covered by the Holocaust sentence in the intro, which mentions "racial policies" and a culmination. Wyss 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as repeatedly demonstrated the "racial policies/culmination" phrase is insufficiently vague with reference to the Nazi regime before the war and the other groups persecuted (as opposed to being vague enough to encompass more.) It only requires another three words - "persecution of minorities" and yet we keep on to "after World War I" (which I personally think is redundant give that "Germany facing crises" links straight to Weimar Republic.) Just an acknowledgment of some sort would be enough. -- Simonides 23:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Underplaying/Hiding his Austrian background

It is very strange that, while the article emphasizes his role in the German state, it downgrades his Austrianness to a mere birhtplace. It is non-sense.

Austria not only produced great people, but also a devil like Hitler. Like every other nation/country it has both sides.

It should be clear in the article that he is an Austrian who rose to become a German chancellor.

I don't think so. The article is clear about AH's Austrian origins. Note that he was born and grew up near the German border (Alois was a customs official). For most of his adult life AH strongly identified with German nationalism, moved to Munich, avoided Austrian military service (and was even briefly arrested for that), joined the Bavarian army, served through the Great War then stayed in Germany. Since most of his encyclopedic activities happened during the second half of his life, in Germany while he identified as a German national, it makes sense that any narrative dealing with his life would overwhelmingly address the German aspects of it. This article, btw, is not about Austria, Germany or any other country producing "devils." Wyss 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I read Mein Kampf, and Hitler definitely considered himself a German, not an Austrian. StuRat 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Article MUST mention that he is an AUSTRIAN as prominently as his Germany role mentioned. Because he is Austrian. It is neither bad, nor good. It is a fact. Thousands of words will not change it. And this is wikiPEDIA. Ideally, encyclopedias mention facts, not opinons or "actually" cases. It does not matter whether he felt German or Austrian. This is not his autobigraphy either.

He was born and raised as an Austrian. What is wrong with mentioning this fact? What are we afraid of? What and why are we hiding? Samothrakis 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Codswallop. The article already says he was born and raised in Austria, son of an Austrian civil servant and also has details about his time in Vienna as a young adult. Wyss 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Old Shatterhand

Now that we have an almost-adequate page on Old Shatterhand, I think that it is appropriate (and you might also if you bother to read the "Old Shatterhand" article and the reference I added) that you find a way to add some brief reference to it on mien Führer's article as it clearly had a notable effect on his world view and mannerisms. Heil the admin bit set on certain Wikipedia accounts! Heil Wikipedia! -- Pinktulip 10:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he liked Karl May and according to Paula played lots of "cowboys and indians" when he was a boy. I've also seen pictures of a "Karl May museum" some Nazi set up in the 30s, I think in Munchen. Don't know if it had much of an effect on his world view and mannerisms... lots of little boys play combat games and don't grow up to be genocidal sociopaths (jerks maybe :). As I recall Toland brings it up but doesn't infer much. This would be interesting to mention in passing though. Wyss 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You must have fail to read the material I direct you at. I will just provide a quote here

May, who had never been to America, invented a hero named Old Shatterhand, a white man who always won his battles with Native Americans, defeating his enemies through sheer will power and bravery. Young Hitler read and re-read every one of May's books about Old Shatterhand, totaling more than 70 novels. He continued to read them even as Führer. During the German attack on the Soviet Union he sometimes referred to the Russians as Redskins and ordered his officers to carry May's books about fighting Indians.

I think that this is notable enough for a brief metion on the page. It helps the reader to get inside his head, especially when he then goes off an kills 50 million people. -- 67.127.58.57 06:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see more support for the last sentence in that excerpt. Wyss 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that he called the Russians "Redskins," even on occasion, and even more hard to believe that he ever ordered his officers to carry May's books. The social studies books of this age are biased enough against him (perhaps rightfully so,) why wouldn't they dig up this fact about him and make him seem more crazy? --GofG 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Truth be told I think I would have heard that one at some point if there was a shred of substance to it. AH did like reading Karl May westerns though (and may have read and re-read them all but I wouldn't make such a sweeping statement in the article). Wyss 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A brief mention should be okay, of the fact that he loved the books (not as much as quoted here), though that is a not very uncommon trait of Hitler. He shares it with millions of other Germans.

Another thing I once read is that he (at least for some time) saw his relationship to Mussolini in the light of Old Shatterhand and Winnetou, but I can't remember the details right now. Str1977 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

While you are at it, you might want to include his obsession with German victory in the War of 1870-71 as described in that same reference. It is merely an observation about almost anyone concerned about German nationalism at that point, but again, it gets the reader farther into his head. That idealized view of war was clearly the image he later got his nation to fall in love with. It probably helped with morale and, synergistically, with the effectiveness of blitzkrieg in the early phases of the War. -- 209.234.96.194 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

fascist vs totalitarian

Has this been talked about yet? If so I don't see it. I made the change because fascist is more precise to characterize the Hitler regime, and its inclusive of one that is totalitarian. A fascist regime is necessarily totalitarian but a totalitarian regime is not necessarily fascist. Also, I never heard of anyone ever dispute Hitler's Germany as an example of a fascist regime, only that his version was a more racialized variety. Also, the theory of totalitarianism is not as widely accepted, and some consider not a very good or useful theory (I think it was largly created by Arendt?) Anyway, my change was reverted with reference to the talk page, so, Im here and I don't see anything about this issue. I wonder what the objections are to my reasonings. I'm going to make the change again. Giovanni33 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I made another edit along similar lines of reasoning. I replaced "expansionist" foreign policy with aggressive "imperialist" foreign policy, because the latter is more precise and insightful into the nature of the expansion than simply saying expansion. The link to imperialism does this. Also, Lebensraum, which was linked to expansionism is actually only the justification that Hitler gave--its not one in the same. So I added that "which Hitler justified as lebensraum" providing that link, as well.

