Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)

Adolf or Adolph, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

From the article on Fascism:

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".

In what way does Hitler's regime not conform to this description? Camillus (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severe economic regimentation, I should think. Look at the availability of consumer goods and what a sham the German economy was - it was never prepared properly for war. Michael Dorosh 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition cited already presupposes that Nazism is Fascism (otherwise it wouldn't include "race") but that it the contentious point. More on this next time. Str1977 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: the "Is Nazism Fascism or Totalitarianism" debate is a valid issue to be included in Wikipedia but the article on Hitler is not the proper place (and least of all its intro). It should be dealt with under Nazism, Nazism and other concepts, Fascism. Str1977 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the Oxford Dictionary definition is more accurate:

noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

— DERIVATIVES fascist noun & adjective fascistic adjective.

— ORIGIN Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis ‘bundle’. [1] Wyss 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it brief, given the Oxford dicdef, which more accurately describes classic Fascism as it was embraced by fascists during the 1930s, AH's Nazism was far more totalitarian. Wyss 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incomplete definition. Str1077 is wrong that there is not a consensus among modern scholars that Nazism is a form of fascism as Giovanni has shown. This is a question of fact that can be easily proven. After it has been I suggest that the argument be settled in Gio's favor. MikaM 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Giovanni has demonstrated that the use of Fascism in the intro to an article about AH would not mislead readers. Moreover, I don't think the Oxford definition is incomplete, though I do suspect it conflicts with popular misconceptions about the term. Wyss 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that Str1977 has incorporated one of my single word suggestions - "aggressive" (expansionism). Thank-you. I hope it will be accepted by others.

As for the second definition, from the Oxford Dictionary, I would ask - in what way does "1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." not describe Hitler's regime?

I agree with Str1977 that this is not the article for a lengthy discussion of the similarities/differences between Fascism and Nazism - I merely propose the addition of the single adjective "fascistic" to the word "totalitarian". Otherwise, how do we differentiate between Hitlerian totalitarianism, and communist totalitarianism? One word - that's all I ask. Camillus (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with using both words in tandem. It would address both your concerns and mine neatly. To answer your question, though, as I have mentioned, Hitler's regime was far beyond the classic examples of fascisim developed by Mussolini and perfected by Franco, in terms of economic control, loss of human rights and so on. Wyss 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I made a mistake. The intro is not the place to discusss the differences between fascism and nazism. Wyss 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think Str1977's addition of aggressive is helpful. Wyss 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I wish you hadn't decided that your comment was a mistake - it seemed to offer some way out... And yes, as I stated, the intro, and even the article itself, is not the place to "discuss the differences between fascism and nazism". I merely propose a one-word addition of the adjective "fascistic", to differentiate between Hitlerian totalitarianism and communist totalitarianism - the "better" definition you cited above, to me, fits almost perfectly Hitler's regime, while not fitting Stalin's. (Incidentally, and I don't want to get into a long discussion about this, but I disagree (and Str1977 seems to agree with me) that Franco "perfected" fascism). Camillus (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to find a solution to this, so I was a bit too eager to pounce on something that might work without thinking it through. My botch. Wyss 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's weird about Nazism (as I was taught growing up), were its practical, economic similarities to communism. Of course, volkish nationalism had a concept of private property but ultimately this was at the whim of the state (Hitler and Bormann). There are also parallels in terms of the corruption that kept the wheels turning, so to speak. A russian once told me, "The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler thought he was saving the world. Stalin had no such illusion." In many political, economic and security respects, Nazism wasn't so different from Stalinist communism. As many communists will tell you today that Stalin was no communist, there are fascists who similarly distance themselves from Hitler. Wyss 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these anecdotes are interesting, but I still contend that your preferred definition of Fascism fits the stated ideology of Hitler, but not that of Stalin's communism. Hitler didn't go in for full-scale nationalisation (think of all the private companies that profitted from the Nazi regime - Krupps, IG Farben etc.), Stalin exalted the equality of all races (though of course, in fact, he was guilty of great-Russian chauvinism, he himself a Georgian), Hitler exalted the nation and race, Stalin exalted the working class (officialy anyway). (Incidentally, Stalin very much thought he was saving the world, despite the anecdote).

So that is why I'm holding out for the adjective "fascistic" to differentiate between the two.

Lengthy discussions are not for the article, but we can talk till the cows come home on the discussion page, even if it is only over one word (though a very important word, IMO). Surely preferrable to endless reversions. Camillus (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that the definition of fascism does not match Mr Hitler's personal ideology (whatever similarities may have been drawn in the "marketing" presentation). Moreover, the large German corporations (some of whom originally thought they had bought and paid for AH), were ultimately bought and paid for by the Nazi leadership, which had total planning control over the German economy. There were, obviously, substantial differences between Stalinism and Nazism but the economic and political similarities are striking. Drawing a distinction between communism and Nazism is ok with me though, but not with the word fascism. Remember, I also think the intro is getting too long as it is. Wyss 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I'm only proposing one word - "fascistic" - not "fascist" - hardly the last straw that will break the back of the intro. I contend that Hitler's regime fits your preffered definition, while Stalin's "totalitarianism" does not. I don't agree that the "political similarities" are striking at all - they are in fact, poles apart, as I described above. Camillus (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't solved anything yet. I think using the word fascist in the intro will mislead readers and you think it will inform them. We've more work to do I guess. Wyss 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not proposing "fascist" - but "fascistic" - which implies (concisely) that Hitler's ideology and regime shared many of the features of fascism, while not being "classically" fascist. (Though the notion of "classical" fascism is itself contentious - it was all very new then). Please describe how Hitler's personal and public ideology does not fit in with your preferred definition cited above? Camillus (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism was volkish nationalism, an almost "metaphysical" notion of achieving ideal conditions for the German people, as defined mostly by their perceptions of "race" (although they were in practice, somewhat sloppy and unscientific in both their descriptions and motives along those lines). This intrinsic German destiny for a "chosen people" was the ultimate priority and Hitler's vision of implementation involved a ruthlessly efficient totalitarian government which introduced industrial genocide to actually alter the demographic characteristics of Europe. Class divisions were more or less de-emphasized and German volkishness implied a certain level of cooperative (or socialist) economic planning.

Fascism was an authoritarian, anti-socialist, statist system targeted at social stability and preservation of class structure. Instead of a "chosen people," the advancement of state itself was seen as ensuring ideal conditions for the population. Fascism was authoritarian, not totalitarian, and could accept a wider range of cultures and ethnic heritages.

