Talk:Nazism/Archive 2

message: As soon as I posted a direct quote from Mussolini on the definition of what Fascism is someone deleted it. It then was reposted by someone else, Thankfully. Now I put a direct quote here again from Adolph Hitler on the Nazism site and again it is directly deleted by 172. Someone quotes from Mein Kampf but I can not quote from Hitler's speeches? But I use direct quotes and my quotes are deleted. Samething happened to my post of the Republic. I used direct quotes and it is deleted two times. I am constantly being told that "Direct quotes" need to be "filtered" or "put into context" but everybody else can say opinions without reference or quotes and their stuff is okay. Mine isn't. Something is wrong here! "Filtered" and "put into context" are what Ayn Rand would say "put into socially politcally correct" marxist view. 
I am thoroughly disappointed. Direct quotes can not be used on this website, references are not allowed. Other people can edit books I suggest and call them "polemical" but their books are not "polemical". What is knowledge without direct quotes. Wheeler 23 Mar 730pm
:Quotes, and citations MUST be used on this encyclopedia, or it will never become a verifiable reference source. Please stop removing factual information. If you dislike it place a quote from a source you DO like and cite it. Thank you. Sam Spade 03:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: The blocking of this page is ridiculous.I reverted once, danny twice. That is no cause for blocking a page from edits. Bad form and bias appear to be the rule of the day. Sam Spade 07:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: WHEELER, 2 questions.  One, where is this image from and why is that source considered authoriatative?  Two, the diagram appears to identify everything from Marx to Democracy as sources for National Socialism...what does this prove about Nazism beyond the fact that it is descended in different ways from almost the entire political spectrum?  Just curious, Jwrosenzweig 19:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is taken from Erik von Kuehnelt's book Liberty or Equality.  This book has 964 footnotes.  It is a very sound case.
Diagrams of the Geneology of National Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_scocialist_diagram.jpg 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Identitarianism_and_Equalitarianism.jpg 
One has been resized and another one addedWHEELER 15:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  page blocking 

message: Please check and tidy. Remember that the german page is still a bit in flux as well.
I've also made a more minor edit, with information obtained from other wikipedia pages. Please check factual accuracy for yourself.
Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 09:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tried translating some stuff from german wikipedia

message: Some days I am truly amazed at what I can learn in the Wikipedia.  Nazism is not only an ideology, but it is also a theory!  When I did my History B.A. about 25 years ago we were taught that Nazism was a praxis, or a  political form of management method if you wish.  (These days, of course one might even try to get a patent for it in the US patent office, given the propensity of that body to so generously grant patents to business methods and software programs).  When we discussed the issues of WWII and its causes in our German History seminar we read that the Nazis had a very large bag of absolutely conflicting ideas, which could by no means be made in a coherent whole.  The only "ism"s we could discern clearly were populism and totalitarianism.  There was more of the same when I started (but never finished) an M.A. in History comparing certain aspects of the Napoleonic wars, WWI and WWII: I got to read again more gory details about WWII and the holocaust, but there still was not a single theory that could stand up in all of the Nazi party.  They kept trotting out one idea and then another and still another.  They were all contradictory but they kept at it as long as it suited them.  Twenty years later I am learning in these pages that someone, somewhere has finally found that elusive Nazi ideology and/or theory.  Boy, was I dumb!  It must have been under my nose all that time.  Guess I should have taken the extra effort needed to finish that M.A., and then I might have found it all by myself. AlainV 10:23, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
:Sebastian Haffner wrote about the world view of Hitler. Many world views/theories are somewhat internally inconsistent. Nazism is not an exception. Andries 21:54, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Good News

message: This is entirely an issue of what you want to call "socialism". Of course people who think of themselves as socialists (or communists, or social democrats) do not want Nazism associated with socialism. Of course some people who oppose both Nazism and socialism will try to find commonalities between them. What makes it harder to find neutral ground, though, is that these two have diverging definitions of "socialism", which (a) makes it easier for them each to defend to themselves their belief about whether Nazism "is" socialism, and (b) makes it harder for them to understand each other.
A generic socialist might use the word "socialism" to mean something like "an economic system under which the economy is managed for the benefit of all citizens". A generic right-winger might use the word "socialism" to mean "a political system in which the state deprives individuals of their rights to property." These two people have different values and mean different things when they say "socialism".
There are some things the two can agree on calling "socialism", even though they mean different things by it. For instance, nationalizing factories might be something the socialist calls "socialism" and approves of, while the right-winger calls it "socialism" and disapproves of it.
However, there are other things that one would call "socialism" and the other would not. For instance, the right-winger might see the Nazis taking property from Jews and say, "This is just like socialism, the state is taking away people's property" while the socialist says "This is nothing like socialism, it is not for the benefit of all citizens; notably, it is not for the benefit of those Jews."
So what does this mean as to whether Nazism "is" socialism? It means the question is itself an incitement against a neutral point of view; it is an unwelcome invitation for people to use Nazism as a way of fighting for their positions about socialism. Thus, whenever it comes up, Wikipedians should not jump in and say "Nazism IS socialism" or "Nazism IS NOT socialism", but recognize that they are being incited and step back. --FOo 18:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an insightful point. I have been struggling with this very issue thruout a few pages, w minimal success. As I have been repeating fairly regularly, Left, Right and Socialism are all terms which pretty much nobody agrees upon. The problem is that most of us seem to assume that others accept our ideosyncratic definitions, and the official definitions are pretty widely open to interpretation. While we can't easilly choose one ridged set of definitions and agree to stick to them, we can do everyone a service by at least pointing out as precisely as possible the particulars of what various verifiable personages have defined them to be. The list may be long, but if done well might at least allow people to say "for this discussion, lets use Chomsky's defintion of Socialism", or "in the following statement, I am refering to the definition of Communism used by McCarthy". Sam Spade 21:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: It was not a one time incident during the cultural revoloution where decendants of capitalists were beaten and killed, but even if it were it clearly needs mention. the truth is that people are often abused based on their relations in China. I recently saw a documentary on the chinese justice system, where convicted thieves, drugs dealers etc.. were placed kneeling on the street w sign  hanging from their neck by a wire. The sign gave the name of their crime, and the name of their family. It was mentioned that family members were often beaten, shunned, or refused jobs based on this information. This is directly relevent to the claims made by Levi. The race section needs signifigant enlargement, BTW. Sam [Spade] 21:44, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't like the edit because I thought it was just a rare exception and mentioning the rare exceptions although accurate makes the article too unwieldy. Andries 21:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam Spade's edit about Chinese comunists blaming the whole family of a culprit was made probably due to his desire to make the article accurate and complete (and I think his edit was accurate). However, I still think his comment should not put in this article because I find it ugly and not important and it makes the article too unwieldy. Sam spade's and the reference to Levi can (and should?) be placed in totalitarianism. If you want to make such detailed comments then start a new separate main article (which I would welcome) but not here in the main article about Nazism. Andries 10:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I suggest you look a bit closer at the matter. Abuse of the relations of felons, historical and otherwise is commonplace in China, and the public shaming of felons is but one aspect of that. Sam [Spade] 23:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Collective punishment is the foundation of Nazi racial policy. Maybe you can't understand that, but clearly a larger section on Nazi racial policy is needed, not a smaller one. For being a central aspect of their ideology, it deserves more than the two small paragraphs it gets in this voluminous article. Sam [Spade] 19:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry, that was a poor choice of wording. Maybe you DON'T understand that. And I agree, the entire monologue by levi should be tossed, it is useless here, serving only the purpose of expressing the "Nazi's are different from Communists" POV. If it remains, a mention of the facts to balance his outlandish opinion with is necessary. On the other hand what would be best is a thorough address of Nazi racial policy rather than pointless ramblings which falsely appeal to the authority of an author of fiction who specialized in "stories about work and workers told by a narrator resembling Levi himself". If nothing else is done I'll be rewriting him, and my disclaimer out of the section shortly, but I wouldn't mind a hand or two. I prefer editing and proofreading rather than lengthy production of content, which is what is needed here. Sam [Spade] 04:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: I think that the fear of communism was a reason for the populairy of the Nazi party. It didn't have so much to do with Jews. I think Sam Spade confuses things here.Andries 22:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: is that better? Sam [Spade] 22:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Communism is attraction of Nazism

