Talk:Nazism/Archive 5

message: I remmember the socialist slogans " 9 September 1944 - the victory of the Bulgarian people against the nazism and capitalism " . Now you say - socialism and nazism. You propaganda is pretty trite.
:Nazism, fascism, and socialism are all forms of collectivism. It makes perfect sense to lump them together in certain instances. It isn't contradictory in the least. --Jayson Virissimo 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You are like the socialists

message: I agree, not least to emphasise that what ruled Germany at this time was often not "the Gestapo" so much as "fear of denunciation to the Gestapo" - the "World at War" video series narrated by Lord Olivier mentions the "start at 500" statistical trick and demonstrates the fear factor better than I can and I would refer interested readers to this source, which states that cities of hundreds of thousands of souls were terrorised by as few as 28 actual Gestapo, nobodies in and of themselves, bolstered by a publicised fearsome reputation. To US President Franklin D Roosevelt is attributed "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".  This may still serve as a warning to us now. Dajwilkinson 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership

message: Having visited Quedlinburg during my holidays, I came aware of the so called "Heinrich Cult" (Heinrich Kultus). German Wikipedia says: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg Seit 1936 profanierte Heinrich Himmler die Wipertikirche und die Kirche St. Servatii auf dem Schlossberg. Diese wurde zur Weihestätte der SS. Hintergrund war der 1000. Todestag Heinrichs I., dessen Grablege sich dort befindet. Heinrich Himmler selbst betrachtete sich als Wiedergeburt König Heinrichs.
One of the Nazi heads (forgot who, sorry), according to the exposition at Quedlinburg, wrote in his diary that there actually was no more difference between Catholicism and Nazism. This should probably make a short link in the Theology part of the Nazism article (but I'm a bit wary of editing it myself). It could say something like:
"The mixing of politics and religion in Nazism can still be seen in the Wiperti church in Quedlinburg, where the Nazis organised a celebration of the 1000th day of death of king Heinrich_I. For this, they restructured the Gothic Wiperti church to have a Roman inside, with a great, round window with an eagle on it looking down on the sanctuary - so the visitors of the church would see the worldly eagle as their highest power.
The eagle has been deleted from the church in 1945, but the Roman inside in the Gothic outside, as well as the stones that fill up the former window, can still be seen."
Both Quedlinburg and the Wiperti church have links in the German Wikipedia, but not in the English equivalents.
:Don't be afraid, go for it! Can you provide a link to a picture of the stones on the former window for your audience, by the way? Quedlinburg isn't well known, so maybe you are doing the small, yet important town a favor by promoting it at the same time? Sadly, it is likely to become a ghost town, though it is great shape right now.--72.92.0.83 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to "heinrich kultus" 

message: I have created Portal:Nazism but do not know enough to get it up and running, perhaps someone could help out or weigh in on whether or not such a portal is viable. I made a comment on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism about the fact that it may be cannibalizing the target audience, i.e. it will turn into one of those portals that sits on a shelf if the main person (me) stops contributing to it because no one else cares enough. Romperomperompe 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: The lead of this article has become long and rambling. Obviously a controversial article, and I haven't been working on it, so I hesitate to wade in; if the problem really isn't self-evident, ping me and I'll make my comments more specific. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Please make your comments. Roger 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long rambling lead 

message: The notion that  hyperinflation  was a problem in Germany in the 1930s dies hard. The hyperinflation of the early 1920s was overcome late in 1923 when the Mark was stabilized. The depression was charcterized by falling prices. So why does the article refer to the "elimination of hyperinflation"? It's a misleading irrelevance and perpetuates a myth first popularized in 1940 in the "The Great Dictator", though there were moderately inflationary tendencies arising from the rearmament programme. Also, sources are needed for all growth rates given, especially as these can be calculated in different ways and are controversial.
Norvo 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, especially on hyperinflation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm surprised the apparent claim that many German corporations didn't know that they were employing slave labour or that they had "lost control of their German branches (sic)". IG-Farben (mentioned here a supposedly unaware company) had a plant at Auschwitz and was tried after WWII - and some of its leading executives were jailed.  It's a mystery why Kurt Schmitt and Allianz AG are singled for mention.  -- Norvo 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have removed the reference to hyperinflation (following the Flammingo changes). Norvo 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Someone keeps on reverting the reference to 'Elimination of hyperinflation', despite the fact that there was NO inflation in Germany in the early 1930s. The hyperinflation of the previous decade ended in 1923. Those who want to cling to the myth that just before Hitler came to power Germans were carrying cash around in suitcases might do well to look at postage-stamp catalgoues for the interwar period! Norvo 13:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Many thanks. Norvo 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  If one wants to include any reference to the Nazi allegation that the Great Depression was caused by an international cabal I'd suggest keeping it brief, and I don't see any case for taking it back to the 19th century or earlier. After all, it was Nazi propaganda. I'd like to repeat my earlier request that sources be given for those extremely high growth-rates in Germany in the 1930s, as these can be calculated in different ways. Norvo 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic practice 

message: As I understood it, this is an article on Nazism, not neo-Nazism. So why are there external links to present-day neo-Nazi parties? - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I hate nazis as much as the next guy, but someone needs to lock this page, and revert the vadalism. Nazism is a 'penis'?
Wikiwarlock 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism needs to be reverted, which, of course, you can do yourself; we don't usually lock pages over vandalism unless they are major vandal targets. This one was probably reaching the threshold for semi-protection (though no one seems to have gone for it). Now it seems to have calmed down, but people should keep that in mind as an option. - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: All the "OMG commies" jokes aside, the Nazis spent most of their time complaining about how leftists, jews, scientists, the media, and socialists were ruining their country, etc, etc, nazi rant, more etc. How about we just call the Nazis what they called themselves, Nationalsozialistische, and just leave the interpretations to someone else?--64.12.117.14 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an adjective, ie. they didn't: The term is Nationalsozialismus, the follower is a Nationalsozialist (plural:+en). In historiography, it is considered scientifically appropriate to use the political abbreviation for all three words, namely "Nazi" as the term, the follower and the adjective. --Flammingo 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Socialism -- > Nationalsozialistische 

message: Could someone semi this article again, please? Large amount of IPvandalism (mainly from schools). Yandman 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected, a non-admin who adds the tag won't actually protect the article. So when you added the tag in this edit the page wasn't protected (hence the IP vandalism after you added the tag). Go to WP:RPP to request a page to be protected. --Casper2k3 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: This paragraph didnt fit into the context, the guy is never mentioned again:
Kurt Schmitt (born 7 October 1886 in Heidelberg; died 2 November 1950 in Heidelberg) was a Board member of Allianz AG, Germany's largest insurance company, and was a German economic leader and the Reich Economy Minister from June 1933 until January 1935.
But maybe somewhere else? --FlammingoParliament 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated Comment on Kurt Schmitt

message: Wow, that was a big change made there by Flamingo. He seems to have removed a lot of content, and added some new stuff. While I'm not too sure about some of it ("When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism, and focus on their own nation" ? An important assertion such as this definetely needs a quote), I'm not the world's biggest expert on Nazism. Any opinions? Yandman 07:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Changes 

message: It is misleading to denounce the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) of being an advocate of Nazi-type racism. His book "Parerga und Paralipomena" section 92 is quoted to support this claim. The quotation ignores both the historical context of Schopenhauer`s remarks, and their context in his essay "On the Philosophy and Science of Nature" from which the quotation is taken. In his essay, Schopenhauer gives a matter-of-fact account of the development of humans, informed by the science of his time. He (correctly) acknowledges the origin of humans in Africa, then speculates on the processes which led to a white race. He makes clear that there is no such thing as a "natural white race" and that in fact using the term "white race" shows "prejudice and lack of thinking" (page 137 of the 1988 Haffmans edition, my translation). Schopenhauer takes the superiority of European civilization as a fact, arguing that climatic conditions were the driving force towards a superior creativity. There is nothing particularly Nazi-like in these views. They represent the mainstream opinion of educated Europeans in the 19th century. Schopenhauers views on race and civilization are the views of a moderate and highly educated conservative in the mid-19th century, in no way extremist, and would probably have found the thorough approval of, say, Queen Victoria or Florence Nightingale. You cannot judge a 19th century thinker using 21st century language and moral standards.Christophreisner 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Nazism 

