Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nazi Party"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Compare and contrast)
m (Compare and contrast)
Line 345: Line 345:
::::*Stalin was a bad man, and he practiced atheism.
::::*Stalin was a bad man, and he practiced atheism.
::::*Therefore atheism is bad.
::::*Therefore atheism is bad.
:::Luckily Conservapedia doesn't use these cheap tricks, does it? --[[User:PaulMorphy|PaulMorphy]] 11:27, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
::::Luckily Conservapedia doesn't use these cheap tricks, does it? --[[User:PaulMorphy|PaulMorphy]] 11:27, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 11:28, 3 April 2009


How can the Nazi's be largely atheist/pagan if 50% claimed a form of nature worship/paganism and 40% Hitler (whatever that means) and the rest (100-50-40=10) be atheist? Plus, can we get a better reference because I have done several google searches for this survey and can't find it using keywords from the citation.--Lynus 19:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

  • Well, you are an editor, Lynus, add all the citations you want to support the material. --₮K/Administrator/Talk 19:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Hey TK, need some advice. If I find a reference that doesn't describe what it purports to describe what should I do? I got accused of censorship by Andy for deleting a reference that doesn't address the actual topic he says it does. What exactly is "censorship" to the Admins here? In this page's case would I be justified in taking out the atheism part but leaving in pagan due to the obvious fact that according to the blurbs own words only 10% were atheist? Thx --Lynus 20:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)
  • ! Well, some might think you are new, and of course needing to prove credibility, Linus. Personally I would search for sources that back the material already written, before looking for sources that dispute it. As one builds a record of reliable edits, and "substantive contributions" to this project, branching out to catching mis-applied citations, or adding further ones to improve articles will be tolerated more than a new editor's changes would be. That help? --₮K/Administrator/Talk 20:30, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Yes TK that did help, thank you for the polite response.--Lynus 20:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Homosexuality of the Nazis

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note Adolf Hitler's tolerance for gays:
Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.[1]
Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. RobS 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to The Pink Triangle addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.
There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--Dave3172 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.
Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. RobS 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.
PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?
Se also, The Damned, starring Dirk Bogard [2], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Given that the whole homosexual-nazi's theme has been started by Scott Lively, I doubt it is at all credible. Lively is a hardly a respectable historian - he is, in fact, an anti-homosexual campaigner and nothing more than this. I see someone has gone to the trouble of preparing a page on him that makes it very clear - with quotes, even - that he cannot be considered a reliable source because he is a fanatical conspiricy-theorist who appears to believe that homosexuals are planning to take over the world (While at the same time denying that homosexuality even exists). Citing fake histories invented by political power-gamers desperate to rewrite the past to make it appear the nazi's were homosexual is very detrimental to the credability of this site. I thus suggest that all reference to Scott Lively's pet theory are removed. Once his nonsense is dismissed, we have credible-looking support for a single homosexual high-up in the Nazi party (Rohm). Just the one. Who kept it in the closet. Hardly the openly party-supported gay-orgies that some people are claiming, or Scott's ungrounded belief in a mostly-homosexual leadership. There are two potentials too, but no proof - working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub does not make someone gay - BornAgainBrit

Oh, I deleted a coupe of comments to calm things down - but only comments that are fairly old, unsourced (Or use Scott as a source) and make highly unlikely claims.

Right Wing

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --PF Fox 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. RobS 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Paragraph 24, Programme for the German Workers' Party (Pre-nazi). This is what happens when people blindly assume anyone who claims to be Christian is worth supporting. Hitler spoke publicly of his Christian faith constantly - that makes him a good politician, but not a real christian.

It [the party] combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."
the common interest before self-interest, I would say this statement (a) lays to rest the idea the NSDAP is "conservative", and/or right-wing defined as a belief in rugged individualism; (b) pretty much clarifies the Social and Communal roots of Nazism. RobS 09:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
No, whether a Socialist is a Socialist depends on whether or not the person or political party advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of producton. The Nazis advocated some measure of government control in that realm, but not to the point where they qualified as "socialist," any more than 19th Century Prussia -- which advocated a similar kind of control -- qualified as "socialist."
Your claim that the Nazi party doesn't qualify as "right wing" is nothing more than blatant historical revisionism, an attempt to alter the definition of the term decades after the fact. The Nazis by and large considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers (like travel guides to Germany at the time,) have been acknowledged as right wing by historians covering that era. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by altering common usage in this manner?

--PF Fox 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Meaning no disrespect, but it appears you too often speak first before looking at some of the issues. And while I can appreciate your once popular political prejudices, in retrospect we see denying facts and carrying on myths really serves no purpose anymore.
Now, as to whether or not Socialists are indeed Socialists, lets begin with examing the "means of production", i.e. Volkswagen. [3] So, we will be afforded the opportunity to examine the history of this Socialist enterprise to whatever extent they've made thier Archives available to the public.
And finally the left/right spectrum theory is just that--only a theory. For weeks now I've been waiting to hear a definition from advocates of this theory what a "leftist" is. All I've seen so far is something like this:
  • a leftist is a liberal --->click here a liberal is a leftist --->click here leftists oppose oppression, hence Communists are leftists
that's the left side of this nonsense. Then we hear about how Socialists like Hitler actually were devout Christians like Rev. Falwell, who wants to exterminate gays, too.
My appoligies, but this garbage is going absolutly nowhere. And if your serious in persuing this dead end thinking, my advice is to define "leftist", cause none, absolutley none of your so-called "leftist allies" have been able to do so up til now. RobS 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Garbage is definitely the operative term for this blatant revisionism of claiming that the Nazis were not "right wing" and were in fact "socialist." Using your definition of the term "socialist", Prussia and indeed much of 19th century Europe were "socialist." That is not how these countries were defined nor how they saw themselves, nor how they are defined today.
A "leftist" is defined in the dictionary as "Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the establishe order esp. in poltics and usus. advocating chage in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A "right winger" is defined as "individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices." The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. --PF Fox 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
ok, let's take that dictionary definition, "advocating chage in the name of the greater ... well-being of the common man", and "opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices". So which one of us is left and which one of us is right? I want change to stop these nonsensical definitions of left & right, you are resisting it and bring in more of this nonsense that does absolutly nothing to answer the question. RobS 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Which of us is "left" and which of us is "right" depends on how traditional our attitudes are towards issues like women, labor, minorities, etc. The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic, wanted to do so in order to turn the clock back to the era before women were active in public life, before Jews had been emancipated, before the advent of the avant garde in art and film, etc. It was essentially a revulsion against much of the modern world and a wildly romanticized view of the past.
If the fact that terms like "right" and "left" can be imprecise and part of a "spectrum" renders them "nonsensical," then much of language is "nonsensical." Terms like "religion," "politics," "freedom," "morality," even "red," "blue," "wet," "dry," "hot," or "cold" are "nonsensical." You want to give up using those terms too? --PF Fox 13:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
"The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic...
hmmm...let's see....which country, the US or Germany, displayed it's social progressivity by electing a Catholic to it's highest office? Was it the US & JFK, or Wiemar Republic and Hitler? Then, which country introduced affirmative action into the military after the Treaty of Versailles which allowed poor common scum, like Rommel, to rise to the position of General based upon merit rather than Social class? Which country displayed its social progressivity by allowing gays in the military first, the US or Nazi Germany? RobS 14:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
First of all, the Weimar Republic is not synonymous with Hitler. Quite the contrary, it was the liberalism of the Weimar Republic that that Hitler and the Nazis opposed, so trying to cram the term "affirmative action" into the context of the Weimar republic just bolsters my argument that the Nazis who reviled it were traditionalists and ergo "Right Wing." And the Nazis did not openly allow gays in the military, though I have no doubt that there were powerful gay men there who barely bothered to hide their homosexuality -- as has been true in many homophobic societies from time immemorial. The illusion of impunity many powerful gay Nazis felt coupled with official Nazi stance against homosexuality were frequently exploited by Himmler. One of his methods of controlling the people around him was by threatening to publicize an individuals homosexuality and thus exposing that individual to public disgrace and legal penalties.
It was under Weimar, by the way, that German women gained the right to vote and began to appear more frequently in public life, that the avant garde arts flourished, that the last shreds of the legal restrictions on German Jews were dropped -- all of these were trends that the Nazis hated, and worked to elminate once they came into power. You don't do your case any good, Rob, by using Weimar policies to argue for the Nazis NOT being Right Wing. --PF Fox 16:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
There is a large divergence between American historians and Germans in discussing Wiemar Germany. Germans regard what is called "Wiemar Germany", or "the Wiemar period" as extending from 1919 to 1939. Americans assume Wiemar Germany ended in 1933 with the rise of Hitler & Nazism. This is what I call "the Hollywood view" while popular and prevelent, nonetheless over fictionalized.
Talking about women gaining sufferage in Wiemar Germany almost brings tears to my eyes; I'm almost convinced to become a so-called "leftist", one who "advocates change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man". But then all my fellow leftists today say Iraqi women can rot in hell as far as thier concerned. So what would you beleive if you were in my shoes? RobS 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
RobS, if I were in your shoes I would certainly take an English class. Thjazi 15:31, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Just call me another victim of the Public Schools; we honestly have considered a class action suit for the lifelong damge they did to us innocent children. RobS 15:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, if you can successfully show that public school teachers are responsible for your idiotic claim that the Weimar republic didn't end until 1939 you MIGHT have a case. --PF Fox 16:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Kindly provide a cite for this presumed "divergence." I have yet to see or hear ANY historian, American or German, claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and I have spent many years not only reading about this subject, but listening to first-hand accounts from Germans who lived through that era. --PF Fox 17:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's one, Speer, Albert (1970). Inside the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82949-5. RobS 19:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
And exactly where does Speer claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939? What chapter? What section? How does the passage read? --PF Fox 10:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry here on Conservapedia for the Weimar Republic has it ending in 1933. Are you planning to "correct" this article? --PF Fox 17:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Speer has to say about the Weimar Republic:

"...Hitler did not want to alter the proportion of sixty thousand voters for each deputy THAT HAD BEEN SET BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC (emphasis addded. Note past tense.) He never explained his reasons; but he was as firm on this matter as he was about nominal retention of the traditional electoral system with its fixed dates for elections, rule of franchise, ballot boxes, and secret ballot. On this matter he evidently wanted to preserve a tradition which had brought him to power, eventhough his introduction of the one-party system had made the whole thing pointless."

"The liberalism of the Weimar Republic seemed to us by comparison lax, dubious, and in no way desirable."

Please explain how this backs up your claim that Germans believe the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939. --PF Fox 14:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The first reference makes EXACTLY the point; the second reference needs a timeframe, because if it occurs during a discussion of wartime German attitudes, it likewise makes the same point. RobS 15:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It most certainly does NOT make your point. Speer refers to the Weimar Republic in the past tense, and the fact that this meaningless remnant of the Weimar system remained no more means the Weimar Republic itself remained than the fact that there were still some buildings put up during Weimar means the Weimar Republic itself remained. And are you going to put your money where your mouth is, change the Conservapedia Article on the Weimar Republic, "correct" it so that it no longer says it lasted only until 1933? --PF Fox 15:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, so when Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter", I guess actually means "did want to alter", much the same way a Socialist is not a Socialist.
Once again my friend you assign motives to me when all I did was point out disparties between American schools of historiagraphy and German. Here's another one you can look into,
"I was reading a wiki article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected."[4]
And actually I counted some 200 articles in the English Wiki were this subversive poison made its way into the English language. Amazing, Wikipedia actually created the beast its intent upon destroying. RobS 15:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
When Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter" he is specifically referring to the number of voters assigned to each deputy and "nominal retention of the traditional electoral system," trappings that Speer himself observes were "pointless" because of Hitler's imposition of a single-party system. And I'm sorry, but the quotes observing that Hitler was democratically elected do nothing to bolster your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic did not end until 1939.
If you are that positive that the Weimar Republic did not end in 1933, please explain why the Conservapedia article on the subject states quite clearly: "The Weimar Republic is the republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933." --PF Fox 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
PF, it's not worth responding to cause you continue to ascribe to me a claim I have specifically stated did not originate with me. RobS 17:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL! In other words, you are willing to posit this inanity about the Weimar Republic continuing to 1939 here on a talk page in an attempt to bolster a baseless point, but you aren't willing to "correct" an article so that it reads "The Weimar Republic is the Republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1939." You know as well as I do that such an article posted here would become the subject of widespread and deserved ridicule.

Face it. The Nazis were a reaction AGAINST the LIBERALISM of the Weimar Republic. --PF Fox 17:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Gleichsaltung wasn't completed on the day after Hitler took office. And the undoing of Versailles, re-occupation of the Rhineland, Treaty of Munich, Anschluss, etc didn't occur til the 1935-39 period. Then of course we got the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop deal to look into, i.e. how the Soviet Union & Nazi's were indeed allies on 1 September 1939. So there actually is some basis for the traditional European view that the "Wiemar period" extended from 1919 to 1939. RobS 17:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry Rob, but Conservapedia itself -- along with pretty much every written history of Germany -- puts the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and your attempt at twisting a quote from Speer doesn't change that. --PF Fox 17:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Speer ain't the only one that says it, and Speer doesn't just make a quote here and there; it's is an attitude throughout both his books. RobS 17:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Then who DOES claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939? Quotes please. (As someone who has read his books, I know that Speer makes no such claim.) AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU "CORRECTED" THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC ARTICLE HERE SO THAT IT GIVES THE END OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS 1939 INSTEAD OF 1933? --PF Fox 18:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, that is a very good question. Now let's divide the response in two. There is domestic German politics, then there is upsetting the International order established at Versailles. Let's limit our discussion of the "Wiemar period" to the internetional borders established at Versailles. When Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, though illegal, was internationally sanctioned. Then the Treaty of Munich, likewise took on legitimacy in the spirit of Versailles. The Anschluss, no international prohibitions were raised over this issue, not even in defense of the Austrian people, as best I recollect. Finally in 1939, we have joint Soviet-German military operations to dismember Poland. This is were the Peace of Versailles, or "Wiemar period", is regarded by many Europeans as finally, and officially coming to an end, after the governments of France and Great Britain finally ceased selling other people down the river to appease Nazi (and Soviet) aggression. RobS 18:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

None of this answers my question. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --PF Fox 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's work on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact first. RobS 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
That has absolutely nothing to do with this question, or with the fact that pretty much every historian puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1933. You know this. Otherwise you would have posted some supporting cites from historians by now. Again. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --PF Fox 18:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Well duh, let me restate for probably the third time now: the first international boundary to change was not unitl 1938, and was agreed to by the powers enforcing the Versailles treaty. Sept 1 1939, as best as I can determine, is when then Wiemar period, established at Versailles, came to end, and some members of the international community took steps to counter upsetting the established international order.
You know, for all the effort you put into arguing how Iraqi women were better off under fascism for 30 years, maybe you should reconsider if Chilean women may have been better off under Pinochet--at least to maintain internal logical consistancy of these positions you seem to instinctively commit yourself to before examining facts. RobS 18:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
So what's preventing you from "correcting" the Conservapedia entry on the Weimar Republic so that it puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1939 instead of 1933? --PF Fox 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • The myth that the Nazis are some kind of polar opposite to the Communists, needs to be squelched. They are both totalitarian and socialist.
  • The only possible basis for denying this is to assume that "socialist" only applies to Marxism, but this is false. von Mises explains it all in his books. --Ed Poor Talk 06:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)


I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). Karalius Nyder 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. Karalius Nyder 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.
I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,
While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II
I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,
The Nazis are generally seen as fascists
Just who or what are you trying to debate here? RobS 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.
It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. Karalius Nyder 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. RobS 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from other articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.
And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. Karalius Nyder 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.
So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And you equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.Karalius Nyder 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

A few mistakes

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not their symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.

You're on the right track, but the first word in the party name is really "Nationalsozialistische". The word "Nazi" just comes from how it is pronounced. As such, "acronym" in this case really is wrong. --Sid 3050 13:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I realised that I had spelt it wrong after reading the article and then editing it again. -Thjazi 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Marxism and trade unions

  • Through much of its history, the socialist movement has ardently pursued the trade unions. Yet, despite much courting and wooing, this romance has been largely unsuccessful. [5]

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --PF Fox 18:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was NOT A MARXIST OR A COMMUNIST. Say what you want but some of the first prisoners sent to Dachau were communists. Hitler despised communists and marxists more than McCarthy. The only reason to compare Nazism and Hitler to a communist and or marxist is because it would be like calling Hitler a Jew

Yeah, Hitler hated the Communists and longed to crush Russia. Historian Albert Tonbee reported how Hitler, while giving a speech, would scream and gibber when discussing Russia. Of course, none of Hitler's anti-communist leanings are mentioned in the article. Maestro 10:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)


PF, even Wikipedia doesn't have "Verifiability" anymore) (Robs)

Since I don't use Wikipedia and cite William Shirer, what is this referring to?

Apparently the only way you can justify your silly objections to calling the Nazis "right wing" is by falsely claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 -- something you're unwilling to do publicly in an actual article. What is your stand on the Ninth Commandment? Do you feel it can be dispensed with if following it would require you to concede a point? --PF Fox 20:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

See under WP old WP:Verifiability clause, the rule was "verifiable, not truth", which meant give equal weight to the lie so long as it could be proven somebody said it somewhere sometime, nevermind the oxymoron since the latin root of "veri" means "truth". But in typical and classic Wikipedia fashion the rule was always undertood to mean "truth, not truth". And it was an open invitation to the intellectually dishonest to fill up whatever crap they please within all entries.
But let's put the pure subject matter aside momentarilly; no one doubts the common jargon gets used, as there are thousands of popular misunderstandings and mispercpetions on countless subjects. But the first thing you must deal with here is literally a philosophical question: a theory is by definition not a fact. Now, is there anyway whatsoever that you can prove terms like "leftist" or "right-wing" are anything other than theoretical? And even the theories you produce I will document to be contradictory with themselves.
Bottomline, this is a loosing issue. You cannot make a cat into a fish. They simply are two different things, and the spectrum theory is little more than that, a theory to simplify the prejudices of adults to third graders. RobS 20:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it should make some reference to the fact that the Nazi party was right-wing, because, well, they were (to the point of extremity). But they were definitely extreme-right, and that can't really be argued, unless you want to pull out some never-before-seen documents... --Hojimachongtalk 20:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Many books in English have made that claim for many years; and we have yet to seriously broach the subject of National Socialism. The real problem here is nobody can define "left-wing" or "right-wing", at least no editor in Conservapedia has made a serious effort to do so yet. That needs to be done first. RobS 20:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm working off [6], which shows him on the right side. --Hojimachongtalk 21:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Big problem: It is only a theory. RobS 21:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that pretty much every historian, every contemporary observer, every diarist, writer, memorist, and journalist writing about the Nazi era was or is guilty of a "misperception" in calling the Nazis right wing. Not only do English books say, this, but German books say it, French books say it, Italian books say it, books in every language that discusses the Nazis say it, and if Conservapedia has a problem with defining the Nazis as "Right Wing" it's not one shared by most educated and knowledgable people. Who do you think you're kidding? And have you given up on your quixotic effort to convince everyone that the Weimar Republic went on until 1939? Did the other sysops not like the idea of you "correcting" the Weimar Republic entry to reflect that claim of yours? --PF Fox 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Be my guest, please, please, then, and define the term. We are all waiting with baited breath. RobS 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
As you know, I already defined both "left wing" and "right wing" on this very page. On April 6th I posted the following:
"A 'leftist' is defined in the dictionary as 'Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics. Advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A 'right winger' is defined as 'individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices.' The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum."
After that that you tried to invoke one of the more liberal policies of the Weimar Republic in order to claim that the Nazis were somehow "left wing." Faced with the fact (apparently new to you) that the Nazis were ANTAGONISTIC to the liberal Weimar Republic, you offered the truly ridiculous argument that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and compounded the absurdity by misrpresenting a quote from Albert Speer's book. When THAT didn't work, you galloped off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein, without every explaining why, if the Weimar Republic ended in 1939, the Conservapedia article on it has it ending in 1933.
Again, who do you think you're kidding? --PF Fox 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, so "leftists" are for the betterment of humanity, whereas "rightists" oppose the betterment of humanity. Pardon me, I have no personal axe to grind; I may be asked however in the capacity of a fiduciary to dispute this definition. RobS 23:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The definition in its entirety reads "Advocating change IN THE NAME OF the greater freedom and well-being of the common man." The dictionary is question is saying that that is usually the reason given by leftists for promoting certain policies, just as a respect for tradition is the reason invoked by many right wingers for opposing certain policies. Is it your contention that dictionary writers are all a bunch of leftists out to write biased definitions? --PF Fox 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Whoopie doo! So "leftists", in thier view, got a monopoly on the betterment of humanity. I'm sure other so-called "leftists" agree with this trite reasoning. But this inbred family affair won't work. RobS 23:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it your contention that dictionaries --Merriam Webster, the OED, etc -- are part of a dastardly conspiracy of leftists?

Yes, most leftists consider what they are doing to be for the greater freedom and well being of the common man, just as most right-wingers consider their respect for tradition more important and more likely to make a better world. So what? You demanded I repeat these definitions. I did. --PF Fox 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

--PF Fox 23:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, and we all seen this old movie a thousand times, how the cake of custom conflicts with progress and the betterment of civilization. Say, you got some loaded dice? I love playing with loaded dice and getting all my money taken. I'm a real fool when it comes to that. Please, cheat me as you see fit. RobS 00:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I gather from this that you've run out of arguments and are reduced to just typing rants. Sorry, but it's not the fault of liberals, or leftists, or Wikipedia, or Hitler's architect, or Saddam Hussein, or dictionaries or "loaded dice" that you are doomed to lose any argument based on such booming absurdities as "The Nazis weren't right wing," or "The Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939." It's the fault of reality and common usage. Until you acknowledge these things, no honest or educated person is going to even pretend to take your arguments seriously. --PF Fox 02:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll say it one more time: the Political Spectrum Theory of Max Weber has no more weight than the Theory of Evolution of Charles Darwin. Now, if you can prove where either theory has any factual basis, please do so. RobS 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You can say it as often as you want, Rob. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Comparing English common usage with Darwin's theory, as though assigning the term "right wing" to the Nazis were a theory that created as great a controvery and as much debate as evolution is nonsense. --PF Fox 13:30, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Blaming the West

Controversial cut:

Most historians agree that the defeat of Germany in the First World War and anger over the Treaty of Versailles, specifically those provisions that restored territory to France, Belguim, Denmark, and Poland, disarmed Germany, and required that it pay reparations for the First World War helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Nazism.
Excuse me, but this happens to be true. Whether you agree with it or not, most historians tie the defeat of Germany in WWI and anger over those provisions of the Versailles Treaty to the rise of the Nazi party. How does this qualify as "blaming the West" (especially since Germany is a Western European country?) --PF Fox 13:13, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
PF Fox sums it up pretty good in these lines of text. I'll endorse reinclusion. Incidentally, welcome back. RobS 15:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Western European Countries are countries such as England and France, germany is of central europe. Simply because it is as much on western europe as it is on eastern. Britts and frenchies are to be blamed by germany's humiliation. West is too broad, west european determines the greedy guys that took the spoils of war from germany.

unlock request

I'd like to categorize it under European History, thanks. --Colest 17:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Name misconception

I suggest the following being somehow worked into the article:

A common misconception is that the word "Nazi" comes from Nationalsozialistische. This would be an acronym for the German language compound word, formed from the words national and sozialistische. However, abbreviating sozialistische as zi would be illogical. The true source of the term "Nazi" is the pronunciation of nationalsozialistische, which in German is nah-tse-oh-NAL-zo-shi-al-ist-uh-shuh.

Greg 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

new name needed

The article would be much more useful to users if it was named "Nazi Party" or "NSDAP". Almost no book uses the full name in English, and the Germans almost always use NSDAP. RJJensen 21:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)


National Socialist German Workers Party

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in World War II by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. Ieuan 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)

the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941-- so their role cuts both ways and diminishes any claim that they led the effort. Ieuan is right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. RJJensen 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Have to point out a couple of things. For a start the US wasn't financing the war for the UK and USSR but instead extended a series of lease-loans. The difference is subtle but very important (see below). It isn't until after WWII finished that the US extended direct financial assistance, which in Britain's case was a loan for $4.34 billion in 1945, and was finally repaid by Britain on Friday 29th December 2006, with repayments having started back in 1950. The final payment made on the loan was £43 million.

As for the timeline, FDR was desperate to help in the European conflict but also understood that he had to keep the US out of the European conflict during 1939 and 1940, because when Britain declared war on Germany he was still struggling to deal with the Depression and its effects. The simple fact was that until the Depression had been dealt with (or at least the scaffolding that would deal with it was in embedded, which happened in late 1940) and the economy stabilised the US simply couldn't have afforded to go to war (the uncertainty and volatility generated by going to war in Europe again would have ripped apart the still incomplete reforms that FDR had in place in 1939). Additionally the policy of isolationism that the US had been following was still much in vogue with the public and Congress, so a direct intervention in the European conflict during '39 and '40 wouldn't have been possible politically. Furthermore, extending direct financial aid to the UK and USSR, quite apart from the fact that it probably couldn't have been afforded, would also have meant that the Axis powers would have declared war on the US (as the US would have been offering direct support to the Allies), and predation on US shipping in the Atlantic would have been much heavier, and started earlier in the conflict.

The extending of the lease-loans (which was designed to be military equipment, rather than money), didn't occur until March 1941, and of course the US officially joined the Allies nine months later. Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940. On 2nd September 1940, Roosevelt did defy the Neutrality Acts by passing the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. That Agreement sold 50 American destroyers to Britain, the price being military base rights in Newfoundland and the British Caribbean islands, and is seen as being the point at which the US started to offer somewhat more substantial support to the Allies in the European war effort.

As for military leadership and advice from the US, no, I'm afraid not, at least not prior to 1941. Although FDR was in contact with Churchill while Churchill was Vice-Lord of the Admiralty, and later Prime Minister, such correspondance, where it touched upon the war, was in finding inventive ways for FDR to defy the common, economical,political and legislative hurdles that barred the US from extending aid to Britain. The ability to extend military leadership and control to the UK was both legally impossible and militarily impossible for FDR. The Neutrality Acts provided the legal impossibilities (FDR was only able to defy the Neutrality Acts by taking what would have been the donation of 50 Destroyers to the UK and turning it into 'sale'), and of course, if the US had provided military leadership prior to them officially declaring war on Germany, then this would have been deemed an Act of War by the Axis powers and would have esssentially boxed them into the position of having to declare war against the US, which, interestingly, is something that the European based Axis powers wanted to avoid.Ieuan 01:49 4/Nov/08

to clarify a few points. Lend lease in general was NOT paid back (except for some items that were delivered after the war, and for some ships). Second the US banks made heavy loans to Britain in 1939-40, which financed heavy exports of raw materials like steel used for munitions. As for the leadership, well the Brits were leading the war against Germany in 1939-41 all right, but they were "leading" because they were alone in the war--and they were mostly losing. I suggest the defeat of Germany --which is the point here--came in 1942-45 under US leadership. RJJensen 20:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes, lend-lease was never meant to be paid back. Sorry, I should have clarified the sentence "Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940.". The US in this context was meant to be the US Government, but I didn't make that clear. The loans made during the war by US banks were, of course, a private business matter, as opposed to US Gov Policy, at least officially. Of course it is extremely likely that FDR twisted a few arms to make sure that the loans were made, but from the point of view of history that, I'm afraid to say, hasn't been recorded as intervention made by the US Government in the European conflict (and now that it doesn't matter politically and if it can be shown that FDR 'persuaded' the banks to make the loans, then it should be recorded in the histories that the US intervened earlier in the European conflict).

Leadership '39-'41. We're back to that tricky one. As I've said, there were 21 countries and blocs of countries that formed the Allies during that period and while Britain certainly led the Commenwealth (or at least soon to be Commonwealth) and Empire countries from '39-'41, they didn't lead the other countries that were part of the Allies at the time. To say that Britian led the Allies or war effort during that time is as inaccurate as pointing to any single one country during that time and say that they led the war effort.

Mostly losing. Mmm, no, or at least, not in context. If Britain had fallen to Germany then yes, you could certainly say that they lost (and, of course, that would have meant that the US wouldn't have been able to intervene in the European conflict, the fall of Britain would have seen the fall of Western Europe and that, in turn, would have led to the fall of Africa and parts of the Middle East to the Nazis at the same time (because large swathes of both those areas were owned by the Western European powers). This would have meant that there was no point of entry into the European conflict that the US could use, apart from entry from the Soviet Union, but trying to fight in Europe using the Soviet Union as an entry point in 1941 would have been all but impossible from a logistical point of view, simply because it would have been immpossible to ship the heavy equipment needed by the US army to that entry point), but the concept of lose or victory during a war is almost always defined in terms of the strategy being pursued at the time. Britain's strategy at the time was to hunker down and hold on. It wasn't a brilliant strategy (because it cost a lot of civilian lives), it wasn't going to be a winning strategy in the long term provided that the circumstances of the war didn't change (it never is), but it was a strategy born of necessity (Britain didn't have the numbers, firepower or position to push back Germany and the only other option, apart from hanging on grimly, was to surrender to the Nazis). Instead, the idea behind the strategy was that war is an ever shifting morass of possibilities, changes and mistakes. In this case the mistake (and subsequent change in the overall picture of the war) made was that the German war machine believed that Britain was about to fall and so opened a second front against the USSR. This relieved the pressure on Britain, which allowed it to hang on until the second big change in the circumstances of the war, which was the US joining the European conflict a few months later. It is best to say that Britain pursued an exceedingly risky strategy that worked.

As to why this I feel this way about, what is after all, just a single sentence in the Nazi article is that I have always believed that encyclopedias, no matter what type they are, should always be as factually accurate as possible, even on the smallest of details. Just saying that the US led the Allies in WWII is accurate to a point but could be more accurate (by pointing out that the US led the Allied effort from '41-'45) but then you run into two pitfalls which are i) it doesn't say who led pre-end'41 and ii) the US led Allies co-ordinated and worked with the USSR-led Allies but didn't lead the USSR-led Allies. From there you run into the problem that SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) had a US Supreme Commander, a British Deputy Supreme Commander, 1 British and 2 US Ground Force Commanders, and of course the Air and Sea Force Commanders were both British. You start to fill in all those blanks, and all of a sudden what should be a single sentence turns into a nightmare of complexity, fact-checking and citations. That's why I like the compromise sentence, and I am very pleased that it is still there. Thank you.

At some point I would like to do an article on the political situatiions and decisions made during WWII, although it has to be said, don't look for it soon, entire shelves in libraries are dedicated to that single subject, so planning, typing and checking will take quite sometime. Still, I think it will be worth it. I have noticed that subjects like the Blitz (not necessarily here, but in general), give the facts but rarely a context. A simple example of that is the SHAEF decision to start bombing German towns once German forces had started to be forced back. Yes, the bombing did help reduce the German War Machine by hitting munitions factories and such like, but the fact is that there was no planned targeting, obviously no pin-point targeting because such a thing didn't exist, and very much a feeling of justified revenge for the Blitz from the British. What happened. 500,000 German civilians were killed in the bombing. That's a large figure. Now think of it as being one hundred and sixty seven government sanctioned 911's. Suddenly its a very big number, and that's what I mean by context. In fact, the bombing of German towns and the Blitz had a huge part to play in the Geneva Conventions ban on deliberatly targeting civilians. Yet you go into a pub and ask a young 20-something what they know of the Dresden bombings and see just how little they know.Ieuan 00:58 7/Nov/08 GMT

well the Brits themselves had little to do with the war before spring 1940 as well (it was called a phoney war). And the Soviets were on the Nazi side! Starting summer 1940 the US economy was mobilized into the war effort and the US drafted millions of men. As for leadership, the defeat of the Nazis did not happen in 1939, 40 or 41--in fact they were winning until the US entered the war and turned it around. Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF. They stayed in cities because they were building tanks and guns there. RJJensen 20:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, the USSR was on the Nazi's side, but what is truly alarming is that they didn't need to be. A fortnight before WWII started Stalin made an offer to Britain and France to send close to a million troops to the German border to stop Hitler. Unfortunately Britain and France, not trusting Stalin, decided not to agree to an alliance and effectively left USSR out in the cold. In response the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

As for leadership, one of those tricky things again. Leaders exist in both failure and success, one of the points to having leaders is that the political classes have somebody to point to and say "Oh, you". Did the US lead the western allies in success. Yes and no. The US joined the war, the tide turned, but part of that was the disaster at Stalingrad, a success that was wholly the Soviet Union's and sapped a massive number of German troops away from the Western fronts. So in that sense the leadership is jointly US and USSR (althouth you will understand that isn't a point that was solidly taught on either side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War). Yet the Supreme Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was a US General, Eisenhower. In that sense the leadership was US. However, his deputy was British and immediately under them were 2 US Force Commanders and 3 British Force Commanders, so in that sense the leadership was a joint-command. It is prehaps best, from a factual view, to seperate success from leadership. Therefore it can clearly be said that Allies success in WWII had a great deal to do with the US committing forces to the Western front in Europe and the USSR forcing the surrender of German Troops at Stalingrad. In terms of leadership, well as I said, complicated, not something that is determined by success, and in all cases has a habit of shifting significantly with the passage of time.

"Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF". Sorry, I read that and I laughed so hard I cried. I can just see it now. "Excuse me Mr. Nazi Security Officer who is, has and is part of group that systematically removes families and people from homes, sends them to death camps, kills people in the street, shoots people for the most trivial of offences, including not being patriotic enough, and when not involved in killing also happens to be involved in some of the most brutal, despicable and unacceptable torture and medical experiments the world has ever seen which has not just been practiced on adults but also children as young as babies, our enemies have told us that they are going to bomb us so you don't mind if I don't come into work for say, oh the next three or four years.". There are few people who are truly defiant and willing to ignore the orders of the man who has a gun pointed to their head. There are even fewer who are willing to be that defiant when the man with the gun has it pointed at the head of their children. And that assumes that any significant part of the civilian population even heard the warnings. I doubt the Nazi Government passed the message on and anybody caught listening to the radio frequencies used by the British or other allies was automatically assumed to be a spy, taken away and questioned with a red-hot poker until they either a) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not or b) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not. A few years of that kind of government policy is going to make sure very few people on Germany would be that keen to listen to anything that the Allies said.Ieuan 02:25 7/Nov/08 GMT

The allied bombers dropped billions of leaflets to tell people to get out. Both the German and Japanese (and British) governments tried to get civilians to leave the cities. People did not want to go. In a total war the homefront factories and railroads are decisive weapons (all the posters on both sides said war worker = soldier) so the postmodern theme that creates an artificial distinction between civilians and soldiers is based on the sensibilities of the 1960s (when H Bombs were a very different threat) rather than the 1940s. The NSDAP did a rather good job caring was bombing victims. On another point: the article title is unsatisfactory--it's a term rarely used and will not help students studying for tests. RJJensen 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Compare and contrast

We need to write about the similarities and differences between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, before we entertain any more views about how "the Nazis were not socialist". But do not use trick arguments based on shifting meanings of socialism. In particular, we must not pretend that only Marxism-Leninism is really socialism. We might also need a Capitalism and socialism article.

In capitalism, investors choose how to invest their money; factory owners decide what to produce and how much; sellers and buyers agree on price. In socialism, the government makes these decisions; evasion of price controls is an economic crime (a "black market" transaction).

Although neither system has made people uniformly wealthy, we might compare the standard of living in countries which have tried out the two systems. For example, health care in America vs. Cuba; forget the official propaganda: what are the real conditions in Cuban hospitals for regular citizens? And how long did people in the USSR have to wait in line every day to get ordinary things like bread or shoes?

Anyway, my question is whether Nazi Germany ever put economic controls in place similar to those of Communist countries, such as wage and price controls and factory quotas. And if so, did it have the same effect on the economy as state ownership did in the USSR? --Ed Poor Talk 07:04, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

The Nazis put in real control during the war, as did all major countries. (it's called "war socialism") Note that American conservatives all supported the "war socialism" in the USA--and for example Milton Friedman was a key player in setting it up. Before the war German economic controls were not especially elaborate except regarding Jews. The key issue I think for this article is the role of business and labor. The Russians destroyed ALL businesses and the Germans kept them, and indeed before 1942 the businessmen made most of the business. Speer's memoirs are central here--they tell how he took control of the German economy in 1942-43. RJJensen 10:23, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks. That's the kind of stuff we need to know. I want to avoid making a specious argument of the following type:
  • If a bad man practices something, that thing is bad.
  • Hitler was a bad man, and he practiced socialism.
  • Therefore, socialism is bad.
I think this fallacy is called "tarring with the same brush" or the "association fallacy".
On the other hand, if Hitler's fascist regimentation of all aspects of national life is indeed similar to Communist totalitarianism, then we should point that out. --Ed Poor Talk 10:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Very good point that above! I'd add:
  • Hitler was a bad man, and he practiced darwinism.
  • Therefore, darwinism is bad.
  • Stalin was a bad man, and he practiced atheism.
  • Therefore atheism is bad.
Luckily Conservapedia doesn't use these cheap tricks, does it? --PaulMorphy 11:27, 3 April 2009 (EDT)