These differences are significant enough that it is simply inaccurate to characterise Hitler's Germany as fascist or even fascistic. It was Nazi, volkish and totalitarian. The similarities to fascism are obvious but it is worth noting, in extreme, over-generalizing shorthand, that Franco died in bed, ruler of a fascist country that became a member of the United Nations (1955) and a fairly well integrated member of the western European economic community. Although Franco suppressed certain cultural and ethnic minorities, there are reasons why vast swaths of Franco's Spain were peaceful and prosperous through the 60s and 70s, by which time Hitler's aramgeddon was the smoldering memory of a nightmare. Never mind that Hitler alienated and then slaughtered the German/Austrian aristocracy while Franco only temporarily supplanted the Spanish monarchy, preserving it and ultimately designating it his political heir.

You may argue that these are national differences, but I suggest they're symptoms of the very different goals and outlook of Nazism as compared to the fascisms of Spain and Italy. Wyss 05:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add one other point. On a certain level, it may even be appropriate to reserve the term fascist only for the government of Benito Mussolini, since the word has become a sort of epithet or insult for any political group which is characterised by its opponents as having an excessively authoritarian or undemocratic approach to government. It's sort of revealing that while there are many political parties in Europe and the Americas which advocate fascist solutions to government, I'm not aware of any which self-describe as fascist. This indicates that the incendiary baggage of the word has rendered it undescriptive and disruptive, therefore unsuitable for most encyclopedic applications except in the most qualified contexts and IMHO certainly not in a general intro which cannot possibly discuss and lay out these historical meanings and vectors. Wyss 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate to reserve the term "fascist" for Mussolini's regime, but I'm not convinced. But if any other regime is to be described as Fascist, it is the Nazis. Hitler and Mussolini's regimes are generally considered to be much more of a kind than Mussolini's and Franco's - there is considerable dispute as to whether "fascist" is an appropriate term for Franco's Spain. Fascism with a capital "F" is a term which probably should be limited to Mussolini's Italy. But fascism with a small "f" is a term which most definitely includes Nazism. Any kind of comparative study of fascism starts with Italian Fascism and German National Socialism as its initial starting points, and a) tries to identify the commonalities between them, which are generally seen as a kind of fascist minimum; and b) tries to determine what other regimes and movement shares these features Every major study of fascism has included Nazism, and indeed has assumed that the term "fascism" includes the Nazis. This is not to deny that there are differences between Hitler's regime and Mussolini's, or between Nazi ideology and Italian Fascist ideology - notably, the racialist aspect of Nazi ideology is not found in Italian Fascism. But it is to say that there is a pretty solid scholarly consensus behind using the word "fascism" to describe Hitler's regime.

On the other hand, the alternate word preferred, "totalitarianism," is a highly controversial term. Most historians of Nazi Germany and most historians of Stalin's Soviet Union tend to avoid the term, which is generally seen to a) obscure the very major differences between Stalin's regime and Hitler's; and b) to be a highly politically loaded term, as it is frequently seen as a term used primarily by the right as part of an effort to identify Nazism with Communism. There is no way that the intro should use the term "totalitarianism". john k 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the worst option is "fascistic" which is a term with no known meaning that is not in any kind of scholarly use to refer to the Nazis. Just "a fascist regime" is perfectly appropriate. john k 05:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that both totalitarian and fascist are too loaded to be descriptively helpful in this intro? (Fair disclosure: I have frequently advocated a minimal intro length) Wyss 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this time I have to disagree with John K.

• The intro talks about the nature of the regime and not any person's or party's idelogy.
• Studies on Fascism might include Nazism as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that N. is a form of Fascism, only that it is worth including it for various reasons: that N. contained F. elements (meaning members, form and some parts of programme) and most importantly that it is often classified as F. and hence would be missing in such a study. There also might be a leaning of those scholars doing "comparative fascism studies" towards the Fascism viewpoint in the Fascim vs. Totalitarianism debate.
• "Totalitarian" might be controversial, but so is "Fascism" due to its overuse. Look at List of Fascists for this overblown use.
• Totalitarianism studies is often labelled as controversial and certainly had its ups and downs. It was popular during the 50s, in the wake of the cold war, when people were determined to fight the second totalitarian regime after having defeated the first. In the 60s and especially 70s Totalitarianism studies were declared anathema by left-wing trends in academia. It was claimed that it identifies Nazism with Communism (though the same coukd be said for those linking it with Fascism). Some might have done this but this is far from being the core of Totalitarianism studies, which is about comparison and classification (which necessarily involves some glossing over differences in the end) and not about identification (and BTW, Ernst Nolte is one of the most notable "Comparative Fascism" scholars.
• The nature of Franco's regime is off topic here and whether some regime is more or less Fascist than another of course must depend on one's view about what constitutes that Fascism -if I say that Spain was more fascist than Germany I am not saying that Spain was more brutal, or total or vicious, or aggressive.
• I oppose resorting to capitalisation issues.

Str1977 09:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse Str1977's summary. Especially his note that Fascism has become undesrciptive (overblown) from oversue (my main concern all along). Moreover the reluctance of some to compare the totalitarian aspects of Nazism and communism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV. I agree that Franco is off-topic, which is partly why I brought up the example and especially agree with Str1977's remark that (assuming it's appropriately applied) the term fascist does not imply increased brutality and so on.

• The somewhat conflicting dicdefs cited above, along with the lasting controversy on this talk page about using this term in the intro is a further indication that it is too undescriptive and potentially misleading to be helpful in the intro. Wyss 17:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

In the interest of brevity and concision, can I ask again that we just take the cited definition of Fascism above and describe, point-by-point, in what way it does not fit as a description of Hitler's ideology and regime?

The main objection seems to be that Hitler's regime was more "racist". Are we really arguing that "classical" fascism didn't pre-suppose the "superiority" of the European/white "race"? Would Mussolini have gone along with the idea that all races were equal?

I don't agree that the use of the term "fascistic" is un-scholarly. Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary : "fascistic - relating to or characteristic of fascism;". How is it "scholarly" to propose that Nazism and Fascism are identical? How is it "scholarly" to suggest that Nazism is quite distinct from Fascism, when it is surely, objectively, "related to or characteristic of fascism"?

Whether the word "fascist" has become pejoritave is neither here nor there - we're talking about the historical Hitler here. I for one, am not in favour of protecting Hitler from "pejoritave" terms, especially when they can be shown to be wholly pertinent.

Can we just forget about Franco, please?

Regarding Wyss's "Moreover the reluctance of some to compare the totalitarian aspects of Nazism and communism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."

I could easily say that the "reluctance of some to compare the fascist aspects of Nazism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."

I for one, don't discount the totalitarian aspect of Nazism. Nazism is even more totalitarian than Mussolini's Fascism, but that's not to say that M's Fascism was not totalitarian.

