From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was deleted and then undeleted because it is evidence for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER. Please do not delete until that has been resolved.

An encyclopedia is a place for firmed knowledge, not for extra-ordinary hypothesises.

Contents 1 Researcher Notes 1.1 Hitler & Mussolini 1.2 France being the birth place of National Socialism 1.3 Nazism as counterpart to French Revolution 1.4 Dictionary of the History of Ideas (1973) 1.5 Proudhon 1.6 Nationalism 2 Comments 3 Reasons 4 Rubbish 5 Hilarious 6 Communist Ideology 7 [1] 7.1 personal pedigree 7.2 Request to WHEELER

[edit] Researcher Notes

[edit] Hitler & Mussolini

• Hitler:
  • Did not create the party. The DAP was there before Hitler. Jung had Hitler use the name of the Austrian party which borrowed it from the CZECH party.
  • Did not create the concept. Jung brought the 25-point program to Munich.
  • Did not create the ideology. Jung points to two other people. Dr. Fedor was already there when Hitler came around.
• Mussolini
  • Did not create the term Fascism: "It was first used in this sense in the 1890's by groups of revolutionary socialists in Sicily". Noel O'Sullivan, Fascism, pg 207.
  • Did not create the original party: "The USM, the Parma Labor Chamber, and a number of revolutionary syndicalists now left the USI and at the beginning of October 1914 founded the Fascio rvoluzionario d'azione internazionalista. At that period, Mussolini joined the movement, deciding to abandon the neutralist position of the PSI." Zeev Sternhell, The Birth of Fascist Ideology, pg 140.
  • Did not create the ideology: It is basically Georges Sorel who advanced the thought of Proudhon The Birth of Fascist Ideology by Zeev Sternhell.

[edit] France being the birth place of National Socialism

• • "As nature abhors a vacuum, history abhors changes without origins, whether immediate or remote. Fascism did not spring fully grown from the chin of Mussolini. It had historic origins, not so much in Italy itself as in France, which since the French Revolution has furnished many revolutionary patterns to Latin Europe".
    — Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism, J. Salwyn Schapiro, pg 322.
  • "Moreover, France was the birthplace of Sorelian revolutionary revisionism, the second elementary component of (Italian)fascism."
    —Birth of Fascist Ideology, Zeev Sternhell, pg 4.
  • "Marinetti and D'Annunzio often wrote in French and participated in the intellectual life of the French Capitol".
    —Birth of Fascist Ideology, pg 29
  • "The fascist synthesis was already clearly expressed around 1910-1912 in publications like La Lupa in Italy and the Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon in France. After the first manifestations of the Fascist synthesis in France, the war was needed ...(to transform it into political force)".
    —Birth of Fascist Ideology, pg 31.
  • "The announcement of the coming together of the syndicalists and nationalists in France aroused enthusiasm in Italian revolutionary-syndicalist circles; Lanzillo, in his apologetic biography of Sorel, Orano in La lupa, and the review Pagine libere, which in its December 1910 issue spoke of the "Sorel phenomenon", showed appreciation of the significance of the socialist-nationalist synthesis coming into being in France."
    —Birth of Fascist Ideology, Zeev Sternhell, pg 96.
  • Doctrine of Fascism points to all French men as the sources and inspiration of Italian Fascism.
    — Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini

[edit] Nazism as counterpart to French Revolution

• • "Hitler and Mussolini are despots belonging to the age of democracy....Dictatorship of the nazi type is a late cancer which has blossomed on the soil of the French Revolution."
    — Jules Romains, Les Hommes de bonne volonté.
  • The Nazi Revolution was "the exact counterpart of the French Revolution".
    —Adolf Hitler as quoted by Herman Rauschning
  • "The emergence of nationalist doctrine in Europe, for example, occurred at a time when western industrialization was still in its infancy. It occured, more precisely, in response to the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, and not in response to industrialization."
    —Fascism, Noel O'Sullivan, J.M.Dent&Sons, London, l983, pg 21.
  • "It lies, more especially, in the doctrine of popular sovereignty enunciated by the French revolutionaries in 1789, in the declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. It was with this Declaration that the new activist style first acquired practical significance in the European World. "The principle of sovereignty", the Declaration announced, "resides essentially in the Nation; no body of men, no individual, can exercise authority that does not emmanate from it."
    —O'Sullivan, Fascism, pg 45-46.
  • ""By sending us as deputies here," Danton announced to the Convention of 1792, "the French nation has brought into being a grand committee for the general insurrection of the peoples." It is this vision - a vision of "the general insurrection of the peoples" - which continues to inspire the activist style of politics. A century and a half later, a euphoric French fascist, Robert Brasillach, contemplated the spread of the activist flame first lit in 1789 and indicated how little it had to do with either individual liberty or international peace."
    —O'Sullivan, Fascism, pg 47.
  • "Robespierre rapidly concluded that liberty is not only compatible with terror, but actually requires it. (Robespierre:)""The mainspring of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is evil; terror, without which virtue is helpless."
    • "Rousseau's dream of liberating the suffering masses by rallying them to the activist cause, they, had rapidly turned out to be a bloody and ruthless business than its progenitor had foreseen."
      —O'Sullivan, Fascism, pg 67.
  • "The explanation lies in the tradition of revolution as a method of progress, established by the French Revolution.
    —Prof. Schapiro, Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism, pg 241.

[edit] Dictionary of the History of Ideas (1973)

• Under the "Nationalism" article by Hans Kohn
  • "Thus communism has adapted itself to nationalism".
  • "Nationalism and socialism are no longer, as they were around 1900, in opposition to each other."
  • Jean Jacques Rousseau is "father" of political nationalism.
  • Johann Gottfried von Herder was the father of romantic nationalism.
• Under the "Totalitarian" article by Karl Dietrick Bracher
  • Though the beginning of the term and concept is rare and vague, Robespierre coined the term "total war". Mussolini futhered the term in usage.

(They both point to France as the beginnings.)

Not as the beginnings of Nazism. Again, you take something which is true such as Rousseau's influence on nationalism and read into it something that is not true - that Rousseau is the "father" of Nazism. Nor is Bracher saying that Robespierre is the "father" of fascism. Why not try to read what is actually there instead of contort it to fit your own assumptions?AndyL 15:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The use of Nationalism as a tool of revolution was forged in Rousseau. Erik von Kuehnelt has written on this. This is not new. What you want to do is censor any scholarship from conservative ranks. Hitler was not the first to use nationalism as a revolutionary tool.WHEELER 14:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proudhon

 Proudhon Concepts         Proudhon        Hitler         Mussolini
wanted dictatorship          X               X                X
One Party rule               X               X                X
Attacked the Marxists        X               X                X
Attacked Democracy           X               X                X
  "  Parlimentarianism       X               X                X
Attacked Money Jews          X               X                O
Attacked Interest capital    X               X                X
Protect Private Property     X               X                X
Protect All Classes          X               X                X
Protect Middle Class         X               X                X
Protect Competition          X               X                X
(In the Marketplace)
Place of Woman in Home       X               X                ?
Promotion of War             X               X                X
Protection of Family         X               X                X
Corporative system           X               X                X
New Social Order             X               X                X
Horror of Cosmopolitanism    X               X                O
Opposed Strikes of Workers   X               X                X

Because he attacked Marxism, Was Proudhon a Rightist? Because he attacked democracy, was Proudhon a Rightist? The similarities between the three is unbelievable. Proudhon is a forerunner of Nazism and Fascism. Proudhon had a deep influence on Italian Fascism. Did Dexler and Feder get their stuff from Proudhon? It was Feder who attracted Hitler to the DAP.

[edit] Nationalism

• In 1789, Nationalism was a revolutionary tool of the French revolution.
• When revolutionary socialism, i.e. Marxism appeared, in 1848, Nationalism became a rallying cry for the conservatives and reactionaries and became a sign of the right.
• But under the Habsburg monarchy, nationalism reappeared as a revolutionary force to dismantle and breakaway from the Dual monarchy in 1898. Nationalism was a tool of revolution therefore it became leftist in character and method.
  • Confusion reigns because of the subtle shifts in the meaning and no one picked up on it because no one knows the whole general history of national socialism because we only concentrate on the most profound aspect of it.
  • Nationalism swung back and forth like a pendulum.
  • If it swang one way, it could also swing back. And no one recognizes this.