message: "Despite the popularity of Hitler and his Lebensraum appeal, most Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS soldiers found the "duty" morally repugnant." I believe this statement is unsupported or up for debate. See section on Daniel Goldhagen
link 
:I think that they got used to the idea and practice and I agree that is open to debate. But I have read quite a lot from Goldhagen's book "Willing executioners" that looks sooo scholarly and well documented but I think it is very flawed.Andries 19:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Attitude towards Genocide

message: Whats up the revert war and no discusion? Thats pretty lame. Whats wrong w this section that you want it gone? Why won't you just improve it? Obviously a section on economics is needed, surely you arn't trying to say it isn't? Sam [Spade] 03:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economic_practice Economic practice] 

message: One thing that historically needs to be cleared up is how different the Nazi political structure & ideology was from the Italian Fascist one, I think there should be some effort made to work it into the article in concise fashion. The propaganda of calling Nazis 'Fascist,' which they would have never themselves, has been so thorough that most don't question to read into any distinction. The first point would be that Nazis sought to create new castes along racial lines and abolish the class system, while the Fascists did the opposite of supporting the class system & consolidate it's unquestionable authority to rebuke any future arising caste system. Although the Nazi Reich Administration absolished the old Bundes union, it's replacing system was what would now be called föderativ i.e. federal, with the Gau, taking all the lenient power from the aristocracy within the old union through a dependent decentralization. The Italian system however directly centralized all of the regional districts to Rome, supported the Monarchy, had a corporative government branch for representation of trade matters, which alternately the Nazi party had no such apparatus & were in this sense Authoritarian rather than Totalitarian. However in terms of application, the reach of the Nazi administration made their rule more 'Total' over the lives of it's people whereas the Fascists were more on the whim of the authority instead of a 'national duty.' The Nazi's Socialistic tendencies to remove jobs from racial undesirables so to cut back work commodity & earnings for those excluded on ideologic basis whom then work under attainder and redestribute those jobs among recognized nationals is also something the meritocracy of Fascism would have never allowed. That they were both militant, allied, and not opposed to survivals of capitalism does not make them otherwise synonymous. Calling the Nazi's "fascist" has long been low propaganda tactic. Nagelfar 23:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism & Fascism 

message: I guess all references to "racism" needs to be removed from this article. At least, it seems to be the opinion of User:Adam Carr (as per Zionism). Also, the intro should be presenting nazism from the nazi point of view, in the most favourable light. Criticism ought to be removed or obscured. Zw 08:22, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and NPOV 

message: By the way, on your Nazism article, how come the ideology of the Nazis is all based on Mein Kampf when the party and 70,000 members existed before Mein Kampf ever came out? How does one do that? How can you explain the existence of the party before the ideology comes out? The ludicrisouness of the Nazism article and the ideological section is apparent when the ideology was written in l924 but the party started without Hilter and without Mein Kampf? Explain that to me.
Why is this not explained to the readers?  Why isn't the 25-point program a discussion in the ideological section?  What formed Dexler and Feder to form the DAP?  There is no answer here?  But the answer is in the 25-point program.  The 25-point program shows the mixture of nationalism and socialism!!!!!!!WHEELER 14:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: WHEELER, why don't you just write a separate article on Austrian National Socialism? I think that would make more sense than writing a new article on National Socialism. AndyL 03:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: what about singapore? Aren't they national socialist? Sam [Spade] 03:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: German Nazism is the dominant ideology of "National Socialism". As you admit the Austrian variant had a short life prior to the founding of the German movement and folded into the Hitler movement. AndyL 19:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Tell me, where does a discussion of Maurice Barres belong where he is the first coiner of the term? Does it belong in the Nazi article?
Yes. 
AndyL 21:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: WHEELER, you might be more convincing if you ceased by so personal in your arguments. Most of your article is your POV, that's the problem. That's not the part that I put in the Nazism article AndyL 00:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideological Section of Nazism

message: I removed the assertion by an anonymous author that a anti-intellectualism is a key element of Nazism. It may be true though. Does somebody have a reference for this. I have to admit that the Nazis were not cool rationalists, as Kershaw wrote  but few political movements and few people are cool rationalistst. And why did Hitler quote Schopenhauer if he opposed intellecualism? Or alllow the Dr. in the philosophy Goebbels and the academic Speer and the diplom ingenieur Himmler into his coterie? Andries 17:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a matter of POV, and not something were going to solve. Hitler liked some kinds of intellectualism (those that agreed w his nazi philosophies) and disliked others (those that disagreed w him, or came from Jews, etc...) Sam [Spade] 17:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[anti-intellectualism]] a key element of Nazism?

message: I have been told time and time again here on the wiki that people are allowed to self label, and that articles are to refer to them as they refered to themselves, "Libertarian socialist" being one prime example of a severely mislabled group, and "gay community" being another. I ask for consistancy, regardless of POV. Sam [Spade] 17:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? Wouldn't that give trouble labeling a country like for instance the German Democratic Republic? (hmm, bad example... but well, just checking anyhow :-) ) Kim Bruning 23:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, also N korea is also a popular example, but as always, we must be balanced in our description of them, and give note to their self assessment. In politics definitions of terms tend towards the ideosyncratic and arbitrary, no matter the source. Sam [Spade] 00:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps creating two seperate articles presenting the argument for each and then linking them from this article is the solution. There seems to be enough energy on both sides to create such work. Arminius 00:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: stop the bus!

message: Sam, discuss your changes here and see if you can achieve consensus rather than imposing your changes and expecting them to be approved after the fact. AndyL 01:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you discuss your reverts, and stop advocating misuse of admin privlidges on the request for page protection page? Sam [Spade] 01:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you for reverting andyl's 3rd violation of the page protection policy. Sam [Spade] 02:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss changes

message: I have protected the page due to an ongoing edit war. The parties are now encouraged to hash out their differences here on talk. 172 01:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: * Feige, Franz G. M. The varieties of Protestantism in Nazi Germany: five theopolitical positions (E. Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY, 1990) 
* Barnes, Kenneth C. Nazism, liberalism, & Christianity: Protestant social thought in Germany & Great Britain, 1925-1937 (University Press of Kentucky, 1991).
* Angebert, Jean-Michel. The occult and the Third Reich: the mystical origins of Nazism and the search for the Holy Grail.  (Macmillan, NY, 1974).
* Zabel, James A. Nazism and the pastors: A study of the ideas of three Deutsche Christian groups (Scholars Press for the American Academy of Religion, 1976). 
* Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (Rohan Butler fwd.). The occult roots of Nazism: the Ariosophists of Austria and Germany 1890-1935 (Aquarian, Wellingborough, 1985). 
* Rickey, Christopher. Revolutionary saints: Heidegger, national socialism, and antinomian politics (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002).  
* Viereck, Peter Robert Edwin. Metapolitics: from Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler (Transaction Publishers, NJ, 2004) — esp. "Christ Aryanized" (p.282).
* Weiss, John. Ideology of death: Why the Holocaust happened in Germany (I.R. Dee, Chicago, 1996) — esp. "Catholic Anti-Semitism in the Austrian Empire" (p.156).
* Schmitt, Hans A. Quakers and Nazis: Inner light in outer darkness (University of Missouri Press, 1997). 
* Rausch, David A. A legacy of hatred: Why Christians must not forget the Holocaust (Moody Press, Chicago, 1984) 
* Bartov, Omer and Mack, Phyllis (ed.). In God's name: Genocide and religion in the twentieth century (Berghahn Books, NY, 2001). 
* Blackbourn, David. Marpingen: Apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Bismarckian Germany  (Vintage Books, NY, 1995). 
* Zahn, Gordon Charles. German Catholics and Hitler's wars: A study in social control (University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, c1962).
* Tec, Nechama. When light pierced the darkness: Christian rescue of Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland (Oxford University Press, 1986).
* Morley, John, F. Vatican diplomacy and the Jews during the Holocaust, 1939-1943 (Pub. House, NY, 1980).
* Ross, Robert W. So it was true: The American Protestant press and the Nazi persecution of the Jews, 1933-1945 (University of Minnesota Press, 1980).
* Noakes, Jeremy. The Nazi party in Lower Saxony, 1921-1933 (Oxford University Press, 1971).
* Childers, Thomas. The Nazi voter: The social foundations of fascism in Germany, 1919-1933 (University of North Carolina Press, 1983).
* Mosse, George L. (George Lachmann), The crisis of German ideology: Intellectual origins of the Third Reich (Grosset & Dunlap, NY, 1964). 
*  Hamilton, Richard F. Who voted for Hitler? (Princeton University Press, 1982). 
* Caron, Vicky and Hyman, Paula. The failed alliance: Jewish-Catholic relations in Alsace-Lorraine, 1871-1914 (Stanford University Press, 1988).
*  Michael H. Kater. "Everyday Antisemitism in prewar Nazi Germany: The popular bases," Yad Vashem Studies, 16, 1984 (p.138)
*  Henry Feingold. "Who shall bear guilt for the Holocaust: The human dillema," American Jewish History, 68, 1979 (p.261).
*  Areyh, L. Ungar. "The public opinion reports of the Nazi party," Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (p.562).
* Pulzer, Peter G. J. The rise of political anti-Semitism in imperial Germany and Austria (Harvard University Press, 1988).
*  Tal, Uriel. Christians and Jews in Germany : religion, politics, and ideology in the Second Reich, 1870-1914 (Cornell University Press, 1975). 
* Richard A. Landes (ed.). Encyclopedia of millennialism & millennial movements (Routledge, NY, 2000.) 
El_C
------
Addendum: I forgot to note that I have encountered scores of books on the subject written in German (without an English translation) on the topic of Nazism and religion, so I encourage German-speaking contributors to seek those also as the title of some of these strikes me as potentially quite valuable. El_C
===Nazism and socialism===
Sam, I'm disappointed that you would make wholesale changes to this part of the article without discussing it here first:
You replaced:
:Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist. 
with
:Nazi leaders were opposed to Marxism, and viewed idea of class conflict to be expressed through racial conflict, and saw egalitarianism within the "Aryan race" to be best achieved by removing "parasitic" races, or untermensch. The state control which was excersized was mainly in regards to the war economy, and while some businesses were nationalized, unions were as well. Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist. 
The statement "and viewed idea of class conflict to be expressed through racial conflict", aside from being ungrammatical, is wrong. This statement completely contradicts the fact that the Nazis actually opposed "class conflict" and sought to replace it with Volksgemeinschaft. Do you have a citation for the statement that the Nazis "viewed idea of class conflict to be expressed thorugh racial conflict" or is it just your POV? AndyL 19:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Central to Nazi ideology and propaganda was not the rights of workers or the need for socialism but opposition to Marxism and Bolshevism which the Nazis called Judeo-Bolshevism. According to the Nazi world view Marxism was part of a Jewish conspiracy. Rather than being afraid of the Nazis' "socialism" many prominent conservatives and capitalists supported and funded the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against Bolshevism.
AndyL 20:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazism and religion, references