I know that in our age of neo-imperialism much of this is now indirect (although the US invasion of Iraq is not so indirect anymore!), and that Imperialism is also often acquisition of colonies in part of an empire far away, however imperialism is really just the policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, esp. by direct territorial conquest, frequently employed for economic exploitation in which the imperialist power makes use of other countries as sources of raw materials and cheap labor. When imperialism is accompanied by overt military conquest, it is seen as a violation of freedom and human rights, not the almost humanistic notions of "white man's burden." In anycase, Hiter's state was aggressively Imperialistic and wanted to build and empire. Its capitalist economics also supports the notions of Imperialism. All in all it’s more fitting than simply saying expansionist, although that is also certainly accurate. Giovanni33 05:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Fascist" is neither more precise, nor is it inclusive of "totalitarian". Indeed, there are many who would reject the idea that Nazism was a form of fascism, and instead classify it as totalitarian.

As for the other edits: keep the intro concise. Str1977 08:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO Str1977's remarks are accurate. Fascist is less precise than totalitarian and the latter term in normal usage starkly implies a complete loss of civil and human rights. Moreover, there are people who do believe Nazism was a totalitarian corruption (or even fraud in the guise) of Fascism and volkish nationalism. Which is to say, AH appealed to the latter but Germany got the former. Wyss 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems we disagree. Fascism is infact typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. That is a core feature of fascism that you can't escapse. The fascist exults the state, and/or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it, uses explicit populist rhetoric, calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality. It embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advances ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end it itself and determinant of truth and worthiness.This all describes Nazi Germany very well. To talk about Nazi germany and not even mention fascism is inexcusable.

As I said the theory of totalitarianism is more generalized and creates an idealist understanding of state. Infact its origins is in fascist writers themselves who embraced an anti-materialist conception of the state, which was later embraced by conservatives in the US as an ideological tool of anti-communism. The fact is that the model is not as widely accepted and has been debunked in many circles, esp. since the collapse of the former USSR. It was an ideological attack on authoritarian communist states to create an umbrella that would try to equate both (fascism and communism) as equals. In the social sciences, this theory has come under a lot of criticism from scholars, who argue that its better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, and class terms, and that the totalitarian model has had little explanatory value for researchers. Governments that are classified as totalitarian are not as monolithic as they appear from the outside, and hide a political process in which several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, and others, compete for power and influence. For these groups, they have civil and human rights. But, I'm willing to keep the term as long as the more accurate term of fascism is used principally.

Also, I don't see any counter argument to my other change, imperialism, as also more precise than expansionism. My changes did not make the intro any longer. Its still short but more accurate, and links to terms that are more precise and give better understanding. 64.121.40.153 17:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO Giovanni's remarks are accurate. Fascism is more precise and accurate of what Hitler's policies represented. Fascism does indeed wipe out human and civil rights. It's antagonistic to liberalism, democracy, etc. It does impose the kind of authoritiarian state-worship and regulation of civil life in a top-down manner that totalitarianism attempt to describe in a more vague manner. I also agree imperialism is also more accurate and elucidating than the generic term of expansionism.BelindaGong 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fascism and imperialism are highly politically charged words. I'm open to more discussion, but I'm wary of distracting readers with terms which may be misunderstood. Wyss 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not a convincing argument for excluding these very accurate terms as they apply to Hitler's Germany. I don't think it distracts readers, it elucidates the reality of Nazism, that is was fascism and its expansion was not just "living space" or growth, it was naked and outright agression characteristic of imperialism. Any terms could be misunderstood. That is no reason to shy away from their approrpirate use. They are linked to their own articles so that readers have a chance to education themselves with what the terms really mean. Also, everything with Hitler and the Nazi's are highly politically charged. That is just the nature of it. So what? No reason to hide from it. Lastly, I'll point out that the theory of Totalitarianism is also a highly politically charged word, as Giovanni has shown above. It is also less precise, and less scientific. BelindaGong 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ebb and flow" to the article's early sections, and hopefully constructive criticisms

No offense intended, but the first paragraphs of the article flow without a crispness to them.

• The true date Hitler took power as Chancellor of Germany, 30 January 1933, is not given, only the year alone; likewise with the date he moved to abolish the office of President, and declare himself combined Führer and Chancellor, head of state and government operating as a single entity.
• The renaming of the National Socialist Party is not mentioned; "better known as" the Nazi Party is therefore a tertiary level, under the secondary one of the alteration of the original name; National Socialism is likewise, academically, the term by which the system and government is known.
• Hitler's last name is given too often in the opening paragraphs; in the statement "Hitler gained power in a Germany facing crises after World War I. He used charismatic oratory...", the word is used just after identifying Hitler to begin with; the statement would 'flow' better by stating it as, "Gaining power in a Germany faced with multiple crises in the First World War's aftermath, Hitler used charismatic oratory...", bypassing the splitting of the sentences.
• The appeal of Hitler to the German middle-class is not suitably addressed in the opening paragraphs: the nationalism and anti-Semitism of the German people began developing years before his birth in 1889; to attempt to assign Hitler a position of creating a situation whereby blame was fostered on Jews for the sum of Germany's ills solely due to his oratory is to do a disservice to history, especially in light of the fact that Hitler's own anti-Semitism was in itself a product of other confluencing factors, not least of which the mysticism that members of the German intelligensia dabbled in throughout the late 19th century, and made "respectable" thereby, which claimed the "inferiority" of the "Semitic" race to those of "Aryan" descent (a term that described a purportedly ancient Atlantis-like people of the north, complete with island continent in the Arctic Ocean, not just those of pale skin, as has often been assumed).
• The way in which the military was rearmed is vague; Germany was not without a military in the years of 1919-1932, it was with a military that was vastly inferior in terms of technology and manpower to the militaries of other nations, most notably those that would be prominent members of the Allies (with the exception of the United States, which by free choice of Congress kept numbers only slightly in excess of those imposed by sanction upon Germany); his rearming, as such, is non-definite in scope.
• "Much of Europe (occupied)" is vague as a term; the Third Reich's foreign policy during the 1930s can be described best as opportunistic, along with expansionist; with such as the case, the dimensions it acquired can be geographically as well as psychologically understood: Germany ruled all from the French Atlantic coast to the Russian steppe just before (and to its south, openly beyond) Moscow, and from western Scandinavia to the Italian and Aegean peninsulas, and the north-central Mediterranean coast of Africa.
• The way in which "the Allies" is stated makes plain that people are expected to automatically know what they are; this is a conceit, and one that does a disservice in a day and age when some citizens don't seem to be able to differentiate the meanings of such phrases as "morning constitutional" and "original constitution."
• What is the true scope being implied by "racial policies" phrasing? The scope and distinction of the Nazi system seems to bypass any mere connection to the notion of racism as it has occurred elsewhere; specific examples of likewise treatment are always carefully studied, in academic treatises on the matter. Instead of "racial policies," would it not be effective to identify its major components, including slave labor, mass extermination by mechanized means, and the reduction of human flesh into horrifyingly (granted, a POV statement there) basic forms such as assorted soaps, as well as the lesser-mentioned aspects (experimentation on humans, for instance, both genetic and non)? Gruesome, but this is a gruesome man, and likewise vision.
• "About 11 million people," as mentioned elsewhere, is not 'encyclopedic', to reiterate the term that was used; it sounds offhand in nature, instead of precise. It has been academically stated that 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jews ("Gentiles"?) perished under the National Socialist exterminationist "program"; if this number is off, and 11 million is accurate, then the exact numbers of each should be given, so as to be able to understand it better (and to explain why the number is reduced, as well).
• The matter of Hitler's demise in the underground bunker is taken in likewise rather offhand nature; the exact date of his matrimony to Eva Braun is of importance, in that it occurred a day before he committed suicide; that he would take his wife with him, so to speak, raises questions even then, as it were, of the depravity within him (though again, a POV statement that should not be included in the article). The progressive degradation of his own health, almost mirroring the life and vitality (warped though it might have been) of Nazi Germany, is not touched upon. Hitler possibly having health issues regarding his final days is of summarical importance to understanding why, or at least possibility of why, he gave the, to quote, "insane" orders that he did to his generals in the Reich's last days.

