Talk:Nazi Party

Homosexuality of the Nazis

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note Adolf Hitler's tolerance for gays:

Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.[1]

Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. RobS 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to The Pink Triangle addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.

There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--Dave3172 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality was rampant among Nazi leadership and organizations. It was the widespread perception that Nazi's were drunk, violent, and engaged in homosexual orgies when not beating up Jews that caused Hitler to purge Rohm from the ranks in the Night of the Long Knives 10 June 1934. This won Hitler a degree of respectablity from so-called "middle-class" folk, when he appeared to put the image of violent gay gangs in uniform behind him.

But as the book cited in the mainspace indicates, homosexuality in the pre-War period was even encouraged in several Nazi youth organizations after the Night of the Long Knives. And during the War, they simply didn't have the resources to purge the military of gays, or pursue a gay person simply because he is gay. Gays who wound up in concentration camps did so because they were classified as "asocials", i.e. they spent all thier time in gay cruising while Germany was at total war with its enemies.

And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.

Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. RobS 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Addendum:And it shouldn't be a surpise the promotion of homosexuality among youth to breakdown traditional conservative mores of their elders and the Churches was a step in teaching young people to accept mass murder as another "norm" in light of science and reason. RobS 00:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.

PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?

Let's look at this from Scott Lively, Homosexuality and the Nazi Party (Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995).

Our review of more than 200 history texts written since the 1930s suggests that a pink swastika is equally representative, if not more so. For, ironically, while many homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazi party, there is no doubt that the Nazi party itself had many homosexuals within its own ranks, even among its highest leadership.

See the subsections, "The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party", "From Boy Scouts to Brownshirts", "The Homoerotic Brotherhood" (Robert Gutman, Richard Wagner, The Man, His Mind, and His Music also has an excellent treatment of homoerotic brotherhood of Nazi's inspired by the Grail Knights in Wagner's Parsifal). Se also, The Damned, starring Dirk Bogard [2], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Facts are, there is no shortage of primary sources on this matter; but in recent years (about the past 20) American writers have developed a "Gay Holocaust" to help build coalition identity politics within the DNC. RobS 16:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Right Wing

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --PF Fox 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. RobS 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Edits

I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). Karalius Nyder 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. Karalius Nyder 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.

I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,

While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II

I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,

The Nazis are generally seen as fascists

Just who or what are you trying to debate here? RobS 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:

- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.

It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. Karalius Nyder 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. RobS 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from other articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.

And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. Karalius Nyder 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.

So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And you equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.Karalius Nyder 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

A few mistakes

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not their symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.