[edit] Comments

WHEELER, your theories that National Socialism orginated with the French Revolution are not considered "mainstream" in academic circles and shouldn't be in the article. If this is yet another attempt by you to insert your POV that Nazism is a left-wing ideology that has nothing to do with reaction and is somehow the product of Enlightenment and liberal thinking then I really think you should write an argumentative essay and put it someplace other than Wikipedia. In fact, I would say if Nazism has something in common with any 19th century movement it would be Romanticism and Neo-classicism (the Nazis sure loved Plato after all and practically worshipped ancient Greece). AndyL 06:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, why do you describe fascism as a form of "national socialism" when it was not? Just because "national socialism" is a form of fascism does not mean the opposite is true. AndyL 09:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National Socialism is an ideology. Hitler never coined the term nor created the concept. Neither did Mussolini. AndyL is confusing the subject because Nazism is so overwhelming in people's minds. There was a French party called the "National Socialist Party" before Hitler was ever around. National socialism should stand by itself just Like Marxism does. Does marxism talk about solely what happened in Russia. Is Marxism defined by the Russian esperience? Are the rules being applied the same? We have an article about Marxism and another about Russian communism. They are two seperate articles. Why are the rules different for national socialism?????WHEELER 14:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mussolini never described himself as a "national socialist". And what does Michael Barres mean when he says "national socialism"? Are you sure he's talking about the same concept as the national socialism of Hitler? Trotsky used the term "national socialist" in the 1920s to describe Stalin's theory of socialism in one country but he certainly didn't mean it as analogous to Nazism. Phrases mean different things at different times in different contexts. Is it possible you are cherry picking and citing usages of the term "national socialist" that refer to completely different things?AndyL 14:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We have an article about Marxism and another about Russian communism. They are two seperate articles. Why are the rules different for national socialism????

WHEELER go to an encyclopedia, look up "national socialism" and see what it says and then you'll understand why we don't have separate articles on National Socialism and Nazism. Then go ask the editors of those encyclopedias why they don't have separate araticles on the "two subjects". AndyL 14:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just like those encyclopadia do not have the correct definition of a Republic. No one does. There is not a single textbook in America with the Classic definition of a republic. But there is one now on this website. American Universities do not teach about the classic definition. Because they are there to propagandize.

Give this time Andy Please, other people will coborate and work on this. It took six months on the Classic Definiton of a Republic. This will also grow. And I have to do research on this. There is needed information here. Prof Schapiro has no word for nazism he uses the term fascism for nazism. I am just following this man's lead and von Kuehelt's lead.WHEELER 14:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• "As nature abhors a vacuum, history abhors changes without origins, whether immediate or remote. Fascism did not spring fully grown from the chin of Mussolini".
  — Prof Schapiro, Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism, pg 322WHEELER 14:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you asked me why not separate articles on Nazism and National Socialism, I respond by saying look at an encyclopedia and see if there are separate articles and you ignore my answer. And I think you should stop focussing on the two academics who happen to agree with you. This is not a Sternhall-Shapiro encyclopedia. If you're serious you'll also look at the broader scope of academic writing even those with whom you disagree. You don't get anywhere with tunnel vision looking only for people you'll agree withAndyL 23:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prof Schapiro, Prof. Sternhell, Prof. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and now, Prof Noel O'Sullivan, Senior Lecturer in Politics University of Hull, Fascism pg 40, "Thus extreme nationalism, for example, is a characteristic of reactionary groups like the Action Francaise, which was in no sense a fascist movement. He quotes H. W. Schneider, Making the Fascist State ch 1. pp 13-14.

4 professors! That's not enough?WHEELER 14:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Andy what is that "Early National Socialism" Article. Shouldn't it be Austrian National Socialism. Can we have some coordination here? What are you doing with that Early National Socialism Site? You disbar me from using National Socialism and you start a site already with Early National Socialism with my work in it. I don't think you are playing fair at all. That site needs to be renamed.WHEELER 21:56, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Nazi article should not be a spin off article. The Early National Socialism/draft should be renamed solely "National Socialism" and that is where the spin off comes. I don't think you are playing fair and you are abusing your place. I don't appreciate you taking my material, putting it in another article, redirecting the original post, then taking my material again and making a site with it. What's going on?WHEELER 22:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

""Thus extreme nationalism, for example, is a characteristic of reactionary groups like the Action Francaise, which was in no sense a fascist movement. He quotes H. W. Schneider, Making the Fascist State ch 1. pp 13-14.

WHEELER, all that quotation says is that the Action Francaise is not fascist according to the author. He's *not* saying that extreme nationalism is not a characteristic of fascism. You're reading something in that he simply didn't say which does not say much for your skills in reading or compiling information. You start with a fixed notion and try to force things to fit your preconceptions. This means that, quite often, you take something a scholar has written and read it as meaning something completely different. That's a problem with your habit of puttling quotes out of context without understanding the broader point being made.

As for the stuff of the non-draft page, that's about the only part of your article which is not POV. Nothing else I can see in your article belongs in wikipedia. If you want me to move it to Austrian National Socialism I'll do that. I made that suggestion originally with your article and you rejected it, remember?AndyL 07:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons

1. Andy will not let this stand alone as "National Socialism". It existed before Hilter and Mussolini.
2. It is an Ideology just like Marxism is.
3. Right now, Austrian National socialism is linked from the Nazism page but it should be started from the "National Socialist" page.
4. Andy never knew any of this information. Yet, he is an "authority" somehow.
5. Andy stole my work. He first deleted the whole page. Then He took work of mine placed in the Nazism section and then put National Socialism as a redirect. Then he renamed the article "Early National Socialism/draft" while he went ahead and did made an article all by himself called "Early National Socialism".
6. Andy's comment that National Socialism is not in any encyclopedia, is reason for not having an article. Well most of the sites I have started never had an encyclopedia entry either. His argument doesn't hold water.
7. What doesn't agree with Andy, he deletes. He doesn't check my references. He deleted my work and then moved 3/4 of it into his Nazism article.
8. National Socialism is a *GENUS* and *Nazism* and *Fascism* are *SPECIES* of national Socialism.
9. What is National Socialism should be asked by the article "National Socialism".WHEELER 14:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10. He tells me all Pov. Well, Please check reference section. He doesn't use any references but I do. he tells me I am POV. Well, my information comes from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, from Prof Schapiro, Prof. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Prof. Sternhell, Prof. O'Sullivan and from Other books. I am not making any of this up. I read I put up.WHEELER 14:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
11. To the Claim that this is Original Research. I point to the Classic definition of republic. I was accused of this and of writing a paper. I had the quotes to back me up. This definition is not taught anywhere or in any textbook. No college or school teaches this because America looks one way and it is all slanted. But it is the truth and so it stands. [National Socialism] needs to stand by itself. All I am doing is *combining* what some have written because just like in the republic article, America academia wants to convenantly overlook certain things.WHEELER 14:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
12. The National Socialist Program and the Fascist Manifesto/1919 are proof positive of the mixture of socialism with nationalism. These documents show the FACT of socialism in both. How they got there before Mussolini and Hitler is the discussion and parameters of this article.

[edit] Rubbish

This article is pure bollocks and needs substantial revision if it is to be kept at all. National Socialism, even in it's prior versions, has little or nothing to do with Nazism and Fascism: both Mussolini and Hitler themselves acknowledged their move to the Right and stated that their policies had nothing to do with Socialism; they were also strongly anti-Communist and sent hordes of (known or accused) Communists to the death camps. The collusion of Nazism/ Fascism with Socialism is the dominion of simple minded anti-"Red" historians and inane right-wingers who want to blame as much as possible of the 20th century's massacres on the Left. -- Simonides 21:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Simonides, Would you like a little Nazi quote to refute yourself:

Josef Pfitzner, a Sudetenland German Nazi author, wrote that "the synthesis of the two great dynamic powers of the century, of the socialist and national idea, had been perfected in the German borderlands which thus were far ahead of their motherland." (2)WHEELER 21:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gee if he says it it must be true. WHEELER, you have to stop relying on quotations as *facts*.AndyL 22:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist on a section on Austrian National Socialism when you also insisted I create a separate article on that subject. Please try to avoid redundancy. Also, why a section on Italian Fascism when there is already a lengthy fascism article. It looks to me like you're using this as a vehicle to promote your own POV after it has been rejected from other articles. AndyL 22:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Mr." Wheeler, would Hitler be good enough for you? Look at this: Myth: Hitler was a leftist. Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Here are selections:

• "The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
• "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
• "When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes."
• "The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism?"
• "In the years 1913 and 1914, I? expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
• "Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."
• "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

As Andy also says, quotes mean nothing when they are not backed up by facts, just as quoting the White House's claim that it fights for freedom and democracy tell us nothing about how much it abuses both principles. There is also ample analysis on the page - read it. -- Simonides 22:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also see: What Fascism Is & Isn't

In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the private sector after returning them to profitability such as the Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.

In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout 1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht, the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been prosperous even during the depression.

Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."

More at the linked page. -- Simonides 22:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the Nazi party told them what to do with it and what to produce and how much.WHEELER 00:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And that made them Socialist? Instead of totalitarian? -- Simonides 00:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A rightist Mr. Simonides is a Monarchist. Hitler was not a monarchist and never was on the right.WHEELER 00:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Wheeler, your replies are increasingly bizzare. -- Simonides 00:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hilarious

Christ, I just began reading the article more closely in order to edit it. It's hilarious - someone should keep this under "Deleted Nonsense." -- Simonides 22:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is all sorts of people here that is not mentioned anywhere else.WHEELER 22:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would appreciate you not vandalizing this place, This is material that none of you cover. It is part of the Historical record. Leave it alone. If there is factual proof of what I say, leave it alone, If I made a mistake, please correct with references.WHEELER 22:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is vandalizing it; I haven't even started editing it. This whole article has no credible basis in fact, history or theory, and you haven't responded to any of my charges above. I will be requesting a vote for deletion; Wikipedia is not a place for POV theories - you can use your personal non-Wiki homepage for that. -- Simonides 22:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zeev Steernhell is quite a proficient historian. I think he out does you. and besides you are not following procedures at all. It is listed at Wikipedia:Peer Review and at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I have followed procedure. You have not.WHEELER 23:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Ideology

"Communist ideology is widely studied in order to obtain insights into communist behavior; it is generally considered essential to our understanding of communism as a general system of social and political organization. There is no reason why an identical method should not be applied to FASCISM." Zeev Sternhell.

Communism just like fascism does not follow ideology when practicality comes in. "...and yet no one could pretend to discern in the October Revolution or in the seizure of power by other communist parties a meticulous putting into practice of the ideas propounded by Marx or Lenin or any of their disciples Zeev Sternhell

Consistency is the criterion of Truth. Apply the same rules of communism to fascism. This is accademic professionalism.WHEELER 00:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

None of those quotes can be construed to mean that Communism led to, is responsible for, or is identical with Fascism. -- Simonides 00:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did Stalin follow Communist Doctrine? Was he still a "Communist"?WHEELER 00:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is the point you're trying to make? That Hitler did not follow Nazi ideology and was thus not a Nazi? -- Simonides 00:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that Stalin did not follow the ideology of Marx, that doesn't stop people from calling him a marxist at the head of a marxist state. Both Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler did things for practicality reasons against their ideology. Dictators are not tied down to an ideology. It is what is used to gain adherents. Hitler did many things that were for practical reasons, not for ideology. He was above all this. That is what makes this confusing but Hitler did not stop becoming a National Socialist.WHEELER 13:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] [1]

Read this, Simonides. Sam [Spade] 03:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER is conflating pre-existing parties or movements called "national socialists" with Nazism and fascism when, in fact, all that is in common among these groups is the name "national socialist". Prior to the Nazis most people or groups who used the term "national socialist" or described themselves as "national socialists" were referring to concepts completely different from Hitlerism. This may be an argument for a "national socialist" disambiguation page but the article itself is quite useless. It is in parts redundant of other articles and in other parts completly POV and idiosyncratic. The part of Italian fascism is an attempt to convey opinions WHEELER couldn't get into the fascism article and the parts on German National Socialism that are not POV belong in the article on the Nazi Party. There is an Austrian National Socialism article (which WHEELER both suggested and attacked) which makes that part of the article unnecessary AndyL 07:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are judging the National Socialism through American Eyes and perceptions of socialism. National Socialism is a *phenomena* of Europe of those who rejected international socialism. What you also fail to take into account is that Proudhon, a socialist and founder of "anarchism", stated that he wanted to KEEP PRIVATE PROPERTY. He was against speculation of property, He was also against financiers. He wanted to keep business competition alive. This is the thought of Proudhon and of National Socialism. National Socialism absorbed the thought of Proudhon. Americans are judging European National Socialism of the 1930's with modern American prejudices and concepts. You have to look at it through THEIR eyes not yours.WHEELER 14:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

You are judging the National Socialism through American Eyes and perceptions of socialism.

You really have a lot of nerve making assumptions like that but as making false assumptions seems to be your motif I shouldn't be surprised. I'm NOT an American. first of all. Secondly, my family has lived under fascism, Nazism, Communism and social democracy. Perhaps, as a result, I'm better able to tell the difference between these systems than you are. AndyL 17:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

oh, for crissakes. National Socialism is more than just Nazi's and anti-semitism. If we are to properly understand it we need to look at it from as impartial an angle as possible. Economics is perhaps the most handy this way to do this, and general sociology is another. The reality IMO is that all forms of totalitarianism share certain key factors, and yet are seperated by the economics. Just because something is controvercial doesn't mean we can't rationally analyze its historical roots! Sam [Spade] 18:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I always find it amazing that some people will repeat the same misinformation no matter how much fact and argumentation weighs to the contrary. I already responded to the garbage link posted above here:

(Sam linked) "to a right-wing wacko who doesn't known the first thing about Socialism and claims Hitler was Socialist on the basis of a single instance where he claimed to be so. Guess what - reading for comprehension and citing context helps, which your author clearly doesn't understand. That opening line of the speech was made at a May Day celebration and was a deliberate parody of Lenin. Maybe you should look up the relevant pages in the book quoted."

The votes for deletion are in the majority so I'm not sure I should expend any more time on this silly argument. But to iron out some of the logical fallacies above - which Andy has already done so well - 1) National Socialism and Nazism are now synonymous in English because the previous so-called National Socialist parties have nothing in common with it; Nazism has nothing but arbitrary similarities with Socialism, if at all (one could find comparable similarities with Democracy and Capitalism, and it would still prove nothing); abundant evidence has been posted before, but if you choose to shut your eyes to it (your choice), simply say so and don't continue arguing pointlessly; 2) if you want to talk about totalitarianism, you're welcome to - but Socialism is not totalitarianism, and there has been no such thing as a totalitarian government that could be called Socialist; 3) talking about the roots/ origins of Nazism is different from saying Nazism existed before. -- Simonides 18:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, absurdly, writes in this article as if Czech Natonal Socialism had any relationship whatsoever with German Nazism, even suggesting an influience when, in fact, Benes was deposed by the Nazis and went to London to form a provisional government in exile during the war. WHEELER's article not only misses this major distinction between the two, it implies that the two are part of the same movement when, in fact, the fact that they have similar names is entirely coincidental. WHEELER's article is little more than misinformation. Even Sam who seems more interested in scoring ideological points than ensuring accuracy should see that. [2] Even more absurdly, WHEELER writes as if the Czech National Socialist Party was a wing of Austrian National Socialism when, in fact, it broke off from the Czech Social Democratic Party, the reason it was "national" socialist was because the Czech lands were part of the Austrian Hungarian empire at the time which Czechs wanted independence from. WHEELER's confusion is like arguing that Scottish nationalism is a branch of British nationalism or that Quebecois nationalism is a branch of Canadian natioanlism when, in fact, they are opposing and conflicting concepts. Either WHEELER's sources are bad or he doesn't understand what he's reading and is simply cherry picking things out of context that seem to fit his preconceptions. User:AndyL 20:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After the break up of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, that national socialism divided into Austrian National Socialism and Czech National Socialism. This Czech party was the first to carry the phrase "National Socialism" in a political party name in European history.

This is simply wrong. The Austro Hungarian Empire broke up in 1918/1919. The Czech National Socialist Party was formed twenty years earlier in 1898. "Austrian National Socialism" and "Czech National Socialism" actually have nothing to do with each other. AndyL 20:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yes they borrowed the term "National Socialist" from the CZECHS.WHEELER 15:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What this all amounts to is censorship from you because you don't like my sources. Prof Schapiro quotes from Nazis. Prof Sternhell quotes from Fascists and you tell me that "There is no American consensus". American consensus outways actual fascists and nazis. If this is true, you are unreal to behold.WHEELER 15:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] personal pedigree

And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because your relatives suffered under the Holocaust.

The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the island of Crete. My uncle, Sirodakis, was a great underground fighter. It was my island that lead a ferocious resistance to the Nazis. It was my co-religionists, Catholic priests that went to the camps as well. And it was Jewish communists that destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia. Many a Christian died in Jewish concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single Jew. So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my face.WHEELER 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is an example of how you read what you want to read rather than what is acually there. This is what I actually said:

You really have a lot of nerve making assumptions like that but as making false assumptions seems to be your motif I shouldn't be surprised. I'm NOT an American. first of all. Secondly, my family has lived under fascism, Nazism, Communism and social democracy. Perhaps, as a result, I'm better able to tell the difference between these systems than you are.

Where in that paragraph do said either that I am Jewish or that my relatives suffered in the Holocaust?AndyL 16:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this particular thread should be dropped. Sam [Spade] 16:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think WHEELER should apologise for making anti-Semitic comments? Don't you think WHEELER's comments have violated the bounds of etiquette and civility? AndyL 16:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I would ad that it was maybe the 12th such violation on this page, and the first by him. I also think it was based on miscommunication/misunderstanding. Sam [Spade] 16:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand Sam Spade's comment -- what were the other twelve examples? This is the first and only example of a contributor's anti-semitism on this page as far as I can etll. I do not understand how it is based on misunderstanding or miscommunication either. There is no doubt that the Nazis put non-Jews in concentration camps; no Jew to my knowledge would contest that, and I know of no instance of any wikipedian ever contesting that. Out of no where, WHEELER brings up the experience of his uncle -- something which has no bearing whatsoever on this article. remember, Talk pages exist to discuss ways to improve articles. But then WHEELER goes on to claim that Jewish communists destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church and that many Christians died in Jewish concentration camps? Not only does this have nothing to do with the article, it is simple, base anti-semitism. I think WHEELER should be banned for it, personally. At the very least it calls for a profound and sincere apology. Slrubenstein 17:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was refering to wikiquette/wikipedia:civility violations. Calls for banning are a personal attack, BTW. Sam [Spade] 17:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anything you disagree with Slrubenstein you want to label Anti-semetic. Andy said many times that his relatives suffered in the holocaust and that makes him an authority. No it doesn't.WHEELER 17:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Many times"? Please cite examples. Please give me exact quotations. You insist on backing everything up so back up this claim. AndyL 22:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is alright to be anti-Catholic and smear others but the communist camps in Siberia started by the Bolshevists is an Historical fact.WHEELER 17:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First, AndyL has authority because he has done research and presents his research in a reasonable way. Where on this page has AndyL claimed that he was right because relatives of his suffered in the Holocause? Second, I do not label as anti-Semitic anything I disagree with. You are lying, or hysterical, because your claim simply has no foundation. Third, the reason I call you anti-semitic is because you use "Jewish" as a slur, and engage in anti-Semitic slurs such as identifying Jews as communists and claiming that Jews built or maintained concentration camps for killing Christians. The first is a slur Nazis often relied on; the second is a form of the medieval blood libel. Finally, Sam Spade: no, calling for someone to be banned is not a "personal attack." Slrubenstein

Your right, I appologize. Its a Wikipedia:Civility violation. Sam [Spade] 18:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You are however not correct if you mean that calls for banning are always or necessarily civility violations. You are correct that they may be. However, banning is also a way to remedy incivility. In this case, I believe that WHEELER has been incivil for a long time, and has finally crossed a line; my call to ban is a response to his incivility. Slrubenstein

as I said elsewhere, if you feel you have a legitimate case I suggest you initiate the appropriate process. Mentioning it here serves little purpose IMO. Sam [Spade] 22:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request to WHEELER

WHEELER, I ask you to retract your anti-Semitic attack on me above. AndyL 03:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't an "anti-Semitic attack" on you. He suggested that commies were all Jews. The truth is a significant amount of Jews were involved in revolution in Russia (in all directions, and in all stages along the way). World communists weren?t majority Jew, but there have been a number of occasions where a disproportionate percentage were ethnically Jewish (as opposed to religiously Jewish, communists are pretty much all atheists, right?) I'm not jumping on the lynch WHEELER bandwagon. Let him do something worse, he's already given a glimpse or two that he is an anti-Semite in the past. Wait until he actually makes a personal attack. Sam [Spade] 03:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam claims:That wasn't an 'anti-Semitic attack' on you

See bolded comments below:

And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because your relatives suffered under the Holocaust.

The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the island of Crete. My uncle, Sirodakis, was a great underground fighter. It was my island that lead a ferocious resistance to the Nazis. It was my co-religionists, Catholic priests that went to the camps as well. And it was Jewish communists that destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia. Many a Christian died in Jewish concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single Jew. So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my face. WHEELER 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

and then later:

Anything you disagree with Slrubenstein you want to label Anti-semetic. Andy said many times that his relatives suffered in the holocaust and that makes him an authority. No it doesn't.WHEELER 17:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AndyL 05:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I have been asked to comment on this article. I don't regard myself as an expert on the early history of National Socialism, and there does seem to be some genuine scholarship mixed in the article. But its central thesis is nonsense, and arises from a (presumably deliberate) confusion of National Socialism (ie, the ideology of the Nazi Party), and national socialism, the various attempts to create national-specific forms of socialist ideas. Neither of these, by the way, have any connection with the French Revolution, except in the sense that all ideological systems are built on ideas which preceded them. I could argue that the ultimate roots of National Socialism are to be found in Plato, but so what? The article should either be deleted or purged of its pseudo-historical rubbish and the remnant incorporated into National Socialism. Adam 03:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam, Hitler did not create the idea of National Socialism. National Socialism existed before Hitler came around. It is a great Academic crime to say to direct all national socialism to Hitler. For that is not the truth.WHEELER 14:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy, I didn't slur anybody. Because a dog barks at a Jew, does that mean the dog is anti-semetic? Any criticism of the Jews is then an excuse to charge them with anti-semitism. Your, ANDY submission in each article of Fascism and Nazism is about smearing Christianity with originating Fascism and Nazism. Your anti-catholic bias is clear, yet I don't charge you with anything. So get off your high horse.WHEELER 14:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josef Pfitzner, a Sudetenland German Nazi author, wrote that "the synthesis of the two great dynamic powers of the century, of the socialist and national idea, had been perfected in the German borderlands which thus were far ahead of their motherland." (2)WHEELER 21:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Gee if he says it it must be true. WHEELER, you have to stop relying on quotations as *facts*.AndyL 22:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a classic ANDYISM. Let me tell you what andy here is saying. "SHUT UP WHEELER, Joseph Pfitzner doesn't know what he is talking about, let me tell you what to think, to hell with what an actual Nazi does say. But we need to all rely and bow to ANDY to please **INTERPRET** what he actually said." See Joseph Pfitzer an actual Nazi living in Nazi Germany doesn't know really what he is saying, because Mr. Pfitzer contradicts American Academia Propaganda and GROUPSpeak, we must all listen while ANDY re-interprets and explains to us how Mr. Pftizer is really a flaming rightwing fanatic.WHEELER 17:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)