Talk:Nazism/Archive 3

message: The article is too long. Nazism#Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts needs to be split into separate articles. I am going to focus myself on Nazism and religion, as that is an area of particular expertise and interest of mine. Lets go way out of our way to be civil and considerate of each other and the readers, and we should be able to get this article featured someday :) Sam [Spade] 14:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The path to featured article status

message: When I tried to make some minor edits I ended up cropping alot off the article, as its too big to edit as a whole (for me anyway). Can someone revert to the earlier version? Thanx -R. fiend 17:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and whoever does that, can they get rid of the pointless Hitlerism link in the first line? Hitlerism redirects right back here, and Hitler goes to a disambig page (is that right? Well, a discussion for elsewhere). Adolf Hitler is linked in the next couple sentences, and throughout the article, so that Hitlerism link is useless. -R. fiend 17:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Jayjg 17:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, Hitler linking to a disambig page was a very recent change, I just realized, so I changed it back to a regular redirect, to which I hope no one objects. I mean, when someone says "Hitler" they're not talking about Paula. -R. fiend 18:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Soemone help fix this?

message: Hi, I read through Mein Kampf and failed to see anything that indicates Hitler believed the word Aryan applied to any particular race, or that a particular race was superior to all others and thus deserved to rule over all other races.  I also watch films such as "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia" and see other races portrayed as equals.  Can anyone provide a citation that indicates the term "Aryan" applies to the race to which Germans belong (I suppose that would be "Nordic")?  I have the Manheim translation of Mein Kampf, btw.  Is there perhaps another source on this of which I am unaware?  From the speeches I have read, especially of Goebbels, Nazism seemed to be framing the political struggle along the same lines of Germans fighting to be free of Rome.  Goebbels seemed to have no problems admitting the Germans really were once a slave race.  This seems inconsistent with what is presented in this article. 
Note, there is no question Nazism found specific races to be inferior, such as Jews. 
Also, I am concerned with this use of "Aryan" as its original meaning is "noble" and many political groups elsewhere in the world use it that sense.  I haven't read anything that indicates to me Nazis or Hitler used it to mean anything else.
-soon to be registed
::: Mein Kampf was mostly for public consumption.  Hitler's own writings and the writings of his mentors such as Eckhart went into more detail on the caste hierarchy and the belief systems of the elite Nazis.  The population were never told the truth about the beliefs of the elite, just as in most totalitarian societies, because they knew that the populous could never accept such a twisted ideology.  Instead, they gave them excuses as to why they were behaving the way they were.  The population of Germany were told, for instance, that Jews were being relocated to Madagascar, and that the goal of such relocations were to separate out the races into their proper genetic and physical locations.  Many Zionists publically promoted Nazism at the time, because the illusion was that the Nazis planned to help the Jews move from their disaporic settlements to a new homeland.  If the evils of any major nation on this planet at this time, such as China or the United States, were publically exposed, they would appear in the eyes of many to be in some ways far more horrible than the Nazi regime.  These activities are kept under wraps for the purpose of avoiding mass outrage.  As an example, the United States Army, and even Alberto Gonzales himself, approved 100% of torture at places like Camp X-Ray and Abu Ghraib.  These tortures included raping children in front of parents to get answers, electrocution, and sodomising an inmate with a chemical light covered in battery acid.  Read the Abu Ghraib report for yourself.  This is typical horrific Nazi-like behaviour, and yet most Americans know little, if anything, of it.  All tyrannical governments behave in this way.  They feed the population, and most of their own underlings, lies, so that they will carry out operations for a government they would otherwise totally object to supporting.  The Nazi regime is in no way an isolated instance in human history.  It is merely a well-known example of a very common theme throughout the world.
::http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/aryan.htm El_C
:Oh you shouldn't have read that book, it's full of lies and it can fool you too. And you shouldn't have watched those movies either, the nazis only portray other races as equal to make honest people like you question their evilness. You will become very prejudiced if you continue to read about stuff, especially stuff written by the nazis themselves. This article on the other hand is extremly NPOV and you can read many interesting things about the evil nazis and stuff here, good for your education, dude. VarzaViezureMinz
::It seems sensible enough to read Mein Kampf and watch Nazi propaganda films if you have a serious interest in the history/ideology of the Nazis. Cadr 19:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain Varza was being sarcastic. As for what the Ayran race is, that is debateable - many people see the ideal as being Nordic, tall, blonde hair, blue eyes, but of course Hitler was none of those. However, it is well known he despised the Poles as well as the Jews and Gypsies. What other races, specifically, I do not know, though he didn't really seem to like Slavic people or Russians either. Ayran can be simply taken to mean of a certain line of descent (i.e. descendents of a certain group). See Aryan race. Titanium Dragon 05:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding "Aryan Supremacy"