Why can't we use the good old wikilinking idea, for example : "a [[Fascism#Nazism_and_Fascism|fascistic]] [[totalitarian]] regime?" , ie. "a fascistic totalitarian regime?"- thus pointing the reader to the article which describes the similarities and differences, with the addition of a solitary adjective to the introduction. Then the debate could take place there, a more appropriate location, as all agree. Surely this helps the reader? How can talking about Hitler's regime without referencing its similarities with fascism help the reader? Camillus (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Camillus. I appreciate your attempts at a compromise to allow the mention of Nazism as fascism (its really incredible to find it resisted here!), but I'm against the "fascistic" because it was not just fascisitic is was fascist. Saying fascistic would imply simililarity, whereas Nazism was the real thing in whole. Giovanni33 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John K. Thanks for sharing your understanding,and I fully share your assessment. It does reflect the mainstream of modern scholarship on the question of fascism. The conflict here stems from a minority view of fascism that makes mistake so losing sight of the forest for the trees. In respect to the views of Str1077 and Wyss, some scholars do define fascism in such narrow terms, and some (a fringe view) even insist that the ideology is limited to Italy under Mussolini alone. This is not a widely accepted POV, and therefore this is not a reason to allow this view precedence in this article. It more appropriate to an article on the ideology of fascism.

Most scholars agree that it is sufficient to capitalized the term as Fascism when it refers to the Italian movement specifically, but define fascism broadly to include many movements (including Neo-Nazis), but particular has always included Nazi Germany as a prime example and source of study. The fact that fascism isn’t necessarily Nazism, should not blind us to the fact that Nazism was fascism. Ofcourse there are differences between Italian Fascism and Nazi Germany, esp. noted are the latter's racialized theories. Infact it’s a study of the differences and similarities of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that inform an understanding of fascism, and that has resulted in the modern consensus of the generic use of the term as fitting for both. Any study of fascism involves an understanding of the Italian and German fascist parties, their movements and regimes in historical and comparative perspective, identifying and analyzing the key political institutions and groups that supported Fascist and Nazi rule in the movement/party and regime phases, enumerating the key structural and ideological mechanisms which sustained Fascism and Nazism in gaining and maintaining power, and assess the theoretical debates concerning the development a heuristically sound and analytically useful concept of generic 'fascism'.

For details see S. G. Payne: A History of Fascism 1914-1945 UCL Press (1995). R. Griffin: The Nature of Fascism Routledge (1993).

To reflect this broader use of the definition, and it's acceptance in a modern understanding of the term, simply refer to any other encyclopedia or discussion about WW2 or Nazi Germany. This will show just how in a minority this view is (that Nazism is not a form of fascism). For example, take a look at Encarta’s entry on Germany’s national socialism, which I also note does not use that politically loaded word, "totalitarianism," that is best left to right-wing ideologues. It simply says in plain non-emotional language, “…the government created an authoritarian state, known as the Third Reich.” See:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/Fascism.html Infact let me quote it:

"The only fascist movement outside Italy that came to power in peacetime was Germany’s National Socialist German Workers Party—the Nazis. The core of the National Socialist program was an ideology and a policy of war against Germany's supposed moral and racial decay and a struggle to begin the country’s rebirth. This theme of struggle and renewal dominates the many ideological statements of Nazism, including Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (1925, My Struggle, 1939), speeches by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will, 1935).

All of the Nazi government’s actions served this dual purpose of destroying the supposed sickness of the old Germany and creating a healthy new society. The government abolished democratic freedoms and institutions because they were seen as causing national divisions. In their place the government created an authoritarian state, known as the Third Reich, that would serve as the core of the new society. The Nazis promoted German culture, celebrated athleticism and youth, and tried to ensure that all Germans conformed physically and mentally to an Aryan ideal. But in order to achieve these goals, the Nazi regime repressed supposedly degenerate books and paintings, sterilized physically and mentally disabled people, and enslaved and murdered millions of people who were considered enemies of the Reich or "subhuman." This combination of renewal and destruction was symbolized by the pervasive emblem of Nazism, the swastika—a cross with four arms broken at right angles. German propaganda identified the swastika with the rising sun and with rebirth because the bars of the symbol suggest perpetual rotation. To its countless victims, however, the swastika came to signify cruelty, death, and terror."

The same is true if you look up WW2: “Adolf Hitler, the Führer (“leader”) of the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party, preached a racist brand of fascism.” [2]

Again, there are differences, no one disputes that. Besides the racialist differences in emphasis, Italian Fascism produced a less effective, less repressive, and, hence was less socially destructive. The Italian army never enjoyed the unique position nor gained the reputation for efficiency that the German army has. Add to these social differences the industrial capacity of the German state, the effectiveness of its bureaucracy, and the sense of national frustration over defeat in the world war, and the differences in the real power and the public attitudes existing in both countries and we account for much of the differences notwithstanding the same political programme that is best described as fascism.

I also want to say that its no accident that those who are against a generic broader use of fascism also embrace the theory of totalitarianism, or that these advocates (esp. Wyss) invoke comparisons with authoritarian “communist states. I think this betrays a lack of understanding of fascism, and at best represents a minority conservative view. The commonalities can only be seen on a very superficial level that ignores the opposite historical intellectual foundations for the respective movements.

Fascism was a reaction to the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution. Best known for crystallizing these in modern theories being Rousseau, challenging social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. These enlightenment intellectual conceptions produced modern liberalism, democracy, Marxism, socialism. That is why fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, share varying degrees, the same hallmarks (I need not list them here, again).

'Fascism' is derived from the Latin fasces, which means a bundle of rods with a projecting axe – the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was first used by an Italian anti-socialist militia, the Fascio di Combattrimento, in 1919, and was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922.

The ideological basis of the movement was rabid anti-Communism and anti-liberalism. Communists were seen as unpatriotic traitors and liberals as weak meddlers. Fascists praised the strong bellicose leader, exalted in dreams of national glory and had a nostalgic vision of the past. Although some elements had anti-capitalist prejudices, especially focusing on decadent rich people, the ideology was not opposed to private property, and is compatible with capitalism, albeit of the more state variety. But, all this can be glossed over by avoing the fascist label and instead using "totalitarian," pushing the fringe POV that its on part with the authoritarian Communist regimes. Giovanni33 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In short, and to paraphrase Wyss:

"the reluctance of some to condiser the fascist aspects of Nazism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."

I would also ask Wyss - who has said that there are not similarities in Nazi totalitarianism and Soviet totalitarianism. Hence, where is the "misleading PoV"?