message: A while back I read a "What if" article in New Scientist. A darker shade of Green. I just remembered it today, so I did a quick search of what I remembered, and it was amasing what I was able to dig up:
* Animal rights ,
* Environmentalism , , , 
* Kraft durch Freude The well-being of the working classes.
* Public health  (Antismoking campaigns, asbestos restrictions, occupational health and safety standards)
There are probably more litle known Nazi topics to dig up, but I haven't got the article anymore.
I wonder if I will dare question the roots of the "green party"....
--Stor stark7 Talk 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were incredibly advanced on the green side of things. I don't really see this as a contradiction, as the Nazis didn't want to destroy the world or anything. They sincerely wanted to make it a better place. For anyone with blond hair and blue eyes, that is... Yandman 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalism? Hate to break it to you but Hitler was as anti-capitalist as the communists. --Jayson Virissimo 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A darker shade of Green 

message: It's not clear to me why there is a dispute tag on this page.  It's not the best treatment of the subject I have ever read, but it seems both reasonably balanced and comprehensive.  Am I missing something?
White Guard 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why NPOV tag? 

message: Nowhere in this article does it say when the term 'Nazi' first appeared - reading the 'terminology'-paragraph and the article Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, one would assume that it originated in or after 1920.
However, the Library of Congress-website contains a document from 1897 that sheds a different light.  gives access to a transcript of a stage performance by the notorious Barrison Sisters (famous for their song 'Would You Like to See my Pussy?'), in which they perform, among others, their 'Nazi, Nazi Song", wherein the word 'Nazi' is used to describe a certain type of German-speaking gentleman.
So could someone more knowledgeable than me look into this and add a bit of nazi pre-history to the article?
::As far as I can ascertain, there's no linguistic 'pre-history', though I note that the 4th volume of Muret-Sanders (published in 1900) gives Naz, Nazi as a familiar (that is, colloquial), regional short form of the name Ignatius - obviously not of much relevance to Nazism. It looks to me as if the Barrison sisters are either making fun of the name Ignatius or may have made up a nonsense word that happens to have taken on a real meaning long after the song was written. In other words, I think it's an amusing coincidence, nothing more. Norvo 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so "Nazi" could be the German equivalent of "Nacho" (short for Ignacio). Interesting! I don't imagine it's used much anymore... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. The more common form of the given name in German was in fact "Ignaz", which is now almost as unpopular as "Adolf". Norvo 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is clearly correct, so I've put "Nati" in bold.4granite 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of term 'nazi' 

message: This is more of an inquiry than anything, but I've seen shows on the television documenting the Vatican's involvement with helping Nazis flee to South American countries, and was wondering if there was a wikipedia article focusing on this subject. 152.163.101.6 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vatican and the Nazi party 

message: Hitler was not a social Darwinist and even banned Darwin's book from Germany. The Nazi philosophy was of racial purity and the Great Chain of Being,' with the Aryans at the top. None of which had anything to do with natural selection or Darwin. If anything, it was artificial selection and animal husbandry. The link to social darwinism needs removal. 4.152.129.90 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a significant difference between the Theory of Evolution and Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism does not even have to be based on Darwin's writings - it is simply the view that human society is improved by unrestrained competition and by the survival of the strong at the expense of the weak. -- Nikodemos 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the claim that the Nazi régime banned the Origin of the Species ...  is novel, indeed puzzling, a source should be given. For at least fifty years plus the weight of opinion has been that Nazism was Social Darwinist in outlook and, moreover, at a very fundamental level. That said, it is possible that in some cases the term has been used too loosely. Norvo 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The question of the role of Darwinian thought in Nazi ideology is a complicated one (and the banning of Origin doesn't really settle it). The intellectual geneaology does not flow directly from Darwin's writings to Hitler's brain — it is mediated by the German evolutionists (i.e. Haekel), and the German racial hygienists (i.e. Alfred Ploetz), both of which are very different than Darwin's original work. But even with that the Nazis were more eugenicists than they were Social Darwinists, strictly speaking — they believed intervention was needed, not just laissez faire, though that distinction is not always as strict as it is made out to be. Many of the German race theorists were both eugenicists and social Darwinists, depending on the issues in question (similar to Madison Grant, an explicitly "evolutionary" writer who they published in Germany as well). (It should go without saying that Creationist attempts to link Nazism with Darwinism are obviously simplistic and really needs no consideration here)--Fastfission 19:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And the problem was of course that Richard Hofstadter wrote a highly polemic book just at the end of the second world war. The term "Social Darwinism" was almost never used in North America before that book came out. The free marketeer Sumner, who was described as a "Social Darwinst" by Hofstadter, actually never applied Darwinism to the social sciences. If anyone is to blame for the current confusion, it is Hofstafter. Intangible 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Darwinism 

message: If you think  has gotten a bit out of hand (longer than some of the articles it references), help us figure out a way to cut it down (a few options are being floated) at Template talk:Nazism. --Fastfission 20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The longest template in the world

message: At present there's a section of this that reads as follows:
:::The Nazi relationship between the Volk and the state was called the Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community"), a neologism that defined a communal duty of citizens in service to the Reich (opposed to a simple "society"). The term "National Socialism", derives from this citizen-nation relationship, whereby the term socialism is invoked and is meant to be realized through the common duty of the individuals to the German people; all actions are to be in service of the Reich.
The term Volksgemeinschaft wasn't a Nazi neologism but went back to at least 1900. It was a popular, romantic buzzword in Weimar Germany, used (with different meanings) by quite a range of political parties. The above comments seem to give it more coherence than it had in Nazi ideology. Another view is that it sought to recreate the cameraderie of the trenches and justify something akin to military discipline or at least the Führerprinzip in society at large. More generally I'm not impressed by a certain zest for injecting meaning into rather empty slogans and buzzwords as if they were of key ideological significance. Norvo 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, Norvo. I've clarified that the word Volksgemeinschaft is a late 19th or early 20th century neologism. I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss whether the word is simply a German compound word or an important ideological concept, so I will leave that discussion to you and the other editors. Justin Eiler 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Justin Eiler. However, I don't think the concept was as central as is suggested. On some views Volksgemeinschaft was primarily concerned with who 'belonged' to the community and who didn't. Norvo 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism and the 'Volksgemeischaft 

message: We dont need this article what the nazis did was so STUPID, why teach people iddiotic things??/?//
:Simple, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Also, this is easily encyclopediac and useful for researching early 20th century history. Wildthing61476 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  how could an encycolopedia not have a section on Nazism. It is one of the most significant Events in the 20th century.
Dude, you are an idiot. Just cause you don't like an article doesn't mean it shoudl be deleted. This website is to teach people about stuff, it's not like it is supporting nazism. Grow up.
Wikipedia is not censored, for minors or otherwise. Besides, isn't millions of innocents slaughtered significant enough to have a mention? That's pretty npov there, but still. The subject needs to be taught, because as wildthing said, history is doomed to repeat itself if we don't learn. I don't think anyone you talk to will call this subject idiotic. Also, it's not just about the Holocaust, it's about Nazis in general. To be quite frank, NOT having this article is idiotic. I feel I've made my point and rambled enough. Mattbash 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  get rid of article 

message: 04-November-2006:  Split into sub-articles. The article seems OK as a broad overview of all Nazi aspects; however, the length seems excessive and parts are long-winded.  Large articles are prone to hidden vandalism and obscured errors, such as the "Nazi Theory" section beginning as "theory of fascism" (which I changed to "...Nazism").  (I also trimmed some flowery phrases in a few sections.) In general, I approve of overview-type articles; however, for a controversial subject (like Nazism), I would favor writing less as being more accurate, long term.  I think spin-off articles would not be in danger of typical "AfD" deletion, because the general Nazi-based topic would allow many spin-off articles to be easily considered notable, such as a "list of notable Nazi figures" etc.  Large articles, with daily updates, are difficult to keep accurate, such as the "Hurricane Katrina" article, which had the landfall time reset to a bogus hour for 11 days (which I eventually fixed).  If an article gets daily updates, try to keep it small for checking & overall proofing: IMHO, I vote to roll-out Nazi detailed sections to spin-off articles.  -Wikid77 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi wordy 

message: In the second paragraph, the referent of the phrase "and working undercover" is completely unclear: Drexler, or Hitler? And "undercover" in what sense? Overtly presenting as what while actually being what else? - Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking explanation after six days, I am removing this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English composition 101 

message: I've already said that I think much of this (in the section on 'Nationalism and Socialism') is unsatisfactory. I'd add that it seems to me that a lot of this is also over sophisticated and will just mystify most readers. It's very obvious that some people are determined to 'put the socialism into National Socialism' - on present-day ideological grounds, irrelevant to Nazism. I wonder if something can be done about this stuff on the 'Volksgemeinschaft'? Norvo 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Volksgemeinschaft' 

message: I found this hidden message in the Wikipedia Nazi Germany article.
: << All new edits/entries must be factual and in good taste. Please don't try to be "funny" (Nazism caused harm to millions of people, no need for sick humor or black comedy in an encyclopediac article) and never type anthing that is offensive or inflammatory to ANY group of people. Do not type ethnic slurs or comments about ones' race or creed. Nazism is a painful subject to many people, but an article on Nazism is meant for educational purposes and neutral it may be, any reader will understand the dangers of Nazism. >>  Maybe it should be included in Nazism and the Holocaust articles. 207.200.116.204 10:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to vandals, please read 

message: "Fundamental to the Nazi goal was the unification of all German-speaking peoples". It was not language that defined being German for the Nazis. Assimilated, German speaking Jews were still liquidated. The Nazi's had a racial, not linguistic, definition.
"Also, Aryanism was not an attractive idea for Italians that had neither blond hair nor blue eyes, but still there was a strong racism and also genocide in concentration camps long before either was in place in Germany."
That sentence does not make sense.
"However, a number of people believed that this was part of an ongoing plot by the Jewish people, as a whole, to achieve global domination."
As is, there is no citation so its an assertion and does not clarify who "a number of people is"
On a side note, homosexuals found at holacuast sites were not freed but jailed elesewhere. I can't remember what book I found it in though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.153.96.166 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.
: On this last point (homosexuals), see Paragraph 175. - Jmabel | Talk 08:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Racism section. It should be 'led' not 'lead'. God I wish I could just edit that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.12.164 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Couple of Problems 

message: Where is the article(s) about Nazism in other coutrys (like France, USA, Uk Prince William)? Or doesn't it exist? Then it doesn't exist this article is to exact on one thing. (sorry for the bad english, i'm german) --88.64.56.138 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate article on Neo-Nazism. Incidentally, why do that silly young royal the favour of taking him seriously? Norvo 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism in other coutrys

message: In the section entitled Historical Background someone presents the laughable notion that the stab in the back theory started in Britain:
::Historian John Erickson claimed that this sentiment began in England with the publication of several essays by Shawn Lunny, the son of a German immigrant and a private in the German army during World War I.
(Who is this John Erickson, and how come we haven't already heard all this before? If this is an accurate account of his views it doesn't make sense: we're told that the the theory originated in England with essays by a private in the German army. I wonder if he wrote from the vantage point of a POW camp in Britain? Moreover, this Shawn Lunny is so well known that if one does a Google search for the name one is immediately asked if one means  Shawn Looney. What a famous essayist!)
When Ludendorff came to the conclusion in September 1918 that Germany couldn't carry on fighting he claimed that the war had been lost by critics in the Reichstag and resolved that they (the civilian critics who'd allegedly caused the defeat) would have to ask for peace and sign the armistice. That is the recognized start of the theory, not some obscure 'son of an immigrant called Shawn'. See, for example, Heiber, Die Republik von Weimar.  Unless people object, this should be deleted. Norvo 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Utterly. With extreme prejudice. And a possible trip to WP:BJAODN. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shawn Lunny 

message: Perhaps it would be good to have a short list of links:
American National Socialist Workers' Party
"The National Socialist Movement of America"
http://www.nsmamerica.com/
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
http://www.nazi.org/
etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SnarfMeister (talk • contribs) 
:They belong to Neo-Nazism article. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary National Socialist Parties, Orgs, etc. 

message: Here we go again. How many times in a year do we have to engage in endless discussions on Wikipedia about the relationship between Nazism and socialism, and fascism and socialism, and corporatism and the New Deal, and fascism and the New Deal, and Fascism and the U.S. government?
Vision Thing, it is not a personal attack to point out that you have engaged in a longstanding relentless campaign to push your minority view on this issue. Your views have repeatedly been rejected by a majority of other editors on this topic. And yet here you are again, starting the process over. Please stop.--Cberlet 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Section in question talks about nationalism and socialism, and because of that it should be titled Nationalism and socialism. That is standard practice when it comes to section titles, they describe the content of sections. Except for the generic, bad faith, POV accusations you haven't presented any reason for not naming it in such way. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, socialism is only mentioned in two sentences in that paragraph (and the second sentence is the one advising the reader to read fascism and ideology for more information). -- Nikodemos 06:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you and Cberlet think that this section doesn't deal with socialism in large enough measure to deserve addition of socialism in its title, then new section that will appropriately cover discussion on socialism and nazism should be added. Btw, nationalism is also only mentioned in two sentences in that paragraph.-- Vision Thing -- 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of socialism and nazism is discussed in fascism and ideology. But here is a proposal to eliminate this dispute: Let us get rid of all the section titles under "Nazi theory", since most of those "sections" are limited to one or two paragraphs. Giving them separate titles only serves to clog the table of contents. -- Nikodemos 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a good solution, since titles have navigational purpose. Anyway, neither you nor Cberlet have given any actual reason for not naming this section Nationalism and socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a patently false claim. The issue, Vision Thing, is that you refuse to accept the majority position, and you go from page to page trying to insert your marginal right-wing POV.--Cberlet 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Classy argument.-- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Right about what? We've been through all this before. This is part of a well-known and sustained revisionist attempt to falsely claim that Nazism was essentially a socialist ideology. Since Hitler had a well-known and profound loathing of all things communist, and imprisoned and murdered people identified as vaguely socialist in any way, it's difficult to see how the revisionists hope to make this absurd claim stick. They rest their entire case on the party name, which was of course part of a deliberate campaign of lies to try to trick working people into supporting the NSDAP during the period when it's brownshirt thugs were out in the city streets attacking Jews and socialists alike. It's a travesty to allow this absurd "viewpoint" of Vision Thing and his fellow travellors to persist on Wikipedia and I for one will thwart it at every pathetic attempt. I encourage other editors to do likewise. 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Currently I'm not claiming anything except that current section about nationalism talks about socialism too, and thus it should be named Nationalism and socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitsos, Nazism was not anti-capitalist. Hitler was fully supported financially by leading German and international capitalists, bankers and the like. He maintained and assisted private capital to grow during his rule and established new types of massive state capitalist businesses like the SS where private profit became part of the corrupt activities of Nazi leaders. He allowed makor German capitalist families like Krupp and Thyssen to flourish so long as they supported Nazism. He maintained healthy relations with Swiss and other international banking institutions. He only opposed "Jewish" capitalists and then only as part of propaganda; he was often willing for example to do business with foriegn Jewish companies. There were aspects of socialist and anarchist philosophy incorporated into Nazism such as the emphasis on mass-action and the irrelevance of the individual, but this did not make the Nazis any kind of socialists in the accepted sense. MarkThomas 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marginal view on Nazism Socialism

message: Why doesn't anyone talk about the economics of National Socialism?  The racial stuff is common knowledge,  what isnt common knowledge is the economic system which the nazis employed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people do not like discussing Nazi economics because it is very similar to economic socialism. Some socialists believe it sheds a bad light on socialism to be associated with Hitler. Don't expect to see it discussed accurately on Wikipedia anytime soon. --Jayson Virissimo 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics 

message: For information on how Martin Luther's teachings affected the anti-semitic Nazi laws governing the jews
• [] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClassA (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Statement reverted. —xyzzyn 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Very long copy of something removed since there’s a link anyway. —xyzzyn 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is insufficient. You have to cite a source that actually says something about the resemblance. Otherwise, this is original research. —xyzzyn 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is still not sufficient evidence for the claim you inserted. It works for the second part, but not the claim about the laws. By the way, for citing the book, consider using the  template. (There’s some documentation on the template page.) —xyzzyn 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn’t find anything on ‘laws […] bear[ing] a striking resemblance to the teachings of Martin Luther’. Can you give a (brief) quote? —xyzzyn 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who exactly among the Nazis do you consider leading? Which number would be disproportionate? How are you going to do this without violating the policies of NPOV, no original research and verifiability? —xyzzyn 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What I’m trying to tell you is that you need to substantiate the statements you insert into the article. If you wish to say that ‘a disproportionate number of leading Nazis claimed to belong to the Luteran church’, then you need solid evidence of ‘disproportionate’ in relation to ‘leading’. Giving a few examples is definitely not enough. The same goes for the resemblance between those laws and Luther’s writings—if it’s documented, cite whoever documented it. If not, you can’t claim it. —xyzzyn 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's common knowledge that Luther ranted and raved like crazy against the Jews and peasants, too. However, his amazing outbursts never became part of Lutheran theology. The Lutheran lands in Germany had a long-standing reputation up to about 1930(?) for being tolerant towards their Jewish populations. (The same is true of Scandinavia, which was/is also Lutheran).  If one looks at the Nazi leadership one of the very few people at the top who was born a Protestant was Goering. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and, for that matter Heydrich, were all lapsed Roman Catholics. One could easily argue that Roman Catholicism was 'disproportionately' respresented at the top of the Party. Norvo 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Links 

message: Why doesn't anyone talk about the socialist aspect of national socialist? Nazis were as much socialists as they were extreme nationalists... Tullie 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's talked about quite a bit. Please see the archives of this talk page. --FOo 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support Per request. Intangible2.0 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that we should restrict the search to English-language pages (since this is the English wikipedia after all), and don't leave out the adjective forms. A search for "Nazism" or "Nazi" among English-language pages minus wikipedia yields 5,710,000 results.  A search for "National Socialism" or "National socialism" or "National Socialist" or "National socialist" among English-language pages minus wikipedia yields 1,190,000 results.  The difference is quite significant, despite the fact that the "National socialist" side had 4 word forms stacked together and the "Nazism" side had only 2. -- Nikodemos 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is weird. I just did the same above searches again, and now Nazism has 11,100,000 hits while National socialism has 2,590,000 hits. Either millions of new pages just got created in a minute, or there's something going on with Google. -- Nikodemos 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, as you are surly aware, adjective forms of Nazism, like Nazi, are widely used in context not related with the ideology of NSDAP. And that is only one more reason to use National Socialism instead of Nazism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Google Scholar, "Nazism" finds ~33,000 articles, "National socialism" finds ~15,400.JoeCarson 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think one gets different results if your ip adress places you in a different area. at any rate, we should not forget the people that refere to it as "naziism", or, most commonly, "nazi ideology". and furthermore the article relates to the works of NSDAP, not to the group of ideologies describable as 'national socialism', a term that predates NSDAP· Lygophile has spoken 10:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support Per request. Intangible2.0 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that we should restrict the search to English-language pages (since this is the English wikipedia after all), and don't leave out the adjective forms. A search for "Nazism" or "Nazi" among English-language pages minus wikipedia yields 5,710,000 results.  A search for "National Socialism" or "National socialism" or "National Socialist" or "National socialist" among English-language pages minus wikipedia yields 1,190,000 results.  The difference is quite significant, despite the fact that the "National socialist" side had 4 word forms stacked together and the "Nazism" side had only 2. -- Nikodemos 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is weird. I just did the same above searches again, and now Nazism has 11,100,000 hits while National socialism has 2,590,000 hits. Either millions of new pages just got created in a minute, or there's something going on with Google. -- Nikodemos 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, as you are surly aware, adjective forms of Nazism, like Nazi, are widely used in context not related with the ideology of NSDAP. And that is only one more reason to use National Socialism instead of Nazism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Google Scholar, "Nazism" finds ~33,000 articles, "National socialism" finds ~15,400.JoeCarson 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think one gets different results if your ip adress places you in a different area. at any rate, we should not forget the people that refere to it as "naziism", or, most commonly, "nazi ideology". and furthermore the article relates to the works of NSDAP, not to the group of ideologies describable as 'national socialism', a term that predates NSDAP· Lygophile has spoken 10:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It is more commonly referred to as Nazism then National Socialism. In fact the usage has become so common place in the vernacular that the word has developed meaning above and apart from being just an abbreviation like scuba and radar. I would even wager that the average Wikipedia reader would not even be aware that Nazism is an abbreviation. The word is so common that most people think that it has always been coined as such. 205.157.110.11 14:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: There were indeed detrimental policies agains homosexuals in Nazi Germany. However, this kind of neglects the homophilic "male bonding" concepts abound in the German youth movements, making the matter much more complex than saying homophobia was essential to Nazi policies or ideology. Intangible2.0 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article on masculinity: "In many societies, masculinity is understood to include open displays of same-sex non-sexual affection and physical contact." So "male bonding" is perfectly compatible with homophobia. Plus, homophobia refers to hostility towards gay people primarily. -- WGee 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only refer you the work of Harry Oosterhuis (for example, "Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany"). Intangible2.0 12:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Harry Oosterhuis and why do his opinions derserve to be accepted as fact? At the least, you should state that those are merely the opinions of Mr. Oosterhuis, unless you can demonstrate that his views are those of the consensus (e.g., by referecing a general textbook). -- WGee 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly Oosterhuis's views do not reflect the academic consensus: the reputable United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says, "Drawing on the 'science' of eugenics—the study of improving heredity through selective breeding—Nazi authorities claimed a legitimate right to take action against those they believed to debilitate the 'Aryan' Volk" . Since Mr. Oosterhuis's opinion that homosexuals were not persecuted in the name genetic purity is not acknowledged by the Museum, whose exhibits reflect maninstream academic opinion, it might not be worthy of mention per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- WGee 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "views" of Harry Oosterhuis were published in a reputable academic journal. An exhibit of the USHMM is not held to standards of academic review. Intangible2.0 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer-reviewed academic journals, such as the Journal of Contemporary History, however reputable, publish creative, critical original research, not commonly accepted facts. Although the peer-review system ensures that articles in a journal meet the discipline's standard for research and methodology, the authors' conclusions may not reflect the academic consensus. The only way to gauge the influence of an author's work in academica is to refer to citation indices, and the essay in question, Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany, has only been cited 5 times according to Google Scholar. The USHMM, meanwhile, is an internationally renown Holocaust museum that is bound by its nature to propagate only commonly accepted views on the Holocaust. Exibits are guided and reviewed by historians of the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies and are subject to immense public and academic scrutiny due to the museum's fame.  So do you honestly think the USHMM could get away with propagating information that conflicts with mainstream opinion? -- WGee 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, if you're truly interested in expanding the section, you would do well to incorporate some of the information found on the USHMM's website, which is much more general, comprehensive, and impartial than Oosterhuis's essay. -- WGee 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Tazmaniacs 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not qualified to rewrite the section, but as it stands currently, the section on Homosexuality seems almost defensive of Nazi persecution of homosexuality (perceived and actual).  It also seems to contrast sharply with the aforementioned History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust article, which not only doesn't mention anything about Oosterhuis's opinion that it was "merely" political (note, I'm scare-quoting myself, not the article), but rather states pretty clearly that homosexuals were, if anything, more strongly persecuted than the average political prisoner.  Furthermore, the paragraph is badly-written.  It doesn't tell us who this Oosterhuis is or why we should care what he thinks, and it relies on bad reasoning--it's irrelevant that the Nazis were (seemingly) hypocritical and encouraged "male bonding" or the like.  And the statement that Rohm was killed for political reasons appears no more than simple juxtaposition to imply a relationship--so he was more both gay and politically dangerous, but maybe more politically dangerous than he was dangerous as a homosexual--it says nothing about nazi policies against homosexuality.  I don't see that any of this about Oosterhuis belongs in the paragraph at all, certainly not in its current state.202.95.37.69 15:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  homophobia 

message: We need to have a discussion about the continuous redirect of National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism instead of National Socialism (disambiguation); and the continuous insertion of claims concerning the term and its use, especially in the lead, but also elsewhere. This discussion is best held at Nazism so we can all, literally, be on the same page.  Thanks. --Cberlet 14:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is redirecting?  It seems natural that the link should point to a disambiguation page.(JoeCarson 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What has this to do with the above vote? And why do you start rewriting things if you want to have a discussion? Intangible2.0 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Socialism

message: Please reconsider the use of NSDAP and DAP instead of Nazi Party and German Workers' Party. It's a rather pointless use of German acronyms and is so much less clearer than just using the English terms. Especially when their respective articles are under the English terms.
Peter Isotalo 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using semi-German terms 

message: It has been claimed in error that Wikipedia does not refer to a variety of contemporary national socialist movements as forms of contemporary Nazism. Here are sopme examples:
:See: National Socialist Movement:
::There have been several neo-Nazi organizations known as the National Socialist Movement.
:::* Colin Jordan's National Socialist Movement of the 1960s.
:::* The defunct National Socialist Movement of Chile
:::* The contemporary National Socialist Movement, of the United States.
:::* The contemporary National Socialist Movement, of the United Kingdom.
:::* The contemporary National Socialist Movement of Denmark.
:::* The contemporary National Socialist Movement of Norway.
::[see also]
::*National Socialist Party
Another entry:
:National Socialist Vanguard:
::The National Socialist Vanguard is a Nazi group based in The Dalles, Oregon.  It has focused its efforts on recruiting high school students.
There are also cites in recent scholarly publications:
:B. A. Dobratz and S. L. Shanks-Meile. (2006, Summer). "The Strategy of White Separatism"Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 49-79. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, edited by B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner):
::Text describes Rick Cooper, leader of National Socialist Vanguard, as stating that he considers himself part of a "white nationalist" movement that is "a movement based on love of--preserving what you love--your race." p. 67
:C. Berlet and S. Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). "Overview of U.S. White Supremacist Groups." Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, edited by B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner):
::Text discusses various contemporary national socialist groups and movements:
::"We mention WAR here because it pioneered the spread of a particular revolutionary 'national socialist' ideology, which Metzger summarized at the 1987 Aryan Nations Congress....This type of rhetoric is associated with a national socialist form of neo-Nazi ideology called the 'Third Position,' a political tendency that challenges globalization as part of a call for organic, localized, cooperative economic systems-rejecting both capitalism and communism (Gardell 2003; Berlet and Lyons 2000; Coogan 1999). This form of neo-Nazism has been carried forward by groups such as White Revolution, the National Socialist Movement, and Volksfront." pp. 23-24.
There are neo-Nazis who do not describe themselves as national socialists and are not accurately described as national socialists. We may find this curious, but it is a fact. There are also contemporary national socialists who reject Hitler's "Nazism" because it betrayed the movement in the Night of the Long Knives.
National Socialism therefore, is not a synonym for Nazism, which refers solely to Hitler's German ideology.
I hope this helps clarify matters for the vote above and the continuing discussion.--Cberlet 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search for "National Socialism" in Google Scholar, are any other academic journal search engine, you would be hard pressed to find references not dealing with Hitler Germany / NSDAP ideology. The fact that a generic term "national socialism" can also be used in a different way, is neither here nor now, since its use is not common at all. Furthermore, the claim above in the move is that Nazism is an abbreviation of National Socialism, so your last point does not apply. When will editors start adhering to Wikipedia policy? Intangible2.0 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your argument is based on claim that National Socialism is a special ideology of which Nazism is only one form. You haven't presented any evidence that there is any ideology beside Nazism that has named itself National Socialism. Those National Socialist Movements are all basing their ideology on the ideology of NSDAP. -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a distinction between the two. The term "National socialism" is used to refer, essentially, to Strasserism during the rise of the Nazis (the term "Strasserism" itself was only used afterwards to refer to new movements basing themselves off of their works), "Nazism" refers to the ideologies and actions of the NSDAP. The two are very closely related most of the time but a distinction is often made when needed. - DNewhall 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? It's like saying that whatever Rudolf Jung wrote, is not relevant for this article, while he was a National Socialist even before Hitler was (he was the one who convinced Hitler to change the name of the German Workers' Party). Intangible2.0 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, National Socialism is used to refer to the whole ideology, before and after Night of the Long Knifes. Articles in other, unbiased encyclopedias are pretty clear on that subject. -- Vision Thing -- 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Vision Thing, if Nazism (or National Socialism) is defined as the ideology of the NSDAP, as this article claims, then obviously it cannot at the same time be the ideology of other movements. This is particularly true given the fact that Hitler repeatedly insisted that Nazism was not for export. -- Nikodemos 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those other movements subscribe to the ideology of NSDAP. Also, if we are going to look what Hitler said, then this article should be called National Socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a matter of logic, a movement and the ideology of that movement are different things. For a non-controversial example, let us paraphrase Gandhi, "I like your Christianity, but not some Christians".   rewinn 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Varieties of National Socialism

message: It is clear that most editors oppose renaming this page to National Socialism. It is also clear that most editors also would support making National Socialism and National socialism redirect to the National Socialism (disambiguation). I have restored both pages to the proper redirect rather than this entry on Nazism. I assume that restoring the NPOV revisions to the lead and body of this Nazism page to remove the marginal POV contentions that highlight National Socialism can now be accomplished without  a revert war. Looking froward to more constructive editing.--Cberlet 23:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? The poll was only about the name of this article, which is guided by a different Wikipedia policy than what should happen with disambig pages. I will revert your contentious changes. Intangible2.0 09:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know where you got those ideas. You misrepresented issues at request for mediation and now you are still continuing to go down that road. -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This dispute goes back several years.  Every time we have the debate, the view that Intangible2.0 and -- Vision Thing -- claim are important are shown to be marginal.  They deserve a mention, but should not be in the lead or comprise a significant portion of the entry. I do not see any evidence that either Intangible2.0 and -- Vision Thing -- are seeking a collaborative solution to their obviously marginal viewpoints, and instead continue to rewrite and revert as if they have demonstrated that their views are the views of the majority when the opposite is true.  I invite comments on this situation below.--Cberlet 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Socialism - majority view

message: Please stop removing the quote from Hitler with the claim that the Sunday Express did not exist at that time. The Sunday Express was launched on December 12, 1918.   You should be more sure of yourself before you delete information that is cited. Billy Ego 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean the citation is not easy to check? Go to the library and look in the book. I'm going to put it back in then when I able to because it is certainly relevant. People need to know that though it's called "national socialism," it is not Marxian socialism which is what people usually think of when they think of socialism. This a blatant act of censorship on your part and few others here. Billy Ego 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For anyone interested, here is the information that is being censored: "Hitler was careful to distinguish national socialism as non-Marxian socialism. He said, "Our adopted term "Socialist" has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." Francis Ludwig Carsten, The Rise of Fascism. University of California Press, 1982, p. 137, quote from British newspaper The Sunday Express, on December 28, 1938 However, Hitler said the condition for property was "common good takes precedence over self-interest...the state must retain control and each property owner should consider himself an agent of the state." Richard Allen Epstein. Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty With the Common Good. Da Capo Press, 2002, p. 3 Billy Ego 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The information wasn't moved. It was deleted. Billy Ego 20:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not belong in the intro. Tazmaniacs 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Billy Ego is just trying to make a point in the introduction, just as he's been doing at the socialism article. -- WGee 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I'm trying to make a point. The point is that fascism is opposed to Marxian socialism. The point is that that needs to be stated. The question is, what is your point? Billy Ego 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the quote is true and/or the point should be made, it certainly shouldn't be in the intro. BobFromBrockley 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday Express 

message: To what page should the pages National Socialism and National socialism be redirected?
Read carefully because there are two choices with different outcomes, and bot require a "Support" prefix for the vote to be tabulated properly.
:Add  # Support  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Alternatively (who knew?) place Oppose in both sections. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
===Support redirecting National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism ===
# Support, actually. nazism is by far the best known form of 'national socialism', and i think its standart policy to redirect it to the most often sought article by that term. it should read (something like): "this article relates to the selfproclaimed national socialist ideology of NSDAP, the german political party known for initiating WW2 under the rule of Adolf Hitler. if you were looking for other forms of national socialism, see national socialism (disambiguation)". its a bit long, but thats the way its done right. also nazi party should be named NSDAP, but since this discussion about nazism has actually only ever been about the opportunity to blacken socialism, nobody argues that probably more pressing matter of NSDAP· Lygophile has spoken 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with MarkThomas. BobFromBrockley 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just finished a vote on this, and the result was very clear. ~Switch t c g 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate policy applies to disambiguation pages (WP:DAB vs. WP:NAME). Furthermore, voting is not a substitute of and to Wikipedia policy. Intangible2.0 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also thought the result was clear, but note that several editors simply ignore our sentiments and continuously redirect National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism. I could use some advice and help here.--Cberlet 13:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request for move from Nazism to National Socialism is a separate issue from where National Socialism should redirect. We already had discussion on that before request for move, and sentiment was clearly for keeping redirect to this article. -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just re-read this entire talk page and have no idea how you can make this claim, -- Vision Thing --.  The opposite is true.--Cberlet 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies, I need to reverse my earlier comment above - having now had time to read through the previous discussions properly, I now believe that Cberlet is right to call for this survey and we should all comment. The problem will persist unless we get all views and come to a conclusion. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I just added the option of opposing both suggestions, as one editor already did.--Cberlet 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why are there several 'votes' in the servey without an arguement nor a signature? lygophile 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my fault, I was just setting up the vote and left some blanks for people to fill in.  I will remove them.--Cberlet 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: i agree with that, as i had allready put in the survey. you should add it there as well, though its proabbly of no avail, the result it will have seems allready evident· Lygophile has spoken 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably need a little clean up if there are multiple votes from one user.  Note sure how to proceed on that.  I assumed that there would be more disagreement with this second poll, but really did want to see what other editors thought.  I have no problem with honest disagreements. Still, I think the results are modestly clear so far.  How long do we leave it up before asking an Admin to close it?--Cberlet 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What? Certainly not!  You lose two votes and you are still trying to push you marginal POV? Outrageous.--Cberlet 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Stop attracting attention to yourself, Intangible. Tazmaniacs 13:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't be making personal attacks. I above quoted Wikipedia policy which needs to be followed. Intangible2.0 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Following an Admin review based on the terms of a previous arbcom remedy,  Intangible2.0 was "banned for one week from National socialism,  National Socialism, and National Socialism (disambiguation)." This notice posted by --Cberlet 20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that passage really a commandment? May and must are vastly different. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Further note  I have protected the dab pages for one week.  Intangible is not the only person making disruptive edits.  What both sides need to do here is to put aside ideology and think about the end users of the encyclopedia.  Dab pages are supposed to make it easier for readers to find information.  The question to be asked is, when someone types "National socialism" into the search box, are they probably looking for Nazism or probably looking for something else?  As I editor I would suggest "something else," since anyone looking for Nazism would probably type in Nazism or Nazi.  As an admin I would like to point all parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for the consequences of disruptive editing over rather minor points.  Again I ask you to put aside ideology and think about this from the persective of the end user. Thatcher131 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been keeping up with this discussion, but I disagree. I would think almost everyone looking up "National socialism" is looking for the Nazis. I think very few people are aware that it may apply to anything other than Nazism. Billy Ego 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think anyone looking for Nazism would search for that. Few people would bother with National Socialism. However, if someone was searching for one of the other national socialisms, then they would use that term. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey: redirecting [[National Socialism]]

message: # Support, actually. nazism is by far the best known form of 'national socialism', and i think its standart policy to redirect it to the most often sought article by that term. it should read (something like): "this article relates to the selfproclaimed national socialist ideology of NSDAP, the german political party known for initiating WW2 under the rule of Adolf Hitler. if you were looking for other forms of national socialism, see national socialism (disambiguation)". its a bit long, but thats the way its done right. also nazi party should be named NSDAP, but since this discussion about nazism has actually only ever been about the opportunity to blacken socialism, nobody argues that probably more pressing matter of NSDAP· Lygophile has spoken 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support redirecting [[National Socialism]] and [[National socialism]] to [[Nazism]] 

message: # Support Because the term "National Socialism" encompasses more than the German Nazi Party.--Cberlet 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support redirecting [[National Socialism]] and [[National socialism]] to  [[National Socialism (disambiguation)]] 

message: I believe this has been discussed many times and very adequately. There is no major need to change it apart from POV-pushing by a few editors and I suggest people don't participate in this "survey". To my mind, there is no chance whatever of the suggested moves actually remaining. Nazism is what most people call national socialism and it's standard on Wikipedia to call articles by their most widely known name. MarkThomas 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with MarkThomas. BobFromBrockley 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just finished a vote on this, and the result was very clear. ~Switch t c g 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate policy applies to disambiguation pages (WP:DAB vs. WP:NAME). Furthermore, voting is not a substitute of and to Wikipedia policy. Intangible2.0 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also thought the result was clear, but note that several editors simply ignore our sentiments and continuously redirect National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism. I could use some advice and help here.--Cberlet 13:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request for move from Nazism to National Socialism is a separate issue from where National Socialism should redirect. We already had discussion on that before request for move, and sentiment was clearly for keeping redirect to this article. -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just re-read this entire talk page and have no idea how you can make this claim, -- Vision Thing --.  The opposite is true.--Cberlet 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies, I need to reverse my earlier comment above - having now had time to read through the previous discussions properly, I now believe that Cberlet is right to call for this survey and we should all comment. The problem will persist unless we get all views and come to a conclusion. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I just added the option of opposing both suggestions, as one editor already did.--Cberlet 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why are there several 'votes' in the servey without an arguement nor a signature? lygophile 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my fault, I was just setting up the vote and left some blanks for people to fill in.  I will remove them.--Cberlet 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: i agree with that, as i had allready put in the survey. you should add it there as well, though its proabbly of no avail, the result it will have seems allready evident· Lygophile has spoken 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably need a little clean up if there are multiple votes from one user.  Note sure how to proceed on that.  I assumed that there would be more disagreement with this second poll, but really did want to see what other editors thought.  I have no problem with honest disagreements. Still, I think the results are modestly clear so far.  How long do we leave it up before asking an Admin to close it?--Cberlet 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What? Certainly not!  You lose two votes and you are still trying to push you marginal POV? Outrageous.--Cberlet 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: When will editors actual start to follow Wikipedia policy? Specifically: When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Intangible2.0 13:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop attracting attention to yourself, Intangible. Tazmaniacs 13:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't be making personal attacks. I above quoted Wikipedia policy which needs to be followed. Intangible2.0 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Following an Admin review based on the terms of a previous arbcom remedy,  Intangible2.0 was "banned for one week from National socialism,  National Socialism, and National Socialism (disambiguation)." This notice posted by --Cberlet 20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that passage really a commandment? May and must are vastly different. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Further note  I have protected the dab pages for one week.  Intangible is not the only person making disruptive edits.  What both sides need to do here is to put aside ideology and think about the end users of the encyclopedia.  Dab pages are supposed to make it easier for readers to find information.  The question to be asked is, when someone types "National socialism" into the search box, are they probably looking for Nazism or probably looking for something else?  As I editor I would suggest "something else," since anyone looking for Nazism would probably type in Nazism or Nazi.  As an admin I would like to point all parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for the consequences of disruptive editing over rather minor points.  Again I ask you to put aside ideology and think about this from the persective of the end user. Thatcher131 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been keeping up with this discussion, but I disagree. I would think almost everyone looking up "National socialism" is looking for the Nazis. I think very few people are aware that it may apply to anything other than Nazism. Billy Ego 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think anyone looking for Nazism would search for that. Few people would bother with National Socialism. However, if someone was searching for one of the other national socialisms, then they would use that term. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DAB]] 