message: I read somewhere about supporters/members of the Nazi regime/system carrying on terrorist or similar activities in the immediate post-war period. Can anyone develop this and make mention of it - a sentence or two would suffice. (Anon)
See werwolf - it seems to have been pretty low level.. Mozzerati 18:15, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
:Most of it was before the end of the war as well - after the war ended its activities declined precipitously. It isn't really more than a footnote to history. Titanium Dragon 05:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post WWII Germany

message: If anybody can think of pop culture entertainment involving humor and nazism, make a article called Nazism comedy. --SuperDude 21:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy about nazism 

message: a) it also might be worth including Hitler's belief in the lost aryan tribe theory - believe it was tied into Atlantis. THere was a recent documentary on Hitler's archelogists going to Neapal & Tibet in a belief they were descents of an Aryan warrior race ... yes, not only odd and overall, not many factual basis for their beliefs but it's still worth noting.
b) What is the pronounciation of Nazi? It's English, it's usually pronounced 'Not-zee,' is that based on the German pronounciation since it seems in English, the correct pronounciation is 'Nah-zee."
:The correct pronunciation is nat-see.  Today most people seem to use this.  But older Generations in Britain, the ones who lived through the war, often said na-zay.  --Doric Loon 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple requests 

message: Not a strong conviction, more flying a kite, but don't you think this article should be under the heading National Socialism, with Nazism being the redirect?  I know "Nazi" is used far more frequently in English than in German, but it is still a colloquial, name-calling kind of word, and to me it just doesn't sound serious enough for historical discussion.  I'm not saying don't use it, but at least keep it out of the headings, and perhaps alternate it with phrases like "the NS-period"?  --Doric Loon 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to move

message: Labelling the historical, undeniable fact that Hitler and many other high-level Nazis engaged in homosexual activities as 'hate speech' is absurd, non-sensical historical revisionism.  It is not 'hateful' to examine the truth of history.  Why is it somehow anti-gay or inconceivable to accept the obvious fact that many of those who publically denounce homosexuality are in fact themselves closet homosexuals or homosexual pedophiles?  This is exactly what has occured with, for instance, many priests in the Catholic Church.  Whomever wrote away the homosexuality of Nazi leaders needs to get a grip on reality and realise that they are not helping anyone by viciously attacking every piece of literature or history portraying someone (a specific individual) who just so happens to be of an unconventional sexual persuasion as being involved in evil.  We could just as well say that all of the historical facts regarding the homosexuality of many insane, evil, Roman Emperors was simply non-sense, because doing so would prevent 'hate-speech'.
For the love of God, people, get in touch with truth and reality, and stop behaving like such children.  The very fact that "hate laws" have gotten as far as they have anywhere is a testament to the increasingly paedomorphic mindsets of so-called 'adults', who, apparently on some kind of nostalgic acid trip, are attempting to enact federal laws equivalent to the rules governing hallways in elementary schools.
The necessary laws to protect victims of hate have existed for quite some time, and no new, elaborate, ridiculous, and indeed, rather totalitarian laws limiting free speech are in need of creation.
: Maybe, but the Pink Swastika is not a source, it's a pamphlet, nothing more; and a crappy one to boot. Most of it comes from interpreting limited facts with a 50s puritan worldview of what is """manliness""".
Comment: "Hear Hear!" -Dren 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Homosexuality 

message: How is it possible for the National Socialists to have been anti-Slavic when they allowed people with obviously Slavic names to join the party? One good example would be Arthur Seyss-Inquart who was Slavic and born Arthur Zajtich. There are many other examples I could cite but I was just wondering how they squared this with they're beliefs.
: They labelled the Japanese "Aryans". And that after having mentionned them as Untermenschen in the 20s. If Nazism was coherent and viable, we'd know that. Rama 09:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Slavism