These matters should be addressed, I believe. --Chr.K. 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You raise many good points. I suggestyou address these by composing the text and making the edits. Maybe here first, but its find if you change the article, unless there are strong objections make here. I say be bold and make the changes. I wondered too about the use of National Socialism when Hiter himself objected to the use of Socialism to the party, and threatened to resign even, but later gave in. The name was adopted in an attempt to give it appeal to workers economic needs, but later showed itself to be hostile in practice to these concerns. Thus the word "socialist" is a misnomer (Hiter was right not included it). BelindaGong 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro must be kept short and concise. It is already too long. Editors are trying to accomplish far too much in the intro. I propose shortening it even more, perhaps down to birth and death dates and political job description. Wyss 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It was already short and concise, and not too longer. I like it how it is, but several points by Chr.K can be addressed without making it any longer. An intro should be just that, an intro, that has a very short summary, encapuslating the body of the article, like say a thesis statment does for an essay. The way it is now, it does that well. I'm glad someone else reverted because I was all out for 24 hours myself. :)BelindaGong 22:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss' edit

First of all, it is not good form to slap us around with "3rr is in effect". You cannot enforce it, so don't wave it around like a tool to use. Secondly, whereas my changes were grammatical and aesthetic in nature, yours are simply blanking - and therefore, are much more needed to be justified here. So, please do. --Golbez 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3rr is WP policy. If you violate 3rr, rest assured your edit history will be posted onto the 3rr vio page of the admin noticeboard and you'll likely be blocked within minutes. Wyss 01:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By that, I mean don't keep a running total of your reverts if you're just getting into the fight. It's just poor form. PS, you were wrong - that was your third revert of the day. (23:30 Feb 9, 15:27 Feb 10, 17:58 Feb 10; current time is 23:37, you made it!) --Golbez 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3rr applies to identical (or nearly so) reverts. I haven't even come close to violating 3rr, but you did. Why are you attempting to edit by revert? Wyss 01:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So if you revert an article 3 times, then someone comes along, makes an edit you agree with, can you then revert to that version 3 times? No. It's 3 reverts per article per day, not per version per day. Stop getting into rulecruft and discuss the actual argument. I didn't get in a revert war with you at all, I was perfectly happy til you blanked it. --Golbez 04:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You were perfectly happy with a version which was not accepted by consensus. I've explained my edit (this talk page will show I've expressed my preference for a minimal intro several times in the past) and I've asked you not to edit by revert. Your use of the term blanked is inaccurate, inappropriate and in my opinion, an attempt to distract the discussion away from content. Wyss 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Was there consensus to prune most of the intro? Please indicate it. --Golbez 04:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said there was a consensus to prune the intro. To repeat once again, I support the longer "totalitarian" intro which was arrived at by consensus. In absence of a long intro that I support, I would prefer a very brief intro. I exercised the latter preference when you ignored (perhaps unknowingly) the established consensus for the "totalitarian" intro. I was happy to see the long "totalitarian" intro restored. Please note that a prominent note in the edit view of the article requests discussion before making significant changes. Wyss 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And deleting two entire paragraphs is not a significant change? Stop preaching what you don't practice, stop defending what you can't. --Golbez 05:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Codswallop. I explained my edit. Why are you so bent on trying to influence article content by attacking other editors? Wyss 17:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, 3rr applies even if you do a partial revert of any material. You violated the 3RR already Wyss. I guess you are going to report yourself now? 64.121.40.153 02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:3rr and Wikipedia:Troll, thanks. Wyss 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you should review the policy. I know it. You are violating it out of ignorance (assuming good faith). It says revering also " means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new." Also, I don't see any trolls here. You should review the policy of assuming good faith and civility. This means you have violated three rules. 64.121.40.153 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're only looking for ways to avoid discussing the article's content. Wyss 17:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Wiki violation: assume good faith, and Civility. Contrary to your latest false claim, I have been making the arguments talking about the article, which you have been largly avoiding, intead making accusation of trolls, and misquoting the 3RR rule for others while you violate it yourself. Now that you now what the 3RR really entails I hope you will not violate it anymore. Giovanni33 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down all. Wyss, at first, made a suggestion to radically cut down the intro: [3] (a suggestion that I don't agree with) - however that was not blanking the page. He followed up his suggestion by reverting back to it once (he cannot be blamed for another revert by another editor). While I disapprove of Wyss revert to his suggestions, which never had much hope for consensus (deleting stuff you cannot agree how to put into word is not a valid solution), and don't understand it either (as Wyss advocates another wording), it is neither blanking the page, nor is it a violation of 3RR, as there were only one revert by Wyss and the page all in all was blanked only three times. It hasn't been blanked since last night (European time), so why are we still discussing this issue? Str1977 18:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, for the last time, since my notion of a minimal intro has been supported by only one other editor, I do fully support the longer "totalitarian" intro. Wyss 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wyss' version. Salva 17:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

Please help with this article. --Soberre 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's been helped in the best possible way. Deletion. - Nunh-huh 13:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fascism

This is from Wikipedia's page on fascism:

Nazism differed from Fascism proper in the emphasis on the state's purpose in serving its national ideal on the basis of a national race, specifically the social engineering of culture to the ends of the greatest possible prosperity for German race at the expense of all else and all others. In contrast, Mussolini's Fascism held that cultural factors existed to serve the state, and that it wasn't necessarily in the state's interest to serve or engineer any of these particulars within its sphere. The only purpose of government under Fascism was to uphold the state as supreme above all else, and for these reasons it can be said to have been a governmental statolatry. Where Nazism spoke of "Volk", Fascism talked of "State".

While Nazism was a metapolitical ideology, seeing both party and government as a means to achieve an ideal condition for certain chosen people, fascism was a squarely anti-socialist form of statism that existed as an end in and of itself. The Nazi movement, at least in its overt ideology, spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture, although this is not to say that Fascists rejected the concept of social mobility. (emphasis added)

Why are we still changing the intro? I thought we finally had a consensus - why the pile-on of Wyss now?Michael Dorosh 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a "final consensus" is not possible on Wikipedia. Articles are open to editing by anyone. There is no ownership of articles, whether by individual editors or groups of editors. Get used to it - the idea that Hitler's ideology was a fascist one is the mainstream view, and it won't go away. Camillus (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Micheal, first of all it's against policy to cite Wikipedia articles to support your points (although you can use the refrences from articles). However, since you did let me point out that the article you cite actually supports my view, not yours. So you did not even cite it correctly. Sure there are differences, however as the article correctly points out: “the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type of fascism”

Now for the refrence from the article which is valid to use, it quotes: Kevin Passmore (2002 p.62) observes: There are sufficient similarities between Fascism and Nazism to make it worthwhile applying the concept of fascism to both. Hitler himself speaks of this in his Mein Kampf, in 1926, I conceived the profoundest admiration for the great man south of the Alps, who, full of ardent love for his people, made no pacts with the enemies of Italy, but strove for their annihilation by all ways and means. What will rank Mussolini among the great men of this earth is his determination not to share Italy with the Marxists, but to destroy internationalism and save the fatherland from it. (p. 622) This and everything that Hitler made Germany gives the experts abundant reason to have a modern consensus that Nazism is but a form of fascism, it's proper to use the term for both Italy and Germany. And, its still more accurate than the disputed theory of totalitarianism. I dont want to violate the 3RR rules but I will be reverting later for these word changes, which others support as well, unless we can reach a compromise or a good argument can be made, above, addressing my arguments. Giovanni33 03:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is one word of dozens that Wyss removed. In the version from a couple of weeks ago, "Fascism" wasn't there at all, so why are you supporting the removal of two entire paragraphs because they contain a single word you disagree with? Excise the word, not the intro. --Golbez 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the page very clearly asks that no edits be done until there is a consensus. Honestly, I thought this was resolved a week ago.Michael Dorosh 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of changing "fascist" to "totalitarian" when another user did it for me. Can't believe that nitpicking over terminology could lead to wiping all the salient points of Hitler's era from the introduction! No mention of Anti-semitism? No mention of his imperialist aggression? No mention of the holocaust? Is Wyss really serious that calling Hitler's regime "imperialism" is POV, "politically loaded"? Camillus (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the consensus "totalitarian" version we arrived at. I didn't blank anything, I merely shortened the intro because I felt that was a better interim version (than the misleading, "fascist-imperialist" loaded PoV version) until the one we agreed on was restored by a clear consensus. Glad to see it happened. Wyss 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, sorry Wyss, but I call this blanking -[4] - "shortened" as in "shortened by a head"! Zapped the holocaust, imperialist aggression (by any objective definition), 11 million deaths caused, anti-semitism... Camillus (talk)

You're mistaken. I have repeatedly said I think the intro should be minimal, and reduced it to that length because certain editors were enaging in a revert war without discussing their edits here on the talk page first. Moreover, the Holocaust has a whole section in the article and in absence of a minimal intro, I fully support the consensus "totalitarian" version of the intro which contains an introductory reference to the Holocaust. Please stop gaming the system by luzzing around trumped up allegations in a shallow attempt to intimidate other editors into submission to your PoV, thanks. Please stop revert warring. I'm open to reasonable discussion on this topic. I have serious problems with the use of the words "fascist" and "imperialist" in the introduction of this sensitive, high traffic article about a complex, genocidal sociopath. This is the Adolf Hitler article, not Bambi. I've stated my concerns succinctly above. Wyss 03:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears you're not in touch with reality. The history cited above [5] proves that you blanked a large part of the intro, so where's the "trumped up charge"?. I reverted your change precisely once, so I don't know why you're accusing me of revert warring. You may have serious concerns with the word "imperialist", but you're in a minority of one there, so who's trying to push their PoV? It's you who made the intro read like Bambi, by expunging any mention of Hitler's crimes. The next comment says the rest. Camillus (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're comments are becoming personal attacks IMHO. Please stop that. Please stop distracting this discussion away from content. Thank you. One last time: I expunged nothing, I blanked nothing, I edited the intro. The intro is not the article. Wyss 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

