Jump to content

Talk:Nazism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Economics

I'm not much of an economist, but I'd like to see a broad overview of Nazi economics, especially international economics - one of their primary motivations for starting agressive war in Europe. I'm not talking about Hitlers personal views on how vital economics is to warfare itself - that belongs somewhere else. Who was it that said 'All economics is politics'? I'll give it a crack, but I'm worried about being too sympathetic towards it. And I really don't wish to offend others who agree with their overall conception of problems in international economics without possibly even realizing it - this subject is *very* touchy, after all. I think I understand it from their POV, but as a Libertarian I strongly disagree with it from my POV. I want to properly describe their conception of economics, however. Any ideas? - Bob Dobbs

Well, if you know what you're talking about, then I'd like to suggest the following method: start at the beginning and keep writing till you reach the end. Don't worry too much about mistakes. Try to represent both the good and bad. Good luck!--user:Branko

The "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" looks to me like a troll or parody of minor political parties such as the Greens and Libertarians. I'm not sure it belongs here with the actual history of Nazism. --Fubar Obfusco

Fascism is the synthesis of the Heglian Dialectic of Thesis and Antithesis. The Thesis is Capitalism. The anti-thesis of Capitalism is Communism. Captitalism says the individual owns property and the individual controls property. Communism says the State owns property and Controls property. There is a synthesis of the two. It is called Fascism where the individual owns the property but the state controls it.

Either it is a quote from Mussolini or Herbert Hoover in his book Challenge to Liberty but either way (my books are in storage)and if my memory serves me "That private property is preserved as an arm of Bureaucracy." Herbert Hoover say this. Neither definition of Nazism or Fascism go into the economic system or the sociological system. Socialism is both economics and sociological. WHEELER 17:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have now remembered the quote: "Fascism preserves private property as implements of Bureaucracy. Herbert Hoover say a connection between Socialism, Communism and Fascism. He thought they were all of the same breed. Read Challenge to Liberty.WHEELER 14:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bellamy salute - Fascist salute

I've removed the references to the "Fascist salute". The straight-arm salute was used in many Western nations as a people's salute. In the USA, it was known as the "Bellamy salute" and used with the Pledge of Allegiance up until the '40s. --Fubar Obfusco

It is also sometimes referred to as the "socialist salute" due to the fact that Francis Bellamy was a self-proclaimed socialist and the salute was similar to that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The secret historic photos of the original socialist salute to the U.S. flag are only available at http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html

Wasn't the US salute only done halfway through the Pledge? (starting with hand over heart as it's done now), and, I definitely know that it was done palm up. -- Zoe

Nicely done, Ray. Very interesting breakdown of Nazi ideology. Danny

No genocide, no Holocaust, no camps in the article?

I'm more than a bit disappointed to see an article on Nazism which fails to mention genocide, the Holocaust or death camps -- but I'll restrain myself from editing . . . I might not be feeling neutral at the moment. -- your Jewish friend, User:Ed Poor

Nazism and Communism

It may be a bit of an over simplification to say that "Nazism and Communism are both totalitarian..." More appropriate might be to say that Nazism and Stalinism are both totalitarian, as there is certainly no requirement in communist ideology to REQUIRE a totalitarian state. Indeed, anarcho-syndicalism is a form of communism that requires that there be NO permanent head of state at all.JFQ

Yes you are right. It should say "the Soviet Union" or something like that.

I have revised the first paragraph converting it into a description of the practices of the Hitler dictatorship. There is a place within the article for the theories Hitler's supporters believed were the ideological basis of the dictatorship, but Hitler never considered himself bound by them in practice. User:Fredbauder

Communism doesn't aim to proletariat's supremacy. It aims to a classless society, thus making the states itself obsolete. Ericd 20:49 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

It has been said that both ideologies, Nazism and Communism, would share some goals in matters of totalitarian state and expansionism. However, they differ in respective identification of the social group of which they propose the supremacy, the "Aryan race" or the proletariat.