message: Eugenics was a core theme of the German Nazis. Why remove the term when talking about purifying the race?--Cberlet 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That bullet-item is not merely about purification of the race. It is about euthanasia. It says: A belief in the need to purify the German race through eugenics [...] culminated in [...] involuntary euthanasia. --hitssquad 02:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugenics is the racial pseudoscience that led to the "involuntary euthanasia." What is the issue? Quest for racial purity + eugenics = mass murder. Please explain your problem with this.  Your response is much to cryptic to make sense to me.  I am trying to understand.--Cberlet 02:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the issue? If eugenics is the science of selective human reproduction, it does not follow that it would necessarily lead to selective euthanasia. If certain people are thought to have undesirable heritable traits and/or undesirable pedigrees, with the same ultimate effect on future generations as euthanasia would produce they might merely be sterilized. --hitssquad 03:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus the sentence reads: "A belief in the need to purify the German race through eugenics - this culminated in the involuntary euthanasia of disabled people and the compulsory sterilization of people with mental deficiencies or illnesses perceived as hereditary." For the Nazis, eugenics "culminated" in a specific set of decisions. The list refers to Nazi outcomes.  It is not a general statement on eugenics. --Cberlet 12:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing Richard Lynn, a well-known proponent of racial eugenics, to apologize for Nazi genocidal policies, is a real hoot. Breathtaking, really. I'm impressed with your Chutzpah. The overwhelming scholarship in this area supports the current text. Lynn, of course, is considered by many to be a notorious apologist for racist White supremacy. see this Google search, for example: . --Cberlet 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eugenics

message: There is no evidence that the Tory party was pro-Nazism. I'm removing these claims and I suggest someone finds a credible source to back their claims up if they wish to re-add them. Also, I don't know why there is a section on appeasement of Germany either since (a) it has its own page, and (b) it's got nothing to do with sympathising with Nazi ideology. - Johnbull 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tory support for Nazism"

message: >The text I reverted on corporatism was neither useful nor accurate. 
Well, I thought so, obviously, and many others in the world.
Many dictionaries and other sources say that corporativism is
the same as fascism.
"Fascism should more accurately be named corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
>The term corporatism was not used to mean rule by rich corporate plutocrats,
That is what became of the idea the pope had in 1891.
The simple fact is that the increased popularity of democracy and socialism
among the workers and the people of Europe and many other countries
at the end of 19th century worried the reactionary forces, like the church
and the rich capitalists. So they decided to do something about it.
The historical development during the 20th century is one long struggle
between capitalism and religion against democrats and socialists.
The capitalist side used fascism and corporativism as tools
to stop the workers from using democracy to further their cause.
Roger4911 14:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations. You have used a bogus quote to support a bogus analysis. Mussolini never wrote that text in any of the cited documents provided on hundreds of Internet sites/cites. Not all research can be slurped up on the Internet. Not everything on the Internet is accurate. And the Pope's essay on corporativismo was an explicit call for cooperation between labor and management and owners that sought to subvert Marxism by recognizing some worker rights, and the right of the state to intervene on behalf of workers if needed. It was a lousy plan, but it was not corporatism=fascism=capitalism. Check out the Corporatism page for the debate on this matter.--Cberlet 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporatism

message: The reference to modern left and right politics is irrelevant to Nazism. This is an encyclopedia, not a medium for political gripes, 71.193.3.242. --Andrey 08:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to modern politics 

message: Seems to be a problem with the template, at the bottom when you hit the "Edit" link it brings you to the Template:Fascism.  I tried a search for the Template:Nazi but nothing is coming up.   WritersCramp 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Nazi

message: There. Nazism was vandalized in the same manner that you vandalized Jew. It was reverted instantly, too, like the edits of Jew were. Isn't this getting silly? There are more productive things to do than go around equating Jews with ovens and Zyklon B. 64.12.116.197 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Anonymous Vandals of [[Jew]] 

message: I seem to be getting "fatal errors" when I look up the items on this page's main article's history. What gives?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history 

message: "Anti-clericalism was also part of Nazi ideology, although it was never acted on as the Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich."
"Never acted on"? Didn't the Nazis require all schools in Catholic regions to replace classroom crosses with portraits of Hitler? Weren't hundreds of priests harrassed, sent to concentration camps, or even murdered? (although most of the latter were Polish)
Also this phrase is misleading as "clericalism" usually refers to the Catholic Church does it not, while Germany is predominantly Protestant (something like 60/40)--sounds like someone's potentially (maybe even unconsciously) trying that old saw of highlighting the lesser complicity of the Catholic Church with the Nazi regime while neglecting to mention the (greater) compromises of the Protestant churches.
--Critic9328 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-clericalism never acted on? 

message: Barbara Shack 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies in Nazi Ideology

message: Discussion moved to: Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts--Cberlet 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism as key issue in Nazism 

message: I have just reverted major changes. There may be some legitimate material in what I'm reverting - I'm not sure - but there is no justification for its massive deletions of longstanding material. I do not have time to check through right now, but the removals of well-cited material were alone sufficient for me to consider this an objectionable edit. Also, the odd change of "Aryan", a term strongly identified with Nazism, to "Nordic" seems utterly inappropriate. However, I urge others to look through the material I removed and see if some or all of it should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits reverted  

message: I find a lot problematic about three paragraphs recently added to the Economic practice section, the first of which incorporates some older material.
To start off, not a thing is cited, and this could use lots of citations. The rest of my issues I will interweave with the text, following. I think this is the most efficient way for me to do this; if it proves confusing, let me know and I'll try something else.
:In an economic sense, Nazism and Fascism are related. They both followed the economic model of corporatism Fair enough under the banner of national socialism, — "Under the banner of" suggests that they used this term. Obviously, the Nazis did, but I don't remember Mussolini's fascists using that term, do you have a citation? which included government control of finance and investment (allocation of credit), strict supervision of industry and agriculture, combined with a strong influence of "corporate" business interests in the government's economic decisions. — Mostly OK (except for lack of citation), but the phrase "'corporate' business interests" is ambiguous here, given two different, relevant meanings of "corporate".It is important to note, however, that — Pure POV phrase only corporations aligned with the state's interests were generally allowed, — Probably at least mostly true, but begs for citation. I suspect that (at least insofar as this attempts to include Italy—and I'm not sure why it should, but that is how it is currently written—"aligned with" is too strong, something like "not opposed to" would be more correct. and many "corporations" within such states were simply unelected civic assemblies that represented economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. — Yes, that's pretty much how coroporatism works. "Represented" here seems problematic. "Designated by the state to represent" would probably be truer; again, citation would be good, but I'll try not to keep repeating that. This "corporate" power and market based systems for providing price information co-existed with a strong, militaristic welfare state that guaranteed universal employment, health care, education, and welfare benefits. — "Universal" seems problematic in a state that, for example, banned Jews from the universities Independent labor unions were banned, and a single, government-run labor organization was created to replace them. — Was it, in both cases, one single organization rather than a system of several? I seem to remember at least something separate for farmers. Citation would probably solve this. Sorry. Officially, the fascist and Nazi state sought to incorporate and harmonize all diverging economic interests. It was considered very important to unite labor and capital (workers and bosses) in order to combat communism. — Agreed. The international socialist (i.e. communist) call for the workers of all countries to unite was seen by fascists and Nazis as a mortal enemy of the nationalist spirit which stood at the center of their beliefs. — I'd put "internationalist socialist" in quotation marks—it's basically a Nazi phrase—and someone should clean up the weird construction of "the…call…was seen…as a mortal enemy The Nazis were inherently socialist, — Whoah! What the heck is that even supposed to mean? Can I raise a big red flag here, so to speak?  but saw the nation and racial interests, not the class interests, as being most important. — Fine.
:Hitler's National Socialists enacted a number of broad sweeping reforms — Fine. that were entirely socialist in nature, — Hello again: this seems excessive. "Drew from the socialist program?" Fine. But "entirely socialist in nature"? The exclusion of Jews from these programs was not socialist, the favoring of small businesses over large is not particularly socialist, and the singling out of department stores had almost entirely to do with the fact that they were virutally owned by Jews. This is the proverbial "socialism of fools." including major expansions of national health care, land redistribution, — Some of the land programs were the farthest thing from socialist: the peasants of Prussia were reduced back to virtual serfdom, although lauded to high heaven. inactment of old age pensions, universal free education (including through university for talented students), opposition to large department stores in favor of small business owners, opposition to private banks, and opposition to any corporate interests which were not closely aligned with the dictates of the state. — On this last: (1) are we back to the more contemporary meaning of "corporate"? If so, given the context, I would suggest "business interests". (2) Again, as in the previous paragraph, "were not closely aligned" is too strong, "were seen as opposing" would be more correct. It was assumed that all workers should be unionized, but that the strong central state should be in charge of said unions, not the workers themselves. — Is this true? Were employees of small businesses brought into the pseudo-unions?
:In truth — Pure POV phrase Nazism little resembled what either modern socialists or modern free market advocates today advocate, but at that time and place they saw their program of strong state control of the economy to be an alternative to both international socialism (i.e. communism) and liberalism. — Again, I'd put "internationalist socialist" in quotation marks; also, liberalism is not an economic system. Do you mean to say "free-market capitalism"? or what? Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recently added text and this discussion belong over at Fascism and ideology where this debate over libertarian/conservative analysis of fascism really is more appropriate.  The majority scholarship on Nazism should be highlighted here on this page, not a well-known minority viewpoint of libertarian/conservative scholars and polemicists.--Cberlet 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am discussing it here because this is the article where the material was added. I agree that it's not particularly appropriate here, but it wouldn't accomplish much for me to comment on it on another page. But if another 24 hours goes by and no one is responding to the issues I've raised, I simply intend to remove it from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair.--Cberlet 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  No answer (in about four days), so I'm cutting it.  -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long, problematic, mostly new passage 

message: There are a number of unnacceptable statements in this article I've noticed so far...
Italic textThe Nazis were inherently socialistItalic text
 
Italic textHitler's National Socialists enacted a number of broad sweeping reforms,
that were entirely socialist in natureItalic text
Socialism at it's most basic level means the democratic control of the means of production.  Clearly this was not the case in Nazi Germany. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 (talk • contribs) 8 Jan 2006.
:I agree. These claims are discussed at Fascism and ideology. They are a minority viewpoint. Should not be presented as majority consensus on this page.--Cberlet 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, neither was it the case in the USSR, Cuba, China, or any other "socialist" country, where everything ended up being controlled by the government élite. In fact, socialism is an intermediate step towards communism. In socialism, everything belongs to the government. In communism, everything belongs to everyone. So yes, you could say all these nations were socialist, even though they all ended up more like monarchies because "the government" revolved so much around a single person rather than being democratic. ironcito 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why anyone thinks that one can eliminate government by giving it more power, I'll never understand.  Sorry, just had to say it after seeing this.  Rogue 9 02:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism and Socialism 

message: This section cocvers some tricky ground in a relatively NPOV way (after lengthy battles). It is a curernt debate. It may be obscure, but it should stay, although I moved it down a little. --Cberlet 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuals & Nazis 

message: Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!--Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive|Improvement Drive]]