But the intro is part of the article which was largly blanked by yourself. Camullus says, "you blanked a large part of the intro..." I don't see how you can possibly deny this fact in light of the fact that this is easily seen. This is what I think Camillus mean by losing touch of reality. It certaily is losing touch of this particular part of reality (assuming good faith since we believe you would not be dishonest). These are not personal attacks just logical arguments that are relevant to the topic we are discussion: your edit habits and how you treat other editors are not productive. Please respect civility, assume good faith, and do not violate the 3RR rule. Lastly, don't undo work of other editors (Imperialist, fascism), without making and responding to the arguments.Giovanni33 18:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The only people using the term blanking in reference to my edit are people who also have reverted away from the "totalitarian" version of the intro which was arrived at by consensus and which they know I support. Hence, the clearly inappropriate use of the term blanking, along with a shrill, accusatory tone, becomes a personal attack engaged in solely to intimidate and distract conversation away from the article's content. Wyss 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree it should be as minimal as you want it to be. It already minimal now and just needs a few word changes. There is no consensus now on the word "totalitarian" as opposed to fascism. Same with the word "imperialism" vs. "expansionist." Both imperialist and fascist are very appropriate terms describing Nazi Germany, as has been argued above, and which no one has been able to refute yet. Also, I don't know who you are referring to regarding intimidating other editors, or making "trumped up allegations." The only attempted intimidation I've seen here is you warning people you will report them for a 3RR rule and yet you violate that rule yourself. If you have a problem with the words "fascist" and "Imperialist" to describe the fascism and imperialism of Hitler's rule, then I suggest you go back up and make the case. So far your arguments do not stand up to reason and the counter arguments, which have been made. p.s. Who is talking about Bambi here? Fascism is not benign, it’s terroristic.64.121.40.153 08:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said Fascism was benign. I've discussed this already, above. I support the "totalitarian" version of the intro. Wyss 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me rather strange that in all of the topics, it comes down to Wyss and other people arguing over the introduction. -GofG 18:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a high traffic article about a topic which is highly emotional for many and people are trying to spin the intro, wittingly or otherwise (usually through good faith) in a way that sets a PoV tone for the entire article (which has come very far in the past year and is, truth be told, rather scholarly and helpful). Worse, some editors are wont to mistake dispassionate descriptions of his characteristics as endorsements. Although AH's sociopathy and harm to the world are made starkly evident in the text, he and the world he came to power in are very complex topics which are exceedingly difficult to reduce into a short introductory summary without woefully misleading readers as to how he swayed so many millions and attained absolute control of an advanced industrialised country only to lead it and Europe into ruin. Wyss 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, GofG, intros are even more prone to such discussions than the rest of the article, you not only have to deal with issues of accuracy, relevancy and POV but also with the issues of "how much details should we put into the intro" and of course the temptation to overemphasize or push one element into the spotlight of the intro. Str1977 19:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Could you change the link "DDR" on your user page to what you are actually referring to? I guess you don't play Ulbricht and Honnecker, do you? ;-) Str1977 19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Count me in among those editors who support the inclusion of imperialist and fascist as better than totalitarian and expansionist. I agree they were also those things but I'm convinced by Giovanni33's arguments. I also don't really like totalitarian; that is a politically loaded word that isn't really accurate, while expansionist is almost the opposite and merely describes expansion in almost a harmless way, which we know is not true. Imperialism implies expansion but in a harmful way. Both fascism and imperialism are terms that carry with them much more explanatory power. Since the terms they fit, according to modern consensus, we are better off with using them to further the education of those who would want to look them up. Imperialism and fascism are both important concepts to both familiarize oneself with and study. There is no better usage than Nazi Germany. MikaM 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please put a new posting like this at the bottom of the section (which I have done for you), thanks.

• I would suggest that 1930s Italy and Spain are better subjects for the study of fascism.

• Why has MikaM resorted to incivility and arrogance (to further the education of those who would want to look them up) so quickly? Wyss 06:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, why is MikaM making changes to an intro that was decided in its final form a week ago and on which no consensus has been reached vis a vis new changes? Reverted back to totalitarianism version. Don't people have anything better do? Expansionist is the correct term; Hitler's territorial moves up until the outbreak of war were recovery of former German lands. Imperialism is a poor word, that is why expansionist was decided on days ago. Let's leave well enough alone and stop trying to inject POV issues into this.Michael Dorosh 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Final form"? Forget it - this is Wikipedia! Camillus (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've, and others have argued above, imperialism is the right word. So is fascism, and Wyss just becuse you think that Italy and Spain are better subjects for the study of fascism doesnt make it so. The Nazi varient of facism is an excellent place to study second only to Italy. In anycase, as I pointed out the modern consensus among scholars is that Nazism is a form of fascism. As far as Totalitarianism, the theory itself is not completed accepted. And, I don't see Mika being uncivil in anyway.

I see that Michael Dorish has at least attempted to make an argument for expansionist vs. imperialist, however I dispute your claims and will also point out that they are not relevant to an argument that the expansionist aims were not imperialistic. I'll refute your argument and make this case, just as I did for your case against "fascism," earlier, above. The origins of the policies that were were advocated by geopoliticians and implemented by the National Socialists come out of the pre-WWI German imperial ambitions. They crafted the idea of Mitteleuropa which would provide the foundation for later conceptions of lebensraum and economic domination which would later inform geopolitician's theories on pan-regions. There is a continuity between WW1 and WW2 with respect to its expansionism. While the overt motivations were racial, this was the case with most conflicts in this time period to varrying degrees,; German foreign policy was largely consistent in both wars, essentially followed the very same designs laid out by German geopolitik and the historical record of the empire. Thus, this expanion is clearly best understood as a newnewed invigoration of an aggressive imperialism.

This makes imperialism the best word. As a side now, all fascism is imperialistic, and they all had some rationale usually with underlying national claims to those countries. This in no way makes it less of the case of imperialism. Mussolini's imperial ambitions were directed at North Africa, and his armies invaded Ethiopia in 1935. Polish fascists advocated retaking all the lands that had ever been ruled by Polish kings, including East Prussia. Finnish fascists wanted to create a “Greater Finland” at the expense of Russia, and Croatian fascists advocated a “Greater Croatia” at the expense of Serbia. Japanese fascists preached military conquest on behalf of their plan for a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” French fascists were strong defenders of the French empire in Indochina and North Africa; Portuguese fascists waged colonial wars in Guinea, Angola, and Mozambique. Syrian, Iraqi, and Egyptian fascist movements also supported territorial expansionism. If we look at Hitler’s foreign policy, in particular the concept of Lebensraum, we will see how imperialism is the best word choice.

Lebensraum was coined by Friedrich Ratzel in the late 19th century, when it was used as a slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, as per the English and French models. This expansion to fill available space, he claimed, was a natural and necessary feature of any healthy species. A type of “Manifest Destiny.” In the late 19th century, under the Second Reich (or German Empire), the German socio-financial situation was in crisis Ratzel's Lebensraum theory was heeded by the government, which took the colonialization as an opportunity to expand the empires. The Second Reich considered German South-West Africa (modern-day Namibia) the most appropriate colony for growth of the Empire. Adding living space was believed to strengthen Germany by helping solve internal problems, make it militarily stronger, and help make Germany become economically self-sufficient by adding food an other raw material sources.

