Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Back to the point

From the article on Fascism:

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".

In what way does Hitler's regime not conform to this description? Camillus (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Severe economic regimentation, I should think. Look at the availability of consumer goods and what a sham the German economy was - it was never prepared properly for war. Michael Dorosh 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition cited already presupposes that Nazism is Fascism (otherwise it wouldn't include "race") but that it the contentious point. More on this next time. Str1977 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another point: the "Is Nazism Fascism or Totalitarianism" debate is a valid issue to be included in Wikipedia but the article on Hitler is not the proper place (and least of all its intro). It should be dealt with under Nazism, Nazism and other concepts, Fascism. Str1977 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the Oxford Dictionary definition is more accurate:

noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

— DERIVATIVES fascist noun & adjective fascistic adjective.

— ORIGIN Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis ‘bundle’. [1] Wyss 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keeping it brief, given the Oxford dicdef, which more accurately describes classic Fascism as it was embraced by fascists during the 1930s, AH's Nazism was far more totalitarian. Wyss 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That is an incomplete definition. Str1077 is wrong that there is not a consensus among modern scholars that Nazism is a form of fascism as Giovanni has shown. This is a question of fact that can be easily proven. After it has been I suggest that the argument be settled in Gio's favor. MikaM 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Giovanni has demonstrated that the use of Fascism in the intro to an article about AH would not mislead readers. Moreover, I don't think the Oxford definition is incomplete, though I do suspect it conflicts with popular misconceptions about the term. Wyss 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that Str1977 has incorporated one of my single word suggestions - "aggressive" (expansionism). Thank-you. I hope it will be accepted by others.
As for the second definition, from the Oxford Dictionary, I would ask - in what way does "1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." not describe Hitler's regime?
I agree with Str1977 that this is not the article for a lengthy discussion of the similarities/differences between Fascism and Nazism - I merely propose the addition of the single adjective "fascistic" to the word "totalitarian". Otherwise, how do we differentiate between Hitlerian totalitarianism, and communist totalitarianism? One word - that's all I ask. Camillus (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with using both words in tandem. It would address both your concerns and mine neatly. To answer your question, though, as I have mentioned, Hitler's regime was far beyond the classic examples of fascisim developed by Mussolini and perfected by Franco, in terms of economic control, loss of human rights and so on. Wyss 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I made a mistake. The intro is not the place to discusss the differences between fascism and nazism. Wyss 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I do think Str1977's addition of aggressive is helpful. Wyss 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, I wish you hadn't decided that your comment was a mistake - it seemed to offer some way out... And yes, as I stated, the intro, and even the article itself, is not the place to "discuss the differences between fascism and nazism". I merely propose a one-word addition of the adjective "fascistic", to differentiate between Hitlerian totalitarianism and communist totalitarianism - the "better" definition you cited above, to me, fits almost perfectly Hitler's regime, while not fitting Stalin's. (Incidentally, and I don't want to get into a long discussion about this, but I disagree (and Str1977 seems to agree with me) that Franco "perfected" fascism). Camillus (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I do want to find a solution to this, so I was a bit too eager to pounce on something that might work without thinking it through. My botch. Wyss 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What's weird about Nazism (as I was taught growing up), were its practical, economic similarities to communism. Of course, volkish nationalism had a concept of private property but ultimately this was at the whim of the state (Hitler and Bormann). There are also parallels in terms of the corruption that kept the wheels turning, so to speak. A russian once told me, "The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler thought he was saving the world. Stalin had no such illusion." In many political, economic and security respects, Nazism wasn't so different from Stalinist communism. As many communists will tell you today that Stalin was no communist, there are fascists who similarly distance themselves from Hitler. Wyss 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these anecdotes are interesting, but I still contend that your preferred definition of Fascism fits the stated ideology of Hitler, but not that of Stalin's communism. Hitler didn't go in for full-scale nationalisation (think of all the private companies that profitted from the Nazi regime - Krupps, IG Farben etc.), Stalin exalted the equality of all races (though of course, in fact, he was guilty of great-Russian chauvinism, he himself a Georgian), Hitler exalted the nation and race, Stalin exalted the working class (officialy anyway). (Incidentally, Stalin very much thought he was saving the world, despite the anecdote).
So that is why I'm holding out for the adjective "fascistic" to differentiate between the two.
Lengthy discussions are not for the article, but we can talk till the cows come home on the discussion page, even if it is only over one word (though a very important word, IMO). Surely preferrable to endless reversions. Camillus (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My position is that the definition of fascism does not match Mr Hitler's personal ideology (whatever similarities may have been drawn in the "marketing" presentation). Moreover, the large German corporations (some of whom originally thought they had bought and paid for AH), were ultimately bought and paid for by the Nazi leadership, which had total planning control over the German economy. There were, obviously, substantial differences between Stalinism and Nazism but the economic and political similarities are striking. Drawing a distinction between communism and Nazism is ok with me though, but not with the word fascism. Remember, I also think the intro is getting too long as it is. Wyss 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm only proposing one word - "fascistic" - not "fascist" - hardly the last straw that will break the back of the intro. I contend that Hitler's regime fits your preffered definition, while Stalin's "totalitarianism" does not. I don't agree that the "political similarities" are striking at all - they are in fact, poles apart, as I described above. Camillus (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We haven't solved anything yet. I think using the word fascist in the intro will mislead readers and you think it will inform them. We've more work to do I guess. Wyss 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not proposing "fascist" - but "fascistic" - which implies (concisely) that Hitler's ideology and regime shared many of the features of fascism, while not being "classically" fascist. (Though the notion of "classical" fascism is itself contentious - it was all very new then). Please describe how Hitler's personal and public ideology does not fit in with your preferred definition cited above? Camillus (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism was volkish nationalism, an almost "metaphysical" notion of achieving ideal conditions for the German people, as defined mostly by their perceptions of "race" (although they were in practice, somewhat sloppy and unscientific in both their descriptions and motives along those lines). This intrinsic German destiny for a "chosen people" was the ultimate priority and Hitler's vision of implementation involved a ruthlessly efficient totalitarian government which introduced industrial genocide to actually alter the demographic characteristics of Europe. Class divisions were more or less de-emphasized and German volkishness implied a certain level of cooperative (or socialist) economic planning.