message: The Völkisch movement clearly fed some people into the Nazi movement, but there were many sources of the Nazi movement, and there were elements of the Völkisch movement that did not become Nazi. So "led" is the wrong word, unless a cite can be produced.. Otherwise it is an exaggeration.--Cberlet 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the wrong author was cited, I think it is appropriate to ask for the page # in the Peter Levenda book Unholy Alliance. I think the book's text is being exaggerated slightly.--Cberlet 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I was complaining about the way the text read before. Now it is fine: "The esoteric Thule Society and Germanenorden were secret societies which while only a small part of the Völkisch movement, led into the Nazi party." That's much more accurate. That's all I wanted to point out. Lighten up.--Cberlet 00:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is that I made a minor edit and was asked for a cite, only to find out you had the same book I was citing from. That was annoying. It seems to me you could have clarified what concerned you, rather than asking for a citation for information you had access to. In any case I agree the article is a bit better for my contributions, you're welcome. Sam Spade 11:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was the sentence structure created by you that introduced a minor error. The sentence you wrote: "The Thule Society was part of the Völkisch movement which led directly to the Nazi party," means that the Völkisch movement  led directly to the Nazi party. This is what I objected to as anyone can see by reading my first entry in this section of the discussion. You then rewrote the sentence to read: " The esoteric Thule Society and Germanenorden were secret societies which while only a small part of the Völkisch movement, led into the Nazi party." That straightens the matter out. Thanks. The cite only mattered if you wanted to defend the first version of the sentence. I am restoring the sentence: "Heinrich Himmler was one of the few Nazi leaders to show a strong interest in such matters," as it has mysteriously vanished without explanation. You're welcome.--Cberlet 12:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you seem unaware, I removed that because it isn't true, and is uncited. Sam Spade 13:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh, because the proper courteous method, especially on a controversial page, is to ask for a cite, before unilaterally deleting text. Since you claim the text is not true, I am sure you have a cite for that claim. In the meantime, I have rewritten the text with a cite. --Cberlet 14:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, thank you for correcting the information. Rather than wasting time asking for cites for false info, i simply make the needed edit. Try doing the same sometime, its great! Sam Spade 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not think that cites and facts are a waste of time.--Cberlet 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: of course we don't, or we'd be out getting bladdered and yelling about football instead ;) My point was more to say "Be bold", and cite facts, rather than taking other editors to task over editorial subtleties requiring little effort to mend. Sam Spade 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, point taken.  I do think you are a bit too bold at times. :-0 --Cberlet 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I you, but there are so many editors who agree and disagree w each of us to varying degrees, perhaps we can call it a wash? If you'd like to see a discussion of my being bold which is almost completely off topic (perhaps to give you perspective on how I get on w others) see User_talk:Sam_Spade#Wikipedia:Merge_of_Combatives_and_Close_combat. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Völkisch movement

message: Recently added; I cut it. "Federico Gustavo, the Nazi leader in Argentina, has committed many crimes to the jewish peoples in Buenos Aires.  He is considered a legend on the streets for his unorthodox methods of inhumane torture."
: Offhand, I have no idea whether this is true. I'm sure it is uncited and that even if true it would not belong in a general encyclopedia article on Nazism. Can someone explain what this is about, or is it just graffiti? - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federico Gustavo 

message: Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at  this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

message: That section in Persians and Nazism sounds really confusing to me. Do you have a source for it?
I have never heard anything like that before. From what I know the admiration was very one sided. The Iranian king Reza Pahlavi had some admiration for Hitler, partly because of love of Aryan race and partly because of hating the British, and he asked the rest of the world to refer to his country with its native name (which has always been Iran) not Persia. Iran means: land of Aryans so it is likely that he did it under the influence of Hitler. But here the story ends. I never heard of Hitler admiring the Persian Empire. Can I see a source for that?
Also what is this?   “Hitler also considered the Persians to be the master race more than the Germans”
Never heard anything like that before. I am very interested to see a source for that. This section is not backed up by any evidence and does not sound realistic to me.
Gol 10:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persians 

message: Are they?? I heard they were, but if HISTORICALLY they were used by the Nazi party which represented German-speaking countries, then why would it be illegal to use a Nazi flag?? It's the idealogy of the people involved and NOT propaganda items such as flags, badges, etc that counts anyway. The criminal-justice system works in such a way that CARRYING OUT ACTS OF RACISM IS ILLGEGAL, obviously, but POSSESSING A NAZI FLAG should not be considered illegal!! My mother's side of the family has VERY STRONG GERMAN HERITAGE, so this is an issue that concerns me to some extent.
Danmeister 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "For example, the German postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons." (from Swastika). Fightindaman 07:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are swastikas, etc banned in Germany?? 

message: I have altered the line  "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the dictatorship of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" to  "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the Government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" becuase i think to call the nazi party a dictatorship is far stratching the dfeinatation of dictatorship. It is important to remember the nazi's had a political party with overwhelming support, far from a dictatorship. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeorgeBuchanan (talk • contribs) 5 April 2006.
: "Dictatorship" does not refer to the means of ascent or degree of popularity: it refers to a monopoly of power, especially by an individual. Hitler may even have been (especially in the late 1930s) a popular dictator, but that doesn't make him any less a dictator. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is President Bush a dictator? He is the head of his party, and his party controls every branch of government. Drogo Underburrow 05:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   dictatorship