Talk:Nazism

Archives
Revolutionary not Reactionary Talk:Nazism and socialism 2002 – 2004 Aug 2004 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Apr 2006 roughly through July 2006

Neutral Nazism

Wikipedia is supposed to present neutral and unbiased information, yet as I look at the Nazism page, I see much information which is substantially inaccurate. The wording of it seems, as well, biased against Nazism.

Where's all the information about the "common interest before the individual interest?" That was the core of the Nazi program and decidedly the base of Nazism. What about the idea of a "race soul?" What about the SS Racial Theory? Where is all of this information? This is not just significant information in regards to this article, it is essential. These things are what comprised Nazism and defined it. All I'm seeing is "white power," "holocaust," and "Jews." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T20:37:54 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to present neutrally. The bias comes from a wide consensus within the historical and political communities which outweighs the far-right fringe’s propaganda and is unproblematic per WP:NPOV. The article certainly should be expanded and more thoroughly referenced, though. —xyzzy_n 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some of the points you mention are detailed in the article, just not in its opening summary. "Race soul" is a concept that could use expansion, but if you have something to contribute, especially if you are able to source your material, we welcome any improvements you make to the article.--72.92.8.6 14:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it being biased against nazism? Who cares if this site is "supposed" to be "neutral"? Nazism is evil and wrong, a despicable ideology of racism that promulgated an era of slaughter and death. The article should be biased against Nazism, so as to help prevent its resurgence.--Alex, 74.133.188.197 09:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Errr.... No it shouldn't. Yandman 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr.... Yes it should. This reminds me of those debates in the UK about the stated goal of the BBC to be neutral - there are some things you just can't be that neutral over. Unless maybe (for the sake of balance) people think it's a good idea to maybe have a pro-Nazi page detailing all the reasons why Hitler was right, the death camps were a terrific idea, etc, etc? After that, we can go on to reworking slavery and then get into a better position viz-a-vis Jo Stalin and Pol Pot. Or maybe just hand Wikipedia over the the neo-Nazis and forget the whole enlightenment?? MarkThomas 19:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Mr. Thomas; I rarely participate in discussion on the good ol' Wikipedia, but I suppose I feel "morally obligated" here. I think it's hard to be relative about Nazism; it requires one to adopt ideas that one could condone the horrors associated with Nazism. Could it be said that according to cliché judgements (every action has an opposite and equal reaction) that perhaps there was some motivation, even perhaps some justification (the doomed social situation set-up by the Allied Powers which preceded the Nazi regime, known as the Weimar Republic)? Maybe, but that doesn't mean we have to approve, nor should we encourage Nazism again, especially when we have ethics that have the potential to create a better world for *all* of us?? Just because there is a neutral perpetuity, does not mean that there is a lack of ethical perpetuity. Anyway, why should we stop at Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Enlightenment, Mark? Clearly, we can work our way back to the ignorance of Darfur, Milosevic, and while we're at it, centralize power in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church! Cheers. Steve 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"there are some things you just can't be that neutral over". Who are we to decide on what the "some things" are? All facts are equal, but some are more equal than others? Neutrality is what makes an encyclopaedia. Yandman 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean some kind of balance between pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi. It means letting the facts speak for themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. let the facts speak for themselves. I do think nazism is evil and wrong, but obviously the German people saw something good in it otherwise they wouldn't have been so complacent. It may be that all the "positive" aspects of nazism are propaganda but I think it would be good to include them in some fashion. Of course, if the official Nazi line doesn' square with reality this should be noted.

Is it just me, or has somebody edited out my last comments? Steve 02:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you hope to write a "neutral portrayal" that is not "piased against Nazis," which killed 11 million people. Having soldiers storm your home and threaten to kill you if you do not support them is the reason they enjoyed extremely high popularity. Wikipedia does not need to be "neutral on this issue"

Let the facts, not the bias, speak for themselves.

Why not discuss the unbearable depression Hitler ended in Germany or the way he united a people broken by the treaty of Versailles. Or anything else anyone can ‘prove’ was a positive factor to the Nazi Regime. Then describe the atrocities, genocide, war crimes, national aggression and the rest of the story.

Everytime I read anything on this topic, people are all afraid that speaking a positive word about this sensitive and hotly debated issue will raise Hitler from the dead or something. Let the history, all of it, speak for itself. History needs to be neutral on all issues. The history books written under the Nazi Regime weren't neutral either, remember.

Joliversc 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)joliversc

Well, then you have the other side of that coin. I just pulled out a paragraph that read: "A nazi is a stupid german prick who is sort of like a paccy and because you want to get rid of them all because they are stupid and follow the stupid prick hitler who was a gay wanker" Not really up to snuff, you know. Gerard Van Der Leun 14:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Vanderleun

link to "heinrich kultus"

Having visited Quedlinburg during my holidays, I came aware of the so called "Heinrich Cult" (Heinrich Kultus). German Wikipedia says: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg Seit 1936 profanierte Heinrich Himmler die Wipertikirche und die Kirche St. Servatii auf dem Schlossberg. Diese wurde zur Weihestätte der SS. Hintergrund war der 1000. Todestag Heinrichs I., dessen Grablege sich dort befindet. Heinrich Himmler selbst betrachtete sich als Wiedergeburt König Heinrichs.

One of the Nazi heads (forgot who, sorry), according to the exposition at Quedlinburg, wrote in his diary that there actually was no more difference between Catholicism and Nazism. This should probably make a short link in the Theology part of the Nazism article (but I'm a bit wary of editing it myself). It could say something like:

"The mixing of politics and religion in Nazism can still be seen in the Wiperti church in Quedlinburg, where the Nazis organised a celebration of the 1000th day of death of king Heinrich_I. For this, they restructured the Gothic Wiperti church to have a Roman inside, with a great, round window with an eagle on it looking down on the sanctuary - so the visitors of the church would see the worldly eagle as their highest power.

The eagle has been deleted from the church in 1945, but the Roman inside in the Gothic outside, as well as the stones that fill up the former window, can still be seen."

Both Quedlinburg and the Wiperti church have links in the German Wikipedia, but not in the English equivalents.

Don't be afraid, go for it! Can you provide a link to a picture of the stones on the former window for your audience, by the way? Quedlinburg isn't well known, so maybe you are doing the small, yet important town a favor by promoting it at the same time? Sadly, it is likely to become a ghost town, though it is great shape right now.--72.92.0.83 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I have created Portal:Nazism but do not know enough to get it up and running, perhaps someone could help out or weigh in on whether or not such a portal is viable. I made a comment on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism about the fact that it may be cannibalizing the target audience, i.e. it will turn into one of those portals that sits on a shelf if the main person (me) stops contributing to it because no one else cares enough. Romperomperompe 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Long rambling lead

The lead of this article has become long and rambling. Obviously a controversial article, and I haven't been working on it, so I hesitate to wade in; if the problem really isn't self-evident, ping me and I'll make my comments more specific. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Economic practice

The notion that hyperinflation was a problem in Germany in the 1930s dies hard. The hyperinflation of the early 1920s was overcome late in 1923 when the Mark was stabilized. The depression was charcterized by falling prices. So why does the article refer to the "elimination of hyperinflation"? It's a misleading irrelevance and perpetuates a myth first popularized in 1940 in the "The Great Dictator", though there were moderately inflationary tendencies arising from the rearmament programme. Also, sources are needed for all growth rates given, especially as these can be calculated in different ways and are controversial. Norvo 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, especially on hyperinflation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised the apparent claim that many German corporations didn't know that they were employing slave labour or that they had "lost control of their German branches (sic)". IG-Farben (mentioned here a supposedly unaware company) had a plant at Auschwitz and was tried after WWII - and some of its leading executives were jailed. It's a mystery why Kurt Schmitt and Allianz AG are singled for mention. -- Norvo 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to hyperinflation (following the Flammingo changes). Norvo 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps on reverting the reference to 'Elimination of hyperinflation', despite the fact that there was NO inflation in Germany in the early 1930s. The hyperinflation of the previous decade ended in 1923. Those who want to cling to the myth that just before Hitler came to power Germans were carrying cash around in suitcases might do well to look at postage-stamp catalgoues for the interwar period! Norvo 13:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperinflation removed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Norvo 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If one wants to include any reference to the Nazi allegation that the Great Depression was caused by an international cabal I'd suggest keeping it brief, and I don't see any case for taking it back to the 19th century or earlier. After all, it was Nazi propaganda. I'd like to repeat my earlier request that sources be given for those extremely high growth-rates in Germany in the 1930s, as these can be calculated in different ways. Norvo 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY disagree! The point is NOT that there was the existence of hyperinflation in the economy - but that elimination of such a thing, or keeping it from being created again WAS IN FACT a MAJOR point of Nazi economic theory. Additionally, their economic theory was tied up in their overall worldview - as I pointed out, their economic policies supported their ideology NOT the other way around. Missing this essential difference in how they approached economics (which is very different than modern concepts of economics) is vital to understanding Nazi economic theory.

