This is an archive of past discussions about Nazi Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Article's intro gives the impression the Nazis may have been Socialist
Latest comment: 9 years ago38 comments8 people in discussion
If I was a high school student looking up this subject for the first time, I wouldn't get the clear impression that the Nazis were an anti-Socialist, anti-union party from the paragraph I have quoted below. There is a tendency among people on the political Right (in the USA in particular) to try to disown the Nazis and label them socialist because of their name. The Nazis were no more socialist than the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (Nth Korea) or the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) were democratic. Using a buzz word of the era in your name doesn't make you that thing, it's just advertising. While the paragraph below eludes to the fact that the Nazis weren't properly a Left-wing party, it still leaves the perception. Remember the Nazis were pro-capitalist, union-busting, anti-socialist thugs - and that needs to be made clearer. To say that anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric was "downplayed" is the understatement of the century. The fact is that the Nazis represented these interests and were supported into power by them. I don't see Stalin being portrayed as Right-wing because of his Russian nationalism and authoritarianism, so let's not leave the impression that Hitler is sort of Left-wing/socialist.
Quote: "The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[6] Advocacy of a form of socialism by right-wing figures and movements in Germany became common during and after World War I, influencing Nazism.[7] Arthur Moeller van den Bruck of the Conservative Revolutionary movement coined the term "Third Reich",[8] and advocated an ideology combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left.[9] Prominent Conservative Revolutionary member Oswald Spengler's conception of a "Prussian Socialism" influenced the Nazis.[10] The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[11] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[12]"
Ugh... They were anti-socialist, but also incorporated certain elements of socialist ideology. That's the issue in a nutshell. It may seem mutually-exclusive somehow, but when you think about it, its really not: one can espouse certain aspects of socialism, while being opposed to the ideology as a whole. But.. does this ever end? Left-wing users talking about how they were anti-socialist, right-wingers claiming they were socialist. The way this is going we could possibly use an entire dedicated section covering the issue (not that I'm crazy enough to write it). -- Director(talk)00:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the IP. The socialist angle is better explained in depth in the Nazism article, which is about the ideology. Typical of New Right analysis, there is very little mention of in this article of the holocaust or the Second World War, which are far more significant. TFD (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In the light of the more differentiated discussion in the body of the article and the problems with the meaning of "socialism" in context (also addressed in the above FAQ). I tend to agree that the introduction, in particular the sentence "Advocacy of a form of socialism by right-wing figures and movements in Germany became common during and after World War I, influencing Nazism." is misleading. It would also be possible (and misleading) to cite the influence of, for instance, Christianity and Hitler's admiration for Jesus. I suggest removing the sentence "Advocacy of a form of socialism by right-wing figures and movements in Germany became common during and after World War I, influencing Nazism." from the lead. It is not necessary to include this discussion in the introduction, and, since it is merely attempting to summarize what is already in the body of the article, there should be no problem with simply removing the sentence from the lead. --Boson (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Great discussion you guys. It's the inferences drawn from the aforementioned paragraph that is the issue, which I think has been understood if I've read your comments correctly. That certain elements of the Nazi platform could be described as Socialist is kind of beside the point. For example, the Republicans vote funding for public libraries, public schools, public roads, etc. yet we don't describe them as socialist or left-wing (unless you're a a rabid libertarian). This is simply part of the business of government. As I said it's the ambiguity of the paragraph that is problematic and could lead to misunderstandings of who the Nazi Party were. If you stood for genuine socialist principles in Nazi Germany, you ended up in a concentration camp. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Boson: I also think the last sentence: "Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities" also needs to be modified. It implies that the Nazis were anti these things and toned down their rhetoric for political reasons when in fact the Nazis were pro these things, served and were supported by these interests and instead played up pseudo-socialist rhetoric to appeal to the man on the street all the while being labour and union busting. Remember, the Nazis were masters of doublespeak.121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The wording – deliberately or inadvertently – introduces a right-wing slant that is not supported by the cited source. The source would equally support
"Hitler was implacably opposed to the socialists. However, he admired their ability to mobilize the masses, so the early Nazi Party also employed anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, which was later dropped."
So that problem could perhaps be fixed by rewording the sentence to better reflect the overall tenor of the cited book, which states:
"Hitler was already a fervent anti-Marxist during his time in Vienna. He had a 'great hatred' of the Social Democratic Party, because of the devotion of its supporters towards socialist ideas. Yet there were aspects of the socialist left he did admire, particularly the ability of the Social Democratic Party to make effective use of propaganda to attract the masses and their ability to go out on the streets in demonstrations and parades, carrying flags and banners to emphasise the strength and unity of their supporters. Hitler believed only by challenging the socialists on the streets could they be stopped from winning over the masses to their ideas. "
For what its worth: disagree to any de-emphasis of socialist aspects of the party. They're crucial to understanding its exact political position, and are de-emphasized as it is. Lots of sources were brought forward on that topic. And while said aspects were indeed subdued, as the Nazis essentially entered power basically in coalition with the conservatives - they were never really "dropped". The Nazis/SS and the conservative army were more often at odds than not - in fact religious ultraconservative officers plotted a coup at a half-dozen points, and staged several assassinations (including the July bomb plot). This is a big part of who the Nazis were and what happened to them.
But I say "for what its worth" because the left-wing position pretty much dominates this issue on Wiki, and sources that disagree are sort of de-emphasized themselves or ignored. Every other thread on these articles is random readers writing in protest over the said perceived bias. -- Director(talk)20:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Boston's edits are heading in the correct direction. Director: the issue is that the Nazis were a rabidly anti-socialist party, yet the section of the article in question leaves the impression that they were somehow socialist - which is a gross distortion of history. It's the kind of manufactured history you might see on Fox News. The paragraph sounds like it's written by a member of the Tea Party trying to reinvent the Nazis as some sort of right-wing socialists, despite that being a contradiction in terms. Hitler was implacably opposed to socialist ideas. To say there is left-wing bias operating here is ridiculous - the Nazi concentration camps were full of socialists, social democrats, unionists, and so on. As I mentioned earlier, we don't label Stalin a right-winger due to his Russian nationalism and authoritarianism, because the basis of his worldview was left-wing. We also don't say that the Russian communists were kind of capitalist just because of the NEP. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The reality is that all right-wingers copy the Left in some way. Fox News hosts rail against the "elites" and support "democracy." Disraeli supported Tory socialism, Bismarck supported state socialism, even Metternich called himself a socialist. It does not make them left-wing. The traditional conservative appeal - your betters know more and will protect you - rarely works under universal suffrage. TFD (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. rabidly anti-socialist. To the point that Hitler repeatedly referred to Nazi Germany in speeches as "socialist Germany". Look, I'm not saying the Nazi Party or Hitler can be accurately described as "socialist", but to term them "anti-socialist" is to create more confusion than sense. They incorporated many aspects of socialism, and actually considered themselves "socialists". They were vehemently and indeed rabidly opposed to the Social-Democrats and Communists, but then Communists and Social-Democrats also despised each-other, even more than they did the Nazis (speaking of the 30s here).
Lets not conflate opposition to Social Democracy and Communism (which is no doubt what this refers to), with opposition to the much more general concept of Socialism. We stand to contradict ourselves. If someone adopts many aspects of socialist ideology, and calls himself a socialist - he is by no means necessarily a socialist. But he certainly can not be branded an "anti-socialist" without quite a caveat.
To be clear, in my original post I understood "anti-Socialist" as essentially referring to NSDAP opposition to the Communists, and Social-Democrats in particular (which was a very prominent part of their campaign). Now I realize the term may be very confusing, as the Nazis can not really be described as anti-"Socialist" in the widest sense. And doing so does indeed contradict our description of their ideology, which (indisputably) includes elements of Socialism. -- Director(talk)04:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Director, you've lost me. You are saying that Hitler wasn't anti-socialist? You are attempting to sew confusion by claiming he wasn't when CLEARLY he was. That is an inversion of history and reality. I think you should go back to your history books - the credible ones that is. You've also made the sophomoric mistake of thinking that using "socialist" in your name (because it is a buzz word of the time) is the same thing as being socialist. Is North Korea democratic because it is called the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Korea? Hitler didn't "adopt many aspects of socialist ideology" at all, what sources are you consulting? Conservapedia? Using your logic you can argue that the Republican Party are socialists. As an analogy, as far as I'm aware, every mainstream party of the Right in the Western world, the USA excepted, support some form of national health service - but I think they'd be surprised to learn that they are socialist parties. In the same vein you won't find many socialist parties in these same countries who want to abolish private property any more, but I doubt they (or their opponents) would regard them as purveyors of capitalism. As it stands the paragraph in question is a clear distortion of history. At first I thought it was an innocent mistake, but now I am coming to believe it is an attempt by ideologically motivated editors to misrepresent what the Nazi Party was. Outside of the U.S. I'm not aware of anyone (who is taken seriously) who has tried to pass the Nazis off as socialist. As far as I'm aware Wikipedia hasn't become Fox News yet, or am I wrong? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
In any case this discussion is largely beside the point now. Wikipedia follows a mainstream POV policy and the mainstream POV is that the Nazi Party isn't socialist and it belongs to the Far Right. There is also no such generally recognised concept as right-wing socialism, which is a contradiction in terms. The fact that the Tea Party, or the Libertarians, or whoever, may disagree/invert reality is beside the point - the paragraph needs to be amended to remove its false inferences. In particular the misleading introduction stating "advocacy of a form of socialism by right-wing figures and movements in Germany became common during and after World War I, influencing Nazism." This creates unnecessary ambiguity and undue emphasis on an obscure footnote in the Nazi story. It certainly doesn't belong in the introduction! Also the sentence "Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities" also needs to be modified. It implies that the Nazis were anti these things and toned down their rhetoric for political reasons when in fact the Nazis were pro these things, served and were supported by these interests and instead played up pseudo-socialist rhetoric to appeal to the man on the street all the while being labour and union busting. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to lay it out: the NSDAP was opposed to Social Democrats and Communists. It was not anti-"Socialist" in the widest, general sense - and therefore we should avoid engendering confusion by using that term. In fact its probably safe to assume no Nazi never made a single statement, anywhere, disparaging "Socialism" - because its in the name of their own party. Instead you get Hitler jabbering about his "socialist Germany" (11 December 1941), and "building Socialism" etc. etc. Just for example:
"Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism..."