message: Sam, I'm disappointed that you would make wholesale changes to this part of the article without discussing it here first:
You replaced:
:Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist. 
with
:Nazi leaders were opposed to Marxism, and viewed idea of class conflict to be expressed through racial conflict, and saw egalitarianism within the "Aryan race" to be best achieved by removing "parasitic" races, or untermensch. The state control which was excersized was mainly in regards to the war economy, and while some businesses were nationalized, unions were as well. Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist. 
The statement "and viewed idea of class conflict to be expressed through racial conflict", aside from being ungrammatical, is wrong. This statement completely contradicts the fact that the Nazis actually opposed "class conflict" and sought to replace it with Volksgemeinschaft. Do you have a citation for the statement that the Nazis "viewed idea of class conflict to be expressed thorugh racial conflict" or is it just your POV? AndyL 19:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Central to Nazi ideology and propaganda was not the rights of workers or the need for socialism but opposition to Marxism and Bolshevism which the Nazis called Judeo-Bolshevism. According to the Nazi world view Marxism was part of a Jewish conspiracy. Rather than being afraid of the Nazis' "socialism" many prominent conservatives and capitalists supported and funded the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against Bolshevism.
AndyL 20:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazism and socialism

message: Perhaps we should clarify that some discussing here agree with this statement, and some do not? Sam [Spade] 14:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I'd be interested in your response regarding the Hitler and Goebbels quotations on class struggle. Do you accept that you are wrong in this matter?AndyL 18:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialism = Marxism?

message: Please excercise reatraint when you insert text, try to back it up with references and do not make it strong worded (unless it is a documented proven fact) Andries 19:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is unprotected, please excercise restraint