I feel the former edit of this section is more to the point - and the discussion of collusion of big business is best left removed to another section. It should not be to critize what happened, only to discuss what it was. In this case, I feel it is quite pointless to bring up the 'Protocols' here as well.

My cite about their growth rates is from the book 'Nazi Economics Ideology, Theory, and Policy' ISBN# 0-300-04466-6 translated by Ruth Hadass-Vashitz for Yale University Press (if someone could figure out how to cite this for me, as I don't edit much - but this was one of my contributions). I am citing a PRIMARY source. If there are differing calculations - place them in!

As an example from this book illustrating my point about hyperinflation being a primary concern:

..." "such a small increase in the volume of credit does in no way endanger the currency" bears evidence of the caution still prevalent at this juncture; following the experience of 1922-23, the fear of inflation was deeply embedded in public consciousness, and shared also by economists." pg. 42 Dobbs 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

As I understood it, this is an article on Nazism, not neo-Nazism. So why are there external links to present-day neo-Nazi parties? - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Russell

There is no evidence to support the claim that Sean Russell personally embraced Nazism as an ideology. What evidence there is, is that he sought an alliance with Germany against Britain to secure the full independence of his country. {{subst:unsigned|67.87.90.62|1 September 2006

Vandalism

I hate nazis as much as the next guy, but someone needs to lock this page, and revert the vadalism. Nazism is a 'penis'? Wikiwarlock 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism needs to be reverted, which, of course, you can do yourself; we don't usually lock pages over vandalism unless they are major vandal targets. This one was probably reaching the threshold for semi-protection (though no one seems to have gone for it). Now it seems to have calmed down, but people should keep that in mind as an option. - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism -- > Nationalsozialistische

All the "OMG commies" jokes aside, the Nazis spent most of their time complaining about how leftists, jews, scientists, the media, and socialists were ruining their country, etc, etc, nazi rant, more etc. How about we just call the Nazis what they called themselves, Nationalsozialistische, and just leave the interpretations to someone else?--64.12.117.14 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• And respectfully, it would be nice if people didn't abuse popups for edit warring--172.169.81.86 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be an adjective, ie. they didn't: The term is Nationalsozialismus, the follower is a Nationalsozialist (plural:+en). In historiography, it is considered scientifically appropriate to use the political abbreviation for all three words, namely "Nazi" as the term, the follower and the adjective. --Flammingo 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Its "Nationalsozialist" (singular) and "Nationalsozialisten" (plural). "nationalsozialistische" is not really wrong, but commonly used only as adjective (plural, nominative). But whatever you call them: FUCK THEM

Semiprotection

Could someone semi this article again, please? Large amount of IPvandalism (mainly from schools). Yandman 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all of us who care about ideological descriptions on WP are pretty sick of cutting in on IP no stupidity on this and related pages. I SP'ed it just now, let's hope that lasts for a bit. MarkThomas 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We're back to random IP-number defacing of the site every day following removal of the SP notice; is it true as the user who removed it (Casper2k3) said that this removal was correct because it was not listed at CAT:SEMI, I thought it was auto-listed there when the tag gets added? MarkThomas 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected, a non-admin who adds the tag won't actually protect the article. So when you added the tag in this edit the page wasn't protected (hence the IP vandalism after you added the tag). Go to WP:RPP to request a page to be protected. --Casper2k3 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated Comment on Kurt Schmitt

This paragraph didnt fit into the context, the guy is never mentioned again:
Kurt Schmitt (born 7 October 1886 in Heidelberg; died 2 November 1950 in Heidelberg) was a Board member of Allianz AG, Germany's largest insurance company, and was a German economic leader and the Reich Economy Minister from June 1933 until January 1935.
But maybe somewhere else? --[[User:Flammingo|Flammingo^{[[User talk:Flammingo|Parliament]]}]] 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Changes

Wow, that was a big change made there by Flamingo. He seems to have removed a lot of content, and added some new stuff. While I'm not too sure about some of it ("When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism, and focus on their own nation" ? An important assertion such as this definetely needs a quote), I'm not the world's biggest expert on Nazism. Any opinions? Yandman 07:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly important set of changes. The first para in particular I feel is not as good now, as it does not give the panoramic view of Nazism one would expect on it's key page in WP. The rest of the changes are mostly focusing on historicist opinion but I think are rather livelier than what we had, and I don't see obvious mistakes or widely controversial opinions in there, although I will look more closely. I think this will need a lot of editing and thinking about though. Flammingo can you discuss it a bit more? You have made quite a change. Thanks. MarkThomas 08:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still modifying, and concerned about, the Flammingo change, which he has only discussed on my talk page and not here. If there is resolution to revert, do so, but I feel some of the changes were good, just very sweeping and undiscussed. MarkThomas 16:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for not discussing these changes first, with a crucial page like this it should have been; the reason was that there were at least two paragraphs with identical topics. I lately did some research on the rise of Nazism, and gave some reasons when this morning there was some concern on User talk:MarkThomas#Nazism; yes i agree the first paragraph is not finished and needs to be easier to read. Question is what should the first paragraph be used for, give an outline of the rest of the article or list events or be a moral introduction? The latter is necessary on the one hand but debatable for an encyclopaedia. My main reason was a more readable (?) structure. The rejection of Internationalism etc. is not mine but a quote from analyses like Mann, or leading historians Nolte and Arendt. Now I'll get some sources for that. Again, this was for structure, the content though needs more sources and probably additional perspectives. --Flammingo^Parliament 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Nazism

It is misleading to denounce the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) of being an advocate of Nazi-type racism. His book "Parerga und Paralipomena" section 92 is quoted to support this claim. The quotation ignores both the historical context of Schopenhauer`s remarks, and their context in his essay "On the Philosophy and Science of Nature" from which the quotation is taken. In his essay, Schopenhauer gives a matter-of-fact account of the development of humans, informed by the science of his time. He (correctly) acknowledges the origin of humans in Africa, then speculates on the processes which led to a white race. He makes clear that there is no such thing as a "natural white race" and that in fact using the term "white race" shows "prejudice and lack of thinking" (page 137 of the 1988 Haffmans edition, my translation). Schopenhauer takes the superiority of European civilization as a fact, arguing that climatic conditions were the driving force towards a superior creativity. There is nothing particularly Nazi-like in these views. They represent the mainstream opinion of educated Europeans in the 19th century. Schopenhauers views on race and civilization are the views of a moderate and highly educated conservative in the mid-19th century, in no way extremist, and would probably have found the thorough approval of, say, Queen Victoria or Florence Nightingale. You cannot judge a 19th century thinker using 21st century language and moral standards.Christophreisner 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can it not be said that the original thought of the basic concept and symbolism of Nazism, the Aryan Race and its supposide competition with the Semite race can be traced back to Helena Blavatsky. Afterall, Blavatsky coined the term Aryan race and her personal symbol included a swastika at 45 degrees with a ring surrounding it. Look at Theosophical Society on Wikipedia to see Blavatsky's emblem _{preceding unsigned comment added at 01:00, 24 September 2006 by IP 65.95.171.76 Talk}

Sounds very likely- i still suggest to base the statement on a published research in order to prevent internal myth-making. Do you have one? (Please remember to click "sign your name") --Flammingo^Parliament 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A darker shade of Green

A while back I read a "What if" article in New Scientist. A darker shade of Green. I just remembered it today, so I did a quick search of what I remembered, and it was amasing what I was able to dig up:

• Animal rights [1],[2]
• Environmentalism [3], [4], [5], [6]
• Kraft durch Freude The well-being of the working classes.
• Public health [7] (Antismoking campaigns, asbestos restrictions, occupational health and safety standards)

There are probably more litle known Nazi topics to dig up, but I haven't got the article anymore. I wonder if I will dare question the roots of the "green party".... --Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi hard sciences seems to have been doing well as well Operation paperclip --Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They were incredibly advanced on the green side of things. I don't really see this as a contradiction, as the Nazis didn't want to destroy the world or anything. They sincerely wanted to make it a better place. For anyone with blond hair and blue eyes, that is... Yandman 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why NPOV tag?

It's not clear to me why there is a dispute tag on this page. It's not the best treatment of the subject I have ever read, but it seems both reasonably balanced and comprehensive. Am I missing something? White Guard 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• User:Vision Thing inserted the tag in August[8]. See the "Collectivism" discussion above. It's probably worth removing now. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now removed. White Guard 00:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

German terms

I want to make a few corrections on the German terms used in this article. I am Austrian and so German's my mother tongue and I noticed some grammatical or orthographic errors, which I ask you to correct. The article's locked at the time, so I can't change it myself. The section "Introduction" mentions the German term "das Blut" as a translation for the English "race". This is incorrect, for "das Blut" means "the blood", while "the race" means "die Rasse". It is true, that the term "Blut" was sometimes used symbolically for "race" (for example: "Ich bin deutschen Blutes", literally "I am of German blood" meaning "I am of the German race"), but the most widespread translation for the English "race" is "Rasse". It should, however, be noted that in German the term "Rasse" (race) is sometimes frowned upon because of the possible racist connotations. Instead, the more neutral and scientific term "Ethnie" (ethnic group) is prefered.

The German word for "National Socialist" (referring to a person) is not "Nazionalsozialist", as the article claims, but "Nationalsozialist" (with "ti" instead of "zi"). It is, however, pronounced [nat​͡sjonˈaːlsot​͡sjalˌɪsmsʊs], with a t​͡s in "Nation...", which would normally be spelt in German as "z". However, in German "ti" whenn followed by another vowel is pronounced /t​͡si/ instead of /ti/, so "Nationalsozialisten" is the correct spelling.

The term "Dolchstoßlegende" in the section "Nazi theory" is also misspelled. It should have an "ß" instead of an "ss". "Dolchstoss" would be the Swiss spelling, which is not the most widespread standard spelling in the German speaking countries. The term "German Volk" used in the same section could be easily translated as "German people". The motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" should be spelled with only one capitalized "ein" at the beginning, with the other "ein" (an article meaning simply "a/an" or "one") being spelled with in lower case. The name of the Thule Society is spelled with a hyphen between the words "Thule" and "Gesellschaft" ("Thule-Gesellschaft", not "Thule Gesellschaft").

Besides: I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think that the opinion that "National Socialism" was a world-wide phenomenon, as expressed in the "Introduction"-section is wrong. There may of course have been movements, that combined nationalism and socialism, but they didn't call themselves "National Socialists". As far as I know, the German term "Nationalsozialismus" was a unique expression at the time, used by the National Socialists to attract members of the working classes. The opinion that "Nazism" is the distinct German form of National Socialism is almost certainly wrong. The term "Nazism" is almost never used in German-speaking countries, instead the terms "Nationalsozialismus" (National Socialism) or -- less frequently -- "Hitlerfaschismus" (Hitler fascism) or "Nazifaschismus" (Nazi fascism) are used.

The term "völkisch" used in the section "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" should not be capitalized, for it is a normal adjective, which are spelled in lower case letters even in German.

The term "Lumpenproletariat", however, should be capitalized, because it's a noun and all nouns are capitalized in German.

Furthermore, National Socialism is not only outlawed in Germany, as the article says in it's "Introduction" section, but also in Austria, which was occupied by the National Socialists in 1938.

The term "lebensunwertes Leben" included only disabled and mentally ill people and people suffering from hereditary diseases (and sometimes the so-called 'Asoziale'). The term "lebensunwertes Leben" was connected with the "Euthanasia" programmes the National Socialists committed. It did not include non-German people, homosexuals etc.

Phew, this was getting longer than I intended it to be. I hope I could help you. 62.46.181.60

Many good suggestions. I rewrote the lead. The term Nazism is widely used in most English-speaking countries. National socialist ideologues existed outside of Germany, but it was almost exclusively limited to Europe--not international. I hate opening entries with a cite to another encyclopedia. What's the point? The issue of fascism is dicely, I used the term nationalism in the primary clause, and mentioned fascism in a later sentence. I am intimidated by the idea of trying to fix the German language stuff.--Cberlet 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard about the fact that the term "Nazism" is very widespread outside the German-speaking countries. I didn't object the usage of that term, only the claim that "Nazism" is the specific German variant of National Socialism. I also appreciate that there were National Socialist ideologues outside of Germany, but I don't know any movement from the time before German National Socialism that called itself "national socialist" (using the term, you know). Unfortunately, I don't understand what you want to say when you're speaking about opening sentences citing other encyclopedias an the relationship between National Socialism and Fascism. Does it refer to something I said or to another discussion?

Oh, and about the German language stuff: that are only orthographic errors. Please just do the following:

- Change "Nazionalsozialisten" in paragraph 3 of the section "Introduction" to "Nationalsozialisten" or, even better, "Nationalsozialisten/Nationalsozialistinnen" (thus mentioning both genders -- strictly speaking, "Nationalsozialisten" refers only to male Nazis). - Change "Dolchstosslegende" in paragraph 2 of the section "Nazi theory" to "Dolchstoßlegende". - Change "German Volk" in the "Nationalism" paragraph of the section "Nazi theory" to "German people". - Change "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" in the same paragraph to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". - Change "Thule Gesellschaft" in the first "Racism" paragraph of the section "Nazi theory" to "Thule-Gesellschaft". - Change "Völkisch movement" in the first "Nazism and mysticism" paragraph in the section "Key elements of the Nazi ideology" - Change "lumpenproletariat" in the third paragraph of the section "Ideological competition" to "Lumpenproletariat"

I hope that I could help you. 62.46.181.60

Yes, helpful, thanks, I made the changes. My remarks about encyclopedias and the relationship between National Socialism and Fascism are my pet complaints from another discussion--nothing you said.--Cberlet 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote "das Blut, la razza", it was a quote from Paxton, Blut is of course blood (in the sense of race). Still, it is easier to read this way, and ok, i guess. What I do not understand is why Cberlet deleted the Britannica reference They call it totalitarian, btw. Because it is another encyclopaedia? Is that it?
@IP: strictly speaking, yes. For people who do not know German I would like to add that "-istinnen" refers to women only, while the "-isten" usually does not explicitly exclude women, it only does not stress that both are referred to. I agree with the way it is now, though, it shows the term exists.

Citing another encyclopedia in the lead of an entry is, frankly, pathetic. We can do better. And there is more recent research on fascism that makes the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry look sophomoric.--Cberlet 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the term "-innen" which today would be used was not in common use in the term refered to. Agathoclea 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the comment on '-innen'. Incidentally, the term lumpenproletariat is sometimes used in English, in which case it starts with a small 'l-' in accordance with standard English usage. Norvo 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And agree on keeping lumpenproletariat lowercase. It has passed into English. In fact, I think even the adjective lumpen has passed into English, at least educated English. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am clueless about the spelling issues, so folks should make corrections as needed.--Cberlet 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made the necessary spelling changes. Norvo 00:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections. It's much better this way. About the "-innen" issue. OK, that's disputable. For myself, I think that a female Nazi would have called herself Nationalsozialistin in most cases, not Nationalsozialist. Of course, to that time PC wasn't that common (and certainly not among the Nazis), so a group of female and male Nazis called themselves Nationalsozialisten. But, I think, we don't have to go back to the usage of gender suffixes of that time. In an article about slavery in America we also don't speak about "niggers", do we? 62.46.177.2

Unsatifactory introduction

At the moment the first two sentences of the introduction are irrelevant and very largely inaccurate:

National Socialism is an ideology that was developed in the last decades of the 19th century. When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, especially the Syndicalists as opposed to the Bolshevists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism,[1] and focus on their own nation, which was then referring to the "race" (die Rasse, la razza)[2].

In Germany there was no syndicalist movement, and the notion that the roots of Nazi ideology can be found in impatient, restless socialists is naive nonsense. Clearly, someone has lifted something on the origins of Fascism in some other country and transposed a very garbled piece of text to Germany. The key early elements in the forerunners of Nazism were extreme nationalism, racial anti-Semitism and Social Darwinism, which is the antithesis of socialism. The populist elements came later, after WW1. Moreover, the core ideology arose in the first decade or so of the 20th century (c. 1900-1914). The reference to Bolshevists (!) in a late 19th century contexts is bizarre. Politically and socially, the key ideological antecedents of Nazism lay in German conservatism.

It is worth adding that Nazism never had a well aticulated ideology. Much of the discussion on this page seems to assume that Nazism had something akin to Marxist ideology, with its claim to provide a theory of history, but it never sought to offer anything remotely like that. Norvo 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opening statement is garbled and misplaced. However, I think you perhaps underestimate the importance of the contribution of 'socialism' to the evolution of Nazi ideology. Quite far back into the ninteenth century you will find attempts to synthesize socialism and nationalism. One obvious example of this is Adolf Stoecker's Christian Socialist Workers Party, conceived as an attempt to win the working-class away from the SPD. Later in both Austria and the Sudetan areas of Bohemia parties with the specific National-Socialist label began to make an appearance. You have to remember, too, that the Nazis began life as the German Workers Party, emphasising the constituency they wished to attract, underlined still further by the addition of the Socialist label. You are also making too much of the kinship between Nazism and traditional conservatism, ignoring the socialist and radical contribution to its intellectual make-up. In this regard you may wish to contrast the NSDAP with the DNVP. which should help you to understand the true difference between the the new radicalism and traditional conservatism. There are those, moreover, who see both Facism and Communism essentially as movements of the left, with their emphasis on state intervention at all levels of social, political and economuc life. Anyway, they have more in common than you would allow.White Guard 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Norvo, just look at the Werner Sombart article. Intangible 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Stöcker's party was called the 'Christlich-Soziale Partei' ('Christian Social Party'). It was - deliberately - not called 'sozialistisch' ('socialist') and it dropped the refence to itself as a 'Workers' Party' as a liability within three years of its foundation. The 'social' bit suggested some kind of social conscience, but in Central Europe in the period c.1875-1918ff 'Christian Social' was largely a code-word for anti-Jewish.

As for state intervention being a form of socialism, this sounds like libertarian dogma. In Germany and some other countries in WWI there was extensive state intervention in the economy, but that didn't make any of these countries socialist. What these countries had - like later the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (and various other countries) - was a planned economy. Incidentally, I don't deny that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had many featues in common, but socialism wasn't among hem. Norvo 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Nazism evolved from socialism is one thing. Beyond that, it is a marginal POV that has been discussed on this page endlessly. The lead needs a rewrite, but not from a marginal POV. We have been here before. Several modern scholars of Nazism argue that it did, indeed have a coherent ideology. Material added here in a rewrite had better be cited to reputable published scholarship. Intangible is currently on probation in part for POV editing on entries related to fascism. I think Norvo has a better grasp of the issues.--Cberlet 03:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on Stöcker, though I do not think it invalidates my point that he specifically set up a 'social' alternative to attract German workers away from the SPD-the anti-semitism came as a later addition.

With regard to the latter contribution, yes, of course, my grasp of the issues is very weak, no more than a 'marginal POV'-but one sadly, with all due allowance for ignorance and stupidity, that will not be silenced, no matter how many times 'you' have been here before. I will repeat my chief point in the face of the orthodox consensus (please forgive my stubborn persistence) that National Socialism was fundamentally different from traditional forms of German Conservatism, and to try to obscure this-or airbrush it out altogether-comes close to being dangerously misleading: Adolf Hitler was not Alfred Hugenberg. We might consider in this regard some remarks of Hitler to Hermann Rauschning;

I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit...The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the worker's sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specifically for the comprehension of the masses; all these new methods of struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do was to take these methods and adapt them to our purpose. I only had to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempts to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its artificial ties with a democratic order.

Or what Bolshevism, it might be said, became. I do myself take the libertarian view; but the whole question should not be dismissed so lightly. There is more to the Nazi intellectual and political universe than Social Darwinism and Anti-semitism, my 'marginal POV' notwithstanding White Guard 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement that there is more to the relation of Nazism to Socialism than that they opposed another (Nazism = Antisocialism) was not meant as a challenge or marginal POV, but like WhiteGuard said there are some arguments that try to understand where the term socialist appears in national socialism. For fun (mocking) or delusion (misleading)? The public and private speeches sound more serious than that, and in order to analyse the threat no argument should be ignored without good (ie. quoted) reasoning. That is why the passage

'''National Socialism''' is an [[ideology]] that was developed in the last decades of the 19th century. When [[Socialism]] was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, especially the [[Syndicalist]]s as opposed to the Bolshevists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism,<ref>see Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism 2004,p.55f: One way to achieve that was taking only "enemy", internal and external, property rights to protect the workers from being exploited by a feared universal enemy - probably meaning the Jews.</ref> and focus on their own nation, which was then referring to the "race" (die Rasse, la razza)<ref>Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism 2004</ref>. Hitler (and the Italian fascist Mussolini) started by working within socialist groups organizing workers, and while there is still no consensus among historians over the character of National Socialism, it is generally considerd to have allied with the political right.

is not as much a personal point of view but a historiographical theory that is just as justified (and based on sources) as any, and its arguments should be considered.--Flammingo^Parliament 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a view widely held amongst historians of the period. Most believe that the words "worker" and "socialist" were cynically introduced into the party name at a time when the main ideological rival was communism, so as to increase support and pose as sympathetic to worker's rights and causes, something the Nazis continued to falsely maintain into the second world war and in captured territories. False because despite these claims, no effort was made to nationalise the means of production - major capitalists were if anything enriched. Corrupt members of the Nazi elite like Gauleiters and organisations like the SS also enriched themselves with war production profits. Some efforts were made to increase worker participation in factories, but in a strictly nationalistic and war-aims context. However, despite all this, as a matter of record the embryo Nazi party did learn from, and imitate, much of the paraphernalia of the Stalinist state and methods such as an omnipresent secret police, informing, labour camps, arbitrary detention and fake trials, etc. This does not make the Nazis of socialist origin, but shows that within a totalitarian system, similar forms evolve. In addition, quite a number of early Nazi leaders were originally communists. The social democrats in Germany argued that both communists and Nazis were aiming for a dictatorship and were attacked and deported to concentration camps when the Nazis came to power. MarkThomas 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalise the means of production? If they had done that they would have been Communists, not Nazis. There are-and have been-plenty of governemts in the world with the Socialist label who have fallen well short of that perverse and economically destructive ideal. In Nazi Germany there was, however, a degree of state interference in the national economy that would be inconceivable in a free society: the only real contemporary parallel is that of Stalin's Russia. Might I suggest that you examine the mass observation studies for Germany's working-classes in the 1930s and 1940s; they make very interesting reading. Where life was uncertain, as it was in the late Weimar period and the final months of WWII, 'history', so to speak, intrudes on ordinary daily life; but in the middle period-after Hitler came to power and before he started losing the war-the record is largely personal, a fully-employed work force focused on domestic concerns alone.

The Nazis were always very careful to nurture the working class, and socialism, as they understood it, was not marginal to their ideology. As a penance for my ignorance on this whole subject I once read through several years worth of Völkischer Beobachter and Der Angriff, and saw just how close at points the Nazis and Communists were in both style and technique, and in the constituency they appealed to; they even collaborated during the Berlin transport strike of 1932. By 1930, according to the Nazi party's own records, 28% of the membership were drawn from the industrial working class, a figure that rose to 34% in 1934. These are people who would never have been attracted to-or welcomed by-the DNVP. 'Most historians' are therefore wrong. Socialism, in whatever fashion you care to define this, from state intervention to the regulation of social life, was a fundamental part of Nazism. To contend otherwise comes close to complete misunderstanding. White Guard 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating point of view. I hope you write an essay some day. In the meantime, it has no relationship to editing this page unless you can find several substantial reputable sources to counter the large number of scholars who do not agree with you. See WP:NOR.--Cberlet 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I have written is not, in fact, 'original research', as you put it. Sadly, it simply does not correspond to your way of seeing things-or the way you would like things to be seen; but, well, I will just have to live with that. I will work in the figures-which I did not collect or invent-and the argument with appropriate citations. Sorry to spoil the consensus. But thank you so much for sharing. White Guard 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That the Nazis were not traditional conservatives (a fact which I doubt that anybody would dispute) does not make them socialists either. There was a great deal of government interference with the economy, but this largely came in the form of a massive military build-up. There was considerably more central planning going on during the war in Churchill's Britain than in Hitler's Germany. Collaboration between big business and government is hardly a socialistic feature, and this is essentially what Nazi interference with the German economy amounted to. The Berlin transport strike was a an extraordinary occurrence, and, in fact, hurt the Nazis, sending many of their more conservative supporters back to the DNVP for the November 1932 elections (at least, this was arguably one of the main reasons for that shift). But, again, I don't think anyone disagrees that fascism is not the same thing as conservatism. Fascism is populist in a way that a party like the DNVP never could be (although Hugenberg certainly tried). It was attractive to segments of society that never voted conservative. But I don't see what that has to do with socialism. Nazism was also strongly attractive to conservative elites whose principle political belief was hatred of socialism. These people saw a careful use of the Nazis' popular appeal as the best way to end the hated Weimar Republic, defeat the Marxists, and restore Germany to national greatness, even if the Nazi leaders themselves were grubby upstarts (the same thing can be seen in Italy, with the King's appointment of Mussolini in 1922). Beyond that, "most historians are wrong" is simply a worthless statement in the kind of debate we are engaged in. We are not arguing about whether nazism was a form of socialism. In such a context, it would be perfectly appropriate to say that most historians are wrong. We are, in fact, arguing about how to deal with the relationship between Nazism and Socialism in a wikipedia article about Nazism. Wikipedia's policies state that we are to present an article based on the views of the consensus of scholars in the relevant field. If you are indeed accepting the most historians disagree with your position, then you are, in fact, conceding the case. If no historians agree with you, it is original research and doesn't belong in wikipedia. john k 11:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with john k. I realize it must be frustrating, but the goal here is to edit the entry, not dispute the views of "the consensus of scholars in the relevant field."--Cberlet 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of authors consider Nazism a form of collectivism. Sources for that view are presented above; however article doesn't even mention collectivism. Also, according to WP:NPOV, all significant points of view must be represented, and view that Nazism originated from Socialism, or that it is its form, is not represented.

On a related note, I think that Collectivism would be a better title for a subsection currently called Nationalism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

John k, I agree expressions like 'most historians' say this or think that are intellectually worthless, but I was usiing this for polemical effect, merely rephrasing some modes argument-and forms of language-put forward in some of the above responses. What disturbs me most is the attempt to silence both debate and analysis by references to some bogus consensus, which I consider to be both shallow and dangerous. I was particularly annoyed by the dismissive response of Cberlet. Read back over what I have written. My intention was to underline the contribution that socialism-both as a system of ideas and as a form of political practice-made to the evolution of Nazism, whether in a positive or a negative sense. It was always a question of degree. Both Nazism and Fascism-unlike traditional forms of Conservatism-are 'children', so to speak, of the Bolshevik Revolution, and both responded to the challege this represented by appeals to social radicalism, and not simply for cynical effect. There were those like Gregor Strasser and, for a time, Joseph Goebbels, who wished to move the NSDAP in a more 'left-wing' direction; and although Hitler vetoed this strategy, the radical appeals to the working-class remained, reflected in party membership figures. Now, on the question of scholarly consensus, here at least is one dissenting view;

This is all true, and worth discussing. But it's not worth having discussions with simple-minded fans of Hayek who have decided that "Statism" and "Socialism" are the same thing. These people come again and again to these pages, and it's incredibly trying to have to explain again and again that they are wrong. We should discuss the ways in which socialism influenced National Socialism, but we shouldn't present libertarian propaganda as fact. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis at first had little success in attracting workers, and their ranks were dominated by the "petty bourgeois" elements. But toward the end of the 1920s, their socialist appeals began to have an effect. When unemployment struck in 1929-30, workers joined en masse. (Richard Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, London, 1994, p. 261).

Pipes is a history of Russia, not of Germany. I don't think he should be considered a reliable source for the history of Nazi Germany. Most reviewers found the book in question to be highly marred by Pipes's obsession with tying the sins of Nazism to Bolshevism. At any rate, Pipes is at one extreme on this particular issue, and is well outside the mainstream. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I took up this challenge to question the contention that Nazism was all anti-semitism and Social Darwinism. Traditional Conservatives, in Germany anyway, embraced both of these things; so what makes Nazism different? You say that you don't think anyone disagrees that fascism is not the same thing as conservatism? Well, read again Norvo's opening contribution where he says "Politically and socially, the key ideological antecedents of Nazism lay in German conservatism." Is this not to say that is the product of Conservatism, and if we scratch Hitler we will find Hugenberg? All I am asking for is intellectual clarity and a proper understanding of all of the political and intellectual sources of National Socialism.

Fair enough. But we shouldn't deny the conservative roots of National Socialism either, nor deny that it was widely perceived, including by conservatives, as being a right-wing movement. Beyond that, it's misleading to cast Hugenberg as the paradigm for German conservatism. He was not. He was a radical figure, whose early leadership led to massive splits within the DNVP, with many of its old, traditionally conservative leadership resigning. Hugenberg's DNVP opposed the re-election of President Hindenburg, who, if anything, by 1932 represented the old face of German conservatism. Brüning's government represented the truly "conservative" strain of German conservatism much better than Hugenberg's radicalized, Nazi-imitating post-1928 DNVP. Even so, there are differences - Hitler was able to gain a broad-based popular appeal that Hugenburg could never compete with, and the DNVP was always tainted by the spectre of old school elitist conservatism and Prussian junkers - but Hugenberg really is a halfway point between traditional conservatism and Nazism. Payne actually does a good discussion of this, where he distinguished between the "traditional right" (in Germany, this would be represented by Brüning, Hindenburg, and so forth - possibly Papen as well), the "radical right" (Hugenberg), and the "fascist right" (Hitler, obviously). The general conclusion was that the radical right is no less radical than the fascists, it's just a lot more right wing (in the traditional sense). We should certainly be careful about all this, but libertarian claptrap isn't the best way to do that. john k 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will, of course, be happy to clarify any of the points I have made here or above in further discussion with you. There are some people I can take seriously.White Guard 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

<-----------The claim that Nazism or Fascism is a form of collectivism or socialism is a minority view of scholars, and it is discussed in far too much detail at Fascism and ideology. We have had this debate here before. Again and again. Please, please, please, let's not have another struggle over this. Once a year is plenty. --Cberlet 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That Nazism is a form of Socialism is a minority view, however that view has prominent adherents and it should be represented in this article if it is going to follow NPOV policy. As for Collectivism, that view is not a minority view, which can be seen from its acceptance by Britannica and by a number of different authors. Until these views are included this article doesn't confirm to NPOV. -- Vision Thing -- 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It has repeatedly been rejected by the majority of editors here, as you are well aware.--Cberlet 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek has a chapter on "The Socialist Roots of Nazism" in his 1945 work The Road to Serfdom. Maybe that can be used? Intangible 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over exactly the same arguments? (And didn't we end up agreeing to take this up in Fascism and ideology rather than here?)

There are topics on which Hayek is expert and citable. He is not particularly citable on Nazism or facsism, which he wrote about mainly to use them as a stick with which to beat socialism. He was not particularly an expert scholar of this topic.

White Guard, I've crossed paths with you on a lot of articles; we are obviously light years apart on politics, but I've seen you do a lot of good work, and ask a lot of good questions. In this case, though, I think Cberlet is almost certainly on the mark in his remark above that begins "Fascinating point of view." It's not that your ideas on this are not interesting, it's that they are well outside the mainstream scholarly view. I also have a lot of places where, left to my own devices, I would dissent from the mainstream scholarly view, but on the whole I keep them out of Wikipedia, except in articles on the people who hold those views. This is an encyclopedia. People who look up Nazism in an encyclopedia are entitled to an article that will coincide with mainstream scholarship, not a polemic in favor any of a number of possible dissenting views. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I really agree with Jmabel on this. There is already a page where Hayek's views are discussed in detail. I have views about Nazism that depart from current mainstream scholarship (I like the work of David Redles, for example), but our work as Wiki editors measns that we need to present the majority mainstream scholarship here, with appropriate mentions of significant minority views that are published. We mention and link to the "Nazism as socialism" debate discussed over on Fascism and ideology. Redles is mentioned only once in this entry, as "further reading." That's about a proper note. We already have:

" For further information on national socialism and socialism, and Nazism and fascism, see Fascism and ideology."

That's about a proper mention.--Cberlet 15:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term 'nazi'

Nowhere in this article does it say when the term 'Nazi' first appeared - reading the 'terminology'-paragraph and the article Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, one would assume that it originated in or after 1920. However, the Library of Congress-website contains a document from 1897 that sheds a different light. [9] gives access to a transcript of a stage performance by the notorious Barrison Sisters (famous for their song 'Would You Like to See my Pussy?'), in which they perform, among others, their 'Nazi, Nazi Song", wherein the word 'Nazi' is used to describe a certain type of German-speaking gentleman. So could someone more knowledgeable than me look into this and add a bit of nazi pre-history to the article?

As far as I can ascertain, there's no linguistic 'pre-history', though I note that the 4th volume of Muret-Sanders (published in 1900) gives Naz, Nazi as a familiar (that is, colloquial), regional short form of the name Ignatius - obviously not of much relevance to Nazism. It looks to me as if the Barrison sisters are either making fun of the name Ignatius or may have made up a nonsense word that happens to have taken on a real meaning long after the song was written. In other words, I think it's an amusing coincidence, nothing more. Norvo 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so "Nazi" could be the German equivalent of "Nacho" (short for Ignacio). Interesting! I don't imagine it's used much anymore... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. The more common form of the given name in German was in fact "Ignaz", which is now almost as unpopular as "Adolf". Norvo 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I did find this (Online Etymology) source - do people think this is citable? Seems fairly authoritative and we could improve the origin bit and remove the uncited tag...? MarkThomas 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime I've also found that. I'm trying to get clarification on a couple of points, but it could be cited. Norvo 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican and the Nazi party

This is more of an inquiry than anything, but I've seen shows on the television documenting the Vatican's involvement with helping Nazis flee to South American countries, and was wondering if there was a wikipedia article focusing on this subject. 152.163.101.6 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ratlines probably has what you want, at least to some degree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

Hitler was not a social Darwinist and even banned Darwin's book from Germany. The Nazi philosophy was of racial purity and the Great Chain of Being,' with the Aryans at the top. None of which had anything to do with natural selection or Darwin. If anything, it was artificial selection and animal husbandry. The link to social darwinism needs removal. 4.152.129.90 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC) wildlifer

There is a significant difference between the Theory of Evolution and Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism does not even have to be based on Darwin's writings - it is simply the view that human society is improved by unrestrained competition and by the survival of the strong at the expense of the weak. -- Nikodemos 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the claim that the Nazi régime banned the Origin of the Species ... is novel, indeed puzzling, a source should be given. For at least fifty years plus the weight of opinion has been that Nazism was Social Darwinist in outlook and, moreover, at a very fundamental level. That said, it is possible that in some cases the term has been used too loosely. Norvo 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The question of the role of Darwinian thought in Nazi ideology is a complicated one (and the banning of Origin doesn't really settle it). The intellectual geneaology does not flow directly from Darwin's writings to Hitler's brain — it is mediated by the German evolutionists (i.e. Haekel), and the German racial hygienists (i.e. Alfred Ploetz), both of which are very different than Darwin's original work. But even with that the Nazis were more eugenicists than they were Social Darwinists, strictly speaking — they believed intervention was needed, not just laissez faire, though that distinction is not always as strict as it is made out to be. Many of the German race theorists were both eugenicists and social Darwinists, depending on the issues in question (similar to Madison Grant, an explicitly "evolutionary" writer who they published in Germany as well). (It should go without saying that Creationist attempts to link Nazism with Darwinism are obviously simplistic and really needs no consideration here)--Fastfission 19:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And the problem was of course that Richard Hofstadter wrote a highly polemic book just at the end of the second world war. The term "Social Darwinism" was almost never used in North America before that book came out. The free marketeer Sumner, who was described as a "Social Darwinst" by Hofstadter, actually never applied Darwinism to the social sciences. If anyone is to blame for the current confusion, it is Hofstafter. Intangible 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The longest template in the world

If you think {{Nazism}} has gotten a bit out of hand (longer than some of the articles it references), help us figure out a way to cut it down (a few options are being floated) at Template talk:Nazism. --Fastfission 20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism and the 'Volksgemeischaft

At present there's a section of this that reads as follows:

The Nazi relationship between the Volk and the state was called the Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community"), a neologism that defined a communal duty of citizens in service to the Reich (opposed to a simple "society"). The term "National Socialism", derives from this citizen-nation relationship, whereby the term socialism is invoked and is meant to be realized through the common duty of the individuals to the German people; all actions are to be in service of the Reich.

The term Volksgemeinschaft wasn't a Nazi neologism but went back to at least 1900. It was a popular, romantic buzzword in Weimar Germany, used (with different meanings) by quite a range of political parties. The above comments seem to give it more coherence than it had in Nazi ideology. Another view is that it sought to recreate the cameraderie of the trenches and justify something akin to military discipline or at least the Führerprinzip in society at large. More generally I'm not impressed by a certain zest for injecting meaning into rather empty slogans and buzzwords as if they were of key ideological significance. Norvo 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Norvo. I've clarified that the word Volksgemeinschaft is a late 19th or early 20th century neologism. I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss whether the word is simply a German compound word or an important ideological concept, so I will leave that discussion to you and the other editors. Justin Eiler 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Justin Eiler. However, I don't think the concept was as central as is suggested. On some views Volksgemeinschaft was primarily concerned with who 'belonged' to the community and who didn't. Norvo 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

get rid of article

We dont need this article what the nazis did was so STUPID, why teach people iddiotic things??/?//

Simple, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Also, this is easily encyclopediac and useful for researching early 20th century history. Wildthing61476 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NAZIS are bad very bad mmmkay

We have an obligation to display the facts, If we decided to censor things, no matter how horrible, then where would we be? Some sort of horrible authoritatarian...Encyclopedia. And who wants to be called that? Not me!--87.192.59.145 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

how could an encycolopedia not have a section on Nazism. It is one of the most significant Events in the 20th century.

Nazi wordy

04-November-2006: Split into sub-articles. The article seems OK as a broad overview of all Nazi aspects; however, the length seems excessive and parts are long-winded. Large articles are prone to hidden vandalism and obscured errors, such as the "Nazi Theory" section beginning as "theory of fascism" (which I changed to "...Nazism"). (I also trimmed some flowery phrases in a few sections.) In general, I approve of overview-type articles; however, for a controversial subject (like Nazism), I would favor writing less as being more accurate, long term. I think spin-off articles would not be in danger of typical "AfD" deletion, because the general Nazi-based topic would allow many spin-off articles to be easily considered notable, such as a "list of notable Nazi figures" etc. Large articles, with daily updates, are difficult to keep accurate, such as the "Hurricane Katrina" article, which had the landfall time reset to a bogus hour for 11 days (which I eventually fixed). If an article gets daily updates, try to keep it small for checking & overall proofing: IMHO, I vote to roll-out Nazi detailed sections to spin-off articles. -Wikid77 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

English composition 101

In the second paragraph, the referent of the phrase "and working undercover" is completely unclear: Drexler, or Hitler? And "undercover" in what sense? Overtly presenting as what while actually being what else? - Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lacking explanation after six days, I am removing this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

'Volksgemeinschaft'

I've already said that I think much of this (in the section on 'Nationalism and Socialism') is unsatisfactory. I'd add that it seems to me that a lot of this is also over sophisticated and will just mystify most readers. It's very obvious that some people are determined to 'put the socialism into National Socialism' - on present-day ideological grounds, irrelevant to Nazism. I wonder if something can be done about this stuff on the 'Volksgemeinschaft'? Norvo 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning to vandals, please read

I found this hidden message in the Wikipedia Nazi Germany article.

<< All new edits/entries must be factual and in good taste. Please don't try to be "funny" (Nazism caused harm to millions of people, no need for sick humor or black comedy in an encyclopediac article) and never type anthing that is offensive or inflammatory to ANY group of people. Do not type ethnic slurs or comments about ones' race or creed. Nazism is a painful subject to many people, but an article on Nazism is meant for educational purposes and neutral it may be, any reader will understand the dangers of Nazism. >> Maybe it should be included in Nazism and the Holocaust articles. 207.200.116.204 10:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A Couple of Problems

"Also, Aryanism was not an attractive idea for Italians that had neither blond hair nor blue eyes, but still there was a strong racism and also genocide in concentration camps long before either was in place in Germany."

That sentence does not make sense.

"However, a number of people believed that this was part of an ongoing plot by the Jewish people, as a whole, to achieve global domination."

As is, there is no citation so its an assertion and does not clarify who "a number of people is"

On a side note, homosexuals found at holacuast sites were not freed but jailed elesewhere. I can't remember what book I found it in though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.153.96.166 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

On this last point (homosexuals), see Paragraph 175. - Jmabel | Talk 08:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Racism section. It should be 'led' not 'lead'. God I wish I could just edit that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.12.164 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Nazism also goes against Roman Catholicism

We also need to put on the Nazism page and help more people accept the fact that they even hate Roman Catholics, too.

Nazism in other coutrys

Where is the article(s) about Nazism in other coutrys (like France, USA, Uk Prince William)? Or doesn't it exist? Then it doesn't exist this article is to exact on one thing. (sorry for the bad english, i'm german) --88.64.56.138 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Neo-Nazism. Incidentally, why do that silly young royal the favour of taking him seriously? Norvo 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Lunny

In the section entitled Historical Background someone presents the laughable notion that the stab in the back theory started in Britain:

Historian John Erickson claimed that this sentiment began in England with the publication of several essays by Shawn Lunny, the son of a German immigrant and a private in the German army during World War I.

(Who is this John Erickson, and how come we haven't already heard all this before? If this is an accurate account of his views it doesn't make sense: we're told that the the theory originated in England with essays by a private in the German army. I wonder if he wrote from the vantage point of a POW camp in Britain? Moreover, this Shawn Lunny is so well known that if one does a Google search for the name one is immediately asked if one means Shawn Looney. What a famous essayist!)

When Ludendorff came to the conclusion in September 1918 that Germany couldn't carry on fighting he claimed that the war had been lost by critics in the Reichstag and resolved that they (the civilian critics who'd allegedly caused the defeat) would have to ask for peace and sign the armistice. That is the recognized start of the theory, not some obscure 'son of an immigrant called Shawn'. See, for example, Heiber, Die Republik von Weimar. Unless people object, this should be deleted. Norvo 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Utterly. With extreme prejudice. And a possible trip to WP:BJAODN. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary National Socialist Parties, Orgs, etc.

Perhaps it would be good to have a short list of links:

American National Socialist Workers' Party "The National Socialist Movement of America" http://www.nsmamerica.com/

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party http://www.nazi.org/

etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SnarfMeister (talk • contribs)

They belong to Neo-Nazism article. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Marginal view on Nazism Socialism

Here we go again. How many times in a year do we have to engage in endless discussions on Wikipedia about the relationship between Nazism and socialism, and fascism and socialism, and corporatism and the New Deal, and fascism and the New Deal, and Fascism and the U.S. government?

Vision Thing, it is not a personal attack to point out that you have engaged in a longstanding relentless campaign to push your minority view on this issue. Your views have repeatedly been rejected by a majority of other editors on this topic. And yet here you are again, starting the process over. Please stop.--Cberlet 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Section in question talks about nationalism and socialism, and because of that it should be titled Nationalism and socialism. That is standard practice when it comes to section titles, they describe the content of sections. Except for the generic, bad faith, POV accusations you haven't presented any reason for not naming it in such way. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, socialism is only mentioned in two sentences in that paragraph (and the second sentence is the one advising the reader to read fascism and ideology for more information). -- Nikodemos 06:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you and Cberlet think that this section doesn't deal with socialism in large enough measure to deserve addition of socialism in its title, then new section that will appropriately cover discussion on socialism and nazism should be added. Btw, nationalism is also only mentioned in two sentences in that paragraph.-- Vision Thing -- 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue of socialism and nazism is discussed in fascism and ideology. But here is a proposal to eliminate this dispute: Let us get rid of all the section titles under "Nazi theory", since most of those "sections" are limited to one or two paragraphs. Giving them separate titles only serves to clog the table of contents. -- Nikodemos 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not a good solution, since titles have navigational purpose. Anyway, neither you nor Cberlet have given any actual reason for not naming this section Nationalism and socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a patently false claim. The issue, Vision Thing, is that you refuse to accept the majority position, and you go from page to page trying to insert your marginal right-wing POV.--Cberlet 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Classy argument.-- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Vision Thing is right. Mitsos 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Right about what? We've been through all this before. This is part of a well-known and sustained revisionist attempt to falsely claim that Nazism was essentially a socialist ideology. Since Hitler had a well-known and profound loathing of all things communist, and imprisoned and murdered people identified as vaguely socialist in any way, it's difficult to see how the revisionists hope to make this absurd claim stick. They rest their entire case on the party name, which was of course part of a deliberate campaign of lies to try to trick working people into supporting the NSDAP during the period when it's brownshirt thugs were out in the city streets attacking Jews and socialists alike. It's a travesty to allow this absurd "viewpoint" of Vision Thing and his fellow travellors to persist on Wikipedia and I for one will thwart it at every pathetic attempt. I encourage other editors to do likewise. 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Communism is different from Socialism. He is not right about Nazism being a form of Socialism, but Nazism did had socialist elements. You must study Hitler's social policies. Nazism was also anti-capitalist, therefore it had some things common wiht Socialism. It is true that socialists (member of the German Socialist Part - was it called SPD then?) were imprisoned and some were killed during the period of Nazi Germany, but this was due to something else, which is very important. Hitler gave a different meaning to "Socialism" (as in National Socialism), from all the other left-wing Socialist movements. I definetely dissagree with Nazism being a form of Socialism, but Nazism had socialist elements. I agree with what Vision Thing said about Nazism being Nationalism and Socialism, but what the Nazis mean with "Socialism" is different from real Socialism. Mitsos 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently I'm not claiming anything except that current section about nationalism talks about socialism too, and thus it should be named Nationalism and socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsos, Nazism was not anti-capitalist. Hitler was fully supported financially by leading German and international capitalists, bankers and the like. He maintained and assisted private capital to grow during his rule and established new types of massive state capitalist businesses like the SS where private profit became part of the corrupt activities of Nazi leaders. He allowed makor German capitalist families like Krupp and Thyssen to flourish so long as they supported Nazism. He maintained healthy relations with Swiss and other international banking institutions. He only opposed "Jewish" capitalists and then only as part of propaganda; he was often willing for example to do business with foriegn Jewish companies. There were aspects of socialist and anarchist philosophy incorporated into Nazism such as the emphasis on mass-action and the irrelevance of the individual, but this did not make the Nazis any kind of socialists in the accepted sense. MarkThomas 12:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, some of the things you say are complete nonsense (I 'm sorry). The emphasis on mass-action and the irrelevance of the individual is a fascist/nazi theme and has nothing to do with anarchism, which emphasises on individual liberty. The SS were not a "massive state capitalist business" and private profit was certainly not one of the goals of the Nazis. The SS were an army, responsible for internal security and were in charge of the concentration camps. No "corrupt activity" took place in the SS. "he was often willing for example to do business with foriegn Jewish companies" This is blatantly not true. Please use arguments that are based on something, don't pull them out of your head. Nazism was indeed anti-capitalist. Hitler limited the profits of big businesses and helped the small ones. He only supported the big military industries, and that's why the Krupps flourished during Nazi Germany. Nazism had socialist elements. Check out Hitler's social policies. For exampe, the Nazis established the 1st of May holiday in Germany. Btw, Thyssen was exiled from Germany in 1943. Mitsos 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsos, the SS were not solely an army. They ran the death camps and concentration camps and labour camps as a business, selling prisoners to arms factories and corruptly circulating the profits amongst their leadership and other Nazi leaders. There are numerous well-attested sources to this effect, and even during the war there was an internal SS unit that actively prosecuted SS officers guilty of such acts. You really need to do some more reading on the subject before you keep mouthing off. MarkThomas 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The profits the SS made from the stolen Jewish properties, were not circulated among Nazi leaders. They were used to strengthen Germany's war ecconomy. ave you got a source for the opposite? Mitsos 09:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish involvement in war profiteering during WWI?

I find the sentence "Jewish involvement in war profiteering during WWI" under the cause of rise of nazism to be balantaly antisemetic. There is no evidence for such claims. 65.110.31.18 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for noticing and mentioning it. Since the statement was not associated with any citation, I’ve removed it for now. Actually, I tried to rewrite the section, but I’m very confused about its purpose. Can somebody help? —xyzzy_n 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think it is "antisemitic", you cannot remove it. Mitsos 08:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can remove it because I think it’s false and whoever put it there didn’t bother to add a ref. WP:V means that unsubstantiated stuff gets out, not tagged. {{fact}} is a nice thing for casual statements that need to be backed, but in the case of something extremely disputable—and the statement does, in fact, assert the profiteering and not just an accusation of it—it’s better to remove the statement. (It’s still in the article history, so whoever has a reference can easily put it back.)

Please add a reference that fully substantiates the statement, or change the statement and add a reference to substantiate it, or let me remove it. —xyzzy_n 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If that line gets re-inserted I will also RV it, thanks for monitoring the page xyzzy_n. Indeed we can remove it if it's presented as some sort of fact as opposed to something the Nazis falsely believed. Many profiteered incidentally from WW1, most notably US, British and German arms manufacturers, only a few of whom were also Jews. MarkThomas 23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: The Nazis DESTROY lives of millions. The S.S. would watch as people died in the gas chambers. The Nazi Party LOST their humanity. They not only killed people but they enjoyed it

Economics

Why doesn't anyone talk about the economics of National Socialism? The racial stuff is common knowledge, what isnt common knowledge is the economic system which the nazis employed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Related Links

For information on how Martin Luther's teachings affected the anti-semitic Nazi laws governing the jews • [[10]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClassA (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Statement reverted. —xyzzy_n 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement should not be reverted. It is correct. If in doubt read "The jews and their lies" by Martin Luther, 1543 • [The Jews and their Lies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.143.76 (talk • contribs).

Very long copy of something removed since there’s a link anyway. —xyzzy_n 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Remember Nazi laws governing the movements of the Jews, ghettos, the setting up of work camps, the removal of possessions. In addition Hitler was anti-catholic and pro-Luther) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClassA (talk • contribs).

This is insufficient. You have to cite a source that actually says something about the resemblance. Otherwise, this is original research. —xyzzy_n 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See The Holy Reich 1919-1945 by Richard Steigmann-Gall

'Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.") Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."

Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther's influence on Nazi Germany:

When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind "on the Jews and their Lies" for posterity. -cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held.... From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds. -"Geist und Kampf" (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture said:

Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. -cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich

Erich Koch, the Reich Commissioner for Ukraine and President of the East Prussian Protestant Church Synod wrote:

Only we can enter into Luther's spirit.... Human cults do not set us free from all sin, but faith alone. With us the church shall become a serving member of the state.... There is a deep sense that our celebration is not attended by superficiality, but rather by thanks to a man who saved German cultural values. -Konigsberg-Hartungsche Zeitung, 20 Nov. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Bernhard Rust served as Minister of Education in Nazi Germany. He wrote:

Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]. -Volkischer Beobachter, 25 Aug. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Hans Schemm became Bavarian Minister of Education and Culture. Throughout the Reich, Germans particularly knew Schemm for his slogan, "Our religion is Christ, our politics Fatherland!" He writes:

His engagement against the decomposing Jewish spirit is clearly evident not only from his writing against the Jews; his life too was idealistically, philosophically antisemitic. Now we Germans of today have the duty to recognize and acknowledge this. -"Luther und das Deutschtum," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (19 Nov. 1933: Berlin), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Our confession to God is a confession of a doctrine of totality.... To give ultimate significance to the totalities of race, resistance and personality there is added the supreme totalitarian slogan of our Volk: "Religion and God." God is the greatest totality and extends over all else. -(Gertrud Kahl-Furthmann (ed.), Hans Schemm spricht: Seine Reden und sein Werk (Bayreuth, 1935), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich] Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher put it well:

"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."

This proves a passing resemblance between the views of many leading Nazis and those of Martin Luther. I therefore intend to revert this once again.

This is still not sufficient evidence for the claim you inserted. It works for the second part, but not the claim about the laws. By the way, for citing the book, consider using the {{cite book}} template. (There’s some documentation on the template page.) —xyzzy_n 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is some more evidence for the claim I have inserted - Holocaust Part 4: Catholic Reaction To The Nazi Holocaust ClassA 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn’t find anything on ‘laws […] bear[ing] a striking resemblance to the teachings of Martin Luther’. Can you give a (brief) quote? —xyzzy_n 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I suggest, given the fact that a disproportionate number of leading Nazis claimed to belong to the Lutheran church that it might be worth setting up a whole section devoted to Martin Luther's influence on the development of Nazism. What do people think? ClassA 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly among the Nazis do you consider leading? Which number would be disproportionate? How are you going to do this without violating the policies of NPOV, no original research and verifiability? —xyzzy_n 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Julius Streicher could be considered a leading Nazi. He was editor of Der sturmer, an anti-semitic weekly newspaper with a supposed circulation of 350,000 at its height. He was executed at Nuremburg. It could be argued that being a minister in the German government, eg Bernard Rust or Hans Schem, would be sufficient to be considered a leading Nazi. Hitler himself is described as "Fuhrer". Surely he could be considered a leading Nazi. All of them acknowledge a debt to martin Luther (see above). Arguing about the proportion of Nazis who were members of the Lutheran church seems irrelevant to our topic but it would surely make sense that catholics were less inclined to join the party given the fact that the Nazi regime was fundamentally more pro-Lutheran than pro-catholic. Anyway, this is beside the point. There is plenty of evidence above that Martin Luther had an influence on Hitler as early as 1918 and from the sources above it would seem reasonable to deduce that Hitler's/ Nazi policies towards the Jews, if not directly influenced by Martin Luther's writings, at any rate, bear an uncanny resemblance.

What I’m trying to tell you is that you need to substantiate the statements you insert into the article. If you wish to say that ‘a disproportionate number of leading Nazis claimed to belong to the Luteran church’, then you need solid evidence of ‘disproportionate’ in relation to ‘leading’. Giving a few examples is definitely not enough. The same goes for the resemblance between those laws and Luther’s writings—if it’s documented, cite whoever documented it. If not, you can’t claim it. —xyzzy_n 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)