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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany: Munich C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Munich (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: Political parties C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 24, 2014 and February 24, 2015.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

National Socialist German Worker's Party is a false translation of it into English. National is a prefix to sozialistische, Nationalsozialismus means (according to the Nazis) it's a Nationalistic form of Socialism, this is also why for example in the Dutch NSB, the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging there's a hyphen-minus (-) between Nationaal and Socialistisce to indicate that it's part of the same word. Translating it to "National Socialist German Worker's Party" makes it sound like they emphasize that it's a national party, as opposed to a regional party. If you would translate that directly to German it would become "Nationale Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei". It of course was a national party, but that's not the intent of that word and therefore it's a false translation. I think this is fundamentally and honestly in my opinion quite shockingly (I do mean to play on your emotions) wrong and should definitely be changed, how it should be changed I don't know. I think there are two options, either we should translate it to "Nationalistic Socialist Worker's Party" or "National-Socialist Worker's Party", the latter being more true to the style of the name without losing the meaning whereas the former is more emphatic of the actual meaning, especially when read aloud orally (as there's no audible difference between National Socialist and National-Socialist in English), by for example Alexa as seen in this viral YouTube video with over 4 million views. Linguisticallly and politically speaking I prefer the former one (Nationalistic) for the reasons I've stated and alluded to, however, since said video by Steven Crowder is so popular people will undoubtedly notice at some point and it's quite likely Crowder or other right wing influencers will react and attempt to discredit Wikipedia for being "SJW cucks who hate science" or something.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, maybe this was the official name of the NSDAP in English, but even then it's a faulty translation and their opinion should not be used since their intent might have been to come across as less radical to foreigners. This should also in my opinion be changed on the article "National Socialism" though there it's more clear that it's a separate ideology and therefore I frankly don't care as much because it's not as political, but linguistically speaking that one should also be changed. Dapperedavid (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you the former is not going to happen as there’s too many WP:RS sources that disagree with you. And also one needs consensus for such a change, which you do not have at this time. Further your opinion is just that, opinion. See WP:OR. Nobody’s opinion here matters, it’s verification WP:V and reliable sources that carry the day, along with consensus. So I suggest you read the links; that is what is required. Kierzek (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapperedavid: If you're saying it's time to stop repeating a mistranslation that has perpetuated for nearly a century now, I'm with you. What'll be required is to get all the scholars in the world to start using "Nationalistic" instead of "National". Once that happens, Wikipedia will update its article. But WP won't lead this charge; rather, WP would only make that change after the scholars did. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm sort of new to editing Wikipedia, I do it casually, but this false translation really ruffles my feathers and makes me quite emotionally invested so forgive me if I'm being an idiot right now. I thought for small translation related things like this one that can be figured out by anyone who speaks both languages, editors are allowed to apply their own logic a little bit? Like, you don't wanna get into arguments about whether the holocaust happened because there's too much to go through, but isn't a small thing like this different? Doesn't Wikipedia have a guideline for that, like that there are exceptions to all guidelines because guidelines aren't rules? If not, since we both agree that the translation is false, how would we go about fixing it? Which scholars do you mean? How many of them are Germans whose works have been translated to English by non-experts? How many of them don't speak German? How many of them use the official English name of the NSDAP (if that exists). Is the opinion of any historian equal to that of any language expert? What's the source you guys use for this translation? I can't find it. What is it I don't know, that I have to know to understand why you guys don't want to change it? And why do you think personally, not that it matters for this discussion but I'm just curious, that this mistake is so widespread? Dapperedavid (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't speak German, so actually I have no idea what nationalsozialistische means. What you wrote makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. What I do know is that it's been translated by almost all scholars as "National Socialist", and changing it to "Nationalistic Socialist" would not be a "small" thing. That would be a major change. For example, you'd also have to change it here, here, here, here, here, here, and many other places.

Wikipedia does have policies on this exact thing, which were put in place to address this exact situation: where there is an apparent mistake in the scholarship. In such instances, the community has agreed not to allow editors to make the corrections themselves (no original research), and instead to follow what is written in reliable sources. In other words, we don't fix the mistake until the scholars fix the mistake.

