Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nazism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:54, 27 May 2012 editBryonmorrigan (talk | contribs)1,652 edits →Trevor-Roper Edition of Hitler's Table Talk Should Not be RS...: Clarification of wording...← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:20, 22 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Nazism/Archive 30) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}}
{{not a forum}} {{Controversial}}
{{censor}}
{{controversial (history)}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{tmbox|style = border-color:#b00000;|type = content|image = ]|text = <div>If you find some images offensive ].}}
{{Calm}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|action1=FAC|action1date=05:12, 6 August 2004|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/July_2004#Nazism|action1result=failed|action1oldid=5039816
{{Article history|action1=FAC|action1date=05:12, 6 August 2004
|action2=PR|action2date=22:36, 11 July 2005|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Nazism/archive1|action2result=reviewed|action2oldid=18632562
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/July_2004#Nazism
|currentstatus=FFAC}}
|action1result=failed |action1oldid=5039816
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
|action2=PR|action2date=22:36, 11 July 2005 |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Nazism/archive1
{{WikiProject Political culture |socialism=yes |fascism=yes |class=C |importance=high }}
|action2result=reviewed |action2oldid=18632562
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=C|importance=high}}
|currentstatus=FFAC
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=C|importance=mid}}
}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=top}} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=high}}
{{WPCD}}
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|social=yes|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=high}}
}}
{{Nazism left wing}}
{{Nazi common name|otherpage=y}}
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 140K
|counter = 30
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Nazism/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Calm talk}}
{{archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days |index=/Archive index |auto=yes | {{archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days |index=/Archive index |auto=yes |
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
}} }}
{{User:WildBot/m01|dabs={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Atomization|atomized}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|3|Greater Germany|Großdeutschland}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|3|Großdeutschland}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Individualization|individualization}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Rentier|rentier}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Robert Michael|Michael, Robert}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|cosmopolitan}}|m01}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Nazism/Archive index |target=Talk:Nazism/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Nazism/Archive <#> |mask1=Talk:Nazism/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary |mask2=Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary
|mask=Talk:Nazism and socialism |mask3=Talk:Nazism and socialism
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 140K
|counter = 19
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Nazism/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== Picture missing from article ==
== request ==

Text of the ''22 pages'' of Babik given as a cite for the claim of Lutheranism and its "organic pagan past" as being a basis for Nazism. Thanks. ] (]) 01:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:I did not understand your point. What do you mean?--] (]) 02:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::I have full access to this paper, which is a critique by Babik of a book written by revisionist historian Richard Steigmann-Gall. According to Babik, Steigmann-Gall ''"challenged the conventional wisdom that Nazism was either non-christian or anti-christian"'' and ''"rejected the increasingly popular interpretation of Nazism as a secular or political religion"''. Steigmann-Gall view, according to Babik, is that there is a high degree to which Protestantism was central to Nazi self-understanding with the top Nazis comprehending their actions in Christian terms and ''"as a mission completing the work of the reformation in germany"''. Babik then proceeds to criticise Steigmann-Gall's line of thought beginning with the following questions: ''"Is Steigmann-Gall’s understanding of the implications of his portrayal of Nazism correct? Is his rejection of the secularization thesis valid? Does his representation of Nazism as a Protestant movement necessarily undermine the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion?"'' Babik answers these questions in the following terms:
:::''"In the following article I suggest that while Steigmann-gall’s revision of Nazi conceptions of christianity represents a welcome addition to accounts of Nazism as a form of neo-paganism, his claim concerning the implications of this revision for the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion is deeply problematic. His dismissal of the secular religion approach stands on an untenably narrow conception of secularization as a tool of historical understanding. In other words, I take issue not with Steigmann-gall’s depiction of Nazism as a Protestant movement, but with the model of secular religion against which he subsequently evaluates it. This model ignores the finer points of secularization theory; it represents only a truncated version of the much more rigorous model of secularization developed in the debate between Karl Löwith and Hans Blumenberg, respectively the main proponent and the main critic of the secularization thesis in the area of historical theory."''
::Babik goes as far as saying that due to Steigmann-Gall's poor understanding of the secularization thesis, his theory of Protestant Nazism actually confirms the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion:
:::''"In light of the Löwith–Blumenberg debate, Steigmann-Gall’s revision of Nazism as a Protestant movement thus does not undermine the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion, but tends to make this interpretation more plausible. ..... By demonstrating that Nazism had Christian content, Steigmann-Gall has unwittingly met the test of secular religion proposed by secularization theory’s most rigorous critic. If Steigmann-Gall reaches the opposite conclusion and sees Protestant Nazism as running counter to the secular religion approach, this is because he lacks more thorough awareness of secularization theory. Insofar as he extracts his understanding of secularization from contemporary political religion historiography on Nazism, the lack of awareness is more extensive."''
::So it is clear from this paper that the conventional view is that Nazism is either non-Christian or anti-Christian, and the view that Nazism is a radical extension of Protestantism is a revisionist view point (i.e. minority POV) of a historian with a poor understanding of secularization. I am surprised that Paul has overlooked the substance of this paper and instead used it as a source to text in the article that is written as a mainstream viewpoint, when in actual fact it is a flawed minority POV. --] (]) 09:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::With respect, that is now a very complicated and intellectually formidable lead-in to the Church and State section, rather than an introductory A, B, C statement. For someone new to the subject it would be better if the Nazis' basic position on religion were stated first, before going deeper into the subject. ] (]) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::The source used is not easily reduced to platitudes <g>, as the prior poorly worded claims indicated. I soght to salvage the source, and not to savage its meaning. Perhaps better to omit the mass of quite convoluted reasoning present in that source? ] (]) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Kim, I'd have a go myself but am a bit busy at the moment, perhaps you could try your hand at drafting a suitable explanation of the Nazis' basic position on religion. --] (]) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::I was hoping you wouldn't say that. I'll have a rummage around some sources and see if I can come up with something sensible on this tricky subject. ] (]) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Upon reading the literature I found a lot of new information and facts I was not aware of. It is a very interesting reading, and I need some time to read and summarise it. In connection to that, I take a short break and hope to come back with new version of the text.--] (]) 23:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::I have a draft of sorts, but it reads poorly at present. It's quite difficult to find over-arching statements that can be individually referenced. ] (]) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Give it a go and post at least an outline here, I'm sure with many heads we can formulate something. --] (]) 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:Whether the Nazis were Protestant, Catholic or pagan is irrelevant to whether or not their anti-Semitism developed from Luther's views. ] (]) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::I feel a bit like an embarassed schoolboy being asked to show his sub-standard work to the class. I have a skeletal version of what could be an explanation of the Nazi-churches relationship, but even if I work this up to a more acceptable standard, the next hurdle would be how to integrate it with what already exists on the page. I hope you can read it despite the presence of pointers to my references.

The 24th point of the Nazi Party Programme of 1920 guaranteed freedom for all religious denominations not inimical to the State and endorsed “Positive Christianity” to combat “the Jewish-materialist spirit”. J Noakes and G Pridham, Documents on Nazism, 1919-1945, London 1974

The anti-communism of the Catholic Church and its priority of self-survival eased accommodation with the regime in 1933. Relations between the Nazi state and the Catholic Church were regulated by the Concordat signed in July of that year, an agreement upheld by both parties despite breaches criticized in 1937 in Pius XI’s encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’. Hildebrandt Lutheran traditions of obedience to state authority and German patriotism, together with anti-Communism, resulted in a more enthusiastic reception of Nazi beliefs by the Protestant churches. Remak comments on the “misunderstanding of true aims” of Nazism by most church members

Despite their fundamental incompatibility, Snyder the Nazi Party and the mainstream churches co-existed uneasily throughout the period of the Third Reich. The Nazis avoided direct public attacks on the churches. There was no equivalent of Bismarck’s Kulturkampf. Hitler respected the power of the Catholic Church and was wary of the negative effect any open confrontation might have on the German public. Remak. Although privately expressing his hatred of Christianity Snyder p.304, Hitler saw the churches as embodying a socially conservative element that could not be replaced by party ideology. TT He was prepared to tolerate them as long as they recognised the State as master TT 143 and did not interfere in its affairs.

Bormann, who represented the more aggressively anti-Christian element in the Party, thought Hitler had always been religious p.203 While he rejected Christianity with its Jewish origins as a "big lie", TT Hitler employed religious vocabulary in his everyday conversation, often invoking the Lord and the Almighty in his public speaking.

Although he agreed with Bormann that National Socialism and Christianity were incompatible 145, Hitler deliberately held aloof from interfering in church affairs p.122, saying he had no wish to promote atheism p.6 which was associated with Bolshevism. He hoped for the eventual elimination of the churches, expecting the "disease of Christianity" TT 343 to die a natural death. Table Talk p.59

Hoping to maintain good relations with the churches to secure their support, he forbade Goebbels to leave the Church 340 and intended to remain Catholic himself. Speer p.95 Speer reported Hitler as believing that the churches would adapt to the Nazi state over time.

Dissent occurred in both mainstream churches, especially on the question of euthanasia. Fischer In the case of the Catholic Church this was expressed in individual acts of disobedience by priests and bishops who were punished by internment in concentration camps. Remak Goebbels retaliated by orchestrating occasional smear campaigns in the press against priests and monks. Fischer Crucifixes were removed from schools and hospitals. Goebbels diary

Dissent expressed itself in a more organised form in the Protestant churches. Fearing that the Nazis posed a threat to religion, many resisted Nazification by establishing the Confessing Church as a counterweight to the pro-Nazi element styling themselves ‘German Christians’. In 1937 800 members of the Confessing Church were arrested. Hildebrandt

The outbreak of war saw an end to official harassment of the churches. Snyder While fanatics like Bormann continued to press for a campaign against the churches (Kirchenkampf), Hitler wanted this postponed until after the war. Speer p.123; Goebbels p.163 He recognised the value of traditional religion in maintaining morale in the armed forces and providing solace to the bereaved families of soldiers killed in action. Both mainstream churches continued to provide chaplains to the armed forces and offered prayers for the Führer from their pulpits. Remak Speer’s architectural plans for the new Berlin included the rebuilding of churches destroyed by bombing. Speer 177

By the war’s end the relationship between the Nazi state and the churches was still “a major unresolved issue” Remak.

The American historian Klaus Fischer has described the moral failure of the churches to resist Hitler as an “institutional failure of nerve”, while acknowledging that “few believers realized that their Christian faith was fundamentally at odds with Nazi ideology. p.359.

:Actually that's not bad at all, it seems like a good summary. I've added some subsections within the "Church and State" section, I'd be inclined to replace every thing above the "Thule society" subsection with your text, then anything salvageable form the old to be added in where appropriate. --] (]) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for the kind comment. Not having to merge the above with existing text would certainly make things a lot easier. I'll find time this weekend to polish the draft. I'm still hunting for a source I know exists where Hitler says, either to Bormann or Goebbels, that he can't see what it would achieve to prevent the mother of a soldier killed in action seeking comfort by going to church. This has been an interesting exercise for me in revealing how reluctant H was to move egainst the churches (I'll wager that has something to do with his mother's devoutness); it also explains how lay members of churches could believe that, with the notable exceptions of euthanasia and anti-Semitic measures, there was no basic incompatability between their beliefs and patriotic support of the regime. ] (]) 07:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Right Nug, I've had a go at rewriting the section. The source base is currently quite narrow, but I'll see if I can expand it. I'm mindful that the overall article is already too long for Misplaced Pages, so I've tried to keep the points to a minimum. I'm assuming more detail on aspects like neo-paganism, the substitution of Christian symbols and rites, can be found on linked pages. I might just add one more point about how the 19thC, e.g. Wagner, had paved the way ideologically for the German Christians by remoulding the Judaic Jesus meek and mild into an 'Aryan' warrior. ] (])
::::I've now added the Wagner point, but it may be too specific to fit in with the general tone of the section, so I won't be surprised if it is reverted. More seriously, if you look below you'll see someone has raised a serious objection to using Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk as a reference. If the objection is sustainable, I think several WP pages will be affected. It's really up to others now to build on the basis I've laid by modifying and improving the section I hope that it is more comprehensible and comprehensive than what went before. ] (]) 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think you have laid a solid foundation now for future work, I find coming up with a structure is always harder than adding the detail, so well done. I've read the thread below concerning Trevor-Roper's work and was rather surprised myself, it is something I'll have to look into further. Regarding Steigmann-Gall's work, it has been criticised by Babik, see the quotes I posted at the top of this thread from Babik's review of Steigmann-Gall's book. That's what makes this topic so difficult, scholars seem to find some issue in each other's works. --] (]) 12:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

== Targeted groups? ==

Can someone add Slavs to targeted groups? To this paragraph:
To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews, Romani, and the physically and mentally disabled. Other groups deemed "degenerate" and "asocial" who were not targeted for extermination, but received exclusionary treatment by the Nazi state, included: homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses and political opponents.

From "The Holocaust" wikipedia page:

Slavs
Main articles: Generalplan Ost and Hunger Plan

One of Hitler's ambitions at the start of the war was to exterminate, expel, or enslave most or all Slavs from their native lands so as to make living space for German settlers. This plan of genocide was to be carried into effect gradually over a period of 25–30 years.


It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply.

— Heinrich Himmler spoke about Operation Barbarossa, June 1941 ] (]) 19:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:I think the context here is targeted groups within Germany itself. --] (]) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

