Talk:Nazi Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Workers Party? 2 Hitler images 3 NSDAP in Austria 4 march 1933 election 5 Some facts and a question 6 "support of the majority of Germans" 7 Proposed move to Nazi Party 8 Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.2 Survey pt. 2 8.3 Discussion 8.4 Conclusion

[edit] Workers Party?

Who translated that from german? I'm realy convinced that it should be translated to "National Socialist Labor Party of Germany" or "National-Socialistic German Labor Party". This (my opinion) is based on the meaning in Arbeiterpartei and (...)sozialistische which does not primarily mean "Party for Workers." Its intent is to suggest "Party for Work".

• Please sign your comments.
• National Socialist German Workers Party is the usual translation. My German is not very good but I think Labor Party is usually translated as Arbeitspartei. Adam 03:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Workers Party" is also the more literal translation - "Arbeiterpartei" means "Partei der Arbeiter", meaning either a party "von Arbeitern" or "für Arbeiter". Labour might be admissable as the more common English term, though literally it would mean "Arbeitspartei" (party of the labour) in German. But since "Workers Party" is the common term it should be used here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

25 years ago, when I took German in college, it was translated as "workers party." It was also spelled something like NationalSozialistischeDeutscheArbeiterpartei (no spaces between words) which is quite common in the German language. I can't recall if the first letter of each word was capitalized.CyranoDeWikipedia 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Labor Party of Germany" thing is I'm afraid a not-too-subtle rehash of a popular revisionist claim that the Nazis were nothing more than Communists themselves and that the whole Nazi period and it's crimes can therefore be attributed to the bogey of the left, a theory we get cranked out fairly endlessly on this and many other Nazi-period pages on Wikipedia and which is utter drivel. Wearily we have to say yet again that a very considerable majority of academics who have closely studied this subject concur that the most appropriate translation is the one we have as the title of this article. Also shortened to "Nazi". Thank you. MarkThomas 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler images

I have now copied two images from the Adolf Hitler article and they have both been deleted as copyvios. How can photos be within the guidelines at one article and outside them at another? Adam 06:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, but I think the concept is called "fair-use." It allows for the use of copyrighted images in articles dealing with the subject of the images in question, as long as they don't harm the images' commercial viability and are of the lowest quality possible. The use of a fair-use image on one article might be a copyvio on another because there's little justification for its use. However, you'd best be served by asking someone with a more thorough knowledge of copyright law. --Impaciente 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSDAP in Austria

This article at this point only focuses of NSDAP in Germany. A separate chapter on pre-unification NSDAP in Austria can be written at National Socialist German Workers Party/temp-Austria. I myself is not an expert on this issue. --Soman 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] march 1933 election

The article makes no mention of German election, 1933 but does mention many of the previous elections. Given that this election was the last election before the Hitler dictatorship, I think it deserves a mention, but I don't know where to put it in. I'll just make this note here -- Ch'marr 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some facts and a question

If Nazis and the left are so apart, then how come a) the German Socialist party offered the German Workers' Party an electoral alliance?; b) the Soviet Union had a Pact with Nazi Germany that virtually made it a founding member of the Axis! - having reverted the treaty only after Hitler was sneaky enough to break it?; c) if socialists and nazis are so intrinsically different, then why every single Communist Party in the world refrained from opposing Nazi Germany while Molotov-Ribbentrop was standing? Remember that the conflict between both groups, as well as participation of communists in the Resistance began long after Conservative parties throughout Europe had voiced opposition to German policies or effectively started the Resistance (Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, and even the former Catholic and Liberal parties inside Germany.)

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to debate this question with you. Adam 08:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adam.

I am not sure I can debate this properly as I am not a historian on the German interwars and Nazi periods. But there some points you make which need clarifying for me.

In point(a)are you on about the SPD (which is social democratic/socialist in the West European sense) or the KPD - the communists. This needs clarification because in point (c) you mistakenly connect the Communists with socialists. (I checked your profile and you're an Aussie Labor man - I'm a Brit Labour man - so I am surprised by this) Now if you're criticising the communists lack of action against the Nazis prior to 1941 that's fair enough. (Although remember the Soviets did do the dirty work in Germany - and this is ususally why there is an ambivalent attitude to the Soviets in WWII)

The SPD (our sister party) was the party in Germany which opposed the Nazis. It supported the Allies immediately after they called war against Germany(true - they were in exile but it most be a difficult choice) And Willy Brandt, the 70's West German chancellor was involved with the Norwegian resistance during the war.

Sorry I ranted - always get peeved when the socialist/communist terms are seen as synonyms.Moriarty73 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I "mistakenly connect the Communists with socialists"? Adam 03:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Adam - It is in point (c) I found the confusion.(It may just be me) I quote it below and put in bold what I am on about.

point(c) "if socialists and nazis are so intrinsically different, then why every single Communist Party in the world refrained from opposing Nazi Germany while Molotov-Ribbentrop was standing?"

I'm I being pedantic? Probably. Moriarty73 16:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To the original poster, I'm a Third Reich historian, and it seems you are putting too much weight and drawing conclusions from the actions of groups based soley on ideology rather than circumstance. As to point A) my knowledge of the specifics of the German political climate in the Weimar era is, sadly, not extensive. However, in all my studies I am not sure that this ever occured. The SPD was fundamentally opposed to the Nazi's from the beginning and was a continual victim of their electoral success. When you refer to the German Workers' Party, I take it that you are refering to the period of time before Hitler became involved with the group, and while I'm not aware of all the dealings the party conducted under Drexler, that very well could have happened. However, the German Worker's Party was small and miniscule at that time, if indeed it ever offered such an alliance. This would seem unlikely as it was a Volkish party and a part of extreme right-wing politics though. As to B), the Soviet-German pact was nothing more than a treaty of conviencence that served short-term goals for Hitler. He needed Soviet acquiesance in his dismantling of Poland, a country that had traditionally been in the Russian/Soviet sphere of influence. It also prevented a scenario similar to that of the First World War from developing beyond his control and eliminated a two front war. There was never any intent on the part of Nazi Germany to honor it, as the National Socialist Lebensraum would always be in the East. The plan was to crush France and Britain and settle with the West first, then deal with the Soviet goliath at a later date. The stubbernous of the British put a kink into these plans and Barbarossa occured as an outlet for Hitler's war machine. As to C), circumstance dictated action, although when you say 'every communist party in the world', it seems that you are making the assumption that there were Communist parties that had governmental control elsewhere besides the Soviet Union. There were other communist parties to be sure, but they were decidedly under the yoke of Moscow and were instructed to placate the Nazis as to not provide an excuse for Hitler to take action against them. Stalin was very much interested in placating Hitler to keep his attention directed anywhere else but Russia, as he understood war with the West was inevitable, and he wished to contentedly sit on the sidelines while the Western Powers and Nazi Germany bloodied and wore eachother out and to pick up any possible gains later. I hope that answers specific questions, but I think you are making the assumption that National Socialism and Communism/Socialism were in some way compatible ideologies, when this certainly was not the case. The 'socialism' in 'National Socialism' was a far cry from its Marxist connotation. I would prefer not to get into the ideological specifics as it is a long explanation, but if you are interested in reading further, I would direct you to Ian Kershaw's "Hitler: Hubris and Nemesis", "Mein Kampf", Richard Overy's "The Dictators", or Neil Gregor's "How to Read Hitler" for further discussion and explanation.

[edit] "support of the majority of Germans"

May I ask what is the source of this statement ? I agree that many Germans supported the party, but you need country-wide polls and sociological research to state "majority". If such research was conducted, would anyone provide the source ? Or wouldn't it be better to say "support of many Germans" ? 213.247.163.6 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to debate this question with you. Adam 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

cool debates

[edit] Proposed move to Nazi Party

When creating links to this article, I have always been bothered by the excessive length of the article name. Most people prefer to link to the redirect Nazi Party than to point to this article directly; I've often corrected their links in order to avoid the redirect, but I have come to wonder if it is really worth it. Most wikipedia article titles follow the convention of using the most popular name for a country or political organization, even if it is not the full official name. Thus we have a main article called Nazi Germany rather than Great German Reich; we have Soviet Union rather than Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; we have North Korea instead of Democratic People's Republic of Korea; we have Conservative Party (UK) rather than Conservative and Unionist Party (UK); and so on. Following the same principle, I propose to move the content of this article to Nazi Party. -- Nikodemos 22:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally disagree. "nazi" is a term not of their creation, and is used less frequetly by Germans. In the case of "north korea" I would likewise like to see North Korea become a redirect to the proper name as well. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Unfortunately, that is not normal practice on wikipedia. When deciding on the name of an article, we do not use "official" names but rather the most common names. "Nazi Party" has 1,350,000 Google hits,[1] while "National Socialist German Workers Party" has only 90,800 hits.[2] That's a ratio of almost 15:1 in favor of "Nazi Party". Clearly, the term "Nazi Party" is by far the most common. -- Nikodemos 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed and debated to death, but I'd support a move request. The last debate was quite a while ago and was essentially derailed by an awful lot of invalid reasons to leave it here, without regard for common English usage. Kafziel ^Talk 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am considering being bold and doing a unilateral move; policy is very clear on this subject, and there seems to be little interest in discussion. -- Nikodemos 04:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you open official move request, since this move was already discussed and rejected. -- Vision Thing -- 09:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vision Thing. Better to get consensus for it (or against it, if it comes to that) than just move it and risk being reverted tomorrow. Kafziel ^Talk 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have officially proposed the move and summarized my arguments below. -- Nikodemos 07:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

National Socialist German Workers Party → Nazi Party — As it currently stands, the name of this article clearly disregards Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The policy in a nutshell states that "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The majority of English speakers overwhelmingly use the term "Nazi Party". "Nazi Party" has 1,350,000 Google hits,[3] while "National Socialist German Workers Party" has only 90,800 hits.[4] That's a ratio of almost 15:1 in favor of "Nazi Party". In other articles, we have already established the fact that political parties and entities do not need to be listed using their full official names, especially when those names are very long. For example, we have a main article called Nazi Germany rather than Great German Reich; we have Soviet Union rather than Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; we have North Korea instead of Democratic People's Republic of Korea; we have Conservative Party (UK) rather than Conservative and Unionist Party (UK); and so on. The sheer length of the name "National Socialist German Workers Party" is probably the reason why most English speakers prefer to use a shorthand. It also means that linking to this article is certainly not second nature right now. -- Nikodemos 07:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose, no immediate reason. Also 'Nazi Party' is far more ambigous. There have been 'Nazi Parties' in many countries, but just one NSDAP. --Soman 12:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, for the several reasons mentioned by nominator here and those in previous discussions. Kafziel ^Talk 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Any other 'Nazi Parties' can be dabbed if it's deemed necessary to have them under that name. Ask any English speaker for the name of the party that Hitler led, they'll say the Nazi Party. Conversely, ask any English speaker who/what were the Nazi Party, they'll tell you the party led by Hitler! robwingfield ^(talk) 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've never heard it called the "National Socialist German Workers Party" in English, except in introductions when explaining what Nazi or NSDAP means. I've never heard of any other organisations being literally called a "Nazi Party" either. FiggyBee 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's conventionally just called the "Nazi Party" in English, and when it isn't, it's called by its German name, either abbreviated as NSDAP, or in full. -- The Anome 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Robwingfield. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the common name in English, and easily the primary use of the term. Warofdreams talk 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comment below. --SigPig \^{SEND - OVER} 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - most people know it as the Nazi party - NSDAP is nowadays chiefly a term familiar to academics and historians and those more knowledgeable on the subject. The term and it's German wording and English translation should however be mentioned and discussed in the subsequent article. MarkThomas 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per policy. -- Vision Thing -- 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC) See below. -- Vision Thing -- 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons listed below:

• "Nazi" has very negative connotations and is not in the interest of our NPOV policy. Titling this article by the party's formal name; shows that this is a very serious article dealing with the party and not a cliché. A similar situation applies with Viet Cong being located at National Liberation Front of South Vietnam so as to be completely neutral - despite that Viet Cong is more common to English speakers.

Sheesh. "Murder" has negative connotations - should we call it "involuntary externally-motivated life termination"? Interesting though that the Viet Cong thing has been neutralised out - NPOV gone bonkers, a growing issue on WP. MarkThomas 12:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are other Nazi groups now rendering this term ambiguous, even if only in a minor way.
• The party didn't call themselves a "Nazi Party", so this term is really inaccurate the article explains the etymology of the term "Nazi". It's like having Communists at "commys" or "reds".
• This has been debated extensively already.
• Many formal publications use NSDAP and National Socialist German Workers' (/Labour) Party.
• Every other Wikipedia, just about uses National Socialist German Workers Party or variation of that. (I recognise this isn't really a valid argument- but it should be a factor).
• The title isn't that unbearable it fits across the page.
• Redirects really fix any problems users might have searching for NSDAP.

Kyle sb 11:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey pt. 2

NSDAP

NSDAP, acronym from the official name National Socialist German Workers' Party, has 1,680,000 Google hits [5]. That is more results then "Nazi party" (1,350,000 ) and "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (90,800). Besides that, by using popular form of official name we will avoid ambiguity and negative connotations. So it has all the advantages of the titles "Nazi party" and "National Socialist German Workers' Party", and none of theirs weaknesses. -- Vision Thing -- 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support per policy. -- Vision Thing -- 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Comment. Note also, for example, the East German secret police are under Stasi, not "Ministry for State Security"; the early Soviet secret police is under Cheka, not "All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage"; and Hitler's Finest are listed under Gestapo, not "Secret State Police". Even Nazi regime itself is called Nazi Germany, as opposed to the official (in English) "(Greater) German Reich". --SigPig \^{SEND - OVER} 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

Nine votes for moving article back to the previous title of "Nazi Party", two for leaving article at "National Socialist German Workers Party"; 81% in favour of the move. Moving article accordingly. -- Karada 11:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to be bold, but there is no reason for it. Page will be moved by administrator once the discussion is over. -- Vision Thing -- 13:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and I just moved it on the policy-driven basis that after two days, 80% of votes in the survey called for a move back to original name, which is also the name preferred by the Manual of Style. This is also statistically supported by the count of links to this article and usage on Google. That seems pretty straightforward to me. This compares with 20% support for "National Socialist German Worker's Party", and just one new vote for "NSDAP", added after I made the move. After adding your vote, there's still a two-thirds supermajority against "National Socialist German Worker's Party" with just 17% of votes, and "Nazi Party" still comes out as the consensus choice. I'm sorry, but consensus, policy, and common use all point one way on this issue. 66% > 17%, and policy > voting. -- Karada 14:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't noted on your user page and you didn't close discussion as it's customary once page is officially moved, nor did you remove banner on top of the page and request from "Requested moves" page. Anyway, discussion isn't over since there is a possibility to change page name to NSDAP, which has 1,680,000 Google hits (330,000 more than "Nazi party"). I just added that suggestion, and nobody else had the time to vote for it. -- Vision Thing -- 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in English usage, which is the criterion specified by the MoS. You only get that figure if you aggregate results for all languages, which is not surprising, since "Nazi Party" is an English usage, but the acronym is used internationally. Try "advanced search" and select "English pages only". Restricting the search to English usage only then gives 1,320,000 hits for "nazi party" vs. 335,000 for NSDAP.

I still believe that closing the discussion was appropriate, given the rationale above. I suggest that the article remain at Nazi Party for now, and that if you want to move it to NSDAP, you should relist it on the requested moves page for moving to that name. -- Karada 15:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that NSDAP is used more internationally. I thought that NSDAP is a good compromise between those who object the move and those who support it. But if nobody is interested in that suggestion I'm not going to press it. -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)