By which scholars, I mean the ones listed here and here: the sources cited in the article. All of the information in the article comes from these sources, so because they call it "National Socialist German Workers' Party", we call it "National Socialist German Workers' Party". To call it the "Nationalistic Socialist German Workers' Party", while citing to these same sources, would be to misrepresent the sources and what they're saying, because they don't call it that. So, to make this change, you'd have get scholars like Richard J. Evans, Ian Kershaw, Timothy D. Snyder, and others like them, to start writing it as "Nationalistic Socialist". Then, when WP articles cite their books using that phrase, WP would write "Nationalistic Socialist" as well. Until then, the WP:OR and WP:RS policies, and basic honesty, require us to use the language used in the sources that are cited in the article. The change has to be made in the scholarship first, and only then on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Levivich? ! 23:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me that guideline about mistakes in scholarships? I'm trying to find it but I can't. What if some expert would write a peer reviewed article about why the common translation of NSDAP is wrong, or however those things are done, would that be enough to change the translation Wikipedia uses? Dapperedavid (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have to stick with the translation. Incidentally "National Socialism" is seen as a phrase that has a meaning beyond its two words, that is, it is not nationalism+socialism. Note that we also use the terms national liberalism and national conservatism for German ideologies. And in the UK there are the admittedly very different Scottish National and British National parties. TFD (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is mostly that lately kids are being taught by people like Steven Crowder that Hitler was "a socialist", I don't think the fact most people see that phrase as having its own separate meaning is going to continue for long, especially people that might be reading this article, or have Alexa read it for them. But anyway, that meaning would not go away if there was a "-" between it, it would become National-Socialism, seems reasonable to me (yeah I know original research). As for the Scottish national party, that's a very good name, "Nationalist" would not be accurate because they're a left wing party and nationalism no longer purely means desiring independence, it also has other connotations to it. As for the British National Party, aren't they literally Nazis? Or Cryptonazis? I'm not surprised they would use the old fashioned National Socialism style way of choosing their party name. Dapperedavid (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism as explained in by Anthony D. Smith in Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History as "plac[ing] the nation at the centre of its concerns." A nationalist party may also have a left or right-wing ideology, but in many cases they do not. The SNP for example was founded by left and right wingers united in the belief that Scotland could only progress once it achieved autonomy. It seems though that today nationalist is often just a polite word for fascist. Also, the purpose of the article in not to persuade extremists that Nazis were not socialists, but merely to explain what mainstream scholars think. It's up to readers to decide on their own. Bear in mind that people who think Nazism was left wing appear to have the same process of reasoning as the rest of us, so are unlikely to be persuaded by evidence or rational argument. TFD (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapperedavid: Sure! The real key policy is WP:No original research (aka WP:OR), first paragraph: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources...[Y]ou must be able to cite reliable, published sources that...directly support the material being presented. and also the WP:SECONDARY section of WP:OR: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. See also WP:NOTLEAD: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. (bold added) and WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. If "some expert" wrote a peer-reviewed article about the translation, that alone would not be enough; if a significant number of experts wrote about the translation in reliable peer-reviewed journals, then yes, I believe we could summarize those sources in a section in the article discussing the translation of the word. How many is "significant" would be a matter for the community to decide through consensus (for example, a discussion on this talk page, after the "significant number" of peer-reviewed articles were presented here for editor review). However, though a significant minority opinion in the scholarship should be represented in an article, I doubt Wikipedia editors would consent to actually changing the name in the article lead, infobox, etc., unless and until a widespread majority of experts made the change, because "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." Levivich? ! 03:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, methinks the OP has a point; this point is adumbrated in the article: " ...Drexler emphasised the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism with a form of economic socialism ...". It is precisely the aspect of synthesis which is captured in the German style of compound nouns, while the English style can at times be ambiguous as to the scope of the elements in question. One solution is to accept "Nazism" as a specific political ideology, and not merely a typographical shorthand for "national socialism".

This alone does of course not merit a renaming here; but does it have to be a renaming, and does it have to be here? IMHO one could present the issue as an explanation or discussion instead; and perhaps on pages that have the degree of socialism in nazism as its main theme? There is, for instance, the "National Socialism" page, with the subsection "Position within the political spectrum", which is perhaps as close a candidate as can be found. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if the National Socialism page renames it?

@The Four Deuces: Well, that bit about nationalism may be true and it makes sense that calling it national instead of nationalist was to make it seem less right wing would not be the reason since it was formed also by right wingers. But what I also think about the name of SNP is that "National" also has political meaning apart from supposedly meaning "nationalist", it implies that the SNP is "The party of the nation Scotland", which implies that Scotland is or should be independent, it's "national" in that sense, not "nationalist". Nationalism is a political ideology, "National" isn't. ALSO, I like to think I do reason with evidence and rational argument but I don't think we're allowed to digress.

@Levivich: Thanks for the info Dapperedavid (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are using your own definitions and interpretations. Whatever their validity, they are not what reliable sources say, such as the one I used. Incidentally, national liberals and national conservatives were also nationalists, but that is how they are translated. TFD (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dapperedavid, you now know the process and reasoning. Time to stop beating a WP:Deadhorse. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not beating a dead horse just because this discussion has gone on for a long time. Dapperedavid (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just came here, because of another discussion point, but wanted to clear some things. Nationalsozialistisch does not mean "nationalistic", but nationalsocialist in one word or with an 'ic' behind it, because its a European right-wing party in contrast to left-wing (egalitarian) and Marxism. National is connected to the integrity of the German Volk in the sense of military servants (not People as 'Pöbel'), socialist is meant as an aid for the German people and on private property basis. Dapperedavid is right that it is one word, but the translation out of National Socialist is not "a national socialist party". It is not a National Bolshewist Party. However, why the name is shortened to "Nazi party"? --2A02:908:E348:BF20:103C:AEF7:5A9E:B4E9 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave many references that prove this point and yet my edits are being undone! I mean, who in the world would ever argue that socialism isn't left-wing? If you want to discuss this then let's do that, but until then I don't think my edit should be undone if it provides references to back them up, unless there is some obvious bias which I hope is not the case. -MatthewS. (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first question on the FAQ at the top of this page. Leviv ich 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the FAQ must be honest? Numerous sources do not agree with these descriptions of "socialism" as in the FAQ. True many (probably leftist) historians will redefine things to sway the accusation of Nazism away from their group but socialism is socialism, especially that these same FAQs surprisingly say that Hitler was against capitalism, which is a huge part of what makes a leftist a leftist. I assume, though, that there are disagreements as to certain definitions obviously but that doesn't mean my edits, if backed up by evidence and references, should be intentionally undone. -MatthewS. (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also edit summaries such as "National SOCIALISM is left wing! The only reason you'd deny that is if you're a leftist and ashamed of the history. " will not help your case and just putting your edit back will soon cross the 3 revert rule. Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my edits were being intentionally removed even though references are given. If Wikipedia is starting to be politically biased that's a shame indeed. I capitalized "socialism" for emphasis. And reverting my edits numerous times, why is that considered ok? -MatthewS. (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want to talk about apparent biases in the article and then use those sources? Nihlus 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Am I supposed to use left-wing sources to prove that Nazism was left wing? Where can I find those, do you know? I didn't know Independent.co.uk was "biased". It's a news website, that I supposed can be considered at least partially neutral. Maybe Conservapedia I'll agree could be a little biased but do you think a leftist source would say Nazism was leftist? Obviously they'd rather deny the obvious name of the party ("socialist" and "workers'") and give some other sort of reasoning. -MatthewS. (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How democratic was the German Democratic Republic? --Wolbo (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources and historians say the party was on the right side of the spectrum. Please read the rest of the FAQ listed above. Nihlus 16:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people you cite have any qualifications in political science. It's not the Independent by the way but an article written by George Watson for the peper. And yes some socialists can be considered right-wing, such as the Socialists who supported Nixon and Reagan or the declared new president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. TFD (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you cannot use an encyclopedia as a cite, it is not considered a WP:RS source. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe Conservapedia I'll agree could be a little biased" The understatement of the year. Conservapedia's article on the Third Reich is part of a category called Liberalism. The catefory definition is "big government progressive police state of the liberal agenda, Marxism, Socialism, National Socialism, Liberalism". Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"By definition" is actually the problem here, I think. Right-wing propaganda is trying to change the meanings of Left and Right to make them fit their agenda (Newspeak), and by some bizarre coincidence it turns out that if you define "left-wing" to mean "bad", the Nazis happen to fit that definition. Grüße ✦ _hugarheimur 23:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the funniest things I've read in a while. Trying to accuse the right of trying to "change the meanings" while this is exactly what a bunch of leftists right here is doing. What is more leftist than a party that calls itself a "socialist workers' party", or the fact that you guys are trying to "change the meaning" of the very word socialist, anti-capitalist, and most importantly "workers'" and magically turn them into right wing evil capitalists just to feel happy with yourselves and to pretend like your fellow co-ideologists didn't kill 6 million Jews and a few million other people in the Holocaust. How evil is it to use your popularity as Wikipedia to mislead huge amounts of people by your play on words. -MatthewS. (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]