— Reichstag, 30 January 1937
And of course, while the NSDAP can certainly not be called "socialist", there's really no dispute that it was influenced by, and did incorporate elements of, that ideology (the debate concerns mainly the question of degree). -- Director(talk)12:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the debate (here) concerns what the wording used in the introduction implies or insinuates, which, in my opinion, is neither in accord with the facts nor with the tenor of the literature adduced to support that wording. My example above was meant to demonstrate how the cited source can be used (illegitimately) to support somewhat tendentious statements in either direction (my use of the purposive "so" was meant to mirror the current content's use of the concessive "although"). As it stands, I would favour removing the whole paragraph from the introduction and examining whether the relevant body section needs modifying. I am not convinced that the necessary subtleties can be conveyed concisely in the introduction, and "socialist" is really not an essential part of the description of the Nazi Party. --Boson (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Why would "Socialist" need addressing in a party called "National Socialist".. that's just crazy talk. I'll make a few points here:
"Right-wing Socialism" is in no way an inherently self-contradicting term. There is a huge spectrum of views in "Socialism", some more radical, and to left, others less so and therefore to the right.
There is absolutely no question that, whatever their "secret true allegiance" was - Nazi rhetoric very much did "focus on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric", which was later toned down. That is absolutely correct, and very relevant as to the political position of the Nazis, which deserves lead coverage. I tend to place speculation as to this being deliberate deception on the part of the Nazis, who were "really" working for the banks and money interests, even Jews etc. - into the same category as any other conspiracy theory. There is no question that the Nazis toned down such rhetoric when they came to power, but that is only to be expected given that they did so in cooperation with the conservatives. And that cooperation was a pretty recent thing in 1933.
Can anyone provide hard evidence that this is a misrepresentation of the cited sources? Because I've researched this party extensively and its perfectly in-line with what is generally said: early on more to the left, later got cozy with the conservatives to take power, and moved more to the right, which necessitated the Night of the Long Knives to deal with the left wing of the party, etc, etc... Pretty basic.
I find all this looks most like ideological "outrage" at the fact the article states Nazis shared some of the same rhetoric as actual socialists. I'm afraid that's very true and easily sourced in general. -- Director(talk)14:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The Nazi position was that Marxian socialism (which included the SDP) was based on the view that power should be held by the working class. The Nazis altered that to say that power should be held by the German race. Elsewhere they said that while democracy means rule by the people, that could only be exercised through the Fuehrer. These are non-standard uses of the terms and do not support the statement that the Nazis were socialist and democratic. It was more a rhetorical device by the Nazis. TFD (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is saying the Nazis were socialist or (especially) democratic. Obviously. But to call them "anti-socialist" without qualification is taking that point too far. As is striking the mention of the rhetorical device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Director (talk • contribs) 16:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay let's get back to basics. Dusting off my university textbook from Pols 101: Politics by Andrew Heywood MacMillan Press Ltd 1997, Elements of Socialism, p44-50:
Community: "The core of socialism is the vision of human beings as social creatures linked by the existence of a common humanity. Socialists are inclined to emphasise nurture over nature". Fraternity: Human beings "are bound together by a sense of comradeship or fraternity. This encourages socialists to prefer cooperation over competition." This is opposite to Nazi beliefs which place emphasis on innate factors such as race. They also don't have a solidarity of man approach, seeing races in competition and dubbing some as master races and others as subhuman. Social Equality: "They [socialists] believe that a measure of social equality is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, encouraging individuals to identify with their fellow human beings." This is the universalism and solidarity of nations central to socialist (and Marxist) thought. The belief (rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly) is that class solidarity trumps racial/ethnic ties. This is hardly at the heart of Naziism. In fact the Nazis planned to exterminate some races, i.e. Gypsies, Jews - and enslave others, i.e. Slavs. Need: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Social Class: "Socialists have tended to analyse society in terms of distribution of income and wealth". Once again Nazis focused on race. Common Ownership: "The socialist case for common ownership is that it is a means of harnessing material resources to the common good, with private property being seen to promote selfishness, acquisitiveness and social division." Once again the Nazis were supported by and upheld the interests of the monied classes and the middle classes, so they diverge strongly from socialists here too. P.57: "German National Socialism on the other hand, was constructed largely on the basis of racialism. It's two core theories were Aryanism (the belief that the Germanic people constitute a master race and are destined for world domination), and a virulent form of anti-semitism."121.73.7.84 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting to write an essay here, by Heywood goes on to define the core themes of Naziism and fascism in general as: strength through unity, anti-rationalism, struggle, leadership and elitism, militant nationalism, statism, corporatism, race, anti-semitism, peasant ideology (i.e. an anti-modern philosophy based upon a myth of a German golden age in the past, to be recreated in the future). While it is true that the Nazis subordinated capital to the interests of the state, this took the form of corporatism, not socialism. Here is a section in my source which I believe may explain people's confusion about whether the Nazi's were socialist: "At times both Mussolini and Hitler portrayed their ideas as a form of socialism. To some extent this represented a cynical attempt to elicit support from urban workers. Socialist ideas were therefore prominent in German grass-roots organisations such as the SA, which recruited from the lower middle classes. Fascism attempts to subordinate capitalism to the ideological objectives of the fascist state, a goal most systematically expressed through the doctrine of corporatism. On the other hand, both Italian and German regimes cultivated the support of big business and were even prepared to silence leftist elements within their own ranks, as the Nazis did with the purge of the SA in the Night of the Long Knives. German capitalism also thrived in the 1930s as Germany rearmed in preparation for war." Heywood, Andrew, Political ideologies, pp221-222. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
In any case the paragraph we have been debating is inappropriate for the introduction. It emphasises niche analyses of the Nazi origins which most of us haven't even heard of before. These can be discussed if absolutely necessary, but certainly not in the introduction. The intro goes on to obscure the support of monied groups for the Nazis and implies that the Nazis were some form of socialist party. The Nazis were supported into power by wealthy elites and it is a misrepresentation to infer the opposite as the intro does. Furthermore "National Socialism" and "socialism" were based upon and promoted quite different beliefs. Attempts by the Right to blur the distinction need to be resisted for editorial integrity. A modern example is the term "Liberal" - which to Americans means left-wing/progressive, but outside of the USA is more a right-wing concept, i.e. free markets, minimal state, etc. Similar terms have different meanings in different contexts. You see this in the name of the ruling Liberal Party of Australia for instance, which is a party of the Right. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Where Socialists were longing to the supremacy of the working class above all others, in more or less decidedly ways, the Nazis were longing to the supremacy of the German race above all other nations. It was not about classes but races; their passwords were Blut und Boden, Drang nach Osten, their archenemies Semites (Jews) and Slavs, not industrialist or workers. Everybody had to work hard along the lines of Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
All this couldn't be farther away from Socialism; in fact it has nothing, absolute nothing, to do with Socialism.
On the other hand Nazis did have a social, not a socialist, agenda, because when you want to reach the masses you have to give them something. And that was particularly true in the few years before snatching power, and until Strasserism was put definitively down. Oswald Spengler may have influenced Strasser and the first Goebbels, never Nazism which was always the reign of Hitler and his rabid ideology of racial supremacy.
The tactical outburst of socialist looking wording that had occurred, becomes in the current introduction an absurd mismatch and manipulation of historical truth. Carlotm (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There's also an attempt to conflate corporatism with socialism, which is a disingenuous misrepresentation of history. Furthermore, just because you might find some overlaps between socialists and Nazis doesn't mean they're the same thing. I mean the Democrats and the Republicans have 10 times more in common than socialists and Nazis, they're much closer together on the political compass, yet we recognise their difference in worldview. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is just based on what I've read on this talk page, but... you say "Furthermore, just because you might find some overlaps between socialists and Nazis doesn't mean they're the same thing.", yet the editor you just responded to said "All this couldn't be farther away from Socialism; in fact it has nothing, absolute nothing, to do with Socialism." I don't see any claim that they're the same thing. Dustin(talk)19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose what I mean is both socialists and Nazis used the state to control big business, so in that sense there is an overlap. But the reasons for this, the goals and the ideological motivations are entirely different - so in fact they're not the same thing. I am speaking to all the comments in this thread, not only the last one. The editor named Director is trying argue that the Nazis are socialist. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Aaand here we go with the straw men that want to "argue that Nazis are socialist", or that Nazis were "democratic" and whatnot, even though I explicitly said otherwise just above. The vitriolic aggressive arguing is here.. One word: no. I know my history. And not to get bogged down in esoteric concerns, I'll sum my position up in a couple points:
The Nazis were NOT "socialist" or "democratic" - by any means.
It is not accurate to state the National Socialists were "anti-Socialist", without qualification. TFD said it in a word, they're anti-Marxian socialist, certainly. Vehemently so. But not anti-"Socialist" as a general term.
The Nazis incorporated certain aspects of Socialism into their ideology. "To which degree?" is an issue debated along the left/right political divide.
And, whatever their actual ideological position - the NSDAP undoubtedly espoused 'socialistic' rhetoric and pageantry (as the source explains in more detail).
The latter two statements are more accurate the farther back we go. Even your own source (like virtually every other) references socialist ideals in the Nazi ranks. Its not like the SA, with 2,000,000 members, was some kind of marginal branch. This was a powerful left wing. -- Director(talk)19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It was not "socialism" in the classic Marxian sense at all; it was a nationalist redefinition of "socialism"; pan-German nationalist, racial based (mainly anti-Semitic) and anti-communism. Germans were to see themselves as a national class working against all others and for the common goals of Nazism which all revolved around Hitler who was both at the top and the center of the wheel per the Führerprinzip. Kierzek (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, anyhow, Surely wp lives and dies by the sources , reliable sources, accurately paraphrased and properly used. The sentence at issue is cited to p.296 of a book by Fritz Stern. There is nothing on p.296 of that book that justifies the sentence in the lead. 92.3.2.173 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I feel that Director is starting to split hairs. I simply disagree with his revisionist version of history. It reminds me of what it's like to debate a climate change denier. You can say that the Nazis weren't anti-socialist, yet all the socialists confined to concentration camps would tend to indicate otherwise. You can also play up similarities to make a point, but it isn't honest. I mean how far do we take this? German Nazis and German Socialists all spoke German, ate bread and potatoes, they all had 1930s-style haircuts, they formed militias - so therefore that makes their ideologies similar? I think not. I realise those are ridiculous analogies, but I use them to make my point clear. There seems to be majority agreement here that the section of the article in question is problematic. I also think inferring that the Nazis were somehow socialist is out of step with mainstream historian POV which sees the Nazis as clearly Far Right and in opposition to all shades of the socialist movement, be they social democrats, socialists or communists. The inferences in the current paragraph are at odds with Wikipedia's fringe theory policies. We need an intro that is more neutral/mainstream POV. It is so problematic that it requires deletion and certainly doesn't belong in the intro section. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This debate could go on and on in circles forever. I vote to remove said paragraph as proposed by editor:Boston. Do we have majority agreement? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose butchering the article. Even if it does so strikingly offend the IP user's sensibilities. That's a very good paragraph on the background of the topic, its been there for eons.. its fine. If the sentence attributed to Stern is indeed badly sourced, it should naturally be modified to more accurately reflect Stern's position, or removed entirely if it completely deviates from anything Stern states.