Here's what Britannica has to say:

"Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and Spain (1939–75)—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco—were portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos."

So Wikipedia is obviously out of line with Britannica and Encarta.

Those who reject the description of Hitler as a fascist (or even "fascistic") have not demonstrated that their view has credence in reputable scholarly circles. There is still a failure to show how the "preferred" dicdef cited above does not fit Hitler.

There is not even a majority here who deny the fascist features of Hitler's ideology.

To use the argument that the term is now pejorative is unacceptable, in my opinion, for two reasons: 1. we are talking about the historical Hitler here 2. since when does an NPOV disclude terms which some may see as "pejorative" when they can be demonstrated to be wholly pertinent? Wyss in particular seems to have set herself up as a protector of Hitler from terms which some may see as uncomplimentary.

To repeat Giovanni's comment - to talk about Hitler without any reference to fascism (not even a single word!) is inexcusable. Camillus (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Camillus. That Nazism is a form of fascism is not in dispute in the mainstream, as is clearly reflected by other mainstream sources of reference. The fringe view that restricts the term to only its creator (Mussolini) does in effect obscure an understanding of fascism; the label of totalitarnism serves the same POV function. That fascism is seen as negative reflects the POV of most people, as does the very association of Hitler--even his name. Does that mean we can not use his name when its called for by facts and modern scholarly consensus? Nazi is also used as a pajorative smear word in the same fashion. Does that mean we can't call the real thing, Hitler, a Nazi? We can begin to see the absurdity of Wyss's logic in her objections to calling the Nazi regime fascist. I think we should rely on the mainstream scholarly understading here. Wyss is best off pushing her POV for inclusion in other articles such as ideologies of fascism, which do have space for such fringe views. Giovanni33 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to endorse everything that Giovanni says, and just repeat for emphasis that all generic studies of fascism are essentially based around discerning the common elements between Nazism and Italian Fascism, and that, thus, Nazism is almost definitionally defined as a "fascist" movement, and the Third Reich as a "fascist" state. Obviously, the term fascist has been overwhelmingly overused. But, other than those who say that, because of this, we should only use the term to refer to Fascist Italy (who are, I think, in the minority), I have never until now heard anyone dispute that Nazism should be seen as fascist. In terms of totalitarianism, I would just like to note that I can't think of a single historian of Nazi Germany who has found the totalitarian paradigm particularly useful for discussing the Nazi state - my understanding of the consensus is that most historians of Germany feel that the term obscures the essential dissimilarity between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. The term has always been one which has mostly been used as a way to understand the Soviet Union. As such, it seems inappropriate to use a term which actual scholars of Hitler would not use in the intro to his article. john k 16:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the intro, which, with all due respect to these editors and their obvious good faith, should not be accidently spun into PoV by this exagerated and somewhat mistaken argument. Wyss 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyss, I don't understand what you're saying here. At any rate, as fascism is somewhat tangential to an article on Hitler personally, I'm willing to have it not be in the intro, so long as totalitarian is not in there as well. Alternately, perhaps we could say that he "established an authoritarian regime which has alternately been described as fascist or totalitarian," or something along those lines - a bit weaselly, but undoubtedly true and not asserting opinion as fact. john k 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, that might be a possible solution. Either nothing (though I think it's lacking something without the regime sentence, or give both views, since "authoritarian" is too weak on its own. Str1977 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with saying AH established an authoritarian regime in the intro, by the bye. Wyss 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussing the terms fascism and totalitarian as they relate historically to AH, along with mentions of the controversies, would be helpful in the main text of the article (I said this below a couple of min. ago but wanted to respond here too). Wyss 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am only in favour of saying in the intro that AH established an authoritarian regime, if this is followed up by a note along the lines of John K, that is "has been described as fascist or totalitarian". Authoritarian is to weak on its own. Str1977 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would reluctantly be ok with that but much prefer leaving all these (forgive me) loaded terms out of the intro. Wyss 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hitler's racial policies had culminated in deaths of about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust."

I've changed it to: "Hitler's racial policies had culminated in a genocide now known as the Holocaust."

This number of "six million" is disputed. I also want to remove the link to YadVashem because it considered a propaganda website. (at least to me).

Leave your comments here. --Haham hanuka 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haham, I reverted it exactly because it is not a myth but a fairly accurate number. Str1977 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, who can it be a "fairly accurate number" if even YadVashem admiting that the real number was smaller? In Hitler's entery on columbia encyclopedia [3] even the words "Holocaust" or "genocide" are not written there (in the whole article).

"As the tide of war turned against Hitler, his mass extermination of the Jews, overseen by Adolf :Eichmann, was accelerated, and he gave increasing power to Heinrich Himmler and the dread secret :police, the Gestapo and SS (Schutzstaffel)." --Haham hanuka 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is like with Lacan and the petit a (a silly joke - never mind.)

• As someone else noted above, Fascism as a state ideology is different from fascism as a set of characteristics that are revealed after the fact, ie after the fascist government in question takes control and does stuff that has little to do with the nominal ideology (democracy, communism, etc). In this sense it is correct to label the Nazis a fascist regime, as was Franco's regime, etc - see Robert Paxton's recent book on the same (Anatomy of Fascism, if I remember the title correctly). However, it is a 'loaded' word that only entered general use after the WW2 period, so I would avoid it if possible. It clearly connotes the Italian regime and since we are talking about the Nazis, who became nearly synonymous with the Fascists in their opposition to the Allies, it's best to avoid any potential confusion for the general reader. In the header the word totalitarian more than serves its purpose.

• Totalitarian is not a loaded or connotative word at all. It's like the common words autocratic or despotic or oligarchic - it's a very general word that can be applied to any context that has a certain common set of characteristics (strict censorship, crushing of dissent, etc) - it only becomes loaded in debatable contexts like with the current state of the USA (is the USA now totalitarian or not? Clearly most Americans would disagree though it fits the bill in many ways). However, the totalitarian nature of Nazism has never been disputed seriously.

I have edited the paragraph to keep it concise (ex. deaths of 11 million people --> 11 million deaths; it's understood we are talking about people and not flora and fauna) and retain almost every point that (I think) was key before all this other stuff cropped up. -- Simonides 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very conceptual model of the theory of totalitarianism is disputed, which makes it unacceptable in an encyclopedia article unless the term is itself subject to discussion. As an objective label its best avoided for its charged ideological usage, and its failure to provide any meaningful understanding of the nature of the movement it purports to describe other than a superficial identification of features that the labels Nazism and fascism already connote. Giovanni33 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simonides, how does making no distinction (in the article) between Nazi totalitarianism and Soviet totalitarianism help to "avoid potential confusion for the general reader"?

