Talk:Nazism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Nazism as Leftist[edit]

There really needs to be a debunking of the "Nazis were leftist" lunacy that's now in wide circulation among hyper-rightists.

The article attempts to address that, but then utterly flounders it...
Quote: "and that fascism is actually a lot closer to far-leftism than conservatism is to fascism. The exact same thing applies to the left. Communism and pure state-socialism are far closer to Nazism than it is to modern progressivism."
That's Horseshoe theory!
I'm putting "citation needed" tags there for now, even though I find it very doubtful that any will be found ;)

--89.247.126.102 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Make talk page, not edit war[edit]

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

Page temporarily locked to last uncontested version while we await the input of any member of the mob. Other mods, please unlock the page the instant consensus is achieved (as will I). Thanks in advance.

See article fossil record for context on the current editing dispute. It's really nothing major (read: we're not stooping to having an edit war over it on my watch), but in a nutshell — on a purely editorial level, I figured that this portion contained claims which were specific enough to warrant the simple insertion of a source or other (to accompany the text). Just, you know, considering the vast amount of unchecked 'Nazi policy factoids' permeating the web. *shrug* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nazism[edit]

This discussion was moved here from User_talk:Reverend_Black_Percy.

Look, for fuck's sake, I can't just guess which parts of an entire paragraph you don't agree with if you refuse to tell me. What I'm trying to do is address that common claims of "left-wing" activities by the Nazis (with some listed) are actually examples of instruments of social or economic control that happen to look fluffy. Are you saying you haven't heard of Volksgemeinschaft or the KDF? Is "Nazi Germany built autobahns" controversial? What?

I mean sure, the burden of proof is on the person making the statement, but you still have to tell that person what proof you want if you expect them to be able to go and get it for you. Otherwise it's not so much moving the goalposts as refusing to even set them up. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please calm down; I'm not trying to upset you. I just thought your claims could use an outlink or other to where you got the specifics (e.g., about the mandatory cafeterias).
Now, I hope you realize I wasn't questioning the truthfulness of your claims (per se), but simply your editorial approach. I see your edit and I sez "Great! Could use a source, though. Toss one in in <ref> tags and we're good!". If you think this highly collegial and reasonable suggestion constitutes 'bad faith editing' on my part, I'm at a loss.
I'm sure you could provide your source — I mean, you read (or viewed) this information somewhere? Just help point our readers to where, please. I'd also like to know, because I like to learn new things too. Thanks in advance! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is, I was asking you to toss a citation needed tag in there for what exact claim you wanted a source for: not even on the displayed revision if you didn't want to, just for which part you were referring to. Since you just kept reverting and wikis would usually leave it up with a (cite) tag for a while, it felt like you were assuming bad faith rather than that I wanted to know where you needed me to put additional information. It's the same with your reversion to argument from fine-tuning: I'm rather at a loss for exactly what you want me to do to that, since I'm not sure which section you think is repetitious or what you mean by "nuclear." Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Did I say "nuclear"? Autocorrect, ffs...Facepalm.png I meant to say "unclear". My bad. Oh, well — atleast I'm law-abiding. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's bedtime for me so I can't do it right now, but if you could just toss a (cite) in my revision where you want a citation and then undo it, I'll get you something when I wake up. And I'll admit I didn't even think of typo, because it sounds like one of those grammatical terms you belatedly discover everyone but you knows about, doesn't it? Nog Bogmire (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, friend! However, I'd still like to just wait and see what some other editor thinks. If nobody has weighed in by tomorrow, I'll gladly try things your way (assuming the [citation needed] portions aren't just left unfilled forever). Thanks for talking this out; I just think it's really important that we try to encourage an editing culture wherein sources — even just lazy links pasted in <ref> tags — are made more norm than exception. Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I'll weigh in. Minor anorexia side, I think I have enough weight in the matter to say we should be doing things my way: let's leave it in the talk page, [citation needed]s and all. If Nobs' Nog's paragraph came from somewhere other than his colon, he should've been able to give a link by now, rather than continuing to nitpick that you didn't specify which sentences needed citations. (Hint: All of them.) ~ <3 16:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Were Nazis or Soviets more pseudoscientific[edit]

I think this is an important point. 79.67.94.128 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be far more interesting to argue which group had more of a contribution to science despite both of them being involved in terrible science. Soviets are usually known for their spacey stuff, but Nazis had people like Wernher von BraunWikipedia's W.svg, the guy who is a father of rocket technology and space science in the U.S. and even contributed to Operation PaperclipWikipedia's W.svg which was part of the space race between U.S. the Soviets. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@79.67.94.128 The question is far too vague to answer. Put like this — on the one hand, the peak achivements of Soviet and Nazi technology easily rivaled those of the west, and of each other. On the other hand, there were also many instances — both Nazi and Soviet — of state-sponsored pseudoscience.
Furthermore, the distinction should be made between "the Nazis"/"the Soviets" (as an individual whole) and the Nazi/Communist ideologies themselves. Taken as ideologies, it's clear that both Nazism and Communism was (and is) brimming with crankery (if not 'pseudoscience' precisely), far beyond even that in the west.
In other words: it's not that they couldn't have run "tighter ships" in theory than they actually did. It's that their models and visions of their respective 'perfect society' sucked donkey balls was utterly insane.
Their societal target goal simply was, and is, completely psychotic unrealistic — and their respective methods of achieving said goals weren't much saner. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Be careful on the section of the article about the Nazis and the occult, there's a lot of bullshit out there about it[edit]

The Nazis had several significant members of their movement such as Heinrich Himmler who was attracted to ancient Germanic pagan religious culture though he also was interested in ancient Christian Germanic society such as the first German King Henry the Fowler and in a public event placed a large wreath at his tomb. Himmler's interest in pre-Christian Germanic culture including adopting symbols from it has been exaggerated by Christian proponents of the claim that the Nazis were occultist. This has been fueled in popular culture by films and books that have utilized the claim of attraction to the occult to create stories of heroes stopping the Nazis from attaining some occult power that would allow them to dominate the world.

The reality is that Hitler and the party accepted all people who were deemed Aryans as party members regardless of religion except Judaism of course. However the party came under considerable attack from Catholic conservatives over its support of eugenics including use of abortion for eugenics and was accused of having atheist and pagan sympathies because of the Nazis admiring elements of the ideas of atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and because of the use of symbols that existed in pre-Christian Germanic lands like the swastika and the SS runes. In response Hitler went out of his way to say that the Nazis supported maintaining Christian religion in Germany and declared the party opposed to any attempt to undermine Christianity in Germany.

There was of course batshit crazy Alfred Rosenberg's ideas of Aryans originating from Atlantis who may have been interested in the occult given the absurd mythical-sounding theories he had on the origins of people deemed Aryans. He wrote some book about it, again people wanting to exaggerate claims of ties of the Nazis with the occult point to Rosenberg - only neo-Nazi nutcases care about that lunatic's ideas. The Nazi party never subscribed to Rosenberg's claims, it followed racial anthropological views far tamer in comparison to Rosenbergs that were done by the Nazi supporting anthropologist Hans F. K. Gunther. Rosenberg appears to have been liked by Hitler for some reason which is why he was kept around in the high ranks of the party, perhaps for his administrative abilities as he was appointed to several administrative posts.

To sum up if the above is tl;dr, claims of the Nazis being occultist are exaggerations promoted by two groups: (1) Christians typically wanting to say that few genuine Christians were Nazis because Nazis believed in the occult; (2) popular media promoting sensational stories of evil Nazis wanting the power of the occult to achieve world domination (Indiana Jones stuff). Reality: most Nazis were Christians of some denomination, some were interested in Germanic pagan religious culture but no clear evidence of any large base of neo-pagans in the party, and lastly there were probably some members who were closet atheists who liked all the nationalist and racist stuff but didn't care about religion but didn't kick up a fuss about Hitler appealing to Christians for support. — Unsigned, by: 76.66.125.104 / talk / contribs

The Nazi leadership weren't seriously practitioners of occult religions, but they weren't particularly Christians either, or atheistic. A lot of people claim that because Hitler persecuted some Christians, that means he was anti-Christian. But he persecuted enemies of all faiths, beliefs, philosophies, and political persuasions. Germany remained overwhelmingly Christian under Nazi rule.[1] Many of the Nazi leadership including Hitler had muddled and contradictory ideas about religion, which doesn't indicate that they were anti-religion (or pro-religion). They sought to use religion, particularly Christianity, when they could and took action against it when it got in their way, but they were generally not strongly Christian in any sense (vaguely theistic, perhaps, a certain fondness for mass worship). Certainly the occult claims are exaggerated by makers of ridiculous TV documentaries and writers of ludicrous books. Most Germans remained Christian, at least in the sense of cultural Christianity: occasional church-going, belief in god, etc. What does it mean to "be Christian"? Church-going, hymn singing, self-identification, paying your church taxes, philosophical agreement, not being an avowed atheist? --Gospatric (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Punch A Nazi[edit]

Is it okay to punch a Neo-Nazi? 68.0.189.224 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)