Talk:Nazism

Recent edit reverted?

My edit was reverted. All I did was add more to the political spectrum section: I did not restore what was formerly reverted except for the second half of one of Hitlers speeches. What is the problem? M.S. Asher (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Explaining cut text

I have attempted to reduce the length of the article, whilst maintaining the substance of the article. I'm using the talk page to more fully explain my alterations

All in all this edit removed roughly 1500 words from prose. I feel like there still remains a lot which can be cut down or moved elsewhere, but I mainly hoped to go after some of the most obvious things to remove, that being passages of tenuous links to the topic, or of less encyclopaedia-worthy sourcing

Etmology -- I've removed a lengthy quote from Hitler explaining the use of the word "Worker" in the NSDAP's name and a supporting paragraph already present on the Nazi Party article. This section is about etymology of Nazism, not the NSDAP

Position within the political spectrum -- I removed the quotation from Mein Kampf, while Hitler in the extract does indeed criticise both left and right wing politicians, I'm not convinced a primary-source citation for this in the article is productive. Potentially better to consider regarding a non-primary source

I also clipped off some of the quote regarding the 1921 speech Hitler gave. The lines removed are mainly just ramblings, but kept the part left-right positioning.

Classification: reactionary or revolutionary? - Certainly a worthwhile section, but one overly reliant on primary sources. Perhaps too bold, but I removed all the primary-sourced quotes from the section. It's hard to measure these quotes analysis imo in an encyclopaedic way without using non-primary sources. Bejakyo (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem to remove more than just quotes, and only selected quotes; why? It seems your goal was to try and claim NAzism is left-wing, correct? Slatersteven (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Nazism is undoubtedly a right-wing ideology, so no. I've never seen any reputable claim justifying any claim that Nazism is left wing, with most rhetoric to that effect being a very shallow and uninformed "well it's national SOCIALISM".

The quotes I removed are simply the ones I could find which were primary (that is, the person saying the quote is also the author of the text in which the text is cited). Primary sourcing of quotes is not really fit for an encyclopaedia and fails to really demonstrate the noteworthiness of these quotes falls into wp:original research. Additionally lengthy quotes are themselves not encyclopaedic, and another reason we'd benefit from getting secondary sources. For an article that is already much wp:too longremoving lower quality content such as primary-sourced quotes.

If you believe there are other quotes which fall foul of this, I would recommend them be removed for the same reasoning Bejakyo (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Why did you remove the word Marxist? Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume you're now referring to a second edit which was unrelated to this talk page topic, instead referring to an edit which focused specifically on the lead? I removed the word marxist as the prior sentence already established the Nazis opposed marxist socialism Bejakyo (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It does not say Rejected; it says "alternative to" which is not the same. Also (in my edit summary) I said there were so many issues they could be articulated in an edit summary. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

If we're being semantic on if alternative and rejection are separate, I'm not sure in that case the sentence "The term "National Socialism" arose from attempts to create a nationalist alternative to Marxist socialism and free-market capitalism." is supported by the body. Further neither class-conflict, universal equality, nor internationalism are solely Marxist concepts, with the Nazis equality, class-conflict, and internationalism regardless of the proponents Bejakyo (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

But what you removed explicitly said (also) that Hitler opposed Marxism. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The corpus is quite clear: Hitler offered an alternative to Soviet socialism, not a rejection of it. Both ran the same basic pitch: name an enemy, declare the emergency, and conclude that the State must therefore have the power to protect us all. Stalin named the rich; Hitler took a religious group and recast it as a "race." Regardless, the "them" is largely a lever to justify one-party power. The ordinary German was offered the same basic deal the Soviets offered: cradle to grave security from the state paired with nationalist jingoism. Same product, rival label: Pepsi over Coke. Lexlex (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Hitler framed Marxism as "Jewish Bolshevism," so he explicitly rejected it (as part of his racism). He sent Marxists to concentration camps (his first victims). [] "). Nazi ideology was racist, nationalist, and anti-democratic. It was violently antisemitic and anti-Marxist. ". Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

No disagreement that Hitler rejected Marxism, framed it as "Jewish Bolshevism," and jailed and killed Marxists. That's not the point I'm making.

Mine is narrower: the Nazi appeal on this front was a nationalist counter-offer to the Marxist one. The same promise of state-provided, cradle-to-grave security and community, but delivered through the nation rather than through international class solidarity or Moscow. Essentially, "you can have all of that too, without the Russians." On that basis the NSDAP competed with the KPD and SPD for part of the same pro-welfare constituency.

That competition is fully compatible with rejecting Marxism as doctrine. It's a claim about which voters the parties fought over, not about the ideology of the leadership, and I think those two things are getting conflated above. Lexlex (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Mine is narrower: the Nazi appeal on this front was a nationalist counter-offer to the Marxist one.

That's the issue with your argument. It's simply incorrect.

If you're trying to draw parallels between populist appeals and authoritarian governments, you're free to though that would likely violate WP:SYNTH.

However, stating that "Nazism was a counter offer to Marxism" is incorrect. This dichotomy was never proffered. Framing them as being sold as "we want the same, but a bit different" is disingenuous. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right that "counter-offer" is the wrong word, and I'll drop it. It implies "same thing, a bit different," which isn't quite my argument, the Nazis pitched themselves as Marxism's mortal enemy, not a variation on it. My point is pragmatic and structural: both were single-party regimes that promised an all-powerful state providing cradle-to-grave security, each justified by a manufactured enemy (class for the Soviets, a constructed racial category for the Nazis). The dividing line I'm pointing at is pluralist democracy vs one-party authoritarianism, and both regimes were ultimately authoritarian states that demanded total control.

I'm not proposing article text, so I'll leave it there. Lexlex (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

An alternative to B and C is a rejection of it. In that vain, Nazism, as an alternative to socialism (in general tbh, not just Marxist) is thus a rejection of it.Bejakyo (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, alternative and rejection aren't opposites; offering a rival is itself a form of rejection. So we don't actually disagree, and I wasn't arguing Nazism didn't reject Marxism (or socialism generally).

The only thing I'd add is narrow: the Nazi appeal was a nationalist counter-offer, state-provided security delivered through the nation rather than through international class solidarity, and on that basis the NSDAP competed with the KPD and SPD for part of the same constituency. That's about which voters the parties fought over, not doctrine, and it's compatible with everything you've both said. Lexlex (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Cuts to the lead

The discussion above did not distinguish between the edit to the body of the article and the edit to the lead (and also started to go off-topic), so I am starting this new subsection to cover specifically the edit to the lead.

I do not believe that the lead, in its stable form as of August 17, needed any trimming. The body of the article, yes, but not the lead. The lead was only slightly longer than the recommended length, and this is a complex topic that justifies it. The lead of this article on August 17 was 526 words. By comparison, right now the lead of Nazi Germany is 587 words, and the lead of World War II is 672 words. I think that cutting the lead to make it significantly shorter than those of comparable articles does a disservice to the reader.

And even if the lead is to be reduced in length, we should do that by keeping the same information but saying it in fewer words, not cutting information completely. Terry Maits (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The removed information was either not about the topic at hand, or redundant wording.

The Nazi Party became the largest party in the German parliament in the elections of 1932, but it did not have a majority. Because other parties were unable or unwilling to form a coalition government, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January 1933 by President Paul von Hindenburg, with the support of conservative nationalists who believed they could control Hitler. This text is not supported by the body, and even if it were, the political situation of the late German Republic is not particularly to the ideology of Nazism. It belongs in articles such as those of Hitler, or the NSDAP, it is not productive in the lead of the ideology of Nazism.

he Sturmabteilung (SA) and the Schutzstaffel (SS) functioned as the party's paramilitary organisations. Hitler purged the leadership of the SA in the 1934 Night of the Long Knives, and later that year assumed the title of Führer und Reichskanzler. Likewise here. The paramilitary organisations of the NSDAP are not productive in this article's lead, and are better suited elsewhere

These sections should stay out as per WP:LEAD. The new lead should either be shortened as it had been as per WP:TOOLONG, or the space should be used for crucial overview information relating to the ideology of Nazism that is currently missing Bejakyo (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the political situation of the late German Republic is not particularly important to the ideology of Nazism. On the contrary, it is essential. Nazism is not a general ideology with a global spread, like nationalism or conservatism or liberalism etc. Nazism is an ideology specific to a single time and place: interwar and World War II era Germany. Later, post-war movements actually have a separate article, neo-Nazism. This article is about an ideology that existed in one place at one time, so it is essential to describe that place and time, including in the lead. Terry Maits (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD of an article should only summarise the most important elements of the body of the article, The political situation of the later German Republic is important to understanding the NSDAP, its politicians and Hitler's rise to power, but is not to understanding what Nazism is. These are issues better handled on those articles. In addition the body of the article does not support that content being in the lead. Again such developments are better handled in other articles rather than being shoe-horned in here. Your final point is not relevent Bejakyo (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The sentences about the November 1932 election and the coalition that brought Hitler to power as chancellor, are supported by the body of the article. The following content is in the body of the article:

the Nazi Party and DNVP ran as coalition partners again during the November 1932 German federal election.[50] In January 1933 the Nazi Party and DNVP entered a coalition government, bringing Hitler into power as Chancellor.[51]

Amidst an inconclusive situation in which conservative politicians Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher were unable to form governments without the Nazis, Papen proposed to President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor at the head of a government formed primarily of conservatives, with only three Nazi ministers.[52][53] Hindenburg did so, and Hitler was able to establish a Nazi one-party dictatorship.[54]

By contrast, the sentence which immediately follows in the lead, which you have not cut, is actually not supported by the body of the article. That sentence says:

Using the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, the Nazis established a one-party state and began the Gleichschaltung (Nazification).

But the body of the article never mentions the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling Act, or Gleichschaltung! So, if you believe that the lead needs to give less space to the rise of the Nazis, this would be the sentence to cut.

The lead is also the only place that says that Nazism became widely regarded as evil. That is not in the body. So this sentence could be cut:

After Germany's defeat and the public disclosure of the full extent of the Holocaust, Nazism became widely regarded as evil.

Again, I personally do not believe that anything needs to be cut from the lead at all, but I am just pointing out that there are other sentences which are less supported by the body than some of the ones you chose to cut.

You also cut the SS and SA from the lead, but this time you were correct that the body doesn't support those sentences. The SS is never mentioned in the body at all (again, big problem). So I will not restore these sentences. I think the body should cover those things and they should also be in the lead, though. Maybe that can be done later, after other parts of the body have been trimmed.

By the way, when looking into this I also discovered that the body of the article doesn't cover the Holocaust! It is only mentioned a couple of times, in passing, without saying what it was. The lead is actually the only place that mentions the Nazis killed millions of people in the Holocaust. This is a very serious problem, but it's a problem with the body, not the lead. I think that all the other things mentioned above are also problems with the body, not the lead. Terry Maits (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I would say the lead is already lacking important context by failing to mention World War I, the Treaty of Versailles, or the Great Depression. Nazism did not develop in a vacuum, it developed in reaction to these things. Terry Maits (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This discussion led me to conclude that the body of the article suffers from a serious WP:WEIGHT problem. 19th century influences on the Nazis are given more space than the policies of the Nazis while they were in power. Non-Nazi writers from before World War I get more mentions than prominent Nazi leaders, or the Holocaust! The body should be edited to fix this. But you are right that this problem is not relevant to the current discussion. Still, I want to mention this here to draw attention to it. Terry Maits (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

National Socialism from the Far-Right?

Placement on Political Spectrum: Beyond Left-Right

The left-right political spectrum, derived from the seating arrangements during the French Revolution where radicals favoring equality and reform sat on the left and monarchists upholding hierarchy and tradition on the right, proves inadequate for classifying Nazism without qualification. Mainstream historical scholarship places Nazism on the far right due to its ultranationalism, racial hierarchy, and opposition to egalitarian internationalism. Yet this overlooks syncretic elements that defy binary categorization. For example, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) incorporated anticapitalist rhetoric in its 1920 25-point program, advocating land reform, nationalization of trusts, and communalization of department stores. These appealed to the working class despite rejecting Marxist class struggle. Economist Friedrich Hayek argued in 1944 that Nazism shared "socialist roots," viewing the conflict between fascists and socialists as a dispute over methods rather than ends, with both favoring centralized planning over markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drout 0 (talk • contribs)

You will need to provide specific references to establish mainstream acceptance of this argument. Talkpages aren't for a for personal opinions. And read the FAQ first: it's already on your talkpage from last year. Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

hayek never said that made them left-wing. In his view, everyone was a socialist except for him. TFD (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)