Talk:Nazism/Archive 4

message: Doesn't it seem like a bit of a paradox that the word socialist is part of the party name? Weren't Nazi's anti-socialist? Or is this a different use of the word "socialist"?
* First you have to know that there are different schools of socialism. As we can clearly understand from the term, it is a NATIONAL socialist organization. Basically, only for the well-being of the German nation(you may prefer to call it racism but I don't). Hitler's regime provided the basics(food,work,etc.), actually more then the old democracy could give, for people. In a sense, it was working for the well-being of the society(the most basic explanation of socialism). With respect, the Turk, Deliogul 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I gather, Hitler just wanted the socialists/communists/trade unions to vote for him. So he put the word "socialist" in the title, hoping it would help him (which it did). Simple as that. Yandman 07:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be much more accurate to speak of 'some populist features'. Norvo 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually this comment of Norvo, "Dating the ideology back to the late 19th century is too early," is strange. According to this comment, Nazi ideology would not be influenced, for example , by the 1855 work An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Intangible 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are they the National SOCIALIST party? 

message: the definition of nazi is also "someone who is cruel or who demands an unreasonable degree of obedience, or someone who has extreme and unreasonable beliefs about race" Cambridge definition
Should this be added somewhere?--AeomMai 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This post is for Cantsi Wontsi.  George Orwell first of all considered himself a socialist, 1984 was not an attack on Socialism but more of an attack on Stalinism.  Your comparisons between socialism and fascism clearly shows a misunderstanding of BOTH the terms.  This isn't a personal assult on you.  But what you are defining to be socialist has almost absoluteley nothing to do with actual socialism, what you are describing is Stalinism.  xcuref1endx  12:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: No consistent terminology seems to exist for differentiating the Nazi party from the Germany government during the Nazi Era.  Wikipedia has entries for "Nazi Concentration Camps" that refers only to camps established under German Authority only, and "List of German Concentration Camps" which lists the same camps.  We also find we find phrases like " Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union "  It was the German army that invaded russia, not the Nazi party!
In my opinion the term "Nazi" should be used in reference to actions and persons of the Nazi party when addressing functions taken on behalf of the party independant of the German government or military.  While actions of the german government or military under Nazi control should be refered to as German actions, perhaps with modification by the word Nazi.  
The phrase " Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union "  should be "German invasion of the Soviet Union".  
A "Nazi Concentration Camp" would be a camp established and run by party members independent of the german government ( did any such camps exist?), while the well-known camp at Auschwitz should be refered to as the "German Concentration Camp" or the "Nazi-era German Concentration camp" or even the "Nazi German Concentration camp" as this was estabilished by the legitimate German Government at the time, not the party.
Consistent with this scheme, the two articles I mention above should both be renamed as "German Concentration Camps of the Nazi Era" or "List of German Concentration Camps of the Nazi Era"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.28.42 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006.
: I'm almost certain that I recently responded to almost the identical remark on another page. Please don't start the same policy-oriented discussion in multiple places. 
: "Nazi Concentration Camps" and "Nazi Extermination/Death Camps" are simply the dominant terms in English: we follow that usage. I would certainly say "German invasion of the Soviet Union", not "Nazi invasion", but I'd be 50-50 on "German occupation of France" or "Nazi occupation of France". - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other place was Nazi extermination camp. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider: "Republican invasion of Iraq" vs. "U.S. invasion of Iraq." A pointed example, perhaps, but it wasn't just Nazi Party members who invaded the Soviet Union. --FOo 05:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider "Republican tax cuts", "Tory privatisation scheme". - Jmabel | Talk 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is always appropriate to follow the "dominant terms" usage when more precise language exists. This is after all an encyclopedia dedicated to accurate preservation/dissemination of knowledge, not continued representations of the vernacular . Today you can talk about the "Nazi's" with school kids and 8 out of 10 times they will not be able to tell you who they were, and I think that is due in part to the fact that the dominant terms are not precise. You and I know exactly what we are refering to, but in 20 years when someone comes across the reference to "Nazi Concentration Camps" they might not have a clear idea to what that refers. The situation is excacerbated by the fact that there is no consistent terminology used here and various terms for the same thing are used in different places. Regardless of what phrase is used we should be consistent here, the best way to accomplish that is to choose the most precise language. Edps 03:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi/German terminology consistency 

message: The proper page for marginal conservative and libertarian texts is Fascism and ideology where these matters are discussed at length. This page (and other pages) should not be used as a spam page for links to the von Mises website.--Cberlet 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marginal conservative and libertarian texts

message: Why is there a dispute flag if there is no substantial discussion of a dispute?--Cberlet 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Flag

message: Why is this article named “Nazism” and not “National Socialism”? Official name is/was “National Socialism”. Also, both on Encarta and Britannica article on this subject is named “National Socialism”. I’m suggesting moving this article on National Socialism and current article on National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). -- Vision Thing -- 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not attempt to do this name change without a substantial discussion. I note that for several days you have unilaterally been going from page to page changing references to "Nazism" to "national socialism." I also note that this has been objected to and reverted, sometimes by me. This appears to be part of a larger effort on your part to argue that Nazism is a form of socialism. This is not a new debate. There is always room for discussion, but please seek constructive consensus rather than starting a revert war.--Cberlet 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a  personal attack and not an argument about the issue. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not ad hominem to factually point out that you are engaging in aggressive and disruptive editing on several pages. It would be ad hominem if I said that all editors should ignore what you post because you are a jackass.  That would be ad hominem.--Cberlet 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this article 

message: Could someone take the time to make the addition of what happened to the Nazi part and the S.S. after the fall of Germany and the creation of East Germany?  i.e. The formation of "The Stazi".  Also there is no page that contains any information in the Wiki database that contains any historical info on the group.  Which I find puzzling.  In the 80's going through high school I had several years of history where we talked in depth on them as their iportance and relavance is important to know about comapred to todays exchange of civil rights for "security".  
So a historical mention of the S.S. disbanded into the formation of the East German governments "Stazi", how they used civilians to spy on eachother through fear, and perhaps a link to an actual Stazi page would be much appreciated.
*Try Stasi. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The formation of "The Stazi"

message: No way.
Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany came close to war against each other in 1934, when the Austrofascist Chancellor of Austria Englebert Dolfuss was assassinated on Hitler's orders.
I don't believe that Mussolini would have actually attacked Germany, so its false to say they came close to war. War was never a possibility. Saying they came close to war implies both sides were serious and willing to fight. Neither side was willing to attack the other. Quote a source for this statement. Drogo Underburrow 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War?

message: What I'm wondering is how the Wiki NPOV applies to this article versus other articles.  Because, the dehumanization of Jews, and other "undesirables" is clearly stated in this article as a negative effect of Nazism.  However, in the case of the Palestine conflict, Israel's dehumanization of the Palestinian Arabs is not [if you think that Israel hasn't done anything wrong to the Palestinians then you must have very skewed point of view. For more information see Ted Swedenburg's scholarly articles or http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Kapitan/history.html]
Therefore, what I as an American and non-Palestinian [but a person who reads European newspapers and has looked into the murder of Rachel Corrie, James Miller, and others by Israeli soldiers] have come to the conclusion that NPOV is still skewed to be Pro-Israeli.
- SafireRain
*And the relevance of your opinion to this article is...? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've moved this article to a more NPOV name, hope no one minds--Horse master 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given a chance, nearly everyone will mind that you moved "Nazism" to "National Socialism (the first socialist government)". Your proposed name violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). It is also incorrect: Nazism was only a socialist movement in name. Rhobite 03:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: name

message: This is obviously going to be taken very critically by alot of people, but I was thinking while watching "The Colour of War" that perhaps Nazi ideals weren't entirely insane/selfish and idiotic as is almost universally accepted. Currently, a huge problem occuring with our world (perhaps not currently, but it will be very soon) is the lack of resources to support the population. Most of you may know recently, China has even been accused of infanticide, which would be considered just as evil as many things the Nazis did (i.e. genocide); Anyways, it seems to me that mass murder (or genocide) would have seemed a practical thing to do at the time, if developing an integral world government. It would have addressed long term needs to the human race, provided much more agricultural room etc. Which would have left us in a much more ideal situation when trying to advance as a society.
Anyways, these were just comments I thought of, this does not necessarily reflect my opinions of any race and/or religion, I am merely extremely open to different theories.
Apologies to anyone who may be offended by this. This is obviously a hugely controversial subject, and obviously the statements I've made here could shake some heads, and perhaps extremely hurt someone's feelings. I realize full well the what the results of my actions may be, and as stated before, I apologize.
--OneRyt 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Thought

message: "The Bureaucratisation of the World" (1939)
Bruno Rizzi:
"Bureaucratic Collectivism too has its social base in dominant classes which have established their headquarters in the States in Russia, Italy, Germany, Japan and the smaller States".
"Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism?" (2002)
Jacob Golomb, Robert S. Wistrich:
"At the same time Nietzsche also posed serious question for those aspects of fascism related to etatisme and totalitarianism. In this area the contradictions between Nietzsche's individualism and fascist collectivism were difficult, if not impossible, to bridge."
"Key Ideas in Politics" (2003)
Moyra Grant:
"Right-wing collectivism is organic, hierarchical and statist; it stresses the individual's duty and subservience to the state. Fascism take this furthest with its philosophy of "Everything for the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state"."
Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism." 
-- Vision Thing -- 09:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t see that you are engaging in any meaningful debate. Further, place for this kind of "notes" isn’t this talk page, but my personal talk page. For my edits, I didn’t make any claims of consensus, for me "per talk" means "for reasons I presented on talk page". In future try to avoid this kind of attempted public stigmatization and try to keep a cool head since this kind of behavior will probably backfire on you. -- Vision Thing -- 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I suggest that when you mean "for reasons I presented on talk page", and want to say that briefly, say "see talk"? "Per talk" is strongly suggestive that your edit is based on a consensus on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Quotes:'''

message: Just my two cents:  It seems to me that the assertion that Fascism is a form of collectivism is debated at best.  There are some good arguments that link the two, but there are some good arguments that the two are different.  In such a case, we can't just take one side of the issue and convey it to be the truth. The best we can do is convey the debate so that the reader can decide for themselves.  Looks like this debate is being carried out on Fascism and ideology, so I'd suggest a very brief summary of the debate and a link to that page. --Alecmconroy 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are those arguments? -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collectivism: from RFC

message: I put the  template on top of this article, and I think it should stay there until there are way more citations and references than there are now. This is a controversial, important topic, please do not add information without stating your sources. If at all possible, use inline citations. I'm not trying take away from the work the frequent editors here have done, but you are not doing anyone a favour by creating huge articles with little or no information on sources. At some point, someone will have to go through all of that and source most of the information anyway if this is ever going to be a viable place for people conducting actual research. mstroeck 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References