What is your response to the fact that Wikipedia is currently out of line with both Encarta and Britannica (cited above) in its failure to record, with even a single word, the fact that Hitler's regime was Fascist, or even "fascistic"? While rejecting the term, you yourself give two notable reasons why it should be accepted. Camillus (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word totalitarianism is very broadly in use and can be applied to almost any state that employs certain methods, without any reference to ideology, which is the whole point of using it in the header - as objective language as possible. There is no confusion with Soviet totalitarianism because it's a word like 'monarchy', describing a state of affairs rather than an ideology (the ideology is sketched with the references to anti-Semitism, nationalism, etc.) As I already stated the word fascist can lead to confusion with Fascism which is a particular ideology rather than a mere state of affairs (like totalitarianism, oligarchy, monarchy etc) though I certainly don't disagree with its applicaton to the Nazis; we are simply trying to inform the general reader here with as much clarity as possible. -- Simonides 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you "certainly don't disagree with its application to he Nazis", but in practice, remove any mention of the "fascist" nature of Hitler's ideology from the article, not even just the the introduction. The general reader may well be confused when he goes to Britannica and sees Hitler described squarely as a Fascist, with a capital F, and then comes to Wikipedia, and sees not even a single word mention of the fascistic nature of Hitler's ideology. Any number of reputable books also describe him as such, yet Wikipedia shys away as it may be seen to be "pejorative". Poor Hitler! In Giovannis' word: inexcusable. Camillus (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that most editors will favor its inclusion in keeping with the majority view and Wikipeadia will be kept up to the high standards of the other non-free encylopedias. And, I disagree with Simonides equating the well accepted descriptions of a Monarchy, which is form of government in which one person has the hereditary right to rule as head of state during his or her lifetime, with the theory of totalitarnism, which contrary to what he says also involves a description of ideology. In my view, the organic, idealist conception of the State that this theory rests on is deeply flawed. Giovanni33 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you missed my comments below and are new to this Talk page. As others will attest I am no defender of Hitler and to the best of my knowledge there are no 'camps' on this page. My only concern is for clarity - most Americans didn't even know where Kabul was until the Afghanistan invasion started, so (without meaning to be superior or condescending in any way) I think we are overestimating the understanding of the average individual who does their research online, by relying on their knowledge of modern scholarship to distinguish between fascist and Fascist. As Giovanni himself noted (or was it someone else) and I repeated, the small f word only entered general use after a study of these regimes, which reinforces my point about confusion between ideology and a state of affairs. Totalitarian itself has been around only slightly longer, since about the 20s, and it was a word made popular by the Fascists themselves, but please note that while the word does include the use of ideology it does not connote any specific ideology which puts it in a different category from words like Nazi, Fascist etc. -- Simonides 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the above post was directed to me, and not Giovanni? I have never accused you of being a defender of Hitler - far from it! And I have never used the word "camps" - there appears to be a "group" of editors in favour of a mention of the "fascist" nature of Hitler's ideology, and a "group" against such a mention, but I do not believe in cabals, and I don't go "investigating" other editors to see what other edits they have made. I am perfectly aware that people can come from quite disparate viewpoints, and yet agree on particular issues. While I may be new to this talk page, I wasn't born yesterday either ;)

I suggested above that it would be helpful to include some mention (even a single word!) of the Fascist/fascist/fascistic nature of Hitler's ideology and wikilink it to the section describing the similarities/differences in the Fascism article. I can't see how this wouldn't help the reader. You yourself say that "totalitarian" does not connote any specific ideology, so how does this help the reader, if we only use it in its non-specific meaning, without any distinction? I have no problem with the use of "totalitarian" in the article, as Hitler's (and Stalin's) regime were the epitome of the term. But can't we make a distinction?

Could you please respond to my question regarding how WP is currently out-of-line with Britannica, Encarta and many other reputable sources with its failure to mention, even in passing, Hitler's brand of "fascism"? Camillus (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing both you and Giovanni. Let's make this very simple:

• Totalitarianism has variants, one of which is fascism. Totalitarianism is the 'higher' category however because its usage is broader, and more appropriate over here (explained below).
• It is not merely a 'theory' or a 'concept' - it pretty much describes a certain state of affairs or set of methods - basically, total control, ie of every aspect of life. (Although of course there are various theories which are about totalitarianism, or totalitarian in nature, or the products of totalitarian regimes, etc.)
• Most readers, and the Wikipedia article itself, don't clearly distinguish between fascism and Fascism. The current wikilink takes us to Fascism, a single article (not two - Fascism vs fascism), which itself makes the word synonymous at some points and comments on differing definitions. I fully acknowledge that fascism in current scholarship has a broader definition than Fascism and includes Nazism, Franco's rule, Pinochet's rule, etc but my only contention is that we want to make things easier for the reader, not tougher. We make it tougher by allowing for the potential confusion between Mussolini's regime and the accepted scholarly usage. The word has not yet reached the point where people can distinguish between the two usages as they might be able to between republican (in the 19th century French usage, for ex.) vs Republican, or democratic and Democrat, etc.
• Wikipedia (which I'm highly critical of, btw - you'll see some links to debates on my Talk page) doesn't follow the same standards as other, non-free encyclopediae. It tries to set equally high standards, but not the same ones (which can be very frustrating.)
• By not connoting any specific ideology, we make specific reference to Hitler's methods and not just his beliefs. His beliefs/ideology are also mentioned separately in the references to nationalism, anti-Semitism, militarism etc. Basically, we are able to round out a description of Hitler's rule without being redundant (by explaining its various aspects to readers) instead of just sticking the label fascist (which overlaps with stuff that is already stated) and leaving readers to figure out its meaning in this context.
• We can certainly make room for explaining the difference between fascism and Fascism later in the article, but IMO it clutters the header which must be brief.

-- Simonides 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wys is stil pushing her POV. But, I thank Simonides for his efforts, despite that we disagree on the theory of totalitarianism (its really a theory that is highly disputed). I agree with the current version that addresses editorial language, but includes the correct usage of fascism and imperialism, instead of the loaded term, totalitarianism, or the less than satifactory term expansionism. And it doesn't matter if other readers are not aware of the small f, capital F difference--its moot: Nazism is properly termed fascism. I agree with the analysis of Giovanni, John K, and Camilus, and disagree with Str, and most of all, Wyss. BelindaGong 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda, was there ever an issue you didn't agree on with Giovanni?

Quite in contrast to what he is saying: there is (or was) a debate about whether N. is a form of F. or rather of T. - and there still different views on this. Hence including F. in the intro is POV (agreed, including T. becomes POV as well). At best, both equations are disputed.

