Talk:Nazi Party/Foreign Organization

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force. Costa Rica Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I hope nobody feels indignant about my basical revision of this article. I fear reworking was inevitable for the antecedent state was a little bit too scanty. I translated the corresponding German Wikipedia-article for this purpose. Furthermore I removed the disambiguation reference because I couldn't find "a list of articles associated with the same title". There's just one article titled "NSDAP/AO". The previous title "NSDAP-AO" was incorrect, by the way. Historical literature and contemporary documents talk about "NSDAP/AO" (the Nazis had been extremely bureaucratic abbreviation fanatics, as is generally known, and "hyphen or slash" was "a case of do or die" then). --Bogart99 10:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to contradict itself still. Everything seems to describe an organization for Nazi parties in foreign countries, made up of citizens of that foreign country. All of section 1.1 speaks on this. The last 2 sentences, however, suddenly state that only Germans from Germany could be members. So... what was the point of this? I find it hard to believe that it existed just so Germans from Germany visiting or living in a foreign country could be part of the party... otherwise, why wouldn't they just join the party normally? Scnt2labor 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snct (above), its very simple: they were members, and their membersship in the AO just indicated that they were "Abroad". If they moved back to Germany, they were normal members again. You could not be only an AO member. It goes without saying, that when abroad, they were sometimes expected to do the German state a number of favors, which is why the organization was considered illegal in many states even before the war - i e in Brazil in 1936. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.210.226 (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1943 the US Department of State published a 510 paged analysis titled "National Socialism. Basic principles, their application by the Nazi Party's foreign organization, and the use of Germans abroad for Nazi aims" ^[1]. I think the term "Nazi Party's foreign organization" was very intentionally chosen. "Abroad organization" would have been a more literal translation indeed (and there exists an Organisation of the Swiss Abroad - OSA - today, for instance, which is a democratic organization, of course), but the Auslands-Organisation was in close relationship with the German State Department because its longtime leader Ernst Wilhelm Bohle ranked as State Secretary in the Auswärtiges Amt (Foreign Office) from 1937 to 1945. The Auslands-Organisation was a kind of official authority after the Nazi takeover and was integrated in German foreign policy, which was a policy of expansion, as we know. Perhaps the American State Department staffers regarded "abroad" as too non-governmental and a little bit too nice, whereas "foreign" sounds more official and aggressive. I agree with Mr. Raymond E. Murphy, Mr. Francis B. Stevens, Mr. Howard Trivers and Mr. Joseph M. Roland from the 1943 Special Unit of the Division of European Affairs and I disagree wirh Carabinieri. --Bogart99 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that Wikipedia is definitely no advertising medium for Neonazis, the Gary Lauck link hasn't just "offensive content" and is simply "not suited for children" but in today's Germany, for instance, it's illegal and ignorant website providers incur a penalty. Unfortunately Lauck's nasty page is semi-legal in the US. But I think the linking of his

Meetings of NSDAP/AO were held at Stuttgard. Could anyone advance any information or links on the rally of NSDAP/AO by 09/05/1937 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.121.244 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article form "NSDAP/AO" to "Nazi Party?Foreign Organization" for three simple reasons:

(1)

(2) Not hiding what the organization is - All too often, the use of NSDAP is used to hide the fact that what is being referred to is the Nazi Party. That is unconscionable. We should never let Wikipedia be used to provide cover for obfuscating the true nature of any Nazi-related organization.

(3) For the above two reasons, "Nazi Party" is used throughout Wikipedia in preference to "NSDAP", which can be used as an alternate name to break up monotonous writing.

These three reasons more than justify the move, and I stand by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is English Wikipedia and Nazi Party (with NSDAP shown after the full German language Party name at the beginning) should be used. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move to "Nazi Party/Foreign Organization". I can't find evidence that other sources use this name. There are hits for "Nazi Party's Foreign Organization", "Nazi Party Foreign Organization" and likewise, but often not as a proper name but as an English-language description of NSDAP/AO. Now using "Nazi Party" is actually rather ambiguous, NSDAP/AO existed in many countries parallel local National Socialist parties and organizations. Not specifying that NSDAP/AO was a wing of the NSDAP blurs the concepts. --Soman (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely no ambiguity about using "Nazi Party", that's a spectacularly specious argument.
  I have no objection to the article being called "Nazi Party's Foreign Organization", if that is the preference, but using "NSDAP" is not appropriate in any respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazi Party's Foreign Organization" (NSDAP/AO), is acceptable. Kierzek (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Redirect, 4 May 2020, see discussion. no consensus, 16 June 2015, see discussion.

No such party

There never was such a party, it was merely a local branch of

That seems to be correct, but there's no evidence to prove the point, so far. Kraxler (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see http://wvw.nacion.com/ancora/2008/abril/20/ancora1501619.html --Soman (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD discussion ended in "no consensus", that makes is possible to renominate it at any time. Kraxler (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with National Socialist Party of Costa Rica

Two articles substantially about the same political movement separated by time. No need for both articles. I'd merge them and rename the resulting page Nazism in Costa Rica or something similar. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, given that these parties are separated by more than 60 years, and the scope of the activities of the National Socialist Party of Costa Rica seem quite different. It's worth keeping Nazism and neo-Nazism separate. Klbrain (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]