Talk:Nazism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Removed invisible comments

I have deleted an extensive block of invisible comments on the Ariosophists. I have no idea why it's there, but this irrelevant material — irrelevant because the minimal influence of the Thule Society is adequately summarised in the visible text and because the other Ariosophists (not demonstrably or directly related in any way to Nazi origins) are covered in the linked Ariosophy article — does nothing for the article except lengthen it to no purpose. People can read very similar material quite openly on Ariosophy. I might re-insert some of this stuff there later on. Gnostrat 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought HItler was non-Christian

Didn't Hitler say ""National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html) Not that he was an atheist, either, as is made evident in quotations like these: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

See, the problem with Hitler's religion is that he grew up in Roman Catholic family but later on he declared himself as atheistic. The problem is because to this days we are not sure what was Hitler's point of view about his own religion.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that as Hitler liked to warp Nieztchen philosophy into a kind racial ideology he would have been fundamentally against religion as Nietzche was, I think the best description of Hitler's personal 'religion' is nilhilism, although this seems somewhat a contradiction in terms. Hitler would have probably been influenced by his mother, and at least partly his anti-semitism probably must have come from christians sources (as anti-semitism was largely maintained through balming Jews as 'Christ-killers').Anti-BS Squad (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's strange. I was under the impression that Christian antisemitism was based on religion and didn't inspire murder of an entire race (which is against the Bible by the way "Thou shalt not kill" and can be used to describe the Holocaust), whereas Hitler's antisemitism is based on race and did inspire the murder of an entire race.--69.234.222.211 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See for instance Martin Luther's frankly obscene Vom Schem Hamphoras, for instance: a clear case of a Christian leader of substantial whose antisemitism was visceral and not merely a matter of religious dispute. --FOo (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Vom Schem Hamphoras is disturbing, vile and strange. Jesus, Joseph, the Virgin Mary, John, Paul, were all Jews. I thought that antisemitism was never promoted by Christian leaders and that is why Christians are no longer antisemitic. In addition, I thought that pigs were not kosher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarian (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that Vom Schem Hamphoras is unbiblical. The Bible in no way suggests that Satan lives off Jewish vomit. I have to admit that Vom Schem Hamphoras made me want to vomit. Indeed, I think that Luther shouldn't have invented those lies. In addition, I haven't encountered antisemitism among today's Lutherans, or among any Protestant group for that matter, so I was shocked and sickened. --69.234.200.253 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently studying this, Hitler actually attempted to start his own religious movement in Germany called 'The German Faith Movement'. It was non-Christian and was based on sun worship and of course worship of the Nazi party. In his early time in power Hitler did not directly opposed any Christian movements or groups, he even allowed the Catholic church to organise their schools as they saw fit, in return the church stayed out of politics. Later on he tried to unify all Protestant churches into one "Reich Church", this did not work most church goers felt their loyalties lay with their local churches. Some ministers opposed Nazi ideas publicly and were struck from their posts then sent to concentration camps, of course. It is unclear if Hitler truly believed in a God, it is fairly clear that his 'German Faith Movement' was just another vehicle for propaganda and self-promotion. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the stuff he let himself get away with, and the jerk that he was, I'd not be surprised if Hitler worshiped himself.--69.234.207.238 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GA classification

I’ve removed the GA classification from the project banners. The article does not appear to have ever been nominated for a GA review and, consequently, has not been reviewed in accordance with the process. The GA rating appears to have been inappropriately added with this edit, and was apparently never really questioned. The article, in its current state, is not eligible to be a GA given the presence of numerous cleanup banners, any one of which would make the GA nomination a “quick fail”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 16:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamo-Nazi

Is there any intellectual basis to the use of the term Islamo-Nazi? I thought that it was confined to the world of conservative talk radio where facts and logic are not an essential component of the debate. I was shocked and embarrased to hear it used by Mit Romney during the ABC Republican candidates debate.

Maxdratomic (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go to JTF (Jewish Task Force), you'll find that in Islamic countries Hitler is a very admired individual because Antisemitism is widespread among Muslims, even though Jews are decent people who did not do the Muslims any wrong. [1] That is probably why Muslims are associated with Nazis and vice versa. And by the way, it's spelled embarrassed, not embarrased, and Mitt Romney, not Mit. --69.234.222.211 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard the word before. Is there a consensus on the meaning of the word? DanielDemaret (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The term was coined within the last few years, either because the term "Islamo-fascist" did not sound alarming enough or because most listeners to conservative talk radio are too uninformed to know what a fascist is. James Woolsley used the term in a 2005 article. Outside the No Spin Zone, very few people would actually use the term. Incidentally the JTF is not a main-stream Jewish organization. The Anti-Defamation League is much more respected. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hang on a minute. How do you know that most listeners to conservative talk radio don't know what a fascist is? Have you interviewed them? I see fascist as someone who's opposed to interracial marriage (because they see certain races as inferior) and values the state over the individual, and suppresses any opposition through force. They may even attempt genocide, as in the case of the Nazis. The Nazis are condemned and even associated with the pro-gay movement in conservative circles. This apparently shows that not only do they condemn fascism, they associate it with homosexuals.