Also, "Fascist Totalitarianism" doesn't work as this states the two opposing views. And we don't need to distinguish the two Totalitarisms here, as it is clear in the article that Hitler was a Nazi and no communist.

No one is talking about Hitler without mentioning F., as Mussolini certainly was a model for the early Hitler and later an ally, but whether N. equals F. is another question. And we can quite well talk about Hitler and N. without calling it F. We could include (if it really isn't included) a short phrase about parallels to Italian Fascism in the "early party" section, but it has to be short, as this article is about Hitler the man.

Name-calling doesn't help the discussion either, Giovanni, and whether F. is seen as a negative (I think we share at least that much) is irrelevant - what Wyss pointed out is the term is used to label all kinds of political views. Nazi is a better term as Hitler actually called himself a Nazi.

The preference of many people for labelling N. as F. is motivated in some cases by ideological preference (the so-called Antifascism), in other by linguistical (longish Nationalsocialism, German: Nazismus vs. Narzismus).

Last but not least, even if it were undisputed to label N. as F., it still wouldn't be all right to include it into the intro, as the "regime passage" in the intro is not concerned with labelling the political affiliation of Hitler (that is dealt with in the first paragraph by clearly calling him what he was, a Nazi), but the nature of the regime. To say it was F. is absolutely redundant. The whole passage becomes pointless and should better be removed completely.

Str1977 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I do understand the F-f distinction but I don't like it, though it is unfortunately a part of the English language, an ugly scar on a beautiful face. Str1977 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify one thing more, echoing Simonides. If T. is used along the line of the theory of T. it is a contentious point, but so would be F. However, when using T. more broadly, as Simonides argued, it is not contentious. F. however always remains redundant and pointless in the "regime passage". But I am open to any alternative word that might do the trick of avoiding the contentious side of T. while including the broader, non-contentious side of T. The problem is that most words are too weak to properly describe N. (e.g. authoritarian, dictatorial). Str1977 10:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand Simonides's argument that "fascism" is confusing, but that "totalitarianism" is perfectly acceptable. "Totalitarianism" just isn't a neutral, descriptive word. Use of the word means that one is endorsing a particular ideological viewpoint, which states that Nazism and Stalinism are essentially similar. As Str has noted, there are some scholars who hold this viewpoint. But it is very distinctly a minority viewpoint, and it is particularly so among scholars of Nazi Germany - I can't think of any major currently working historians who endorse the totalitarian model. That is to say, totalitarianism is a word which is used by a small minority of scholars and represents commitment to a particular ideological model of what Nazi Germany is. Fascism, on the other hand (with a small "f") is mostly agreed upon by historians as a useful model for understanding various European political movements of the interwar period, and the regimes they established, most notably in Germany and Italy. There are numerous useful scholarly works about the phenomenon of European fascism in the interwar period, and every single one includes Nazi Germany. Some scholars don't like to use the term, but I don't think that fascism studies can be said to represent a single ideological viewpoint in the way that "totalitarianism" does.

In terms of broader meanings, I would dispute that wikipedia should concern itself with that, especially if we are giving a link. If we say "totalitarian," we are going to link to the "totalitarianism" article, which is a particular theory which is mostly rejected among scholars. The popular meaning of the term is simply a derivative of the scholarly theory, and it seems to me that it's impossible to assert a clear decision between the two meanings. With "fascism," on the other hand, I agree that it has become something of a pejorative, and that, if the popular meaning is intended, it could be misleading. Fortunately, though, a link to the fascism article would clarify matters. I would accept, though, if we were to agree to use neither term in the intro, although fascism should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article. john k 16:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put this one to bed, the idea that the intro is to long, and would collapse under the weight of a single word addition. Comparing the following articles:

And Wyss even now wants to zap the word "totalitarian" as "too loaded"!

Note that the German language Wikipedia adds Hitler to the "Faschismus" category (and incidentally, uses the more neutral photo which has been proposed for this page, rather than the glorifying picture used here.)
Britannica calls Hitler a Fascist (and with a capital F!). Encarta calls him a fascist!
And I'm still waiting for someone to say how Wyss's "preferred" dicdef does not fit Hitler.
I maintain : "the reluctance of some to consider the fascist elements of Hitler's ideology makes me suspect a potentially misleading PoV". Camillus (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you review this talk page you will find that I support the inclusion of totalitarian and have never said it is loaded (someone else said that). (Actually, you did :[4])

No no no... don't you read these posts? I was trying to compromise with John Kenny. I did not assert that totalitarian is loaded, I was trying to be open about finding a common solution. (I think you ackowledge this further down) Wyss 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I understood what Wyss said too. Str1977 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John K stated his preference for "fascist" as a description for Hitler's regime. I hardly think it's likely that he would think it a "compromise" to remove both "fascist" and "totalitarian". Camillus (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point. I suggested a compromise and that's the context of my suggestion that the word totalitarian be avoided too. People skim these posts far too wontedly, then get wound up about what they've misread. Boring. Wyss 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor 1: "We've got 5, I want 10." Editor 2: "Compromise? How about I give you nothing?" . End of transmission... Camillus (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camillus, it is rather "We want to have 10 for us and you want to have 10 for us so let's give 5 to each." Not saying that works, just pointing out Wyss' reasoning. And, before you ask, this is only about the intro. Adding references to Fascism or Totalitarianism in the article is valid. Str1977 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we're getting somewhere - "adding references to Fascism or Totalitarianism in the article is valid". That's promising. I don't see, however, how proposing to remove both ideas is giving something to both sides...you've lost me there...but I'm prepared to draw a line under this as I'm more interested in your proposal that both be mentioned in the article. Camillus (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should draw the line. Just a last attempt at explanation. One side wants F. and opposes T., the other side wants T. and opposes F., so leaving out both in the intro would have denied both sides their wish but also spared them to put up with what they didn't want.

Sure, I never denied that F. can be mentioned in the article (if I came across as such I am sorry), as in the article he have more space than in the intro. If there is no mentioning yet, this not the result of any conscious decision. The question is where to put it. We could include a reference immediately before the putsch of 1923 (as Mussolini is mentioned anyway) or before that in the early party organisation phase. For another proposal re the intro see John K below. Str1977 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did suggest avoiding both fascism (or fascistic) and totalitarian as a compromise and still support that. I'm also ok with the use of the word totalitarian and alternatively, a minimalised intro but the latter is not a popular suggestion here and I'm ok with that too.

An introduction for Hitler, without mentioning the Holocaust, or the war that Hitler threw the world into, as you propose, will not pass, just as an introduction for Stalin without mentioning the millions of deaths in the Gulags will not pass, or an introduction to Mao without mentioning the madness of the Cultural Revolution will not pass. Camillus (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that 100%. If you're going to find traction by arguing that I'd like to diminish the importance of the Holocaust to this topic, forget it. Want to expand the Holocaust section in this article? I'll help you. They murdered most of the Jews in Europe. It's one of AH's most enduring legacies. Wyss 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Legacy" seems a strange choice of word to me. Something handed down from one generation to another? Camillus (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for those other lengthy intros which have been cited, flaws in other articles shouldn't be used as justification for introducing flaws in this one. Wyss 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is opposing the F. word for overblowing the intro - it is opposed because of accuracy.

In what way is this definition of Fascism inaccurate as a description of Hitler's ideology?:

1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

And not just the intro, but not a single mention of Fascism in the article as a whole? Camillus (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was Giovanni that argued for the T. word being loaded.

Not only Giovanni, Wyss too:

"I also don't really like totalitarian; that is a politically loaded word "

Please cite the diff on that one, I know I didn't say it, and the string doesn't even show up in a search, thanks. Wyss 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - it was MikAm who said that...but...

"Is it possible that both totalitarian and fascist are too loaded to be descriptively helpful in this intro?" [5]

The difference being, Giovanni wanted to replace totalitarian with fascist, while Wyss apparently would prefer to omit both words. The idea that Hitler's regime cannot objectively be called totalitarian has no scholarly credibility whatsoever. Camillus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I'm more than ok with using the term totalitarian, you definitely misread someone else's post as mine. Wyss 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...one right, one wrong. The diff shows you said that "totalitarian" may be too loaded. Camillus (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see it that way, I don't. I think totalitarian is helpful, fascist misleading in an intro. Discussing it in the text is more than ok by me.

Also.. I'm more than ok with aggressive exapnsionism, which spot on describes Sept 1 1939. Wyss 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't enter into debates about the picture, as those editors acquainted with this article have too many bad experience with one Mr RoHa.

I mentioned it in parenthesis, as I'm aware that a long debate has taken place on this issue. Although I have only recently started commenting on this talk page, I have been following it for some time.

Wiki articles are not proper references and even Britannica can be wrong. Even if it's right, F. is redundant and pointless in the intro.

Not only in the intro, but not even a single mention throughout the article? Brittanica is not the only reputable source that characterises Hitler's ideology as fascist. The idea that it is not accurate is a fringe view. Camillus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one (AFAI can see) is denying that some elements of Hitler's ideology is fascist, but you probably could make Stalin a Fascist that way.

How does Stalin fit Wyss' "preferred" dicdef, more than Hitler? I do not deny the similarities between Stalin's totalitarianism and Hitler's. But "fascist" is wholly appropriate to Hitler, while only marginally to Stalin.

Assume good faith. Str1977 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed - my comment on "PoV" was a paraphrase of Wyss. Perhaps you should direct your comments to her. Camillus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things: I don't agree with Camillus's "paraphrase" of my take on PoV. Moreover, Stalin was as much a fascist as Hitler, but we don't say that in scholarly contexts because a) the term is insufficiently descriptive and b) it would more or less be op-ed. Wyss 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly surprising that you "don't agree", but how is it any less accurate than your assertion? We'll ignore the "Stalin was as much a fascist as Hitler", as you say, it's not "scholarly". The idea that Hitler's ideology was not fascistic is a fringe view, and the idea that Stalin was a fascist is a fringe view too. Franco didn't "perfect" Fascism, Hitler developed it into "Super Fascism", ie. Nazism. 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Happily, there is no need to mention these things in the intro, never mind we have some polite disagreements as to historical perspective, definitions and semantics. Ĩndeed, I glark this discussion is likely a symptom of why these terms are not helpful in an intro on this topic. Wyss 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I think it's important to make something clear because Talk pages have a tendency to degenerate into camps - there aren't any real 'sides' in this article and I am not on anyone's 'side'. Any newcomer to this Talk page should go through the past five archived pages to realise that I have found previous versions of the header too much of a whitewash and argued at great length and sometimes vehemently with Wyss and to a lesser extent Str1977, Golbez and others - we're no cabal.

That said, words like "ultimately", "aggressively", "at the height of their power" etc are all very editorial, and this is the same concern that is driving some of the other editors to replace 'fascist' with 'totalitarian'; let's please try to use facts when we can as it sounds much more formal and provides more information (ultimately can be replaced with 'eventually' or 'by 19xx', or height of powers can be given an approximate time period, and so on.) -- Simonides 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep some of this editorial language, especially "at the height of their power" -it is hardly longer and we don't need to place exact dates into the intro. Str1977 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to say, almost nobody editing WP reads archived talk pages and I've run into admins exercising their admin powers who've actually told me "I'm not going to wade through x pages of archived talk..." The result is constant repetition of the same issues over and over again. Wyss 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Talk page is 145 kB long. I created a sub-page for this "side issue" of Hitler's sexuality, and moved the "discussion" above into it., see: /Hitler's Sexuality. However, Str1977 reverted it. To be frank, I'm pissed off that this stupid speculation has been allowed to get us away from the real issues. I couldn't give "two hoots" if Hitler was gay or not - I'm more concerned with the discussion of the fascist nature of his regime, whether the intro should be expunged of mention of the Holocaust, Hitler's imperialism/aggressive expansionism/"reclaiming of former German lands".

Str1977, pleas don't revert these remarks without discussion. Camillus (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please assume good faith. I certainly will not remove your comments from the talk page. I was merely adding my signature which (via the glitch) restored the section. I will restore your move now, though I don't think the topic merits a page of its own. It should be discused and archived in due course (but we can always turn the "Hitler's sex" talk page into an archive). Str1977 11:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you took my comment as lacking respect for your "good faith". I allowed my annoyance at this "diversion" to spill over. My apologies. I think that the discussion does merit a separate talk page, as I imagine that this will come up again and again - just as there is a separate talk page for Adolf or Adolph, another perennial. Camillus (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I am sorry for counteracting your move and for overreacting a bit. Last night was quite tense on WP (first this issue, later a sockpuppet controversy) and some of this spilled over to today. I agree that it will probably result in enough to fill a talk page. Some times, big issues are settled quickly, and small issues take ages. Str1977 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked this whole section as it had been copied to /Hitler's Sexuality (see below) and I feel a duplication can lead to confussion in the discussion - ie people carrying on commenting in both incarnations of the subject. Agathoclea 11:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is wholly unsupported. Lots of codswallop about AH has been published. Wyss 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that, at the moment, neither "fascism" nor "totalitarianism" is to be found in the intro. This is fine with me. On the other hand, later on, the article rather blandly states that Hitler was trying to establish a totalitarian state, with no sense that the word's meaning is problematic. At the same time, the only mention of the word "fascist" or "fascism" in the article is with respect to Italy. I don't really have strong opinions on the intro specifically, but I think that, in general, any use of "totalitarian" or "totalitarianism" needs to be problematized (that is, the narrative voice of wikipedia should not simply be saying that Hitler's regime was totalitarian - it should say that it has been described as totalitarian), and that there needs to be some mention that the National Socialist movement and the regime which it established have been described as fascist. This is all. john k 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the intro as it is, too. I've no problem with succinct, objective references to the important nuances in the terms fascist and totalitarian as used by historians and I'm all for qualifying language in this context, (described as, etc) as mentioned by John Kenney. For example, I have zero problems with the body of the text mentioning that Nazism has been described as fascism and so on. Wyss 22:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the tot. vs fasc. debate was quite unproductive and in my opinion, unwarranted, removal of either from the header and the inclusion of weasel words/evasive language/etc reintroduces POV and silliness. Was Hitler a dictator or not? Undisputedly. If you can't find other words to describe his dictatorship, then throw the latter in. If dictatorship is not your cup of tea, keep making the rounds with a tiny thesaurus. All this hyper-political correctness, where it isn't even accurate or necessary, is highly absurd. -- Simonides 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your PoV and emotion are showing :) Wyss 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way, I think the whole fascist/totalitarian issue was forced by Giovanni33 (talk · contribs)'s trolling. I ran a quick Google search (see below) and both terms seem to be used with about the same frequency. In absence of an agreement, removing the term from the intro might be best. Even though this leads to hyper-political correctness (see the comment above), it's tough to imagine how else a consensus could be achieved.

Search term	# of hits
Hitler + totalitarian	800k
Hitler + fascist	1.6m
Hitler + "totalitarian state"	100k
Hitler + "fascist state"	70k

--Jbetak 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, raw Google word searches are unscientific in terms of historical accuracy. Moreover, interpreting them is original research. However, although the presumption of using Google is false, I agree with the conclusion in that the intro can do without either term. Wyss 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was merely an attempt to show that it would not be surprising, if the body of editors was evenly split on the issue. The whole discussion has been quite wasteful. Jbetak 01:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do agree and I know you weren't trying to be scientific. I also, sadly, agree that some serious trolling and wiki-revenge tactics have been at play here. Wyss 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To remove mention of Hitler's dictatorship is unhistorical, POV and unacceptable. It doesn't matter what word precisely we settle on, so long as it is mentioned. -- Simonides 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The term dictatorship is undescriptive, misleading and potentially PoV. Beacuse of this, the term is unscholarly and unencyclopedic. WP is not a blog. Wyss 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler wasn't a dictator? Whatever next? This is one of the most batty things I've ever heard. How many "scholars" would suggest that Hitler wasn't a dictator? Bonkers! Camillus (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting result - twice as many hits for Fascist as totalitarian. I'd be content to see a discussion of both terms in the body of the article, mentioning, even if briefly, that Hitler's ideology has been characterised as a Fascist, and his regime as totalitarian, with appropriate links - eg. link to section in the Fascism article where the differences between Nazism and Fascism are discussed. I agree with Simonides comment above. Now I see that Wyss is asserting that Hitler wasn't a dictator. "What Next?"

I feel it's rather sad when Wikipedians call others "trolls" when they dare to disagree with them. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of trolling. Camillus (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As wonted, Camillus does what he can to distort my posts and be confrontational.

• AH was a dictator. He was also (forgive me) a lunatic fucking asshole. Neither term is scholarly or encyclopedic. Understood?

To use one of your favourite (rather quaint) words : Codswallop. Every reputable scholar who ever put pen to paper calls Hitler a dictator. So how can it not be "scholarly"? I would suggest that you won't find a reputable encyclopedia that doesn't call him a dictator, so how can it be "unencyclopedic"? LFA, on the other hand is definetly unscholarly :) Camillus (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Raw Google word searches are not scientific, not even as Internet word counts. Interpreting them is original research anyway.

• I did not call Camillus a troll, I do not think Camillus is a troll. Camillus, please stop conflating my remarks about unhelpful editing behaviour with yourself, thank you. Wyss 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to JBetak's characterisation of the whole debate about Fascism and Totalitarianism as a result of G's "trolling", while I feel it is a perfectly reasonable point of discussion. Camillus (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm at it, personally, I also think AH was clinically paranoid, delusional and neurotic, by the book, DSM, totally. However, that is original research. Moreover, I'd work to remove a published citation saying this (or something similar) because psychiatric diagnosis through historical records is not considered by serious historians or psychiatrists to be at all reliable. Wyss 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazon.com search results for hitler dictator - 46 results including the work of every major biographer and scholar of Hitler - Bullock, Kershaw, Trevor-Roper, etc. Even David Irving, a Holocaust denier and Hitler apologist, calls him a dictator!
• Amazon.com search results for hitler dictatorship - 33 results including, once again, Kershaw etc - Domarus' multi-volume compilation of Hitler's 'Speeches and Proclamations' is subtitled 'The Chronicle of a Dictatorship.'
• Amazon.com search results for Nazi dictatorship - 28 results starting with 'The Nazi Dictatorship : Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation' edited by Kershaw etc., followed by various histories/accounts of the regime. -- Simonides 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I ask Camillus to at least review WP:Civility. Wyss 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm unaware of any incivilty on my part, and I wouldn't say you've been uncivil to me. We just have some differences of opinion, but I don't count "Codswallop!" or "Bonkers!" as incivility. Can you give an example of my incivility? Camillus (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should you, by the way. -- Simonides 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The term dictatorship is undescriptive, misleading and potentially PoV. Beacuse of this, the term is unscholarly and unencyclopedic. WP is not a blog. Wyss

This should be enough to disqualify Wyss from editing an article on Hitler and all the numerous Hitler-related articles she obsesses over. -- Simonides 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reinstated)

Huh? What comment did I remove? If I did, it was an accident.Wyss 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here are some other unscientific Amazon book searches:

• hitler asshole 4

• hitler saint 28

And my favourite,

• hitler saved the world 274

Please take unscholarly discussion to a blog or something, ok? Wyss 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My links amply demonstrate that precise, scholarly/ encyclopedia use of the word dictatorship is fully justified. Your response, on the other hand, only reveals your PoV and your emotions. You may also want to review WP:Civility. -- Simonides 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, my links amply demonstrate that your links are, scientifically speaking, codswallop :) Wyss 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]