Talk:Nazism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Homophobia?

Homo being the abbreviation of homosexual, and phobia meaning fear.

How was the Nazi party afraid of gays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.186.249 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See the section on Persecution of homosexuals.

As commonly used, "homophobia" refers not just to fear but aversion or prejudice of all kinds.

Hitler apparently had no strong feelings about gays. They are not mentioned in "Mein Kampf." He had no scruples about allying himself with Ernst Röhm. In the early days, there were numerous homosexuals in the SA and SS. After the Night of the Long Knives, it was necessary to discredit these former allies, so shocking stories of their homosexual activities were spread. Brushing up on their "family values," the Nazis imposed harsh penalties on persons considered degenerate or harmful to the race: abortionists, gays, prostitutes, and beggars. (See "The 12_Year Reich" by Richard Grunberger, p. 256.) Sometimes, accusations of homosexuality were used to remove inconvenient persons, such as the general Werner von Fritsch. However, despite the persecution of homosexuals, some notorious homosexuals, such as Walther Funk remained part of the Nazi hierarchy until the very end. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Nazism history article edit war against MHazard9.

Dear Spylab:

Like you, I base my editorial work upon facts and sources, yet, because you do not know something or dislike it does not mean it is wrong. In a history article, FACTS (dates, times, places, and names) matter, because the article must answer the questions: Who? What? Where? When? and Why? without the reader having to go elsewhere for the information promised in the article. That is why the proper noun spellings and accurate translations matter. You are wrong in deciding for the reader that he or she does not need to know those dates; in 2010, most people were not then alive.

Give it a try, let us work together; please, be a mensch and don't cop out with “disruptive editor” canards; our work histories would embarrass you before the authorities; we know what we know, we are history aficionados, most Anglophone readers might not be. Let me know.

Best regards, 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Mhazard9 (talk)

Pronunciation

How is "nazism" pronounced? This is a possible point of confusion that should be clarified in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Toland quote

I rewrote Hitler's "we are socialists" quote from Toland's biography so that it corresponds to the most current American edition. The punctuation is slightly different, and the quote used herein had been incorrectly ended in mid-sentence. I used the updated punctuation and completed the sentence. My changes do not alter the substance of Hitler's quote. Of course I also updated the source information and the page numbers. Nicmart (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please fix note 36

I've added a quote which has become note 36, but I don't know how to properly construct it as a reference which is cited in a book. Can someone please fix the citation format? Nicmart (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Most recent rewrite of Anti-capitalist Rhetoric

I have no great problem with this version except for the last. Hayek quoted a Hitler speech and provided the primary source. It is, I think, improper to credit Hayek with Hitler's quote rather than mentioning in Notes that Hayek provided his source in a footnote, which is how I originally posted it. Nicmart (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I went to the library and looked it up. The source cited by Hayek: "The Bulletin of International News," (London) XVIII, No. 5, March 8, 1941, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. This publication is not available, but it appears to be a summary of international news. As such, it would contain no lengthy Hitler quotes, and probably no quotes at all, unless they were in some way helpful to the British cause, at a time when Britain was at war. This cannot be considered an impartial source. "In war, truth is the first casualty."

There are no unabridged collections of Hitler speeches in print today. The best collection available is "Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945--The Chronicle of a Dictatorship" [1]. This provides summaries and lengthy excerpts of Hitler speeches, in four thick volumes, but no reference to the speech quoted by Hayek. Also, there is no reference to it in contemporary diaries, such as those of Goebbels and Halder, both keen observers of Hitler.

As to what Hitler actually said, I do not know. The nearest thing I have found was in Hitler's speech of Jan. 30: "By so doing we chose a path between two extremes. The one of these extremes was holding our people: It was the liberal-individualist extreme which made the individual not only the centre of interest but also the centre of all action. On the other hand, our people were tempted by the theory of universal humanity which alone was to guide the individual." [2] Possibly, the "Bulletin" summarized this with a sentence like, "Hitler said that Nazism and Marxism are basically the same in rejecting individual liberty," which Hayek then shortened to Hitler saying Nazism and Marxism were basically the same.

It is pretty clear that Hitler would not equate Marxism and Nazism, because he had always identified Marxism as a Jewish theory, and also, he was preparing to invade the Soviet Union, which he depicted as a crusade against Bolshevism.

Anyway, I do not believe Hayek can be considered a reliable source on Hitler. Until someone comes up with a better source, the quotation should be deleted. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Help

I really need to know did the Nazis really try to create a Zombie? Or bring the dead back to life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.47.55 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Nazi's were very much interested in the Occult and embarked on numerous expeditions and studies, but the idea of Nazi zombies is completely fictional. Thismightbezach (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alancrocker, 24 April 2010

The third paragraph of the "Ideological Roots" section:

"Among the most significant ideological influence on the Nazis came from German nationalist figure Johann Gottlieb Fichte, whose works Hitler read, and whom was recognized by other Nazi members including Dietrich Eckart and Arnold Fanck."

Should be:

"Among the most significant ideological influence on the Nazis came from German nationalist figure Johann Gottlieb Fichte, whose works Hitler read, and who was recognized by other Nazi members including Dietrich Eckart and Arnold Fanck."

The "other Nazi members" are the object of the clause because it's in the passive voice. Alancrocker (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

doneSpitfire19 (Talk) 16:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

this was the most helpful article ihave ever read i really like the story line btw im in the 7th grade researching this information on the nazis and i thank who ever is in charge of writing this article it helped alot. sincerly:starr thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.146.253 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

How can i edit this page? I would like to shorten the intro to make the article better.--MasterOfTools (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from National Socialism

There used to be an article called "National Socialism" that was extremely vague and contained almost no information about what the subject of the article actually was. Looking at the talk page, it looked as if the person's goal in creating the article was to describe a French "National Socialist" party that predated the Nazis and was actually not anti-Semitic. Still, one obscure French party is not enough to justify a separate article on a term that nearly always refers to Nazism. Point is, good job to whoever redirected it here. Let's never have to do that again. Commissarusa (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot more variants of National socialism, i've added 2 (which can be expanded, even the "21st century socialism" been labeled as a national socialism (in the root sense of the word). It needs expanding though.

Also you assertiong that the :"party that predated the Nazis and was actually not anti-Semitic" national socialism doesn't equate to anti-semitism [3]

Anyhoo, let's have 1 concrete discussion instead of a mishmash that Talk:National socialism has. This one doesnt reflect a worldwide view. I agree that German version does deserve prominence because as most would agree it was the biggest and most known subject but that is not to say it is the only subject. Currently the redirect from National socialism links here where section after section talks about Hitler's national socialism. maybe as you say the other page was "vague" but one can falg it for updates instead of removing it. Deletion is not the alternative to improvement. (and the tag shouldnt be removed while discussions are on going, we can easily make comprimises to suit the status quo and the other mentions)Lihaas (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.124.201.202, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change this, "in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics" to "in practice, Nazism was a far left form of politics" because the Nazi party was a socialistic regime. Factually, socialism is a left wing agenda, not a right wing agenda. 97.124.201.202 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this absurd claim. Algebraist 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of nazism and socialism. This point has already been addressed numerous times in the past. You need a historical and scholarly reviewed source before requesting such a change within the article. I really think that this article needs a header faq to address this issue. It comes up far too often.

70.74.238.65 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Be unbiased ( urgent )

This article is biased against Nazism, sounds like pure hate propaganda.There are only negative 'facts', and no positive 'facts'.The positive and neutral 'facts' do exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.132.87 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the Nazis, and Nazism, are considered amongst the worst plagues that humanity has ever had to suffer through, pray tell what constitute the "positive facts" that do exist in this case? The old chestnut that closet Nazi lovers are want to trot out, that Hitler saved Germany economically? (so said only to forget that Germany's economic turnaround was based on their economy being put on a war footing, huge overseas loans being taken out that were intended to be paid back with subsequent foreign war gains, and that this "miracle" economic recovery meant very little improvement in living standards for Germans at the lower end of the economic scale, that being the vast majority of the population). In short, your interjection here about "postive & neutral" facts is entirely without merit when you have provided no examples along with it. How can the merit of your interjection be gauged, when you provide nothing that can be judged as backing up - or not - your assertion? Most neutral observers realise you'll be going to your grave before finding a positive to relate, but there's no harm in giving it a go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.86.187 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hicks

How do we all feel about this edit: [4]?

It seems like rather a lot of coverage to give "a personal view", even that of a notable professor. It would also be beneficial if anybody who is familiar with Hicks' book can confirm that this is an accurate summary of his view of the matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazism Today

I think this article is out of date. Today a Nazi is not only a person who dislikes jewish people, a Nazi is a person who dislikes other races, other people. Let's get this straight. are not descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a people originating and populating the Caucasus region (historical Khazaria) who converted to Judaism in the 8th century and later voluntarily migrating or were forced to move westwards into current Eastern Europe (Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, Germany and other places outside the Caucasus region) before and during the 12th and 13th century when the Khazar Empire was collapsing. So the word anti-semitism is a joke in this case. Second, the word "Semite" refers to a language and cultural group made up of ancient and modern people. Semitic languages include: Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Moabite, Hebrew, Phonecian, Assyrian, and Babylonian. (Biblically they are considered the descendants of Shem, son of Noah.) According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first usage of anti-Semitic for a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced against Jews, was in the 1880s (about the same time as the rise of Zionism).

If we return to the original meaning of Semitic, it is difficult to call Palestinians and other Arabs anti-Semitic, since they are themselves Semites. Palestinian Arabs are opposed to the state policies of Israel that deny them legitimate human and civil rights and the right to a State. They are not against the religion of Judaism except as it is used as the rationale for actions against them. Arabs and Jews have not always been in conflict. Before the formation of the State of Israel there were Arab Jews as there were Arab Christians and Arab Muslims. Many times in history Jews and Muslims were allied and worked together peacefully. In 1492, Christian rulers expelled both Jews and Muslims from Spain, although now Spain cherishes its background of all three religions. Most Jews who fled moved to Arab lands.

Christians, Jews and Muslims have worked together and have lived as neighbors in the Middle East for centuries and some still do. One hears many stories from Palestinians of the friendships they had with their Jewish neighbors and vice versa. It is the policies and actions of the State of Israel that Arabs (both Christians and Muslims) object to. I don't really care what you do with this that I'm writing. Just knowing that you know that there are those like me , who knows how things really are, feels great. From this moment on, when you use the word "antisemitism" think twice and know that Nazi can be a jew too. I'm sorry I don't buy the zionist media propaganda. I'm sooooooooorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.126.113 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What changes do you recommend for the article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Terminology?

I'm wondering if we're locked into a debate over terminology rather than a substantive issue? I've been looking back over my notes from college (admittedly it's been 5 years) and my WWII class as well as my Comparative Government class never referred to Nazism as a proper noun. Neither, can I find any reference to it as an ideology. However, I do seem to recall that it was used as a way to describe the German brand of fascism.

From what I can remember, this was merely a means of convenient reference, more than an attempt to assign an alternative term to National Socialism. The latter is I think a term that we can all agree on as a specific political ideology.