This paragraph has serious problems. Ericd points out one of them above. Another problem: what does it mean by communism? Stalinism? Leninism? libertarian communism? Depending on what you mean, "totalitarian" is either perfectly fitting or utterly inappropriate. Please address these problems before putting the text back in. DanKeshet

Well there is huge gap between communist ideology and communist government. But Stalisnism doesn't even aim to proletariat supremacy it only aim to Stalin supremacy :-). Ericd 21:07 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

Large nations "the creation of great races"

"National Socialism classically says that a nation is the highest creation of a race. Therefore, great nations (literally large nations) are said to be the creation of great races. The theory says that great nations grow from military power. In turn, military power naturally grows from rational, civilized cultures. In turn, these cultures naturally grow from races with natural good health, and aggressive, intelligent, courageous traits."

-- Does anybody have a source for this?

From scanning the old revisions, has apparently been added by User:Ray Van De Walker at 09:21 Aug 1, 2002, for his edit called "Described Nazi theory in NPOV)". On his user profile, I found mention of Ray having degrees in Computer Science and Philosophy from the University of California. -- Brandonforgod

Sounds like nazi-talk to me. Vera Cruz

Well, yes - isn't that the point? It starts out by stating it is the position of National Socialism, and describes it straightforwardly. What's the problem with that? We aren't in a beauty contest here, it may be twisted and wrong, but it IS accurate. Dobbs 21:50 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

Similarities between Nazism and Islam

== Nazism and Islam ==
Nazism as an ideology and as a value system has many things common with traditional Islam. During the WWII, Iran, Iraq, and many other Arab countries were on the side of the Nazis, and because of the hostility to Israel Nazism is not seen there in such a negative light even today.
The similarities between Islam and Nazism run deep. Not all people are seen as the same - there is difference between infidels, people of the book and faithful in Islam. Similary, Nazism believed in different sort of people - the bottom were Jews and non-whites, corresponding to infidels, then Slavic people were somehow analogous to the people of the book in Islam, and Aryans to the faithful. The family values are also similar, as well as despising of petty profits made from lending money (a practice is against Islamic values, and was used to portray both USA and the Jews in the negative light by the Nazis).

Many systems of belief share similarities with Nazism, and many systems of belief have been compared to Nazism. It is not enlightening to pick just one out for special emphasis. Also, regarding historical alliances with the Nazis, there were many, many countries historically allied or gaining benefit from the Nazis; there is no usefulness in picking out just one (and then expanding it to include many anti-Nazi countires) for special emphasis. DanKeshet

Nazism and Judaism may also share some similarities, and Christianity as well. Your point being? Rickyrab 23:51, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Hitler also greatly admired America"

Have removed the following sentence from under Nazi and Great Britain:

Similarly, Hitler also greatly admired America. He praised the United States for its anti-immigration laws. According to Hitler, America was a successful nation because it kept itself "pure" of "lesser races."

It doesn't fit with my understanding, but I admit to have made no careful investigation at all.
-- Ruhrjung 17:36 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to be so bold as to put it back, but wanted to say why, first. In Mein Kampf (vol. 2 ch. 3) he writes "...Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the American Union, in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the folkish state concept." This comes on the heels of his comparison in volume 1 of North and South America, intimating that the economic successes and failures of these respectively can be attributed to "race."
It's plain (to me, anyway) that Hitler had a skewed view of America, which oddly enough fit his own ideology. What's less in doubt is that he actually held the U.S. (or his imagined version of it) in high esteem, at least before the war. - Hephaestos 17:53 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Exactly. That was his view in the early 1920s. My impression is however that this changed during the 1930s, but as I wrote: I've made no investigation, only accumulated impressions during my short life. I believe you make a serious mistake, but edit-wars are not to my liking.
Best regards!
-- Ruhrjung 18:05 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Some quotes:

"Hitler badly misjudged the Americans, partly because of his preconceptions and partly because he was badly served. He entertained fantastically wrong notions of American society and politics. He believed that the masses ... were on the verge of revolt against a dominant Jewish ruling class and that the United States ... was a corrupt and demoralized country...
On this view, the United States was not nearly such a formidable enemy as its material power might make it appear. Besides being blinded by his prejudices Hitler was misled by exceptionally inept reporting by his emmissaries in Washington, especially his service attaches, who ... devoted more ink to political nonsense than to technical reports."

{From "Total War" by Peter Calvocoressi & Guy Wint, Random House, 1972}
-- Ruhrjung 18:33 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Was the National Socialist German Workers' Party influenced by the U.S.A.? In 1892 a self-proclaimed socialist created the pledge of allegiance and the original salute to the U.S. flag. The salute included an outstretched arm (the only place with secret photos of the original socialist salute to the U.S. flag is [link removed] ). The National Socialist German Workers' Party was aware of the salute to the U.S. flag when it adopted its salute. The salute was so similar that the U.S. changed its salute after the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party tried to impose socialism in Europe. The self-proclaimed socialist Francis Bellamy proposed the original socialist salute and the pledge after he joined the staff of the magazine "Youth's Companion." The salute and pledge were created by Bellamy to promote socialism among the youth in the most socialistic institution -government schools. When the U.S. Constitution was written, most children received private educations. Bellamy lived during the time when schools were becoming socialized heavily in the United States. Bellamy believed that the best way to promote socialism was by removing children from their parents and placing them in socialized schools (government schools) and other youth groups. It was a view later shared by the National Socialist German Workers' Party and its youth programs. Socialists use a sense of belonging to seduce people. Socialist schools (government schools) are used to destroy individuality and create dependence on government. Bellamy had often lectured on the so-called "virtues of socialism and the evils of capitalism." Adherents of the National Socialist German Workers' Party did the same. Bellamy was the first cousin of another socialist, Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy's futuristic novel, Looking Backward, published in 1888, described a utopian Boston in the year 2000. The book spawned a socialist movement in Boston known as "Nationalism," whose members wanted the federal government to nationalize most of the American economy. Francis Bellamy was a member of the "Nationalism" movement and a vice president of its socialist auxiliary group. The Bellamys saw government schools as a means to their socialist "Nationalism." Those were views later shared by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. For more info on the horrid National Socialist German Workers' Party see http://members.ij.net/rex/swastikamain.html

British money

Even more interesting is that the relation between national socialism and the british empire was no one way track. Without british money the so called movement of the NSDAP would have hardly "survived" the elections of 1930. Even today much of the propaganda material for geman Neo-Nazis comes from Greater Britain and the U.S.

The paragraph above is removed from the article. I think it would need a credible source to be reinserted, and if so better with a polished language.
--Ruhrjung 11:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It may be that my language is not polish enough to write it in your article, but what I wrote about britisch support of the NSDAP can be read in every history book.
--134.76.145.47

The poliching is no problem, that will surely someone else take care of. But you could provide a good reference, couldn't you?
--Ruhrjung 12:33, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I'll try my best!

Do we really need more than one swastika on this page? How about replacing the grey one (not the color one at the top of the page) with a picture of Hitler. Vancouverguy 23:12, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

more than one swastika on this page? no hurt in using it to point out the religous tone for the bent cross. I put in a pic of hitler. I'm looking for a ad bill about the nazi propaganda for industry [for the econ]. reddi 23:41, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks.Vancouverguy 23:42, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The background of the German National Socialists

I've removed the following paragraphs, which were added to the end of the article. The misspelling of Göring's name gives, the disregard of the article's disposition, and the usage of <i>...</i> gives the impression that the editor might be not so seriously interested in improving Wikipedia.

I would suggest that actually you have removed this passage because it doesn't fit with the rest of the page - a long apologia for Nazism. Goering's name is not spelt incorrectly - replacing an umlaut with an additional e is common in the English language and if the italicisation is wrong then fix that and don't use it as a flimsy excuse to remove the passage.
The page is full of crap - Nazi domestic economic policy had one aim and one aim alone - to ready Germany for war. In that sense it was a success, but in no other. Throughout Hitler's term in power the economy tottered on the brink of disaster and even mass famine. German families were poorer in 1939 than they were in 1929. The attempt to pass off American isolationisationism as an excuse for Nazi-ism gets a few points for originality but it doesn't alter the fact that it is garbage


Sociologically many prominent Nazis (though not Hitler) were the children of those who had previously prospered under the Imperial regime in Germany. Herman Goering was the son of an imperial diplomat, Albert Speer the son of an architect and the Nazis were very strong in the student movement before winning power. Many of these people, as well as senior figures in the armed forces, blamed those they called the "November criminals" for removing the old order and instead establishing a democratic republic and so undermining their inheritance. Combined with a wider German sense of injustice over the outcome of the Great War this was a powerful political force.
But there is no evidence that the Nazi's ever secured the support of the majority of the German people and many - especially Catholics, many dissenting, but not all, protestant churches and perhaps the majority of the working class - remained sceptical. Hitler's foreign policy successes were welcommed, and boosted his popularity, because he appeared so successful without provoking a war. His often stated intention to actually have a war was ignored by many (including the German officer corps) until too late.

--Ruhrjung 06:47, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Minor inconsistency

"According to the Nazis, an obvious mistake of this type is to permit or encourage multiple languages within a nation. This belief is why the German Nazis were so concerned with the unification of German-speaking peoples' territories."

Unifying German-speaking peoples would oppose having one language spoken in more than one nation, not having one nation speaking more than one language. It's obviously not a problem with the article per se as it is a local fallacious construct; I think we should avoid these as much as possible but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to edit while preserving the proper logic nuance (did they also consider more than one nation speaking a single language to be a problem? or did they infer this logic from the "mistake" described in the text? or was it just an economical/military reason for doing this?). --Gutza 09:48, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is national socialism socialism?

Lir, while early national socialism had some socialist components in its philosophy, Hitler eliminated these, culminating in the purge of the Strassers during the Night of the Long Knives. National Socialism as it is traditionally understood has very little to do with socialism. Danny 03:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • It is your POV that the National Socialists weren't "true" socialists, they claimed that they were. There is a difference between national socialism and international socialism. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • No, it is my professional statement as someone who specializes in this particular period of history. The Deutsche Arbeits-Front was not a trade union in any traditional sense, workers were generally opposed to the Nazis coming to power (see the tables in Schaefer's NSDAP: Entwicklung und Struktur der Staatspartei des dritten Reiches for instance, on p. 17 and 19), Schacht could hardly be described as a socialist in any sense, and there was a distinct hierarchy, determined by service to the Reich. According to you, how was it socialist. Oh, and socialism and nationalism need not result in national socialism. Eastern Europe, for example, the Solidarity union, prove that. How do you regard it as socialist Danny 03:42, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • And it is my professional statement that the National Socialist party claimed to be socialist; unlike most other socialists, they did not support internationalism (preferring nationalism). Lirath Q. Pynnor
        • And just what is your profession, Lir? RickK 03:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Im an expert on national socialism, how about you? Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Wow, are you guys hiring? JackLynch 03:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • We are always taking applications. Lirath Q. Pynnor
        • Is there much money to be made? RickK 03:56, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • For those of us at the top, yes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
            • And that was the underpinning of Nazi economics. Danny 04:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Do what you want. I am getting pretty damn tired of Wikipedia. Danny 03:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)




Couple quick things. Nazism was kinda socialist, in a vague and moderate way. They did nationalize some industry, and had some vestiges of a social welfare net. They wern't really right or left wing, but mostly just authoritarian. Also, why come people are always getting mad about edits and discussion on the wikipedia? I thought that was the point of it, that it was always to be a work in progress, etc...? JackLynch 04:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why can't we all get along? Lirath Q. Pynnor
For clarification of Nazism as Socialist I uploaded an image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_scocialist_diagram.jpg

Nor can I believe that my quotes about Hitler declaring his socialism is deleted yet quotes from Salvidori remain. Doesn't Hitler know what he is?WHEELER 19:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so by your logic they must be great champions of democracy, right? Because Kim Jong-Il certainly knows what he is, doesn't he? Mihnea Tudoreanu

Swaskika twice - Godwin's point

Why JackLynch has placed twice the swastika and removed the link toward the Godwin's point?

Please form an account. I saw no reason for you to delete that image, and I don't feel that Godwin's point warrents a mention in this article. Please form an account and explain why you do. Jack 05:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I did form an account. This image doesn't bring any new information compared to the flag. The swastika deserves a new article by itself. The Godwin's point is the actual most frequently usage of nazism and certainly deserve to be managed since it trivialize this regime beside the historians.

Thank you for forming an account. You can sign you postings by typing this: ~~~~ . I find it helpful to place a swastika image next to the religion section of the article in question. Swastika is a seperate article. I don't agree with your opinion about Godwins point, but perhaps I can agree to have a mention of it. I will look into a compromise. Welcome to the wiki. Jack 06:39, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I already did a few articles and changes but I see that those on the contemporary have much difficulties to be agree on. ````

I added a mention and link to godwins law, along w other additions. try signing your name while holding the shift key ;) Jack 09:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In French the equivalent of nigger nègre hasn't this negative aura. So for the Godwin's point nazism has get the status of power absolute by men as for example sadism for pleasure by torture.Marc Venot 01:20, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, eiether way the word is being used innaccurately often enough to change the meaning to some extent, and has been mentioned as such. It will probably always have a perjorative association, but is clearly quite quickly bantered around, see soup nazi from seinfeld if you have any doubts ;) Jack 03:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have difficulties to follow a Seinfeld episode but I guess this kind of both brutal and burlesque should be also among the links.Marc Venot 09:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What do you think of the Milgram_experiment?Marc Venot 21:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am a psychology major, and this experiment was discussed in my 1st into to psychology class I ever took. Its a great experiment, and clearly outlines the power of authority, as well as the ease with which humans can be cruel. I would love to conduct a different experiment, where people are tested for their preferences until you find out what types of people they dislike, and then perform a variation of the milgram experiment, without the authoritarian pressure. I think its pretty certain that people would be crueler to those they dislike generally, and those who arn't are probably quite exceptional and interesting individuials. Jack 02:42, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Beside the extreme situation when people think it's them or the others, Pierre Bourdieu has analysed how people integrate in their habits and sub-conscious the prejudices of their group. At the opposite people can be very cruel to those that they pretend to "love" as to refuse to let them die in dignity with a minimum suffering.Marc Venot 04:30, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

IRC

There is an IRC room, Wikipedia:IRC_channel (including a link to a java client), why don't you all discuss it there. Dori | Talk 04:10, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)


an anonymous user altered the external link I had placed here. I noticed a week or so ago that the link was dead, but I was going to wait until I had something to replace it with, and also to see if it became active again. This is the original, accurate link (which is defective and should be left out of the article at this point, unless it starts working again). dart.jeeran.com (The Aryan Restoration Troops) I'll look for some good links to replace it with. Jack 09:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed the external links. THe first group was a collection of neo-Nazi websites. Hardly classical Nazism. The second group was "opposition". It consisted of the Nizkor project, which is devoted to commemorating the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, the JDL which is a fascist Jewish organization of very little impact these days, and a couple of leftist groups that are opposed to contemporary manifestations of racism and neo-Nazism. Skinheads Against Fascism, while I might sympathize, does not constitute the "opposition" to Nazism. Danny 11:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did not claim these links were "classical nazism", but rather specified them as contemporary. I of course disagree with your various assesments of the links, but thats really not the issue. Clearly you prefer to limit the information available to the reader. You made a poor decision. Jack 12:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Clearly. Danny 12:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and South Africa/ Nazism and SM Stirling

I've heard of the influence that the Nazis had on South Africa, in which Nazi inspired whites furthered their own political aspirations by inventing apartheid in 1948. Furthermore, a science-fiction writer, S.M. Stirling, invented the fictional alternative-historical civilization of the Draka, which had a racist ideology of sorts. He had the civilization springing forth from the general area of South Africa. I wonder if he was inspired by Nazism, or by apartheid? 

Rickyrab 18:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism/Archive_1&oldid=228292145"