Talk:Nazism

'Nazism' is a pejorative used by those opposed to the ideology. They used the term 'National Socialism' to describe their ideology. You wouldn't use the N-word to title the African American page, right? ~2026-98132-3 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

See the #FAQ at the top, item 4. — Czello ^(music) 15:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That topic has nothing to do with the point that I made. Whether or not the socialism side of the title was applied properly in their form of government once in power is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they called their movement. I can't think of any other article in which the title is a pejorative. Leave it whatever way you want, but the title is incorrect as long as it is called Nazism and not National Socialism. ~2026-98132-3 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

4, the one with the answer "Because English Wikipedia uses the common name for things, and the common name for the NSDAP in English is the "Nazi Party"" Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The bit of the FAQ that's relevant is where it says we use the WP:COMMONNAME — Czello ^(music) 18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That topic has nothing to do with the point that I made.

Hmmm, what point did you make?

They used the term 'National Socialism' to describe their ideology. You wouldn't use the N-word to title the African American page, right?

[clutches pearls] WoN't SoMeOnE pLeAsE tHiNk Of ThE pOoR nAzIs??

Actually, Anon, you'll be happy to know that we do, in fact, spare some thought to the Nazis. See WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The title is correct as it is, since it's the common name in English, and the top of the talk page explains why. See: WP:COMMONNAME for why official names aren't always appropriate for article titles; and see: WP:NOTCENSORED & WP:PROFANE for guidelines regarding not censoring Wikipedia. Also, what they called their movement, "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" is not relevant to the English Wikipedia since it's in German (which happens to be another an example of an article that does not use the official name, "Deutsch", for the title). There are dozens of articles where the title is a pejorative term, in fact, here's two lists for you: Category:Political pejoratives for people, Category:Political pejoratives. MossOnALog^Talk 18:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That in English would be National Socialist German Worker's Party, or NSDAP for short. OP is right. Nazi is a pejorative and not a proper noun. ~2026-10269-24 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

See the FAQ. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of pedantic obscurantism. Acroterion (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Currently the article uncritically gives the Weber belief that Hitler wore a red armband at Eisners funeral, and that his unit was absorbed into the Bavarian Republic. The former is widely disputed and dismissed, the latter simply wrong. I added this to the Bavarian_Soviet_Republic#Hitler's_role article some time ago, sources include Othmar Plockinger among others, go to that article to see for yourself;

Adolf Hitler was present in the Munich area at the time of the Bavarian Soviet Republic as part of the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment. He had been appointed a deputy battalion representative (deputy Vertrauensmann) for his army regiment on April 3 – before the soviet period – a position that was created by the German Army High Command; part of the duties of the role were education and propaganda. Although authors such as Ian Kershaw and others claim that Hitler held the role as early as February, it contradicts evidence put forth by Othmar Plöckinger in his book Unter Soldaten und Agitatoren ("Among Soldiers and Agitators"). The idea that Hitler attended Eisner’s funeral and supported the Soviet Bavarian Republic originate with German journalist and documentarian Guido Knopp. (In 2004, a group of international historians warned that documentaries like the ones produced by Knopp could reduce important historic facts to mere infotainment.)

Hitler's unit and regiment declared themselves neutral and refused to join the Bavarian Red Army (an act of passive resistance). They did not give their allegiance to the new regime nor were they under its control. Author Sjoerd de Boer notes that there is no evidence of Hitler having aided the Soviet Republic personally, despite the claim of some authors. In fact, information originating from Hitler's barracks assisted the advancing Freikorps units in capturing the city. After the fighting ended, Hitler was part of a committee that prosecuted soldiers for aiding the soviet revolt. Hitler was next employed by the occupying ‘"White" forces in the information bureau led by Captain Karl Mayr of Reichswehr Gruppen Kommando 4, which was responsible for countering soviet activity. Mayr had likely been impressed by Hitler’s role on the prosecuting committee, making it extremely unlikely that he would have brought him on had he been involved with the soviet forces. In order to prevent the troops in his barracks from joining the Red Army in 1919, Hitler was recorded as saying “we are no Revolutionary Guard” for Jews (whom he called vagrants).

Certain authors have argued that Hitler was in attendance at Kurt Eisner’s funeral. A separate photo and video have been used as evidence that he was: in a photograph, a man purported to be Hitler (based on physical appearance) is shown observing a memorial procession from the side while Russian prisoners of war carry a portrait of Eisner. In the footage of Eisner's funeral, another man (actually participating) is claimed to be Hitler.Historians debate about the authenticity of the claim, especially with regard to the graininess of the footage. Thomas Weber believes that Hitler did attend but concluded that it was impossible to know for sure; other historians dismiss the claim outright. Representatives of Hitler’s unit were ordered to attend a memorial procession for Eisner, but that was on 3 April 1919, separate from the funeral in February. As of May 1919 Hitler was an informant for the Reichswehr. Author Peter den Hartog has concluded Hitler’s attendance at Eisner's funeral can safely be considered a myth.