In sum, would it be appropriate to edit the page and say that Nazism was a "branch" or "form" of the early 20th century forms of Fascism that arose in Europe in the wake of World War I? And could we also say that it is mostly associated with the ideals of the NSDAP and their leader, Adolph Hitler?

Responses for or against these proposals are encouraged. I think if we work on this we can arrive at a consensus and end the debate to the satisfaction of everyone interested. Wildcard6 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to the same thing, you just put it more eloquently, nati. socialism as I read academically too, is not limited to nazism. The word itself is new to me. I suggested an article about national socialism along the lines of the socialism article. An ideology on its own, beyond the nazi party. Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The word 'nazi' originated in the 1920's Germany as a slang word for a National Socialist, just as a Social Democrat was called 'sozi'. The article should be named National Socialism, just as other articles aren't named with slang words of the topic. Calling the article 'nazism' is idiotic and ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.190.37 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Worldwide View"

Who decided that this article "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." ? On what basis? Please be aware that the United States currently suffers an isolated revisionist and negationist craze, spearheaded by the likes of Glenn Beck, the "Tea Party Movement" and pseudohistorians such as Jonah Goldberg. I anticipate a flurry of revisionist attacks from fringe groups on this article. Is this one of them? I sure hope not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.232.127 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody thought there was too much about Germany in it? ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the humorous response :), but, in all seriousness, could someone answer the question? I mean, did I miss something? In the absence of a good reason for the "Worldwide View" admonition, I suggest it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.232.127 (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. If nobody knows what it is about then it can't be doing any good. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazism a leftist term

Why is Nazism consider right-winged when it is a socialist concept? Militarism shouldn't make any difference. - Crazyconan (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the program is "National Socialist", they took over all industries in Germany, and implemended a national health plan. In fact, the only thing in common with rightist beliefs is the strong military. The only reason people think Nazis were right wingers is because 1.) the left in Western nations paints them as such, and 2.) most neo-nazis are right wing in modern times, but most of them only share the racist views of nazism and not political ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of "Left" and of fascism. The origin of Mussolini's fascism was gangs who were emplyed nby landowners to beat up Communists who had taken over their farms in the early 20s. The German Nazis had mod=stly served apprenticeships in the Freikorps who performed a similar role in an urban context by, for example, murdering Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. The orgin of the term left was in the French Estates General, whereby the opposition sat to the left of the speaker. I would suggest that the "left" supports the interests of the dispossessed and the "right" supports the interests of those who have power and wealth. The rich and powerful seemed not to have especially suffered from the policies of the Nazis until the War. They were supported by the ex-Kaiser and the Junkers aristocracy, whilst still attempting to appeal to the masses- a contradiction which Hitler resolved in 1936 with the Night of the Long Knives. What distinguishes Nazis from Conservatives is that they are a revolutionary movement and the Third Reich continually referred to its elf as a "National Revolution", mostly seeking to restore perceived -generally mythical- former glories. e.g. of Frederick the Great, racial purity of the Folkwanderung and the glory days of an Aryan Atlantis.--Streona (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right and left are arbitrary terms; there's a general consensus on what they mean, but not a completely clear one, and it's not always the same thing now as it was in the thirties. To make it worse, political pundits come in and label anything on the other side of the aisle "fascist" or "totalitarian" and further muddy the waters.

The reason Nazism and fascism are generally considered right-wing movements, and the biggest difference between them and the communists, is economics, specifically each regime's relationships with the workers and the business sector. In communist countries, both parts of society suffered; both labor unions and private enterprises, workers' rights and property rights, were abolished, and the State had final say in all matters.

Fascism and Nazism also repressed workers, but they did not not repress business; that's the difference. Under Hitler, the German government abolished unions, abolished the right to collective bargaining, abolished the right to strike, and caused real wages to drop by about 25% between 1933 and 1939. Nothing similar was ever done to the business sector; private enterprise and private property were always respected by the government, and businessmen were greatly strengthened by subsidies and by the government's penchant for union-breaking. (Hitler's bias towards the business sector went so far that under his government, a German worker was required by law to obtain the consent of his previous employer before getting a new job).

When we say "right-wing", we're clearly not talking about libertarianism, with its the purist "separation of economy and state" ideology, or about the robber-baron model in which business controls government. But because fascism and Nazism involved strong ties and mutual reinforcement between business and government, because they had a very strong stance against workers' rights, and because of the support the Nazi regime received from the other conservative elements of society - the military, much of the religious establishments, and a number of mainstream nationalist and anti-communist politicians - they are usually classified as part of the right. R2Parmly (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also heard in school that right wing prioritizes security (national and individual) over liberties and individual rights (which fascists are obviously more or less the epitome of). Madridrealy (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the US, if not elsewhere, the 'right' has successfully conflated liberal politicians with 'liberal elites' and 'government insiders' and all of these with power at the expense of the dispossessed, with a contiguous retreat by liberal politicians from their support of the working, primarily, but also other dispossessed classes, to say nothing of no longer wishing to associate themselves with liberalism. Ironically, this has made them the very thing they were accused of being. I agree with Streona that the right has always supported power. Their accusations were never more than hypocrisy or even disingenuity, until now. Left and right have always been unfortunate designations, but never more so than today. Anarchangel (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As sick and tired as I am of the "liberal fascism" myth and the rest of the propaganda conservative strategists have put out there about what Nazism really was, I don't think that's entirely fair. Prioritizing security over freedom isn't a right-wing only trait; the Soviet government did it repeatedly during its seventy years in power, using the excuses of "defending the revolution" and "the good of the people" to abolish personal rights and do away with people they didn't like. So did every other communist regime (China, North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, etc). And whether or not it's true that "the right has always supported power," plenty of left-wing movements (though usually not in America) have behaved the same way. 147.9.234.143 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as I suspect, there is an alternative to disappearing people and reeducation camps after a revolution, no one has yet found it; this is not a right or left wing inevitability or trait, See Salvadoran Civil War for right wing death squads, and of course contrast White Terror - Spain and Red Terror - Spain for how both sides will commit these acts. It is a function of hatred, of course, but it does not occur without a perceivable threat. The American Revolution, for example was not a revolution in this respect, and others; it was a colony fighting for independence from a faraway nation. Once foreign intervention is gone, colonial independence movements typically have no enemies within their nation to protect their gains from. Contrast this with the Civil War, where atrocities on both sides were reported; the perceived enemy was clear and present. I resisted the temptation to talk here about the degrees of threat that the USSR faced in its cold war standoff with the US; if you would like to debate about it, I have some things I would like to say, and my talk page is open to such. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The description at the beginning of this article fails to describe exactly how the Nazi Party in Germany was associated with "the right". It merely makes the claim, with no facts. It would appear to me as a cover for the obvious affiliation with National Socialism, which would be "the left". Whether or not the Nazis were enemies of Communism, or favorable to "some" businesses, not others, does not make them "right-wing".

To associate "the right" with Fascist Nazi Germany is simply false. Nazi Germany espoused ethnic "purity" or cleansing and militaristic expansion of its empire, The Third Reich. The Nazis didn't quit until they had total control of the government of Germany, and of Europe. Democracy and individual liberties were almost completely absent. Nazism was a sister of Fascism, which is based on Socialist philosophy—control of the means of production, and control of the people, under autocracy or oligarchy. Even while "some" may have had private property in Germany, others simply had nothing—others still, didn't have the right to live. Conservative or "right-wing" philosophy believes in a Constitutional Republic—a Democracy based on laws designed to protect the rights of the individual and each individual's right to prosperity and private property. It's funny, and somewhat disappointing, to find such demonization here, in wikipedia.

If anyone prefers to use the argument of the Iraq invasion under G.W. Bush as right-wing "militarism", you must also consider the U.S. involvement in Vietnam by J.F.K., followed by open engagement by L.B.J. — American leaders have felt an obligation to fight against tyranny and ethnic cleansing wherever it may appear in the world. Bill Clinton brought in the American military, with a small NATO force, to end ethnic atrocities in Kosovo. A bi-partisan congress, with full support of the Democrat Party in America, approved of military action in Iraq and later turned on their "right-wing" constituents for political gain—which appears to have worked. (I am merely trying to be brief)

Any politician, or philosophy, that believes in larger centralized government control, either by nationalizing private business, controlling free markets, or redistributing wealth through government jurisdiction, or believes in any form of Eugenics—the belief that the "unfit" should be "removed" (see Margaret Sanger)—must reject the laws that guarantee freedom, private property, an individuals right to prosper and basic fundamental rights of human beings to live without being considered "unfit". One of these is clearly "left-wing" and the other is clearly "right-wing". If it can be argued that the Nazi Party was in any way "right-wing", then the facts behind the statement must be given, without merely a link to a book. Many other books, with opposing points of view, can be given.

I personally think, no matter what you believe, it is imperative for Wikipedia to get this correct. Perhaps leaving "left" or "right" out of it? Coolwiki3 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pure revisionism to try to paint Nazism as left-wing. Free Trade liberalism is traditionally a left-wing stance, associated with republicanism, anti-protectionism, internationalism, even early socialism. You have to realize that when Adam Smith was writing in favour of a free market, he wasn't arguing from the Right against left-wing socialists and social democrats- he was writing against Toryism, against nationalist protectionism that favoured the landed aristocracy over the non-nobility. In seeking to use the state to protect the industry of their nation the Nazis have more in common with Benjamin Disraeli than any socialist. Nationalist, racist, protectionist- right-wingers to the hilt. 92.29.237.34 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It was Stalin era propaganda that painted Nazism as right-wing. Nazism and Communism were competing socialist economic policies with a nationalist orientation vs. an internationalist orientation, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.105.206 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the comments in this section are biased. I believe you people should take off your political hats and take a chill pill. Dontdeletecontent (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it obvious that Nazism is a left-wing ideology, aligned on the same side of the spectrum as socialism and Communism, and other strong government ideology. The article links to a definition of far-right that is basically defining the term of far-right as racism, segregation, authoritarianism, and lack of human rights which clearly is not the normal view, since conservatives, often labeled as right-wing, believe in the individual freedom and small government. Yet, one cannot edit this article to remove "right-wing," which makes Wikipedia just a tool for the left (socialists, communists, strong government types) to distort things for political reasons as opposed to advancing knowledge. 174.55.27.48 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Why didn't you say so before? If it is "obvious" then we will just get all the history books pulped and reprinted to reflect all the stuff that various individuals or small groups claim is "obvious" even if different people's "obvious" claims are contradictory. Sorry for the heavy-handed sarcasm, but surely you can see why "obvious" cuts no ice?

The main point you are missing, and this is far more important than your misunderstanding of what left and right mean, is that we are not here to argue our own opinions. We are here to write an encyclopaedia based on the consensus in the field. Bring us proof that serious academic historians or political analysts think that the Nazis are left wing and it can go into the article, even if we disagree with it. Without such proof it wouldn't even matter if you were right. We have a policy against original research, even stuff that might be correct.

