Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:07, 5 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nazi Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why is the Nazi Party labeled a far-right party? They called themselves socialists, so should they be left-wing? A: Almost all historical and present-day academic literature places the Nazi Party on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum, which in turn is the most common short-form classification used in political science. The Nazis themselves attacked both left-wing and traditional right-wing politicians and movements in Germany as being traitors to Germany. While the Nazi regime's economic policies are very different from those of present-day right-wing parties that adhere to classical liberal or neoliberal positions (which advocate, e.g., a highly deregulated, privatized economic environment), Nazi economic policy was typical of the early to mid-twentieth century far-right, and indeed most political currents of the time, in that it embraced interventionist economics. The Nazi Party absorbed the far-right reactionary monarchist and nationalist German National People's Party into its membership in 1933. The Nazi Party also held good relations with openly right-wing political movements in Europe, such as the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right, whose leader Gil-Robles was a guest at the 1933 Nazi Party Nuremberg rally and sought to model his movement upon the Nazi Party. Q: If socialism is mainly left-wing and they called themselves socialists in their name, why is this being ignored? A: Historically, several right-wing figures used the term "socialism" to mean something very different from what would be understood by traditional left-wing socialism, referring simply to the broader concept of collectivism and anti-individualism. The prominent French reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras famously said "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well-made glove fits a beautiful hand". Maurras's views influenced fascism. Oswald Spengler's ideal of "Prussian Socialism" directly influenced Nazism, and Spengler promoted it as a member of the far-right Conservative Revolutionary movement. Q: Were the Nazis actually a capitalist movement? A: The answer depends on the context and definition of capitalism. Ideologically, Hitler in private was just as opposed to the ethos of capitalism as he was in public as a politician; he regarded the capitalist ethos as being self-centred individualism that was incompatible with nationalism. Furthermore, in both public and private Hitler regarded capitalism as being created by the Jews for their own interests. The Nazis in public and in private held contempt for bourgeois culture in liberal capitalist societies - as they associated such bourgeois culture with a cosmopolitan, liberal, and decadent lifestyle that was incompatible with the Nazis' ideal of a nationalist martial ethic of disciplined soldiers who were collectively committed to the Fatherland above any individual interest. So, ideologically, Nazism held strong antipathy to capitalism. However, at the same time, Hitler and the Nazis endorsed private property and private enterprise and did not challenge the market economy, which was important to their accrual of power because it avoided antagonizing industrialists and aristocrats. The Nazis themselves claimed that "true socialism" did not involve the Marxian opposition to private property. But if capitalism is defined in a minimum way as involving the support of the existence of private property, private enterprise, and a market economy, then from that minimum definition, the Nazis could be considered as endorsing a capitalist economy. Q: The proper English name for the Nazi Party is the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP). "Nazi" is an abbreviated term, so why does the article not use the proper name? A: Because English Misplaced Pages uses the common name for things, and the common name for the NSDAP in English is the "Nazi Party".

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Nazi Party. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nazi Party at the Reference desk.

Please 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany: Munich High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Munich (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Political parties Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Political culture

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Far right in practice? Is this a joke?

Actually calling NSDAP "syncretic" can be took as a compromise in that issue, but saying that it was "far right in practice" is I presume some joke. Why there is nowhere mentioned about left-winged, socialist views on the economy? It's like the economy views were no important at all, if they aren't took under consideration in the note about political position of the party. Also I think it should be considered, if the fact that "majority of scholars identify Nazism as far right" is really justifiable opinion, or it's just caused political correctness and ignoring social and economical views of this party, which actually happens quite often. W.J.M. (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. First thing they did, broke the unions. Jailed socialists, labor activists, communists, when they didn't kill them outright. When their quasi-left-wing patsies demanded crackdown on conservative businessmen and conglomerates, pulled the Night of the Long Knives and purged them. Acted at all times as the hitmen for the Abwehr, absorbed all the brutes of the Stahlhelm movement and gave them better uniforms and weapons. Doesn't sound like mere political correctness to me, WJM. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

did the factory owners have a choice what to produce, or were they restricted by wage and price controls? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wage and price controls are ideologically neutral on the left-right spectrum; they've been used by deep reactionaries and of course by Stalinists. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