The rest is satisfactory, in my view. Far from "revisionism", it presents basic facts that really aren't opposed by anyone, and are in accordance with the scholarly mainstream. In my estimation anyway. Keep. Unless it really is the case that every single proposal to shift this article in that direction must be adopted. -- Director(talk)21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Approve: The paragraph in question is out of sync with mainstream perspectives. It contains weasel words/concepts such as right-wing socialism. It has been formulated by someone with a fringe interpretation & agenda. It compromises the integrity of the article and needs to be removed. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the one sentence. The lede still needs further ce work as does the main "History" section and its subsections; too long and too much commentary. Kierzek (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I feel that editor:Director has succeeded in muddying the waters and stalling the clean-up of this article. National Socialism is no more a branch of socialism than Scientology is a branch of science. The fact that both National Socialism and Scientology have co-opted buzz words of their time as a type of marketing strategy shouldn't be used to manipulate people on Wikipedia for ideological purposes. If you're going to link Stalinism with Socialism that is fair enough, but to co-opt an entirely different ideology (National "Socialism") and play some form of guilt-by-association game with it is fine for Fox News but not for content that aspires to be encyclopedic. Editor:Director is attempting to define socialism so broadly that it becomes a meaningless term. Basically any ideology with a social policy and some interaction of economy and government can be defined as a form of socialism by his measure. I cannot think of any ideology of any time in history that can't be defined as socialism by that yard stick. Let's get real: if I wrote a Wikipedia article about the Republican Party and started to define them as a species of socialist party, I wouldn't get very far. In fact I would (quite rightly) be banned as a troll. Republicans-as-socialists certainly wouldn't be a mainstream/neutral POV, yet Nazis are further to the Right from socialists than the Republicans are. The fact that the Nazi Party had some pragmatic policies that can be painted as socialist is like saying that Republicans voting funding for public schools, public libraries, public roads, or whatever, makes them a socialist party. That is ridiculous! It is a misrepresentation. Sources are being cited (probably out of context in many cases) which offer niche interpretations and false inferences out of step with mainstream perspectives on this subject. Frankly I'm aghast that we've had to debate this nonsense for so long! 121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The Nazi claim to socialism was even less tenuous. "Social" of course means people. The national socialists represented all the people, unlike the marxian socialists who only represented the working class, hence they were the real socialists. The other parties too represented class interests, not the whole nation. But today most major parties claim to represent the people as a whole, hence all are socialist by that definition. The policies which some editors consider socialist - maintaining universal health care, planning the economy during wartime - have nothing to do with why they called themselves socialist, and have been supported by parties across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Intro, scope
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
In my opinion the introduction is a bit too detailed and creates more confusion rather than giving a simple introduction to readers with little or no prior knowledge. It is also to a great extent redundant to the article Nazism and its introduction. Most German print encyclopedias only have one article on "Nationalsozialismus", covering the idology of Nazism, the history and organisation of the Nazi Party and the history and organisation of Germany under the Nazi rule. Wikipedia has three articles: Nazism, Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. Redundancies are probably inevitable, but we should try to keep them as little as possible. This article should focus on the history, development and organisation of the Nazi Party, it does not have to echo all the information about the ideology because we have a separate article on Nazism.
Moeller van den Bruck and Spengler may be considered ideological precursors of Nazism, but they did not play any role in the Nazi Party. Mentioning them in the intro to this article gives them undue weight in relation to the subject of the article. Most of the intro deals with the ideology of the Nazi Party while we have the article Nazism to cover these questions. This article (and its intro) should focus on the history and structure of the party. The whole third and most of the second and fourth paragraph of the introduction deal with the ideology of Nazism (about which we have a separate article) rather than actually describing and characterising the party, its development and role. They should therefore be cut as they do not adequately summarise the content of this article. --RJFF (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that the article could use to focus more on the party, rather than the ideology. However that should not be used as an excuse to scrap content (especially along ideological lines as in the IP users's above proposal): move the perceived excess of coverage to the Nazism article. -- Director(talk)18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
What is not redundant and on topic can be moved, but frankly I doubt there is much. Both articles are bloated and in need of ce. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with RJFF. It is questionable too whether the party had an ideology, or what role it played. TFD (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
We should also keep the article NPOV rather than defending the New Right ideological taint to the article that editor:Director is attempting to do. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
How about you sign in before posting two-bit personal evaluations of other users?
I think someone has to say that the "its not an ideology" or "the Nazis had no ideology" view is the definition of FRINGE[1], and that one would have absolutely no problem in drowning any such claim in an avalanche of sources discussing Nazi ideology and Nazism as an ideology... I further think you guys are really getting carried away, agreeing with each other in a sort of hugbox, and are in danger of carrying this article even further out of touch with scholarship. -- Director(talk)03:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Director, I said "It is questionable too whether the party had an ideology...." You replied "think someone has to say that the "its not an ideology" or "the Nazis had no ideology" view is the definition of FRINGE." You provide a Google book search for "nazism ideology." But your hits say that it is questionable whether or not there was a Nazi ideology. Instead of deciding what you think the article should say and looking for sources, read the sources and decide what the article should say. I do not mind when other editors have differences of opinions, but I find it irritating when they misrepresent sources, and waste my time and their's. I would note too that Mein Kampf is not generally considered to be on the same intellectual level as Locke or Marx. TFD (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@"But your hits say that it is questionable whether or not there was a Nazi ideology." Are we looking at the same hits? (And I didn't reply to you directly, but made more of a general statement.) -- Director(talk)08:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This is all so frustrating. If you go back to my original comment, I've never said that the claims in the paragraph in question cannot be included somewhere in the article, I simply said they don't belong in the introduction. I don't regard that as an unreasonable thing to point out. If included in the article, for the sake of balance the claims in question also have to be qualified by other mainstream sources which don't agree with their inferences, inferences which paint the Nazis as some form of socialism, when it isn't. Undue emphasis is being given to a fringe (New Right) POV, so it needs to be pointed out that this is not the NPOV definition of the origins or nature of Naziism. It is an interesting irony that editor:Director claims I am "posting two-bit evaluations of other users", right after he dismissed me as editing purely for ideological reasons. Far from this being a hugbox, I think too much time and energy has been given to (pointlessly) debating Director's pig-headedness. With the exception of editor:Director there seems to be some consensus about the need to modify the article, so let's just get on with it. I don't see the article on climate change being hamstrung just because of the objections of one rogue climate change denier. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Director and ip, there is no reason for disingenuous comments. What we need are more constructive ideas to improve the article and consensus here. Unlike the Nazi government (under Hitler), the party did have a pretty clear structure (although positions and functions could overlap or were not always clearly defined). The structure went from the Führer at the top, on down. Nazi ideology was really as much about what it rejected as what it was for. It was based on nationalism, anti-intellectualism, anti-modernism, anti-communism, anti-semitism and racially based in nature. Kierzek (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Ideology
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Where is "Anti-communism" in the infobox Ideology? Hitler may have been the most anti-communist person of all time. He was constantly demonizing Marxism and Bolshevism. I see this is apparently treated as normal here, even though he caused the deaths of some 30-40 million East Europeans with his anti-Slavic view. It should be included, just as it is on DAP. Watch any speech video and he will tell you how he will wipe out the "marxismus". 188.207.91.211 (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
But the whole premise of the NSDAP was that they fought against the German left-wing movements. I don't know, maybe it isn't strictly an ideology. But anti-semitism is? I mean, it's clear that Hitler at least used them as an ideology. "Anti-bolshevism" would be even more appropriate. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism is not an ideology either. And of course Nazis fought against the non-Communist Left as well. TFD (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Lead too long?
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Generally, there should be no more than four paragraphs in the introduction. However, historical significance of one topic can make long intro an exception. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
There's no doubt that the Nazi Party was an extreme right-wing nationalist group in terms of social policy, but economically, not so much, to the point where analysis like the ones seen on Political Compass and even the WP page on Nazi Germany's economics suggest that, especially because of Hjalmar Schacht, there were aspects of their fiscal policy that were broadly Keynesian.
That is a distortion of Nazi economic policy and assumes that right-wing governments would adopt the same policies regardless of circumstances. Whether or not a party was right-wing is something that is supposed to be determined in sources, not through synthesis of editors. TFD (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I would be suspicious of any categorization, far-right or otherwise -- I've been a silent advocate of removing the "position" parameter altogether, as I feel that politics of any form go beyond the petty and semi-binary categorization of left-right.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I would agree to removing the field in the info-box, since it provides more confusion than clarity. Just say that the ideology is Nazism. While they clearly were far right, thee field (which is not part of the original template) becomes confusing when discussing mainstream parties as for example some editors insist that liberal parties are center-left. TFD (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
On that last part, that may be because the way the word "liberal" is used varies in some countries, such as the United States. Dustin(talk)20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Except that outside the U.S., ideology close to U.S. liberalism is normally seen as center. Usually too liberal parties include both what Americans call liberals and conservatives. TFD (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It is so universally known as "far-right" that it maybe even defined it. Remember that Nazi Germany traded extensively with foreign (yes, American too) corporations and even had some of Germany's forced laborers produce for those companies. In fact, he was willing to allow nearly all trade that wasn't with/through Jews or communists. Nazis controlled the European Commission for WW1 Reparations (forgot its name) and Hitler never nationalized but rather employed companies like Volkswagen. I think you're confusing leftist with statist. 188.207.91.211 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Nazi-propaganda-marxism-capitalism.jpgA Nazi propaganda poster. In English: "Marxism is the guardian angel of capitalism." It is intellectually dishonest and transparently agenda-serving to place the Nazis on a polar left-right spectrum. This much is factual about the ideology of the Nazis: they opposed capitalism (see right), they opposed communism (see right), they labeled themselves as socialists (a characteristic of the political left by modern Western standards) and they labeled themselves as nationalists (a characteristic of the political right by modern Western standards). Let's keep Wikipedia neutral and honest. Remove the label and admit that the Nazis don't belong on an oversimplified left-right spectrum. Dontworryifixedit (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Variety of English and formatting
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The spelling and date formatting seem to be a mixture of US and European conventions.