If you read a bit more history you will see good and bad people on both the left and right. Pointing out that the Nazis were right wing is no more an insult to all the rightwingers who are not Nazis than pointing out that Stalin was left wing is an insult to all the leftwingers who are not Stalinists. In short, you are perceiving an insult where none exists. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal. Nazism incorporates both left and right politics. However, it is a form of extreme reactionary policies against the Communist ideology, which is by definition far right. Nazism is far right in practice. It seems that many people here disputing this fact are confusing Nazism and Fascism with American conservatism. These terms are not mutual. It's like confusing Communism with American liberalism. They are not mutual. Please understand that left and right politics are originally coined by the French Assembly during the Revolution and are not exactly the same as American liberalism and conservatism. The traditonal definition of liberalism is progressive thought, personal liberty and reform . Whereas conservatism is retaining an existing order in fear of drastic change. Please pick up a history book and read up on it. Those of you who are trying to dispute this are misunderstanding the political spectrum and percieving comparisons where there are none. By the way, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg is hardly factual. It has been repudiated by actual scholars and historians. The main premise of the book is simply bad association conservative polemic from a writer for the National Review. Many may think facts have a liberal bias.Facts do not have any bias to the left or right. If you percieve this, then you have a misinformed worldview. 70.74.238.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

Mostly agreed, though you injected quite a lot of personal opinion in that. Due to politics generally being thought of merely as left-right, it is a fair and accurate representation to paint Nazism as right-wing. They came into power by directly opposing contemporary liberal ideals. If you don't know about this, I suggest reading up on the Weimar Republic. People often get irked when extreme examples are brought up - i.e. Somalia for libertarians, Germany or Italy for the far-right nationalists, the Soviet states for... well, the varied left-wing views (there are more examples for far-left mostly due to the geographic area it spread from.) Anyway.... Yes, Nazism is absolutely far-right, on a left-right political spectrum. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture to call Nazism a kind of Radical Centrism, positioning itself against both Capitalism and Communism but essentially cherrypicking pretty much with the only goal being more power to the Fuhrer. So we have a government that nationalizes certain industries for simplicity's sake, but giving more power to the owners of other industries while keeping them privately owned. It essentially was Hitler's way of concocting an Authoritarian monster with all the State power from the "left" and all the business power from the "right", and taking from neither aspects that empowered the working classes.98.236.191.219 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazism is... "in practice, is a form of far right politics."

This statement in the introduction seems a bit biased. For one, it seems incorrect. Also, it seems contradictory to many other points of the article.

While it is true that "left" and "right" are relative terms, in the United States there is at the very least a general consensus. Many will jump at this point to link the former to the Democrats and the latter to the Republicans. This may've been historically correct, but along the way the line has blurred a lot. Both major political parties favor larger government power and control, a typically "left" idea. Whereas "right," tends toward less governmental intrusion (thats probably an unfair term, but this is a talk page). Nazism, a form of Fascism, was strong on government control, just like the classically accepted as "far-left" ideology of Socialism. Moreover, the term "Nazi" clearly indicates socialism: National Socialism. The difference is between the control of production and the like.

As for contradictions, there is a section in the article on "Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric," which is not something that would make sense in a far-right ideology. And to quote the article which quotes Hitler:

"Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance.” However, In 1929, Hitler called socialism "an unfortunate word altogether" and said that "if people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism". According to Henry A. Turner, Hitler expressed regret for having integrated the word socialism into his party's name. Hitler wrote in 1930, “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”

I'd hyper-link to the above quote, but I'm not so html-savvy.

Since this is a semi-protected article, I cannot edit it. However if someone else could take up the baton for me and try to clarify this oversight, it would be much appreciated.

TylerAE (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• See left-wing politics, right-wing politics, far left, far right and the various articles about the left and the right. That might help clear up your confusion.Spylab (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the "in practice, is a form of far right politics" line seeing how it has only created bickering. Thismightbezach (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

    The line in back.

The line is back. Furthermore, there are many historians and others that dispute this claim. The book Liberal Fascism is quite clear on how fascism is actually a far-left movement, along with communism. In fact, when one looks objectively at the Nazi political platform, the differences between Soviet communism and Nazism are almost all in terms of nationalism v. internationalism and the methods of control over the people - not on whether government control is good, which is a core tenant of traditional LEFT thought. The far-right is traditionally anarchy at the true extreme, about as far from Nazism as you can get in politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.186.88 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This book "Liberal Fascism" is a textbook written by a reputable historian and taken seriously by other historians and political theorists as a good introduction to the subject of Fascism, is it? I thought not. So your "many historians" is really "a few people with strong contrarian opinions".

I am not aware of any mainstream historians who place Nazism on the left. There is some discussion about how closely Nazism should be identified with the right but nobody serious seriously puts Nazism on the left. At Wikipedia we reflect the consensus in the field, not our own opinions. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

that's because none exist. people just get very irked if they find themselves on the same wing as a frightening ideology (though fascism is more than simply an ideology.) these kinds of comments are going to stop anytime soon, either. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Put the correct phrase "National Socialism" into the heading also! "Nazism, National Socialism"

Nazism (in its most common usage) is short for National Socialism. This term is the English translation of "Nationalsozial..." the beginning of the full name of the Nazi party.

The way the heading is set up, it seems the top editors are afraid of acknowledging the most common usage of these terms, and (maybe???) afraid of acknowledging the Nazi version of socialism that existed in Nazi Germany.Victorianezine (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's most commonly used to refer to the specific ideology and party of Adolf Hitler during and after the fall of the Weimar Republic. National socialism is more than that, however. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.62.114.203, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I thought Naziism was spelled with 2 consecutive "i"s ?? The dictionaries agree.

Both spellings are in use and correct. Naziism redirects to the article so there is no problem with people searching using the alternative spelling. I think I remember this being asked about before and that Nazism was found to be the most common spelling. If so, we shouldn't change the whole article but I think there is a good case for acknowledging the alternative spelling as also correct in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Some reliable sources have used "Naziism" (for example, this 70-year-old Time article); of course, in terms of google hits there's a huge difference (83K for two i's and 2.65M for one i). I think the alternate spelling is worth a brief mention. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Added in alt spelling with reference used above. If you want to change the prose to something better, feel free. 930913(Congratulate) 14:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction Needed. Nazism is... "in practice, is a form of far right politics."

That needs to be removed or changed. The fact is national Socialism is a left winged philosophy. I believe confusion has linked the far right winged Anarchist Neo Nazis have been confused with national Socialism. Wikipedia has more and more become infiltrated by ideologues from both sides. Neo-Nazism is a right winged philosophy because it is a form of Anarchy. This article about Nazism is written to point to Nazi Germany, which was about one party rule, central government based on National Socialism. Please Correct this. It does not live up to accuracy standards of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.108.45 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2010

You are clearly confused by the political terminology. For example there is no such thing as an "Anarchist Neo Nazi" and never could be. The article is correct as it stands. You can verify this if you look at any of the mainstream history books on the subject, including the ones used as references in the article, which all ascribe Nazism to the far right. Nobody is disputing that it borrowed some elements of the left and.this is already explained in the article.

You should not be surprised if you sometimes read things in Wikipedia that run counter to your expectations. We all have our baggage of misconceptions that we pick up from various places. Of course, there are genuine mistakes in Wikipedia too, so the important thing is to look for verifiability. If you do this, sometimes you will find mistakes in Wikipedia but a lot of the time you will find that Wikipedia is right and that you were labouring under a misconception. That's nothing to worry about. We are all here to learn as well as to edit. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the response is completely wrong and mirrors a discussion I have been having with Admins on the KKK Wikipedia entry - which also, incorrectly and IMHO pejoratively - uses the term "right-wing". As with the content of the KKK article, the term (which is almost always applied by the general public in its most communly used political sense) is contradicted by the content. Nazism a national form of socialism much more akin to communism in the sense of central control, distorted socialist principles and anti-capitalist. And before anyone challenges me on the correlation between socialism and communism, please read the entry on Communism in Wikipedia where one of the most famous architects of communism said that socialism was simply a step on the way to communism. The best way of avoiding unnecessary discussion on these topics is to avoid the use of pejorative terms. In the case of the KKK and Nazism, the history and aims of these organizations more than adequately describe them without having to place additional labels that are, at best, arguable and are, at worst, mischievous. Just because a left-wing author applies the right-wing label to an organization, that doesn't make the work a reliable source ... it just makes it a POV. --621PWC (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of Wikipedia policy, it's no use putting forward arguments as to why you think your position is correct - you need to find reliable sources that support the position you think should be in the article, and explain specifically why the sources the article currently cites are not reliable sources. Aside from that, you might find the section on Fascism#Position_in_the_political_spectrum Position in the political spectrum on the Fascism article, and the sources cited there, helpful in explaining why Nazism is usually described as right wing.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you really read what I said? The quotes I used to support my position, regarding "Nazism being a national form of socialism" and "socialism being a step on the way to communism" were from established Wikipedia articles, written quoting reliable sources! You really cannot mix and match these rebuttals to fit a weak position. If a position is correct in one article, it must be correct in another. And it is not adopting simply a "personal position" to suggest avoidance of controversial/pejorative descriptors, it is simply "Journalism Style Guide 101" to do everything humanly possible to ensure neutrality - something that should be among Wikipedia's most cherished principles if it is truly going to be the reliable repository that we yearn for it to be. As for "reliable sources", authors of volumes on biology or astronomy can generally be accepted, without much fear of contradiction, as reliable sources; authors of volumes on political science, less so. I won't take a quote from an Al Gore book as a reliable source for political labeling if you don't quote from a Rush Limbaugh tome.--621PWC (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Much as we would like it to be, Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source. If you find sources in other WP articles that support your position, please mention them here, but quoting other Wikipedia articles is insufficient. And neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh have, as far as I know, written academic works on political science, so I'm not sure what they have to do with anything. Political science works can clearly meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (being written by and reviewed by experts in the field).VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to your request, here is one of the examples I was quoting (from the Wikipedia article on communism): >>>> Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism.[12]<<<< The reliable source quoted here is Chapter 5 of Vladimir Lenin's The State and Revolution (1917). A similar line is used in paragraph 3: >>>>in order to establish a society without class divisions, called socialism, as a prelude to attempting to achieve the final stage of communism.[1]<<<<< The reliable source there is Communism. Columbia Encyclopedia. 2008. As for your rejoinder on Gore/Limbaugh, I was exaggerating to make a point ... I should have stopped at the previous line!--621PWC (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless to try to argue a point that that something must have a certain nature because it is suggested by its name. A lot of things have misleading names. Peanuts are not a type of nut and National Socialism is not a type of Socialism. There is a real academic consensus on this. You should not be arguing with us about it. You are just wasting everybody's time. You should be arguing with all the academic historians and political scientists who make the consensus on this matter. If you can convince the majority of them then certainly we will change the article in line with the change in academic consensus but not before. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems interesting that there are 8 citations to support the uncontroversial definition of what the thing is, but only 1 (actually 2; if you read the citation you will see that it is a string cite) to support the far more controversial assertion that it is a “right”- wing ideology. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto Strasser Discussion Inconsistent w/ Other Wikipedia Content

Please note that the discussion of Otto Strasser's expulsion in this article appears to be inconsistent with the discussion in the Otto Strasser article.