== DAP ? ==

What's point with DAP ?! Nazism isn't socialism. It's only the name :
*Not class struggle, which is an important socialism topic
--] (]) 12:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
::This is an old chestnut. Search the archives, this has discussed before. --] (]) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:::It's more than just a name. It certainly isn't socialism in the Marxist sense or in the Christian socialist tradition, with their vision of a more just and egalitarian society. But neither should the 'socialist' element in Nazism be underrated in terms of explaining its wide appeal to many Germans. The 'socialism' of the Nazis was very narrowly defined within a nationalist framework (its variant of egalitarianism being embodied in the idea of Reich citizenship - as Hitler put it, a German street sweeper should feel superior to any foreign king). It never quite succeeded in winning over the workers to the extent the Nazis hoped for, but it did in many individual cases cut across the class divide. I think this is why the Left has never understood why the Nazi dictatorship was possibly the most popular in history. It built on Bismarck's state socialism which was well in advance of other European countries (and eventually copied by them). Nazi social welfare put France and Britain in the shade during the 1930s Depression. Read Hitler's Table Talk to see how smug he is when referring scornfully to the way the class system operates in England. I'm sure it was awareness of the inadequacy of Britain's welfare system compared with Germany's that made its expansion under the Beveridge Plan of 1942 a political imperative. Hitler and Goebbels were proclaiming a 'New Order' in Europe which would sweep aside the old, decadent 'plutocratic' order in France and Britain. Politically, these older systems could not, after victory, return to pre-war average levels of material existence and still expect to enjoy popular legitimacy. Neutralising the propaganda of the Soviet Union's 'workers' paradise' was also a consideration. ] (]) 08:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs, or we will end up referring to Roosevelt's ] as American socialism (a claim generally made only by fringe right-wing polemicists). The Nazis' "national socialism" should not be confused with what is generally understood by socialism as an ideology. Of course, the name was chosen to appeal to the working class. Bismarck was not a socialist. In fact, he passed the ]. ] (]) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::"Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs..." Indeed so, but social welfare programs are popularly associated with socialism. It's absurd to imply I suggested Bismarck was socialist. He was playing the same game as Hitler, providing social welfare measures 'from above' to wean the workers - proletariat if you prefer - away from Marxist socialism and integrate them into the authoritarian state. ] (]) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. The Germans were not smart enough to figure out what 'Socialist" actually meant, and were thus fooled by the Nazi's, or is your assertion that the Germans were so smart that planned to confound us all over a half a century later with this incredibly clever scheme to fool us all and make Socialism look bad by falsey using the name?
Really, do you all have anything but your own personal opinions to actually back this up?
Something solid and lastings. Hey I know we will settle this by looking at specific planks in the National Socialist Party Platform. You know, the National Socialist Program.

11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

19.We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20.The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/National_Socialist_Program

Holey Moley Braintrusts, they were Socialists. The biggest fraud perpetrated by the so called intellectual elite in the 20th Century was the idea that National Socialism and Marxist Socialism were polar opposites. They were not, they were in competition for the same groups of people. If you have trouble understanding the animosity between them, I suggest you research Stalinism, Trotskeyites, and Maoists and their notably (not peaceful) ideological disputes. They are all Socialist. Whether Hitler, Stalin or Mao actually believed in Socialism is certainly debatable, but their ideology was all socialist, so the point can be made it was meant to just attract followers. That point can be made about any Political Ideology or movement.
But these groups were far more alike than any of them were "different" and what they sound like is the half of the Occupy Wall Street movement, right down to the Anti-Semeticism.

Power <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Under your absurd "reasoning," we are to then conclude that the German Democratic Republic (a/k/a, the "DDR," otherwise known as East Germany) was really not Communist at all! Why, they had the word "Democratic" right there in the name! There is no merit whatsoever to your argument, which is why there are no reputable historians that buy into such a ludicrous concept. There is no "conspiracy" or "fraud," any more than there is any merit to other wackadoodle conspiracies, like the "Truther," "Birther," or "Chemtrail" conspiracies. Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills. --] ] 23:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
::no, several editors including myself have alluded to the 25 point plan before. ip makes a great point, either much of germany did not understand the meaning of the term, or it is misunderstood here. ] was forced on germany by communist, ] won elections. ] (]) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:::The NSDAP did not win election. They formed a coalition with the Conservatives, which gave them a majority. They achieved dictatorial power when the Christian Democrats and others including free market types approved the ]. Only the Social Democrats opposed this measure, the Communist MPs having already been arrested. ] (]) 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::here are the actual election totals http://en.wikipedia.org/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results ] (]) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::a perfect example of why naziism and nazi party should be combined, editors on one page are unaware of material on the other. ] (]) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Their best showing was 288 out of 647 seats and together with the Conservatives' 52 seats they were able to form another coalition government. However they needed a 2/3 vote to achieve dictatorship which they did by obtaining the support of all the non-socialist parties. ] (]) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::so we are back to my original point, either millions of Germans did not understand the definition of national socialism, or you do not. ] (]) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have facts to back up my assertion. Not just the platform of the National Socialist Party, but go and look at the statements by both the German Government and the Soviet Union during their pact. What do you have, your opinion. Please bring some facts to the argument. You may disagree with idea that they were good Socialists, but they were Socialists none the less. You do not get to define it to suit your ideology. Bring some facts and debate the issue. This is not a conspiracy theory. Again, it was the way they presented themselves to the electorate, and the mode of most of the Social Policy programs they implemented. The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution. The Russians made sure of it when they wrote it or them. Just because the Soviets massacred hundreds of thousands of Socialists, Trotskyites, and various other forms of progressives whose ideologies did not mesh well enough with the Stalin variety does not make them Capitalists either. It was the way they operated. Same thing with the Nazi's. Hell, even IL duce, Mussolini was a member of the 2nd (Communist) international. The Marxists hated the National Socialists and Fascists for one major reason, and it was not because they were not socialist, it was because they focused on Nationalism in opposition to internationalism. Think about what the biggest threat to say a Sunni Muslim is. It is a Shiite Muslim. That and again they were competing for the same pool potential supporters. Capitalism will really never undermine the base supporters of any Socialist party, but another Socialist party sure as heck can. People who thought that Socialism might be a good idea were not going t leave the Soviet Bolshevik version to join the Christian or Centrists Democrats in massive droves, but they did leave to join the National Socialists.
As far as the birther comment, now that we know that Obama was the source of the rumor he was born in Kenya, you should probably retract that little (meager) attempt at ridicule, it does not ring true.
Power] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 01:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:"The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution." It says no such thing, please do not provide false facts to support your opinions. ] (]) 19:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Um ...
::::'' Article 1 of the 1968 constitution began with the words, "The German Democratic Republic is a socialist state of the German nation. It is the political organization of the workers in the cities and in the countryside, who jointly under the leadership of the working class and their Marxist-Leninist party will realize Socialism." ''
:::Seems to contradict your wondrous blanket assertion (trusting that you acknowledge "Marxist-Leninist party" = "Communist party" at least. When accusing editors of lying, it would help if you had actual facts on your side, TFD. Or will you now insist that "Marxist-Leninist" has naught to do with "Communism"? Cheers. ] (]) 23:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

== Trevor-Roper Edition of Hitler's Table Talk Should Not be RS... ==

I just noticed that someone is adding stuff to this page, particularly in regards to the whole Hitler/Christianity debate. Rather than copy and paste the many comments from reputable historians regarding the absolute fakery involved in Trevor-Roper's "translation," particularly in reference to the alleged "anti-Christian" passages, I'll just link you to where it has already been cited very well in the WP article for the book in question: . Such obvious (and well-known, at least in the academic community...) forgeries should not be used as RS on this page. --] ] 19:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:That someone is me. And that someone is now being told that Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk is an obvious and well-known forgery. I'll need to investigate what that assertion is based on because it isn't obvious to me nor known. Is Picker's Table Talk text also a forgery? ] (]) 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
::I've now looked at the link you provided. It'll take me time to digest and act upon. My first reaction is not to believe that Trevor-Roper's work is a forgery. I am being told Hitler has been mistranslated, which is perfectly believable but a different proposition. Since it might well be true, may I suggest you have a go at trying to provide a straightforward account of the Nazi-churches relationship. I've found that difficult to achieve without going to the horse's mouth, so to speak, for Hitler's views on Christianity. If we don't know what they were, we will certainly find ourselves in a different place. The rest of the information on that link seems to be a discussion about contradictions between the Nazi relationship with the churches and what one might term Hitler's religiosity. There are certainly ambiguities in these, so why should we be surprised to find contradictions? I already tried to point that out by saying much of the evidence appears contradictory. The other stuff about an Aryan Christ is hardly revelatory. ] (]) 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::This is very serious, in fact shocking. If Steigmann-Gall's findings are reliable, I assume he immediately started work on a new translation, or has convinced a publisher to step in and arrange one's appearance. If, for example, Hitler did not refer to "the disease of Christianity", Trevor-Roper has indeed been fraudulent, or perhaps, more charitably, lazy in relying on the incorrect French translation. If fraudulent, it places a question mark against the credibility of his other work. How much of 'The Last Days of Hitler' did he also invent? (Goodbye 'Downfall' et al.) Does the English version of Hitler's 'Last Will And Testament' also contain translation errors? My brain is slowly shifting gear here, and if, after rummaging around, I find I've been duped, I'll have to expunge the TT references and try to stick to what has been recorded independently of what were hitherto believed to be relevant Hitler utterances. I did say earlier in the discussion that I am not best placed to rewrite this section, but recognised the need to do so. I think, for example, the material on Luther should be on a page dealing with anti-Semitism and that this page should only mention it briefly as one ingredient in the Nazis' anti-Semitism. Now I note that we have a seemingly stranded pic of Streicher whose position will have to be moved to link him more to the Luther section. ] (]) 09:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I deleted the passages which were based off of specific statements from Trevor-Roper's "translation" that have been shown to be forged. (I use the term "forged" because I think it goes beyond mere "mistake" when you add things that aren't there in the original...in order to change the entire meaning of a sentence...) I left the rest of the stuff cited to Trevor-Roper, because I can't say that everything in HTT is fraudulent, and if I did so, it would totally mess up the section. I ''do'' think, however, that other RS should be used in place of it, because of the "issues" in Trevor-Roper's edition. It's like using Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction" as a source. It's just not reliable. Here's an essay I found, discussing the various fakeries and mistranslations often used to "prove" that Hitler was anti-Christian, when the actual historical record shows otherwise: . (It also discusses the Trevor-Roper fiasco...) --] ] 13:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::OK, I'm pretty much persuaded now that Trevor-Roper isn't reliable (though I must say the mistake about the army belt buckles on that link is pretty crass. It suggests unfamiliarity with German history because the motto predates Nazism; so who did that chap's translations for him?). If Hitler's other pronouncements in the TT are NOT mistranslated, the basic picture remains the same, but can only be illustrated by duller quotations. By the way, I thought the consensus view of Rauschning was that contemporaries thought he was making it all up, but that events proved he was pretty much accurate on what he was reporting. ] (]) 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Well some authors have a tendency to attribute everything to Hitler, but the Nazi party was more than just him. Goebbels also held a dim view of the established churches stating: "Catholicism and Protestantism are both rotten". And let's not forget that one of the key ideologues of the Nazi movement was the Baltic German ], being a true anti-semite he rejected both Catholic or Protestant beliefs and tenets as tainted by Jews and wanted to create an entirely new religion. Hitler may have admired Jesus to be the "slim, tall, blond" aryan saviour of the Germanic people, but at one stage Hitler also admired Stalin thinking he must of had some Ayran blood due to his ruthlessness. The Nazis rejected the Old Testament , which is core to Christian belief, and wanted to merge the Catholic and Protestant churches after the war into a unified German secular religion with elements of paganism. So in that sense the Nazis were anti-Christian. --] (]) 20:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::"In that sense," what you just wrote was OR... --] ] 23:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Nonsense Byron, see Richard Steigmann-Gall,''The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945'' Page 218: ''"Over time, Nazi hostility to Christianity seemed to increase, as new anti-Christian voices, particularly Martin Bormann's, began to be heard. By the start of the war, Hitler himself was taking a more antagonistic stance"''. --] (]) 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: is the link. The author says there were both Christian and anti-Christian elements in Nazism. Notice that Catholic and Protestant churches continued to be major supports for Nazism, even as relations strained. All political movements have internal divisions. ] (]) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Nug, the sentence that begins with, "In that sense..." is clearly an attempt to reach a conclusion, rather than a presentation of RS. It is ''your'' conclusion, and therefore OR. Furthermore, while it can easily be shown that the Nazis used "pagan" imagery and symbolism, you will find it difficult to show that the Nazis actually promoted any kind of "pagan" religious belief or ritual, or incorporated it into their version of Christianity. There is plenty of "pagan" symbolism all over Washington D.C., but that does not mean that the founding fathers of the United States intended to promote "paganism," or anything else. If you want to prove that the Nazis created a "unified German secular religion with elements of paganism," then you need to find RS stating that specifically...rather than reaching your own conclusions based upon your ideas of the definitions of "Christianity" and "paganism." --] ] 17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Byron, perhaps you should get up to speed with the literature first. A review of Steigmann-Gall's book by Milan Babík (''Nazism as a Secular Religion''. History and Theory, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Oct., 2006), pp. 375-396): ''"Steigmann-gall’s revision of Nazi conceptions of christianity represents a welcome addition to accounts of Nazism as a form of neo-paganism"''. --] (]) 20:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::You can't find anything better than a third party, admittedly "revisionist," '''interpretation''' of RS? And the title of the article, denoting a "secular religion" is at odds with the sentence you quoted, as "neo-paganism" is not in any way "secular." (This leads me to doubt that the author has anything but a chauvanist definition of "neo-paganism" similar to how many Christians view anything not fitting in line with mainstream Christian dogma as "pagan" -- like those who refer to Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormoms as "pagan.") Show me an example of the Nazis promoting the worship of Odin, Thor, Freya, etc., and you '''might''' have a point. Anything else is just an attempt by modern Christian apologists to try to distance Nazism from Christianity, now that most of the ''alleged'' anti-Christian statements by Hitler and "Occult Nazi Conspiracy" hogwash have been debunked. --] ] 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::On the other hand, what Steigmann-Gall's book actually says is this: "Whereas past forms of Christian politics were known to embrace nationalism, antisemitism, anti-Marxism, or antiliberalism, the Nazis took these ideologies to new levels. '''For this reason the Nazis represented a departure from previous Christian practices. However, this did not make them un-Christian.''' Whereas millions of Catholics and Protestants in Germany did not think Nazism represented their interests or aims, '''there were many others who regarded Nazism as the correct Christian response''' to what they saw as harsh new realities." (Steigmann-Gall, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945," p. 262). He then goes on to discuss what he terms as elements of "paganism" in Nazi belief, but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical," rather than showing any connection whatsoever between Germanic pagan religion (the worship of Odin/Wotan, Thor, Freya, etc.) and the religious beliefs promoted by the Nazis. In fact, he specifically dismisses any connections between the actual Germanic pagan religions and Nazism as simply "window dressing for an ideology rooted in a different source." (p. 263). --] ] 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well Bryon, it is clear that you regard your own interpretation of Steigmann-Gall's book; ''"but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical,""'' carries more weight than Milan Babík's review published in a reliable source. But unless you find a RS that supports your contention that Babík's or Steigmann-Gall's definition of "paganism" is a chauvinist definition it remains essentially OR coloured by your personal POV. --] (]) 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It's quite clear from Steigman-Gall's own statements (quoted above) that he was not insinuating that Christianity had merged with Germanic paganism under the Nazis, as if that were somehow possible...though that appears to be what you are promoting, by using Steigman-Gall as a "source." Incidentally, I've noticed that there are other peer-reviewed articles out there by Christian apologists who DENOUNCE the book in question because they feel that it promotes the idea that the Nazis "were essentially ‘Christian’," and "that neo-pagan ideas played an insignificant role in the ideology." ''(See "Inventing ‘Paganists’: a Close Reading of Richard Steigmann-Gall's the Holy Reich," by Irving Hexham, Journal of Contemporary History, January 2007, vol. 42, no. 1, 59-78)'' So I don't understand how you are using Steigman-Gall as a "source" that the Nazis weren't ''really'' Christian, and that their ideology was merged with paganism. It's like trying to "prove" that a government, ruling over a non-Christian country, somehow promoted Christianity...without ever mentioning "Jesus," "Christ," or "God" in any public speeches, legislation, or other policy matters whatsoever. It just doesn't make sense at all. Regardless, your own source (Steigman-Gall) specifically ''states the exact opposite of what you posted'' when you said that the Nazis were "anti-Christian," when he stated, as was previously quoted by me, that, '''"this did not make them un-Christian."''' Also, I can't access the article right now, but from reading the abstract and first page of the Milan Babik article you quoted earlier, it certainly looks to me as if you're mischaracterizing the author's conclusions and opinions regarding Steigman-Gall. --] ] 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::The section reads poorly now, and whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis and of course their support after the war with the ratline. ] (]) 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::TDF, you should also read up on the current literature, because if you had you would know that Protestantism includes a vast number of independent religious bodies many of which were unrelated to each other and you would know that out of the approximately 18,000 Protestant pastors in Nazi Germany, only around 3,000 were members of the pro-Nazi ''Deutsche Christen'' faction while the remaining 15,000 pastors were not.(William Shirer, ''The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'', pp. 234–40.) This plain fact shows that your statement ''"The section whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis"'' seems not to be based upon any source but rather your personal uninformed POV. --] (]) 07:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm sorry TDF thinks that the section reads poorly. For someone exploring the subject for the first time, I'm sure it provides them with a clearer mental map than what existed before. This section is not there to put the churches in the dock, nor to whitewash them. It hardly does that. It explains they had a shared anti-communist ideology with Nazism, were prepared to come to an 'arrangement' and tried not to rock the boat. It ends with a moral condemnation. On the other hand, it tries to show that many church-goers would have felt no categorical imperative to protest against a regime that was reluctant to carry out unpopular measures against them. It was left to people of conscience to register their protest by not conforming to the institutional 'party line'. The section is trying to include a mention, as briefly as possible, of all the elements involved (I left out Jehovah's Witnesses as being more appropriate to a page dealing with persecution). I haven't found the secondary literature I've consulted giving a sense of the proportion of these elements (that's another discussion), probably because we simply can't put any figures to how many thought X and how many thought Y within each church. All we can probably do, unless someone comes up with hard evidence, is indicate who appears to have been in the majority and who in the minority. We can, however, give estimates like Shirer or exact figures if recorded, as in the case of Hildebrand's figure for the arrest of Lutheran pastors in 1937. I would say the ratline had more to do with personal acquaintances assisting each other or being asked to assist third parties on the basis of their anti-communism, hence pro-fascist tendencies. You can say the hierarchy turned a blind-eye, or even colluded in certain cases, but that is specific to the Catholic Church in any case, or more precisely some Catholic clergy, and has nothing to do with the majority of church-goers in Germany who were Lutheran. It is also irrelevant to the Third Reich time frame being dealt with here. ] (]) 10:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Firstly, a whole issue of the ''Journal of Contemporary History'' , Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan., 2007) is devoted to the reviews on works authored by Steigmann-Gall. Therefore, by no means is this author non-notable or fringe. I suggest everyone to read those articles. I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and ''forgets'' to note that many articles from the same issue ''support'' his views. For example, Richard J. Evans's summary of the issue says:
::"''In his book "The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919–1945", published in 2003, Richard Steigmann-Gall proposes a way forward. Presenting for the first time, at least in English, a thorough analysis of the religious beliefs of the nazis themselves, Steigmann-Gall argued that although active nazis, from the leadership down to the lower levels of the party, were bitterly opposed to the Catholic Church, they had a more ambivalent attitude towards Protestantism and to Christianity more generally. Even those who, like Himmler and Rosenberg, advocated a kind of pseudo-Germanic paganism, retained at least some Christian elements amongst their religious beliefs. Most preferred a nazified form of Protestantism as suggested by the ‘German Christians’. Nazism in fact contained a wide variety of religious beliefs. Crucially, however, Steigmann-Gall argues that the paganists were less important in the end than the proponents of a ‘positive’, that is, a nazified Christianity. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Germans, including those who carried out monstrous crimes of mass murder, torture, human experimentation and much else besides, remained members of the Christian Churches. Although their beliefs and attitudes changed over time, the fact remains, he concludes, that the nazis were, at bottom, basically Christian in their religious orientation.
::''These are controversial theses. Steigmann-Gall backs them up with a wealth of illustrative material, garnered from a score of archives and a large quantity of obscure nazi publications. Yet do they, in the end, convince? In this special debate, commissioned by the Journal of Contemporary History, a variety of experts in the field address the issues raised by Steigmann-Gall’s book. The theologian and religious historian Stanley Stowers considers them in the light of the theoretical literature on the nature of religion, and particularly political religion. Doris Bergen, author of the standard work on the ‘German Christians’, provides a balanced appraisal of Steigmann-Gall’s central arguments; Manfred Gailus, whose social history of the Protestant Church in Berlin under the nazis has established itself quickly as a major contribution to the debate, launches a critical assault on Steigmann-Gall’s theses, backed up by Ernst Piper, author of a recent major biography of Alfred Rosenberg. Finally, the theologian Irving Hexham uses an approach derived from the sociology of knowledge to take issue with Steigmann-Gall’s use of sources, rightly concluding, as in the end do all the contributors, that it is necessary to take the nazis’ ideas seriously, however repulsive or bizarre they might seem, if we are to understand their appeal.''"