While JTF is not a main-stream Jewish Organization, their heart's in the right place. If you want to see an overboard, extremist organization, don't look at the JTF or Focus on the Family. Go to the Fascist Jewish Defense League. Condemning interracial marriage between Jews and non-Jews. --69.234.204.104 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)--69.234.204.104 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"How do you know that most listeners to conservative talk radio don't know what a fascist is?" Because it's true.

I have read books by conservative authors, listen to sermons by conservative preachers and listened to God knows how many arguments by the conservatives I know ("conservative" here meaning American Republican) which make it abundantly clear they haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. I've heard Hitler described as an atheist (never mind that he believed in God, formulated and followed a philosophy called Positive Christianity and recalled in "Mein Kampf" that his first ambition was to be a priest) and as a leftist (never mind the amount of communists, socialists, social-Democrats, Christian socialists and other leftists who were sent to concentration camps for espousing leftist ideals). It's also practically an article of faith that Nazism is the same thing as Communism (Hitler's support was founded in the business sector, the military, churches and other conservative elements of the middle-class, all things that the communists tore apart the first chance they got) and New Deal liberalism (I'm curious; when did FDR abolish unions? The right to collective bargaining? When did FDR pass laws requiring workers to have the permission of their previous employers before they could find work? When did FDR's economic policies cause real wages to drop by 25% between 1933 and 1939)?

The average Republican has been spoon-fed piles and piles of horseshit to the point that they have no idea who Hitler was and what he stood for anymore, not that they ever did (despite their ability to see a Nazi in everyone they dislike, the GOP was remarkably silent back at the time when the Nazis actually existed and were actually a threat to humanity). It's a fact. Deal with it. But since Hitler is the personification of evil in the modern world, Republicans have simply adopted a logic as follows: 1) Hitler is evil. 2) Liberalism/Islam/insert-opponent's-name-here is evil. 3) Therefore, Liberals/Muslims/insert-name-here are Nazis.

Oh, yeah;

"even though Jews are decent people who did not do the Muslims any wrong".

Oh, blow it out your ass. First of all, any statements that claims a priori that "[insert race] are decent people" is bullshit. A person can be decent, a race cannot. There are decent Jews, douchebag Jews and everything in between, just like in any other group. And some of the douchebags have in fact done Muslims, and others in the area, *considerable* wrong. Such as the Irgun, largely composed of people who had recently immigrated from Europe and had no claim to the Middle-East, conducting terrorist activities against local Arabs, moderate Jews and the British Empire throughout the thirties and forties, without any provocation from any of those communities I might add. Such as the Israeli colonization of the West Bank which has proceeded unhindered for the past thirty years, and the systematic denial of rights to Palestinians and Arab Israelis. Such as the carpet-bombing of Beirut in 2006 in response to an incident involving only two Israelis soldiers. Such as events like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2) which occur on a regular basis but which the so-called "liberal media" of the United States has consistently failed to report. The "us poor, sweet, innocent victims" fairytale used by the Israelis to describe the conflict makes me gag... the absolute worst thing I can say about the Palestinians is that they're doing to Israel exactly what the Irgun did to them back in the thirties and forties. Israel's mess is entirely of its own making, so forgive me if I shed no tears over their so-called "plight". 213.181.226.21 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminoligy edit

There is nothing in the source or source link that claims Nazi as being a pejorative term. I have removed the subject entirely until better sources are cited. Jeremy D. (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You've removed the entire section. Jmlk17 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from removing it entirely and have edited out the sections to which are not commonly known and cannot be cited.

Jeremy D. (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, the statement "The term Nazi is derived from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" is misleading because the second syllable ends after the /o/: German "National-" is /na.tsjo.na:l/ and not /na.tsi.o.na:l/ or whatnot. The sentence as it stands seems to predict /na.tsjo/ rather than /na:.tsi/. The abbreviation is therefore limited to the first four phonemes (/ts/ being an affricate) -- and even that is controversial, since somehow "Nazi" /na:.tsi/ changes its final phoneme from an approximant to a vowel. The real etymology, of course, is probably much more complicated than that, if this website is anything to go by. I'll change it as soon as I have time for it. By the way, the accompanying footnote which gives the pronunciation of NSDAP as "Not-zeo-nahl Zote-seea-list-uh-shuh Doy-cha Ar-byter part-eye" is just plain gibberish. Not every speaker of English pronounces "not" as /nat/, mind you. Use the IPA, this is exactly the kind of cross-linguistic situations it was designed for. JREL (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Nazism discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals==

Description

A project to unify & improve the many articles relating to the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, Wehrmacht, Schutzstaffel, Nazi ideology etc as well as allowing more efficient collaboration between editors.

Interested Wikipedians

1. This is serious mother (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Probably best as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the proponent, This is serious mother, has been banned from Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reichstag Fire

I have inserted an earlier section dealing with the immediate aftermath of Hitler's accession to power, which for some strange reason was deleted. Since the fire allowed Hitler to abolish democratic government and start the concentration camp system, it should be here in a prominent position. Peterlewis (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

I think this article could use more than 3 images. ^8thstar 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't edit

Hello. I have information to add about Nazi economic policy but the article has no "edit this page" tab. What is going on? -Souviens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souviens (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. -- Karenjc 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

National Socialism

It is in the lead. We have this dicussion over and over. A tiny handful of libertarians keep trying to rewrite the leads of several articles to reflect a minority POV. Most of the last discussion that went to mediation involved editors now banned from Wikipedia - shall we take it to mediation again?--Cberlet (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with POV pushisng. National Socialism is common english name for this ideology. Articles in both Brittanica and Encarta confirm this. If you want meditation feel free to start one. In the meantime stop with POV pushing. -- Vision Thing -- 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

VT, I'm wondering how the Britannica link supports what you're saying. It would seem to support the other version. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Britannica article itself is called National Socialism, and in it they talk about National Socialism 17 times and about Nazism 3 times (count is from my 2007 DVD version of Britannica). -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is what makes a better lead representing the majority viewpoint. Every time we have this discussion a majority of Wiki editors dispute the minority libertarian view on "National Socialism" being the equivalent of the word "Nazism." To repeatedly raise this issue on multiple pages over several years is POV-pushing and tendentious.--Cberlet (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in truth he can read this discussion from November of last year when current intro was established. It's interesting how Cberlet thinks that "I" in his case equals "majority". -- Vision Thing -- 15:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And be sure to note that one user, EliasAlucard, has been banned from Wikipedia, and two other editors, Forrest_Johnson, and Ron_Pistol, magically appeared with new accounts just for that discussion and then vanished: Forrest Johnson; and Ron Pistol.--Cberlet (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that Vision_Thing is now inserting the same marginal POV into the lead at Neo-Nazism. Can we keep this discussion here to avoid wasting time and energy?--Cberlet (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone started with inserting POV into introduction, that would be you with this recent edit. -- Vision Thing -- 15:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we have had this discussion repeatedly, and the editors who agreed with -- Vision Thing -- have either been banned, or were magical single-issue hit-and-run proponents, I am restoring the lead back to the majority viewpoint.--Cberlet (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than empty rhetoric you haven't offered any arguments that support your changes. -- Vision Thing -- 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"National Socialism" is not congruent with "Nazism"

Just check the page on "National Socialism" We go through this battle everytime Vision Thing decides he can risk another POV edit war. We have had numerous discussions across Wikipeida about this. The majority view should previal. The movement and government known as Nazism was far more than just about national socialism; and there were several other national socialist parties and movements at the time.--Cberlet (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to say that we go through this every time when you decide you can risk edit war. IIRC you were already blocked for edit warring over this. -- Vision Thing -- 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

and one of the editors has been permanently blocked, and two others were fictitious accounts.--Cberlet (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<----The majority of editors have repeatedly made it clear that they reject equating "National Socialism" with just "Nazism." Please see:

• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]
• [this discussion.]

Shall we go back to mediation, or would you prefer going directly to arbcom? --Cberlet (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer arbcom since your edits are extremely tendentious. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but, alas, I am informed by an Admin that we must start the dispute resolution process over from the start.--Cberlet (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I would like to point out that the quote from the Industrial Employers Association giving their view of Nazism does not belong in the intro, unless you can provide a reason why that particular description of Nazism should be privileged over those given by the large numbers of scholars and historians who have written extensively on Nazism and are not quoted in the intro. -- Nikodemos (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikodemos that the Industrial Employers Association text is minor and fringe POV.--Cberlet (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the term "Nazism" equivalent to the term "National Socialism"?

