Template:Vital article

	Nazism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 6, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 11, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Politics C‑class High‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. LGBT studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Jewish history C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Wikipedia CD selection

Archives

Index 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, 28, 29, 30

Revolutionary not Reactionary Talk:Nazism and socialism

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Nazism had a powerful influence on neighboring European countries. It seems to me to be appropriate to include some reference to this such as: It was also contemporaneous or promoted in other European countries, particularly those with large ethnic German communities such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia

• Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera(2001) The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gsKbQgAACAAJ&dq=nagy-Talavera&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zJ2UU5OaMYal8AHY-4GACA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 13:43, June 8, 2014

I don't think it's appropriate to equate Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the lede as countries where Nazism took hold. Hungary as a nation fell to Nazi governance in its entirety and conducted itself as a Nazi state, whereas Czechoslovakia only did so after German invasion. An element (the German minority) within Czechoslovakia supported Nazism, but the same could be said for the United Kingdom. Czechoslovakia should be removed from the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk • contribs) 04:51, July 21, 2014

2601:703:4004:5CA0:40A1:B711:83ED:1085 (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of "Nazism" being a product of the right-wing, here is the investigation de-bunking that claim:Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History

<redact enormous copyvio>

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He wants you to change part of the definition of Nazism from the the incorrect "product of the right wing" to the correct "product of the left wing," and has provided evidence to back up his request. 130.52.192.4 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe opinionated BS that isn't supported by majority of academia and reliable sources is not "evidence" and neither is Nazism a "product of the left wing". NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments on the talk page respectful in nature, NoMoreHeroes. Mad'ouk (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should not descend into insulting eachother however this ongoing attempt to falsify the content of the article has to stop. We will not censor basic facts that anybody can read in any history book about the Nazis. We will not insert BS in the article or remove relevant facts. Some people who suggest this may be genuinely very, very confused. They may have been tricked into doing somebody else's dirty work for them. This is why it is important not to be personally insulting but (you know what?) NoMoreHeroes wasn't. They didn't insult anybody. Calling BS, BS is OK in my books. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the question though, who makes these history books you speak of? What we need to ask ourselves is do these people have political leanings and should these be addressed? I notice one sentence in the article states, "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." This is a very vague statement yet somehow it needs to cite a 3-in-1 source with pages and pages of information. Why is this not elaborated on? Who are these scholars? Who do they align with? I'm going to get all three of these books and see for myself, but for those who cited them I would like to hear what it is in those 70 some pages that could be reduced down to such a simplistic sentence. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the facts then dig up some dirt on the people presenting them? That seems a little, um, desperate?

The point about this consensus, which you seem to be missing, is that it exists across the political spectrum. Most sane people on the right accept that Nazism is an example of the right gone terribly wrong, not of the left or of something else entirely. Outside of the USA you will not hear any mainstream right-wing politician, right-wing journalist or right-wing historian question this. There are fringe opinions, and we acknowledge that in the article, but you don't get to change the global consensus just on a personal whim, any more than the few left-wingers who wanted to describe Stalin as right-wing got to. I don't understand why people are so keen to want to censor these facts. It is not a slight on normal, mainstream, right-wing people to call the Nazis right-wing any more than the fact that I have a moustache makes me in any relevant way akin to Hitler. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling me desperate for wanting to know where my sources come from when they have been vaguely cited? Especially in the wake of tons of Wikipedia corruption coming from bribed editors (mainly in politics)? You should be helping me keep these articles neutral. Let's keep it neutral and try to be unbiased in discussion here, because I honestly don't care which political side the source comes - what I care about is that people know where its coming from. People deserve to know where their information is coming from.