Fascism was an authoritarian, anti-socialist, statist system targeted at social stability and preservation of class structure. Instead of a "chosen people," the advancement of state itself was seen as ensuring ideal conditions for the population. Fascism was authoritarian, not totalitarian, and could accept a wider range of cultures and ethnic heritages.

These differences are significant enough that it is simply inaccurate to characterise Hitler's Germany as fascist or even fascistic. It was Nazi, volkish and totalitarian. The similarities to fascism are obvious but it is worth noting, in extreme, over-generalizing shorthand, that Franco died in bed, ruler of a fascist country that became a member of the United Nations (1955) and a fairly well integrated member of the western European economic community. Although Franco suppressed certain cultural and ethnic minorities, there are reasons why vast swaths of Franco's Spain were peaceful and prosperous through the 60s and 70s, by which time Hitler's aramgeddon was the smoldering memory of a nightmare. Never mind that Hitler alienated and then slaughtered the German/Austrian aristocracy while Franco only temporarily supplanted the Spanish monarchy, preserving it and ultimately designating it his political heir.

You may argue that these are national differences, but I suggest they're symptoms of the very different goals and outlook of Nazism as compared to the fascisms of Spain and Italy. Wyss 05:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add one other point. On a certain level, it may even be appropriate to reserve the term fascist only for the government of Benito Mussolini, since the word has become a sort of epithet or insult for any political group which is characterised by its opponents as having an excessively authoritarian or undemocratic approach to government. It's sort of revealing that while there are many political parties in Europe and the Americas which advocate fascist solutions to government, I'm not aware of any which self-describe as fascist. This indicates that the incendiary baggage of the word has rendered it undescriptive and disruptive, therefore unsuitable for most encyclopedic applications except in the most qualified contexts and IMHO certainly not in a general intro which cannot possibly discuss and lay out these historical meanings and vectors. Wyss 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to reserve the term "fascist" for Mussolini's regime, but I'm not convinced. But if any other regime is to be described as Fascist, it is the Nazis. Hitler and Mussolini's regimes are generally considered to be much more of a kind than Mussolini's and Franco's - there is considerable dispute as to whether "fascist" is an appropriate term for Franco's Spain. Fascism with a capital "F" is a term which probably should be limited to Mussolini's Italy. But fascism with a small "f" is a term which most definitely includes Nazism. Any kind of comparative study of fascism starts with Italian Fascism and German National Socialism as its initial starting points, and a) tries to identify the commonalities between them, which are generally seen as a kind of fascist minimum; and b) tries to determine what other regimes and movement shares these features Every major study of fascism has included Nazism, and indeed has assumed that the term "fascism" includes the Nazis. This is not to deny that there are differences between Hitler's regime and Mussolini's, or between Nazi ideology and Italian Fascist ideology - notably, the racialist aspect of Nazi ideology is not found in Italian Fascism. But it is to say that there is a pretty solid scholarly consensus behind using the word "fascism" to describe Hitler's regime.

On the other hand, the alternate word preferred, "totalitarianism," is a highly controversial term. Most historians of Nazi Germany and most historians of Stalin's Soviet Union tend to avoid the term, which is generally seen to a) obscure the very major differences between Stalin's regime and Hitler's; and b) to be a highly politically loaded term, as it is frequently seen as a term used primarily by the right as part of an effort to identify Nazism with Communism. There is no way that the intro should use the term "totalitarianism". john k 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that the worst option is "fascistic" which is a term with no known meaning that is not in any kind of scholarly use to refer to the Nazis. Just "a fascist regime" is perfectly appropriate. john k 05:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that both totalitarian and fascist are too loaded to be descriptively helpful in this intro? (Fair disclosure: I have frequently advocated a minimal intro length) Wyss 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but this time I have to disagree with John K.

  • The intro talks about the nature of the regime and not any person's or party's idelogy.
  • Studies on Fascism might include Nazism as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that N. is a form of Fascism, only that it is worth including it for various reasons: that N. contained F. elements (meaning members, form and some parts of programme) and most importantly that it is often classified as F. and hence would be missing in such a study. There also might be a leaning of those scholars doing "comparative fascism studies" towards the Fascism viewpoint in the Fascim vs. Totalitarianism debate.
  • "Totalitarian" might be controversial, but so is "Fascism" due to its overuse. Look at List of Fascists for this overblown use.
  • Totalitarianism studies is often labelled as controversial and certainly had its ups and downs. It was popular during the 50s, in the wake of the cold war, when people were determined to fight the second totalitarian regime after having defeated the first. In the 60s and especially 70s Totalitarianism studies were declared anathema by left-wing trends in academia. It was claimed that it identifies Nazism with Communism (though the same coukd be said for those linking it with Fascism). Some might have done this but this is far from being the core of Totalitarianism studies, which is about comparison and classification (which necessarily involves some glossing over differences in the end) and not about identification (and BTW, Ernst Nolte is one of the most notable "Comparative Fascism" scholars.
  • The nature of Franco's regime is off topic here and whether some regime is more or less Fascist than another of course must depend on one's view about what constitutes that Fascism -if I say that Spain was more fascist than Germany I am not saying that Spain was more brutal, or total or vicious, or aggressive.
  • I oppose resorting to capitalisation issues.

Str1977 09:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I endorse Str1977's summary. Especially his note that Fascism has become undesrciptive (overblown) from oversue (my main concern all along). Moreover the reluctance of some to compare the totalitarian aspects of Nazism and communism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV. I agree that Franco is off-topic, which is partly why I brought up the example and especially agree with Str1977's remark that (assuming it's appropriately applied) the term fascist does not imply increased brutality and so on.
  • The somewhat conflicting dicdefs cited above, along with the lasting controversy on this talk page about using this term in the intro is a further indication that it is too undescriptive and potentially misleading to be helpful in the intro. Wyss 17:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

" 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

In the interest of brevity and concision, can I ask again that we just take the cited definition of Fascism above and describe, point-by-point, in what way it does not fit as a description of Hitler's ideology and regime?
The main objection seems to be that Hitler's regime was more "racist". Are we really arguing that "classical" fascism didn't pre-suppose the "superiority" of the European/white "race"? Would Mussolini have gone along with the idea that all races were equal?
I don't agree that the use of the term "fascistic" is un-scholarly. Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary : "fascistic - relating to or characteristic of fascism;". How is it "scholarly" to propose that Nazism and Fascism are identical? How is it "scholarly" to suggest that Nazism is quite distinct from Fascism, when it is surely, objectively, "related to or characteristic of fascism"?
Whether the word "fascist" has become pejoritave is neither here nor there - we're talking about the historical Hitler here. I for one, am not in favour of protecting Hitler from "pejoritave" terms, especially when they can be shown to be wholly pertinent.
Can we just forget about Franco, please?
Regarding Wyss's "Moreover the reluctance of some to compare the totalitarian aspects of Nazism and communism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."
I could easily say that the "reluctance of some to compare the fascist aspects of Nazism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."
I for one, don't discount the totalitarian aspect of Nazism. Nazism is even more totalitarian than Mussolini's Fascism, but that's not to say that M's Fascism was not totalitarian.
Why can't we use the good old wikilinking idea, for example : "a [[Fascism#Nazism_and_Fascism|fascistic]] [[totalitarian]] regime?" , ie. "a fascistic totalitarian regime?"- thus pointing the reader to the article which describes the similarities and differences, with the addition of a solitary adjective to the introduction. Then the debate could take place there, a more appropriate location, as all agree. Surely this helps the reader? How can talking about Hitler's regime without referencing its similarities with fascism help the reader? Camillus (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Camillus. I appreciate your attempts at a compromise to allow the mention of Nazism as fascism (its really incredible to find it resisted here!), but I'm against the "fascistic" because it was not just fascisitic is was fascist. Saying fascistic would imply simililarity, whereas Nazism was the real thing in whole. Giovanni33 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not incredible, it's a natural consequence of the structure of WP; almost every article reflects idiosyncrasies of individual human editors that are not representative of the actual facts. As a result, WP can be informative, but it cannot be reliable, accurate, complete, or authoritative. -- 68.6.73.60 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi John K. Thanks for sharing your understanding,and I fully share your assessment. It does reflect the mainstream of modern scholarship on the question of fascism. The conflict here stems from a minority view of fascism that makes mistake so losing sight of the forest for the trees. In respect to the views of Str1077 and Wyss, some scholars do define fascism in such narrow terms, and some (a fringe view) even insist that the ideology is limited to Italy under Mussolini alone. This is not a widely accepted POV, and therefore this is not a reason to allow this view precedence in this article. It more appropriate to an article on the ideology of fascism.
Most scholars agree that it is sufficient to capitalized the term as Fascism when it refers to the Italian movement specifically, but define fascism broadly to include many movements (including Neo-Nazis), but particular has always included Nazi Germany as a prime example and source of study. The fact that fascism isn’t necessarily Nazism, should not blind us to the fact that Nazism was fascism. Ofcourse there are differences between Italian Fascism and Nazi Germany, esp. noted are the latter's racialized theories. Infact it’s a study of the differences and similarities of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that inform an understanding of fascism, and that has resulted in the modern consensus of the generic use of the term as fitting for both. Any study of fascism involves an understanding of the Italian and German fascist parties, their movements and regimes in historical and comparative perspective, identifying and analyzing the key political institutions and groups that supported Fascist and Nazi rule in the movement/party and regime phases, enumerating the key structural and ideological mechanisms which sustained Fascism and Nazism in gaining and maintaining power, and assess the theoretical debates concerning the development a heuristically sound and analytically useful concept of generic 'fascism'.
For details see S. G. Payne: A History of Fascism 1914-1945 UCL Press (1995). R. Griffin: The Nature of Fascism Routledge (1993).
To reflect this broader use of the definition, and it's acceptance in a modern understanding of the term, simply refer to any other encyclopedia or discussion about WW2 or Nazi Germany. This will show just how in a minority this view is (that Nazism is not a form of fascism). For example, take a look at Encarta’s entry on Germany’s national socialism, which I also note does not use that politically loaded word, "totalitarianism," that is best left to right-wing ideologues. It simply says in plain non-emotional language, “…the government created an authoritarian state, known as the Third Reich.” See:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/Fascism.html Infact let me quote it:
"The only fascist movement outside Italy that came to power in peacetime was Germany’s National Socialist German Workers Party—the Nazis. The core of the National Socialist program was an ideology and a policy of war against Germany's supposed moral and racial decay and a struggle to begin the country’s rebirth. This theme of struggle and renewal dominates the many ideological statements of Nazism, including Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (1925, My Struggle, 1939), speeches by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will, 1935).
All of the Nazi government’s actions served this dual purpose of destroying the supposed sickness of the old Germany and creating a healthy new society. The government abolished democratic freedoms and institutions because they were seen as causing national divisions. In their place the government created an authoritarian state, known as the Third Reich, that would serve as the core of the new society. The Nazis promoted German culture, celebrated athleticism and youth, and tried to ensure that all Germans conformed physically and mentally to an Aryan ideal. But in order to achieve these goals, the Nazi regime repressed supposedly degenerate books and paintings, sterilized physically and mentally disabled people, and enslaved and murdered millions of people who were considered enemies of the Reich or "subhuman." This combination of renewal and destruction was symbolized by the pervasive emblem of Nazism, the swastika—a cross with four arms broken at right angles. German propaganda identified the swastika with the rising sun and with rebirth because the bars of the symbol suggest perpetual rotation. To its countless victims, however, the swastika came to signify cruelty, death, and terror."
The same is true if you look up WW2: “Adolf Hitler, the Führer (“leader”) of the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party, preached a racist brand of fascism.” [2]
Again, there are differences, no one disputes that. Besides the racialist differences in emphasis, Italian Fascism produced a less effective, less repressive, and, hence was less socially destructive. The Italian army never enjoyed the unique position nor gained the reputation for efficiency that the German army has. Add to these social differences the industrial capacity of the German state, the effectiveness of its bureaucracy, and the sense of national frustration over defeat in the world war, and the differences in the real power and the public attitudes existing in both countries and we account for much of the differences notwithstanding the same political programme that is best described as fascism.
I also want to say that its no accident that those who are against a generic broader use of fascism also embrace the theory of totalitarianism, or that these advocates (esp. Wyss) invoke comparisons with authoritarian “communist states. I think this betrays a lack of understanding of fascism, and at best represents a minority conservative view. The commonalities can only be seen on a very superficial level that ignores the opposite historical intellectual foundations for the respective movements.
Fascism was a reaction to the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution. Best known for crystallizing these in modern theories being Rousseau, challenging social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. These enlightenment intellectual conceptions produced modern liberalism, democracy, Marxism, socialism. That is why fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, share varying degrees, the same hallmarks (I need not list them here, again).
'Fascism' is derived from the Latin fasces, which means a bundle of rods with a projecting axe – the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was first used by an Italian anti-socialist militia, the Fascio di Combattrimento, in 1919, and was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922.
The ideological basis of the movement was rabid anti-Communism and anti-liberalism. Communists were seen as unpatriotic traitors and liberals as weak meddlers. Fascists praised the strong bellicose leader, exalted in dreams of national glory and had a nostalgic vision of the past. Although some elements had anti-capitalist prejudices, especially focusing on decadent rich people, the ideology was not opposed to private property, and is compatible with capitalism, albeit of the more state variety. But, all this can be glossed over by avoing the fascist label and instead using "totalitarian," pushing the fringe POV that its on part with the authoritarian Communist regimes. Giovanni33 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
In short, and to paraphrase Wyss:
"the reluctance of some to condiser the fascist aspects of Nazism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."
I would also ask Wyss - who has said that there are not similarities in Nazi totalitarianism and Soviet totalitarianism. Hence, where is the "misleading PoV"?
Here's what Britannica has to say:
"Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and Spain (1939–75)—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco—were portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos."
So Wikipedia is obviously out of line with Britannica and Encarta.
Those who reject the description of Hitler as a fascist (or even "fascistic") have not demonstrated that their view has credence in reputable scholarly circles. There is still a failure to show how the "preferred" dicdef cited above does not fit Hitler.
There is not even a majority here who deny the fascist features of Hitler's ideology.
To use the argument that the term is now pejorative is unacceptable, in my opinion, for two reasons: 1. we are talking about the historical Hitler here 2. since when does an NPOV disclude terms which some may see as "pejorative" when they can be demonstrated to be wholly pertinent? Wyss in particular seems to have set herself up as a protector of Hitler from terms which some may see as uncomplimentary.
To repeat Giovanni's comment - to talk about Hitler without any reference to fascism (not even a single word!) is inexcusable. Camillus (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put, Camillus. That Nazism is a form of fascism is not in dispute in the mainstream, as is clearly reflected by other mainstream sources of reference. The fringe view that restricts the term to only its creator (Mussolini) does in effect obscure an understanding of fascism; the label of totalitarnism serves the same POV function. That fascism is seen as negative reflects the POV of most people, as does the very association of Hitler--even his name. Does that mean we can not use his name when its called for by facts and modern scholarly consensus? Nazi is also used as a pajorative smear word in the same fashion. Does that mean we can't call the real thing, Hitler, a Nazi? We can begin to see the absurdity of Wyss's logic in her objections to calling the Nazi regime fascist. I think we should rely on the mainstream scholarly understading here. Wyss is best off pushing her POV for inclusion in other articles such as ideologies of fascism, which do have space for such fringe views. Giovanni33 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to endorse everything that Giovanni says, and just repeat for emphasis that all generic studies of fascism are essentially based around discerning the common elements between Nazism and Italian Fascism, and that, thus, Nazism is almost definitionally defined as a "fascist" movement, and the Third Reich as a "fascist" state. Obviously, the term fascist has been overwhelmingly overused. But, other than those who say that, because of this, we should only use the term to refer to Fascist Italy (who are, I think, in the minority), I have never until now heard anyone dispute that Nazism should be seen as fascist. In terms of totalitarianism, I would just like to note that I can't think of a single historian of Nazi Germany who has found the totalitarian paradigm particularly useful for discussing the Nazi state - my understanding of the consensus is that most historians of Germany feel that the term obscures the essential dissimilarity between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. The term has always been one which has mostly been used as a way to understand the Soviet Union. As such, it seems inappropriate to use a term which actual scholars of Hitler would not use in the intro to his article. john k 16:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you John K for your help. I agree with everything you have said so far on this question as well. An acceptable solution for Wyss and Str1977, might be something to the effect stating it's described as both fascist, and also by some as totalitarian, although I'd like the text to reflect the preference of the former term over the latter term, if it must be included at all. This could get awkward and wordy. How about just "established an authoritarian regime that most have characterized as fascist." This would be perfectly acceptable to me. The fact that some use the totalitarian term could be worked in later in the article, if it's also properly qualified in language as a Pov. Giovanni33 10:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about the intro, which, with all due respect to these editors and their obvious good faith, should not be accidently spun into PoV by this exagerated and somewhat mistaken argument. Wyss 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
What is mistaken about this argument, Wyss? Giovanni33 10:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, your arguments and claims are clearly mistaken and not respective of fact and consensus. Your insinuations of POV, exageration, and mistake have no basis. -- 68.6.73.60 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wyss, I don't understand what you're saying here. At any rate, as fascism is somewhat tangential to an article on Hitler personally, I'm willing to have it not be in the intro, so long as totalitarian is not in there as well. Alternately, perhaps we could say that he "established an authoritarian regime which has alternately been described as fascist or totalitarian," or something along those lines - a bit weaselly, but undoubtedly true and not asserting opinion as fact. john k 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
John, that might be a possible solution. Either nothing (though I think it's lacking something without the regime sentence, or give both views, since "authoritarian" is too weak on its own. Str1977 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying, "established an authoritarian regime that most have characterized as fascist." Would be acceptable to me. Giovanni33 10:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with saying AH established an authoritarian regime in the intro, by the bye. Wyss 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think discussing the terms fascism and totalitarian as they relate historically to AH, along with mentions of the controversies, would be helpful in the main text of the article (I said this below a couple of min. ago but wanted to respond here too). Wyss 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to this in the main text, although stating the nature of his regime in the intro is important to me.64.121.40.153 10:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I am only in favour of saying in the intro that AH established an authoritarian regime, if this is followed up by a note along the lines of John K, that is "has been described as fascist or totalitarian". Authoritarian is to weak on its own. Str1977 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree if you leave out the totalitarian part. :) Giovanni33 10:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I would reluctantly be ok with that but much prefer leaving all these (forgive me) loaded terms out of the intro. Wyss 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Its not loaded when its accurate, and should be perefectly acceptable with language reflecting their use in acaemia with respect to the Nazi regime. Giovanni33 10:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the use of so-called "loaded words" is fine so long as they are not given as fact by the narrative voice of wikipedia. I'm going to repropose this down below, since it was probably easily missed. john k 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes

"Hitler's racial policies had culminated in deaths of about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust."

I've changed it to: "Hitler's racial policies had culminated in a genocide now known as the Holocaust."

This number of "six million" is disputed. I also want to remove the link to YadVashem because it considered a propaganda website. (at least to me).

Leave your comments here. --Haham hanuka 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That someone considers something to be "a propaganda website" is not reason to remove a link to it. Nor is the fact that some dispute "six million" a reason to remove that. There are also people who dispute that man landed on the moon, but deletion of such claims is not thereby warranted. -- 68.6.73.60 02:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Haham, I reverted it exactly because it is not a myth but a fairly accurate number. Str1977 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, who can it be a "fairly accurate number" if even YadVashem admiting that the real number was smaller? In Hitler's entery on columbia encyclopedia [3] even the words "Holocaust" or "genocide" are not written there (in the whole article).
"As the tide of war turned against Hitler, his mass extermination of the Jews, overseen by Adolf :Eichmann, was accelerated, and he gave increasing power to Heinrich Himmler and the dread secret :police, the Gestapo and SS (Schutzstaffel)." --Haham hanuka 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This is irrelevant cherry picking -- one can always find a page that doesn't say something. OTOH, the Holocaust article at the same site states " name given to the period of persecution and extermination of European Jews by Nazi Germany ... By the end of the war 6 million Jews had been systematically murdered....". -- 68.6.73.60 02:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)