Talk:Adolf Hitler

Why does this article say that the Nazis were right-wing?

Because that is the consensus of reliable sources, in this case historians and political scientists.

But the word "socialist" is right in their name!

Many political entities have names that can be misleading. Consider, for example, the Holy Roman Empire (a confederation of mainly German territories during the Middle Ages and the early modern period) and North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a totalitarian dictatorship). The usage of the word "socialism" by the Nazis is different from the common usage of the term "socialism" to refer to an economic philosophy involving advocacy for social ownership of the means of production. The phrase "national socialist" was a nationalist response to the rise of socialism in Europe by offering a redefinition of "socialism" to refer to the promotion of the interests of the nation, as opposed to ideas of individual self-interest. But there was no policy of social ownership of the means of production. The Nazis did talk about capitalism being bad, but they defined it as a Jewish-originated economic philosophy based on individualism that promoted plutocracy in the interest of the Jews, at the expense of non-Jewish nations and races. This was put in contrast to the Nazis' conception of socialism, which was done in order to win over people attracted to anti-capitalist and socialist ideas to their cause. They rejected ideas of equality and working class solidarity, instead advocating for social hierarchy and national strength. This article sums it up well.

I made an offhand comment about it and somebody just came along and deleted it! What should I do?

Nothing. See this discussion where the community came to a consensus that we have entertained the numerous questions and claims about the Nazis being left-wing enough, and that continued engagement with people pushing this line of reasoning is not helpful to the article.

That doesn't seem very fair. Don't Wikipedia policies require editors to assume good faith? What if somebody posts that position here with a really good argument?

See the following links, all of which are to discussions about this very question over time. If any novel argument is proposed, it has already been made, responded to and failed to convince anyone. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

But what if I find a large number of very reliable sources all claiming that Nazism is left-wing?

Then you will be more than welcome to show them to us, so that we can see that they are very reliable and that they assert that Nazism is a left-wing ideology. If they are, then we will change the article.

About Fascism

Q1: Is Fascism an exclusively right-wing ideology?

A1: Yes. This issue has been extensively discussed on the article talk page, and "yes" is the unequivocal prevailing consensus view, which is supported by the vast majority of historians, political scientists and other scholars. Your individual opinion, if it differs, will have no effect on that standing consensus. In case you have any further objections, take a look at the archives for yourself.

Q2: Does that mean fascism is similar to conservatism?

A2: Not exactly. Saying they both are right-wing does not mean that fascism is merely a more extreme form of conservatism. It also doesn't mean they agree on much besides some rather abstract concepts, such as social order, traditional values, and social stratification.

Q3: Was Joseph Stalin a fascist?

A3: No. While both Stalinism and fascism are widely accepted to be forms of totalitarianism, that's generally accepted to be where their similarities end, as Stalinism and fascism are distinct ideological worldviews.

Q4: I really feel fascism is a left-wing ideology, though!

A4: On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, not individual opinions or original research from editors. If you wish for the article to say that Fascism is left-wing, then you must provide citations from reliable sources to support that view, and those sources must not be fringe ones or promoting a specific point of view.

Origins of Fascism

Q5: Where did fascism start?

A5: Fascism began in Italy in the difficult years between World War I and World War II, and spread throughout Europe in many different national forms – including Nazism. Each country's version of fascism differed in a number of specific ways, but they all had broad similarities.

Q6: Care to be more specific?

A6: Fascism as a historical movement is extremely nuanced and complicated. The details can be had by reading this article, and the articles on Wikipedia about the other versions of fascism. In Italy, fascism reached its peak with Benito Mussolini ruling over Fascist Italy from 1922 to 1943.

Q7: Wasn't Mussolini a communist?

A7: Mussolini was at one time a socialist, which is not the same as being a communist. He was kicked out of the Italian Socialist Party for being too militarist. He denounced them and became an ultranationalist – one of the shared aspects of all fascist groups. He also was a militant atheist until he signed the Lateran Treaty, when he switched most of his previous positions to try to win over Catholic support.

Q8: Doesn't that still make fascism left-wing?

A8: One individual's story doesn't change the fact that reliable sources classify fascism as right-wing. Mussolini's personal history is irrelevant to understanding the broader fascist movement.

Wikipedia's role

Q9: Is Wikipedia trying to censor the truth about fascism?

A9: No. Wikipedia is not censored. We go by whatever reliable sources say, not original research.

Ancestry -- reduced edit request --- scholarship by Leonard Sax

Please add this paragraph to the end of the Ancestry section --

More recent scholarship by Leonard Sax points out contemporary historians have largely dismissed Hitler's Jewish heritage based on "a single historian, Nikolaus von Preradovich" a Nazi sympathizer, and that "The hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Jewish, as claimed by Hans Frank, may fit the facts better than the alternative hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Johann Georg Hiedler or Johann Nepomuk Hiedler." 98.46.117.2 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

oh really??? 103.190.13.22 (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

This is covered at Frankenberger thesis. Moxy🍁 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hitler Ancestry section suggests that Hitler's father Alois was the son of one of the Hiedler brothers, and dismisses the Frankenberger thesis. The last entry in this section should be the latest research by Sax, which was just recently added to the Frankenberger thesis article. Sax shows that Jews were present but not registered in Graz at the time of Alois' conception.

"a claim that came to be known as the Frankenberger thesis. No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence, so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish." 98.46.117.2 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There's now two of us that object to adding this: myself and Moxy. We don't need to expand on the Frankenberger thesis in the Hitler article; we've already said that historians reject the thesis that Hitler was part Jewish; if people want more info on this topic they can go to Frankenberger thesis. — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Then a compromise would be to remove the following text from the Ancestry section ...

"No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence, so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish." 67.173.189.111 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done .... Will require consensus.Moxy🍁 20:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

spell being broken

I take great issue with the line "spell being broken". It is completely idiotic to try to make hitler's reign sound cool like he's some sort of Harry Potter villain. I don't care if it's changed or not, it will always keep this article idiotic.Daedrich JJ flfmjg (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That's merely what the sources are saying. We aren't going to change it because you find it to be idiotic. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's idiomatic, not idiotic. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's how some of his contemporaries responded: "Hitler's suicide was likened by contemporaries to a "spell" being broken". Demagogues often appear to 'mesmerise' those who follow them do they not? An uncritical state kept in place by a constant diet of propaganda.Pincrete (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is idiomatic. That being the case it might stylistically be better for it to expressly reference the sources using it - Fest/Speer in this case - rather than be in wikivoice. But I fail to see how it makes "Hitler's reign sound cool like he's some sort of Harry Potter villain". DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Both sources specifically use the word "spell". Fest says that in multiple contemporary accounts, "certain phrases crop up releatedly...a 'spell' had been broken, a 'phansasmagoria' shatttered." I have added some attribution for Fest and a sentence from Speer page 617. — Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"phansasmagoria" That is supposed to be phantasmagoria, a technique of using magic lanterns to project scary images, "such as skeletons, demons, and ghosts". Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. — Diannaa (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Failed Austrian Painter" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Failed Austrian Painter 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/2024 September 11 § Failed Austrian Painter until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)