![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I have added a couple of paragraphs to the Nazi theory section of the article outlining the key differences between 'Left-Nazism' i.e. Strasserism and 'Right-Nazism' or Hitlerism. I feel that the article treats Nazism as a too much of a homogeneous ideology when in fact it is far from that. Ideally a more developed Nazism Project should split Nazism into separate articles dealing in detail with the relationships between these various sub-ideologies.
Knucmo2 wrote (20:35, 31 Oct 2004) Adolf Hitler is said to have drawn upon Nietzsche in the article, and yes he did read a lot of work most probably by Nietzsche, which is made doubly obvious by his some of his concepts, which were a result of his misreading of the philosopher. The only ideas Nietzsche remotely shared I believe with the Nazis were his glorification of conflict (not necessarily military conflict, as so many blindfolded critics stoop to believe), and his collectivism ( Communist idea.) In contrast, Nietzsche's views of the difference between strong and weak, between masters and men, were a sharp contrast to the Nazi philosophy. Nietzsche's famous "blond beast" aphorism probably sounded like music to Hitler's ears, and he could made many variations on that theme alone.
The article is too long. Nazism#Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts needs to be split into separate articles. I am going to focus myself on Nazism and religion, as that is an area of particular expertise and interest of mine. Lets go way out of our way to be civil and considerate of each other and the readers, and we should be able to get this article featured someday :) Sam [ Spade] 14:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
AndyL wrote (18:32, 3 Oct 2004)
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)
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
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)
Nazism and religion: references
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 (4 Sep)
Sam, you tried to remove references to Christianity from the article except to call those who suggest there is a connection "anti-Christian" rather than base your edits on the discussion we had when the article was protected you've completely disregarded what was said. AndyL 22:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
WTF? I thought talk page flooding was vogels thing. Is there anything you are able to articulate, because the above isn't what I would call an effective dialogue
Try to stay calm. A talk page can always be archived when it becomes too lenghy. The list cannot be considered flooding if its items are pertinent. The point for it was to demonstrate that the topic should not be omitted so readily — listing these references helped to establish this. I urge you to review the comments that preceded these for further context. I remain hopeful that it proves useful here.
Inarticulately yours,
When I tried to make some minor edits I ended up cropping alot off the article, as its too big to edit as a whole (for me anyway). Can someone revert to the earlier version? Thanx - R. fiend 17:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't militarism be under "Key elements of the Nazi ideology"? It seems appropriate to me. They were very militaristic. - R. fiend 17:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, they were pretty militaristic, but the SA was such a mess. No wonder the army never liked them. Sorry totally irrelevant...he he... I mean, like, Hilter always wanted to (and mind you he obviously did) militarise again after the major cut backs because of that V.treaty, and that's not small matter....so yeah why not, go ahead and stick it the "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.165.36 ( talk • contribs) 31 Dec 2005.
Hi, I read through Mein Kampf and failed to see anything that indicates Hitler believed the word Aryan applied to any particular race, or that a particular race was superior to all others and thus deserved to rule over all other races. I also watch films such as "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia" and see other races portrayed as equals. Can anyone provide a citation that indicates the term "Aryan" applies to the race to which Germans belong (I suppose that would be "Nordic")? I have the Manheim translation of Mein Kampf, btw. Is there perhaps another source on this of which I am unaware? From the speeches I have read, especially of Goebbels, Nazism seemed to be framing the political struggle along the same lines of Germans fighting to be free of Rome. Goebbels seemed to have no problems admitting the Germans really were once a slave race. This seems inconsistent with what is presented in this article.
Note, there is no question Nazism found specific races to be inferior, such as Jews.
Also, I am concerned with this use of "Aryan" as its original meaning is "noble" and many political groups elsewhere in the world use it that sense. I haven't read anything that indicates to me Nazis or Hitler used it to mean anything else.
I have never seen the term "spelling Gestapo" anywhere before here. Generally, people who are sticklers for proper spelling and grammar are known as "grammar Nazis" instead. I've taken the liberty to change the former term. -- coldacid 17:48, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
I read somewhere about supporters/members of the Nazi regime/system carrying on terrorist or similar activities in the immediate post-war period. Can anyone develop this and make mention of it - a sentence or two would suffice. (Anon)
See werwolf - it seems to have been pretty low level.. Mozzerati 18:15, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
Yeah they were called werwolf cells but the biggest attacks they launched killed only 40 or 50 people and were realatively innefective they also were told by superior officers to hide weapons in caches but they had children hide them and most of them blew up on route also the Russians found most of their supplies -Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
where i live, wich is Chile (and i think it aplies to most of the world), there are still a few neo-nazi movements, they usually are youths that couldnt find their way into society and decided from night to morning to become nazi (in almost the same way of punk movements). They dont have any real intencions more than to drink a lot and to gang attack what they consider inferior (homosexuals, for example), the usual risk of them, is that they grow in number with their chauvinistic ideology (the population of Chile is hardly aryan, yet, they still believe that they could had made the ranks of the third reich).
-Yeah they are idiots and would be sent ot the death camps like Dachau just like every other non aryan person -Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
The so-called Mussolini quote where he is claimed to have equated fascism with corporate power is a fake or a terrible translation. This quote does not appear in the original Italian encyclopedia text or any of the English translations from that period. I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter: Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers). I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Finally I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. We had a whole discussion of this over on the Talk:Benito Mussolini page. I removed it from this page and the page on corporatism. I have photocopies of all the original documents in front of me. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from an original document.-- Cberlet 19:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article is in need of serious overhaul on some of its terminology. In its present form it often uses terms such as socialist, marxist, and communist interchangably as if they were one in the same or synonymous to a degree that would support this. They are not. The three terms are related to each other and similar in some ways but each is a precise word with a precise definition (marxism, for example, refers specifically to the subset of communist ideology that derives from Karl Marx and his successors). The role of the term "socialist" in national socialism derives from a very specific conceptualization of the relationship between the people and the state that is itself a variant upon the traditional definition of socialism. The controversy of whether national socialism is socialist is thus an extension of the development of that variant definition - not whether Hitler was friends with a bunch of factory owners. Please see the section on the role of the nation & the edits I made. Rangerdude 08:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In comparison, many socialists refute ...
In comparison other socialist ideologies reject ...
Whenever one could demonstrate a need for it to be noted in this article, that's fine; largely it doesen't though, is my point, because it goes off topic (i.e. as already mentioned, both the SPD and KPD considered themsleves Marxist, and historically, in that sense, they are really key). El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do find your changes to be POV El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
and that they ignore much of the past discussions and consensus painfuly arrived at with respect to this specific subject. Have you read what I and others had written in this talk page concerning the issue of Nazism and Socialism? I ask that because I wish to avoid repeating myself on that front as much as it is possible. When you simply insert such passages as the ones disputed without having a discussion of it specifically (and I'll reiterate: one which takes into account prior ones), without attempting to establish consensus, these outcomes, these objections to your changes, should not be a surprise to you (they should not because I automatically consider you an inteligent person with rational and critical faculties of observation).
Therefore, when you go on, against/without consensus, to also explicitly state your position on Nazism viz. Socialism in other articles that are on my watchlist, a similar response (to similarly unilateral) changes should not be surprising to you on that front, either. At any rate, my position is that unilateral action (or innuendo about gatekeeping, N/POV, tages, etc.), will not do for the controversial changes you are calling for to be retained. For an issue of this magnitude (both theoretically in general, and in terms of past disputes, discussions and consensus here, specifically), frankly, I am more than a little surprised you considered the above comments (which, again, I wish to stress, do not even touch on the issue of Nazism's relationship to Socialism) as sufficient. I hope I have made my position clear, please let me know if you need for me to elaborate or elucidate anything that I have said here (or anything I did not) and we can discuss the issue both colegially and substantively. El_C 21:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And pejorative terms tend to indicate POV. This is not an article from the socialist POV. It is an article from a _neutral_ POV. Since the reference is to what could be otherwise described as corporate business or large corporations in neutral language, this link should be changed. Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is a problem when the object of this medium is to be concise and the large number of redundancies in this article (which often consist of the exact same things stated for the exact same purpose only 2 or 3 paragraphs apart) are evidence that it is poorly written, and possibly written with a POV that emphasizes those points through repetition. Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is a very large section on Nazism and Socialism. Obvious case of well-poisoning (poisoning the Socialist well, of course). Clearly there was some socialist influence in the party's early days as the German Workers's Party (I wouldn't deny that socialists in many countries often had "white supremacist" views - eg Jack London) but by 1933 only the Socialist title remained. A brief discussion of this, about the same length as those on the links with other ideologies, should be enough.
81.156.102.204 21:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have to disagree with this article here on one thing. Italic text# Racism
Racism is not a major pillar of Nazi beleif. Origionally, Nazism was a purley Pro-German movement with little or no racist overtones. However, People like Heinrich Himmler and and Adolf Hitler used their power to promote Anti-Semitism and Racist. That also rules out Euthanasia in that particular case. Simple fact is, most Nazis, including my Grandfather, knew nothing about the concentration camps. If it was not for those 'missassumptions' I may be considered a Nazi, however I am not racist against anyone and I do not beleive in Euthanasia. And I'm of Italian-Austrian Decent. Therefore I am not a member of the superior 'Nordic' race. Thank you
I understand that "sozi" is a derogatory abbreviation for "socialist" in German. However, I thought that this was by analogy to "Nazi", and that the latter was simply a neutral abbreviation used by the Nazis themselves. Is this wrong? -- FOo 15:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nazi wasn't used in Germany during that time period. It was the NSPDA, and thats what it was called. Thank you.
I'm coming to this page because I expect it is closely watched by people who have had to think through the balancing act needed to properly present uncomplimentary history. I am starting a discussion on how to balance history that is derogatory (or viewed by some as derogatory). I put my more detailed request at the Village Pump.
Why are the writings of these two Usenet fucktards, Steve Kangas, a psychotic delusional who probably intended to murder Richard Mellon Scaife, but ended up committing suicide in a bathroom across from his office, and Glen Yeadon, a total illiterate, given so much as a shred of credibility here? Both articles are premised on bullshit, and have long since been discussed and discarded on Usenet and elsewhere.
And why somebody (without explanations and without any right) deletes entries with different opinions, like this one?
If anybody can think of pop culture entertainment involving humor and nazism, make a article called Nazism comedy. -- SuperDude 21:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the Mel Brooks film "The Producers" , or various British comedies such as Allo Allo might count, although it is debatable whether these actually deal directly with Nazism. What about the Charlie Chaplin film 'The Great Dictator;? Will Lakeman 19:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Strangelove? 64.12.116.197 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Then there are both versions of To Be or Not to Be. And of course a lot of propaganda cartoons. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe think back to the time when it was really relevant, like Charly Chaplin and´The Great Dictator´. There must have been a lot more.
I heard of a film called "Beautiful Lives" that takes place in a concentration camp. I haven't actually seen it though, so I'm not sure if it's a comedy. Has anyone here seen it? Mayuko 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
One could add the American sitcom Hogan's Heroes. — Michael J 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to add Hogan's Heroes (which you should! Werner Klemperer, who played the camp kommandant, was Jewish and initially thought the series was going to be a drama, not sitcom. He only agreed to play a Nazi on the condition that the Nazis lost in every episode), you should add the film and play Stalag 17, on which Hogan's Heroes is (perhaps a bit too closely) based. Possibly the film Liberty Heights, as well, but that's a bit of a stretch (one scene where a Jewish kid dresses as Hitler for Halloween). Then there's always Art Speigleman's graphic novels Maus, but I suppose it depends on whether you believe that's comedy. Monty Python's Flying Circus has a number of sketches involving Nazis as well. Apparently there's a British sitcom about the French resistance fighters, which is a pisstake of all involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.240.16 ( talk • contribs) 16 April 2006.
The claim that the British Conservative Party viewed Hitler as 'the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism' is a lie. Individuals within the Tory party did believe this but it was never party policy to actively support Hitler. I think this claim should be removed.
This claim should definitely be removed what are you talking about can anyone actually substatiate these claims the British Conservatives said this
Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
a) it also might be worth including Hitler's belief in the lost aryan tribe theory - believe it was tied into Atlantis. THere was a recent documentary on Hitler's archelogists going to Neapal & Tibet in a belief they were descents of an Aryan warrior race ... yes, not only odd and overall, not many factual basis for their beliefs but it's still worth noting.
b) What is the pronounciation of Nazi? It's English, it's usually pronounced 'Not-zee,' is that based on the German pronounciation since it seems in English, the correct pronounciation is 'Nah-zee."
Is that 'nat-see' based on German's pronunciation? Since there's no "T" to be found anywhere in the abbreviation?
You pronounce National as Nazional in german, Nazi is a simple abbreviation. If you use 'Nah-zee´ or nat-see to show the pronounciation does not make a difference to me, and I am a native German speaker.
I am also a fluent German speaker and have travelled to Germany many times and it does not matter it also depends I find sometimes to diffent Germans have different accents which affect how they pronounce it
Not a strong conviction, more flying a kite, but don't you think this article should be under the heading National Socialism, with Nazism being the redirect? I know "Nazi" is used far more frequently in English than in German, but it is still a colloquial, name-calling kind of word, and to me it just doesn't sound serious enough for historical discussion. I'm not saying don't use it, but at least keep it out of the headings, and perhaps alternate it with phrases like "the NS-period"? -- Doric Loon 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that many would not be able to make the link between National Socialism and Nazi so I think this is just a helpign hand
Well I notice this article like many others I've read refers to slavs as being untermenshe (subhuman) The quote "People of Slavic descent were also seen as subhuman, but only marginally parasitic, because they had their own land and nations" is used in many articles I've read, I just don't know what proof their is that would suggest such ideology. Some allude to Mein Kampf as depicting slavs as subhuman but If you've read it you'd know it really doesn't, through out the book he uses the nation not the meta-ethnecity to describe slavic peoples, he only uses the dysphemism "slave" to describe russian slavs, who he had seen as being slaves to the bosheviks. This is hardly evidence to support the intended creation of a slave class which is what many contend was Hitlers master plan. Also using polish russian slave labour isn't evidence either, since it was a War, and not the any war, the greatest war ever. If this was real ideology , or even just present undercurrents of such Ideology, I doubt there would've been any slavs collaborating, but that wasn't the case, the slavs by far were the main collaborators, such as the Slovakians, many soviet citizens especially ukranians and white russians. In many instances slavic populations faired better than many other non-slavs, for instance under Heydrich the Czech occupation was largely not nearly as violent and oppressive as you'd think it was. With a nickname like "the hangman" you'd think it was pure tyranny but it really wasn't the case, the only sizable reprisal came after Heydrich was assassinated. (added ID: EmanResu 22 June 2005)
Ubermenschen were people of the highest, or Brahmin caste, whereas other Caucasian peoples, and Jews, were Untermenschen. "Dark Races" occupied the lowest third of Hitler's caste system, beneath Caucasoids and Orientals.
Hitler refers to the 'subhuman' nature of slavic peoples extensively in his second book. Gerhard Weinberg does a good job of streamlining Hitler's grand plan in "Visions of Victory", which is a far easier read than slugging through the Second Book. Either way, the same information is there.
The author of the section dealing with Nazism's supposed relation to Romanticism clearly shouldn't be writing this article. First, he quotes Russell (a terrible misreader of post-Kantian Idealism and someone whose opinion of German thought is virtually worthless), then talks about anti-semitism in the German Empire, which did not exist contemporaneously with the Nazi party and whose anti-semitism was actually was on par with or even less virulent than the hatred of Jews in other European countries during the final quarter of the 19th Century. The author of the section proceeds to talk about "early 19th century" Romanticism, but has no grasp of what he means by that because instead of the real Romantics who gave birth to the movement in Germany (the Schlegels, Schelling, Novalis, Tieck, etc...) he jumps right to Wagner, who cannot be classified as "early 19th Century" by any stretch of the imagination, since he began writing at roughly mid-century. Furthermore the Ring cycle was actually written when Wagner was at his most fiercely republican. He always had a distasteful hatred for Jews, but by no means is The Ring some sort of authoritarian work. Wagner became more Christian and "proto-fascist" (a trend which Nietzsche often laments) later on, with works such as Parzival.
I would like to delete this whole section. If it even belongs here, it must be rewritten from scratch. (added ID: 67.10.90.5 6 July 2005)
I've been noticing a lot of similarities between the Nazi's and modern day USA. Just how conservative the both sides are, and how they use propoganda to support their cause. If you ever turn on a TV in the U.S. to watch the news, you cant help but notice how all the news programmes are pro American. They always portray USA as a hero or liberator, and never as an imperialist. This is probably because anyone that dares to challenge the U.S. conservatism is censored. The U.S. has also gotten out of control in recent years with its imperialistic invasions of other countries. It seems like people want to say something or step in to stop them but people are scared. This reminds me alot of what how the Nazis conducted business through fear and intimidation. The world also watched as the Nazis got out of control, and no one stopped them till it was too late. It seems like the same thing is happening today with USA.
I hope you are joking because to say that the USA was organized by the same people as Nazi Germany is an outright manipulation of the truth Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
Sure the USA are far away from Nazi Germany. However, some of the reasoning above is rather strange: 1. "The American political system is designed to prevent any kind of dictatorship, with any power the government has coming only from a majority of support of the population." The Nazis were backed by the majority of Germans and simply were the party that had most of the seats in the Reichstag. 2. "The population are hard working, intelligent and reasonable people and would not allow political extremists to control their country." Germans are hard working, intelligent and reasonable people too, what is exactly what stuns them until today: that one of the highest developed nations would go along with the politics of the nazis. And when word reached other countries about nazi atrocities, the most common reply was "Germans are civilized, they don't do stuff like that". 3. "Thousands of people conduct protests and demonstrations to show their opposition to the government, and they have a PROTECTED RIGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO." Though the nazis emerged as the strongest party in the 1933 elections, there were also anti-nazis throughout the population. The lethal street battles between them and the SA prior to elections are a clear proof of this. This opposition had the right to protest against the nazis and they did so. But guess what, that right was among the first to be sacked by the nazis. And here's the frightening thing: The arguments above don't secure any country from extremist parties. Our only protection: Stay awake and defend the freedom we have against whoever threatens it.
Right, but the German political system was considerably weaker and less organised than the American system is, and there is no large-scale economic or social strife (as allowed the environment for Nazism to become popular). "nazism in usa", as so eloquently described by the starter of this section, is impossible in the present. This is what I was getting at.
Labelling the historical, undeniable fact that Hitler and many other high-level Nazis engaged in homosexual activities as 'hate speech' is absurd, non-sensical historical revisionism. It is not 'hateful' to examine the truth of history. Why is it somehow anti-gay or inconceivable to accept the obvious fact that many of those who publically denounce homosexuality are in fact themselves closet homosexuals or homosexual pedophiles? This is exactly what has occured with, for instance, many priests in the Catholic Church. Whomever wrote away the homosexuality of Nazi leaders needs to get a grip on reality and realise that they are not helping anyone by viciously attacking every piece of literature or history portraying someone (a specific individual) who just so happens to be of an unconventional sexual persuasion as being involved in evil. We could just as well say that all of the historical facts regarding the homosexuality of many insane, evil, Roman Emperors was simply non-sense, because doing so would prevent 'hate-speech'.
For the love of God, people, get in touch with truth and reality, and stop behaving like such children. The very fact that "hate laws" have gotten as far as they have anywhere is a testament to the increasingly paedomorphic mindsets of so-called 'adults', who, apparently on some kind of nostalgic acid trip, are attempting to enact federal laws equivalent to the rules governing hallways in elementary schools.
The necessary laws to protect victims of hate have existed for quite some time, and no new, elaborate, ridiculous, and indeed, rather totalitarian laws limiting free speech are in need of creation.
Comment: "Hear Hear!" - Dren 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
How is it possible for the National Socialists to have been anti-Slavic when they allowed people with obviously Slavic names to join the party? One good example would be Arthur Seyss-Inquart who was Slavic and born Arthur Zajtich. There are many other examples I could cite but I was just wondering how they squared this with they're beliefs.
Eugenics was a core theme of the German Nazis. Why remove the term when talking about purifying the race?-- Cberlet 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
(Responding to the last item above, but not indenting) For the Nazis, eugenics "culminated" in a specific set of decisions. This specific conclusion has been contested. There may be many writings by activist authors claiming this, but that by itself does not make it any more likely to be true than Richard Lynn's opposite conclusion. On this question, the article seems to present a subjective point of view. -- hitssquad 21:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the Tory party was pro-Nazism. I'm removing these claims and I suggest someone finds a credible source to back their claims up if they wish to re-add them. Also, I don't know why there is a section on appeasement of Germany either since (a) it has its own page, and (b) it's got nothing to do with sympathising with Nazi ideology. - Johnbull 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
>The text I reverted on corporatism was neither useful nor accurate.
Well, I thought so, obviously, and many others in the world. Many dictionaries and other sources say that corporativism is the same as fascism.
"Fascism should more accurately be named corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
>The term corporatism was not used to mean rule by rich corporate plutocrats,
That is what became of the idea the pope had in 1891.
The simple fact is that the increased popularity of democracy and socialism among the workers and the people of Europe and many other countries at the end of 19th century worried the reactionary forces, like the church and the rich capitalists. So they decided to do something about it.
The historical development during the 20th century is one long struggle between capitalism and religion against democrats and socialists.
The capitalist side used fascism and corporativism as tools to stop the workers from using democracy to further their cause.
Roger4911 14:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The reference to modern left and right politics is irrelevant to Nazism. This is an encyclopedia, not a medium for political gripes, 71.193.3.242. -- Andrey 08:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. However it is NOT irrelevant to the modern usage of the word. Since I don't want to argue (wikipedia is too good an idea), I will just request that you think about that and then - if you wish - put the concept back - with your own phrasing.
That's a good point, tough to phrase, though. It's so often misused all over that it's tough to pin down how exactly how it's used. -- Andrey 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I refer to this book
Anyone who has read it (and if you haven't you probably shouldn't be involved in editing this entruy) will know what I'm talking about. Starting next week.
Seems to be a problem with the template, at the bottom when you hit the "Edit" link it brings you to the Template:Fascism. I tried a search for the Template:Nazi but nothing is coming up. WritersCramp 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
This article, like every article regarding Nazi race theory, use the same short and sweet propaganda version, as maintained by the British, Americans, soviets etc. First with the Slavic untermensh myth. The Nazi never regarded "Slavic" as a racial title, just as they never used "Germanic" as a biological racial title. They used real racial classification that in many instances are still used today: (Nordic, East Baltic, Mediterranean, Alpine, etc.) This delusion that they believed that Germany was a "pure" Aryan nation, is bullocks. Even to high school kids they were very clear with Germany's mixed racial make-up, as this catechism shows:
"What are the major races?
White, black, and yellow.
To which race do Europe's peoples belong?
The peoples of Europe do not belong to a particular race, but are rather a racial mixture. Our German people is comprised primarily of six races.
And what are they?
The Nordic, the Pfalzish (fälische), the Western (westliche) the East Baltic (ostbaltische). The Ostic (ostische). and the Dinarish (dinarische) races.
How can one tell that peoples are racially related?
First, from their languages, in which many words are the same or similar."
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/catech.htm
or here is another example, from an SS racial pamphlet no less!
"Race means to be able to think in a certain way. He who has courage, loyalty and honor, the mark of the German, has the race that should rule in Germany, even if he does not have the physical characteristics of the "Nordic" race"
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/glauben.htm
Hitler nor to my knowledge any of the Nazi hierarchies lumped all Slavs as being racially inferior untermensh. Instances in with the term untermensh was used, was either by Himmler to refer to the "judeo-bolshevik Asiatic hordes". Hitler had usely it colloquially to refer to Russians individually, whom he was of course was demonizing so as to justify stealing lebensraum. However Even if it was contended they were nordicists, it still doesn't make sense. Another Article called the "Nordic Theory", says that Hitler called Madison Grants book his "bible", in it included a "Nordic" map that distinctly shows places such as Poland, Baltic's, and north west Russia as being predominantly "Nordic", more so that Brana am inn, and Bavaria! So why did they suffer so much at the hands of the Germans, whereas other places with noticeable non-European admixture, in many cases much more that in a place like Russia, be considered allied? Such as Italy, Spain, Finland?? It's because this racial herrenvolk myth is propaganda!
Simply, Aryan meant European, nothing more. Slavs WERE considered European, as most Slavs are. Different non-Europeans only included Sinti/roma/jews/sammi/Asiatic soviets, not Slavs.
Hitler during the war had only a small group of personal companions, mostly made up of women, one, whom was Hitler main secretary was a Slav, named Gerda Daranowski. Was it only a matter of time till she was enslaved too? She married a Nazi Luftwaffe general by the way, which I'm sure was common for untermensh women.
There. Nazism was vandalized in the same manner that you vandalized Jew. It was reverted instantly, too, like the edits of Jew were. Isn't this getting silly? There are more productive things to do than go around equating Jews with ovens and Zyklon B. 64.12.116.197 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I seem to be getting "fatal errors" when I look up the items on this page's main article's history. What gives? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"Anti-clericalism was also part of Nazi ideology, although it was never acted on as the Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich."
"Never acted on"? Didn't the Nazis require all schools in Catholic regions to replace classroom crosses with portraits of Hitler? Weren't hundreds of priests harrassed, sent to concentration camps, or even murdered? (although most of the latter were Polish)
Also this phrase is misleading as "clericalism" usually refers to the Catholic Church does it not, while Germany is predominantly Protestant (something like 60/40)--sounds like someone's potentially (maybe even unconsciously) trying that old saw of highlighting the lesser complicity of the Catholic Church with the Nazi regime while neglecting to mention the (greater) compromises of the Protestant churches.
-- Critic9328 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The Nazis were anticlerical and I believe they took some strong anticlerical actions. Various Churches may have cooperated, but that doesn't mean the Nazis were nice to the churchs. Lampros 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)-If this(doctrines in racial and cultural purity) were correct the United States of America with its famous Melting pot would be weak. The United States is clearly strong.-
Adolf Hitler spent some time homeless in Vienna. If he had not been the Führer he could easily have been designated as having a "lebensunwertes Leben" (Life-unworthy life). I think these points I've made are valid. If others don't like them I request arbitration.
Delete Your comments are POV, out-of-time and out-of-place, as I explained in post to you.
Camillus
talk|
contribs
20:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion moved to: Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts-- Cberlet 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have just reverted major changes. There may be some legitimate material in what I'm reverting - I'm not sure - but there is no justification for its massive deletions of longstanding material. I do not have time to check through right now, but the removals of well-cited material were alone sufficient for me to consider this an objectionable edit. Also, the odd change of "Aryan", a term strongly identified with Nazism, to "Nordic" seems utterly inappropriate. However, I urge others to look through the material I removed and see if some or all of it should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I find a lot problematic about three paragraphs recently added to the Economic practice section, the first of which incorporates some older material.
To start off, not a thing is cited, and this could use lots of citations. The rest of my issues I will interweave with the text, following. I think this is the most efficient way for me to do this; if it proves confusing, let me know and I'll try something else.
Thank you. I rather enjoyed my section..... Dobbs 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone point me in the right direction as to how to add a cite to this article? Most of my information in this section comes from 'Nazi Economics - Ideology, Theory, and Practice', Yale University Press, Lib. of Congress card # 89-52113 Dobbs 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of unnacceptable statements in this article I've noticed so far... Italic textThe Nazis were inherently socialistItalic text
Italic textHitler's National Socialists enacted a number of broad sweeping reforms, that were entirely socialist in natureItalic text
Socialism at it's most basic level means the democratic control of the means of production. Clearly this was not the case in Nazi Germany. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 ( talk • contribs) 8 Jan 2006.
This section cocvers some tricky ground in a relatively NPOV way (after lengthy battles). It is a curernt debate. It may be obscure, but it should stay, although I moved it down a little. -- Cberlet 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!-- Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Völkisch movement clearly fed some people into the Nazi movement, but there were many sources of the Nazi movement, and there were elements of the Völkisch movement that did not become Nazi. So "led" is the wrong word, unless a cite can be produced.. Otherwise it is an exaggeration.-- Cberlet 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke is a better source, but I didn't have a book handy to cite from. next time you are knowledgable on a subject and have a source handy, make the needed edit yourself instead of wasting my time chasing up citations on information you either know is true, or ought to if you knew your stuff. Your the purported fascist "expert", not me. My area of professional expertise is psychology. Sam Spade 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Recently added; I cut it. " Federico Gustavo, the Nazi leader in Argentina, has committed many crimes to the jewish peoples in Buenos Aires. He is considered a legend on the streets for his unorthodox methods of inhumane torture."
Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology--- Nazism in relation to other concepts--- Fascism and socialism--- Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. -- Cberlet 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Is is perhaps incorrect to have a "Holy Sites" section, as Nazism is not a religion? Perhaps "Places of Pilgramage" (or similar) would be a more appropriate title.
Hello. I am an avid Persian history buff. I have read many things related to Iran and the Nazis during the 1930s and the 1940s. From what I understand, through that entire period many in Iran applauded Germany if only for making the lives of the hated British difficult. That said, Hitler, who was in great need of oil for his war machine often would play to the hearts of the Iranian populace by declaring his admiration for Iran's past. however, I am not sure if that should constitute wikipedia publishing in its article on Naziism that the persians were partly to blame for Hitler's crooked logic and theories. That's why I deleted that section just a few minutes ago. I also feel that it is very important given today's political climate between Iran and Israel that Wikipedia should make strides not to overplay information that is sketchy at best. If the wiki community feels that the information on Persians and Nazis should remain in the article I feel at the very least some references should be made in that section. Currently, there are none. Thanks for your time. I hope I am using this section correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.15.189 ( talk • contribs) 3 March 2006.
That section in Persians and Nazism sounds really confusing to me. Do you have a source for it?
I have never heard anything like that before. From what I know the admiration was very one sided. The Iranian king Reza Pahlavi had some admiration for Hitler, partly because of love of Aryan race and partly because of hating the British, and he asked the rest of the world to refer to his country with its native name (which has always been Iran) not Persia. Iran means: land of Aryans so it is likely that he did it under the influence of Hitler. But here the story ends. I never heard of Hitler admiring the Persian Empire. Can I see a source for that?
Also what is this? “Hitler also considered the Persians to be the master race more than the Germans”
Never heard anything like that before. I am very interested to see a source for that. This section is not backed up by any evidence and does not sound realistic to me. Gol 10:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I wanted to take out the section completely since it is not sourced and it does not sounds like it can be true but I wanted to give its writer a chance to explain. I have waited for two days and nobody has answered me. I am sure there is no answer for this since it is not true. I am going to take the section out. Whoever wants to put it back In, YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP WITH SOURCES. This section also includes information about USA that is irrelevant. it does not belong under “Nazism and Persians” if you want to put it back in then create a section for it.
Thank you.
Gol 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I dunno about you guys, but hitler actually considered the persians to be the master race. The reasons are the follwing: Sumka, an iranian neo-Nazi party, is present, most of Iran likes Nazi ideologies, and the Persian race have a connection to Hitler, a strong one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.11.236 ( talk • contribs) 2 April 2006.
Are they?? I heard they were, but if HISTORICALLY they were used by the Nazi party which represented German-speaking countries, then why would it be illegal to use a Nazi flag?? It's the idealogy of the people involved and NOT propaganda items such as flags, badges, etc that counts anyway. The criminal-justice system works in such a way that CARRYING OUT ACTS OF RACISM IS ILLGEGAL, obviously, but POSSESSING A NAZI FLAG should not be considered illegal!! My mother's side of the family has VERY STRONG GERMAN HERITAGE, so this is an issue that concerns me to some extent. Danmeister 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Danmeister Danmeister 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have altered the line "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the dictatorship of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" to "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the Government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" becuase i think to call the nazi party a dictatorship is far stratching the dfeinatation of dictatorship. It is important to remember the nazi's had a political party with overwhelming support, far from a dictatorship. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeorgeBuchanan ( talk • contribs) 5 April 2006.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I have added a couple of paragraphs to the Nazi theory section of the article outlining the key differences between 'Left-Nazism' i.e. Strasserism and 'Right-Nazism' or Hitlerism. I feel that the article treats Nazism as a too much of a homogeneous ideology when in fact it is far from that. Ideally a more developed Nazism Project should split Nazism into separate articles dealing in detail with the relationships between these various sub-ideologies.
Knucmo2 wrote (20:35, 31 Oct 2004) Adolf Hitler is said to have drawn upon Nietzsche in the article, and yes he did read a lot of work most probably by Nietzsche, which is made doubly obvious by his some of his concepts, which were a result of his misreading of the philosopher. The only ideas Nietzsche remotely shared I believe with the Nazis were his glorification of conflict (not necessarily military conflict, as so many blindfolded critics stoop to believe), and his collectivism ( Communist idea.) In contrast, Nietzsche's views of the difference between strong and weak, between masters and men, were a sharp contrast to the Nazi philosophy. Nietzsche's famous "blond beast" aphorism probably sounded like music to Hitler's ears, and he could made many variations on that theme alone.
The article is too long. Nazism#Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts needs to be split into separate articles. I am going to focus myself on Nazism and religion, as that is an area of particular expertise and interest of mine. Lets go way out of our way to be civil and considerate of each other and the readers, and we should be able to get this article featured someday :) Sam [ Spade] 14:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
AndyL wrote (18:32, 3 Oct 2004)
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)
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
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)
Nazism and religion: references
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 (4 Sep)
Sam, you tried to remove references to Christianity from the article except to call those who suggest there is a connection "anti-Christian" rather than base your edits on the discussion we had when the article was protected you've completely disregarded what was said. AndyL 22:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
WTF? I thought talk page flooding was vogels thing. Is there anything you are able to articulate, because the above isn't what I would call an effective dialogue
Try to stay calm. A talk page can always be archived when it becomes too lenghy. The list cannot be considered flooding if its items are pertinent. The point for it was to demonstrate that the topic should not be omitted so readily — listing these references helped to establish this. I urge you to review the comments that preceded these for further context. I remain hopeful that it proves useful here.
Inarticulately yours,
When I tried to make some minor edits I ended up cropping alot off the article, as its too big to edit as a whole (for me anyway). Can someone revert to the earlier version? Thanx - R. fiend 17:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't militarism be under "Key elements of the Nazi ideology"? It seems appropriate to me. They were very militaristic. - R. fiend 17:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, they were pretty militaristic, but the SA was such a mess. No wonder the army never liked them. Sorry totally irrelevant...he he... I mean, like, Hilter always wanted to (and mind you he obviously did) militarise again after the major cut backs because of that V.treaty, and that's not small matter....so yeah why not, go ahead and stick it the "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.165.36 ( talk • contribs) 31 Dec 2005.
Hi, I read through Mein Kampf and failed to see anything that indicates Hitler believed the word Aryan applied to any particular race, or that a particular race was superior to all others and thus deserved to rule over all other races. I also watch films such as "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia" and see other races portrayed as equals. Can anyone provide a citation that indicates the term "Aryan" applies to the race to which Germans belong (I suppose that would be "Nordic")? I have the Manheim translation of Mein Kampf, btw. Is there perhaps another source on this of which I am unaware? From the speeches I have read, especially of Goebbels, Nazism seemed to be framing the political struggle along the same lines of Germans fighting to be free of Rome. Goebbels seemed to have no problems admitting the Germans really were once a slave race. This seems inconsistent with what is presented in this article.
Note, there is no question Nazism found specific races to be inferior, such as Jews.
Also, I am concerned with this use of "Aryan" as its original meaning is "noble" and many political groups elsewhere in the world use it that sense. I haven't read anything that indicates to me Nazis or Hitler used it to mean anything else.
I have never seen the term "spelling Gestapo" anywhere before here. Generally, people who are sticklers for proper spelling and grammar are known as "grammar Nazis" instead. I've taken the liberty to change the former term. -- coldacid 17:48, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
I read somewhere about supporters/members of the Nazi regime/system carrying on terrorist or similar activities in the immediate post-war period. Can anyone develop this and make mention of it - a sentence or two would suffice. (Anon)
See werwolf - it seems to have been pretty low level.. Mozzerati 18:15, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
Yeah they were called werwolf cells but the biggest attacks they launched killed only 40 or 50 people and were realatively innefective they also were told by superior officers to hide weapons in caches but they had children hide them and most of them blew up on route also the Russians found most of their supplies -Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
where i live, wich is Chile (and i think it aplies to most of the world), there are still a few neo-nazi movements, they usually are youths that couldnt find their way into society and decided from night to morning to become nazi (in almost the same way of punk movements). They dont have any real intencions more than to drink a lot and to gang attack what they consider inferior (homosexuals, for example), the usual risk of them, is that they grow in number with their chauvinistic ideology (the population of Chile is hardly aryan, yet, they still believe that they could had made the ranks of the third reich).
-Yeah they are idiots and would be sent ot the death camps like Dachau just like every other non aryan person -Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
The so-called Mussolini quote where he is claimed to have equated fascism with corporate power is a fake or a terrible translation. This quote does not appear in the original Italian encyclopedia text or any of the English translations from that period. I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter: Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers). I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Finally I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. We had a whole discussion of this over on the Talk:Benito Mussolini page. I removed it from this page and the page on corporatism. I have photocopies of all the original documents in front of me. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from an original document.-- Cberlet 19:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article is in need of serious overhaul on some of its terminology. In its present form it often uses terms such as socialist, marxist, and communist interchangably as if they were one in the same or synonymous to a degree that would support this. They are not. The three terms are related to each other and similar in some ways but each is a precise word with a precise definition (marxism, for example, refers specifically to the subset of communist ideology that derives from Karl Marx and his successors). The role of the term "socialist" in national socialism derives from a very specific conceptualization of the relationship between the people and the state that is itself a variant upon the traditional definition of socialism. The controversy of whether national socialism is socialist is thus an extension of the development of that variant definition - not whether Hitler was friends with a bunch of factory owners. Please see the section on the role of the nation & the edits I made. Rangerdude 08:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In comparison, many socialists refute ...
In comparison other socialist ideologies reject ...
Whenever one could demonstrate a need for it to be noted in this article, that's fine; largely it doesen't though, is my point, because it goes off topic (i.e. as already mentioned, both the SPD and KPD considered themsleves Marxist, and historically, in that sense, they are really key). El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do find your changes to be POV El_C 23:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
and that they ignore much of the past discussions and consensus painfuly arrived at with respect to this specific subject. Have you read what I and others had written in this talk page concerning the issue of Nazism and Socialism? I ask that because I wish to avoid repeating myself on that front as much as it is possible. When you simply insert such passages as the ones disputed without having a discussion of it specifically (and I'll reiterate: one which takes into account prior ones), without attempting to establish consensus, these outcomes, these objections to your changes, should not be a surprise to you (they should not because I automatically consider you an inteligent person with rational and critical faculties of observation).
Therefore, when you go on, against/without consensus, to also explicitly state your position on Nazism viz. Socialism in other articles that are on my watchlist, a similar response (to similarly unilateral) changes should not be surprising to you on that front, either. At any rate, my position is that unilateral action (or innuendo about gatekeeping, N/POV, tages, etc.), will not do for the controversial changes you are calling for to be retained. For an issue of this magnitude (both theoretically in general, and in terms of past disputes, discussions and consensus here, specifically), frankly, I am more than a little surprised you considered the above comments (which, again, I wish to stress, do not even touch on the issue of Nazism's relationship to Socialism) as sufficient. I hope I have made my position clear, please let me know if you need for me to elaborate or elucidate anything that I have said here (or anything I did not) and we can discuss the issue both colegially and substantively. El_C 21:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And pejorative terms tend to indicate POV. This is not an article from the socialist POV. It is an article from a _neutral_ POV. Since the reference is to what could be otherwise described as corporate business or large corporations in neutral language, this link should be changed. Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is a problem when the object of this medium is to be concise and the large number of redundancies in this article (which often consist of the exact same things stated for the exact same purpose only 2 or 3 paragraphs apart) are evidence that it is poorly written, and possibly written with a POV that emphasizes those points through repetition. Rangerdude 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is a very large section on Nazism and Socialism. Obvious case of well-poisoning (poisoning the Socialist well, of course). Clearly there was some socialist influence in the party's early days as the German Workers's Party (I wouldn't deny that socialists in many countries often had "white supremacist" views - eg Jack London) but by 1933 only the Socialist title remained. A brief discussion of this, about the same length as those on the links with other ideologies, should be enough.
81.156.102.204 21:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have to disagree with this article here on one thing. Italic text# Racism
Racism is not a major pillar of Nazi beleif. Origionally, Nazism was a purley Pro-German movement with little or no racist overtones. However, People like Heinrich Himmler and and Adolf Hitler used their power to promote Anti-Semitism and Racist. That also rules out Euthanasia in that particular case. Simple fact is, most Nazis, including my Grandfather, knew nothing about the concentration camps. If it was not for those 'missassumptions' I may be considered a Nazi, however I am not racist against anyone and I do not beleive in Euthanasia. And I'm of Italian-Austrian Decent. Therefore I am not a member of the superior 'Nordic' race. Thank you
I understand that "sozi" is a derogatory abbreviation for "socialist" in German. However, I thought that this was by analogy to "Nazi", and that the latter was simply a neutral abbreviation used by the Nazis themselves. Is this wrong? -- FOo 15:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nazi wasn't used in Germany during that time period. It was the NSPDA, and thats what it was called. Thank you.
I'm coming to this page because I expect it is closely watched by people who have had to think through the balancing act needed to properly present uncomplimentary history. I am starting a discussion on how to balance history that is derogatory (or viewed by some as derogatory). I put my more detailed request at the Village Pump.
Why are the writings of these two Usenet fucktards, Steve Kangas, a psychotic delusional who probably intended to murder Richard Mellon Scaife, but ended up committing suicide in a bathroom across from his office, and Glen Yeadon, a total illiterate, given so much as a shred of credibility here? Both articles are premised on bullshit, and have long since been discussed and discarded on Usenet and elsewhere.
And why somebody (without explanations and without any right) deletes entries with different opinions, like this one?
If anybody can think of pop culture entertainment involving humor and nazism, make a article called Nazism comedy. -- SuperDude 21:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the Mel Brooks film "The Producers" , or various British comedies such as Allo Allo might count, although it is debatable whether these actually deal directly with Nazism. What about the Charlie Chaplin film 'The Great Dictator;? Will Lakeman 19:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Strangelove? 64.12.116.197 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Then there are both versions of To Be or Not to Be. And of course a lot of propaganda cartoons. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe think back to the time when it was really relevant, like Charly Chaplin and´The Great Dictator´. There must have been a lot more.
I heard of a film called "Beautiful Lives" that takes place in a concentration camp. I haven't actually seen it though, so I'm not sure if it's a comedy. Has anyone here seen it? Mayuko 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
One could add the American sitcom Hogan's Heroes. — Michael J 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to add Hogan's Heroes (which you should! Werner Klemperer, who played the camp kommandant, was Jewish and initially thought the series was going to be a drama, not sitcom. He only agreed to play a Nazi on the condition that the Nazis lost in every episode), you should add the film and play Stalag 17, on which Hogan's Heroes is (perhaps a bit too closely) based. Possibly the film Liberty Heights, as well, but that's a bit of a stretch (one scene where a Jewish kid dresses as Hitler for Halloween). Then there's always Art Speigleman's graphic novels Maus, but I suppose it depends on whether you believe that's comedy. Monty Python's Flying Circus has a number of sketches involving Nazis as well. Apparently there's a British sitcom about the French resistance fighters, which is a pisstake of all involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.240.16 ( talk • contribs) 16 April 2006.
The claim that the British Conservative Party viewed Hitler as 'the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism' is a lie. Individuals within the Tory party did believe this but it was never party policy to actively support Hitler. I think this claim should be removed.
This claim should definitely be removed what are you talking about can anyone actually substatiate these claims the British Conservatives said this
Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
a) it also might be worth including Hitler's belief in the lost aryan tribe theory - believe it was tied into Atlantis. THere was a recent documentary on Hitler's archelogists going to Neapal & Tibet in a belief they were descents of an Aryan warrior race ... yes, not only odd and overall, not many factual basis for their beliefs but it's still worth noting.
b) What is the pronounciation of Nazi? It's English, it's usually pronounced 'Not-zee,' is that based on the German pronounciation since it seems in English, the correct pronounciation is 'Nah-zee."
Is that 'nat-see' based on German's pronunciation? Since there's no "T" to be found anywhere in the abbreviation?
You pronounce National as Nazional in german, Nazi is a simple abbreviation. If you use 'Nah-zee´ or nat-see to show the pronounciation does not make a difference to me, and I am a native German speaker.
I am also a fluent German speaker and have travelled to Germany many times and it does not matter it also depends I find sometimes to diffent Germans have different accents which affect how they pronounce it
Not a strong conviction, more flying a kite, but don't you think this article should be under the heading National Socialism, with Nazism being the redirect? I know "Nazi" is used far more frequently in English than in German, but it is still a colloquial, name-calling kind of word, and to me it just doesn't sound serious enough for historical discussion. I'm not saying don't use it, but at least keep it out of the headings, and perhaps alternate it with phrases like "the NS-period"? -- Doric Loon 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that many would not be able to make the link between National Socialism and Nazi so I think this is just a helpign hand
Well I notice this article like many others I've read refers to slavs as being untermenshe (subhuman) The quote "People of Slavic descent were also seen as subhuman, but only marginally parasitic, because they had their own land and nations" is used in many articles I've read, I just don't know what proof their is that would suggest such ideology. Some allude to Mein Kampf as depicting slavs as subhuman but If you've read it you'd know it really doesn't, through out the book he uses the nation not the meta-ethnecity to describe slavic peoples, he only uses the dysphemism "slave" to describe russian slavs, who he had seen as being slaves to the bosheviks. This is hardly evidence to support the intended creation of a slave class which is what many contend was Hitlers master plan. Also using polish russian slave labour isn't evidence either, since it was a War, and not the any war, the greatest war ever. If this was real ideology , or even just present undercurrents of such Ideology, I doubt there would've been any slavs collaborating, but that wasn't the case, the slavs by far were the main collaborators, such as the Slovakians, many soviet citizens especially ukranians and white russians. In many instances slavic populations faired better than many other non-slavs, for instance under Heydrich the Czech occupation was largely not nearly as violent and oppressive as you'd think it was. With a nickname like "the hangman" you'd think it was pure tyranny but it really wasn't the case, the only sizable reprisal came after Heydrich was assassinated. (added ID: EmanResu 22 June 2005)
Ubermenschen were people of the highest, or Brahmin caste, whereas other Caucasian peoples, and Jews, were Untermenschen. "Dark Races" occupied the lowest third of Hitler's caste system, beneath Caucasoids and Orientals.
Hitler refers to the 'subhuman' nature of slavic peoples extensively in his second book. Gerhard Weinberg does a good job of streamlining Hitler's grand plan in "Visions of Victory", which is a far easier read than slugging through the Second Book. Either way, the same information is there.
The author of the section dealing with Nazism's supposed relation to Romanticism clearly shouldn't be writing this article. First, he quotes Russell (a terrible misreader of post-Kantian Idealism and someone whose opinion of German thought is virtually worthless), then talks about anti-semitism in the German Empire, which did not exist contemporaneously with the Nazi party and whose anti-semitism was actually was on par with or even less virulent than the hatred of Jews in other European countries during the final quarter of the 19th Century. The author of the section proceeds to talk about "early 19th century" Romanticism, but has no grasp of what he means by that because instead of the real Romantics who gave birth to the movement in Germany (the Schlegels, Schelling, Novalis, Tieck, etc...) he jumps right to Wagner, who cannot be classified as "early 19th Century" by any stretch of the imagination, since he began writing at roughly mid-century. Furthermore the Ring cycle was actually written when Wagner was at his most fiercely republican. He always had a distasteful hatred for Jews, but by no means is The Ring some sort of authoritarian work. Wagner became more Christian and "proto-fascist" (a trend which Nietzsche often laments) later on, with works such as Parzival.
I would like to delete this whole section. If it even belongs here, it must be rewritten from scratch. (added ID: 67.10.90.5 6 July 2005)
I've been noticing a lot of similarities between the Nazi's and modern day USA. Just how conservative the both sides are, and how they use propoganda to support their cause. If you ever turn on a TV in the U.S. to watch the news, you cant help but notice how all the news programmes are pro American. They always portray USA as a hero or liberator, and never as an imperialist. This is probably because anyone that dares to challenge the U.S. conservatism is censored. The U.S. has also gotten out of control in recent years with its imperialistic invasions of other countries. It seems like people want to say something or step in to stop them but people are scared. This reminds me alot of what how the Nazis conducted business through fear and intimidation. The world also watched as the Nazis got out of control, and no one stopped them till it was too late. It seems like the same thing is happening today with USA.
I hope you are joking because to say that the USA was organized by the same people as Nazi Germany is an outright manipulation of the truth Brendan-brendan_137@hotmail.com
Sure the USA are far away from Nazi Germany. However, some of the reasoning above is rather strange: 1. "The American political system is designed to prevent any kind of dictatorship, with any power the government has coming only from a majority of support of the population." The Nazis were backed by the majority of Germans and simply were the party that had most of the seats in the Reichstag. 2. "The population are hard working, intelligent and reasonable people and would not allow political extremists to control their country." Germans are hard working, intelligent and reasonable people too, what is exactly what stuns them until today: that one of the highest developed nations would go along with the politics of the nazis. And when word reached other countries about nazi atrocities, the most common reply was "Germans are civilized, they don't do stuff like that". 3. "Thousands of people conduct protests and demonstrations to show their opposition to the government, and they have a PROTECTED RIGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO." Though the nazis emerged as the strongest party in the 1933 elections, there were also anti-nazis throughout the population. The lethal street battles between them and the SA prior to elections are a clear proof of this. This opposition had the right to protest against the nazis and they did so. But guess what, that right was among the first to be sacked by the nazis. And here's the frightening thing: The arguments above don't secure any country from extremist parties. Our only protection: Stay awake and defend the freedom we have against whoever threatens it.
Right, but the German political system was considerably weaker and less organised than the American system is, and there is no large-scale economic or social strife (as allowed the environment for Nazism to become popular). "nazism in usa", as so eloquently described by the starter of this section, is impossible in the present. This is what I was getting at.
Labelling the historical, undeniable fact that Hitler and many other high-level Nazis engaged in homosexual activities as 'hate speech' is absurd, non-sensical historical revisionism. It is not 'hateful' to examine the truth of history. Why is it somehow anti-gay or inconceivable to accept the obvious fact that many of those who publically denounce homosexuality are in fact themselves closet homosexuals or homosexual pedophiles? This is exactly what has occured with, for instance, many priests in the Catholic Church. Whomever wrote away the homosexuality of Nazi leaders needs to get a grip on reality and realise that they are not helping anyone by viciously attacking every piece of literature or history portraying someone (a specific individual) who just so happens to be of an unconventional sexual persuasion as being involved in evil. We could just as well say that all of the historical facts regarding the homosexuality of many insane, evil, Roman Emperors was simply non-sense, because doing so would prevent 'hate-speech'.
For the love of God, people, get in touch with truth and reality, and stop behaving like such children. The very fact that "hate laws" have gotten as far as they have anywhere is a testament to the increasingly paedomorphic mindsets of so-called 'adults', who, apparently on some kind of nostalgic acid trip, are attempting to enact federal laws equivalent to the rules governing hallways in elementary schools.
The necessary laws to protect victims of hate have existed for quite some time, and no new, elaborate, ridiculous, and indeed, rather totalitarian laws limiting free speech are in need of creation.
Comment: "Hear Hear!" - Dren 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
How is it possible for the National Socialists to have been anti-Slavic when they allowed people with obviously Slavic names to join the party? One good example would be Arthur Seyss-Inquart who was Slavic and born Arthur Zajtich. There are many other examples I could cite but I was just wondering how they squared this with they're beliefs.
Eugenics was a core theme of the German Nazis. Why remove the term when talking about purifying the race?-- Cberlet 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
(Responding to the last item above, but not indenting) For the Nazis, eugenics "culminated" in a specific set of decisions. This specific conclusion has been contested. There may be many writings by activist authors claiming this, but that by itself does not make it any more likely to be true than Richard Lynn's opposite conclusion. On this question, the article seems to present a subjective point of view. -- hitssquad 21:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the Tory party was pro-Nazism. I'm removing these claims and I suggest someone finds a credible source to back their claims up if they wish to re-add them. Also, I don't know why there is a section on appeasement of Germany either since (a) it has its own page, and (b) it's got nothing to do with sympathising with Nazi ideology. - Johnbull 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
>The text I reverted on corporatism was neither useful nor accurate.
Well, I thought so, obviously, and many others in the world. Many dictionaries and other sources say that corporativism is the same as fascism.
"Fascism should more accurately be named corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
>The term corporatism was not used to mean rule by rich corporate plutocrats,
That is what became of the idea the pope had in 1891.
The simple fact is that the increased popularity of democracy and socialism among the workers and the people of Europe and many other countries at the end of 19th century worried the reactionary forces, like the church and the rich capitalists. So they decided to do something about it.
The historical development during the 20th century is one long struggle between capitalism and religion against democrats and socialists.
The capitalist side used fascism and corporativism as tools to stop the workers from using democracy to further their cause.
Roger4911 14:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The reference to modern left and right politics is irrelevant to Nazism. This is an encyclopedia, not a medium for political gripes, 71.193.3.242. -- Andrey 08:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. However it is NOT irrelevant to the modern usage of the word. Since I don't want to argue (wikipedia is too good an idea), I will just request that you think about that and then - if you wish - put the concept back - with your own phrasing.
That's a good point, tough to phrase, though. It's so often misused all over that it's tough to pin down how exactly how it's used. -- Andrey 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I refer to this book
Anyone who has read it (and if you haven't you probably shouldn't be involved in editing this entruy) will know what I'm talking about. Starting next week.
Seems to be a problem with the template, at the bottom when you hit the "Edit" link it brings you to the Template:Fascism. I tried a search for the Template:Nazi but nothing is coming up. WritersCramp 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
This article, like every article regarding Nazi race theory, use the same short and sweet propaganda version, as maintained by the British, Americans, soviets etc. First with the Slavic untermensh myth. The Nazi never regarded "Slavic" as a racial title, just as they never used "Germanic" as a biological racial title. They used real racial classification that in many instances are still used today: (Nordic, East Baltic, Mediterranean, Alpine, etc.) This delusion that they believed that Germany was a "pure" Aryan nation, is bullocks. Even to high school kids they were very clear with Germany's mixed racial make-up, as this catechism shows:
"What are the major races?
White, black, and yellow.
To which race do Europe's peoples belong?
The peoples of Europe do not belong to a particular race, but are rather a racial mixture. Our German people is comprised primarily of six races.
And what are they?
The Nordic, the Pfalzish (fälische), the Western (westliche) the East Baltic (ostbaltische). The Ostic (ostische). and the Dinarish (dinarische) races.
How can one tell that peoples are racially related?
First, from their languages, in which many words are the same or similar."
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/catech.htm
or here is another example, from an SS racial pamphlet no less!
"Race means to be able to think in a certain way. He who has courage, loyalty and honor, the mark of the German, has the race that should rule in Germany, even if he does not have the physical characteristics of the "Nordic" race"
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/glauben.htm
Hitler nor to my knowledge any of the Nazi hierarchies lumped all Slavs as being racially inferior untermensh. Instances in with the term untermensh was used, was either by Himmler to refer to the "judeo-bolshevik Asiatic hordes". Hitler had usely it colloquially to refer to Russians individually, whom he was of course was demonizing so as to justify stealing lebensraum. However Even if it was contended they were nordicists, it still doesn't make sense. Another Article called the "Nordic Theory", says that Hitler called Madison Grants book his "bible", in it included a "Nordic" map that distinctly shows places such as Poland, Baltic's, and north west Russia as being predominantly "Nordic", more so that Brana am inn, and Bavaria! So why did they suffer so much at the hands of the Germans, whereas other places with noticeable non-European admixture, in many cases much more that in a place like Russia, be considered allied? Such as Italy, Spain, Finland?? It's because this racial herrenvolk myth is propaganda!
Simply, Aryan meant European, nothing more. Slavs WERE considered European, as most Slavs are. Different non-Europeans only included Sinti/roma/jews/sammi/Asiatic soviets, not Slavs.
Hitler during the war had only a small group of personal companions, mostly made up of women, one, whom was Hitler main secretary was a Slav, named Gerda Daranowski. Was it only a matter of time till she was enslaved too? She married a Nazi Luftwaffe general by the way, which I'm sure was common for untermensh women.
There. Nazism was vandalized in the same manner that you vandalized Jew. It was reverted instantly, too, like the edits of Jew were. Isn't this getting silly? There are more productive things to do than go around equating Jews with ovens and Zyklon B. 64.12.116.197 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I seem to be getting "fatal errors" when I look up the items on this page's main article's history. What gives? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"Anti-clericalism was also part of Nazi ideology, although it was never acted on as the Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich."
"Never acted on"? Didn't the Nazis require all schools in Catholic regions to replace classroom crosses with portraits of Hitler? Weren't hundreds of priests harrassed, sent to concentration camps, or even murdered? (although most of the latter were Polish)
Also this phrase is misleading as "clericalism" usually refers to the Catholic Church does it not, while Germany is predominantly Protestant (something like 60/40)--sounds like someone's potentially (maybe even unconsciously) trying that old saw of highlighting the lesser complicity of the Catholic Church with the Nazi regime while neglecting to mention the (greater) compromises of the Protestant churches.
-- Critic9328 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The Nazis were anticlerical and I believe they took some strong anticlerical actions. Various Churches may have cooperated, but that doesn't mean the Nazis were nice to the churchs. Lampros 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)-If this(doctrines in racial and cultural purity) were correct the United States of America with its famous Melting pot would be weak. The United States is clearly strong.-
Adolf Hitler spent some time homeless in Vienna. If he had not been the Führer he could easily have been designated as having a "lebensunwertes Leben" (Life-unworthy life). I think these points I've made are valid. If others don't like them I request arbitration.
Delete Your comments are POV, out-of-time and out-of-place, as I explained in post to you.
Camillus
talk|
contribs
20:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion moved to: Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts-- Cberlet 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have just reverted major changes. There may be some legitimate material in what I'm reverting - I'm not sure - but there is no justification for its massive deletions of longstanding material. I do not have time to check through right now, but the removals of well-cited material were alone sufficient for me to consider this an objectionable edit. Also, the odd change of "Aryan", a term strongly identified with Nazism, to "Nordic" seems utterly inappropriate. However, I urge others to look through the material I removed and see if some or all of it should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I find a lot problematic about three paragraphs recently added to the Economic practice section, the first of which incorporates some older material.
To start off, not a thing is cited, and this could use lots of citations. The rest of my issues I will interweave with the text, following. I think this is the most efficient way for me to do this; if it proves confusing, let me know and I'll try something else.
Thank you. I rather enjoyed my section..... Dobbs 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone point me in the right direction as to how to add a cite to this article? Most of my information in this section comes from 'Nazi Economics - Ideology, Theory, and Practice', Yale University Press, Lib. of Congress card # 89-52113 Dobbs 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of unnacceptable statements in this article I've noticed so far... Italic textThe Nazis were inherently socialistItalic text
Italic textHitler's National Socialists enacted a number of broad sweeping reforms, that were entirely socialist in natureItalic text
Socialism at it's most basic level means the democratic control of the means of production. Clearly this was not the case in Nazi Germany. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 ( talk • contribs) 8 Jan 2006.
This section cocvers some tricky ground in a relatively NPOV way (after lengthy battles). It is a curernt debate. It may be obscure, but it should stay, although I moved it down a little. -- Cberlet 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!-- Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Völkisch movement clearly fed some people into the Nazi movement, but there were many sources of the Nazi movement, and there were elements of the Völkisch movement that did not become Nazi. So "led" is the wrong word, unless a cite can be produced.. Otherwise it is an exaggeration.-- Cberlet 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke is a better source, but I didn't have a book handy to cite from. next time you are knowledgable on a subject and have a source handy, make the needed edit yourself instead of wasting my time chasing up citations on information you either know is true, or ought to if you knew your stuff. Your the purported fascist "expert", not me. My area of professional expertise is psychology. Sam Spade 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Recently added; I cut it. " Federico Gustavo, the Nazi leader in Argentina, has committed many crimes to the jewish peoples in Buenos Aires. He is considered a legend on the streets for his unorthodox methods of inhumane torture."
Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology--- Nazism in relation to other concepts--- Fascism and socialism--- Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. -- Cberlet 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Is is perhaps incorrect to have a "Holy Sites" section, as Nazism is not a religion? Perhaps "Places of Pilgramage" (or similar) would be a more appropriate title.
Hello. I am an avid Persian history buff. I have read many things related to Iran and the Nazis during the 1930s and the 1940s. From what I understand, through that entire period many in Iran applauded Germany if only for making the lives of the hated British difficult. That said, Hitler, who was in great need of oil for his war machine often would play to the hearts of the Iranian populace by declaring his admiration for Iran's past. however, I am not sure if that should constitute wikipedia publishing in its article on Naziism that the persians were partly to blame for Hitler's crooked logic and theories. That's why I deleted that section just a few minutes ago. I also feel that it is very important given today's political climate between Iran and Israel that Wikipedia should make strides not to overplay information that is sketchy at best. If the wiki community feels that the information on Persians and Nazis should remain in the article I feel at the very least some references should be made in that section. Currently, there are none. Thanks for your time. I hope I am using this section correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.15.189 ( talk • contribs) 3 March 2006.
That section in Persians and Nazism sounds really confusing to me. Do you have a source for it?
I have never heard anything like that before. From what I know the admiration was very one sided. The Iranian king Reza Pahlavi had some admiration for Hitler, partly because of love of Aryan race and partly because of hating the British, and he asked the rest of the world to refer to his country with its native name (which has always been Iran) not Persia. Iran means: land of Aryans so it is likely that he did it under the influence of Hitler. But here the story ends. I never heard of Hitler admiring the Persian Empire. Can I see a source for that?
Also what is this? “Hitler also considered the Persians to be the master race more than the Germans”
Never heard anything like that before. I am very interested to see a source for that. This section is not backed up by any evidence and does not sound realistic to me. Gol 10:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I wanted to take out the section completely since it is not sourced and it does not sounds like it can be true but I wanted to give its writer a chance to explain. I have waited for two days and nobody has answered me. I am sure there is no answer for this since it is not true. I am going to take the section out. Whoever wants to put it back In, YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP WITH SOURCES. This section also includes information about USA that is irrelevant. it does not belong under “Nazism and Persians” if you want to put it back in then create a section for it.
Thank you.
Gol 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I dunno about you guys, but hitler actually considered the persians to be the master race. The reasons are the follwing: Sumka, an iranian neo-Nazi party, is present, most of Iran likes Nazi ideologies, and the Persian race have a connection to Hitler, a strong one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.11.236 ( talk • contribs) 2 April 2006.
Are they?? I heard they were, but if HISTORICALLY they were used by the Nazi party which represented German-speaking countries, then why would it be illegal to use a Nazi flag?? It's the idealogy of the people involved and NOT propaganda items such as flags, badges, etc that counts anyway. The criminal-justice system works in such a way that CARRYING OUT ACTS OF RACISM IS ILLGEGAL, obviously, but POSSESSING A NAZI FLAG should not be considered illegal!! My mother's side of the family has VERY STRONG GERMAN HERITAGE, so this is an issue that concerns me to some extent. Danmeister 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Danmeister Danmeister 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have altered the line "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the dictatorship of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" to "The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the Government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945" becuase i think to call the nazi party a dictatorship is far stratching the dfeinatation of dictatorship. It is important to remember the nazi's had a political party with overwhelming support, far from a dictatorship. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeorgeBuchanan ( talk • contribs) 5 April 2006.