Real question here is not whether the term "Nazism" is equivalent to the term "National Socialism" but should the intro say "Nazism or National Socialism". Version similar to current has been here at least for a year. Wikipedia guideline on naming conflict within articles is pretty clear on this: Where two or more names are commonly used in the present day for an entity, the names should be given at the start of an article with the article name listed first, then the alternate names in alphabetical order by name (if they are all from the same language) or in order of the name of the language (if they are from different languages). That "National Socialism" is commonly used in the present day can be seen from articles on the same subject in Britannica and Encarta, both of which have named their article "National Socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to the question is: No, they are not equivalent. There are two relevant data here: one is that members of the NSDAP (adherents of the Hitlerite variety of the German form of national-socialism) did not refer to themselves as "Nazis" but as "National-Socialists" and that this is true of their modern imitators also. The second datum is that there were/are umpteen other organisations which have designated themselves in the same way (see National Socialism (disambiguation)) but are either completely unconnected with Hitlerite national-socialism, or are related but parallel to it (Black Front) or are related but older (Austrian National Socialism), a fact which arguably makes Hitlerism a DEVIATION from the original idea of national-socialism. We can identify Czech nationalists from the 1890s as the originators of a national-socialism (see Czech National Socialist Party), closely followed by their Austrian-German rivals, copied in turn by the Bavarian (NS)DAP (two decades later).

If we call this article National-Socialism, we arbitrarily exclude the others which are all equally entitled to the name, if not more so. If we name it in a way which implies that somehow the NSDAP constituted the DEFINITIVE form of national-socialism, we are violating WP:NPOV. In fact, we would be conferring legitimacy upon the Nazis' own appropriation of the concept. However artificial or unhistoric, we need a terminology which will differentiate Hitler's national-socialism from other sorts of national-socialism. They didn't call themselves Nazis, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. I would think that "Nazism" is at least as common as "National-Socialism" today.

"Nazism" is in any case what we have chosen for the article name and therefore, it gets first mention in the lead section. If you want "National Socialism" to be listed first, then you have to rename the article, and that leads us into all the problems I've just described. I can't think that it's SO difficult to find a form of words which gives both names along with an explanation that "Nazism" is the popular name for an ideology which called itself "National-Socialism" but which in fact was not the only sort of national-socialism. Gnostrat (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RfC: Knowing about the origins of the term "nazi" (and its relation to "sozi" for that matter) and the already described fact that the word all but disappeared in Germany during Hitler's reign - it does seem rather imprecise at first glance. It should be fairly clear to most people that the word "Nazism" refers specifically to the ideology of the NSDAP, I'm sure there aren't many disagreements in that departement. As the editor above stated, Nazism is not National Socialism. Somehow the ideology ended up being named after the Socialist riposte to the word "sozi". That "nazi" was originally cut from the words "National Socialism" does not mean that Nazism is equal to National Socialism. Take Communism for instance. What if popular opinion had named it "Sozism"? Would we be here discussing whether or not Communism is in fact Socialism? I think not. TerminusEst (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also responding to the RfC -- Nazism as described in this article does not correspond to National Socialism. Doug Weller (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick note on my proposed compromise: The source of the controversy lies in the fact that while the Nazis did indeed call themselves National Socialists, they were neither the first nor the only group to use that term. Thus, what we need to do in the introduction is to say that the Nazis called themselves National Socialists without implying that they have exclusive rights to that title. I see now that my initial proposal didn't really achieve this purpose too well, so I will try another one. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The source of dispute is not how National Socialist called themselves, but the fact that "National Socialism" is a name commonly used to describe NSDAP ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note: Does anyone have any information on the size of the Czech National Social Party in the 1920s and 30s? I'm not sure at what point the Nazis became more numerous than the CNSP. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that whilst there have been other usages for the term 'National Socialism' and groups called 'National Socialist' that wheren't Nazi, but 'National Socialism' in current political usage is simply a more academically correct synonym for 'Nazism'. I would support a move of this article to National Socialism. --Soman (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the answer, IMO, is two articles. The article, as it is ATM, deals overwhelmingly with Nazism (specifically the brand of National Socialism practicsed by the Nazi Party) rather than National Socialism in general. While both could exist within the same article I think National Socialism would be swamped by the Nazism side in a way. Narson (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are already a disambiguation page National Socialism and a page on the NSDAP National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party and a page on the original National Socialist Program. Every time I add a link in the lead of this entry to the disambiguation page National Socialism, -- Vision deletes it, and reverts the lead back to the one -- Vision prefers. Several editors have tried compromises to no avail. There was already a recent vote where editors rejected the proposal to rename this page to "National Socialism," here and here: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Several of the supporters of the move have since been banned.--Cberlet (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I read of it all, frankly, the less I understand the desire to move this page. This article details the Nazi Party/NSDAP branch of National Socialism not national socialism in general so the page name seems nice and appropiate. Somehow I suspect this attempted move and the disputed move of Nazi Party are going to end up in one of those annoying arbcom cases that drags on for god knows how long. Narson (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)