Thx. M.S. Asher (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I literally added them to this article mainpage M.S. Asher (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Then repeat them here, as you seem to be adding a lot of content that may not even be relevant. Which sources dispute the claim that Hitler was present? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Sjoerd J. de Boer (2022). “The Hitler Myths: Exposing the Truth Behind the Stories About the Führer”
• Peter den Hertog (2020). “Why Did Hitler Hate the Jews?: The Origins of Adolf Hitler's Anti-Semitism and its Outcome”
• Othmar Plöckinger (2013). ”Unter Soldaten und Agitatoren: Hitlers prägende Jahre im deutschen Militär 1918-1920”

…All make the argument that it is impossible to know (and that it is highly unlikely and that the claim is of dubious origin) that Hitler was at Eisners funeral, and also make clear cases that Hitler did not support the Bavarian Soviet Republic in any form. M.S. Asher (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

So they do not say he was not? Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

They do actually. Peter den Hartog goes as far as saying its safe to say its a “myth”. The other two says its not likely, which is in effect arguing that wasnt there/that he most likely wasnt there; they phrase it that way because the original claim is based entirely on a grainy photo and footage where the man is impossible to identify. Are we going into semantics now? M.S. Asher (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here appears to be that one author (Weber) makes some claims about Hitler's life before joining the DAP, which are challenged by several other sources. And the article currently presents Weber's view uncritically.

Then, M.S. Asher tried to add content detailing what the other sources say, and Slatersteven reverted it on the grounds that it's too much detail for such an obscure part of Hitler's biography. Is this an accurate summary of this discussion?

If yes, then I propose that the solution is to simply remove the disputed claims made by Weber entirely. The article is already long enough as it is, and we're talking about an incident from Hitler's life before he even joined the DAP, so it's more relevant for an individual biography of Hitler than for this article, no matter if Weber or his critics are right. Terry Maits (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes I’d say thats an accurate summary. I think that solution could work too. Part of the issue with Weber’s claim is also that its used for evidence that “Hitlers view hadnt solidified yet” and suggesting that he intially supported the Bavarian Soviet Republic…except that in itself is disputed. M.S. Asher (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Terry's proposal. If readers want that much detail, they can read the sources we use. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How does this information help us understand Nazism?Moxy🍁 18:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It really doesn't, though this is an example of a 'datum' I've seen used to argue that Nazism is friendly to socialism by those who refuse to learn their history. I feel that including this particular claim violates WP:NPOV, as well as WP:V, which is also a clue as to how it may have gotten into the article in the first place. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree some sort of obscure coalition that doesn't exist in actual history scholarly publications. Moxy🍁 19:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be general agreement, so I have removed the paragraph in question. I also agree that we should not just assume that details of Hitler's personal life are relevant to Nazism as a whole, unless most historians say they are. Terry Maits (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

A book from 1999 on Communism is utilized in one section.

Although he opposed communist ideology, Hitler publicly praised the Soviet Union's leader Joseph Stalin and Stalinism. Hitler commended Stalin for seeking to purify the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of Jewish influences, noting Stalin's purging of Jewish communists such as Leon Trotsky. While Hitler always intended to bring Germany into conflict with the Soviet Union to gain Lebensraum ("living space"), he supported a temporary strategic alliance between them, to form an anti-liberal front to defeat liberal democracies, particularly France.

You can view the pages 191-193 cited via google preview here .

Firstly, the sourced information is not “public” at all. It is sourced from Hermann Rauschning, and his Conversations with Hitler. The authenticity of this as a source is widely discredited as the wiki article makes clear as does previous conversations here Talk:Hermann Rauschning. Oh and these werent “public” statements by Hitler even if they were real. On top of that, the idea that Hitler was in favor of a strategic alliance with the Soviets to defeat the democracies is questionable itself: other than the idea that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact itself composed an alliance being questionable (it was a non-aggression pact with economic benefits, and a secret protocol for dividing territory, not a formal alliance, any more than the Berlin Conference of the 1880s was a “formal alliance” between Germany and the other participating powers), Hitlers stated reason for the molotov ribbentrop pact was his belief that the British and French were trying to make an alliance with the Soviets, see hitlers speech in Jan 30, 1940.

During the last year I tried to foil Britain's chance of degenerating their war (which was already planned in advance) into a general world war. For at that time, the pious, Bible-studying and -reading and preaching Mr. Chamberlain tried for months to come to an understanding, a union with the atheist Stalin. It did not work back then. I understand everyone in Britain being wildly angry at me for now succeeding at what Mr. Chamberlain tried in vain. And I understand that this action, which God would have smiled upon if Mr. Chamberlain had succeeded at it, is a sin when I succeed. But still, I think the Almighty will be pleased to have avoided senseless battles in such a large area. For over centuries Germany and Russia lived next to one another in friendship and peace. Why should this not be possible again in the future? I think it is possible because both people wish it so. And every attempt, undertaken by British or French plutocrats, to bring us to new opposition will fail simply due to our rational interpretation of the goals of these powers, the realization of these goals. This is how Germany is able to keep its back clear.

That their was a threat of alliance forming between France/Britain and the USSR was well known at the time, see this May 1939 newspaper M.S. Asher (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok well I have edited this and my previous topic accordingly. Rauschnings text is not reliable and material derived from it, and quoted here in a deceptive manner, should not be in the article. Webers belief in Hitlers involvement in Eisners funeral and the Soviet Bavarian Republic has been put in its proper context with what other authors have said. M.S. Asher (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

So why did you make more that changies, then just removing this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

See my previous post before this on on the Eisner Funeral and Webers claims on both Hitlers attendance and Hitler’s role (and his unit) in the Soviet Bavarian Republic. That and this topic are the edits I made. What other changes are you referring to? On Rauschning his book is WIDELY considered highly unreliable by authors, and the way the book sourced here was cited was dishonest and not even consistent with what the book itself said. M.S. Asher (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

See wp:undue, all we need in one line saying" but this claim has been disputed", it is not an important part of who he was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven. How exactly is it not “undue weight” to include Thomas Webers more salient belief (Kershaw kind of agrees — and knopps original claim is literally from one of his TV documentaties— but both sources are older and the the sources im referring to are more recent and in rebuttal to their claims) that Hitler was both at the funeral and a possible supporter of the Soviet Bavarian Republic, but not the numerous authors that challenge this? Why does Weber get his statement in the article but no details about why he is possibly wrong from numerous (and more recent) authors’ works?

And about your most recent revert, you said “I did, and that is the point, see WP:ONUS”. You did read the talk page first? Because your responses on here came after your first revert based on the user signature times, and the stated reason of on your edit was “we aLREADY METION THE FUNURAL”, which of course has nothing to do with my edits, since they were about the issue with Webers claim itself and the other authors opinions, and your post here was asking why I changed more than I said, to which Ive responded: what else have I changed? The edits were entirely about this topic and the previous topic I posted here. Please tell me where you need me to give further explanation please, I thought I explained myself well but maybe Im wrong, but I haven’t heard an argument against it from you other than concerns about length and possibly relevance. Although I dont get how this isnt an important part of his life: Hitler being a suggested as a Soviet sympathizer in 1919 isn’t important? M.S. Asher (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did, hence why I said there had been no agreement, just your statement (in effect). I have already said we can have one line statement that others disagree, but it is undue to go into details. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Slatersteven: So would an edit that gives webers opinion, and then gives Peter den Hartogs, be appropriate to you? Or perhaps that “other authors regard this as a myth or unlikely”? M.S. Asher (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Nazzi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 2 § Nazzi until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Right on top. -

"with an emphasis on pseudo-scientific theories of a racial hierarchy of ethnic Germans as part of an alleged Nordic Aryan master race."

A "hierarchy of ethnic Germans" does not make much sense here and rather nowhere anyhow. The writer obviously ignores the meaning of the word "hierarchy" and confounds it with "supremacy" - which is the term required here. ~2025-39780-80 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right, that is a very awkward clause. I've revised the sentence to:

Nazism is a form of fascism that emphasizes pseudo-scientific theories of racial hierarchy which identify ethnic Germans and Nordic Aryans as a master race.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Much better. - Though for them they were not "a" master race among possible others but "the" master race - as the only one. ~2025-39780-80 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "North America, South Africa and Australia" to be changed to "North America, South Africa and Oceania", since New Zealand is in Oceania and has an Anglo-Saxon majority. ~2026-15394-22 (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't have access to the source listed for that sentence since it seems to be a print book, however I assume that the editor that added it is paraphrasing accurately from the source and wouldn't change it without a WP:RS also mentioning New Zealand or Oceania directly. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The book is available on the internet archives (here) and you are correct. The author specifies Australia. With 5.3M inhabitants of NZ and 27.8M people in Australia, it's not that big of a deal from a truth perspective, but the fact is, we would be misrepresenting the source if we did. And that part is a big deal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "North America, South Africa and Australia" to be changed to "North America, Union of South Africa and Australia", in order to be specific, since South Africa was a union during World War II. ~2026-16259-16 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done This does not match what the source says, and furthermore, the reference in the source is to the region, culture and people, not just the specific government in power at the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)