The concept of Lebensraum was discussed and developed by scholars Karl Haushofer, Sir Halford Mackinder, Friendrich von Bernhardi, and Friedrich Ratzel. In 1926, Hans Grimm's book Volk ohne Raum ("A People without Space") was published. This book became a classic on Germany's need for space and the book's title soon became a popular National Socialist slogan. In von Bernhardi's 1912 book Germany and the Next War, he expanded upon Ratzel's hypotheses identifying Eastern Europe as a source of new space. Hitler was attracted to these Pan-European ideals . In Mein Kampf Hitler had come to believe that Russia was the direction Germany should expand. The elements of the program outlined in Mein Kampf included the idea of military expansion and force expulsion of the nations of Poland, Ukraine, Russia and other countries in order to prepare settlements for German people (both Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche). · "In an era when the earth is gradually being divided up among states, some of which embrace almost entire continents, we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers."--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler looked east for Germany's expansion in Europe. It was in this view that Hitler added a racist element to Lebensraum. By stating that the Soviet Union was run by Jews, then Hitler concluded Germany had a right to take Russian land. Its important to note that Ratzel's ideas were very much the intellectual fashions in late 19th-and early 20th-century Germany, where various forms of 'Social Darwinism' were prevalent. Ratzel's ideas also fitted into the general debate about German imperialism. The idea of increasing Germany's strength by encouraging migration to Germany's colonies had developed during the 1880s and 1890s. It was thought that sending settlers to colonies could be an attractive alternative to simply trading in their raw materials. Economic imperialism was particularly popular with industry, and migrationist colonialism became associated with agrarianism.

The years immediately preceding World War One, the focus of this colonialism shifted from the settlement of overseas colonies to the idea of conquering territory in eastern Europe, and of settling it with German peasants. The leading advocate of this notion was the influential chauvinist pressure group, the Pan-German League, and its associated propagandists. Of these the most notable was the aforementioned retired general and ultra-conservative publicist, Friedrich von Bernhardi.

Also, note that Hitler had already started his political career in 1919, and had been influenced by this kind of Pan-German thinking. During his period in Landsberg prison (where he had been incarcerated following the failure of his notorious coup in November 1923), he read and discussed Ratzel's work and other geopolitical literature provided by a Munich Professor of Geography, Karl Haushofer, and fellow-prisoner Rudolf Hess. Haushofer emphasised the 'extremely unfavorable situation of the Reich from the viewpoint of military geography' and Germany's limited resources of food and raw materials, and thus provided Hitler with an intellectual justification for his views. These were expressed in Mein Kampf, and remained fundamentally the same through the years. I invite you to look up Karl Haushofer, and in particular his Geopolitik, which was in essence a consolidation and codification of older ideas, given a scientific gloss:

• Lebensraum was a revised colonial imperialism;
• Autarky a new expression of tariff protectionism;
• Strategic control of key geographic territories exhibiting the same thought behind earlier designs on the Suez and Panama canals; and
• Pan-regions (Panideen) based upon the British Empire, and the American Monroe Doctrine, Pan-American Union and hemispheric defense.

The key reorientation in each dyad is that the focus is on land-based empire rather than naval imperialism. Ostensibly based upon the geopolitical theory of American naval officer Alfred Thayer Mahan, and British geographer Halford J. Mackinder, German geopolitik adds older German ideas. Enunciated most forcefully by Friedrich Ratzel and his Swedish student Rudolf Kjellén, they include an organic or anthropomorphized conception of the state, and the need for self-sufficiency through the top-down organization of society. The root of uniquely German geopolitik rests in the writings of Karl Ritter who first developed the organic conception of the state that would later by elaborated upon by Ratzel and accepted by Hausfhofer. He justified lebensraum at all costs because conquest was a biological necessity for a state's growth.

Ratzel's writings coincided with the growth of German industrialism after the Franco-Prussian war and the subsequent search for markets that brought it into competition with Britain. His writings served as welcome justification for imperial expansion. Influenced by Mahan, Ratzel wrote of aspirations for German naval reach, agreeing that sea power was self-sustaining, as the profit from trade would pay for the merchant marine, unlike land power. Haushofer was exposed to Ratzel, who was friends with Haushofer's father, a teacher of economic geography. It developed as a distinct strain of thought after Otto von Bismarck's unification of the German states, but only began its development in earnest under Emperor Wilhelm II. Central concepts concerning the German race, and regarding economic space, demonstrate continuity from the German Imperial time up through Adolf Hitler's Third Reich: Imperial geostrategist, German geopoliticians, and Nazi strategists.

Geopolitik developed from widely varied sources, including the writings of Oswald Spengler, Alexander Humboldt, Karl Ritter, Friedrich Ratzel, Rudolf Kjellén, and General Karl Haushofer, while finding its final expression in Adolph Hitler.

Its defining charcteristic, differentiating it from American, British, French or other schools of geopolitics, is the inclusion of organic state theory, and a clash of civilizations informed by Social Darwinism.

German geostrategic though links the motivations for World War I and World War II in German foreign policy. Both times, Germany acted as a revisionist state within the international system, attempting to overthrow British domination, and counter what it saw as rising American and Russian hegemony. As a latecomer to nationhood proper, lacking colonies or markets for industrial output, but also experiencing rapid population growth, Germany desired a more equitable distribution of wealth and territory within the international system. Modern scholars have begun to treat the two World Wars caused by Germany as one single war, in which the revisionist Germany attempted to bid for hegemonic control with which to reorder the international system. While the overt motivations were racial, as was the case with most conflicts in this time period, German foreign policy was largely consistent in both wars. The Nazi foreign policy was unique insofar as it learned from what it saw as past imperial mistakes, but essentially followed the very same designs laid out by German geopolitik and the historical record of the empire. Thus, this expanion is clearly best understood as a newnewed invigoration of an aggressive imperialism. To call it merely “expansion” is befreft of historical understanding. I also provide the following sources for my claims. If anything specific is in despute, I can cite specifically as well as all these ideas are well in the mainstream.

The Myth of the Master Race by Robert Cecil (Batsford, 1972) War Land on the Eastern Front. Culture, National Identity and German Occupation in World War I by Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius (Cambridge University Press, 2000) Himmler. Reichsführer SS by Peter Padfield (Macmillan, 1990) The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism by Woodruff D Smith (Oxford University Press, 1986) Hitler and the Quest for World Dominion. Nazi ideology and Foreign Policy in the 1920s by Geoffrey Stoakes (Berg, 1986) Germany Turns Eastwards. A Study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich by Michael Burleigh (Cambridge University Press, 1988) Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (republished by Hutchinson, 1974 - originally published by?) Jeremy Noakes is professor of history at the University of Exeter. He is the author of The Nazi Party in Lower Saxony 1919-1933 (OUP, 1971) and editor (with Geoffrey Pridham) of Nazism 1919-1945, 4 vols (University of Exeter Press, 1983-1998).

Giovanni33 19:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I support Giovanni's preference for the "fascist" and "imperialist" descriptions. While Mussolini's regime may be a better example of "classical" fascism, the notion that Franco's Spain was more fascistic than Nazism, I find, frankly, absurd. Dorosh's apology for Nazist aggressive land grabbing as "reclaiming" historical German lands may go down well on stormfront.org, but I don't think it deserves credence here. Hitler had long planned to create an empire in the East, with the elimination (or reduction to slavery) of the indigenous population there - I think Giovanni has demonstrated that above. It appears to me that the only ones supporting the "expansionist" and "totalitarian" versions are M. Dorosh and Wyss. A consensus of two. I fully expect to be accused of making personal attacks by this entry. Disagreeing with another editor is not a personal attack. Describing the removal of three salient paragraphs as "blanking" is not a personal attack either (and I note that at least two other editors have also described it thus). Camillus (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Camillus (talk), before you count votes, please make sure that there was a poll. The consensus version we had before your arrival was OK. Perhaps not perfect, but certainly viable. Please put me down in enthusiastic support of Wyss, Str1977, M. Dorosh and (sigh) Simonides. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but I believe that Giovanni33 might have not been around long enough to develop a good collaborative editing style. Cheers Jbetak 06:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, editors may as well forget about the idea that articles can be written in stone, based on a "consensus" arrived at by some editors. Nobody, neither individuals or groups, has "ownership" of any article. The idea that Hitler's ideology was fascistic is the mainstream view, and it ain't gonna go away. Get used to it! Camillus (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not apologizing for anything; Hitler's expansionism was apparent, but his first grab at something he have absolutely no shred of a claim to came with the invasion of Poland. Mein Kampf made it quite clear what his ultimate goals were, but he very effectively gambled and played the Allies weaknessed up until September 1939.Michael Dorosh 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Camillus,

"Blanking" is no personal attack but in this case it isn't accurate either.

Some comments on the wording issues:

• Fascism

Camillus is right in so far that the extent to which Franco's Spain was fascist can be argued. But IMHO it still falls within the confines of Fascism, as some Eastern European countries during that period do as well. Spain certainly was not as fascist as Italy, but: Germany was not a fascist state but a nazi state - whether Nazism is a form of Fascism is at least a matter of argument.

• Imperialist

has the problem of being a vague term (Roman Empire, US Imperialism, Lenin's Imperialism, British Empire) and is also plagued by being used in political polemics. Furthermore, it does not imply that it happens in a harmful way (see the US "benign imperialism"). It also is closely linked with Colonialism which is not very fitting here either.

• Expansionist

does not downplay the "viciousness" of Hitler's policies. Granted his expansionism was of a very massive sort but the term still fits. Expansionism does not include the annexation of Autria and the Sudetenland - these are better called Revisionism. Using that term alone indeed would downplay Hitler's policies.

Str1977 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Nazi Germany fits all definitions of totalitarianism I've ever seen, but not all definitions of fascism -- which makes it especially notable that they were totalitarian, because "totalitarian" retains its meaning more than "fascism" does. A.J.A. 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Again, I have to ask why people can't just leave well enough alone. Michael Dorosh 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make it a better choice. Totalitarnism doesnt really fit, it only seems to retain its meaning because if its cartoonish superficiallity given its idealist conception of the state that distorts what is really happening (originates in facists theories of the state itself). Because the theory itself it not universally accepted among scholars, while fascism is, is another reason not to use it when there is a better term. The modern consensus among scholars on the question, as i've shown above, is that Nazism is a varient of fascism. A view of fascism that does not describe very well Hitler's Germany, is a fringe view of what fascism is and need not be relied upon as an argument for suppression of this very valid label here.

Also, fascism ecompasses totalitarianism, and to suggest otherwise is to hold to a minority view of fascism as more benign. Fascism, as understood by the mainstream, is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. That is a core feature of fascism. The fascist exults the state, and/or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it, uses explicit populist rhetoric, calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality. It embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advances ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end it itself and determinant of truth and worthiness.This all describes Nazi Germany very well. To talk about Nazi germany and not even mention fascism is inexcusable. Giovanni33 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 please realize that the intro can take only so much text. It's not an executive summary by any means. I can empahatize with your desire to include fascism, but some (if not all) aspects of it are already covered by the reference to Nazism. Also, please read the Wikipedia article on fascism and Nazism before assuming that we *have* to use it in an intro on *Hitler*, not Nazi Germany. Cheers 67.180.197.16 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no real problem with describing the Nazi regime primarily as "totalitarian", but am against expunging it of it's fascistic side. I propose something along the lines of "a totalitarian regime with many of the features of Fascism". (bit unwieldy, I know, but a start). Dorosh's "leave well enough alone" argument holds no water - it may be "well enough" in his PoV, but others may beg to differ. It's a bit like left-wingers saying the USSR wasn't "communist" as communism is supposed to mean a stateless society without exploitation etc. The USSR was "totalitarian", Hitler's regime was "totalitarian". Shouldn't we make a distinction? Modern day fascists don't idolise Mussolini - they idolise Hitler - doesn't that tell us something?

Incidentally, MD, what exactly was Hitler's "legitimate claim" to Czechoslovakia? Camillus (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern day Fascists idolize Hitler? Please support that with a citation or two, thanks. I agree with Michael Dorosh and have explained my own thoughts thoroughly. I will continue to support the original "totalitarian" consensus version. If consensus no longer exists that'll be clear soon enough and I'll work to rebuild it. Wyss 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Giovanni is wrong in asserting that there is a consensus on classifying Nazism as Fascist.
• Fascism certainly doesn't encompass Totalitarianism (despite the origin of the term in Fascist Italy). The latter is chiefly made up of Nazism and Communism.
• To state that Fascism in Italy was less gruesome than Nazism in Germany is not painting a benign picture of Fascism, just comparing two gruesome tyrannies with each other.
• While Nazism copied some forms from Fascism there are also important differences between the two.
• Modern day Fascists idolizing Hitler (if that's true, maybe some of these Fascist are not Fascists but Neo-Nazis) is irrelevant, as it supposes that these people have studied both concepts and know about the differences, which I think highly unlikely. Also, Hitler was idolized by some Fascists during his day (Mosley, in a way Mussolini after 1933) but that doesn't make Hitler a Fascist. Neither the fact that there probably were some Fascists withing the Nazi Party, especially in the SA.
• Camillus, if you have no problem with Totalitarianism than you should be okay with including it in the intro (and, yes we are talking about the intro where conciseness is key).
• I don't know where MD spoke of a "legitimate claim to Czechoslovakia", but it could refer either to the Sudetenland or to the invasion into the "Resttschechei" in 1939. In the former case it is based on the right to self-determination, which was was accepted in principle since 1917, though in the treaties of 1919 unevenly applied. In the latter case, legitimate is certainly wrong. Hitler could provide a legal title since he bullied Czech President Hacha into asking for "German protection" (which explains why there was no war in spring of 1939 when Hitler invaded Prague).

Str1977 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I concede the point that Nazism is not "pure" fascism, but contend that it has many of the features of fascism - it is "fascistic" - the leader cult, the suppression of the individual to the state, "racial purity", crushing of trades unions and "workers rights", paternalism, etc. Calling it merely "totalitarian" makes no distinction between communist totalitarianism, and nazi totalitarianism. I propose "fascistic totalitarianism".

I'll drop the bit about "neo-fascists" - although that's what they're commonly called, they don't describe themselves as such.

While I may have "paraphrased" MD, I referred to this comment: "his first grab at something he have absolutely no shred of a claim to came with the invasion of Poland". Which suggests he had a "legitimate claim" to Czechoslovakia - contentious, I think. Also, the fact Czechoslovakia fell easily was largely due to the fact that most of the people there knew they had no chance against the might of Nazi Germany.

"Expansionist" is not adequate, at least not with the adjective "aggressive". As described above, Hitler long planned to subjugate the east - "Lebensraum".

So, the totality of what I propose comes down to two words: "fascistic" (totalitarianism) and "aggressive" (expansionism). Hardly makes the intro too long, and without them, leaves out two salient points. Camillus (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Camillus,

I will come back to the Nazism-Fascism-Totalitarianism later, but let me just state that "merely totalitarian" is, excuse me, nonsense. Why merely? Totalitarianism is not less but more total than Fascism. Also, we do not need to worry about the "distinction between communist totalitarianism, and nazi totalitarianism", as the article already states that Hitler was a Nazi. However, if that must be included the solution would be "Nazi totalitarianism" and not "fascistic totalitarianism".

Now that I see MD's actual quote I understand what he meant and where the misunderstanding (it is one) comes from. MD's negative statement ("absolutely no shred of a claim to") is stating that Poland was open aggression in violation of all of international law. Czechia is different in so far as Hitler succeeded in giving it a legal cloak (through Hacha). It was a cloak that was quite transparent and enough to bolden British attitude, but MD's negative statement is accurate (as the mere "shread of a claim" seems to apply to Czechia).

I have no problem with include "aggresive" to qualify "expansionism". I will include this. I know H's Lebensraum policy and agree with your description.

Str1977 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "merely" to suggest that totalitarianism was something "less than" fascism, but in the sense of "only" - ie. the phrase "totalitarianism" without the distinguishing adjective. So my comment was not "nonsense", thank-you. As I ask in the "Back to the point" section, in what way does Hitler's regime not conform to the two cited definitions of "Fascism"? In my opinion, "fascistic" is better than "Nazi", because "Nazi" is (of course) just a shortening of National Socialism - the Nazi regime was much more close to Fascism than Socialism, surely? Camillus (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Some (if not all) aspects of it are already covered by the reference to Nazism. If really necessary, how about saying establishing totalitarian Nazi Germany.? 67.180.197.16 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Spillover

User:BelindaGong, User:MikaM and User:Giovanni33 have been editing through aggressive reverts at Christianity, in disagreement with User:Str1977 and others. I'm wondering if their sudden flurry of coordinated edits and aggressive revert warring here are related? Should they review WP:Point and WP:Stalking for the purpose of considering whether their edits here are in conformance with WP policy, or even helpful? Wyss 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to see you accusing others of stalking, when you've just stalked the three editors mentioned. Also, in what way does your "investigation" help to improve this article? Camillus (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Codswallop. I've disrupted nothing and certainly didn't jump into the revert war over at Christianity. There is no WP policy against looking at an article's edit history, period. Please stop mis-using WP terminology. Please review WP:Stalking. Please stop mis-representing my edits in an attempt to intimidate and gain leverage over article content. The edit histories speak for themselves. Wyss 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no policy against looking at an article's history, but your use of the history of another, completely unrelated article to make a point about three other editors, in this article is not "helpful". Who's intimidating who? All your replies to my comments have been accusations of personal attacks, intimidation etc. etc. Why don't you try to keep to the point? The edit history does indeed speak for itself - as can be seen to back up my assertion that you "blanked" two very important paragraphs, leaving the intro in a completely asinine form. Camillus (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Camillus, and I strongly resent the implications make by Wyss which I regard as baseless personal attacks, and its taking us off topic, once again. I suggest you reveiw WP Civility, and assume good faith. I could say more but I don't want to contribute to this nonsensical distraction on your part. Giovanni33 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Stalking, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. I didn't mention you in my post about this issue. Also note that I was asking, not accusing. If there is a violation of WP policy, however, it should be addressed. Meanwhile, I'm confident that my edits on this talk page are appropriate to the situation and in full conformance with WP policy. Thanks. Wyss 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)