I was intending to do some minor copy-editing to fix other problems (commas, etc.).
Any objections to standardising on British/European spelling and date conventions (apart from quotes etc., of course)? --Boson (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
--Any objections to standardising on British/European spelling and date conventions (apart from quotes etc., of course)?--Nope. Dave Dial (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Request input on a projected change at beginning of the article
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
“…the Nazi Party (/ˈnɑːtsi/), was a political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 that practiced Nazism. Its predecessor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920.”
I would like to change this to: “It was founded as the German Workers’ Party in 1919 with 'National Socialism' being added to its name in 1920.” This was a simple name change which involved no change in formation or membership. It was the exact same entity. It would be more appropriate to refer to Drexler’s and Harrer’s small parties as “predecessor parties.” Because of the nature of this article, I am reluctant to make almost any change of substance without input from others. Such would be appreciated. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@HistoryBuff14: On the article for German Workers' Party, it says "the DAP was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party on February 24." This is sourced to page 87 of Ian Kershaw's Hitler: A Biography, where the relevant text reads, "Even in the hothouse of Munich politics, the big meetings of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), as the movement henceforth called itself, were something different." So it looks like you're right: this reliable source claims that the movement remained structurally the same with the only difference being what it was called. I'm in favor of this but if it seems like it might be fraught, sure, let's let others weigh in. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
But there's another problem: this isn't the only instance of Wikipedia treating the DAP as a separate entity from the NSDAP. The infobox here, the article I linked above, and the actual text in the history section all do the same thing. I'm wondering about rounding up everything that presumably needs to be corrected and it seems like a nightmare. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. The article, for example, on Karl Harrer also refers to DAP as the predecessor party to the NSDAP. There are other issues as well unless William Shirer’s early work was wrong as noted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. He states that the DAP was the result of the merger of Harrer’s and Drexler’s parties. Therefore, they should be listed as co-founders if this is true rather than Drexler as the sole founder as in the info box. Also, he states that Harrer (and not Drexler as also noted in the info box) was the first party chairman and remained so until Hitler started organizing larger meetings (I think sometime in 1920) which he objected to and notes in a footnote that Harrer also objected to Hitler’s virulent anti-Semitism and that he felt Hitler was alienating the working class and this was the actual reason why Harrer left the party. All of this is at odds with the article to some extent; and although I don’t know who is right, I find it difficult to believe that Shirer had been wrong about Harrer having been the first chairman as he gives some detail about why he resigned from the position.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources say that the DAP changed its name and adopted the 25 point program on 20 Feb, 1920, not that a new party was formed. Drexler and Harrer were both members of the DAP so either Shirer was wrong or we are misreading him. (I would not use his book as a source since there has been a lot of research since since then.) So we should not treat it as one party. The DAP article though can remain per WP:SPINOFF. It is not about a different party but about a specific period of the party's existence. TFD (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I’m not certain I am understanding you. You begin: “Reliable sources say that the DAP changed its name and adopted the 25 point program on 20 Feb, 1920, not that a new party was formed” [emphasis mine for both] and then state: “So we should not treat it as one party” which seems blatantly contradictory. As for Harrer and Drexler both being members of DAP, Shirer does state such. (In fact, as I noted, effectively they co-founded it by the merger of their small parties.) Shirer does acknowledge that Drexler seems to have been the driving force, though without explaining why Harrer was the new party's first chairman and not Drexler. So I’m uncertain what your point is there.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Drexler proposed the founding of the DAP in December, 1918; which was then formed on 5 January 1919. He was the one elected to lead the party as chairman, not Harrer. Harrer was only made "Reich Chairman", an honorary title. Per Kershaw who is a better authority and not dated as Shirer. It is fair to say, the Nazi Party (NSDAP) was the renamed successor of the DAP. I added another cite for clarity as to date of the name being changed. The party did change in other ways from its beginnings as it moved from a debating society, to a committee ruled party, to the party of the NSDAP, centered around Hitler as the authoritarian wheel in which all turned. The DAP was, as Zentner & Bedurftig state (along with others), a "precursor" of the NSDAP. (p. 343) So, it was more than a simple "renaming". Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I reread the applicable portion of Shirer’s book yesterday. Although it is a work replete with citations, he gives none when he is discussing the founding of DAP and what preceded it. I would guess he used verbal accounts, very possibly secondhand ones at that as he might not have been able to find a reliable source from that period. Therefore, I shall concede that he is probably not the best source in this regard, though any errors he might have made were inconsequential. I would have guessed (nothing more) that Drexler deferred to Harrer as the latter was well educated while the former was not and perhaps because Harrer had some funding from the crank Thule Society. But perhaps you are correct. I now think it is best to leave matters as they stand, so I withdraw my proposed change. Thanks for everyone’s input. This is what we are supposed to do here, discuss such matters civilly and in an educated manner. All too often that doesn’t happen, so I am appreciative.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It has been a good discussion. I was thinking, although very similar, "precursor", might be a better word to use than "predecessor", for the lede sentence. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Use of the word "Nazi"?
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Surely the use of the word "Nazi" throughout this article and in other articles on similar subjects can't be justifiable as it was originally a term used by the political opponents of the National Socialists and not in their official documents. It then became a colloquial term for the party/movement in a number of languages. Yes, it is widely used but it is equivalent to referring to Communist parties as "commies" or "reds". I propose that apart from the initial statement "commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party" and direct quotes that the use of the term "Nazi" should actually be replaced with "National Socialism" which is the correct term for the ideology/movement. 94.175.91.21 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "Nazi" is an incorrect term in this case. I offer an alternative solution. Refer to it as the "NSDAP" or the "National Socialist Party." Your suggestion of "National Socialism" refer to the political ideology, not the specific party in question. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.25.6 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
We use the terms commonly used in reliable sources. BTW lots of political descriptions began as terms of abuse: Whig, Tory, Liberal and in the U.S. Democrat and conservative. TFD (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I feel that the term "Nazi" should be replaced by "NSDAP" because of the emotive social engineering aspect of the word obfuscates the truth that they were some kind of Socialists. However, the emotive term "Nazi" remains in common sources despite it being far from an objective overview word. This challenges Four Deuces excellent, persuasive point about "Tories" and "Whigs" once being derogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.249.145.34 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe "Nazi" in many usages -- such as the ideology section of the infobox -- should probably be replaced with "National Socialism". Nuke (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
It is a problem on wikipedia right now, that articles about Nazism and Nazi Germany are claiming they belived all Europeans or whites were a superior race. This is because the article about Aryans are claiming falsely that everyone and every nation defined Aryan as indo-european and western-asian. This defenition are not in line with what Hitler and the other national socialists thought about this word.
He even writes in Mein Kampf that it is hard to define Aryan, but it is usually described as a indo-german people who took controll over a part of India. In which it seems he wanted to use since it were an ancient name for Germans.
From my time at school and trough reading about the subject, there is no dubt that Hitler were speaking about a superior German race or Germanic race, this was what they though Aryan meant. While other Europeans, like Southern European were not as great, and the eastern Europeans were one of the lowest races.
This article in particular are helping to misinform the public, because the term isn't defined.
Please come up with a definition that you think is appropriate, being sure to have it well referenced, Hitler is a fine source to use for this purpose, and post it here. From her it can work its way into the article. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that "Chamberlain belives Aryan and German to mean the same thing". When Hitler speaks of the real Aryans, the people who inhabited India, he writes about an Indo-German and Indo-Germanic conqest, the Aryans who conqered India were in his view (some scholars too) German or Germanic. He later writes: "no defenition of the word Aryan is acceptable", but that the term "Aryan" had become a synonym for indo-German. He seems to belive that Europe and America become what they did because of the Aryans, that would indicate he thinks the UK (Conqered by German tribes, Anglo-Saxons), USA (at that time were inhabited by Anglo-Saxons, a German tribe), Germany, France (when it were conqered by German tribes, Franks) were Germanic or partly. He seems to have a very mixed view on the Term in General. This is the version I used: https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt
It seems to me that how it is handled in the lede is just fine. It is a link to Aryan race. That is where the Nazi definition or use of the term needs to be clarified. And I think that to some extent it is, although I have not delved into that article too much. Yet. Carptrash (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You need a reliable secondary source for what the Nazis meant by Aryan. The dictionary is inadequate because Nazis may not have used the same definition, just as they did not with Jews. Hitler's writings are also indequate because it assumes that HItler was consistent in his definitions and all Nazis accepted them. The Holocaust Museum definition is correct but imprecise. Certainly Germans were Aryans, but it is unclear which other peoples were. Note too that Aryan was considered a racial or subracial group by mainstream anthropologists at the time, and that is probably what the Nazis meant, but you need a source that explains it. TFD (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hans F. K. Günther in his book “The Racial Elements of European History” (translated from the 2nd German edition, 1927, p.257) has only one listing in the index for “Aryan.” It is in “The Nordic Ideal” chapter. I think I need to quote a largish chunk to get the sense and then we can decide if there is something useable in it. Or not.
”Following the terms used by Gobineau and Chamberlain, we come here and there upon more or less clear conceptions of the need for keeping the ‘Germanic’ blood pure, or (following Lapouge) of keeping the ‘Ayran’ blood pure. ‘’’Then there is a footnote. It states’’’
Philology used formerly often gives the name of Ayran to the Indo-European languages; nowadays the term ‘Ayran’ is mostly applied only to the Indo-Persian branch of these. Racial investigations in the beginning sometimes called the (non-existing) white or Caucasian race Aryan; later the peoples of Indo-European speech were occasionally called Aryan; and finally the Nordic race also was termed Aryan. Today the term Aryan has gone out of scientific use and its use is not advisable, especially since in lay circles the word Aryan is current in still other meanings, and mostly with a very confused application to the peoples who do not speak Semitic languages; the ‘Semites’ are then opposed to the ‘Aryans.’ The term ‘Semites’ however, has been likewise given up in anthropology, since men and peoples of various racial descent speak Semitic tongues. (cp. on this the fourth chapter above).” Carptrash (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The Nazis definition of 'Aryan' was both ambiguous and flexible, sometimes they even targeted those that they considered to be part of the so-called Aryan race. When the Nazis introduced the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 the term Aryan was not used but rather German or related blood, but like Aryan, it was not defined. All definitions the Nazis used for Aryan included all the European peoples, including the Slavs, who many Nazis (including Hitler) regarded as racially inferior to the Germans.
Eric Ehrenreich in his book The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution speaks about the problems the Nazis had when defining the word 'Aryan' on pages 9-11. Diemut Majer in her book "Non-Germans" Under The Third Reich also explains the same thing throughout the whole book. On p.63 "According to National Socialist racial doctrine, all European peoples belonged to the family of Aryans and were thus fundamentally "racially equivalent", that is, recognized as equal before the law." However, as explained throughout the book, despite being considered 'Aryan' by the law, the Nazis discriminated against those they considered to be foreign. Even though the Nazis knew that there was no such thing racially speaking as the Aryan race, they still continued to use the term in propaganda but for the majority of time in documents the term German or related blood was used.
Hitler himself personally considered the Germanic peoples to be 'Aryans'. The Nazis had problems defining the racial status of non-Germanic people such as Hungarians and Finns.--Enoch J Brown (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
May I also just elaborate on what's already been said, Christopher Hutton in his book Race and the Third Reich wrote a chapter called "The Myth of an Aryan Race", in the 'Introduction' (p.80) he stated:
The notion that Nazi race theorists promoted the notion of a superior Aryan race is deeply embedded in academic and popular perceptions of Nazism. The term 'Aryan' was widely used in Nazi Germany, and 'non-Aryan' became in many contexts a synonym for 'Jewish'. However, Nazi race theorists opposed the promotion of 'Aryan' as a racial concept. By 1935, the National Socialist regime had accepted that this use of the term was unscientific. Almost every academic commentary - outside specialist writings on race science in the Third Reich - fundamentally misrepresents the intellectual history of this question. The notion that the Nazis 'confused language with race' or Volk with Rasse in relation to the Aryan question is completely false.
So in essence it's actually very difficult to describe how the Nazis defined 'Aryan' when they couldn't even come up with a satisfactory one themselves.--Enoch J Brown (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason why the Nazis used "Aryan" (see Aryan race) mainly to refer to Germanic peoples, even though technically it meant the same as "Indo-European" at the time, is their belief that the Germanic peoples were the "purest" descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans ("Aryans"), who they thought had dwelt in Germany and Scandinavia (as they identified the people of the Corded Ware culture, then known as Battle-Axe culture, with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, after Gustaf Kossinna), while they considered Slavic peoples (despite their light pigmentation) as too mixed with Asians (mainly Turks and Mongols), Greeks and other Southern Europeans (generally not that lightly pigmented) as too mixed with ancient Mediterranean peoples, Indians (often with brownish skin colour) as too mixed with dark-skinned South Asian natives (Proto-Australoids and the like), etc., so these peoples didn't count as "true Aryans", and were considered "racially inferior".
I don't think the Nazis ever considered the "Aryans" (the supposed Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Neolithic/Bronze Age) as literally Germanic, but as older than the Germanic peoples, as their forebears (the same way you wouldn't call the ancient Romans literally Italian), hence their use of the term "Aryan" (I don't think anybody thought that it was Germanic tribes who "invaded" India, just like nobody thinks of Caesar as some Italian dude who invaded France; that's too obvious an anachronism, though admittedly, you never know with some people).
This is analogous to the way the Italian fascists considered the Italians the most direct and "purest" descendants of the ancient Romans, even if the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Romanians etc. also had some "Roman blood", but for example the French would have a great deal of Celtic and Germanic ancestry too.
I believe they did accept the Baltic peoples (Lithuanians and Latvians) as well as the Estonians and to some extent Finns and even Hungarians (despite their Finno-Ugric, non-Indo-European languages) as essentially "Aryan" on account of their appearance. There are also peoples where they were rather ambiguous and noncommittal, like the Persians, Kurds and other Iranian peoples, who have the most solid ancient tradition of calling themselves "arya" (the Indic/Sanskrit situation is a bit more complicated, though Indic is besides Iranian generally accepted as "Aryan" in the historically valid sense until this day), in a mainly ethnolinguistic sense, so ancestry and especially appearance isn't the main concern (many Iranians do look fairly European, though, some even rather lightly pigmented).
The concept Honorary Aryan does indicate a measure of flexibility with the designation and there was a great deal of "worthiness" implied, but the basic idea is fairly consistent and intelligible (or at least can be rationalised their way, even if it was self-serving and of course often specious – especially with the Slavs). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2017
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The National Socialist German Workers Party was not a Right Wing Party seeking Personal Rights in Opposition to Nationalistic Control but rather was a Left Leaning Party seeking a Strong Central Government and advocated that individual rights were secondary to the interests of the Party Interests. Central to the ideology were the beliefs that what was best for the National Interests of the County was what was best for the Unification of the German People.
Although the Party viewed communism as a fierce enemy, both ideologies shared left leaning concepts such as powerful central government, strong nationalist ideals and severe punishment for any opposition. Neither party advocated for strong individualism, religious freedoms or Natural Rights which are at the root of right wing parties. RickHorner (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As I understand it, the term "Nazi" was coined as a pejorative, even abusive term, by emigres who fled from Germany. The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei never referred to themselves as "Nazis" or "the Nazi Party" or to their philosophy as "Nazism". These are all pejorative terms used against them by outsiders. I despise everything about the NSDA but is an encyclopaedia the place to consistently refer to a historical organisation by a pejorative? Do we, for example, refer to Stalin as a "Commie" or as a "Communist"? Surely the latter. It's not a matter of respect for the subject of the article, but a respect for the facts of history. Jayarava (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of your statements are wrong: Nazi was not coined by emigrants, but by political opponents in the early 30s in Germany. Nazis used the word "Nazi" for themselves in the early days of their party history. Later when it became pejorative, the avoided this wording. However the most important argument is: Nazi party is the most often used English name for the NSDAP, so it is fine to put them under this lemma. Look at the German Wikipedia, there you will find the party under NSDAP (resp. its long name) --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
info box
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Far-right is appropriate, as the Nazi Party was considered far-right in the Weimar Republic (the German Republic of 1918–33) due to its radical opposition to socialism, liberalism and democracy. Positions in the political spectrum always depend on historical context as there is no universal definition of "left" and "right". Social conservatism, on the other hand, is dubious and rather not a decisive element of the NSDAP's ideology. The party had different, sometimes contradictory, ideological elements, we cannot list them all in the infobox. Social conservatism perhaps was one of them, but at least until 1934 (Röhm purge), there also was a notable social-revolutionary wing. Readers are best refered to the article on Nazism to find out detailed information about the ideology. --RJFF (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Nazi party ideology
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
It seems to me that the FAQ tries to blur the fact that national socialism really was (or is) socialism, not only in its name.
Reisman, George (2005-11-11). "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian". Mises Institute. Retrieved 2017-05-18. What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
According to Mises, everyone was a socialist except him and Hayek and he wasn't sure about Hayek. According to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, both Democrats and Republicans are socialist, the U.S. is socialist as is the New World Order that secretly controls us. TFD (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
According to the FAQ at the top:
The Nazi Party did not advocate for "a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment" and instead "embraced interventionist economics."
The Nazi Party embraced "collectivism and anti-individualism."
Hitler "regarded the capitalist ethos as being self-centred individualism that was incompatible with patriotism."
This is the exact opposite of a rightist opinion as it is understood today. The Nazi Party was only far-right in the same way that North Korea is: emphasis on nationalism and authoritarianism. It is not anywhere close to the right according to contemporary usage of the terms.
I believe it is misleading to use such an antiquated definition of a term, especially in an article's leading sentence. Vektor00 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
See "No original research." It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to correct the mistakes made by experts to report what they say. It seems you do not know why they are called far right and suggest you read the sources rather than ask other editors to explain them to you. TFD (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first Paragraph the identification of the NAZI Party as a "far right" needs clarification. In the second paragraph the NAZIs are supposedly openly anti "big business", anti "bourgeois" and anti "capitolism". To most people these are contradictory and opposite to "far right" positions. These apparent contradictions make the article confusing and apparently politically motivated.
Please change paragraph 1 to drop the phrase "far right". This political identifier should be left out entirely. AWinter (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the part that states that the Nazi Party was a far right movement. By its very nature the far right was all about the individual where as the far left is about the group. If you are getting hung up on the nationalism, the communist party had that as well. In economic policy, right wing is defined by loose econimic restrictions and controls i.e. laissez-faire. While left wing is defined by strict economic regulation and control up to and including nationlizing major industries as was done by the Nazi Party. Also fascism is just a dictatorship not a far right movement either. 98.150.222.32 (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. "Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science; however, labor parties are typically far-left in party affiliation. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party." nihlus kryik (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
We base content on the conclusions reached by experts and presented in reliable sources rather than editors' individual beliefs. Incidentally, your premises are mostly wrong. For example, the Nazis carried out a privatization program, i.e., de-nationalization. TFD (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Edit war in progress
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
It seems like there is a longstanding consensus to keep the name of this article and the article Nazism as they are. I'm not sure what justification there is for using a linked term in the inbox that requires a redirect. Rather than continuing to push for a change to National Socialism in this article, the thing to do is to start an Rfc on a name change at the Nazism article. I imagine the reason that isn't being attempted is that it is unlikely to be successful -- after all Nazism and Nazi Party are the most commonly used terms in the English language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not mentioning both expressions? Keep in mind that in Germany "Nazi" is used frequnetly but rated as colloquial. All scientific and official wordings stick to "Nationalsozialismus" exclusisvely! I am aware that the English terminalogy deviates, however this background info from the origin country of Nazism could be taken into account. --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Speaking precisely about the Holocaust and not the political repression or the war victims initiated by the Nazi State, one may correct the following sentence to be found in paragraph 3 of the article;
"The persecution reached its climax when the party-controlled German state organized the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews and five million people from the other targeted groups, in what has become known as the Holocaust", since the reference to five million people is including those subject to totalitarian repression and not the Holocaust specifically. The Holocaust refers to those targeted for annihilation and that would be the Jewish and ROMA Peoples. Since 1.5 million ROMA were exterminated in the death camps that would mean the 5 million figure should be changed to 1.5 and specifically mention the ROMA People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.209.200 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I tweaked the WP:Lede and added a link and WP:RS cite; and added detailed text to the body of the article, which covers the above; in addition to further links and RS cites, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Right wing?
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Socialism, fascism, and to a specific notice, Nazism are all far left ideologies, as was the concept of pro-slavery by the confederacy during the American Civil War. Any claim of the Nazi party being "right wing" is false, as the Nazis were extremely left wing. Fascism itself is defined as a left wing ideology, not associated with the right wing. Right wing ideologies favor capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietric Learning Stone (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Fascism was pro-capitalist and Ludwig von Mises was the chief economic adviser to the Austrian fascists. Slavery too was capitalist as it was defended by property rights. I agree though that socialists, who were the only ones who did not vote to give Hitler absolute power, were left wing. TFD (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Pietric Learning Stone - Please read the prior discussions on this subject on this talk page, including [3] Archive 6 and the "Frequently asked questions" section, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Overlinking
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
“anti-semitism” (and its variants- anti-semitic, etc.)is linked a lot in the article, which following the manual of style probably should be avoided, so should we change that? Also I assume other terms are probably overlinked as well. SimplicityWalrus (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead and check the article; it happens, usually when additions occur to sections and editors don't realize something has been already linked or it happens due to editors not knowing, there should be one link to something in the lead and one link at its first mention in the body of an article. Kierzek (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
National Socialism or Nazism?
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
That has been tried before (more than once) but it always falls foul of WP:COMMONNAME. Nazism is almost always called Nazism in English speaking countries. This is the term used in most English language books on the subject. Generally the term "National Socialism" is not widely understood. (This is the reverse of the way it runs in German speaking countries which is why the German language Wikipeda articles are different.) In the past we have had people wanting to change it in order to further a bizarre political agenda that seeks to conflate Nazism with unrelated left wing ideologies, either in a ham fisted attempt to rehabilitate Nazism in some way, or else to taint the left by association with it. I do not think that renaming the article would aid anybody's understanding of the subject.
So, I think the long-standing consensus is that it is fine as it is. Anybody following the link to Nazism will be told that "National Socialism", "Nationalsozialismus" and "Nazism" are all names for the same thing in the very first sentence. Anybody searching for National Socialism will be redirected to the Nazism article. Anybody looking for other stuff with similar names will find a link to National Socialism (disambiguation) which lists a depressing number of Nazi influenced organisations as well as a few other unfortunate organisations that just happen to have similar names. In short: I think that we have the correct articles with the correct names in order to provide our readers with the information they want under the titles they most expect to find it. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I was reading about left wing socialist policies recently and then decided to check the wiki.
Why does Nazi party is described as being right wing, even though there was almost nothing right wing in it, especially in terms of what they were advocating for?
That makes little sense and looks like someone tried to redifine the meaning.
By that logic, US republicans should be socialists or advocating for only one race, since they too are labeled “right-wing”. But that is incorrect, because their economic and racial policies are completely opposite of that. So, what gives? Who labebeled Nazi party of Germany left wing and where is the source that indicates that? Sunamer (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Because what articles say is based on reliable sources not uninformed people such as yourself. If you want to argue that Nazis were left-wing, the moon landing was faked and Barack Obama was born in Kenya, then go to a conspiracy theory website. TFD (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I agree, Darkstar1st. The amount of times people come to these articles just to complain Nazis were left-wing is disproportionally high. Most of them want to want to make a point without actually trying to build a Wiki and should be told in no unclear terms that that's not appropriate behaviour here. Besides, if they look one or two sections above theirs, they'll know why the article is the way it is. PS: I do think personal attacks should be avoided at all times, of course. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
True, what is the solution? the previous post provided the faq. the mass of wikipedians are uninformed, as well as the readers, it is the very reason they are here, to become informed. belittling someone's perceived lack of information does not seem helpful to me.Darkstar1st (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 6 years ago31 comments9 people in discussion
In the context of the political spectrum in Germany at the time the Nazi Party's rise and dominance, the parties of the right favored rule by the old establised elites, with a significant group at the far right of the spectrum favoring a return to monarchy. The views of the true far right in Germany at this time are millions of miles away from the views of the Nazi party. At the end of the day, however, lableing the Nazi Party as a party of the far right comes down to one's definition of the term "far right." Upon examination, it will emerge that people who want this article to say that the Nazi Party was of the far right are engaged in a circular defition of the term.
This statement has no place in this article. The motivation of those who want it in the article is to denigrate the modern political right. Dsteakley (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The motivations of those that are reverting you are that they understand that the overwhelming consensus of scholars/sources label the Nazi Party as right-wing. Read the FAQ. Dave Dial (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please cite this alleged overwhelming consensus. I have read the FAQ. This claim is complete nonsense. No one in Germany in the 20s, 30s and 40s would have described the Nazis as a party of the right. Dsteakley (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
There are two key defining characteristics of the far right in Germany during this period: a desire to restore the monarchy, and a reverence for the church. Hitler and the Nazis embraced neither of these positions, and in fact were violently opposed to these positions. Dsteakley (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
We are not making this stuff up ourselves or promoting a fringe view here. This really is what the post 1945 mainstream academic consensus is. Even most right wing historians agree with it. If you doubt this then go to a library and checkout some reliable mainstream history books, such as the ones we use as references.
You make a partially correct point when you talk about how Nazism was viewed before 1939. The Nazis sought to confuse people as to their real nature and pretended to be left, right and "third way" when they thought this would suit their purposes. The key point here is that Nazis lie. Nothing they say can be taken at face value. If Hitler says that the sky is blue you stick your head out the window to check.
Finally, please don't worry that anybody is calling normal right wing people Nazis. Nobody is doing that! Nazis are an extreme, weird and pathological case. Normal right wing people are not Nazis. Normal left wing people are not Stalinists. Most fish are not sharks.
(Oh, and I did once know a few socialists who were very adamant that the Soviet Union was really right wing from Stalin onwards. They were wrong too.) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No serious scholar would engage in the extremely pointless discussion of whether the nazis were right wing or left wing. If you can cite a serious scholar who actually takes up this point in writing, please cite it, or stop claiming that you can do so. Note that I am not arguing that the article should say that the Nazis were a party of the left. That would be as false and inappropriate as what this article currently says. And what on earth could be the basis for a claim that, in the context of Germany at the time, the Nazis were viewed as right wing?? And if that's not the point of having this in the article, if the point is that modern left wing chuckleheads cast the Nazis as a part of the right, that is totally inappropriate. Dsteakley (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I enjoy a good debate as much as the next man. And this is my first ride on this wikpedia editing dispute train. I cannot imagine how what we are doing right now is going to resolve this situation. How is this process supposed to resolve this dispute? Dsteakley (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Dude! Are you really convinced that this is something we just made up? That it is something that just dropped from the sky? I can assure you that you have it completely backwards. The bizarre idea that the Nazis were left wing has only really started making noise in the last few years. 10 years ago almost nobody had heard of it. Just a few people thought otherwise and were regarded as pretty out there. Even now, if I mention the idea to people here in the UK they look at me blankly and assume that anybody trying to recast the Nazis must themselves be Nazis trying to rehabilitate their ideology.
Dude! just give me one source for this specific false claim, that the Nazis were a party of the far right. You keep claiming you can do it, but you keep failing to do so. I've read literally hundreds of books and articles about the Nazis. I don't need a general list of references about the Nazis. Just please give me your best, most credible source for this extremely specific point, or please stop claiming that you can do so. And, again, I am not arguing that the Nazis should be described as a party of the left. Surprising no one, there is no source cited for this false claim in the article. Dsteakley (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's an article [1] from the Mises Institute which refutes the false claim made in this FAQ that the Nazi regime was a capitalist regime. Dsteakley (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The Quora piece has many replies which dispute this opinion. One of the replies makes my main point, which is: ascribing right/left to the Nazis is pretty meaningless. in the political spectrum of the time, in that country, the Nazis were certainly not of the far right. They opposed the two cornerstone principles of Germany's right parties: monarch and church. But also dumb and pointless to argue that the Nazis were a party of the left. The right/left rubric is too simplistic to add any value to a discussion of the Nazis. Discuss their policies, and their vile actions. Keep your opinions intended to impugn the modern right to yourselves. Dsteakley (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
with all due respect, i thought you promised me a scholar who would advocate for this baseless (and pointless) position. a chucklehead on Quora is not what I would describe as highly persuasive. Dsteakley (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Austrian School stuff: This is non-mainstream. Their opinions are notable (although not all of their hangers on are), which is why we have an article about them and mention their opinions in other relevant articles, but they don't get to trump all the other sources. Anyway, I agree with Carptrash. This has been done to death. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to discuss anything anywhere on wikipedia please learn to use :, and then more of them, at the beginning of your posts. Also this thread is a no go. it has been debated many times over the past decade. We are not really interested in doing it again. Carptrash (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
well, thanks! you can also go pound sand. I was advised to come here and discuss and resolve the dispute. But, as I thought, there is no possibility of resolving the dispute by this means. I am not interested in anything you have to say. Dsteakley (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You are not obliged to agree with the mainstream consensus but what you can't do is insist on your own opinions going into articles in a way that misrepresents the mainstream consensus. Sometimes it can legitimately be argued that a non-mainstream option is insufficiently covered in an article and, when that happens, it is right to raise it. Given that we have a whole section in Nazism discussing the nuance of Nazism in the political spectrum, which mentions the various non-mainstream views as well as the mainstream one, I don't believe that this applies here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not asking that my opinion be put in the article. This false claim, that the nazis were a party of the far right, should be removed. It is you who wants his opinion to be in the article. You keep asserting that this false claim is the mainstream consensus, but you have failed to produce even a single piece of evidence for that. You claimed that this is the scholarly consensus, which is a thoroughly ridiculous claim. Why do you keep asserting that it be can be proved, and then fail to prove it? Dsteakley (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
it seems to me that this article does not honor WP:ASSERT. No source is given for the claim, and the opinion is not attributed to anyone, and the article does not acknowledge that this opinion is disputed. Dsteakley (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
DanielRigal, I broadly agree with Dsteakley, and we do need to get away from expressions like "false claim". It's certainly a mainstream tenet of many left-wing people that the Nazis were "far right", but that isn't a statement of fact, it's merely an opinion. The question has been argued over endlessly, and I think the main points are that the Nazis were a "big government" party believing in central control of the economy, social engineering, and so on, remarkably like the mainstream socialist parties in the rest of Europe at the time, even though fiercely opposed to the German Marxists at home and the Soviet Union of Stalin. I can find you some links, if you want to follow this up, but the main point is surely that we don't want controversial statements in the article that have a political agenda. Moonraker (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not a "tenet of many left-wing people," it's a generally-accepted tenet among reliable sources. That you personally disagree with those reliable sources is interesting, but entirely irrelevant to how Wikipedia works. That you view mainstream sources as "left-wing" is similarly irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
That's just wrong, Moonraker. It's common knowledge & supported by scores of scholars and historians over the last 60+ years. It's like debating whether the Earth is a planet or not. These are indisputable facts, that a few fringe people/groups disagree with. Dave Dial (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
can you cite even one scholar or historian who states that the nazis were a party of the right? since you claim "scores" support this view, it should be pretty easy to give us JUST ONE. Dsteakley (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but you should be able to do that yourself. It's common knowledge, Hoss. Read the articles, read the sources. But here's one. "Stormtroopers and Crisis in the Nazi Movement: Activism, Ideology and Dissolution--Thomas D. Grant". Dave Dial (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Dsteakley, your thesis comes from Cleon Skousen's article, "What is Left? What is Right?" (1962). According to him, the French Revolution was a right wing revolution against the Left. But he actually switched the meanings. Maybe we should call Communists right-wing and fascists left-wing, but we dont't. And Trump was a left-winger who beat Clinton on the right. TFD (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Moonraker makes a great point, [4]. Authoritarian is far more accurate. From the current lede: Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist rhetoric. Perhaps the point edit warriors wish to make is this was really a lie and Nazis secretly recruited capitalist big business to help. Using political influence to crush business competition is the very opposite of capitalism. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
" Using political influence to crush business competition is the very opposite of capitalism." What nonsense. Capitalists will use anything they can to crush business competitors. Carptrash (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
The article describes the Nazi Party as historians, scholars and other reliable sources describe them. See the FAQ at the top of this page. Dave Dial (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
""""The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: About this sound Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (English: /ˈnɑːtsi, ˈnætsi/),[6] was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920.""
So we were at the college yesterday and someone said that Wikipedia had changed the Nazi Party to a "RIGHT" wing political party. As you can imagine we all laughed at him and said no they didn't, then he pulled it up on his phone and yes it was true. He then showed us how back on June 6th 2017 in the heat of the Left wing hatred over Trump winning the election Wikipedia tried to say the Nazi's were a Right wing political party.
Now we all know the Nazi Party had the exact opposite political views of the Right wing, and it’s very obviously what someone at Wikipedia is trying to do here.
I know a lot of people joke about Wikipedia not being a factual reliable source for information but it's sad you will intentionally contribute to the ignorance of today's youth..
It would expect Wikipedia would at least take the time to correct such an obvious false statement..
TLD1965 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 4/09/2018
"Now"? The NSDAP is and has always been a right wing party. This is consensus among scientists. Before you start laughing, you should read some history books. Cheers ✦hugarheimur21:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The Nazi Party, as Torana said, has always been a right-wing party (and the article has said that since well before 2017). I feel like you're probably making up your whole "everybody laughed" experience anyway. Master of Time(talk)21:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Shhh. They don't know about the View History button at the top of each article and page. Best not to tell them; It will only make them even more confused and upset. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party was leftist, not rightist
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
Sorry but this statement is inaccurate "The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: About this sound Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (/ˈnɑːtsi/), was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920." The Nazi party is LEFT-WING ideology, as many of the posters on this 'talk page' point out.
The thesis that because this is a common mistake in common parlance and in literature does not mean that it is correct to reinforce the mistake with continued misrepresentation. The facts are that the leftist policies of the Nazi party are clear to those who care to read about it. Wikipedia does a disservice to understanding history to refer to the Nazi party as 'right-wing'. There were no right-wing policies of the Nazi's save two: patriotism and respect for tradition. These are not exclusively Right-Wing policies, only the ones Nazism and current right-wing adherents share. The policies the Nazi's shared with the left-wing adherents share are more numerous and salient.
These are:
Social equality and egalitarianism, an opposition to society inequalities - especially financial, and opposition to tiers in society such as castes. Nazis and Left-wingers are radicals, reformists, and revolutionary.
Content is based on what reliable sources say. While the opinion you suggest is found on many websites expressing fringe views, that is not how experts see it. TFD (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Calling Nazis left-wing is close to mockery towards the thousands of communist/socialist victims of Nazism.
Completely agree. Socialism in its very definition is left wing. Therefore this whole page is considered factually incorrect and has no merit. Flyingpenguin74 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
And furthermore it is NOT making a mockery towards the thousands of socialists as those that were victims ie sent to camps in 1933 I know personally were those that opposed Hitler and why he lost the national elections twice. Hitler used the Sturmabteilung to create chaos and violence towards opponents and as the Sturmabteilung were mainly ex soldiers from WW1 would then restore order as the Police were not as well organised or prepared for such circumstances. And as such once Hitler was chancellor in 1933 the camps were opened and his opposition imprisoned. Flyingpenguin74 (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Wikipedia articles should reflect what experts say not what editors believe, even if they are correct. TFD (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Each nation's fascist movement were comprised of former conservatives/former conservative voters. The NSDAP (Nazi Party) gained popularity at the expense of Germany's other right-wing parties in the early 1930's. The German People's Party, German National People's Party, and most splinter right-wing parties saw almost all of their support transferring to the Nazis.
That link has the best illustrations of every German federal election after the war. Yeah, I'm sorry it's in German, but it shows the highest voted party in each state and the total percentage of the vote each major party received. I shared it to plainly show how the Nazi Party consumed the German Right in the early 1930's. Look up the voting results for yourself if you aren't convinced.
If you want a clear and concise online source for the interwar politics of Germany then I'll direct you to the modern German federal parliament's links about the topic.
One of the most illuminating books was Theodore Abel's "Why Hitler Came Into Power" published in 1938. The author asked for essays from the German citizens who were National Socialists in the 1920's, before the party's popularity drastically increased in the early 30's. If you want a single book with the most comprehensive analysis of grass roots NSDAP supporters then it's among the best out there.
Zaniack (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
typo
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Nazis were LEFT WING SOCIALISTS. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist and it had a lot in common with the modern left. 72.234.151.96 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oddly enough, this has been asked before. Please read the FAQ at the top of this page to understand why this is never going to get anywhere. If you want more detail than that, please look in the archives of this page, where the question has been answered many, many times. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Can we just start collapsing all this shit? Or maybe put another GIANT banner at the top that they really can't miss? It's ridiculous that five of the six sections currently on this talk page are of someone complaining that the Nazis are described as right-wing. Whether it's genuine confusion or trolling shouldn't matter anymore, they have more than enough opportunity to get their answer before they ask. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The auto-archiver should get rid of them eventually. I'm not sure how it detects when a thread is old enough to archive. Collapsing them might reset its counter and make it stick around longer. I'm not sure but if you want to collapse them then I have no objection. I don't think a giant banner will help. There are none so blind as those who will not see. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Should we keep calling them "The Nazi Party", or is this revisionism?
Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
If there was never such thing as "The Nazi Party", but the term "Nazi" was in fact a pejorative coined by people opposed to "the movement" (yes, I'm struggling with terminology here!) and people who did not respect or take seriously the group of people who began a grass-roots hate movement that should have been taken more seriously... is it intellectually honest for us to perpetuate the term? Is there value to calling it by it's actual name, "The DAP" or "The NSDAP" - and describe "The Nazi Party" not as being the party itself, but as being the commonly used nickname used to refer to the NSDAP, while rising above this tradition?
I'll be honest and say I am partly motivated here by "political" reasons - I think we're at a time where the lack of understanding of history, not helped by the mixing up of terms like "Nazi" and "fascist", isn't helping us... but this is why I'm so strongly an advocate for all accuracy and honest, bad information leads to bad choices, and love Wikipedia for its high standards.
Any thoughts on why the term "The Nazi Party" should be perpetuated, other than the obvious "people know the reference". Intellectually, is it any different from calling the American Republican Party something like "The Redneck Party", other than the difference in popular use? Is popularity sufficient?
This is my first time asking anybody the question, so please don't take my ignorance of other opinions as judgement, I would like to hear other people's position on the matter.
The title was chosen per WP:COMMONNAME. Before replying, you could read the previous discussions on the issue in the talk page and archives. TFD (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No reason to change it; it is clearly set out in the article in relation to the formal name and this commonly used name. It has been discussed many times and consensus was reached; and as noted, this title was chosen per WP:COMMONNAME. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Just a comment: we can't expect someone whose first edit was this question to understand the concept of archived discussions. We'll probably have to live with some bad common names, including Evangelical Church in Germany, for a church which is strictly not evangelical, for the simle reason that they translated it wrong. I take care to avoid it when I speak of it in articles, but not always, - Nazi regime is probably better understood than NSDAP regime would be (also it wasn't really the party that ruled but a dictator). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course I understand the concept of "archived discussion", like I understand the concept of not being rude (hint), I simply didn't happen to see "archived discussion", so I asked a question of interest somewhere I thought it would be okay to do so as I thought people here followed the same philosophy of openness that Wikipedia is known for, just another one of my mistakes, that's totally on me. Annoloki (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how it can possibly be revisionism to call them what >99% of English speakers have called them for decades.
The key point here is that we need to be understood. If we don't file the Nazi Party under Nazi Party then most people will either fail to find the article, or they will find it under a different name and think that we have gone mad.
I suspect that Alex offers "The Redneck Party" as a Reductio ad absurdum but actually it isn't. If >99% of English speakers, including academic historians and serious journalists, did call a party "The Redneck Party" then that would indeed be the title of its article here. (Of course, that isn't going to happen!) I can think of quite a lot of insulting names that have stuck and become official. In many cases the insult has lost its sting although much less so with the Nazis because anything associated with them is forever tainted. In art, the Impressionists and the Fauves both take their names from the insulting labels they were originally attached with. The UK Conservative Party once had an unofficial grouping called "The Bastards" (although we don't have a separate article about them) who cheerfully took their name from what John Major had called them. Sticking with the UK Conservatives, many of them still rejoice in the name of their predecessor party, the Tories, despite this originally being an Irish word meaning outlaw, robber or brigand. So there is nothing special going on here. We call them Nazis because the world calls them Nazis. This is how language works.
You suspect incorrectly. I made this quite clear, and did point out my awareness of the obvious difference in popularity of use. Annoloki (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This isn't going to confuse anybody because our use is consistent. We have Nazi Party, Nazi Germany and Nazism. German language Wikipedia uses names like "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" because those are the terms used by German speakers. We also have interwiki links to link the correct articles in each language together. Finally, if anybody does search for "National Socialism" in English language Wikipedia they will get redirected to the correct articles so they won't be confused either. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a sort of two fold response to @Annoloki:, both history based, the first one being wikipedia history based. From my perspective when an editor appears and his/her first, and so far only, edit is one such as this I think, “Here we go again. Another “study group” is sending its acolytes here for them to practice their skills on us. Whether that fits you will be easily resolved by observing your contributions over the next few months. That you term your issue here a “struggle” (i.e. “I'm struggling”) led me to pull out my copy of “My Struggle”, aka “Mein Kampf”, a 1939 edition, published before WWII started (ignoring what was going on in China). In the preface they use the word “Nazi” in the context of “Nazi history” (p.viii). Which brings us to my second point, that in order for something to be “revisionism” there needs to first be something to be revised from, and that is not the case with the word “Nazi.” This (1939) is the earliest use of the word I have in my library, but from later years I have, “A Secret Press in Nazi Europe” (Kowalski) and "Nazi Prisoners of War in America", (Krammer) and the word “Nazi” is liberally used in “Propganda:The Art of Persuasion:World War II” (Rhodes), “Totalitarian Art” (Golomstock), "German War Art: 1939-1945” (Yenne & Dills), “Art and Propaganda in the Twentieth Century” (Clark), and “The Games of ’36”, (Cohen). Only Adam in “Art of the Third Reich” uses the phrase “National Socialists” consistently. So it looks to me that whatever wikipedia is doing, it is not revisionism. Carptrash (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Your judgement is inaccurate, I'm just an individual person with an interest who thought this was an okay place to ask for opinions. My use of the word "struggle" doesn't make me akin to Hitler, that's... really, quite a stretch, come on. I won't ask any more questions here now I know it can't be done without hurting delicate egos, lesson learnt. Annoloki (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Annoloki says:
I'll be honest and say I am partly motivated here by "political" reasons
The Nazis were a grass roots, genuine hate movement, that selected their leader. Fascism was a top-down system of social engineering, created by its leader, who selected his followers, that employed the characteristics that the Nazis expressed naturally because they work so well in discontented populations. I know this difference in understanding has been lost, that's my point. Annoloki (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps "this distinction" has not so much "been lost" as "never existed?" Leon Trotsky "emphasized that fascism developed as an autonomous mass movement, based primarily in the petty bourgeoisie, whose plebeian and violent character frightened big capitalists. Nevertheless, he argued, fascism’s main purpose was to smash the workers’ organizations in the service of capitalism. Once in power, fascism lost its mass support and became 'a most ruthless dictatorship of monopolist capital'". Carptrash (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
the article says Nazis are far right, change to talking about national socialism. saying they're far right is very subjective and may be even misleading to the reader. 173.180.44.236 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
Please read the FAQ. Disruptions from sock accounts.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The main article of the Nazi Party describes the Nazi Party (National Socialist Workers' Party) as "Far-Right". This claim is blatantly false. People generally associate nationalism, racism, fascism, and Nazism with the right. However, when diving into the actual policies of the Nazi Party, it is clear that the party is Far-Left. We shouldn't allow sources to associate extreme authoritarianism and racism to the right without any basis. Throughout history, particularly modern history, the most infamous authoritarian and racist regimes are more attributed to far-left policies. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mussolini were far-left figures.
You should read Mein Kampf to understand what Hitler really believed. He talks about his opposition to centrism and the far left. Left is opposition to the old government and in support of change and progress. Right is support for restoring the traditional ways of a nation. Hitler, and the National Socialist movement was on the far-right, though many far-left figures had policies that resulted in millions of deaths also.
Policies of the Nazi Party:
·Promised employment to all by increasing the state
·Not allowing wages to rise with prices
·Free daycare
·National healthcare
·80% tax
·Strict gun control
·Pro-Abortion policies
·Socialism
The policies of the Nazi Party express radical Far-Left views. Increasing control of the government, implementing socialism, high taxes, free healthcare, and pro-abortion policies are all left-wing policies. Whenever you hear someone say that the Nazi Party was Far-Right, it's never followed up by actual examples of a right-wing policy that was perpetrated by the Nazi Party.
This article is not meant to be a hit piece on left-wing policies or political figures. It is absolutely okay to be left-wing, and its absolutely okay the be right-wing. There are examples of extremism on both ends of the spectrum. However, to throw an authoritarian regime that constantly imposed a left-wing ideology on the right without factual basis is totally false.
Policy says that we should use the facts presented in reliable sources, and we cannot analyze information and draw our own conclusions. Incidentally, Nazi Germany introduced the death penalty for abortions and cut taxes. Health care was introduced by the Conservative Party of Germany decades before the Nazis came to power. TFD (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, Adolf Hitler liberalized abortion for both Aryan and non-Aryan women. However, in the later years of the Reich in 1943, the government introduced the death penalty for Aryan women wanting to get an abortion. Acceptions could be made if the fetus was deformed or a threat to the mother's health. Yes, Germany had healthcare before the Nazi party, however, the Nazi party still supported national healthcare on a wide scale. The discussion is about whether the Nazis supported left-wing ideas, not if they implemented it. The Nazi Party greatly raised taxes. If you were a citizen of a conquered country by the Germans, you could be taxed at 100%. During war times for German citizens, your tax was 50%. Nazi Germany was a socialist state.
If the Nazis were "far-Right" like the article claims, there would be no abortions, little to no gun control, lower taxes, and little to no government health care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3LIP5i55 (talk • contribs)
You seem to be quite certain that you are right. But it doesn’t really matter: you need to cite reliable sources for your claims. Rgds ✦hugarheimur19:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Enough User:3LIP5i55; this has been discussed numerous times herein; see archives. The "frequency asked questions" section addresses the political "labeling" and the article addresses all this with WP:RS cites. We must go by the RS sources, our opinion is WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In some organizations new recruits get to stand in the hallway and guard the meeting room door for a year. In others they have to go to wikipedia and demand that the Nazis were a left wing organization. Recruiting seems to be going pretty well these days. Carptrash (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
So what were the right-wing parties and organizations of interwar Germany? The NSDAP gained popularity at the expense of Germany's other right-wing parties in the early 1930's. The German People's Party, German National People's Party, and most splinter right-wing parties saw almost all of their support transfer to the Nazis.
That link has the best illustrations of every German federal election after the war. Yeah, I'm sorry it's in German, but it shows the highest voted party in each state and the total percentage of the vote each major party received. I share it to plainly show how the Nazi Party consumed the German Right in the early 1930's. Look up the voting results for yourself if you aren't convinced.
If you want a clear and concise online source for the interwar politics of Germany, then I'll direct you to the modern German federal parliament's links about the topic.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The National Socialist German Workers Party were not Far-Right, they were Far-Left. You have the Political Spectrum backwards... the right end of the political spectrum is zero government or anarchy, while the left is total government control. 2601:285:302:5B41:4C8D:88D4:D71A:F2BD (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done. We get asked this a lot. It doesn't get any less incorrect for being asked repeatedly. Please read the FAQ at the top of this page to see why your request is mistaken. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Translation issue
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
just wanted to mention that under "Etymology", there is this: "The term Parteigenosse (party member) ...". AFAIK, in German "Genosse" is equivalent to "Comrade", as used by various other political parties, too. As a matter of strict technicality, word-for-word dictionary translation, the term should be "party comrade" - but I don't know if those are the deciding criteria. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Nazi Party has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article you linked at the Holocaust Memorial Museum says on 27 Feb Hitler "declares the reformulation of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) with himself as leader (Führer)...at the Bürgerbräukeller in Munich, the beer hall...," which is accurate.
Our article says on 26 Feb the NSDAP was formally refounded, which I believe is also accurate. [5]
Already done The date this event occurred and the date of the announcement are apparently 2 different days, one having come the day after the other. Spintendo 07:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Introduction (political views of the Party)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Im quite surprised that the introduction has some very wrong sentences in it. Let me explain.
"Pseudo-scientific racism theories were central to Nazism." Why pseudo-scientific and what is racism in this sense?
The next sentence goes to the "Volksgemeinschaft", which did not meant "people community" in the Nazi sense. Volk meant military servants, in which name justice and law is spoken. The Germany's national state had different state volks, which the Nazis formed to a centrist military force for "all Germans" including those of Austria and the diaspora to fight German disintegration and also of attitudes and ethics like greed harming the general populace. It should be a "unique bound" in short.
First conclusion is that in the current version, sentence 1 and 2, doesn't make sense and are clearly POV. These sentences however go over to describe "nationalization" and "assimilization" of those who fit in a racially or perceptive manner, which the current used source doesn't say.
However the Volksgemeinschaft, nationalization and assimization were strictly focused on the Nazi Germany's main goal to fight "Jewish Bolshewism" across all social classes, and their wider goal to increase the ethnically and culturally Germanic people and their models.
The Nazis or the German people chased Jews, Gipsies and other people and volks who were criminal under the law and also used genes as a explanation. The Nazis however fought militarily against the Polish military force, which was an organized part of Poland and had ties to the British Empire as an active opponent during the war, but never were against the Poles as an ethnic group or other Slavs. Nazi Germany was against Slavic Marxist and Soviet agents who murdered the Polish intelligent persons and the Jews who largely lived in Poland as a third ethnic group besides Germans and Poles. The Nazis however had plans for the next 25 years(!) to settle in the East (e.g. Poland) Area, what was either a protectorat or a military gouvernment with the goal of integrating those who fit in economically and cultural and those who were considered undesirable. Undesirability was linked to rural life, mysticism and a non acceptance of individualism. Those people should not come in contact with Germans and move to Siberia.
Second conclusion: There is no hint for the Nazi fight against "Jewish Bolshewism" all across Europe, what is like missing out a major piece. And questionable why ethnic groups like the Poles were mentioned without mentioning either anti-communism and racial hierachy for underdeveloped countries and its citizens. 2A02:908:E348:BF20:103C:AEF7:5A9E:B4E9 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Done --Boson (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Dave Dial (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done You know, you could've just took a glance at this page before posting the request. The FAQ is also helpful. byteflush Talk 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Already done The date this event occurred and the date of the announcement are apparently 2 different days, one having come the day after the other. Spintendo 07:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