Some other quotes from that issue:
::"''Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich provides a clear alternative to vague ideas about an incoherent religion of National Socialism that arose due to the spiritual vacuum of modernity and tried to replace Christianity. Instead of symbols and rituals that work in mysterious ways and language that does not mean what it seems to mean, The Holy Reich shows that the dominant portion of the nazi leadership held familiar Christian beliefs with their own distinctive interpretations of some points.''" Stanley Stowers, Brown University
::"''Summed up this way, Steigmann-Gall’s book can be seen as an expression — perhaps even the culmination — of a trend in the scholarship over the past several decades. Indeed, claims of his project’s originality notwithstanding, with The Holy Reich Steigmann-Gall entered a lively and well-established conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. Like many other misconceptions about National Socialism, the anti-Christian notion has long been disputed by historians and scholars of religion, even if they have not succeeded in changing popular views. In different ways and to different extents, John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others have pointed to connections and affinities between National Socialism and Christianity. I consider my work on the German Christian movement part of this broad historiographical development.''" Doris L. Bergen, University of Toronto.
::"''Steigmann-Gall has good reason for concentrating on Protestantism as the philosophical point of access for nationalistic and National Socialist ideas. One can identify the contemporary National Protestant milieu — as compared with other social milieux and group cultures — as the main breach point for the ‘Ideas of 1933’.'' Manfred Gailus, Technical University of Berlin
::''Despite considerable reservations and omissions, Steigmann-Gall’s study makes an interesting, stimulating and at times provocative book. I agree
entirely with his assessment of the presence and effectiveness of National Socialist Christians, particularly in the Protestant milieu. I would estimate that a third of the contemporary Protestant milieu belonged to these dual-faith inner ecclesiastical circles. I am less convinced about the presence and prominence of Christian National Socialists, particularly in the Party leadership. They certainly existed but more so in the lower and middle ranks of the NSDAP; if they were present in the upper echelons, it was only here and there and usually in diluted form. ‘Conceptions of Christianity’ cannot seriously be applied to this group; a more appropriate description would be dual faith side by side with shrinking remnants of Christianity.''" (ibid)
::"''In writing The Holy Reich, the title of which is never explained, Richard Steigmann-Gall has chosen an extraordinary topic. He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement.''" Ernst Piper, Moses Mendelssohn Centre for European-Jewish Studies in Potsdam.
::"''In conclusion, there is no easy answer to the questions raised by SteigmannGall’s book. National Socialism still sends shivers of horror through most people today. All we can do is plot its progress and attempt to understand how such evil was sold to the world. Unless we face the full horror, including its intellectual and mythical appeal to both the masses and scholars through works like Michael and the Mythus, we will have failed to understand the true rhetorical significance of nazism and its literature.''" Irving Hexham, University of Calgary