This article states: "As leftists, the Strasserites fell afoul of Hitler, who expelled Otto Strasser from the Nazi Party when he failed to establish the Black Front, an oppositional, anti-capitalist bloc, in 1930."

The Otto Strasser article states: "[Otto Strasser's] faction advocated support for strikes, nationalisation of banks and industry, and - despite acknowledged differences - closer ties with the Soviet Union. Some of these policies were opposed by Hitler, who thought they were too radical and too alienating from parts to the German people (middle class and some Nazi-supporting nationalist industrialists in particular), and the Strasser faction was defeated at the Bamberg Conference (1926), with Joseph Goebbels joining Hitler. Humiliated, he nonetheless, along with his brother Gregor, continued as a leading Left Nazi within the Party, until expelled from the NSDAP by Hitler in 1930. Following his expulsion, he set up his own party, the Black Front, composed of radical ex-Nazis, in an attempt to split the Nazi Party."

Either Strasser was expelled as a result of his failure to accomplish a task or he was expelled over political disagreements; it's unlikely to be both. Similarly, it seems unlikely Strasser was expelled because he failed to accomplish the establishment a political organization, and then, immediately after his expulsion, succeeded in setting up that same organization in an effort to split the party from which he had just been expelled. I would suggest that one of these articles likely needs to be corrected.69.86.3.22 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The views in the article that Nazism is anti-capitalist is false. Hitler used large companies to finance his rise to power, his economic views are neither left or right wing but more of a Third Way of economics. The debate on if Nazism is right wing or left wing is useless. American Liberalism is composed of policy across racial and nationalistic lines which is against Nazism's basic views. Conservatism is against big government so this would not fit Hitler's view either. Communism and Nazism are different but both are bad. Politicians throw these words around so much that the whole sense of it's meaning is twisted out of reality. Communism does not care about the environment as seen in the horrible environmental polices of Soviet Russia and is nationalistic in nurture but anti-colonial as well. Needless to say that Communism is war mongering unlike Liberalism which cares about civil liberties that do not exist in Socialist states. So lets use the words as they are ment to be used not what the Micheal Moore's and Beck's of world want it to be used.134.124.126.122 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is much more nuanced than that. The Nazis had a strong anti-Capitalist rhetoric that formed a big part of their pitch in the early years. They tied Capitalism to other things they hated, like internationalism, and it goes without saying that they blamed the Jews for everything. Clearly some Nazis were more sincere in believing this rhetoric than others. By the time the Nazis were in power anti-Capitalism had given way to a model where Capitalism was co-opted into the Nazi economy. It was not a free market by any measure but there was still Capitalism going on, albeit with a lot of Nazi interference and corruption. We have to be clear about the variation in Nazi policy and ideology over time and also the distinctions between what they said and what they actually did. I see no problem with having a section on anti-Capitalism so long as this covers these nuances. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nazism v. Capitalism

References to Nazism as anti-capitalist are misleading. The Nazis spread socialist propaganda to win working-class votes, but overall, their policies were friendly to big business. Quotations from Hitler and Goebbels are in no way a reliable guide to Nazi policy

ADOLF HITLER by John Toland, p. 378

"Late that November, thirty-nine prominent businessmen (including Hjalmar Schacht, former Chancellor Cumo, and tycoons like Krupp, Siemens, Thyssen, Bosch, Woermann and Voegler) signed a letter petitioning Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor of Germany. These pragmatic men were placing a bet on the NSDAP. They were confident Hitler's socialism was a fraud and that, once in power, he would be a tool of capitalism."

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, by William L. Shirer, p. 205:

"But Hitler had contrary thoughts. For him the Nazi socialist slogans had been merely propaganda, means of winning over the masses on his way to power. Now that he had the power, he was uninterested in them. He needed time to consolidate his position and that of the country. For the moment at least the Right -- business, the Army, the President -- must be appeased. He did not intend to bankrupt Germany and thus risk the very existence of his regime. There must be no second revolution.

This he made plain to the S.A. and S.S. leaders themselves in a speech to them on July 1. What was needed now in Germany, he said, was order. 'I will suppress every attempt to disturb the existing order as ruthlessly as I will deal with the so-called second revolution, which would lead only to chaos.' . . .

No more authoritative statement was ever made that the Nazi revolution was political, not economic."

INSIDE THE THIRD REICH by Albert Speer, p. 89

"It was no accident that after the Roehm putsch the Right, represented by the President, the Minister of Justice, and the generals, lined up behind Hitler. These men were free of radical anti-Semitism of the sort Hitler advocated. They in fact despised that eruption of plebian hatreds. Their conservatism had nothing in common with racial delusions. Their open display of sympathy for Hitler's intervention sprang from quite different causes: in the Blood Purge of June 30, 1934, the strong left wing of the party, represented chiefly by the SA, was eliminated. That wing had felt cheated of the fruits of the revolution. For the majority of the members of the SA, raised in the spirit of revolution before 1933, had taken Hitler's supposed socialist program seriously."

It is my personal conviction that attempts to identify National Socialism as a genuinely socialist ideology are just as mistaken as any effort to associate it with the American version of conservatism.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User Forest Johnson wrote: "References to Nazism as anti-capitalist are misleading. The Nazis spread socialist propaganda to win working-class votes, but overall, their policies were friendly to big business."

Since when has government being "friendly to big business" been a feature of capitalism per se? Mercantilism perhaps, where monopolies were granted by the crown, and various kinds of fascist and mixed-economy systems have this feature, but in order to have capitalism the government must maintain a predominantly neutral, hands-off stance with respect to the peaceful operation of privately-owned businesses whether large, small, or of a free-lance individual. It should be clear that the only 'pure' capitalism would be in the context of a laissez-faire regime, which has not yet really existed and that the varieties of 'impure' capitalism often need to be carefully distinguished. A "capitalism" under which a government grants monopolies or favors particular enterprises, groups or individuals and/or maintains government-owned enterprises might be called crony capitalism, syndicalism, economic fascism, economic nationalism, or, in a quirk of history, post-Maoist Chinese 'Communism' (a.k.a. post-Maoist Chinese capitalism), 'state capitalism' (an oxymoron, of course), Eurosocialism, or simply a mixed economy, etc., but certainly not capitalism simpliciter. See Capitalism for more ideas. Instead of trying so hard to tie one's least-favored ideology to Nazism (= bad, of course), let's have some of that intellectual 'nuance' we hear so much about. —Blanchette (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The German government had, at least since the 19th Century, granted monopolies and favored particular groups. The Nazis did not change this, though they certainly had their own plans as to which groups should be favored. Theoretical discussions as to the nature of capitalism are best conducted elsewhere.

It is not a productive question to debate whether Nazi Germany was pro- or anti-capitalist. Like most countries, it had a mixed economy, and like most countries, this shifted toward government economic planning in wartime. Of more interest is the question, in what sense did the Nazis understand the word "socialism?" We do know that Nazism was an ideology in which many words took on different meanings: "Fanaticism" was a positive virtue, "volunteer" had a non-voluntary quality, and "protective custody" was used to describe the worst kind of persecution.

"'Socialism,' a term invariably pressed into service to describe industrial innovations sponsored by the regime, was also applied to 'self-inspector' and 'self-calculator' schemes that were pioneered at teh Kloeckner-Humboldt-Deutz motor works. 'Self-inspectors' were particularly reliable workers, whose work was exempted from the scrutiny of inspectors. . . . 'Socialism' here meant either that the firm saved on supervisory personnel, or that some workers profited at the expense of others." (The 12-Year Reich by Richard Grunberger, p. 218.)

"In their public proclamations the Nazi leaders all declared their solidarity with the workers and portrayed themselves as their benefactors. But their actual policies were quite another story. This was the Law for the Organization of National Labour of January 1934, which dubbed the entrepreneurs 'leaders of industry' and the workers and salaried employees their 'followers.' According to the 'Fuehrer principle' the entrepreneurs were therefore 'sole masters in their realms of activity,' to whom their employees owed 'absolute fealty.' There was no longer such a thing as a works council, no youth representation, no forum for workers' participation. In cases of gross abuse the functionaries of the German Labour Front could intervene. But they confined themselves to issues like provision for rest rooms or locks on lockers; wages, production quotas, overtime, and deductions from pay were dictated from high. And in 1935 they reintroduced employment booklets, such as workers had in Kaiser Wilhelm's day. Without an employment booklet no one could get a job, and if an employer didn't want a worker to leave, he could refuse to return the worker's employment booklet." (In Hitler's Germany by Bernt Engelmann, p. 47.)

"The Nazis did not understand under 'Socialism' concrete measures to protect the weaker members of society from the economically more powerful (for example, tariffs, insurance coverage, social security, workers' councils, participation in management, profit-sharing, and so on), which are generally considered socialist measures. Instead, Hitler sought to create a closed and harmonious racial community, in which all interest groups were included in a common sense of pride to be German and to be allowed to contribute to the "New Germany". The Nazi version of socialism, it was announced, recognized for this reason neither citizens nor proletarians, only Germans. Both the hands and the head of the workers would be engaged to expand the German empire. Behind these slogans were measures to reduce social tensions and to intoxicate all Volksgenossen [racial comrades]in a feeling of militant nationalism." (translated from Der Nationalsozialismus published by the Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, Berlin, p. 41.)

"Hitler's idea of socialism, then and later, was in complete accord with his feelings about the stupid, tractable, manipulable mass, whose needs could be satisfied with the classical method of panem et circenses [bread and circuses]. Anyone genuinely concerned about the people was in Hitler's eyes a socialist. The coming revolution was not meant for this popular victory over Jews and other 'inferiors' -- the true völkisch-racist revolution -- remained the only genuine kernel of Hitler's ideology, regardless of the proclamations of National Socialist doctrine and propaganda; almost everything else was Machiavellian power politics. Hitler also looked at economic economic and social programs from this vantage point." (The German Dictatorship by Peter Gay, p. 181.)

In short, National Socialism was not "socialist" as we understand the term. Under the Nazis, it referred to a racial community and militant nationalism which does not fit neatly onto either the "right" nor "left" of our political spectrum.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I repeat my objections to the anti-capitalism section, which has been changed without notable improvement. What Speer said about Hitler is very true: He really had no interest in economics. Quotations from Hitler and Goebbels speeches are off the mark, I shouldn't have to point out that they told a lot of lies. What Hitler actually did about economics in the first four years of his rule was to leave it mainly in the hands of Hjalmar Schacht, a traditional conservative. Schacht was eventually replaced by Walter Funk, who failed to impose any order on the economy, and by Hermann Goering, whose Four Year Plan, was pragmatically directed toward increasing military production, rather than reorganizing society according to socialist theories. Goering was in fact a deadly enemy of Strasser, Röhm, and the other members of the Nazi left wing, who were exterminated in 1934.

On those rare occasions when Hitler spoke candidly, he said hardly anything about economics. There is nothing about it in Mein Kampf, unless you count the anti-Jewish ranting. If we waste our time reading his "Table Talk," an edited collection of conversations with his cronies, his remarks on the subject are absolute garbage, they do not reveal the slightest understanding: "Once the economy has been definitely organized, we shall have to see to increasing our livestock. We shall also have to devote 100,000 acres to the cultivation of rubber. Because of the fault of capitalism, which considers only private interests, the exploitation of electricity generated by water power in Germany is only in its infancy. The most important hydro-electric installations will have to be reserved, in the first place, for the most important consumers -- for the chemical industry, for example. We shall have to use every method of encouraging whatever might ensure us the gain of a single kilowatt. Let's not forget the old-style mills. If water flows, it's enough to build a dam to obtain electricity. Coal will disappear one day, but there will always be water . . ." (Hitler's Tabletalk, 1941-1942, edited by Hugh Trevor-Roper, p. 22)

(Hitler still talks about "reorganizing" the economy in 1941, eight years after coming to power, and shortly before dropping the whole contradictory mess in the lap of his personal friend Albert Speer, an architect who had no experience with economic issues. It seems to have escaped his attention that German agriculture was highly efficient in producing pigs and chickens, and much less in other kinds of livestock, or that the climate was wholely inappropriate for rubber tree plantations. In order to correct the "fault of capitalism", that it considers only private intersts, he proposes to build huge hydroelectric projects devoted solely to private interests. He further proposes to waste vast sums on the construction of medieval water mills, in order to provide the nation with electricity. So much for Hitler's economic theories.)

The "anti-capitalist" thesis is supported by quotations from "alternative" thinkers, while ignoring the academic consensus. It quotes as authoritative the 1920 program of the German Workers Party (written before Hitler took over and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers Party) and ignores the fact that these provisions had already disappeared from the Sept. 10, 1930 declaration of Nazi principles, three years before Hitler became Chancellor. (See Nazism, A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts, 1919-1945, v. I, p. 72.) This evidence has clearly been selected from the viewpoint of 21st Century American politics, which is irrelevant. We cannot just rewrite history for political purposes, that is what the Nazis did.

When I have the time, I will offer a rewrite of this section, under the title "Socialism", and point out what I said above, that it was based on racial theories and had little resemblance to the the practice of socialism as commonly understood. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

arab nationalism

i've expanded this section with content from the Racism in the Palestinian territories article. if anyone would like to discuss here first, please feel free to revert my addition. also i was planning on adding some information on the bosnian waffen ss division which, although the two are related, might not belong in the arab nationalism section; any thoughts? WookieInHeat (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this section overstates the Nazi commitment to Arab nationalism. The Nazis were solely interested in encouraging an Arab rebellion against the British (which was actually attempted in Iraq and Egypt). At home in Germany, they continued to regard Arabs as non-Aryan, an inferior race, and strictly forbid any intermarriage with them. It is highly doubtful whether Hitler, had he occupied the Middle East, would have created an independent Arab state. What he actually did on these occasions was to create a puppet regime, like the one in Slovakia, or to forget earlier promises to the natives, as happened in the Ukraine. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nazi ideology = natural selection theory

I think more should be said about Darwinism in the ideological roots part along the lines historian Klaus Fischer writes about it. In the beginning of his book "Nazi Germany: a new history" he emphasizes that the most lethal aspect of nazi ideology was it's reliance on predetermination in it's ideology. He stresses that the reader should take account of decisions and contingencies in the history, so not to fall into the trap of predermination that the nazi's fell into. Then in the part of the book where he talks about the ideological roots he begins with an eclectic collection of ideogical influences, but then relativizes them with the enormous influence of Darwinism. Those 2 things together, the reliance on predetermination, and the influence of natural selection theory, both coming from science, should be the main things in the ideology part in my opinion.

Very many historians have written about the link between science / darwinism and nazism, that was considered obvious right after the war, and fairly recently more attention has been paid to that by historians such as Benno Muller Hill, and others. There are also many historians who have argued away from that, but they seem to argue against the obvious. When Hitler writes in Mein Kampf about how natural selection works, and then writes about his policy, uh... they are the same principles. When Hitler says that all policy should be rationalised in terms of the reproduction of the race, then he is identifying himself as part of natural selection. In a letter to apply for a job as army "instructor", Hitler also demands that his anti-semitism is rational, and distances himself from emotional anti-semitism. Also in the schoolbook for the Hitler Youth it starts out with the "factual outlook on life", and the whole atmosphere of nazism is dominated by this coldblooded calculation based on race. I also think that Darwinism goes to great lengths to explain the ideological roots of Mussolini and Hirohito as well. So when emphasis is placed on obscure racists to explain nazi ideology as is done, then you need an entirely new explanation for Hirohito's ideology, and for Mussolini's ideology as well, so it becomes some kind of unlikely coincedence that similar things happened at the same time in 3 places. But Darwinism can explain the ideological roots of all 3 at once, which negates this coincedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syamsu (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are getting this, but it is not from Mein Kampf. Check out the searchable version. No mention at all of Darwin or evolution. What he actually does say (in Chapt. 11), does not sound like Darwinism: "Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable."

Hitler's theories were based on racial purity, not natural selection. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mussolini's ideology didn't rely on Social Darwinism, except perhaps after 1939 and Fascism's absorption of National Socialist racial laws. The Doctrine of Fascism mentions that competition and war between nations is beneficial to breed strength and higher force in the prevailing nation. This, I think, isn't based on Social Darwinism, but supremacy of military force. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Historian Robert TOMBS

Since the text is locked, I can't make the correction, but "Historian Robert Toombs" is wrong, should be "Historian Robert Tombs," with one "o". The confederate politician was Robert Toombs, with two "o"s. 71.204.84.204 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Far-right"

The term should just be removed. At the very best it is highly arguable. Thus stating it as fact is POV. Wikipedia could be so great if so many editors with left agendas would stop treating it as a politically useful tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No sources call them "center-right", "moderate right". etc. They were extremists - you do not have to be left-wing to know that. TFD (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The notions of ideological left and right seem a bit confusing. Why is an obviously collectivist ideology such as nazism considered far-right? What type of ideological Right is meant, in that regard? The nazis looked a lot like soviet communists, except they didn't talk from the viewpoint of the proletariat of the world, but talked from the point of view of the German nation. So they seem to have been like nationalist communists, or, as they called themselves, national socialists. Why this is to be considered far-right isn't very obvious, and it also isn't explained at all in the far-right article. --95.34.1.229 (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest you type "far right" and "right-wing" in the "Search archives" field at the top of this talk page. This topic has been discussed many times before.Spylab (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler and his party hated the socialists, communists, marxists and all of the left wing and this is very obvious in their propaganda and in Hitler's speeches. Atheuz (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So? Stalin hated Trotsky. The National Socialists had much more in common with left-wing political movements than they did with right-wing ones. It isn't clear that it makes much sense to assign left/right political labels to movements headed by tyrants. --Paul (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing political movements disagreed. The Nationalists and the Prussian officer corps certainly thought Hitler was on their side. The KPD and SPD hated each other, but were universally perceived as both being on the left. The NSDAP was universally perceived - not just by the KPD and SPD, but by the bourgeois and right-wing parties as well - as being basically on the right. john k (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Or are Papen, Hugenberg, and Hindenburg left-wingers now, too? john k (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

False Claim:

"Nazism was a far right form of politics." All 25 points of the NAZI platform are leftwing and rooted primarily in Nietzche and Marx. There is not a single point in the NAZI platform that is "right wing". Today, in 2010, right wing is associated with limited government and individualism. Wikipedia is notorious for trying to associate the radical unlimited central anti-capitalist government of NAZI Germany, with people in America who simply want limited government and individualism. But because Wikipedia is maintained by mostly left wing intellectuals, there is no chance that this fact that the NAZI party is incompatible with right wing politics as practiced in 2010 will ever be mentioned. I challenge Wikipedia to name any "right wing" group in America in 2010 that advocates a vast central government. But you can find countless groups that do so on the hard left. This is provable, and beyond refute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• The term far right is not generally used to describe limited government and individualism. Try googling "far right" and see what mostly comes up. Also, Nazi Germany only used anti-capitalist rhetoric in its propaganda. In practice, it ran a mixed economy, like the United States. Economics was not a major defining factor of Nazism anyway.Spylab (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Like the United States? Which corporation under Hitler had rights and freedoms? Hitler could nationalize any company at any time for any reason whatsoever. This cannot happen in the United States. There is no comparison. Companies had no rights and abilities under leftist Hitler. The two largest supporters of the Nazi party when it came to absolute power were college youth and school teachers...yea thats always been a 'far right' block of people. July 1933, membership in a cartel was required by all German businesses. By 1937 small businesses with capitalization under 40,000 were dissolved by the state. Sound like the US? Hardly. It is much closer to Chavez under fanatical leftwing control. Far Right today, in the 21st century America means limited government. There is nothing right wing about Nazis. There is nothing captialist about the Nazis. Forcing businesses to join cartels is capitalism? C'mon. When did Wikipedia become propaganda? Everything NAZI's stood for can be found abundantly in the left, from nationalization of businesses, to nationalization of health care, to nationalization of education...things like eugenics and cultural natural selection, all of these ideas had ample support from the intellectual elites. Capitalism was no where to be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • You obviously didn't understand what Spylab was saying above. In any case, Wikipedia isn't here to rewrite history to suit you. Wikipedia goes by published sources. Nazism is far right as far as reliable sources go. This talk page isn't a forum and this has been discussed in detail before. I do find it peculiar that you equate Republican conservatism with far right politics. I'd place most Republicans as centre-right for the most part. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • • "This cannot happen in the United States" -- yes it can. What do you call what happened last year when the U.S. government took over General Motors? If that isn't 'nationalization' I don't know what is. And you seemingly haven't read "Mein Kampf" (few have). The book is replete with your "limited government and individualism". It also carefully lays out Hitler's formulae for continued capital growth among Germany's large corporations, and Hitler's support for individual entrepreneurship. Furthermore, it elucidates Hitler's abject hatred of communism -- particularly as it stifles individual free enterprise -- and his blaming of German Jewish intellectuals for the fomenting of communist thought within Germany. As for college youth and school teachers being the 'largest supporters' of the Nazi party? How do you measure 'large'? What statistics are you referring to? Do you have data to back up the measurement of 'large', Mr. 67.183.191.86? Sounds more like opinion -- yours. In that case, here's my opinion: the largest supporters of Hitler were I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (IG Farben) and Bayer AG (the inventors of aspirin!) -- two of the largest private enterprise corporations in Germany. I might also throw in several American corporations, including Ford, DuPont and Standard Oil. In fact, the latter company sent $2-million to Germany in 1933; gee, I wonder where that ended up. Mr. 67.183.191.86, if you still do not believe that Hitler and the Nazi Party are right-wing -- and thus, not unlike the beloved Republican Party and its offshoot Tea Party -- please read this: WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER. Finally, understand this: my Mother grew up in Nazi Germany -- I know things from her about what went on there in the 1930s/40s that I won't even share on this board. But I will say this: Hitler's Germany was not only as far from a left-wing socialist utopia as you can imagine ... but was a model of society that is ominously being resurrected amongst the right-wing of America today. --Atikokan (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • General Motors was (and technically) still is bankrupt. The government take over of the AFL - CIO pension plan formerly known as General Motors is quite a different scenario from a profitable going concern being seized by the government. Even in times of war companies in the US were never taken over and told what to produce. They were however well paid for war supplies and gladly produced them and restricted supply to the private sector to increase supply to the government in addition the rationing measures instituted by the government.Pcoppney (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Naziism as 'far right'

The assertion that Naziism is 'far right' is deeply POV, and in violation of wiki guidelines. There are many people who consider the Nazis to be 'left wing' including the Nazis themselves. The Nazis described themselves as a 'middle way' between the social democrats and the internationalist communists. I'd suggest that labeling Naziism as 'right wing' is a highly controversial and POV statement. Based on what objective standard are the Nazis 'right wing?' Can anyone provide two or three self described 'right wing' sources that describe the Nazis as right wing? I highly doubt it. --Ryan Wise (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the article, the sources are right there, at the end of the first paragraph for starters. This has been discussed many times before. I suggest you check the archives, unless you have something new to add, such as reliable sources that counter mainstream academic sources. freshacconci talktalk 02:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm complaining because I've read the article. The issue was discussed before and still hasn't been fixed. To say that a thing is POV is not to claim that no points of view agree with the statement. You understand the difference between a point of view and an objective fact, I assume? And there are sources that take a contrary position. Hitler's own supporters were explicitly left wing by their own definition, which is fairly compelling. This article contains legitimately controversial assertions, passed off as objectively authoritative. This is the very definition of POV. Similarly, it seems to rely on a definition of 'right wing' which is not accepted by those who self-describe as 'right wing.' Much like the appellation of 'social darwinism' it is something applied exclusively by opponents of a thing to those that they oppose and almost never by proponents of the policy.

--Ryan W (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article contains sources that back up the claims made. Do you have sources that counter the mainstream academic consensus on Nazism? freshacconci talktalk 04:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Plenty. For starters; F.A. Hayek's “The Socialist Roots of Naziism” would be one example. Hayek is pretty indisputably a fiscal conservative's fiscal conservative. Von Mises is similar.

The foreign critics condemn the Nazi system as capitalist. . . . But this is one charge against the Nazis that is unfounded. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism. Yet it is clear that both systems, the German and the Russian, must be considered from an economic point of view as socialist. [5] --Ryan W (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hayek is clearly speaking from an economic point of view of course. What the Nazism article is stating is something more general. As Spylab points out above, the view of Nazism as far right is not about economics. Nazism as a fascist ideology is ultra-nationalist and reactionary. Economically, it was actually a mix of different methods. It was ant-capitalist but also anti-communist. You could argue that Nazism was opportunistic when it came to the economy, embracing whatever was necessary at any given time. But the other indicators of far right politics fit. If you want to work out something that indicates that economists from the Austrian School believed that the Nazis were economically socialist, that would certainly provide more insight into the complexities of Nazism. But to call Nazism left-wing is really what not Hayek was talking about and is not supported by his writing. freshacconci talktalk 04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that ridiculous link to the Fred Phelps site in the Far-right politics article is a legitimate source, you don't understand what WP:V and WP:RS mean, let alone WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. freshacconci talktalk 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was lazy. I'll get a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The section in the article on Anti-capitalism does mention some of this, i.e. whether Nazism was socialist or not. I'd need to read it more carefully myself but don't have the time at the moment, but something elaborating on the Austrian School thoughts on Nazism and Socialism would fit there. freshacconci talktalk 04:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the past, most of my wiki editing has been on scientific topics, which tends to have a different set of problems than political editing. But to get a bit deeper into my underlying thinking ( I know that this can't be put into the article ); the terms 'right wing' and 'left wing' have more than one definition. The terms are universally agreed to have been derived from the sitting arrangements of the French Revolution. But the reasoning behind the derivation varies. The most common definition of "right wing" is "conserving the status quo" since those on the right at the tennis courts(churchmen and monarchists) were conserving their particular status quo. But such a definition has a flaw making its use problematic. It is essentially context dependent. A supporter of Communism in modern Russia would be "Right Wing." Such a communist would have virtually no political or economic relationship to someone who is "Right Wing" in the United States. Without a qualifier of what a person is trying to conserve, use of this definition of the term "right wing" thus does more to obfuscate than to clarify. The other definition of "Right Wing," also derived from ones seating at the tennis courts during the French Revolution, is according to one's alignment to the church. In this definition, the association of the monarchy with the church at the time of the French Revolution is viewed as something of an historical artifact and people cite biblical tracts such as those in the beginning of Samuel to argue that monarchy is not the ideal form of government according to the church. God is depicted as opposing the creation of a monarchy, but relents and agrees to a constitutional monarchy. While such a definition is used less commonly, and seems significantly more common to the right wing than the left wing as self-identified in America, it carries the advantage that it is not context sensitive. Given these problems with the meaning behind 'left' and 'right' and its differing definitions I'm concerned that the use of the term has too much baggage and does more to confuse than inform. --Ryan W (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it has roots in the political alignments of the French Revolution, the left-right terms has long since taken on a life of its own and has developed according to contemporary political developments. The actual seating arrangements of the political factions during the early period of the Revolution, used as a key to interpret modern politics, has not been current since the early 19th century outside two-party system countries. While it is correct that the left-right spectrum is insufficient to completely cover the different aspects of political parties, it is nevertheless common usage, even for academics. And as the sources say, the "right-wing" as a general appellation to nazism and fascism is the most prevalent. Anyway, you might want to browse the archives (or just look a little further up on this page). This discussion has been done to death time and time again, and the current version is a very well established consensus. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

if the left-right dichotomy has "taken on a mind of its own" the vagueness of this definition seems to further support the notion that the phrase "extreme right" lacks a solidly agreed upon meaning by those across the political spectrum. The left-right spectrum isn't simply insufficient to cover different aspects of various political parties. It's essentially a contranym, with diametricly opposed definitions depending on the situation and the person using the term. As such, it's hard to argue that its use here serves any particular function or imparts any information, which makes me wonder why people are so intent on preserving it. --Ryan W (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not vagueness, just adjusted according to modern political developments by the scholars of political theory, as the sources shows. The vagueness is purely on your account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're arguing for something other than the historical meaning of the terms then, could you provide some kind of support? And explain how that definition is amenable to a political spectrum? I would argue that the current dominant usage of "right wing" is based on resistance to change, which is highly context sensitve and requires qualification in terms of what is being conserved for clarity. --75.83.82.224 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resistance to change is the definition of conservatism, not the Right. Conservatives may be right-wing, like Hitler's coalition partners, but not all right-wingers are conservative. TFD (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The majority of sources that I can find seem to define "Right Wing" as opposed to change or desiring to preserve the traditional order. "right: those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]. I don't like this definition since it's highly context sensitive and groups dissimilar organizations. I would suggest, as I have before, that left-wing and right-wing usage of the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" tend to differ from one another. The term has highly disparate meaning depending on who uses it, and so use without some qualification is easily POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A different approach: It's possible to be anti-communist and anti-capitalist at the same time. The Nazis were German nationalists, and were paranoid of anything that smacked of internationalism, which would set Germany as merely an equal to other nations, or erode the concept of "nation" itself. Economics was not their primary goal; the Volk and the purity of the Volk was. And thus they opposed both internationalist communism and international finance capitalism. --FOo (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact the seating arrangement set up during the French Revolution continues in European legislatures to this day. The Nazis were seated on the far right of the Reichstag and fascists today are seated there. When the Nazis came to power it was in alliance with the Conservatives who also sat on the right. Hayek called both Nazis and conservatives socialist, but he did not call them left wing. He considered himself a liberal and a centrist. The Nazis did claim to seek a third way, but it was between capitalism and communism. There were left-wing elements in the Nazi Party and they were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Nazi economic policy was little different from that of other governments during the depression and the Second World War. Initially they governed according to classical liberal principles but began massive spending in order to fund the war. TFD (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Hayek was considered a moderate leftist in his day, (but a moderate to strong economic conservative in modern times, especially in contrast to Keynes.) Similarly, I agree with you that FDR, for instance, is considered to be fairly leftist economically, as the Nazis were. But most importantly, I'd note that 'conservative,' used in a monophylectic manner, is always a function of what a person wishes to conserve. In other words, it should be made explicit what the Nazis attempted to conserve and by what means or else the term 'conservative' or 'right wing' carries no clear meaning. Does that make sense? I think the issue would be clearer if phrased in that fashion rather than using generic terms like 'left wing' or 'right wing.' Property rights are considered to be conservative in Western culture and the Nazis trampled those. Similarly, in practice the Nazis persecuted numerous churchmen and religious institutions which is not considered "conservative." The Nazis were "conservative" in a pagan sense, even appealing to the Spartan custom of killing weak babies. But infanticide for the purpose of genetic purification of stock is decidedly not conservative in regards to other portions of German culture. In that sense, it was strongly 'left wing' (if we insist on using a fairly non-predictive generic left-right dichotomy, which I'd rather see qualified) along with most of the eugenics movement, which called itself 'progressive' in the United States. Given the dramatic changes that Hitler attempted to impose on German society, it seems difficult to label Naziism in practice as solidly 'conservative' where conservative is defined simply as avoiding change. I think that that's a rather confounding definition of conservative, (and one, significantly, often avoided by conservatives themselves) since it tends to group highly disparate things in the same category. But I acknowledge that it is the most common definition. --Ryan W (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hayek was not "considered a moderate leftist in his day". He was a socialist who became a liberal, i.e., centrist. No one is claiming that Hitler was a conservative. He was a right-winger who formed a coalition with conservatives. Conservatism btw has nothing to do with economic liberalism. TFD (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In most reputable definitions, "right wing" is synonymous with conservative. I would be fine if it meant something else, but that definition has some support. The problem, as I've mentioned several times, is that there isn't a commonly agreed upon definition of "right wing" from all parts of the political spectrum. To resolve this we need to be discussing the source of our criteria, not making unsupported assertions. As mentioned, the eugenics movement was associated with the 'left' both in America (what was then called the progressive movement) and in Europe at that time. It's difficult to believe that Hitler eliminated the eugenics proponents from his party during the Night of the Long Knives. Which is why that reasoning, while it's sometimes asserted, doesn't really make any sense.--Ryan W (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced and nothing you have said has any basis in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pcoppney, 5 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]

The last phrase 'in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]" is an opinion. Even though there is source cited, the source is an opinion. In any event the first phrase of the sentence does not seem to agree with the second. It would seem the author noticed this disconnect given the use of a semi colon.

If by "far right" the author meant conservative, that would also be incorrect as the Nazi party certainly did not want to maintain the existing political and social structures of Germany.

And before you go off on a rant perhaps we should use another section of the article as a reference....

"The Nazis sought to distinguish and separate themselves from conservative nationalist competitors such as the German National People's Party (DNVP) by officially denouncing conservatism, and attacking conservative nationalists for being reactionary, bourgeois enemies of the German nation who were equal in blame alongside Marxism for Germany's downfall in 1918.[181] The Nazis made alliances with the DNVP, but they claimed that these were tactical in nature and that the two parties had significant ideological differences.[182]"

come on man! Pcoppney (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing and conservative are not synonymous. Whatever the Nazi ideology may have been, in practice they governed from the right, supported by conservatives and right-wing liberals. TFD (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If right wing and conservative are not synonymous there are quite a few articles in this wiki that need to be edited. The sentence is clearly politically motivated. Just for the record a real reference source (the thesaurus http://thesaurus.com/browse/right-wing) does think the terms are synonymous. I say again Come on man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 February 2011

Your source provides a number of terms, e.g., Tory, reactionary, redneck, illiberal. Do you think that all conservatives are reactionary, redneck, illiberal Tories? TFD (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You wrote this sentence "Right-wing and conservative are not synonymous." You were wrong, don't try to change the subject, this is not about what I think, this is about misuse of the language. And it is not just my source, it is the generally accepted "source" for synonymous terms. Note "my source" did not list Nazi as a synonym for right-wing. Given your logic above then it must follow that Nazis were not conservative. Come on man!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See, this is just another example of the fact that Pcoppney doesn't understand the definitions of political terms. "Conservative" does not mean "Far Right." It means "Center-Right," or "Mainstream Right." One can be Conservative and completely opposed to the Far Right. (Most modern Conservatives would fall under this heading, especially those of the William F. Buckley Jr. mold...) And one can be a self-described Liberal like JFK and fight against Communism. There is no "conflict" here. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) See the definition of "right(-wing)" given in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, courtesy of the publishers and Google Books:[6]

right-(wing): The opposite of left. As with the term left-wing, the label right-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context. In advanced liberal democracies, perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy. As a result, the ideologies and philosophies of right-wing political parties have included elements of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism libertarianism, and nationalism; and for extreme-right parties racism and fascism. As the policy platforms of parties have varied, so has the popular conception of the left-right dimension. In surveys, self-placement on a "left-right" scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization, post-materialism, and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity.

TFD (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. As noted in your quote "perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy." As the Nazi's were most certainly socialist in their approach to the control of the means of production you must certainly agree they were not conservative and were in fact leftist, at the very least not the "far right." It is obvious you are trying to change thought by mangling the language. Please stop; if you wish this article and moreover, the wiki itself, to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Except, of course, that the Nazis were not socialist and no reliable, mainstream source labels them as such. Read it again: "In advanced liberal democracies, perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy." In other words, liberal democracies today define left and right in this way. The definition goes on to state that right wing includes "...nationalism; and for extreme-right parties racism and fascism." The Nazis were nationalistic, racist and fascist, thus extreme right-wing. This is what the sources say so this is what we use. freshacconci talktalk 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may want to read the sections of the article about private property and Economic ideology again. I do appreciate you attempt to marginalize me with the "mainstream" comment. However given the facts that the Nazi's started out as a labor union and the they used the word Socialist to describe themselves I feel certain there is some hint of socialism in there somewhere. And when you say "this is what "WE" use, to whom might you refer? As we are having this discussion it is obviously not "US." They were radical and they were extremist but they were just as "far-left" as they were "far-right" however that is not in the opening paragraph of the article; wonder why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a debating society. TFD (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How profound. It is obviously not to be considered a neutral source of information either. Oh, and this is the first thing I saw on Freshacconci's page. Raul's Razor An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. Perhaps this article is not as neutral as it could be, or there is the possibility that you are not as neutral as you think you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You think highly of yourself. When I say "mainstream" it has nothing to do with distinguishing any view from yours: what I refer to is mainstream, academic and reliable sources that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, must rely on. By "we" I mean all of us who edit on Wikipedia and by the guidelines of Wikipedia, such as WP:RS and WP:V. The Nazis called themselves "socialist", true. The official name of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic. I think you'd find few who would describe them as democratic in any way that is recognizable to anyone today. Nazi Germany was a mixed economy, neither left nor right in that regard, or more to the point, they used a number of methods of economic regulation and control. What makes them far-right is the other designations of what far-right is, extreme nationalism, racism and fascism. This is what the sources say and this is what we follow. Neutrality does not mean balance: not every viewpoint needs to be presented. This is not journalism, this is an encyclopedia and we present the prevailing view without insisting on our own interpretations. Find more than fringe sources that state that Nazism is far-left. freshacconci talktalk 23:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice word salad. I find it odd that I am patronized by someone that feels the the need to create yet another encyclopedia, even if it is a tertiary one, that must be subsidized by being placed at the top of every search returned by the worlds largest search engine just to be relevant. Odd how no other encyclopedia even makes on to the first page of results. Please, be serious, your condescending remarks are cute, but add no value. Obviously not every viewpoint needs to be presented, only the ones you find relevant. Which seems to be a theme in this collection of articles. A question. If there are so many sources of this information and it is so widely know by the "mainstream", what need have we of another? Were the learned scholars that are referenced in the article just not able to effectively articulate their points? Does it fall to you select few to condense and crystallize the information into a form we ignorant brutes can consume? As for the neutrality issue we agree, it matters not whether there is balance according to the razor. I can sense the authors sympathies before finishing the first paragraph, hence it is not neutral. Play by your own rules, you made them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Says here that the Nazi`s had a distinct left wing element.

• Collier Martin, Pedley Philip. Hitler and the Nazi state Heinemann. 1st ed. 27 April 2005. ISBN 978-0435327095

I have added the "distinct left wing element" referenced above to the article, it appears reasonable to me. Tentontunic 16:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Except using that excerpt is the very definition of "cherry picking" and actually misrepresents what the sources says. No one denies there was a left-wing to the Nazi party: every political party has a right-wing and a left-wing. The Nazis certainly absorbed some socialistic ideas in their early platform but the left-wing was wiped out by 1933 and as late as the 1920s Hitler regretted using the term "socialist" in their name. To use this info in the lede is WP:UNDUE as it misrepresents what the source actually states. It's on google books; read it. This can be used later in the article with a full explanation of what it means. To state that Nazism has a left wing element in the lede is WP:SYNTH and probably WP:OR as the common, mainstream and accepted view of Nazism is that it was an extreme right-wing political party. To state otherwise in the lede goes beyond what Wikipedia does. freshacconci talktalk 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Freshacconci. It's like saying that the Republican Party has a Left-Wing element. One could argue that the "Log Cabin Republicans" represent a Socially Liberal element of the GOP, but this does not in any way represent the general "face" of the Republican Party. It's meant with the pure intent of historical revisionism on the part of Pcoppney, masquerading as "objectivity." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tentontunic, perhaps there is hope for objectivity in this wiki yet.

Pcoppney 17:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your agenda is showing. What follows is a review of the source (done by a professional reviewer of books). It seems the author may have thought the conservatives and the Nazis found each other as enemies of their enemies. (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11069).

"Fritzsche's study indicates why it is now impossible to deny the contested nature of German politics and the assertiveness of petit bourgeois and peasant activists. Yet in common with the recent emphasis on radical nationalism, Fritzsche places the traditional right so clearly on the defensive as to minimize its contributions to the rise of the Nazi party and to the terror of the Third Reich. One does not have to accept stereotypes of wire-pulling field marshals, estate owners, and business tycoon paymasters that Fritzsche argues are still common (p. 210-11), to recognize the symbiosis between populists and elites that coexisted with their mutual contempt. Even the fragmentation of Weimar politics, one evidence of the traditional right's "decline," not only magnified the impact of decisions at the highest levels of state, but also that of elites with access to Hindenburg, who saw the Nazis as useful to undermining Versailles and destroying the left. In addition, the electoral growth of Nazism itself owed something to the radicalization of the traditional right in the field. This was especially true of many nobles in the countryside, who, if they did not explicitly endorse the Nazis, became sufficiently militant as to discredit cooperation with the Republic. The economic and structural foundations of elites remained even if their political representation disintegrated to the benefit of the Nazis. Finally, the extent to which the quest for Lebensraum depended on the civil service, the military, and business suggests why Germany became so murderous, because the "new order" in Europe would not have been possible without an advanced state apparatus and military-industrial complex. Fritzsche asserts that the triumph of a popular, radical nationalist politics and its mobilization of violence became "Germany's twentieth century revolution" (p. 230) even as he recognizes that birth and status still mattered. Yet it is hard to conceive of the regime's extraordinary brutality as simply the product of ambitious, upwardly-mobile populists. If the relationship between conservative elites and Nazis was hardly harmonious, the Nazis nonetheless represented an effective antidote to "Marxism" and a way out of the Depression." You are both avowed liberals with axes to grind, that does not make me the bad guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcoppney (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been 30 seconds and neither of you have completely discredited the author as a tool for the teaparty or a neo nazi sympathizer. Come on guys, you must be getting old!

Pcoppney (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had to read your quoted text a couple of times to try to understand what point you are making by referencing it. As a review of the referenced text above, it seems straightforward enough. All I see here is a reviewer stating that it is a useful text and describes how the Nazis in tandem with the conservatives or traditionalist elite, destroyed the left in Germany. And this proves your point how? freshacconci talktalk 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The article states "Nazism was a far right form of politics." Right wing is universally associated with conservative, pick any thesaurus you want as proof. The same thesaurus will certainly list radical as an antonym for conservative. The Nazis were certainly radical, racists, extremists, and ultra nationalists. None of these traits however, make them conservative. The Nazis, Hitler in particular, understood the only way to mobilize the people was to demonize the communists. As such he co-opted the conservatives looking for a place to affiliate as the old republic faded as the reviewer so eloquently states. The article should be changed to either move the "Nazism was a far right form of politics" into a broader exploration later in the text or the "distinct left wing element" qualifier should be added. To do neither is negligent and an obvious attempt to associate conservatives with Nazis. The regime in China is ultra nationalist, racists, extreme, and communist. Are they the far right version of Communism that Marx forgot to write about?

Pcoppney (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be stubbornly incapable of discerning the difference between "Conservative" and "Far Right." Stop trolling and treating this page like a message board, and learn to use academic sources. Again, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and you have not provided any evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK. I don't know how many times I need to outline this. 1) We can only include information that is accepted in mainstream, academic sources. Those sources consider Nazis as far right. 2) You are confusing "right wing" with "far right". Most contemporary conservative parties, i.e. the US Republicans, the British Conservatives and so on, are typically viewed as right or centre-right. Certainly not far right. The Nazis, typically, are viewed as far right. That's what the sources say. The cited text above provides a bit more insight into how these sort of labels get confusing, not only because of shifting attitudes but because of individual interpretations. Within the article itself, I have no problem with a discussion, using proper sources not taken out of context, which explains that the Nazis were not a) synonymous with German conservatives/traditionalists/monarchists (i.e. the old order); and b) the two factions worked together to purge the Nazis of their left-wing. The Nazis could not have ruled without conservative support but no one is suggesting that conservative = Nazi. The conservatives believed that the Nazis early on could be useful in ridding Germany of the left and the radical left (again, two different groups). Unfortunately, the conservatives found they were unable to control the Nazis (the belief was that the Nazis were a bunch of thugs that could be dispatched with later on). freshacconci talktalk 18:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps the article should read "radical right" instead of "far right" which are two different groups.Pcoppney (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics." - FALSE

Unconstructive argumentation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Calling Nazism, Fascism, and Racism "Far Right" is completely false. This guy gets it right: "Though this definition (that Nazism is far right) is accepted and promulgated by media and educators, how does this fit into any rational system of understanding political ideology? It does not, of course, but whenever any group displays any activity that does not adhere to a politically correct agenda, and can be pronounced by liberals as being racist, sexist, bigoted, or intolerant — whether this description is accurate or not — the group is deemed “right-wing.” " http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/european/2161-ideological-bedfellows So somewhere, somebody got the idea that racism is a "far right" trait even though the only major piece of legislation in the last several decades that discriminates based on race (in the US) is affirmative action promoted by the left. But even then I give the left the benefit of the doubt. I do not think the "far left" is racist, neither is the "far right". Racism can happen regardless of political orientation. So forget about the Nazis' authoritarianism, statism, socialist qualities, and collectivism and say that because they were 'racist' they must be 'far right'. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.141 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (Since you are going to SPAM multiple pages with this nonsense, I'll follow you around and post this as well...) Your source is ludicrous, as is your thesis. The author you quote is no academic, and has no credentials whatsoever that I can locate. You rely upon a false dichotomy to make your assertion (i.e., the idea that Left=Statism/Collectivism, while Right=Less Gov't/Anarchy) which is absurd and has no historical justification whatsoever. I'd debunk your pathetic attempt at revisionism piece by piece, but frankly, it's not even worth taking the time. Turn off the Glenn Beck and pick up a history book. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "This user identifies as a liberal." - Why am I not surprised. It's the liberal agenda to paint Nazism as right-wing when it clearly is not. So keep on with your 'fascist' control of this page while multiple users including myself complain about this "far-right" falsehood. I suggest you read up and get informed: http://www.stephenhicks.org/publications/nietzsche-and-the-nazis/ I have lost faith in wikipedia as a non-biased source of information because of people like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.137 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC) You really should learn how to make a case before spouting off nonsense. You don't just say, "Here! Read this book!" You say, "In this book, such-and-such says that blah-blah-blah, and here's my citation." Your thesis is absurd, and that's why you can't defend it....especially when you find yourself on the OPPOSITE side of the most learned and respected historians in the world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) There are complaints about this phrase all over this page and it should be amended. At the very least it should say something like "whether Nazism is considered right or left is debatable" because there are numerous scholars that say it is center or left of center. But since you clearly have a political agenda you will keep promoting this falsehood so that leftist at political rallies can draw little Hitler mustaches on pictures of any political candidate they don't like. The agenda is very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.137 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC) It's not a "falsehood," and all of the "complaints" are from anonymous users like you, and do not use any scholarly citations to back them up. My "political agenda" is to keep uneducated people from promoting loony revisionist conspiracy theories like yours. And are you really going to try to claim that Right-Wingers never put "little Hitler mustaches" on the pictures of Liberal politicians? Your agenda is not backed up by facts, so you continue to complain about other peoples' agendas. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC) No problem, I will just use more reliable sources (than Wikipedia) to get my information. Like these who do not call Nazism "far right": http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/nazism.html http://www.history.co.uk/encyclopedia/nazi-party.html http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nazism http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nazism Wikipedia is too biased, I will no longer use it. [Edit clash with Bryonmorrigan below] Thanks for sharing that. I hope you find that cherry-picking little snippets of information from other websites enables you to construct a worldview that does not challenge your prejudices and misunderstandings with more facts than you can handle. Over here we are trying to cover the subject in its totality and with some depth following the academic consensus. That means including the bits you don't understand and the bits that upset you. Sorry about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC) LMAO. You just outwitted yourself! You really don't understand this concept of "debate" and "citations" at all, do you? The first link doesn't mention anything Right or Left. The second only mentions that "Hitler crushed the Nazi Party's left, or socialist-oriented, wing in 1934, executing Ernst Röhm and other rebellious SA leaders at this time." The third link is a copy of an old WIKIPEDIA article! (Look at the bottom, where it clearly states, "This article is from Wikipedia.") And the last one, like the first, doesn't mention Left or Right. Pick up a book. Please. You might try Sir Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler. The more you type, the more you prove that you have no facts to back up your absurd agenda. The only one typing from "bias" here is YOU. You have a clear agenda of trying to distance the Far Right from anything negative, so you go all over Wikipedia posting the same nonsense, anonymously. Just give up. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Nobody here has adequately explained why they would consider Nazism to be "far right". Their answer is "it just is" without any real explanation. The 5 main traits of Nazism are: Authoritarianism - If you look at a political compass, authoritarianism is not a right or left trait in itself. However, it does often go hand-in-hand with socialism because that's the only way socialism can really function. Racism - This is not a right or left trait either. One can be racist regardless of other political motivations. Nationalism - One can be nationalistic on the right or the left. Look up left-wing nationalism for example. Socialism - Nazis weren't fully socialist but they CONTROLLED private industry and property (as opposed to owning it). Collectivism - As documented in the 25 points of National Socialism. None of these 5 major traits place Nazism "on the far right". If anything it puts them left of center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.136 (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC) No, it just continues to show that you don't know the difference between Left and Right. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Enlighten us then. Which of these 5 major traits can be classified as "far right"? How about a logical answer instead of something along the lines of "you're wrong" or "you're stupid" type answers. EDIT: I want to also point out that this erroneous and highly debatable "far right" claim was added on "16 August 2010" by User:StillTrill. Checked the history. Your "5 main traits" of Nazism are what we call a "strawman argument." As we proved over and over, the preponderance of mainstream academic thought has been that the Nazis were Far Right. Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia is not to present fringe theories as "fact," therefore you've already lost the argument before you even started. Look up Sir Ian Kershaw, Robert Paxton, Matthew Feldman, or any other well-respected historian in the fields of the study of Hitler, Nazism, or Fascism. Too much effort has already been spent trying to show you how utterly wrong you revisionists are...and no matter how many sources we cite, you stubbornly refuse to actually READ them. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Likewise, you could read Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Hannah Arendt, and Stephen Hicks and see that many scholars disagree that Fascism and Nazism should be classified as 'far right'. Hence the topic is very much debatable and should be documented as such. And you still haven't given one logical reason why Nazism should be considered 'far right'. Your only answer is "because so and so said so". Well "so and so" needs to back it up with facts too. Again, painting Nazism as far right is just a highly biased attempt to lump them together with the Tea Party and Libertarians who actually *are* to the right. Not ONE of the people you mentioned are historians. And no, it's not a "biased attempt." It's mainstream scholarship that has been documented for decades. You are just trolling and you haven't presented a cogent argument yet. There are plenty of references all through the article, and your transparent agenda of revisionism is not fooling anyone. It's no more an "attempt to lump them together with the Tea Party and Libertarians" than saying that recognizing that Stalin and Communism is Far Left is an "attempt to lump in" modern Liberals with Communists and Stalinists. Learn to use academic sources, or go to another site where your conspiracy theories are more accepted. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC) "Your agenda is not backed up by facts, so you continue to complain about other peoples' agendas." Well at least you admit you have an agenda. That's a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcoppney (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Just for clarification, if being a racist, radical, nationalist is the definition of far right conservative we may be able to include Mr. Marx in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcoppney (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Everyone has an "agenda." Mine is the factual representation of history. Yours is simply to make the Right-Wing look better by deliberately falsifying history. Bryonmorrigan 17:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) "Everyone has an agenda", really so are you also an expert in psychology now as well? Do you know "everyone" personally? Or perhaps you may be projecting just a bit. Pcoppney (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC) You really need to learn how to properly sign your posts. Don't sign on a different, out-dented line, because it screws up the format of the page and makes it hard to tell exactly "what" you are signing. And if you think you have no agenda, you are delusional. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Ah.. ridicule the refuge of the narrow mind finally rears it's ugly head. Should I assume you cannot or that you will not answer the questions? Add the signature wrong just for you, sweetness. Pcoppney (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Grow up. And edit using the proper standards. Your "questions" are off-topic, not backed up by any research or citations, and nothing more than trolling. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I think we're done here. Obviously Pcoppney posts things to get a reaction. I think the issue has been settled. I have no problem with the article itself discussing some issue around the Nazis having a left-wing that was purged (which I believe is already there in any case). But to claim that the Nazis were not far right and in fact "left" is original research and fringe research at that. freshacconci talktalk 18:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Freshacconci, I think the point is that whether Nazism is "far right", left, or center is highly debatable. One could argue that the Nazi elements of socialism and collectivism should keep them from being considered "far right". I am told to grow up by someone that calls me delusional? So it is okay for you t call me insane, but not okay for me to question your qualifications to make such a statement. Then being accused of posting just to get a reaction, seriously? Not once have I asked that the article in anyway state the Nazis were leftist. I have provided evidence the source may have been misused. I have only asked that the opening paragraph be reconstructed as to not indicate a bias. You claim to support Raul's Razor, you should have no issue with this. And for the record my interest in this article is due to the fact that my 17 year old son read the first paragraph and wanted to know if there was any relationship between Republicans (which in his mind are on the right and conservative) and Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcoppney (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Are you then claiming that you are not the person who wrote, "As the Nazi's were most certainly socialist in their approach to the control of the means of production you must certainly agree they were not conservative and were in fact leftist, at the very least not the "far right."? And I said that you're "delusional" if you think you don't have an agenda. You just admitted your agenda (as if it wasn't completely obvious from the beginning). Your agenda is to rephrase the opening statement to reflect your OWN personal bias, which is not backed up by sufficient academic sources. And frankly, the easy way to explain things to your son would be to explain that Left and Right are not "defined" by their extremes. Most Leftists are not Stalinists/Communists, and most Rightists are not Nazis/Fascists...and none of the mainstream Democrats or Republicans in this country are either. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I certainly did post those words, where does it say the article should be changed to read Nazis are far left? My goal is to have the opening rephrased so that reading it does not impart any sense of bias. I appreciate your advice on how to raise my son, but that is really not your business. Again I think you are projecting a little too much on the agenda issue.Pcoppney (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Oddly the news reports describing the acts of the terrorists in the Mid East use the term "radical" to describe the extreme religious conservative groups. I guess Hitler does not qualify as a radical, he is only "far" right. However I do recall the term far right used to describe those in the tea party. Is that not peculiar?Pcoppney (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rolled up as it was getting us nowhere and showing no sign of either ending or coming back towards a constructive mode of discussion. Wikipedia is all about references and sources, not about which arguments or narratives we may personally find most convincing or best flattering to our own political viewpoints. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)