I honestly never knew that Nazism was considered "far-right" to "the majority of academics" because I always used my logic about the political spectrum to determine what was far-left and far-right. There was no way I would've thought that a regime with such massive government could be considered far-right because that's not what far-right means. I honestly thought the article was vandalized because it shocked me. And here we have such a bold statement as "the majority of academics" and yet I still don't know who these academics are? I have no problem with the sources but these articles should elaborate on them. These article should have the best interest of the readers in mind, and not to tell them what to believe but to aid them in making their own educated opinions especially in the controversial area of politics. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 23:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using your own logic for article content is prohibited in Wikipedia as per "No original research". It's questionable anyway since the Right is defined by its opposition to the Left, who were Nazism's main opponents and the reason other right-wing groups - conservatives, Christian Democrats and liberals - gave them dictatorial power. There's an article in the Guardian, "Socialism, fascist-style: hostility to capitalism plus extreme racism", which shows that U.S. far right share some views common on the Left. TFD (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qubix, the problem is that yes, there is an academic consensus that Nazism is a far-right ideology, whether we like it or not. Anybody can make their own analysis and label Nazis as far-leftists (communists fit this category better), but until this trend is found in reputable academic research and not fringe opinion articles and editors' original research, it shouldn't change how the ideology is described in Wikipedia. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open minded to anything. But this article feels very open-ended to me. I see sources that are simply pages and pages of information from a book (which has no digital view, and no quotes from the book were made), and they're being used to cite information of low complexity. How are people even supposed to know whats in the book and how do we know it even pertains to the content in the article? I could've cited the same source but just made everything up. That's why I want to find these works my self. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 23:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good public library should have at least some of these books. I know that not everybody has easy access to a public library and that not all public libraries are well stocked but I think that this is at least worth a try if you have a library near you. Please understand that we can't go scanning in pages and posting them here as that would breach the authors' copyrights. Also, please bear in mind that, as you are seeking to overturn long established content which is in line with the basic facts that we were taught in high school history lessons, the onus is very much on you to prove your case not to demand that we prove that we are not falsifying the references. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that's really all too crazy to question things people told you to believe? And to further research the knowledge for yourself in order to find out whether you believe it or not? Yes, I will go get these books and I will elaborate more on what these academics are saying. I'm actually curious because everyone has different angles on the political spectrum, because there isn't just one way of looking at it. From what I see here, the most used political spectrum by these academics seems to be based on social politics, which doesn't explain the government politics of said groups. Social conservatism in nazism is evident, but that's something that spans across the political spectrum so it seems a little odd. Nationalism and social conservatism is not something specific to just the right. So how about I delve a little deeper into some research and discover the different views on this.

Also I do have to say that you're very wrong about thinking that I want to "overturn information" for my own agenda. If scholars say something about something then it is a fact they said it. But here in politics we have lots of different views and arguments between these academics that I believe need elaboration. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 22:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How we elaborate on various views depends on weight: we don't spend a lot of time on fringe views. While it may be crazy to believe things just because experts do, it is policy that their views are reflected in articles, not ours. That's what an encyclopedia is. TFD (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TFD I appreciate the wise words. I understand that about Wikipedia as well. What I was trying to say, was that their views weren't expressed enough. I came out of this article and learned literally nothing about why "the majority of academics" consider Nazism to be far-right. Like I said, it needs to be elaborated on because people come here to be educated on topics - not take a one liner at face value. And btw I thought your article was extremely interesting on the matter and an example of the kind of elaboration I'm talking about. Politics and the political spectrum are much more in depth than people make it seem. My own personal rule is: If you have to ask "Why?" at the end of an educational statement then you didn't learn anything. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article Communism why a majority of academics consider them to be left-wing. There is a fringe theory that it was right-wing because it was statist. (Socialism actually combined ideas from traditional conservatism and classical liberalism.) It's worth noting that political parties in European parliaments choose among themselves where to sit and that is where the terms come from. Fascists sit on the right and Communists sit on the left. TFD (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia has two articles relating to this article, one about Nationalsozialismus (Nazism) and a separate one about Nationaler Sozialismus (National Socialism). Do you think it's worth creating a separate article to distinguish the two different concepts? Just a thought.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least creating a section within this article to show how the term was used historically before being used by the Nazis.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited on here for a long time (2015), but in looking at it again just now, it could use (ce) editing for concision. As for your suggestion, it already has an "Origins" section. A sub-article could be done, but is not necessarily needed. I leave it to others to comment further on this query of yours. Kierzek (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have National Socialism (disambiguation). It is synthesis to write articles about unconnected concepts when reliable sources have not done so. It's quite a stretch to group the liberal National-Social Association with the Nazis, as the German article does. Social does not mean socialist, just as anti-social and anti-socialist do not have the same meaning. TFD (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism is short for National Socialist Movement How can Nazism be called "right-wing" when it is based on socialism which is a decidedly left-wing.

Also if you look at the actions of the Nazi Party, they acted in more of a leftist manner, mob-rule along with a totalitarian leader. What planet are you from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.100.97.30 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered that all those scientists might be right and you might be wrong? Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can North Korea be a totalitarian communist state when it has "Democratic" and "republic" in its name? Oh, and it's certainly not biased of you to associate "mob-rule" and totalitarianism with left-wing politics. But here's the crux of the matter: reliable sources and political scientists generally regard the Nazi ideology as far-right. We can't change something that is not supported by reputable sources and researchers. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions presented in articles must reflect expert opinion, rather than what individual editors have concluded. Speaking of planets, I probably could not explain why I think man actually landed on the Moon, but I am not going to change that article until it is explained to me. TFD (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon is not a planet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't have a sense of irony. TFD (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I learned long ago that communists were left wing and fascists were right wing. Communist philosophy aligned more with liberal doctrine, whereby everyone should be treated the same, and government was heavily involved. Nazism is closer to conservative doctrine - current conservative party platforms that aim to create fear and distrust of immigrants and foreigners speak for themselves.

To counter the claim above that tries to take the party name too literally, I'll throw in some Voltaire:

Ce corps qui s'appelait et qui s'appelle encore le saint empire romain n'était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire.

This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure you can argue that their name had nothing to do with their policies, but then that must be proven by reference to the policies. If you just read the policies described in this article, quite a few of them are straightforward socialist policies - promises of free stuff to 'disadvantaged' or 'important' groups, redistributism. The anti-capitalists rethoric is straight-up Marxism, Hitler and his palls disagreed about the geographic scale, the internationalists wanted a worldwide revolution, the Nazi's a national/'volkisch' one. At the very least socialism should described as one of the influences of the Nazi's. There are scholars who acknowledge this influence, so the argumentum ad verecundiam won't work here. Austrian economics have argued this point for instance, such as George Reisman. Another one is George Watson. Note that claiming that socialism influenced the Nazi's does not mean that all their horrible actions can be or were derived from socialism. - Dg21dg21, 11:12, 24 August 2017 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg21dg21 (talk • contribs)

The "Austrian" viewpoint is considered fairly fringe. Not fringe in the pejorative sense of super-wacky but fringe in the sense that their view is not shared very widely outside of their small but enthusiastic group of supporters; Not so fringe that we should ignore it completely but certainly not mainstream enough to undermine the academic consensus or to justify giving their view a lot of coverage here. We already mention that there are other views and we are certainly not trying to hide this. Suggestions for minor improvements in the way we explain this can be made but I don't think any suggestion that seeks to massively expand coverage of this rather minor viewpoint can be justified. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are Marxist Socialists considered Right Wing...There should be no reference to a "wing" and if there is, A Socialist Workers Party is clearly left wing Zeropest (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, who are you responding to? Per the article: In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism." What Socialist Workers Party are you talking about? The Socialist Workers' Party of Germany was a left-wing party in Germany that fought against the Nazis during the war. Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we seriously arguing that the Nazi's must be left wing because they had "socialist" in their name? I suppose the Lilith Fair was organized to celebrate a Hebrew demon and that a rivet gun is a ballistic weapon. This is akin to arguing that the Democratic party in the US advocates for a nationwide vote on every government decision. Just like "Democrat", "Socialism" has more than one meaning, including the use in the NSDAP, where it meant "in the interests of society and the people" or something to that effect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note, most scholars consider the Nazis to be right-wing, not left-wing, but this is a bit of a false dichotomy. This simplistic, 1-demonsional viewpoint portrays Nazis and Communists as polar opposites when in fact they are both authoritarian ideologies. If you use the Nolan Chart, it's obvious that communism and Nazism are closer together than some might think. Unfortunately, the Nolan Chart hasn't caught on beyond libertarian circles and can't be used in the article. Like I said, this is just a side note. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting side note. And -dare I say?- common knowledge among those who pay attention to these sorts of things. Politics is a multi-dimensional spectrum, and while Communism and Naziism aren't on opposite corners, they are about as far apart as ideologies can get (the only bigger gulf I can think of is between absolute anarchists and absolute authoritarians). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's a widely shared view that both the far-left and far-right are authoritarian in nature, even though their end goals differ in certain ways. I don't think it's one-dimensional at all. Authoritarianism is simply a common element of both Nazism and communism. And Nazis were staunch opponents of communism, so there was obviously an adversarial relationship there. Scholars offer a distinction between them in a political spectrum, but not necessarily in action and attitude. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the French say "Les extrêmes se touchent." ("The extremes touch") Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP, George Watson actually argued that socialism was right wing because it was statist. But he was an expert in Victorian literature and did not publish his political views in academic journals. TFD (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article has left wing bias. It should be scrapped and redone. 148.177.1.215 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" (Colbert). Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis were far-left, not far-right. Erick1971 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Read Nazism#Position within the political spectrum and the citations contained in that section. General Ization ^Talk 04:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erick1971, Nazis were far-right and are primarily known for their anti-communism. Do basic research before posting nonsensical commentary on the far-left. Dimadick (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth it to mention in the ideology section that the ideology took a huge step toward the right because of the falling out between the Nazi party and the Strassers(Original founders of the party)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Strassers were not the "original founders of the party." The original party, the German Workers' Party (DAP), was founded by Anton Drexler. Hitler joined it in 1919, took it over in 1920 and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

(2) The party was never left wing, it was always a right-wing party. The Strasser faction was more oriented toward some aspect of socialism than the party as a whole, but was never on the political left. It would be highly incorrect to say that the Nazis took a "huge step toward the right" when Hitler co-opted the Strasser faction.

So, no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]