These are all reviews devoted to the Steigmann-Gall's book. As you can see, some of them are critical, whereas others fully support him. Interestingly, Manfred Gailus noted that the situation with religion in the Third Reich showed tendency to drift from Christianity to some form of Neo-Paganism. That trend became especially prominent in early 40s, and was stopped by the military defeat of Germany. In connection to that, the very question "were Nazi Christians?" is incorrectly formulated: probably, they initially were Christians (or predominantly Christians) and they probably would become Pagans (or the proponents of Nazism as a form of secular religion) later (if they would not be defeated).<br>
In addition, some of other reviews criticise just some theses of Steigmann-Gall. Thus, the main Babik thesis is not that Nazi were not Christians. He simply argue that it would be correct to describe Protestant Progressivism as a form of secular religion, therefore,
::"''Fine-tuning secularization as a tool of historical understanding in this manner represents a second, and perhaps the key, potential benefit for political religion historiography. With the distinction between partial and complete secularization in place, there is every reason to believe that one can classify Steigmann-Gall's Protestant Nazism as secularized eschatology while remaining sensitive to its differences from other (irreligious) instances of the same phenomenon''"

In other words, Babik does not argue that Nazi were not Christians, his point is that their Christianity fits a definition of secular religion.<br>--] (]) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:Paul, the volume of your latest contribution is impressive, but it is not clear to me what your reason is for presenting it. Is it to show that Steigann-Gall is taken seriously? What conclusion should we draw from your last sentence in terms of how it should affect what appears in the article? ] (]) 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, Steigann-Gall, as well as many other authors expressing similar views, should be taken seriously, and the idea that Nazism was intrinsically secular anti-Christian movement should not be presented as the sole mainstream views. For example, in light of some sources cited by me it is clear that the idea of the fundamental incompatibility of Christian teachings and Nazi ideology appears not as obvious today as the article says.--] (]) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::Paul says: ''"I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and forgets to note that many articles from the same issue support his views."'' Well, thank you Paul for the reference to this journal issue, but your contention that I somehow "forget to note that many articles from the same issue" is most bizarre, as I don't see how it is possible to "forget" something before the fact of becoming aware of it in the first place. As you recall, I referred to Babik's critical paper published in ''History and Theory'', so I am unsure why you think I might have read this particular issue of ''Journal of Contemporary History'' before your mention of it. But anyway, as we now have these reviews, let's examine them in order to assess the weight we should apply to Steigmann-Gall's POV.

::Stanley Stowers doesn't seem to be a review of Steigmann-Gall's book but rather he is appears to be air his own opposition to the concept of "political religion", citing Steigmann-Gall briefly in support of his own POV.


I stumbled across this article and noticed that when you hover over ] the picture of the Nazi flag is missing ''(it's present in the series of Nazism, but not for the article itself)''.
::Doris L. Bergen seems supportive but highlights some issues:
:::''"According to Richard Steigmann-Gall, ‘the insistence that Nazism was an anti- Christian movement has been one of the most enduring truisms of the past fifty years'"'', ''"As I suggested in my book Twisted Cross, the German Christians did not fit most standard theological criteria for Christians: that is, they rejected basic Christian teachings about the divinity and humanity of Jesus and renounced the canonicity of Christian scripture."'', ''"Perhaps in an effort to make his evidence fit neatly, Steigmann-Gall left out the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations. Without conceding at least some nazi hostility, however, the dynamic generated by Christian defensiveness cannot be understood. This and other shortcomings will reduce Steigmann-Gall’s ability to convince sceptics of his arguments, but they cannot negate the significance of his call to confront the presence of Christianity in National Socialism."''


Is it okay if I add it?
::Irving Hexham:
:::''"Richard Steigmann-Gall challenges the dominant view that nazi leaders were hostile to Christianity"''
::Hexham goes on to criticise Steigmann-Gall misuse of primary sources such as Goebbels:
:::''"Presented in this way, Goebbels appears to be endorsing Christianity. When read in the context of genre and situation, Goebbels’ speech appears in a very different light. As the editor of Goebbels’ Reden points out, Goebbels was a master of irony and rhetoric, making it very difficult at times to know exactly what he meant. In the context of the speech cited by Steigmann-Gall it appears that Goebbels is being ironic."''
::and dismissal of non-Christian influences in the Nazi Party such as Rosenberg’s:
:::''"It is here that Steigmann-Gall’s approach fails. Rather than enabling the reader to understand how and why people accepted nazi logic he dismisses it as illogical and vainly seeks an alternative explanation that leads him to deny that anyone could possibly have read Rosenberg’s work."''


P.S. I deeply apologize if this has already been discussed here, I currently don't see any mentions of it. ] (]) 18:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
::Ernst Piper:
:::''"In his book The Holy Reich, Richard Steigmann-Gall confronts us with the provocative thesis that, in reality, National Socialism was a Christian movement."'' ''"He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement."''


:It is there in desktop view in the sidebar link spam banner..... I have added an option for mobile view. At the bottom of every page you'll see an option for mobile/desktop view.... is this the thing you had in mind? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
::Manfred Gailus :
::Ah, thank you, it works now. ] (]) 20:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
:::''"In his introduction he notes correctly that, to date, mainstream researchers have characterized National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — as predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian."''
::On the other hand Gailus states Steigmann-Gall adds nothing new as most of it had been discussed in previous decades, citing Claus-Ekkehard Bärsch’s 1998 study of the religious dimensions of NS ideology:
:::''"That Steigmann-Gall fails not only to mention but also to analyse this research which is core to his subject, is utterly incomprehensible. Was he not familiar with it? Would it have reduced the novelty value of his intended ‘revision’? There is another consideration which greatly reduces the surprising or sensational nature of his purported ‘discoveries’. All the nazi protagonists belonged to a generation born between 1880 and 1910 into an empire orientated towards Christianity. What other religious-philosophical influences could they be expected to bring with them from their — mainly bourgeois/petty bourgeois — family background, school, church and upbringing, from the civil-religious cultural contexts of public morality, morals and values, than a belief system informed by Christianity in its broadest sense and the corresponding mentality and loyalty to tradition?"''


== Context ==
::Given that there are so many writers that support or reject his work, we can conclude that Steigmann-Gall book is at least controversial, and this is confirmed by Evans in his introduction to the issue: ''"These are controversial theses"''. Given that most reviewers, both supporters an detractors, state Steigmann-Gall book challenges the dominant viewpoint, we can say his POV is therefore minority and thus be given less weight. Given that most reviewers, and including Steigmann-Gall himself, state the dominant viewpoint is that Nazism was anti-Christion, we can also conclude that this POV can be given most weight. --] (]) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, his viewpoint is not the mainstream (at least, not the sole mainstream view), but it is not a fringe view either. Doris L. Bergen listed several authors, who, as well as Bergen herself express the idea of affinity of Nazism and Christianity/Protestantism. They are John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others, according to her. Therefore, this viewpoint should be represented in the article at least as one of significant minority views. As our ] says, ''"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents''". I named several prominent adherents, and I believe it is quite sufficient to devote decent space in the article to this viewpoint.--] (]) 21:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::There is no impression in any of the journal papers that there is more than one mainstream view. You say that Bergen mentions a number of authors having expressed the notion of affinity between Nazism and Christianity, but she says ''"in different ways and to different extents"'' to Steigmann-Gall. Let's not confuse the two issues of church collaboration/support and the whether the Nazis were pro or anti-Christian. There is no question that thousands of pastors supported the Nazi movement, but equally thousands of pastors opposed the Nazis, causing a split in German Protestantism into the pro- and anti- Nazi factions of ] and ]. The point of divergence is that Steigmann-Gall (who Bergen states is also claiming to revise her viewpoint too) asserts that most of the top Nazi hierarchy were active Christians who saw the Nazi movement as an extension of the ] through ]. But Bergan states ''"Most scholars dismiss ‘positive Christianity’ as nothing but an opportunistic slogan coined to conceal nazism’s intrinsic hostility toward Christianity and the Churches"''. Steigmann-Gall leaves out, as Bergen states, the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations and he fails to concede any nazi hostility existed that created a sense of a return to ] that drove German Catholics and Protestants into defensiveness and thus collaboration as a strategy for self-preservation. So while I agree Steigmann-Gall is not fringe, his viewpoint never the less goes far beyond that even of those authors mentioned by Bergen (which she includes herself) who discuss the affinities between the German church and state. So I don't think you can use these other authors to claim Steigmann-Gall has greater weight than he has. --] (]) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:The positions by Nazis in public differed from what they thought in private. Public stances by Nazi officials on Christianity were carefully crafted because: (1) Germany's Christianity has been divided since the Reformation between Protestantism and Catholicism, (2) it would be stupid in those days for any politician to say they were an athiest - they would lose support from the religious communities. In private, the Nazis were divided - some despised Christianity altogether for being of Jewish origins, others claimed that they supported a ] - that claimed that the Jews stole the Christian legend from the Aryans, and then there were others who sought alliance between Nazism and the Catholic Church like Mussolini and the Italian Fascists did - as a means to legitimize Nazism amongst Germans of the Catholic faith. There is little that can disguise the fact that the Nazis were highly uncomfortable with Christianity in the mainstream form - because of its connections with Judaism, although heroic patriotic imagery of Germany's Christian past was emphasized by the Nazis - such as references to the ] who were involved in the ] - mostly because it represented a historic example of German commitment to faith to a common cause and because it emphasized a warrior spirit that the Nazis sought to instill upon Germany.--] (]) 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::Also agreeing that the use of an Aryan mythos was ''critical'' to the core methodology of Nazism - the creation of a fully unified populace on the basis of an Aryan race, with a mythical history ''including'' the Teutonic Knights, but absolutely not one based on "religion" as such. Some of the claims that Nazism was "Christian" are quite ludicrous - Germany had lots of Christians, so ''any'' group could be labeled as Christian if the criterion is "were Crhistians in the group?". ] (]) 11:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Nazism was as "Christian" as Mormonism is... In other words, plenty of Christians will say, ''"No they weren't Christian! They believed very different things than mainstream Christians!"'' but that does not mean that they weren't, from an objective viewpoint, (rather than a biased, pro-modern-Christianity one...) that they were indeed promoting a ''type'' of Christianity. The ] logical fallacy applies to those who claim that they weren't "really" Christians. And no, as can be seen by the evidence, the only criteria is NOT simply that there "were Christians in the group." That's a blatant distortion of the facts. Christianity was promoted by the Nazis, and specifically burned books that were in any way critical of Christianity (a policy that I'm betting many modern Conservative Christians would approve of...). --] ] 13:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Absurd and fallacious in the utmost. You might as well say that about ''any'' society pr grup. The point is that Nazism was ''not'' founded in Christianisty. ''Some'' Christians were Nazi-voters; ''some'' Nazis attended Christian churches; but that does ''not'' then allow the claim that "Nazism was founded (in any sense) in Christianity". As far as hitting Godwin's Law by asserting that modern "conservative Christians" would be Nazis in any form - that is simply inane at best. Cheers. ] (]) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Good job at trying to redirect the argument into strawmen, but no dice. Nobody is asserting that (1) Nazism was founded on Christianity, (2) that this argument relies simply upon the religious affiliations of Nazi members, or (3) that modern "Conservative Christians" are Nazis. (1) The modern American Conservative movement ''(as an '''example''' - again, I am not saying that Conservative Christians are "Nazis," but this works as an example)'' was not founded on Christianity, but it is very pro-Christian. American Conservatives promote Christianity, and propose very pro-Christian laws, often at the expense of minority faiths. Well, the same was true of the Nazis. They were not founded ''upon'' Christianity, but they ''promoted'' Christianity, and certainly proposed very pro-Christian laws, very much at the expense of minority faiths! Now, it is not controversial to state that Christianity is a part of Conservative Christians' ideology...though many Christians state that they find their views abhorrent and not consistent with their own Christian beliefs. Does that mean that less-Conservative Christians get to say, "Sorry. Those Conservatives aren't REAL Christians"? No. Not in an objective arena such as this. ''(I'm sure in a hundred years, when homophobia is a thing of the past, and religious tolerance has advanced far greater than today...that Conservative historians will be claiming that the Conservative Christians of today weren't "really" Christians either...just as they have with the Nazis, and the slave-owners, and the ones who marched against African-American Civil Rights.)'' (2) This argument relies upon a lot more than simply the religious affiliations of members of the Nazi Party, and you damned well know it. The evidence is presented all over the place, from Hitler's speeches, to Nazi government laws, policies, and actions, etc. (3) The point was to compare pro-Christian worldviews. If I call someone a "Nazi," you better be certain I won't mince words. I think everyone here knows that I say exactly what is on my mind, and give not the slightest @#$% whether it offends someone's sensibilities or risks sanctions on my part. --] ] 14:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::My point is fully proven by your '''Well, the same was true of the Nazis.''' That is ''precisely'' the sort of argument which goes absolutely nowhere on Misplaced Pages, and should be relegated to the dustbin utterly. Cheers. ] (]) 15:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Wow. You aren't even capable of the critical thinking skills necessary to denote a difference between saying, "The Nazis, as well as X, did this..." and "X are Nazis"??? Or are you insinuating that anyone who does anything the Nazis did...is therefore a Nazi? It brings to mind the legendary Lewis Black bit: ''"Hitler had a mustache. Mother Teresa had a mustache. Mother Teresa is Hitler!"'' Oh brother. --] ] 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


Would it be better in the lede to have a clause before the Freikorps sentence that puts Nazism in the wider context of ] and ] that were dominant in European academia during the 19th and early 20th centuries? ] (]) 21:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
== The section on the economy of Nazi Germany should be moved to its own article ==


:In the body, the first sentence of the origins section needs to be expanded on a little ] (]) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
The section on the economy of Nazi Germany is duplicating material that is mentioned on its own article. As this is on the ideology of Nazism and not the economy of Germany from 1933 to 1945 that was influenced by many other factors than political ideology, a brief mention about how Nazi economic ideology was pursued in practice may be acceptable but not multiple paragraphs.--] (]) 23:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:Naziism is a left wing ideology <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::No. --] ] 02:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


==Rfc responses==
::And the Communists are right-wing, and we have just reversed the spectrum. ] (]) 03:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
{{reply to|Slatersteven|Srich32977|Orenburg1|ActivelyDisinterested|Jlwoodwa|Nikkimaria|JohnAdams1800|Roggenwolf|HapHaxion|Docktuh|SMcCandlish|Grayfell}} It would be much appreciated if editors (any and all, not just those pinged) could please reply to the rfc ]. This is relevant to Nazism and the "Nazism is a right-wing ideology." notice that appears at the top of the editing page when users attempt to edit pages such as this one (i.e. Talk:Nazism). ] (]) 12:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed. Let me just go ahead and pre-emptively post the Right-Winger response: ''"Well, the Nazis were Socialists...cause the word 'socialist' is in their name...and I don't care what every scholar on the planet says, I'm right and you're wrong. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, stick-your-head-in-doo-doo. Oh yeah, and the political spectrum is meaningless anyways, because it doesn't fit in with my worldview, where Right-Wingers do everything that is good and moral in the world, and Left-Wingers are spawns of 'Satan', come to destroy everything and club kittens to death, because they hate everything...especially America."'' --] ] 03:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:20, 22 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nazism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Nazism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nazism at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Why does this article say that the Nazis were right-wing? Because that is the consensus of reliable sources, in this case historians and political scientists. But the word "socialist" is right in their name! Many political entities have names that can be misleading. Consider, for example, the Holy Roman Empire (a confederation of mainly German territories during the Middle Ages and the early modern period) and North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a totalitarian dictatorship). In addition to this, the usage of the word "socialism" by the Nazis is different from the common usage of the term "socialism", which refers to an economic philosophy involving advocacy for social ownership of the means of production.
In the case of the Nazi party, the phrase "national socialist" was a nationalist response to the rise of socialism in Europe by offering a redefinition of "socialism" to refer to the promotion of the interests of the nation, as opposed to ideas of individual self-interest. But there was no policy of social ownership of the means of production. The Nazis did talk about capitalism being bad, but they defined it as a Jewish-originated economic philosophy based on individualism that promoted plutocracy in the interest of the Jews, at the expense of non-Jewish nations and races. This was put in contrast to the Nazis' conception of socialism, which was done in order to win over people attracted to anti-capitalist and socialist ideas to their cause. They rejected ideas of equality and working class solidarity, instead advocating for social hierarchy and national strength. This article sums it up well. I made an offhand comment about it and somebody just came along and deleted it! What should I do? Nothing. See this discussion where the community came to a consensus that we have entertained the numerous questions and claims about the Nazis being left-wing enough, and that continued engagement with people pushing this line of reasoning is not helpful to the article. That doesn't seem very fair. Don't Misplaced Pages policies require editors to assume good faith? What if somebody posts that position here with a really good argument? See the following links, all of which are to discussions about this very question over time. Any argument someone thinks is novel has already been made, been responded to, and failed to convince anyone. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , But what if I find a large number of very reliable sources all claiming that Nazism is left-wing? Then you will be more than welcome to show them to us, so that we can see that they are very reliable and that they assert that Nazism is a left-wing ideology. If they are, then we will change the article.
Former featured article candidateNazism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 11, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconJewish history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconEuropean history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nazism is a far-right ideology.

The consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources is that Nazism is a far-right ideology and not a left-wing or far-left one. This has been discussed numerous times. Please see this FAQ and read the talk page archives.Please do not request that "far-right" be changed to "left-wing" or "far-left"; your request will be denied, and you may be blocked from editing if you persist in doing so.

"Nazi Party" is the English-language common name for the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Per our policy, WP:COMMONNAME, English Misplaced Pages uses the common name in English for the titles of our articles, and in most references to that subject. Thus "Nazi Party" and "Nazism" are the names of our articles on those subjects, and in most instances the National Socialist German Workers Party is referred to as the Nazi Party, but occasionally, to avoid repetition, by the full English-language name, or by its German acronym, NSDAP.Please do not request that the name of the party be changed; such requests are routinely turned down.


Section sizes
Section size for Nazism (28 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 12,149 12,149
Etymology 4,230 4,230
Position within the political spectrum 19,114 19,114
Origins 1,446 46,845
Völkisch nationalism 18,956 18,956
Racial theories and antisemitism 14,464 15,657
Use of the American racist model 1,193 1,193
Response to World War I and Italian Fascism 10,786 10,786
Ideology and programme 2,771 109,113
Nationalism and racialism 2,414 32,662
Irredentism and expansionism 11,292 11,292
Racial theories 18,956 18,956
Social class 10,770 10,770
Sex and gender 13,127 15,091
Opposition to homosexuality 1,964 1,964
Religion 9,647 9,647
Economics 15,434 30,860
Anti-communism 5,648 5,648
Views of capitalism 9,778 9,778
Totalitarianism 7,312 7,312
Classification: Reactionary or Revolutionary 7,785 16,139
Contemporary events and views 7,273 7,273
Post-war Nazism 1,081 1,081
See also 654 654
References 17 35,531
Notes 29,074 29,074
Bibliography 6,440 6,440
External links 1,446 1,446
Total 245,221 245,221

Archiving icon
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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.


Picture missing from article

I stumbled across this article and noticed that when you hover over Nazism the picture of the Nazi flag is missing (it's present in the series of Nazism, but not for the article itself).

Is it okay if I add it?

P.S. I deeply apologize if this has already been discussed here, I currently don't see any mentions of it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It is there in desktop view in the sidebar link spam banner..... I have added an option for mobile view. At the bottom of every page you'll see an option for mobile/desktop view.... is this the thing you had in mind? Moxy🍁 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, it works now. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Context

Would it be better in the lede to have a clause before the Freikorps sentence that puts Nazism in the wider context of scientific racism and eugenics that were dominant in European academia during the 19th and early 20th centuries? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In the body, the first sentence of the origins section needs to be expanded on a little Kowal2701 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Rfc responses

@Slatersteven, Srich32977, Orenburg1, ActivelyDisinterested, Jlwoodwa, Nikkimaria, JohnAdams1800, Roggenwolf, HapHaxion, Docktuh, SMcCandlish, and Grayfell: It would be much appreciated if editors (any and all, not just those pinged) could please reply to the rfc here. This is relevant to Nazism and the "Nazism is a right-wing ideology." notice that appears at the top of the editing page when users attempt to edit pages such as this one (i.e. Talk:Nazism). Helper201 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: