An encyclopedia is a place for firmed knowledge, not for extra-ordinary hypothesises.
(They both point to France as the beginnings.)
Not as the beginnings of Nazism. Again, you take something which is true such as Rousseau's influence on nationalism and read into it something that is not true - that Rousseau is the "father" of Nazism. Nor is Bracher saying that Robespierre is the "father" of fascism. Why not try to read what is actually there instead of contort it to fit your own assumptions? AndyL 15:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The use of Nationalism as a tool of revolution was forged in Rousseau. Erik von Kuehnelt has written on this. This is not new. What you want to do is censor any scholarship from conservative ranks. Hitler was not the first to use nationalism as a revolutionary tool. WHEELER 14:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Proudhon Concepts Proudhon Hitler Mussolini wanted dictatorship X X X One Party rule X X X Attacked the Marxists X X X Attacked Democracy X X X " Parlimentarianism X X X Attacked Money Jews X X O Attacked Interest capital X X X Protect Private Property X X X Protect All Classes X X X Protect Middle Class X X X Protect Competition X X X (In the Marketplace) Place of Woman in Home X X ? Promotion of War X X X Protection of Family X X X Corporative system X X X New Social Order X X X Horror of Cosmopolitanism X X O Opposed Strikes of Workers X X X
Because he attacked Marxism, Was Proudhon a Rightist? Because he attacked democracy, was Proudhon a Rightist? The similarities between the three is unbelievable. Proudhon is a forerunner of Nazism and Fascism. Proudhon had a deep influence on Italian Fascism. Did Dexler and Feder get their stuff from Proudhon? It was Feder who attracted Hitler to the DAP.
WHEELER, your theories that National Socialism orginated with the French Revolution are not considered "mainstream" in academic circles and shouldn't be in the article. If this is yet another attempt by you to insert your POV that Nazism is a left-wing ideology that has nothing to do with reaction and is somehow the product of Enlightenment and liberal thinking then I really think you should write an argumentative essay and put it someplace other than Wikipedia. In fact, I would say if Nazism has something in common with any 19th century movement it would be Romanticism and Neo-classicism (the Nazis sure loved Plato after all and practically worshipped ancient Greece). AndyL 06:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, why do you describe fascism as a form of "national socialism" when it was not? Just because "national socialism" is a form of fascism does not mean the opposite is true. AndyL 09:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
National Socialism is an ideology. Hitler never coined the term nor created the concept. Neither did Mussolini. AndyL is confusing the subject because Nazism is so overwhelming in people's minds. There was a French party called the "National Socialist Party" before Hitler was ever around. National socialism should stand by itself just Like Marxism does. Does marxism talk about solely what happened in Russia. Is Marxism defined by the Russian esperience? Are the rules being applied the same? We have an article about Marxism and another about Russian communism. They are two seperate articles. Why are the rules different for national socialism????? WHEELER 14:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mussolini never described himself as a "national socialist". And what does Michael Barres mean when he says "national socialism"? Are you sure he's talking about the same concept as the national socialism of Hitler? Trotsky used the term "national socialist" in the 1920s to describe Stalin's theory of socialism in one country but he certainly didn't mean it as analogous to Nazism. Phrases mean different things at different times in different contexts. Is it possible you are cherry picking and citing usages of the term "national socialist" that refer to completely different things? AndyL 14:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER go to an encyclopedia, look up "national socialism" and see what it says and then you'll understand why we don't have separate articles on National Socialism and Nazism. Then go ask the editors of those encyclopedias why they don't have separate araticles on the "two subjects". AndyL 14:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just like those encyclopadia do not have the correct definition of a Republic. No one does. There is not a single textbook in America with the Classic definition of a republic. But there is one now on this website. American Universities do not teach about the classic definition. Because they are there to propagandize.
Give this time Andy Please, other people will coborate and work on this. It took six months on the Classic Definiton of a Republic. This will also grow. And I have to do research on this. There is needed information here. Prof Schapiro has no word for nazism he uses the term fascism for nazism. I am just following this man's lead and von Kuehelt's lead.
WHEELER 14:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, you asked me why not separate articles on Nazism and National Socialism, I respond by saying look at an encyclopedia and see if there are separate articles and you ignore my answer. And I think you should stop focussing on the two academics who happen to agree with you. This is not a Sternhall-Shapiro encyclopedia. If you're serious you'll also look at the broader scope of academic writing even those with whom you disagree. You don't get anywhere with tunnel vision looking only for people you'll agree with AndyL 23:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Prof Schapiro, Prof. Sternhell, Prof. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and now, Prof Noel O'Sullivan, Senior Lecturer in Politics University of Hull, Fascism pg 40, "Thus extreme nationalism, for example, is a characteristic of reactionary groups like the Action Francaise, which was in no sense a fascist movement. He quotes H. W. Schneider, Making the Fascist State ch 1. pp 13-14.
4 professors! That's not enough? WHEELER 14:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Nazi article should not be a spin off article. The Early National Socialism/draft should be renamed solely "National Socialism" and that is where the spin off comes. I don't think you are playing fair and you are abusing your place. I don't appreciate you taking my material, putting it in another article, redirecting the original post, then taking my material again and making a site with it. What's going on? WHEELER 22:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, all that quotation says is that the Action Francaise is not fascist according to the author. He's *not* saying that extreme nationalism is not a characteristic of fascism. You're reading something in that he simply didn't say which does not say much for your skills in reading or compiling information. You start with a fixed notion and try to force things to fit your preconceptions. This means that, quite often, you take something a scholar has written and read it as meaning something completely different. That's a problem with your habit of puttling quotes out of context without understanding the broader point being made.
As for the stuff of the non-draft page, that's about the only part of your article which is not POV. Nothing else I can see in your article belongs in wikipedia. If you want me to move it to Austrian National Socialism I'll do that. I made that suggestion originally with your article and you rejected it, remember? AndyL 07:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article is pure bollocks and needs substantial revision if it is to be kept at all. National Socialism, even in it's prior versions, has little or nothing to do with Nazism and Fascism: both Mussolini and Hitler themselves acknowledged their move to the Right and stated that their policies had nothing to do with Socialism; they were also strongly anti-Communist and sent hordes of (known or accused) Communists to the death camps. The collusion of Nazism/ Fascism with Socialism is the dominion of simple minded anti-"Red" historians and inane right-wingers who want to blame as much as possible of the 20th century's massacres on the Left. -- Simonides 21:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Simonides, Would you like a little Nazi quote to refute yourself:
Gee if he says it it must be true. WHEELER, you have to stop relying on quotations as *facts*. AndyL 22:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand why you insist on a section on Austrian National Socialism when you also insisted I create a separate article on that subject. Please try to avoid redundancy. Also, why a section on Italian Fascism when there is already a lengthy fascism article. It looks to me like you're using this as a vehicle to promote your own POV after it has been rejected from other articles. AndyL 22:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Mr." Wheeler, would Hitler be good enough for you? Look at this: Myth: Hitler was a leftist. Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.
Here are selections:
As Andy also says, quotes mean nothing when they are not backed up by facts, just as quoting the White House's claim that it fights for freedom and democracy tell us nothing about how much it abuses both principles. There is also ample analysis on the page - read it. -- Simonides 22:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also see: What Fascism Is & Isn't
More at the linked page. -- Simonides 22:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but the Nazi party told them what to do with it and what to produce and how much. WHEELER 00:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A rightist Mr. Simonides is a Monarchist. Hitler was not a monarchist and never was on the right. WHEELER 00:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Christ, I just began reading the article more closely in order to edit it. It's hilarious - someone should keep this under "Deleted Nonsense." -- Simonides 22:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is all sorts of people here that is not mentioned anywhere else. WHEELER 22:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would appreciate you not vandalizing this place, This is material that none of you cover. It is part of the Historical record. Leave it alone. If there is factual proof of what I say, leave it alone, If I made a mistake, please correct with references. WHEELER 22:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Communist ideology is widely studied in order to obtain insights into communist behavior; it is generally considered essential to our understanding of communism as a general system of social and political organization. There is no reason why an identical method should not be applied to FASCISM." Zeev Sternhell.
Communism just like fascism does not follow ideology when practicality comes in. "...and yet no one could pretend to discern in the October Revolution or in the seizure of power by other communist parties a meticulous putting into practice of the ideas propounded by Marx or Lenin or any of their disciples Zeev Sternhell
Consistency is the criterion of Truth. Apply the same rules of communism to fascism. This is accademic professionalism. WHEELER 00:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Did Stalin follow Communist Doctrine? Was he still a "Communist"? WHEELER 00:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Read this, Simonides. Sam [ Spade] 03:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER is conflating pre-existing parties or movements called "national socialists" with Nazism and fascism when, in fact, all that is in common among these groups is the name "national socialist". Prior to the Nazis most people or groups who used the term "national socialist" or described themselves as "national socialists" were referring to concepts completely different from Hitlerism. This may be an argument for a "national socialist" disambiguation page but the article itself is quite useless. It is in parts redundant of other articles and in other parts completly POV and idiosyncratic. The part of Italian fascism is an attempt to convey opinions WHEELER couldn't get into the
fascism article and the parts on German National Socialism that are not POV belong in the article on the
Nazi Party. There is an
Austrian National Socialism article (which WHEELER both suggested and attacked) which makes that part of the article unnecessary
AndyL 07:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You really have a lot of nerve making assumptions like that but as making false assumptions seems to be your motif I shouldn't be surprised. I'm NOT an American. first of all. Secondly, my family has lived under fascism, Nazism, Communism and social democracy. Perhaps, as a result, I'm better able to tell the difference between these systems than you are. AndyL 17:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, absurdly, writes in this article as if Czech Natonal Socialism had any relationship whatsoever with German Nazism, even suggesting an influience when, in fact, Benes was deposed by the Nazis and went to London to form a provisional government in exile during the war. WHEELER's article not only misses this major distinction between the two, it implies that the two are part of the same movement when, in fact, the fact that they have similar names is entirely coincidental. WHEELER's article is little more than misinformation. Even Sam who seems more interested in scoring ideological points than ensuring accuracy should see that. [2] Even more absurdly, WHEELER writes as if the Czech National Socialist Party was a wing of Austrian National Socialism when, in fact, it broke off from the Czech Social Democratic Party, the reason it was "national" socialist was because the Czech lands were part of the Austrian Hungarian empire at the time which Czechs wanted independence from. WHEELER's confusion is like arguing that Scottish nationalism is a branch of British nationalism or that Quebecois nationalism is a branch of Canadian natioanlism when, in fact, they are opposing and conflicting concepts. Either WHEELER's sources are bad or he doesn't understand what he's reading and is simply cherry picking things out of context that seem to fit his preconceptions. User:AndyL 20:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is simply wrong. The Austro Hungarian Empire broke up in 1918/1919. The Czech National Socialist Party was formed twenty years earlier in 1898. "Austrian National Socialism" and "Czech National Socialism" actually have nothing to do with each other. AndyL 20:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is an example of how you read what you want to read rather than what is acually there. This is what I actually said:
Where in that paragraph do said either that I am Jewish or that my relatives suffered in the Holocaust? AndyL 16:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Don't you think WHEELER should apologise for making anti-Semitic comments? Don't you think WHEELER's comments have violated the bounds of etiquette and civility? AndyL 16:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I do not understand Sam Spade's comment -- what were the other twelve examples? This is the first and only example of a contributor's anti-semitism on this page as far as I can etll. I do not understand how it is based on misunderstanding or miscommunication either. There is no doubt that the Nazis put non-Jews in concentration camps; no Jew to my knowledge would contest that, and I know of no instance of any wikipedian ever contesting that. Out of no where, WHEELER brings up the experience of his uncle -- something which has no bearing whatsoever on this article. remember, Talk pages exist to discuss ways to improve articles. But then WHEELER goes on to claim that Jewish communists destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church and that many Christians died in Jewish concentration camps? Not only does this have nothing to do with the article, it is simple, base anti-semitism. I think WHEELER should be banned for it, personally. At the very least it calls for a profound and sincere apology.
Slrubenstein 17:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
First, AndyL has authority because he has done research and presents his research in a reasonable way. Where on this page has AndyL claimed that he was right because relatives of his suffered in the Holocause? Second, I do not label as anti-Semitic anything I disagree with. You are lying, or hysterical, because your claim simply has no foundation. Third, the reason I call you anti-semitic is because you use "Jewish" as a slur, and engage in anti-Semitic slurs such as identifying Jews as communists and claiming that Jews built or maintained concentration camps for killing Christians. The first is a slur Nazis often relied on; the second is a form of the medieval blood libel. Finally, Sam Spade: no, calling for someone to be banned is not a "personal attack." Slrubenstein
Apology accepted. You are however not correct if you mean that calls for banning are always or necessarily civility violations. You are correct that they may be. However, banning is also a way to remedy incivility. In this case, I believe that WHEELER has been incivil for a long time, and has finally crossed a line; my call to ban is a response to his incivility. Slrubenstein
WHEELER, I ask you to retract your anti-Semitic attack on me above. AndyL 03:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sam claims:That wasn't an 'anti-Semitic attack' on you
See bolded comments below:
and then later:
AndyL 05:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have been asked to comment on this article. I don't regard myself as an expert on the early history of National Socialism, and there does seem to be some genuine scholarship mixed in the article. But its central thesis is nonsense, and arises from a (presumably deliberate) confusion of National Socialism (ie, the ideology of the Nazi Party), and national socialism, the various attempts to create national-specific forms of socialist ideas. Neither of these, by the way, have any connection with the French Revolution, except in the sense that all ideological systems are built on ideas which preceded them. I could argue that the ultimate roots of National Socialism are to be found in Plato, but so what? The article should either be deleted or purged of its pseudo-historical rubbish and the remnant incorporated into National Socialism. Adam 03:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Andy, I didn't slur anybody. Because a dog barks at a Jew, does that mean the dog is anti-semetic? Any criticism of the Jews is then an excuse to charge them with anti-semitism. Your, ANDY submission in each article of Fascism and Nazism is about smearing Christianity with originating Fascism and Nazism. Your anti-catholic bias is clear, yet I don't charge you with anything. So get off your high horse. WHEELER 14:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Josef Pfitzner, a Sudetenland German Nazi author, wrote that "the synthesis of the two great dynamic powers of the century, of the socialist and national idea, had been perfected in the German borderlands which thus were far ahead of their motherland." (2)WHEELER 21:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Gee if he says it it must be true. WHEELER, you have to stop relying on quotations as *facts*.AndyL 22:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is a classic ANDYISM. Let me tell you what andy here is saying. "SHUT UP WHEELER, Joseph Pfitzner doesn't know what he is talking about, let me tell you what to think, to hell with what an actual Nazi does say. But we need to all rely and bow to ANDY to please **INTERPRET** what he actually said." See Joseph Pfitzer an actual Nazi living in Nazi Germany doesn't know really what he is saying, because Mr. Pfitzer contradicts American Academia Propaganda and GROUPSpeak, we must all listen while ANDY re-interprets and explains to us how Mr. Pftizer is really a flaming rightwing fanatic. WHEELER 17:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is a place for firmed knowledge, not for extra-ordinary hypothesises.
(They both point to France as the beginnings.)
Not as the beginnings of Nazism. Again, you take something which is true such as Rousseau's influence on nationalism and read into it something that is not true - that Rousseau is the "father" of Nazism. Nor is Bracher saying that Robespierre is the "father" of fascism. Why not try to read what is actually there instead of contort it to fit your own assumptions? AndyL 15:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The use of Nationalism as a tool of revolution was forged in Rousseau. Erik von Kuehnelt has written on this. This is not new. What you want to do is censor any scholarship from conservative ranks. Hitler was not the first to use nationalism as a revolutionary tool. WHEELER 14:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Proudhon Concepts Proudhon Hitler Mussolini wanted dictatorship X X X One Party rule X X X Attacked the Marxists X X X Attacked Democracy X X X " Parlimentarianism X X X Attacked Money Jews X X O Attacked Interest capital X X X Protect Private Property X X X Protect All Classes X X X Protect Middle Class X X X Protect Competition X X X (In the Marketplace) Place of Woman in Home X X ? Promotion of War X X X Protection of Family X X X Corporative system X X X New Social Order X X X Horror of Cosmopolitanism X X O Opposed Strikes of Workers X X X
Because he attacked Marxism, Was Proudhon a Rightist? Because he attacked democracy, was Proudhon a Rightist? The similarities between the three is unbelievable. Proudhon is a forerunner of Nazism and Fascism. Proudhon had a deep influence on Italian Fascism. Did Dexler and Feder get their stuff from Proudhon? It was Feder who attracted Hitler to the DAP.
WHEELER, your theories that National Socialism orginated with the French Revolution are not considered "mainstream" in academic circles and shouldn't be in the article. If this is yet another attempt by you to insert your POV that Nazism is a left-wing ideology that has nothing to do with reaction and is somehow the product of Enlightenment and liberal thinking then I really think you should write an argumentative essay and put it someplace other than Wikipedia. In fact, I would say if Nazism has something in common with any 19th century movement it would be Romanticism and Neo-classicism (the Nazis sure loved Plato after all and practically worshipped ancient Greece). AndyL 06:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, why do you describe fascism as a form of "national socialism" when it was not? Just because "national socialism" is a form of fascism does not mean the opposite is true. AndyL 09:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
National Socialism is an ideology. Hitler never coined the term nor created the concept. Neither did Mussolini. AndyL is confusing the subject because Nazism is so overwhelming in people's minds. There was a French party called the "National Socialist Party" before Hitler was ever around. National socialism should stand by itself just Like Marxism does. Does marxism talk about solely what happened in Russia. Is Marxism defined by the Russian esperience? Are the rules being applied the same? We have an article about Marxism and another about Russian communism. They are two seperate articles. Why are the rules different for national socialism????? WHEELER 14:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mussolini never described himself as a "national socialist". And what does Michael Barres mean when he says "national socialism"? Are you sure he's talking about the same concept as the national socialism of Hitler? Trotsky used the term "national socialist" in the 1920s to describe Stalin's theory of socialism in one country but he certainly didn't mean it as analogous to Nazism. Phrases mean different things at different times in different contexts. Is it possible you are cherry picking and citing usages of the term "national socialist" that refer to completely different things? AndyL 14:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER go to an encyclopedia, look up "national socialism" and see what it says and then you'll understand why we don't have separate articles on National Socialism and Nazism. Then go ask the editors of those encyclopedias why they don't have separate araticles on the "two subjects". AndyL 14:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just like those encyclopadia do not have the correct definition of a Republic. No one does. There is not a single textbook in America with the Classic definition of a republic. But there is one now on this website. American Universities do not teach about the classic definition. Because they are there to propagandize.
Give this time Andy Please, other people will coborate and work on this. It took six months on the Classic Definiton of a Republic. This will also grow. And I have to do research on this. There is needed information here. Prof Schapiro has no word for nazism he uses the term fascism for nazism. I am just following this man's lead and von Kuehelt's lead.
WHEELER 14:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, you asked me why not separate articles on Nazism and National Socialism, I respond by saying look at an encyclopedia and see if there are separate articles and you ignore my answer. And I think you should stop focussing on the two academics who happen to agree with you. This is not a Sternhall-Shapiro encyclopedia. If you're serious you'll also look at the broader scope of academic writing even those with whom you disagree. You don't get anywhere with tunnel vision looking only for people you'll agree with AndyL 23:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Prof Schapiro, Prof. Sternhell, Prof. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and now, Prof Noel O'Sullivan, Senior Lecturer in Politics University of Hull, Fascism pg 40, "Thus extreme nationalism, for example, is a characteristic of reactionary groups like the Action Francaise, which was in no sense a fascist movement. He quotes H. W. Schneider, Making the Fascist State ch 1. pp 13-14.
4 professors! That's not enough? WHEELER 14:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Nazi article should not be a spin off article. The Early National Socialism/draft should be renamed solely "National Socialism" and that is where the spin off comes. I don't think you are playing fair and you are abusing your place. I don't appreciate you taking my material, putting it in another article, redirecting the original post, then taking my material again and making a site with it. What's going on? WHEELER 22:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, all that quotation says is that the Action Francaise is not fascist according to the author. He's *not* saying that extreme nationalism is not a characteristic of fascism. You're reading something in that he simply didn't say which does not say much for your skills in reading or compiling information. You start with a fixed notion and try to force things to fit your preconceptions. This means that, quite often, you take something a scholar has written and read it as meaning something completely different. That's a problem with your habit of puttling quotes out of context without understanding the broader point being made.
As for the stuff of the non-draft page, that's about the only part of your article which is not POV. Nothing else I can see in your article belongs in wikipedia. If you want me to move it to Austrian National Socialism I'll do that. I made that suggestion originally with your article and you rejected it, remember? AndyL 07:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article is pure bollocks and needs substantial revision if it is to be kept at all. National Socialism, even in it's prior versions, has little or nothing to do with Nazism and Fascism: both Mussolini and Hitler themselves acknowledged their move to the Right and stated that their policies had nothing to do with Socialism; they were also strongly anti-Communist and sent hordes of (known or accused) Communists to the death camps. The collusion of Nazism/ Fascism with Socialism is the dominion of simple minded anti-"Red" historians and inane right-wingers who want to blame as much as possible of the 20th century's massacres on the Left. -- Simonides 21:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Simonides, Would you like a little Nazi quote to refute yourself:
Gee if he says it it must be true. WHEELER, you have to stop relying on quotations as *facts*. AndyL 22:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand why you insist on a section on Austrian National Socialism when you also insisted I create a separate article on that subject. Please try to avoid redundancy. Also, why a section on Italian Fascism when there is already a lengthy fascism article. It looks to me like you're using this as a vehicle to promote your own POV after it has been rejected from other articles. AndyL 22:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Mr." Wheeler, would Hitler be good enough for you? Look at this: Myth: Hitler was a leftist. Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.
Here are selections:
As Andy also says, quotes mean nothing when they are not backed up by facts, just as quoting the White House's claim that it fights for freedom and democracy tell us nothing about how much it abuses both principles. There is also ample analysis on the page - read it. -- Simonides 22:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also see: What Fascism Is & Isn't
More at the linked page. -- Simonides 22:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but the Nazi party told them what to do with it and what to produce and how much. WHEELER 00:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A rightist Mr. Simonides is a Monarchist. Hitler was not a monarchist and never was on the right. WHEELER 00:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Christ, I just began reading the article more closely in order to edit it. It's hilarious - someone should keep this under "Deleted Nonsense." -- Simonides 22:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is all sorts of people here that is not mentioned anywhere else. WHEELER 22:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would appreciate you not vandalizing this place, This is material that none of you cover. It is part of the Historical record. Leave it alone. If there is factual proof of what I say, leave it alone, If I made a mistake, please correct with references. WHEELER 22:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Communist ideology is widely studied in order to obtain insights into communist behavior; it is generally considered essential to our understanding of communism as a general system of social and political organization. There is no reason why an identical method should not be applied to FASCISM." Zeev Sternhell.
Communism just like fascism does not follow ideology when practicality comes in. "...and yet no one could pretend to discern in the October Revolution or in the seizure of power by other communist parties a meticulous putting into practice of the ideas propounded by Marx or Lenin or any of their disciples Zeev Sternhell
Consistency is the criterion of Truth. Apply the same rules of communism to fascism. This is accademic professionalism. WHEELER 00:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Did Stalin follow Communist Doctrine? Was he still a "Communist"? WHEELER 00:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Read this, Simonides. Sam [ Spade] 03:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER is conflating pre-existing parties or movements called "national socialists" with Nazism and fascism when, in fact, all that is in common among these groups is the name "national socialist". Prior to the Nazis most people or groups who used the term "national socialist" or described themselves as "national socialists" were referring to concepts completely different from Hitlerism. This may be an argument for a "national socialist" disambiguation page but the article itself is quite useless. It is in parts redundant of other articles and in other parts completly POV and idiosyncratic. The part of Italian fascism is an attempt to convey opinions WHEELER couldn't get into the
fascism article and the parts on German National Socialism that are not POV belong in the article on the
Nazi Party. There is an
Austrian National Socialism article (which WHEELER both suggested and attacked) which makes that part of the article unnecessary
AndyL 07:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You really have a lot of nerve making assumptions like that but as making false assumptions seems to be your motif I shouldn't be surprised. I'm NOT an American. first of all. Secondly, my family has lived under fascism, Nazism, Communism and social democracy. Perhaps, as a result, I'm better able to tell the difference between these systems than you are. AndyL 17:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER, absurdly, writes in this article as if Czech Natonal Socialism had any relationship whatsoever with German Nazism, even suggesting an influience when, in fact, Benes was deposed by the Nazis and went to London to form a provisional government in exile during the war. WHEELER's article not only misses this major distinction between the two, it implies that the two are part of the same movement when, in fact, the fact that they have similar names is entirely coincidental. WHEELER's article is little more than misinformation. Even Sam who seems more interested in scoring ideological points than ensuring accuracy should see that. [2] Even more absurdly, WHEELER writes as if the Czech National Socialist Party was a wing of Austrian National Socialism when, in fact, it broke off from the Czech Social Democratic Party, the reason it was "national" socialist was because the Czech lands were part of the Austrian Hungarian empire at the time which Czechs wanted independence from. WHEELER's confusion is like arguing that Scottish nationalism is a branch of British nationalism or that Quebecois nationalism is a branch of Canadian natioanlism when, in fact, they are opposing and conflicting concepts. Either WHEELER's sources are bad or he doesn't understand what he's reading and is simply cherry picking things out of context that seem to fit his preconceptions. User:AndyL 20:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is simply wrong. The Austro Hungarian Empire broke up in 1918/1919. The Czech National Socialist Party was formed twenty years earlier in 1898. "Austrian National Socialism" and "Czech National Socialism" actually have nothing to do with each other. AndyL 20:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is an example of how you read what you want to read rather than what is acually there. This is what I actually said:
Where in that paragraph do said either that I am Jewish or that my relatives suffered in the Holocaust? AndyL 16:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Don't you think WHEELER should apologise for making anti-Semitic comments? Don't you think WHEELER's comments have violated the bounds of etiquette and civility? AndyL 16:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I do not understand Sam Spade's comment -- what were the other twelve examples? This is the first and only example of a contributor's anti-semitism on this page as far as I can etll. I do not understand how it is based on misunderstanding or miscommunication either. There is no doubt that the Nazis put non-Jews in concentration camps; no Jew to my knowledge would contest that, and I know of no instance of any wikipedian ever contesting that. Out of no where, WHEELER brings up the experience of his uncle -- something which has no bearing whatsoever on this article. remember, Talk pages exist to discuss ways to improve articles. But then WHEELER goes on to claim that Jewish communists destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church and that many Christians died in Jewish concentration camps? Not only does this have nothing to do with the article, it is simple, base anti-semitism. I think WHEELER should be banned for it, personally. At the very least it calls for a profound and sincere apology.
Slrubenstein 17:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
First, AndyL has authority because he has done research and presents his research in a reasonable way. Where on this page has AndyL claimed that he was right because relatives of his suffered in the Holocause? Second, I do not label as anti-Semitic anything I disagree with. You are lying, or hysterical, because your claim simply has no foundation. Third, the reason I call you anti-semitic is because you use "Jewish" as a slur, and engage in anti-Semitic slurs such as identifying Jews as communists and claiming that Jews built or maintained concentration camps for killing Christians. The first is a slur Nazis often relied on; the second is a form of the medieval blood libel. Finally, Sam Spade: no, calling for someone to be banned is not a "personal attack." Slrubenstein
Apology accepted. You are however not correct if you mean that calls for banning are always or necessarily civility violations. You are correct that they may be. However, banning is also a way to remedy incivility. In this case, I believe that WHEELER has been incivil for a long time, and has finally crossed a line; my call to ban is a response to his incivility. Slrubenstein
WHEELER, I ask you to retract your anti-Semitic attack on me above. AndyL 03:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sam claims:That wasn't an 'anti-Semitic attack' on you
See bolded comments below:
and then later:
AndyL 05:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have been asked to comment on this article. I don't regard myself as an expert on the early history of National Socialism, and there does seem to be some genuine scholarship mixed in the article. But its central thesis is nonsense, and arises from a (presumably deliberate) confusion of National Socialism (ie, the ideology of the Nazi Party), and national socialism, the various attempts to create national-specific forms of socialist ideas. Neither of these, by the way, have any connection with the French Revolution, except in the sense that all ideological systems are built on ideas which preceded them. I could argue that the ultimate roots of National Socialism are to be found in Plato, but so what? The article should either be deleted or purged of its pseudo-historical rubbish and the remnant incorporated into National Socialism. Adam 03:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Andy, I didn't slur anybody. Because a dog barks at a Jew, does that mean the dog is anti-semetic? Any criticism of the Jews is then an excuse to charge them with anti-semitism. Your, ANDY submission in each article of Fascism and Nazism is about smearing Christianity with originating Fascism and Nazism. Your anti-catholic bias is clear, yet I don't charge you with anything. So get off your high horse. WHEELER 14:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Josef Pfitzner, a Sudetenland German Nazi author, wrote that "the synthesis of the two great dynamic powers of the century, of the socialist and national idea, had been perfected in the German borderlands which thus were far ahead of their motherland." (2)WHEELER 21:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Gee if he says it it must be true. WHEELER, you have to stop relying on quotations as *facts*.AndyL 22:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is a classic ANDYISM. Let me tell you what andy here is saying. "SHUT UP WHEELER, Joseph Pfitzner doesn't know what he is talking about, let me tell you what to think, to hell with what an actual Nazi does say. But we need to all rely and bow to ANDY to please **INTERPRET** what he actually said." See Joseph Pfitzer an actual Nazi living in Nazi Germany doesn't know really what he is saying, because Mr. Pfitzer contradicts American Academia Propaganda and GROUPSpeak, we must all listen while ANDY re-interprets and explains to us how Mr. Pftizer is really a flaming rightwing fanatic. WHEELER 17:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)