message: The article contains this statement:
:"In Soviet usage (which has carried forward into post-Soviet Russian usage), the epithet fascist is synonymous with Nazi Germans. This came to be only after Hitler's invasion of the USSR. Several historians and authors, such as dissident Valery Senderov, have claimed that the "fascist" epithet for Nazi Germans was created by Stalin who did not want to use the term Nazi, fearing it would cast a negative spin on the word socialism (National Socialism).
In fact the term "Fascist" was already very widely used by the Soviets in the 1920s and applied to countries as diverse as Italy, Poland and Hungary. Norvo 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Norvo. The term "fascist" was certainly used, for example, by Communists in Britain in the early 1920s. Obviously, Nazism is a variant of fascism, so it is hardly some Stalinist plot to call the Nazis fascists. I am also skeptical about this supposed Soviet usage.BobFromBrockley 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hitlerites" was also a term much used by Stalin. Anyways, this material here is properly attributed, and should not be removed unless you can show with other sources that this claim is doubtful. Intangible2.0 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Senderov was exiled/jailed in the 1980s for his study in which he accused the Soviet authorities of having committed an  "intellectual genocide" of Jews. Intangible2.0 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This about the use of the term fascist as  pejorative, which is different use of the term altogether. Do you have sources disclaiming that there was this kind of Stalinist censorship? Intangible2.0 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Usage 

message: Someone wrote in the introduction that the sources says that Nazis "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Where in these sources does it say that? I don't see it. I'm challenging this. If it can't be verified that the sources say this then it needs to be removed. Billy Ego 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am out of reverts; could other editors please review the nonsense version currently created by Billy Ego and adapt to something more intelligent? Thanks. MarkThomas 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? You think that this small change  is something to worry about and edit war over? The reason for that change is because it looked like it was saying that Nazi's invented the term "finance capitalism" because it said "what they called finance capitalism." They didn't call it "parasitic finance capitalism." They called finance capitalism parasitic. Billy Ego 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Billy Ego, let me know what you could not find in the cite: Moishe Postone. 1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier There is a detailed discussion of the artifical and antisemitic division of capitalism into productive industrial capitalism v. parasitic finance capitalism.  The Nazis did not invent the consept, but they built their ideology around it. Do you think this cite is just a dollop of chopped liver?  I think it is a full meal! --Cberlet 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On what page does it say that they embraced what "they considered industrial capitalism"? Billy Ego 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My summary of a brilliant article by Moishe.  Go to a library and go look for yourself and tell me when you have done that and why you disagree.  Thanks.--Cberlet 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you afraid of? Why won't you give a page number. Remember the warning message I left on your userpage? I'm not going to let this go. Billy Ego 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This latter comment of Billy Ego's appears to me to be a very clear personal threat against Cberlet. MarkThomas 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well isn't that something? Billy Ego 00:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Road to Serfdom has more than 800+ cites. I guess that clears it then? Intangible2.0 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you say that Postone article is cited a lot, how about we cite it then? Postone says that Nazism was anti-capitalist. It doesn't say what Cberlet claims it to say which is that Nazis embraced "what they considered industrial capitalism." Postone says, "The Left once made the mistake of thinking that it had the monopoly on anti-capitalism or, conversely, that all forms of anti-capitalism are, at least potentially progressive. That mistake was fatal, not least of all for the Left." Billy Ego 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just read the Postone article. He DOES NOT say Nazism was anti-capitalist. He says that Nazism was NOT opposed to industrial capitalism. What he says is that the Nazis articulated a form of anti-capitalism that was not actually against capitalism but only against some of its forms, i.e. "abstract" finance capital. Here is an example from the text: "as is well known, industrial capital was precisely not an object of anti‑Semitic attacks, even in a period of rapid industrialization... The affirmation by modern anti‑Semitism of industrial capital indicates that an approach is required that can distinguish between what modern capitalism is and the way it manifests itself, between its essence and its appearance." (http://www.gentheoryrubbish.com/archives/images/Moishe.pdf p.8 emphasis added) "Forms of anticapitalist thought that remain bound within the immediacy of this antinomy tend to perceive capitalism, and that which is specific to that social formation, only in terms of the manifestations of the abstract dimension of the antinomy; so, for instance, money is considered the "root of all evil."" (ibid p.12) From then on in the text, all uses of the word "anticapitalist" are put in scare quotes, to indicate that Postone does not consider this actually anti-capitalist. It's a good article - read it, if you haven't! BobFromBrockley 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does say they were "anti-capitalist." Being opposed to finance capitalism makes one an anti-capitalist. Isn't that usually the main objection to capitalism, that someone is controlling the means of production through mere investment and loans and therefore earning without labor? That's a main problem NAZI's had with capitalism. But the objection I had was the it was being used by Cberlet as a source for saying that Nazi's embraced "what they considered industrial capitalism." Where in that source does it say that NAZI's considered what they supported to be "industrial capitalism""?   That is Postone's term, not the NAZI's term. Billy Ego 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here on Wikipedia we consider reputable published secondary sources to trump original research based on primary sources. The post by BobFromBrockley above summarizes the thesis of Postone very well. Feel free to set up your own pro-fascist web page where you can post your original research. Let a thousand websites flourish.  Here at Wikipedia, however, we pull up the weeds.--Cberlet 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time you cite a source be sure not to make up things that it didn't say. Billy Ego 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Industrial capitalism" is not Postone's term. It is a common term in the Marxian tradition (e.g. Rudolf Hilferding) and more widely (e.g. Max Weber, Werner Sombart). Their distinction between productive, industrial capitalism (good) and abstract, parasitic finance capitalism (bad) was not anti-semitic as such, or unique to the Nazis, but it passed from respectable political economy to become a mainstay of the anti-semitic repertoire in early twentieth century Germany. As Postone argues, opposing finance capital, and supporting industrial capital (as the Nazis did) might allow a movement to paint itself as anti-capitalist, but is not anti-capitalist, hence his scare quotes.BobFromBrockley 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok it's a Marxist term, whatever. The point is, it's not the Nazi's term. The paper was wrongly being used as a source to say that it was the Nazi's term, that they considered what they supported to be "industrial capitalism." They did not consider it to be capitalism but socialism. Billy Ego 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob has just underlined that the term is used more widely than in the Marxist tradition, and you claim it's a Marxist term. Unless you consider Max Weber as the archetype of a Marxist thinker, your arguments are clearly irrelevant. Furthermore, it's been said ten thousand times that you can't define Nazism as they defined themselves: we don't use subjective definitions here, but objective definitions based on serious historians' works. When Bush says he's going to bring democracy to the Middle-East, nobody takes that at faces value (even the neocons who used to make these claims have since withdrew this ideological discourse). One needs not be a Marxist to distinguish between speech & acts, discourse and reality - read Machiavel if you haven't yet. If Nazis made the outlandish claim that industrial capitalism was socialism, so be it. That doesn't makes it socialism. I'll finally underline that this criticisms of finance capitalism is not restricted to the far-right, and continues to exist today, not only in leftist circles - even people from the MEDEF, French employers' union which definitely consider that "capitalism is moral" have criticized the tendency to privilege financial sectors over productive industrial sectors, as they fear that it will bring a new economic bubble & crash. It was also the main aspect of Lula's electoral program for his first term (I'll let you judge if he succeeded in shifting the economic emphasis on productive, instead of financial, capitalism.) Tazmaniacs 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "productive industrial capitalism"

message: I am delighted that the libertarians and the fascist all dislike the work of Postone. It confirms my respect for Postone's work. Postone has published a serious analytical work. When Billy Ego, Intangible2.0, and -- Vision Thing -- publish their studies on fascism and capitalism, I am sure they will alert us so we can consider citing them. In the meantime their views remain marginal minority positions peddled in an aggressive and disruptive manor. POV pushing is a form of tendentious editing. This has gone on long enough.  The minority position has had its say. It is time to move forward.--Cberlet 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I disliked Postone's essay. I've just been asking for something specific like a page number or quote so we can verify what you claim it to say because I don't see it. Why won't you cooperate? Billy Ego 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What "marginal view" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? Billy Ego 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What "marginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? Furthermore, prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume that a work that has more than 800+ academic cites is not marginal? Maybe I do need to start quoting Hayek. At least he will be using an analytical concept of capitalism. Intangible2.0 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postone and Critical Theory

message: The article appears to be duplicated in places. e.g. two references/notes sections. - Francis Tyers · 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Please join in the mediation.--Cberlet 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion going in circles

message: This portion is exceedingly biased.  The term " propaganda boss" must be removed.  Wording in the following paragraph should be revised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crimson nite (talk • contribs).
:In the German language wikipedia I find Hitler's post within the DAP post defined as "Werbeobmann". I'm not sure how exactly to translate it, though "propaganda boss" seems to at least represent the actual role he played. I have no clue what you find problematic in the following section, so you'd have to explain some more.--Caranorn 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumarry (portion at the top) 

message: I think the interwiki should be updated, you can look here for interwikies that should be added. Tomer T 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Why is "Nazi" capitalized? Did the capitalizing originate from the Nazi party itself?
*It's a proper noun. Proper nouns are in general capitalized in English. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization and style 

message: Huh, what's up with this:
"This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwedishPsycho (talk • contribs) 
:I have no idea, but that template is not appropriate for the article namespace. I've removed it. -- MisterHand 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For humorous purposes? 

message: That section needs to be removed... it talks about the German "race" as having an inferiority complex which magically explains everything that happened... it's a pretty bogus theory at that.... totally POV, doesn't belong in a serious article. Stick to facts kids.. there are plenty of them to use.
------------------------------
For God's sake, what kind of people are participating in this article! If that section does something is present its references very clearly. The tag should go, it is ridiculous. The books, pages, articles and authors are clearly stated!. 70.156.139.188 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Inferiority Complex? 

message: I have tagged much of the article with  where paragraphs are unsourced, and  if most of a section was unreferenced. These sections of this article are unsourced.--Sefringle 03:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: citation problems

message: Is there any part of Mein Kampf or any valid proof where Hitler used this phrase "Master race"? There is no reference whatsoever in the article that this term was used by Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.32.9 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2007
:Hitler would have presumably said it in German, where it would be Herrenrasse or Herrenvolk. See master race for a history of the concept, which certainly was embraced by the Nazis, though they didn't invent it. Mein Kampf uses the term on pages 320, 422 and 438. Not speaking German, I couldn't tell you the context. You might also want to look into transcripts of his speeches. grendel|khan 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Master race"

message: The intro is HORRIBLE...and horribly incoherent, but the rest of the article seems to have held up well over time.  Ahh, wikipedia....the land where ::gulp:: anyone can become an editor. It shows in the intro.--172.166.106.90 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Why does it say that they're incoherent? That sounds rather POV.
:It might sounds to you POV. But it's a common statement among historians, see for ex. Ian Kershaw. Tazmaniacs 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: consisted of a loose collection of incoherent positions

message: From what I've read of Mein Kampf, especially chapter 11, it seems that Hitler and the Nazis used Aryan as their synonym for any white person that wasn't Jewish. There were Slavs in the Waffen SS, there was Glasov's militia that sided with Hitler against Stalin and Croatia and Slovakia were German allies. The great writer Solzhenitsyn documented how many Russians actually viewed Nazis as liberators so it makes sense that the Soviets made up the claim that Nazis wanted to exterminate them in order to manipulate Russians to fight for them.
*An Aryan (originally "Arier") was used for blond, tall, white and blue eyed people. Others, who had e.g. dark hair were called to be mixed with unaryan blood in former times, but still Aryans. Hitler wouldn't have said this, if he was Aryan him selves. But he's been this little black-haired dwarf. (Sorry for my english, I'm from Germany). --77.132.221.60 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavs

message: I am inclined to delete the "other new elements" section.  What do people think?  The things listed are neither "new" nor distinctive of nazi ideology.  Although the German Nazi regime may have liked them, they are not defining features of nazism.  This section threatens to become a dumping ground for everything Nazi Germany did such as banning abortion, supporting atheletics, conducting rocket research, and building automobile highways.  What do other people think?  -Fagles 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections, I've deleted it. -Fagles 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your comment is a persuasive argument for deleting this section: it is a list of apparently unrelated bullet points that fails to say why or how the listed Nazi laws are in accordance with, and realizations of Nazi ideology.  Why, then, was it restored?  Where is the evidence that historians consider the listed items "new elements" never seen before?  -Fagles 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure these things are not that "new", although you could certainly argue that they did not specifically belong to Nazi ideology — but they were a part of Nazi Germany. The autobahns certainly were a new thing at the time, and also made for transport of tanks; and environmentalism wasn't so frequent then than now — and it was a specific trait of German culture. Public health is also an important issue, not at all uninteresting (see Michel Foucault's work on that issue). Kraft durch Freude probably shouldn't be listed there, but elsewhere: it is another form of taking control of the masses, akin to Mussolini's Balilla and the Hitlerjugend. Tazmaniacs 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of what you said.  My concern is to distinguish between "new things that Nazi Germany did" and "new ideas first created as part of the ideology of Nazism."  This article currently suggests that the concept of "public health" was a "new element," first invented as a part of "Nazi ideology."  That is, of course, incorrect -- public health significantly predated the invention of Nazism.  The autobahns were a new thing that Nazi Germany did, not parts of Nazi ideology.  The environmental policies of Nazi Germany were largely continuations of pre-Nazi efforts.  At the same time, autobahns, public health, and environmental policy were interesting and important aspects of Nazi Germany, and their implementation was affected by the government's Nazi ideology.  A good discussion of them belongs in the "Nazi Germany" article -- where, indeed, most of them are already discussed in the "social policy" subsection. -Fagles 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Other new elements"

message: It seems to me that one should use the name they chose for themselves instead of the apparently insulting term Nazi.  This might help a little bit with the accusations of bias. AThousandYoung 12:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Hey there! I have not found any part of the article where it is written, that Nazism is absolutely hated in Germany today. There are lots of organizations against Nazis / the NPD or other racism / fashism (if this word exists in english). Today this Land is a free land for every race, religion or culture. And this should be part of this article. -- 77.132.221.60 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither racism nor fascism (yes, we have the word—stole it from the Italians) were unique to Germany at the time, nor are strong anti-racist and anti-fascist sentiments unique to Germany today. If either were untrue, this might well be worth noting, but as it stands I don't really think it is. Where the movement continues today—not where it is opposed—is much more relevant. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be a part of the article, cause the german opinion has hardly changed about that. Sure it's not unique to germany, but its one of the biggest cultural changes in the world. and that should really be said (not at last, cause too many people think that nearly every german is still a nazi.) --77.132.168.104 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Nazism in Germany 

message: Hi!  The  banner was removed with the edit summary "this has nothing to do with Nazism".  The contrary viewpoint is that the article is in the :Category:Homophobia, and there's even a section of the article titled Homosexuality.  I'm re-adding the banner, but welcome comments on the subject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Project 

message: the "25 points"should be moved to the intro section. this allows the nazis {national socialists} to descibe themselves and their belife system in their own words.Comparisons to other social political or economic systems,
while interesting,do not realy belong in an encyclopedia.J8079s 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov