text:
Talk:Nazism/Archive 2

The article mentions that, some of the Nazi values were developed from the philosophy of Nietzsche. That is a false statement. Nietzsche's philosophy was deformed to fit Nazi views. Hitler used a few Nazi scholars to do that task and interpret Nietzsche's philosophy in a way favorable to Nazism. Nietzche's "ubermensch" is a different term than Hitler's "superior beings". Nietzsche never used the phrase "breeding upwards". The term "ubermensch" applies to a person, who sees and accepts the nihilistic nature of the universe and goes on with life with positive desire to excell. The "ubermensch" can be anybody, from any race, of any age.

Nazism and communism
What the article fails to mention is that nazism was not (all) anti-communist.

Points in case:

1) Hitler arose to power (parlimentary majority) by help of the german communists in the Reichstag. Then why is hitler's rise to power attributed to "conservatives"??
 * THAT'S INCORRECT. HE AROSE TO POWER AGAINST COMMUNISTS, HE MADE A COALITION WITH NATIONALIST AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES. HIS FIRST ACT WAS JAILING ALL COMMUNIST PARLIAMENTARIANS.
 * ONE SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GERMAN HISTORY BEFORE RUMORING HERE.
 * The user who posted in ALL CAPS is entirely correct (despite his style of writing). The only relationship between the Nazis and the Communists was one of violent opposition - there were countless street fights between Communist supporters and Nazi stormtroopers. And you should really pick up a history book, or at the very least read this Wikipedia article. Hitler rose to power with the help of the Conservative Party. Hitler's first government (the one in which he was first Chancellor) was a Nazi-Conservative coalition, dominated by the conservatives, not the Nazis. Hitler was Chancellor and the conservative Franz von Papen was Vice-Chancellor. Also, the very first political party banned by the Nazis was the Communist Party of Germany.

2) Hitler was on excellent terms with Stalin (communist) until Barbarossa in 1941. They agreed on the attack on Poland (and the division of the land area), and because of their amicable terms, Hitler persuaded Stalin to let him have Lithuania. Again, this doesn't sound like the actions of an anti-communist to me.
 * ROOSEVELT AND CHURCHILL (democrats)ALSO HAD BEEN ON EXCELLENT TERM WITH STALIN AFTER BARBAROSSA. THEY AGREED TO ANNEX EAST-POLAND TO RUSSIA.

 * I think "excellent terms" is something of an exaggeration, particularly when one considers Hitler's Anti-Comintern Pact. The Soviet Union and Germany had a non agression pact based on mutual expediency between 1939 and 1941. It was mutually expedient because Hitler wasn't ready to attack the USSR and wanted a free hand to attack France and the Soviet Union wasn't ready for war given that Stalin's purges had destroyed the military's command. In the real world you get agreements of convenience which don't come out of actually liking each other but out of expediency. Take the 1970s when China and the US were working together against the USSR even though China and the USSR were actuallly far more similar politically. Or take the "Big Three" during WWII. Churchill and FDR allied with Stalin not because they loved Communism (or vice versa) but because it was the expedient thing to do.AndyL 22:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Peter Perlsø 00:24, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

 * "Excellent terms"? They hated each other! The Soviet Union tried to thwart Nazi Germany at every step during the 1930s. See for example the Spanish Civil War, which was partially a proxy war between Soviet-sponsored communists and Nazi-sponsored nationalists. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 was the first time Stalin and Hitler even communicated with each other (and even then, they never met face to face). And, as the post right below this one has pointed out, all you have to do is read Hitler's Mein Kampf and you'll get a clear picture of Hitler's anti-communism. (not that Stalin was a particularly good communist - because he certainly wasn't - but that's another story) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I support the above view, read like this in a swiss history book used at schools. Verifying with 'mein kampf', it turns out that hitler opposed to communism from when he wrote the first part of the book, especially to the 'democracy' part of it.

 * Sorry but the soviets TRAINED german units in the 30s in tank combat this is established FACT i think alot of you need to go back and learn your history correctly. National socialism Is a socialist state with the STATE BEING all powerfull and the abolishing of religion over time. Himmler and Hitler both agreed National socialism and religion could not exist together.

nazis and the occult
what about the nazis and the occult? very interesting topic that i know nothing about.

 * I know alot about it but discussing it will generate a massive POV conflict w somebody, I just don't know who yet ;) Sam Spade 19:37, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It could be me. Occult didn't play a role in Nazism except if you happened to have the name of Heinrich Himmler. Andries 21:50, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The Nazi's wern't far off from a theocracy, even if Hitler wasn't a priest. Look into Germanenorden or the Thule Society if your interested in the Nazi parties real foundations. Sam [Spade] 21:54, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I have done that. I am afraid that we continue to disagree. Andries 21:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well.. w this little dialogue I'm afraid I don't see it as much of a disagreement. Do you have something specific to say? Do you deny these groups lead directly to Nazism? Sam [Spade] 22:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The top of the Nazis didn't dabble in the occult except Himmler whom Hitler allowed to do so. Nor did they use it as a propaganda tool. Yes, I agree that the Blut and Boden cult (the cult of blood/race and lebensraum/home-country) was somewhat romantic, almost mystical. But this can't be classified as occult in the generally accepted meaning of the word. Andries 08:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Clearly then the distinction os one of semantics, and not of substance. I see these mystical leanings as "occult in the generally accepted meaning of the word" and you don't. I think its a matter of interpretation of data, not one of the data itself. Sam [Spade] 09:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry but the soviets TRAINED german units in the 30s in tank combat this is established FACT i think alot of you need to go back and learn your history correctly. National socialism Is a socialist state with the STATE BEING all powerfull and the abolishing of religion over time. Himmler and Hitler both agreed National socialism and religion could not exist together.

Quotes
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)

SOmeone who has not been involved in this little revert-war has asked me to block the page temporarily. This is something I loathe to do, but I will do it if this goes on. However, I first ask people to resolve the issue themselves. I have not been an active contributor to this page and only just now looked it over. However, I have a comment for Sam Spade and others which I hope you will take constructively. I am not trying to take sides about Naziism, just about "encyclopedias." I agree that there is a place for quotes in wikipedia. However, I believe that we must be very careful about using quotes. In my experience in other articles, people often use extensive quotes to be argumentative (that is, to prove a point). This may be a good way to win an argument, but it is not a good way to write an encyclopedia. For one thing, this page is not meant to be a place where contributors work out some argument. An article ought to be a fair account of scholarly and popular debates. I gather that there is some question as to the relationship between Naxiism and socialism. By the way (for the sake of disclosure), I thought everyone knows that the word "socialism" is in the name of the Nazi party, but that Naziism has very little to do, in its form or functioning, and in its politics, with "socialism." well, that is just what I thought. I am not here to argue the point. My question is: is there any serious popular or scholarly debate on the matter? If this is not something over which there has been much debate, maybe it doesn't belong in this article, or maybe only in one sentence. If there has been a lot of debate, we should mention that debate. But I urge you not to do so by dropping in quotes. It is just bad style. Try to summarize the dabe (which scholars claim a historical connection or institutional similarity between Naziism and socialism; which do not; what are their reasons). Just dropping in quotes out of context is poor style -- and poor history. Quotes need to be contextualized; often times the context is more interesting than the quotre anyway. Please, try to work together -- or I will block the page. Slrubenstein

page blocking
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)

maybee we should block both Fascism and Nazism. Conduct a forum on one page of talk. Present all evidence together. History, Characteristics, Quotes, Economics, Nationalism, Sociology, Socialism with references. And work this out. I do agree that form and bias has entered the picture.WHEELER 18:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_scocialist_diagram.jpg

Can someone also put links to it. I work at a library. Tomorrow i will upload picture and resize it better.WHEELER 19:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * 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)

Is it socialist?
Cut from the article:

 * The Nazis claimed to espouse a nationalist totalitarian form of socialism (as opposed to Marxist international socialism). However, in the words of Massimo Salvadori, "By majority consent of both socialists and non-socialists, National Socialism (Nazism) and kindred movements are not considered to be socialist." Nevertheless, some (particularly right-wing groups wishing to discredit socialism) refer to Nazism as being socialist.

The above was reduced to "see nazism and socialism". --Uncle Ed 21:46, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems nazism and socialism was cleared and made a redirect to the main nazism article, however in a sub-discussion in socialism some of it still exists; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialism/Socialism_and_Nazism#Nazis_are_not_socialists too bad a lot of my points I see were lost, however. It ends, unsurprisingly, having an antithetical stand on the correctness of a national socialist definitional sentiment. Nagelfar 11:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The nazis were socialists look at the PARTY PROGRAM look at there core values of the STATE. Pro abortion, pro gun control, Pro healtchare of Its people, Pro education. Albeit it what the state says is good is what you learn THIS IS socialism or have you forgotten history.

Tried translating some stuff from german wikipedia
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)

Good News
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)

Definitions
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)

 * 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)

China
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)

 * 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)

It is relevent to an article on China, Maoism or the Cultural Revolution. It's a non-sequitor in an article on Nazism. AndyL 00:18, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)~

The problem is it's not actually representative of Maoism as a whole. Generally, Maoists perferred "re-education" of those with "suspect class origins" (the classic example being the last Emperor of China who, unlike his Russian equivalent, was not executed but "reeducated" and became a gardiner). Also, Maoists did not rule out that those of aristocratic or bourgeois social origin could become revolutionaries and there are examples of such in the Chinese movement. While Maoism is not consistent (hence the actions of some Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution) to take the example Sam cites and pass it off as representative of Maoist practice is misleading and POV. AndyL 18:04, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

Abuse of the relations of terrorists is common in Israel as well. This may belong in an article on collective punishment but it's irrelevent to an article on Nazism. I suggest that we focus on the topic at hand and try not to go off on tangents. AndyL 13:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

"Maybe you can't understand that," Maybe you should try to engage in a discussion without being insulting? "but clearly a larger section on Nazi racial policy is needed, not a smaller one" But not one that deals with the policies of the Chinese Communist Party. Sorry Sam, it's a non sequitor and you haven't put forward a convincing argument why it belongs in this article. AndyL 06:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

If you want to refute Levi, fine, but do it with facts. Your claim about China is inaccurate as has been stated before given the CCP's enthusiasm for reeducation camps. Just because you dislike Levi doesn't justify "balancing" him out with an inaccuracy. AndyL 07:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Communism is attraction of Nazism
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)
 * is that better? Sam [Spade] 22:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Just leave it as is. This is pretty accurate. Even fear of communism in general, is a pretty weak reason but it had little to do with a jewish connection. I think most of the main points have been covered. GrazingshipIV 00:24, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Attitude towards Genocide
"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)

Economic practice
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)

Nazism & Fascism
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)

Nazi system was centralistic. Gaue have to be compared with provinces, they just were administrative units.

POV and NPOV
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)

Snoyes censored even an external link http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge2.html that he didn't "like" in order to prevent others from seeing true historical eye-pooping photos.

This is ridiculous. There is nothing monstrous in the salute itself - it is only offensive because it is associated with Hitler, and these pictures were taken before the salute became unacceptable because of Hitler's association with it. This is just a ridiculous attempt at guilt by association, and provides no useful information about Nazism, which should be the purpose of external links. john k 14:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ideological Section of Nazism
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)

That is true, but it was never Hitler's political practise. His practise was replacing socialism by anti-semitism.

I want the article of National Socialism to stand by itself. It has a seperate history. Adolf Hitler did not coin the term nor the idealogy. This needs to stand alone. I want the article returned to its former self. Please.WHEELER 14:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The using of nationalism to further socialism which joined to make an ideology akin to international socialism. This formation of this ideology was going on in France, Italy, and Austria and Hitler only hijacked a small movement of this. The growth and concepts and players in this needs its seperate article. The Nazism article is already too large and will grow larger. Hitler did not coin the term nor its philosophy. It has earlier foundations that has nothing to do with Hitler. The article is a work in progress and it will grow larger. WHEELER 17:51, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look at top of page, where the proposed seperate article is located on National Socialism. If you have information to add please do so. Thanks. This idea of mixing socialism and nationalism came as a response to the class hatred and class warfare preached by the communists in France. This ideology needs to be traced and written about. WHEELER 18:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * what about singapore? Aren't they national socialist? Sam [Spade] 03:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, just authoritarian. AndyL 19:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will start the Austrian Nazi Party site. But National Socialism is an ideology all by itself. It is clear that Mussolini and Hitler did not form this ideology at all. It is a fallacy to think that Hitler invented this. It existed in Dexler, and in France before Hitler or Mussolini ever got involved. This seperate article is needed to lay out the different ways this ideology developed.

AndyL you are treating Nazism as if it was the Mother party of all. Nazism is not the "Genus" it is a "species". The National Socialist article is the "Genus" article that talks of the general rise of the idea and its different aspects.WHEELER 15:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

I agree with Andy - there should be a separate article on the Austrian movement. National Socialism should continue to redirect to Nazism. The two terms are, at any rate, identical - "Nazi" is just an abbreviation of "Nationale Sozialist" john k 21:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Czech National Socialism had much influence on the earlier German DAP. National Socialism existed before Hitler and Mussolini. It is an ideology seperate from these two. The National Socialism is only an article about "National Socialism" as they combined. This article is not about replacing the Fascism or Nazism article. It is about how these two are combined. The substance of the article is about the combining of these two elements and their general pre-history.WHEELER 14:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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? Or does this belong in the general article of "National Socialism"? What is common sense here? WHEELER 15:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC

I have added a disclaimer onto this: Disclaimer: This is not about replacing the Fascism or Nazism article. This article deals only with the creation of nationalist socialist ideology before Hitler and Mussolini. It is in no way an article that replaces these two articles. This is about the *pre-history* and its different manifestations throughtout the world. The substance of this article stops where Mussolini and Hitler took over their respective parties".WHEELER 15:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well your section on Fascism does seem to be an attempt to replace the fascism article or at least get arguments in which were rejected from that article.

 * 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)

First I am accused by doing original research but then, you take 3/4 of the article and place it in the Nazi article. Which is it? If you took the material and put it into the Nazi article then it must not be *original* research then does it?

This is common sense Andy. National Socialism deserves its own article. And a little over lapping is Wikipedian policy. Redundancy????

What you want to do is *control* everything about this matter. And anything that jeopardizes your POV is removed and hidden. The 25 point program was first made in 1898, 22 years before Hitler ever came around. Louis Napoleon had a type of National Socialism,he combined both aspects. This needs a seperate article where many people can contribute to our knowledge.

Andy answer this, Is National Socialism a creation of Adolf Hitler?WHEELER 14:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

WHEELER, I've moved your article to Early National Socialism/draft, that way it'll have its own talk page where things can be discussed while the work is in progress. AndyL 06:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is anti-intellectualism a key element of Nazism?
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)

 * 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)

Actually, that's not really true. Intellectuals who tried to cozy up to the Nazis (Heidegger, for instance), were generally rejected. john k 19:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know the view from 'Mein Kampf' which says that the 'people of the pen' should continue writing, but they're not considered the people of power who can take an active role in bringing on the new völkische view. (le)

Reaction vs revolution
From WHEELER: This is a catalog of all references to the revolutionary character of Fascism and Nazism. Nazism is in no way reactionary. This is in preparation for removing the term "reactionary" from the Nazism article. Ernst Nolte wrote that Fascism is reactionary. Modern research has disputed Nolte’s thesis.

I know that this will cause a huge uproar that is why placing all the facts up front for this coming battle.

 * Adolf Hitler at the Beer Hall Putsch used the term revolutionary. ->He also thought khe was the new messias.

 * Adolf Hitler wanted to call his party The Social Revolutionary Party. See Nazi Party. A fame... He never called his party like that.

 * Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini attacked reactionary policies, particularly monarchism, in the Doctrine of Fascism of 1932. They wrote "History doesn't travel backwards. The fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry." They further elaborated in the Doctrine that fascism  "is not reactionary but revolutionary" .

 * In Der Fuehrer, Konrad Heiden, the first biographer of Hitler and the National Socialist movement writes:
 * "Rohm coined the slogan that there must be a ‘second revolution’, this time, not against the Left, but against the Right; in his diary, Goebbels agreed with him. On April 18, he maintained that this second revolution was being discussed ‘everywhere among the people’; in reality, he said, this only meant that the first one was not yet ended.  ‘Now we shall soon have to settle with the reaction.  The revolution must nowhere call a halt." Pg 596.

This doesn't sound reactionary to me.
 * Konrad Heiden also writes of the New of the Nazis
 * "The new claimants: A youth creating for itself a new state. A new species of man....pg 145.
 * "...Hitler seized on it in his own way. He led the uprooted proletarians and the uprooted intellectuals together.  And this gives rise to a new man: "Neither of the two could exist without the other. Both belong together, and from these two a new man must crystallize--the man of the coming German Reich". pg 147
 * "He (AH) wants, once and forever, to do away with the old ruling caste; with petrified legitimists, and hollow dignitaries in gold-braided uniforms." pg 149.

The S.A. marches with silent solid steps. Comrades shot by the Red Front and reaction march in spirit with us in our ranks
 * In their Nazi Songs they sing against "Reaction".
 * Flag high, ranks closed,

Lift high the red banners! We want to build German labour's Road to liberty! The Nazis did not call themselves at all reactionary but revolutionary and their songs are revolutionary in character.
 * We are the army of the swastika,

WHY THAT? It was sold as a return to old-Germanic traditions. Roman law was initiated by Napoleon in Germany.
 * In the Nazi 25-point program notice that  they want to replace Roman Law with Germanic law.  This is NOT reactionary but revolutionary

->the old order of Christian, liberal and social equality.
 * The Conservative Revolutionary movement whose ideas the Nazis absorbed is based on Friedrick Nietzsche who wanted to destroy the Old Order.

 * The Conservative Revolutionaries were trying to develop a New Nationalism.
 * "New Nationalism" is used 10 times in the book The Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic. =Revolution aginst the democatic revolution, to restore the old state.
 * "Once traditional models of nationalism had been discarded, the difficulty of establishing a new nationalism encouraged a flight into a distant mythical past." Pg 33.
 * "but it also contains the vision of a new order of values which casts aside moral values in favour of ‘naturalistic’ ones." Pg 42

 * "This state will be radically different not only from Weimar but also from the old Kaiserreich, for nationalism is not reactionary but revolutionary. Pg 76.
 * "…the nationalist’s path is revolutionary…" pg 81
 * "Both Conservative Revolutionaries and Nazis knew disputes over the meaning of socialism, and both claimed to have transcended reaction and traditional nationalism". Pg

 * A famous picture shows Hitler admiring a bust of Nietzsche at the Archive in Weimar. Conservative Revolution, Pg 131

 Nietzsche wanted to destroy the Old Order and replace it all with a New Order. Clearly, Hitler and the rest were influenced greatly by Nietzsche. This is not reactionary. . NO?
 * A conservative revolutionary, Richard Oehler, "Nietzsche himself cleared the way for National Socialism, declares Oehler, and much of Oehler’s book is taken up with juxtapositions of quotations from Nietzsche and Hitler with the aim of showing that they both wanted the same things." Pg 131

Some Nazis believed that.
 * Hermann Rauschning’s definition of fascism, (This by a man who was there and saw it and talked with Hitler):
 * "National Socialism is an unquestionably genuine revolutionary movement in the sense of a final acheivement on a vaster scale of the "mass rising" dreamed of by Anarchists and Communists", Revolution of Nihilism, pg 19.

"It would be a great error to regard fascism as a counterrevolutionary movement directed against the communists, as was that of the reactionaries against the liberals during the first half of the nineteenth century. Fascism is something unique in modern history, in that it is a revolutionary movement of the middle class directed, on the one hand, against the great banks and big business and, on the other hand, against the revolutionary demands of the working class. It repudiates democracy as a political system in which the bankers, capitalists, and socialists find free scope for their activities, and it favors a dictatorship that will eliminate these elements from the life of the nation. Fascism proclaims a body of doctrines that are not entirely new; there are no "revelations" in history." ‘’Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism’’
 * Prof. J. Salwyn Schapiro's Definition of Fascism

Ernst Nolte gets this wrong. Action Fransaise was reactionary and no way fascist or a precursor of fascism
 * In Fascism by Prof. Noel O’Sullivan writes that "Thus extreme nationalism, for example, is a characteristic of reactionary groups like the Action Francaise, which was in no sense a fascist movement." Pg 40.
 * He bases this and concurs concurs with  H. W. Schneider, Making the Fascist State, 1928,  ch 1, pp 13-14.

Calling Fascism, "reactionary" is Marxist terminology which they called anybody that opposed them "reactionary" and "fascist". The facts do not bear out this out. Nazism is just as revolutionary as Communism was.
 * Prof. Noel O’Sullivan writes that it is a Marxist definition to call Fascism reactionary.
 * "The Marxist analysis began with the definition of fascism laid down by Stalin’s Comintern in 1933. According to Comintern doctrine, 'Fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chavinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital'." Pg 17.

 * In Fascism by Noel O’Sullivan talks of Nolte’s work in pages 12-16 and points out his errors.

 * In Fascism by Noel O’Sullivan writes:
 * "He hoped, in particular, that Nazi institutions such as the Labour Service would reintegrate the physical and spiritual sides of human nature, in a way which would produce the 'new man' . Pg 142.
 * "The present mode of analysis, by contrast with those just mentioned, makes it possible not only to identify fascism as a a truly revolutionary development in western political experience, but also to provide a precise, non-ideological specification of what the vague word revolution means in the connection.
 *  "Fascism was a revolutionary development, in the sense that it deliberately and explicitly set out to destroy the state concept upon which the western style of limited politics had been based for the previous five centuries and to replace it with something very different, viz. a ‘movement’. In this respect Mussolini and Hitler were alike.  Both adopted and implemented a style of politics in which there was no intrinsic regard for legality;  in which state and society were to be submerged in one all-pervasive movement; in which all constitutional restraints upon power were excluded, in principle at least; and in which the nation, as conceived of by fascism, was an essentially fluid entity whose territorial limits were to be determined solely by the ideological fanaticism of the fascist leaders." . Pg 39.

 Having a “New Order” is definitely NOT reactionary!
 * Alan Bullock in Hitler, a study in Tyranny, has in the index, the word New Order.  He has ten references to both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s New Order.
 * …"the revolutionary impulse in Nazism was diverted into challenging the existing order outside Germany’s frontiers and the creation of a European New Order, in which the big jobs and the privileges would go to the Herrenvolk". Pg 313.
 * "What the New Order would mean in practice..." Pg 659.

 * Stanley G. Payne in A History of Fascism, 1914-1945
 * "All of Hitler’s political ideas had their origin in the Enlightenment"
 * This is largely the thesis of Marcel Deat, in Revolution francaise and the German revolution referenced in A History of Fascism, pg 203.
 * "National Socialism in fact constituted a unique and radical kind of modern revolutionism." Pg 204
 * He quotes form Karl D. Bracher who wrote Zeitgeschichtliche Controversen um Faschismus Totalistarismus Demokratie (1976)
 * 1) A supreme new leadership cult of the Fuhrer as the artist genius
 * 2) The effort to develop a new Social Darwinist structure of government and society.
 * 3) The replacement of traditional nationalism by racial revolution.
 * 4) Development of the first new system of state-regulated national socialism in economics.
 * 5) Implementation of the organic status revolution for a new national Volksgemeinschaft.
 * 6) The goal of a completely new kind of racial imperialism on a world scale.
 * 7) Stress on new forms of advanced technology in the use of mass media and mass mobilization, a cult of new technological efficiency, new military tactics and technology and emphasis on aerial and automative technology.
 * Prof. Payne quotes from another prof. Jacques Ellul to wit:
 * "Informed observers of the period between the wars are convinced that National Socialism was an important and authentic revolution. De Rougemont points out how ‘’’the Hitler and the Jacobin regimes were identical at every level’’’.  R. Labrousse, an authority on the French Revolution, confirms that, to cite only two opinions….
 * "The practise of 'classifying', and thus dismissing, Nazism should stop, for it represents a real Freudian repression on the part of intellectuals who refuse to recognize what it was. Others lump together Nazism, dictatorship, massacres, concentration camps, racism,  and Hitler’s folly.  That about covers the subject.  ‘’’Nazism was a great revolution:’’’ against the bureaucracy, against senility, in behalf of youth; against the entrenched hierarchies, against capitalism, against the petit-bourgeios mentality, against comfort and security, against the consumer society, against traditional morality; for the liberation of instinct, desire, passions, hatred of cops (yes, indeed!), the will to power and the creation of a higher order of freedom." Pg 205.

 * The reactionary philosophers are NEVER  referenced either by Mussolini, Hitler or their compatriots nor by the conservative revolutionaries.  The ideas of the reactionary philosophers, Edmund Burke, de Maistre, de Bonald, and others are nowhere in any of the intellectual heritage of Nazism or Fascism.

 * Prof Zeev Sternhell writes in The Birth of Fascist Ideology,
 * "Fascism rebelled against modernity inasmuch as modernity was identified with the rationalism, optimism, and humanism of the eighteenth century, but it was not a reactionary or and anti revolutionary movement in the Maurrassian sense of the term. Fascism presented itself as a revolution of another kind, a revolution that sought to destroy the existing political order and to uproot its theoretical and moral foundations but that at the same time wished to preserve all the achievments of modern technology." pg 7.

 * Finally, Adolf Hitler said, '''We are the full counterpart of the French Revolution".

It can't get any clearer than this.

Is it not funny that the word "revolutionary" appears nowhere in the articles of Fascism or Nazism. I tried to put the word in there and it has all been reverted. Funny, how Hitler and Mussolini both use the word to describe themselves.

There are many reasons why Nazism is NOT reactionary and never was. This is not original scholarship but the recognition of O’Sullivan and Payne and their scholarship. Hermann Rauschning and J. Salwyn Schapiro, Zeev Sternhell, and Erik von Kuehnelt back up this conclusion. I have professors across the political spectrum. Each confirming Fascist revolutionary character.

Nazism is NOT reactionary and within a small period of time the word will be removed.

This was listed on RFC so I am giving my comment based on the argument presented.

This is by no means any easy call. I think some good points were made that the Nazis did not consider themselves reactionaries. The point I would make is that the term reactionary itself is defined by an "opposition to progress or liberalism".

Setting aside a rather loaded term like progress, Nazism's opposition to liberalism is very well documented. Both in social and economic matters the Nazis both ideologically and practically came down against liberal values in society. They were against anything resembling civil liberties (freedom of speech, free press, due process, free association, firearm ownership etc.) and fostered a heavily regulated and centralized economic system (which used slave labor). These practices were not revolutionary considering the conduct of past monarchies. Nor were many of their racial theories, which were neither unique or new in most cases.

The case for the revolutionary nature of Nazism is most strong when looking at Nazism as a synthesis of nationalism and socialism. This was indeed a fundemental change in the political system of Germany (and the territories it would later control). Also the Nazis while having praise for german history, were not interested in reinstating any German to power of royal lineage or trying to restablish past institutions. The Nazis in some sense did not want to take Germany back to the good old days but rather recreate the world in their image. Trying to recreate the world is inherently revolutionary.

I think the best idea is too provide evidence for both arguments rather than fighting over naming one. Thats my two cents, take it what it is worth.Arminius 22:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comment. Communism also restricted Freedom of speech, free press, due process, free association, firearms etc.  So did the Jacobins of the French Revolution.  The Nazis acted just like the Bolsheviks and the Jacobins.  The Jacobins were not for freedom of speech, free press and especially due process.

 * Reactionary means Church and Monarchy. The church was not helped and the Nazi's hated the royalty.  The Roman Catholic Church was attacked and repressed and after the war was to be be persecuted just like the Jews were.  The Monarchy was not restored.  This shows that Nazism can not be at all reactionary.  How can the Nazi's be both reactionary and revolutionary?  Is that not an oxymoron?WHEELER 14:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point is that lefties think they own the word "revoloution", but they insist on excluding Nazism because it’s unpopular. Ergo the nazi's have to be reactionary, because they (the lefties) want to paint their reactionary opposition as nazi's or fascists as an ad hominem in order to shame them. It’s kinda like how those on the right in the USA call their opposition "liberals", when democrats and other left wing Americans have essentially nothing to do with liberalism. Politics is the science of deceit, best as I can tell. Sam [Spade] 16:46, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article recognising that the Nazis (and fascists) regarded themselves as a revolutionary movement. However, I rarely if ever seen the Nazi rise to power or the fascist seizure of power referred to as a "revolution" and this is because it is not generally regarded as such in that the Nazis (and the Italian fascists) did not come to power by means of a mass uprising. In the case of the Italian fascists they came to power after the "march on Rome" intimidated (or gave a pretext) for the King to invite Mussolini to become Prime Minister. Hitler, also, did not come to power by means of a mass uprising but because Hindenberg invited him to become Chancellor due to a political crisis after which Hitler exploited certain events to force through an enbabling act that gave him dictatorial powers. Were the Nazis revolutionaries - they thought so. Did they come to power by way of a revolution, no. If you go to a library and look up books on the "German Revolution" you will find books on the failed Spartacist uprising of 1919 or the failed Communist uprising of 1923 but not on either the Beer Hall Putsch (which was an attempt at a putsch or coup d'etat, not an attempt at a revolution) or on the Nazi seizure of power of 1932. Similarly, you will not find books on the seizure of power by the Italian fascists under the category "Italian Revolution".

I think what WHEELER really wants to do, however, is "prove" that the Nazis (and fascists) were not reactionary and this he has not done. Rather schematically, he assumes that if one is a revolutionary one cannot be a reactionary. This is simply not true, the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which everyone acknowledges was a revolution (yes, even those "leftists" who "own the word"), was nothing if it wasn't reactionary. The reason for this is not the politics of the Iranian Revolution but its method - a mass uprising of the people to overthrow the Shah. Sorry WHEELER, but in theory there is no reason one cannot be both a revolutionary and a reactionary. Just look at Ayatollah Khomeini.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the Nazis had come to power by means of a mass revolutionary uprising they would still be reactionaries because of their policies. Therefore, while I would not object to having the article state that the Nazis regarded themselves as revolutionary I would object to the article, stating as fact, that the Nazi seizure of power was a "revolution" or to the removal of references to the Nazis as reactionary - particularly as they are fairly universally regarded as such with, it seems, the sole exception of WHEELER who thinks *he* owns *that* word and objects to it being used to describe Nazis because he fears that usage discredits the word. AndyL 18:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The Nazis did have some reactionary elements but I do not consider them reactionary. Hitler tried to get rid of the aristocracy in the Wehrmacht. He made friendship with industrialists because he needed them, not because he liked them. Hitler did not like a class based society. He wanted a "community of Germany people" (Volksgemeinschaft). He tried to improve the living and working conditions of the employees. He set up several institutions to do so e.g. Kraft durch Freude German language link about Kraft durch Freude  Andries 12:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Exactly, what he attempted was more than just revoloutionary, it was unheard of. Instead of the normal class system, he wanted an egalitarianism amongst ethnic germans, with a racial hierarchy or caste system of sorts (altho this is debatable, by many accounts he simply wanted to remove all "Untermensch"). Along with that take into account his focus on eugenics and a "master race", and you will see the attempt to paint them as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud. Sam [Spade] 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * This comment belongs on BJAODN. -- Spleeman 01:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nazi mythology reached back to a "German golden age", glorified Frederick the Great, called the state the Third Reich in order to recall the greatness of the First and Second Reichs of the past, idealised ancient folklore and classicalism, revered ancient Greek and Roman culture and thought (particularly Plato) etc. To deny that there was a reactionary nature to Nazism is to deny much of what Nazism was. As for Sam's idealised view of Nazi racial policy I don't see how that's either here or there. The point remains the Nazis did not come to power via a revolution, did they? As for "not liking" the industrialists, that's a rather reactionary view if you realise that Hitler's ideal was the pre-industrial and so called pre-materialist age of Frederick the Great. That he saw the modern aristocracy as decadent does not change this. AndyL 17:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * AndyL, it had reactionary elements but I disagree that it has a reactionary nature. I do not think it makes sense to find out to what extent it was reactionary. Instead the article should focus on its special, quite unique nature and describe this nature and traits without trying to classify it with the usual political adjectives such as left, right, revolutionary, reactionary, socialist, with the exception of nationalist. Andries 17:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the article should a) acknowledge that the Nazis often regarded themselves as revolutionary but should not state as a fact that they were revolutionary b) state that many theorists consider the Nazis to be reactionary or have reactionary elements in their thinking and explain why.

WHEELER's attempt to have the article state as a fact that the Nazis were revolutionary and not reactionary should be rejected out of hand. AndyL 17:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * AndyL, I agree that writing down as a fact that the Nazis were revolutionary is very wrong. With regards to the paragraph that you insered that about a reactionary movement, I think it is unbalanced unless some atypical characteristics are added. The poblem with that is that it would make the article too unweildy. So I propose to remove the paragraph that you inserted.Andries 08:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * To Sam, you are right on, Politics is always by deciet. Is that not how Lenin and hitler came to power.  Did not Lenin say something about "If you speak a lie long enough, it becomes the truth"!.  That is what knowledge and words are; they form "Politics" and therefore it is necessary to used knowledge and words in propaganda.

 * Mussolini's March on Rome was revolution and so was the Beer Hall Putsch. Hitler's mindset was on re-ordering the whole  of German society, education, politics, economics.  The whole kit-n-kabbudle was to be changed.  That is revolutionary.  The monarchy was not to be restored nor was Christianity.  There was open Lesbianism under the Nazis.  But they had children.  Homosexuals were arrested yes and put in the concentration camps, if they went to bed with prostitutes and showed that they would father children, they were let loose.  Their "reactionary" tendencies was not based on Christianity at all. To say that it was based on Plato is nonsense.  Plato called for the death penalty for homosexuality and for atheism.  He was totally against anything Hitler was for.  The American Revolution was not a revolution it was a "War of Independence".  It changed nothing but the head of state.  It didn't destroy the Christian religion or any other social aspect of American society.  Nazism is a revolution.

 * Last Point, notice all the quotes from books. Yet, Andy doesn't quote from a single source.  Zeev Sternhell modern scholarship, yet Andy wants to go against, Sternhell, Payne et al. WHEELER 14:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Nazi writers in Germany saw in Napoleon a harbinger of national socialism. The Nazi writer Franz Kemper wrote in the introduction of the republication of Konstantin Frantz's book, Masse oder Volk of 1852, that "The rise of power of Louis Napoleon is the only historical parallel to the National Socialist revolution of our day". Another Nazi writer, Michael Freund, wrote that Napoleon was the only real revolutionist in 1848. Still another German National Socialist, K. H. Bremer, realized that Napoleon found the real motivating force of revolution in the social question rather than the constitutional question of the republicans of 1848. "His great aim was to establish a political system based upon the unity of all classes and of all interests in France". (10). This was the answer to marxist socialism. Napoleon was the first to develop a national socialism. From (and references are there too) User talk:WHEELER/National Socialism/draft

Look their own writers called it a Revolution. Here Andy says nooooo it is not a revolution but even Nazi writers call it a REVOLUTION. Where in any Nazi literature do they describe themselves with the word "Reactionary". WHERE ANDY? DO YOUR RESEARCH instead of telling us how to think. You are very good at telling us what to think but not in doing research. Prove your point. Look I have Nazis and ex-Nazis and Hitler using the term 'Revolutionary' and all you can come up with is NOOO they were not revolutionary. WHEELER 15:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have 41 hard core points on the Revolutionary character of Nazism. Even the roots of Nazism in Austrian National Socialism say they are NOT 'reactionary'. "We are a liberty-loving nationalistic party that fights energetically against reactionary tendencies as well as feudal, clerical, or capitalistic priviledges and all alien influences." And yet Andy still persists in saying so. Look Andy in the 25 point program: It is a liberal (freiheitlich) and strictly folkic party fighting against all reactionary efforts, clerical, feudal and capitalistic privileges; I can not believe Andy that you want to persist in calling them reactionary.WHEELER 15:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Wheeler, even if the Nazis sincerely believed that they were revolutionary and claimed so in their publications then this is for me no proof that they really were revolutionary. Only their acts can prove it. Nazis were, I believe, misled and self-deceived like members of a cult. Andries 15:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Wheeler has without a doubt, successfully made the point that the Nazis considered themselves revolutionary. I honestly do not think that was a very disputed point. But wikipedia does not let history be told solely by those who it discusses (think if wikipedia gave every political movement the ability to define itself in its own terms). Giving that point to Wheeler, the question then is "Is there enough evidence to include that Nazism is a reactionary movement?". The answer to that question in my opinion is yes.

 * I personally come down on the side that Nazism was a revolution in that it fit the parimeters of A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.

 * That being said, there is a significant amount of people within and without academia that make a very compeling case for Nazism being reactionary. The points have mostly been made already (that the Nazis took over from within and that they opposed liberal values). The best way to NPOV this article is to include both sides rather than trying to fight about who is right or more accurate. When all is said in done its a judgement call based on someones own persceptive or POV.Arminius 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Mussolini's March on Rome was revolution and so was the Beer Hall Putsch.

Can you cite any historians who agree with you on this? Sorry WHEELER but neither of these events were mass uprisings. They were both attempted coups. That's why it's the Beer Hall Putsch and not the Beer Hall Revolution. AndyL 17:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC).

 * I believe it would simply be best to say that some view Nazism as a reactionary and some view it as a revolutionary ideology. Personally, I think it was both reactionary and revolutionary. That's exactly why it became to powerful. Ropers 21:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I said earlier: I think the article should a) acknowledge that the Nazis often regarded themselves as revolutionary but should not state as a fact that they were revolutionary b) state that many theorists consider the Nazis to be reactionary or have reactionary elements in their thinking and explain why.

Sorry WHEELER, but you haven't shown us why the article shouldn't say that many people regard the Nazis as having been reactionary. AndyL 21:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I fail to see why you view this as is a propagandistic fraud, Sam. It is my opinion that Nazism exhibits both, and it is also my understanding that this is generally how modern historiography treats the subject (i.e. a leaning in either direction depending on specific context). See my comments at the VP for slightly greater details. El_C

stop the bus!
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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

My view of this is you should either use both words or neither, preferably the latter, with a strict equality count. Certainly the way an organization describes itself is important but to regard it as anything more then aspirations or for gleaning support is dangerous. Both words are political insults, even "revolutionary" as it lumps people with al sorts of other barmy ideologies. "Reactionary" is particularly damning it suggests you are not even having ideas of your own, I do not now anyone who willingly calls themselves reactionary. Most revolutions have reactionary elements, Marxism celebrated pre-feudalism over feudalism. Fascism tended to be against "reactionary" elements such as the church and monarchy because they were a challenge to their own power. They were first and foremost "totalitarian", yes another insult. Tito said, "Any movement in history which attempts to perpetuate itself, becomes reactionary." which shows you the usefulness of that term. The words lack almost all meaning so they should be used either to cancel each other out or not used at all. MeltBanana 18:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

Discuss changes
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)

 * 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)

If I dare say, it would be nice that the amount of "many" and "some" is replaced by more detailed references in that article. Who are those many and those some ? Removing and replacing "overwhelmingly" seems to me a game which is not very serious. What is "overwhelming" I am not sure I understand well ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 01:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

I look forward to your RfC on the matter, complaining about changing a round bracket to a double square bracket will take the meaning of "picayune complaint" to a whole new level. AndyL 02:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protection
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)

Sam's revisions
Ok, let's deal with these one at a time. First of all, Sam, please give us your justification for changing
 * Nazism is usually associated with Fascism.

to
 * Nazism is usually associated with Totalitarianism.

AndyL

Fascism is different from Nazism, not having as its basis a sense of ethnic nationalism, but rather a purist respect for hierarchy. Both would be form,s of Totalitarianism, along w pretty much all communist states. Sam [Spade] 00:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) Nazism is a form of fascism. Yes, there are differnces between Nazism and Italian fascism just as there are differences between Italian fascism and clerical fascism, that doesn't mean they aren't all still types of facism. There is consensus on this in academia., specifically that Nazism is fascism in a racist, anti-Semitic form. The only scholar I know of who says otherwise is James Gregor who isn't exactly credible.

Sam, do you deny the accuracy of the statement "Nazism is usually associated with Fascism"? Are you contending that Nazism is not usually associated with fascism? AndyL 00:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I am contending that Totalitarianism is a more useful catagory to mention, and that Nazism is not contained within fascism, while they are both contained within Totalitarianism. Sam [Spade] 00:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not more useful because it's less precise and less specific. Also, most academics would contend that Nazism is a form of fascism. If you disagree that's fine but that's also your POV and does not belong in the article. If you want to say "Nazism is usually associated with fascism and totalitarianism" that's fine but I see no need to remove the reference to fascism as it is factual. Or do you think the statement "Nazism is usually associated with fascism" is factually incorrect? If not then I can't see how you can justify removing the word fascism. AndyL 01:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that "Nazism is usually associated with fascism and totalitarianism" would be fine. Sam [Spade] 01:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

as a side note, in what way is A. James Gregor not credible? Sam [Spade] 01:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He's a polemicist. His motivation is to rehabilitate fascism by disassociating it from Nazism. Also, given his history in the eugenics and segregationist movements most people consider him something of a wacko. AndyL 01:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, next, you changed:
 * After Austria and Germany's defeat of World War I—many Germans still had heartfelt ties to the goal of creating a "unified Germany," and thought that the goal, as well as the use of military force to achieve it, were both correct. For many, the utopian imaginary vision of a unified German nation became a kind of idolatry. Unable to blame their leaders, policies, and ideologies, many placed the blame instead on those who they perceived, in one way or another, to have "sabotaged" the goal of nationalist unification. "Jews and communists" were the ones perceived by many Germans to have been less than fully behind "the plan," and would become the ideal scapegoats for Germans deeply invested in a German Nationalist ideology.

To:
 * After Austria and Germany's defeat of World War I, many Germans still had heartfelt ties to the goal of creating a "greater Germany", and thought that the use of military force to achieve it was necessary.

 * Many placed the blame for Germany's misfortunes on those whom they perceived, in one way or another, to have "sabotaged" the goal of nationalist unification. "Jews and communists" became the ideal scapegoats for Germans deeply invested in a German Nationalist ideology.

To me it doesn't make sense to change "unified Germany" to "greater Germany" and then proceed to talk about the goal of "nationalist unification". "Unified Germany" and "Greater Germany" are not the same thing. The goal of the former is to unify all German speaking lands. The goal of the latter is to expand German territory to include lands occupied by non-Germans (and then presumably expel the non-Germans and use the land for new German colonization, see lebensraum) and I think if we're going to talk about German unification in the second paragraph it's confusing to change the reference to Greater Germany in the first.

Lebensraum is discussed in one of the following paragraphs in the same section. Perhaps we should add a reference to "Greater Germany" there?AndyL 01:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe, but you seem to be missing the point about greater germany. Hitlers rhetoric involves the uniting of all german speakers in one nation, by expanding the borders of germany into "greater Germany". Lebensraum is a related, but slightly different concept. I agree they should be discussed carefully, but I also feel I did so.

 * Re: gregor, he is a scholor and historian in good standing, w fine credentials. You may not agree w him, but I would assume I wouldn't agree w alot of scholors you might like to cite. As you and I both like to so often point out, the wiki is about the opinions of verifiable experts who can be cited, not of our own original researches or opinions. True NPOV aught to satisfy us all. Sam [Spade] 02:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since he's a fascist he's not exactly an objective source, is he?AndyL 02:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see the correlation. He's an expert, isn't he? He's a verifiable scholor, isn't he? Everybody has some sort of politics, don't they? Sam [Spade] 02:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as relevant to this discussion.

Stylistically, I think its bad form to refer to "Greater Germany" (which, after all, included part of Poland and was to include part of the Ukraine) in the first instance and "unifying Germany" in the second. We should be consistent and use one or the other on both occasions. AndyL 04:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * We are trying to explain what Hitler had in mind, and how he expressed it. He refered to quite a large amount of territory as "greater germany". Keep in mind that alot of polish and ukrainians spoke german back then, before there was a need for a Federation of Expellees. Sam [Spade] 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You know Sam, I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Whether or not Poles or Ukrainians spoke German would have been irrelevent to Hitler. He was a racial nationalist, not a linguistic nationalist. A lot of Jews spoke German too you know but that didn't impress Adolf much. AndyL 05:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Gregor is relevant if I am to use him as an example of a historian who disputes your interpretation of socialism, and see's fascism as left wing. We can discuss that on talk:socialism tho. Sam [Spade] 05:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now your interpolating your POV. Gregor does not dispute "my" interpretation of socialism. He doesn't say anything about socialism actually, you're just making assumptions based on your wishful thinking. a) Gregor views fascism as left wing ie revolutionary but he does *not* view it as a form of socialism. b) Gregor views Nazism as *right wing*. AndyL 05:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, you said that on talk:socialism. One of the wonders of wiki is that you don't have to say things twice. Anyways I'm off to bed, cya. Sam [Spade] 05:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble. AndyL 05:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and religion
The key changes made by Sam are in the "Nazism and religion" section. What are your justifications Sam? How do you justify removing references to Christian influences in Nazism?AndyL 05:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Clearly I disagree that there were Christian influences in Nazism. Can you cite some? Also, most of my "key" edits were to "Nazism and Socialism". Sam [Spade] 09:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I often disagree with Sam Spade about Nazism but I think that Sam is right when he says that there are only shallow (dealing with the form) Christian influences on Nazism. I propose including the following sentence.
 * "Hitler publicly declared that he was a Christian but some historians believe that this was mere propaganda. Hitler needed the support of the influential Christian churches.'"

 * Andries 10:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There are no Christian influences in Nazism. Andy.  I haven't read anything anywhere.  I do Know that Hitler was influenced by Marxists and the SPD and by the Socialists in Vienna. He copied them.  Unprotect the page Andy.WHEELER 14:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * No, do not unprotect it. It is a controversial and complex issue and such absolute, black&white claims do not do the subject justice (and it is about Nazism, not just Hitler per se.). One work by historian Steigmann-Gall, views Nazism as ultimately Unchristian, but still "point[s] out how much Nazism owed to German Christian, especially Protestant, concepts."

Steigmann-Gall, Richard. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Book reviews (amazon - editorial) for Nazi Conceptions of Christianity El_C
 * El_C, if you have read the book then I suggest you edit the section about religion. The book seems good when I read the reviews on Amazon. Please tell us what you know because the books make me curious. Andries 18:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, most of my "key" edits were to "Nazism and Socialism".

I haven't gotten that far down yet. Sam, if protection is lifted do you promise not to implement your changes unilterally as you did last time and allow for a consensus to develop here instead?AndyL 19:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I have not read it, I am only (somewhat) familliar of its role in the historiography. The following are works that could also prove of value:

Nazism and religion, references

 * 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)

Sam, can you please explain why you removed the following?
 * 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)

Indeed. The British historian, Eric Hobsbawm, in his book, The Age of Extremes: History of the World, 1914-1991, effectively demonstrates how few German capitalists supported the NSDAP in the pre-1930s and that most favoured the Conservative party, their traditional political ally. Yet, when it came down to making donations, they contributed to every-single political party (including the NSDAP and the SPD) except for the KPD. This tendency, Hobsbawm maintains, was motivated by economic reasons. Contributions were made to every party except the one under which maximum expropriations of property would be incurred. El_C

I am at a loss as how to respond to the questions and statements made by AndyL above, as anyone with a passing knowledge of Nazism knows that the Nazi's saw class conflict to be expressed thru racial conflict, and viewed the egalitarianism of aryans to be a central goal. If you are confused or unaware of these particulars I reccomend you research. If you refuse todo so I will eventually provide you with some references when I am less overwhelmingly occupied otherwise. Sam [Spade] 12:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"anyone with a passing knowledge of Nazism knows that the Nazi's saw class conflict to be expressed thru racial conflict, " Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide a citation. Please do so. AndyL 15:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question
Why does the current version of the Nazism and socialism section spend so much time contrasting Nazism with Marxism? No one that I'm aware of has ever claimed that the Nazis were Marxists, and there are lots of other types of socialism out there. - Nat Krause 13:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The reason why is that people wity a "Nazi's were not Socialists" political agenda are well aware that their case is best made by contrasting Nazism w Marxism, since Nazi's were Socialist in the sense of the word before Marx's time (he didn't coin the term, in case anybody cares), and as you say, clearly were not Marxists. See Straw man. Sam [Spade] 14:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The twentieth century socialist movement was overwhelmingly Marxist. Not only the Communist Party and its various derivatvies but social democracy, particularly the German Social Democratic Party, considered themselves Marxist until well after WWII (the SPD didn't officially drop Marxism until the Bad Godesburg conference in the late 1950s). Therefore it is germane to compare Nazism with Marxism particularly when it is claimed that Nazism is just another type of socialism or that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were basically the same. Even non-Marxist socialists accept class struggle and other elements which Nazism not only rejects but is adamantly opposed to. In any case, all socialists reject capitalism and seek to replace it which is something Nazism adamantly did not desire. (for the same reason most theorists would say that modern social democracy is not socialist either) AndyL 15:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "The twentieth century socialist movement was overwhelmingly Marxist" if one assumes that Nazis and fascists were not socialists. You cannot use the first statement to establish the second.  It may be a true assertion, but it is not self-proving via circular logic. - Nat Krause 16:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is, as ever, that what Americans mean by "socialist" isn't what Europeans, including the British. mean by "socialist". The U.S. definition is something on the lines of what Europeans would call "statists" or perhaps simply means "bad people". The Europeans see the roots of socialism as including, among other things, the events of the French and American revolutions, and make a distinction between communism and social democracy. Most of all, Europeans see a clear difference between Fascism, which was overwhelmingly in favour of harnessing private property interests in the interest of the state, and Communism, which was interested in abolishing them, also in the interests of the state. -- The Anome 17:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speaking for someone who made appreciable contributions to both the Karl Marx and Straw Man articles (if that affords me any credibility on these fronts), it is essential to note that Nazism was a pronouncedly anti-Marxist doctrine. The Communists were first to be sent to the concentration camps by the Nazis, years before the SPD or the Jews. The Nazis were against Jewish bankers and Jewish Bolsheviks, yes, but they were not so much against German bankers as such, whereas they were universally against Communists(German or otherwise). The battles between the red shirts and the brown shirts were the most accute and antagonistic of street battles in pre-Nazi Germany. I do not consider the NSDAP a socialist party (except in name) — not in the Saint Simonian, or Marxist, or Syndicalist, etc. senses — they were Kenysians and they were corportist; they believed in ownership of private property as the (overwhelmingly) dominant form of property ownership. That hardly could be seen as (what at the time we can define as) socialist or social-democracy. We must be cautious not to rewrite a 'history of the winners' for either Nazism or Marxism. That today the established European Communist parties are soc-democratic, and the Social Democratic parties are left-liberals is, for our purposes, largely irrelevant (except when contemporary defintions are confused with what these meant then). El_C

Exactly, we can easily rewrite the section on Nazism vs Socialism to refer to socialism in general and make the same argument that Nazism, unlike all forms of socialism as the term was understood in the 1930s, opposed the abolition of capitalism, opposed trade unionism, opposed "class struggle" as the socialist movement understood it (Sam's bending of the term "class struggle" denudes the phrase of all meaning) etc in fact the Nazis substituted "racial struggle" for "class struggle" they did not favour class conflict between the German working class and the German capitalist class, in fact they opposed it as "anti-social" and contrary to the concept of Volksgemeinschaft.

In fact, the Nazis were quite explicit in their opposition to class struggle. In his 1932 pre-election article "Why We are voting for Hitler!" Goebbels the party's chief theoritician (who, may I add, had been on the "left" wing of the Nazi party" having supported the Strasser brothers until 1926) wrote:
 * "He who opposes class struggle and fraternal murder, who is looking for the way out of chaos and confusion, this man will vote for Adolf Hitler" []

Sorry Sam, but that doesn't sound to me like the Nazis "viewed (the) idea of class conflict to be expressed through racial conflict"! In fact, quite contrary to your opinion, the Nazis viewed class conflict as a Jewish plot to turn the Aryan race against itself and undermine racial or national unity. Perhaps you can find some libertarian who agrees with your claims but the evidence within Nazi propaganda and Nazi writing supports the opposite view.

Now, I can hear you saying that what Goebbels said is interesting but his views aren't necessarily HItler's. Well then, what did Hitler say about class struggle?
 * The trade union in the National Socialist sense does not have the function of grouping certain people within a national body and thus gradually transforming them into a class, to take up the fight against other similarly organized formations. We can absolutely not impute this function to the trade union as such; it became so only in the moment when the trade union became the instrument of Marxist struggle. Not the trade union is characterized by class struggle; Marxism has made it an instrument for the Marxist class struggle. Marxism created the economic weapon which the international world Jew uses for shattering the economic base of the free, independent national states, for the destruction of their national industry and their national commerce and, accordingly, the enslavement of free peoples in the service of supra-state world finance Jewry. (my emphasis)

and later on the same page (different translation):

 * The movement and the nation can derive advantage from a National Socialist trade unionist organization only if the latter be so thoroughly inspired by National Socialist ideas that it runs no danger of falling into step behind the Marxist movement. For a National Socialist Trades Union which would consider itself only as a competitor against the Marxist unions would be worse than none. It must declare war against the Marxist Trades Union, not only as an organization but, above all, as an idea. It must declare itself hostile to the idea of class and class warfare and, in place of this, it must declare itself as the defender of the various occupational and professional interests of the German people. (my emphasis)

So, as I said, the Nazis did not view class struggle as something that could be expressed through race, they opposed class struggle outright and saw it as "the economic weapon" of "the international world Jew". AndyL 19:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poignantly stated. I wish to reiterate my earlier point though, that Nazism opposed all Marxism irrespective of its purported Jewishness (or rather, view it as entirely Jewish-led), whereas their approach as (would-be) socialists (which as mentioned, I argue they were not) was to only focus on those 'capitalist elements' (the so-called heights of the economy: banking, finance, industry, etc.) which were Jewish. In other words, the Nazis opposed all Marxists (as Jewish), but not all capitalists (just the minority of whom which they viewed as Jewish). Capitalists had a role to play within the Nazi state so long as they were in favour of Nazi ideology (very much possible), whereas it left no room for the existence of Marxists outright, and there is (ideologically) no chance of a Marxist supporting Nazism and still being considered a Marxist (by either Nazis or Marxists). El_C

 * And so, once again, we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Nazis were not Marxists, which was never in dispute. If the page can be easily rewritten to make the section in question refer to socialists, I suggest that that be done. - Nat Krause 08:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you not read the submission on class struggle which is a basic socialist concept not shared by the Nazis?AndyL 12:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Class struggle says that it is a Marxist concept. - Nat Krause 14:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, what does that prove? It is a concept that (widely) influenced non-Marxist socialists also. Atomism influenced people beyond Democritus, socialism influenced people beyond Saint Simon. This, I am afraid, strikes me as very much a straw man argument. El_C

 * What does it prove? It proves that this discussion continues to focus on Nazism vs. Marxism.  It's like if you're arguing with someone who thinks that Michael Collins is British, and you keep putting forward arguments that Michael Collins is not English (not just non-English but anti-English!).  No matter how influential England is in the British Isles, these arguments would be irrelevant. - Nat Krause 08:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is what it proves? Begin by asking yourself why such a focus would happen to exist here in the first place? Could it be becasue the main socialist adversaries the Nazi party faced in politics (both at the height and on the street), were the SPD+KPD — socialists of the Marxist veriety? Had they been syndicalist or subscribed to any other type of socialist theory, would you then be asking: why is this discussion focusing on Nazism vs. Syndicalism? Could you then employ that peculiar (albeit creative) example about England just the same? What I think you are missing, Nat K, is that Nazis vs. the Marxists (again, Marxist as in the type of socialist ideology of the SPD+KPD — that's why Marxist) is only one side of the coin. The other side is how the Nazis approached German capitalists, capitalists whom the socialists (the Marxist SPD+KPD) wanted extinct as a class. But somehow you find these considerations not relevant to the alleged 'socialisticness' or lack thereof exhibited by the NSDAP, which I find strange. El_C

Socialism = Marxism?
Perhaps we should clarify that some discussing here agree with this statement, and some do not? Sam [Spade] 14:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * 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)

Of course Marxism is socialism, it is a form -of- socialism, that is how the ideology is defined. There are other forms of socialism, and what we attempted to provide above was an answer to whether the Nazis were among these, was Nazism another form of socialism (socialism as in favourable to socializing the means of production -from- capitalists). The Nazi's approach to both Marxists and capitalists (as depicted by yours truly) was employed as a basis for such a measurement. El_C

The Nazis did not favour socialising the means of production. They were in favour of maintaining capitalism, albeit removing Jewish capitalists. Ergo they were not socialist. AndyL 18:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think, AndyL, that part of the confusion is derived from the mistaken understanding of Laissez-faire as representing capitalism per se. and that Keynesianism and Corporatism are forms of socialism — both are, in fact, forms of capitalism — since they entail a greater involvement of the State in the economy. Further added to this problem are the Nazis own rhetoric, occasionally proclaiming themsleves as socialists. Some people allow that rhetoric to pass as fact rather than study the actual system, when in fact the Nazis lied about this. The Nazis lied about many things, truth was not high on their agenda. El_C

Keynesianism is of couse NOT socialism. It does not call private property into questions and it is not a form of planned economy. It is just a method of controlling demand in a market economy.

Corporatism is corporatism, and not socialism, because antagonism of capital and labor is not abandoned. Institution of the free market is just replaced partly by corporate agreements.

Trying to speed this up
From dictionary.com: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively." From the New Webster's dictionary: "A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production." Etc. German capitalists needed to be sympathetic to NSDAP economic planning (and so, they did), but was (their) privately-owned property turned into publicly-owned property? Because that would be socialism. The NSDAP, notwithstanding all of their socialist rhetoric, never had any desire or intention on having 'collective ownership over the means of production,' not in the immediate sense, not ever. El_C

National Labour Law of January 20th 1934

 * Sam [Spade] 15:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So Sam, do you now concede you were wrong about the Nazis and class struggle, particularly as the labour law you cite contradicts such a concept?AndyL 21:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * No, but I do recommend you take an "introduction to logic" course at your nearest community college. As I have been making clear for some time, the Nazi party viewed the Marxist concept of "class struggle" as unwholesome, and thought rather in terms of racial stratification. The nazi's saw the "bourgeois" to be the parasitic races, rather than successful Germans. Their view was that wealth should be redistributed from the parasitic slave races so as to be of benefit to the "master race", or ubermensch. The enslavement of these groups would accommodate the need for unsavory tasks, with their concentration camps being economically much like the communist "communal farm cooperatives" and gulags. Sam [Spade] 11:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you stated earlier that "anyone with a passing knowledge of Nazism knows that the Nazi's saw class conflict to be expressed thru racial conflict,". You have yet to provide any evidence of this while I have provided a number of quotes that show that the Nazis did not view class conflict in this way. AndyL 14:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The nazi's saw the "bourgeois" to be the parasitic races, rather than successful Germans.

Next we will learn how the socialist, Hjalmar Schacht, ruined German capitalists with the Mefo programme, that is where an 'introduction to logic' ahistoricism will get us. Sam seems to confuse the Nazis' view on the idle bourgeois as -the- bourgeois, and if that is the case, tis a truly monumental error. Is passing knowledge good enough? Should I, on the same token, make recommendation for 'an intorduction to German history at a nearest community college' ? I think not. If one makes the claims that the Nazis viewed German (and otherwise) capitalists as parasitic, in an historical discussion one needs to establish: -- 1. Did they really -think- that? (as opposed to 'some' rhetoric — I argue, no).

 * a. If so, what did they further -say- on this front: could capitalists be reformed to be non-parasitic but still allowed to exist as capitalists in the Nazi State?

2. What did the Nazis -do- to facilitate the above? (whatever it may be)

 * a. How many capitalists were -actually- deprived from being capitalists by the Nazis compared to their overall pre-Nazi numbers. How many, presumingly pro-Nazi, capitalists were retained or added ?

-- In short, we should stick to historical evidence, clearly outlined, instead of voicing doubts as to the rational faculties of other contributors. Let such claims be implicit in (the persuasiveness of) one's own evidence. I am certain that if there is one thing that we can all agree on it is that this is a higher (and better) standard. El_C

The article is unprotected, please excercise restraint
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)

title: Talk:Nazism/Archive 2