However taxes were cut, companies were privatized, inflation was brought under control and the military was rebuilt. TFD (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

wage and price controls are anti-free market. which companies were privatized? rebuilt the military means the government forced private factories to make weapons? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You can read about it in "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany". And of course wage and price controls have been used by parties of the Left and Right. TFD (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Darkstar? Not all conservatisms are free-market; "liberal" outside the U.S. means pro-freemarket policies. All the original right-wingers were statists and more or less virulently anti-freemarket; even an anarcho-socialist like me acknowledges that, whatever we think of raw capitalism. It is an American delusion that conservatism is an exclusively free-market ideology. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

O, left/right spectrum is a flawed expression which changes meanings relevant to geography and decade. tdf, i did read it, they use the term re-privatization which one would assume means the factory is given back to the person it was confiscated from in the previous decade, instead the assets were divided among party members, not quite the "privatization" most people associate with the free market. You are inadvertently implying the police/fire/water/elec dept were sold off to the public, when actually the steel, rail and banks were seized by the government, then divided up among bureaucratics a few years later. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happens in most privatizations: the publicly-owned goods and jobs are given to the already rich and powerful elite entities with the best connections among the ruling class and its politician puppets. In the U.S., that means people like the Koch Brothers, Blackwater, MAXIMUS, for-profit "school" operators, and whatever Sodexho Food Services calls itself nowadays. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Re-privatization" in Nazi Germany meant that failed industries that had been bailed out and bought by the government were sold back to private investors in order to finance tax cuts and military spending. TFD (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nazis called themselves syncretic, some scholars agree that they are syncretic, a large body of scholars classify them as far-right. However, certainly the major theme of the Nazis: their racial supremacism, is far-right. It is best to show both its official syncretic stance that some also perceive as accurate and the far right stance that many scholars identify it as. Nevertheless, it is not our business to debate what left-wing or right-wing is here with our theories, it is to relevant sources to back up claims. I'm tired of people bringing up the idea that Nazism was left-wing, there is a quote in this article from Mein Kampf where Hitler visciously denounces left-wing politics in Germany as treacherous as well as condemning right-wing politics as cowardly - the Nazis appealed to a populist syncretic stance - that did definately include far-right stances on race, disability, and sexual orientation.--R-41 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Denouncing conservatives as cowardly is not a luxury reserved for the left or middle; read any ultra-conservative or reactionary blog. (Same goes for the other side, of course: how many liberals and progressives nowadays, including myself, regularly rant about the gutlessness of the Democratic Party's "leaders" like Reid and the entire DNCC/DSCC Coalition of Timorousness who are terrified of being perceived as actually standing for anything but not being Republicans?) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking from scholarly sources to promote this doesn't help (For example, Griffin describes fascism rather firmly as revolutionary right). It is important to also note that some academics who refer to them as being, to use the terms of Sternhell, 'Ni droite, ni gauche' are actually simply saying their politics were outside the conventional spectrum but out to the right. Ultimately the mainstream view is that the Nazis are far right, that there is debate is good - include it in the text. It is just too controversial to present as fact within an info box without that surrounding debate. --Narson ~ Talk • 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The official syncretic statement is important nonetheless to state. Hitler in Mein Kampf was accusing the left with treason and the right with cowardice and giving up to conspiratorial international Jewry, hardly appearing to be a minor disagreement, and note that he attacked the entire left and the entire right, not just components of them. As long as we recognize that most scholars view Nazism as far-right, then the article is accurate. I believe including the official syncretic position that other scholars identify helps readers to understand what the Nazis appealed to. The Nazis fiercely sought to keep the label of reactionary off of them and sought to emphasize that they were anti-reactionary and emphasized differences between themselves and what they considered the "bourgeois" "reactionary" German National People's Party. Hitler along with Mussolini unlike conventional right-wing leaders took great pride in emphasizing that they had lived in poverty as struggling youth and had associated with poor and homeless people whom they claimed had been driven into poverty by modern bourgeois liberal capitalism.--R-41 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nazi regime despised intellectualism and truly any cultural expressions which "clashed" with Nazi ideology were put down (and/or prohibited). The Nazis were cultural reactionary. As we all know, the Nazis were obsessed with race (Blood and Soil), sports and rallies. Rallies for feelings of inclusion, of something bigger than ones self and to project power to the population (and later the world). Further they were keen on mythology and symbolism; again towards racial purity and Nordic paganism (but not overt occultism, but for Himmler and a few others). They were not an organized cult, but did have aspects of one. In the end, it is hard to easily "pigeon-hole" them into one nice neat little box. Kierzek (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that they cannot be pigeon-holed neatly into one category. Nazis and fascists in general have to be viewed beyond mere left and right issues. Generic fascists' extreme social Darwinism preaching survival of the fittest and ellimination of the weak through war (that would both elliminate the weak on their nation's side and if in victory eliminate their weak opponent) is far right. However other ideas were not far-right, their economic policies of class collaboration, social welfare for the deserving, and recognition of the contributions of the working-class to society ranged from centre-right (i.e. social welfare only for the deserving) to centre-left (class collaboration and recognition of working-class contributions). All fascists were influenced in some way by the tactics of Marxism even though they denounced Marxism - fascist political language spoke of the bourgeoisie and proletariat and the existance of class conflict but called for the need for class collaboration to eliminate attempts by different classes to attain dominance and therby resolve class conflict. The political language of the Nazis and fascists in general was very syncretic.--R-41 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You are taking nazi writing as definitive of their ideology. Right-wing extremists typically stand for the little guy against the elites and the minorities and claim that the established parties are the same and that they themselves are beyond left and right. TFD (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But the definition of right-wing extremism you define as being the embattled common person against elites and established parties could just as easily be ascribed to communism of the far-left as being on the side of the embattled proletariat against the elites.--R-41 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say "fascist"? I think everybody could agree on that point. But regarding the discussion about left elements in their policy: The parts of the party, which called for implementing left elements to some degree, where imprisoned or killed in 1934 ("Röhm-Putsch", "Night of the long knives"). There was also no economic theory, on which nazis could have relied on to intervene into economy. When they did, it was to prepare war. In my opinion, you cant mean to declare that a leftist opinion. 217.50.239.213 (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Title of the article

I think the title should be changed to "National Socialist German Workers Party" because this is the real name of the party. Ich901

If I recall correctly (without combing through the archives of this talk page to confirm), I believe that this very topic was decided in favor of the current title per WP:COMMONNAME. Not that your suggested name isn't logical (it definitely is), just that an alternate logic is what keeps it at the current name. Hope this helps. In the end, both titles could work, so unless a swelling of sentiment to move the page builds up, the alternate suggestion would probably just remain as "duly noted". — ¾-10 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

do you realise that the real name is used as title in every other language version of this article. at least NSDAP would fit more as a title. Ich901

Yes. It has been discussed more than once. Anyway, there are redirects from all the other names so that people searching on the other terms will still find the article. There is no good reason to rename it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

the best reason to rename it, is to give it the correct name. What about to name it "National Socialist German Workers Party" and redirect from "Nazi Party"? Ich901

agreed, NSDAP is a better title. wp:commonname is not applicable since a more specific naming convention exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(political_parties). Darkstar1st (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (political parties) says, "Where acronyms are far more commonly used than full names in international news media, the acronym should be preferred". TFD (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

correct, so the correct title would be NSDAP, adding the word "party" after is redundant. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Nazi Party is more common than NSDAP. TFD (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For the general reader, Nazi Party would be most common. 6,650,000 hits on Google, for example. Remember this is suppose to be written for general readers on about an 8th grade level. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: Google searches aren't exact science. When you search for "Nazi Party", you get a lot of results that are related to many other Nazi parties than the NSDAP. NSDAP-searches include foreign articles, Google searches pretty much only tells us that both names are reasonably common. Combined with the fact that I can't seem to find any other article on Misplaced Pages where a party's nickname is used as the title, I can't get myself from not questioning whether this title is wrong.46.9.65.93 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

a ridicules debate given there is already a nazi and nazi germany article. this page should have been merged long ago. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not have a "nazi" article, that page redirects to Nazism. So we have separate articles about a party, its ideology and its period in government. TFD (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

exactly, no other subject gets such treatment in wp and this article is a perfect example of redundancy. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! We have articles about Communism and various individual articles about various Communist parties. We have articles about Liberalism and articles about various individual Liberal parties. We have articles about Socialism, Conservatism, Fascism, InsertYourFavouriteIsmHere, etc, and still have articles about individual parties that adhere to those ideologies. Far from being inconsistent, it is totally consistent and sensible for us to have an article about Nazism as an overall ideology and an article about various Nazi parties, of which this is the main one. Admittedly Nazism is a bit different in that the one party pretty much defined the whole stinking ideology while the others were just gimps and fanboys but it still makes sense for us to cover the ideology and the parties, as organisations, separately.

Having a third article for Nazi Germany also makes sense as that covers the whole Nazi German state, not just the party as an organisation. Sure the party was meddling in pretty much every aspect of the state but that doesn't affect the way we structure our articles. Again that is perfectly consistent with other articles. For example, we have separate articles on the Roundheads and the Commonwealth of England which was their state. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Adolf Hitler nor any other party member never officially used the term 'Nazi' and the word is used to bash the party. While the term is technically a contraction, the term has a disparaging context as the term 'Sozis' was used to disparage the Socialist Party in Germany. I can understand having a statement like, 'usually referred to as the Nazi Party' or something at the beginning of the article because that's what it's usually referred to. But it was never actually used by party members themselves and therefor has no place in an article that attempts to assume an academic standard.

In summation, entitling this article, "Nazi Party" is the intellectual equivalent of naming the article about the Communist Party, "The Pinko Party" or so.

66.234.60.131 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, more like if the CP article were named "Commie Party," and that was the common usage of people today, including academics and RS. It says "Nazi Party" for the same reason that the article for Deutschland is titled "Germany." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, 'Pinko' is just as much part of the vernacular as 'Commie', your point is moot. The article is called Germany because it is the English translation of Deutschland. If you go to wikipedia.de, you will see that the article is entitled, 'Deutschland.' Also, NSDAP redirects to 'Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei' as it should because 'Nazi' is not a translation of anything. 66.234.60.131 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

logo size

why did someone have problems with my "200px" edit , it looks much better than "150px" Ocnerosti (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted because it fits better at 150px. The size reduction of the image allows the infobox to be shorter, thereby the structure and flow is better. And, you need consensus to revert it back to 200px. If you get it, so be it. Kierzek (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Further, the logo at 200px is out of balance in presentation for the page. Kierzek (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

needs section on party finances over time and specially around 1933

article needs a serious section on who financed the party at various points. it's a crazy story most fundamental for understanding the medium-deep causes of hitler's ascension... see vhttp://sauber.50webs.com/kapital/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

needs section on party finances over time and specially around 1933

article needs a serious section on who financed the party at various points. it's a crazy story most fundamental for understanding the medium-deep causes of hitler's ascension... see vhttp://sauber.50webs.com/kapital/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

naziism is a left wing socialist ideology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.205.78 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan is right. The party's name is hardly more than a bad joke. -- _{•  • hugarheimur} 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

yes. 66.234.60.131 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking the Nazis' word of being "socialist" at face value because they said they were is just like taking the name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) at face value, this is addressed above in the box at the top here that the anon user did not read. One could easily and ignorantly say: "ah, well North Korea says that they are democratic, a government of the people, and a republic, so they must be" - any serious person knows North Korea is a totalitarian clique absolute monarchy run by and for the family relatives of Kim Il-Sung and that all of its heads of state have been family relatives of Kim Il-Sung. Stalin officially promoted workers' rights in his propaganda while he used slave labourers from his Gulags to construct factories and canals. If we took Hitler's and Stalin's words at face value, then both Hitler and Stalin would then have to be considered as peaceful, benevolent leaders who were democratic and caring people who only resorted to violence to deal with the "bad apples" in society and to ensure their people's survival, only a devout neo-Nazi or a Stalinist would be able to believe such nonsense out of blind faith. Never take something at face value without investigating it.--R-41 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well guess what, Hitler also promoted workers right, does that makes Stalin "far right"? Someone before said that Nazis broke all unions. OK, and how many independent unions were in USSR? Hitler jailed and killed socialists and communists - yes, and so did Stalin. So I guess that makes Stalin "far right" as well? Anyway North Korea is probably more democratic than Nazis were right-wing. It's hard to look at all these phoney rhetorical ploys which are supposed to convince that words "socialist" and "workers" in the party name and all of socialist stuff in its program are just "a joke". You people just will say and belive any kind of unbelievably stretched crap just to avoid admitting that Nazis were in fact left-wing. Myth of "right-wing Nazis" is simply not true, and no rhetorical fallacies will change that. This is pure propaganda and false political corectness, that's all. W.J.M. (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You are like a creationist in dispute about evolution. W.J.M. (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm an educated person, having to deal with statements that no educated person would ever consider. YOU are the "creationist" in the room, chief. You've obviously made up your mind, but your OPINION is irrelevant. The only things that matter on Misplaced Pages are RELIABLE SOURCES (i.e., the kind written by people with doctorates in the field at hand) and SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS. Your opinion is based on NEITHER, and you have no case. You keep bringing this up, and your opinion will never somehow become more valid or meritorious than the scholarly consensus of the experts in history and political philosophy who find said opinion to be utterly absurd. Grow up, and deal with it. You're selling, but nobody's buying...and it isn't because of a "conspiracy," either, sport. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing up these arguments. Please follow the links that have been provided on your talk page. We are required to follow what reliable sources say, not what we believe. If you disagree with that policy, then get Misplaced Pages to change it. TFD (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

These guys are correct. Our opinions don't matter. What the main historians and consensus concur on, and the evidence shows, is what is followed. See: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, WP:Consensus. Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

These guys are wrong, because this "scholary consensus" contradicts the facts. The best source is the NSDAP program itself, but if you want more, please, George Reisman, Ph.D., Professor of Economics Why Nazism was Socialism. I know this is not peer-reviewed book but it is something I guess. W.J.M. (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Economists are not experts in the fields of history or politics, and many Austrian school economists take that same position. And while I'm a Libertarian, and therefore sympathetic to the economic views of such economists...it still doesn't suddenly mean that their opinions are somehow more valid than those of people actually in the field at hand. Judging the Nazis solely by their economic policies is completely absurd. The policies that generally "define" the Nazis were their social policies, which were 100&% Far Right. (And I'm gonna bet that you don't even know what "Right" or "Left" actually mean...or where the terms originated...etc.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

While it is possible that academic consensus is wrong, we cannot second guess them. You mentioned creationism. Perhaps they are right, but since academic consensus does not support their view. TFD (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you can't just separate economics from politics. Economic views are one of the most important, and I dare to say that probably the most important in practice, part of any political doctrine. Second, what exactly Nazi policies were "100% far right"? Third, do you have some problems with self-esteem that you have to make absurd comments like this to make you fell better? I'm not going to explain myself to you about my knowledge (that would be taking you seriously, and sorry but don't deserve it at that point), just the fact that you have no idea who am I and make comments like this, speaks for itself, and makes you look pathetic. W.J.M. (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to post these things is prima facie evidence that you do not understand Left/Right. Click on Wikilinks like these: Far right politics, Left-right politics...or maybe just, you know...read a book or something. Oh yeah, I forgot. It's all some kind of "conspiracy," and all of the scholars are "wrong." Except the Austrian School economists. Those guys are totally right. Everyone else? Part of a conspiracy! Yep. Totally makes sense. /facepalm --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, power of your "arguments" is indeed impressive. So far you are the only one here who said anything about any "conspiracy". As for left-right politics I understand it perfectly and I don't have to swagger for that reason. Probably because I have no complexes about it so I don't have to repeat "ohh, I'm an educated person, you don't know anything, but I do know blah blah blah" in every statement. Somehow being so educated doesn't change the fact that your only argument is "I'm right and your'e wrong because I say so". It sounds almost as inteligent as saying that this article is called "Nazi Party" for the article "Deutschland" is titled "Germany". Yeah, you are logical as hell. Anyway, I tried to take you seriously and to discuss, you don't want and apparently don't deserve it, so I'm not going to continue this squabble anymore. The article is biased, at least at that point. W.J.M. (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WJM stated, "As for left-right politics I understand it perfectly and I don't have to swagger for that reason." No, you don't. If you clicked on the Wikilinks, or looked them up on anything other than some modern American Right-Wing website, you'd see that the definition of "Far Right" is basically the support of "supremacist" politics. It has nothing to do with individualism, small government, equality, or anything else. The term "Far Right" is only applied (by scholars) to those who support social hierarchy and the "supremacy" of certain groups over others. The term originated with those who supported the Right-Wing counter-revolution to the French Revolution, favoring restoration of the monarchy and aristocracy. So no, it certainly sounds like you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about, sport. And I haven't taken YOU seriously from the beginning, because your arguments are childish and absurd, and should be treated with absolutely no respect whatsoever. You come back to Misplaced Pages every so often and post the same adolescent garbage, and you are always told that it has no place here, because it is unsubstantiated OPINION (and completely false as well)...and yet you always come back and do the same thing. Can you not see that nobody here is impressed? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• High-importance Germany articles
• C-Class Munich articles
• High-importance Munich articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class history articles
• High-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles