Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The problem with "Nazi Germany"

I have seen that the term "Nazi Germany" or "Nazi German" is overused in Wikipedia, even in many cases where it is simply nonsensical based on the customs of formatting. For example I saw some articles of propaganda films created by the Nazi regime where the first sentence said "X is a 19xx Nazi propaganda film", which breaks the formatting that the nationality is supposed to come after a year, before any details about genre or topic. You don't see this sort of formatting on films that are not Nazi-era German.

The term "Nazi German" has almost been used as a nationality on some articles, for example politician articles like Hinrich Lohse where it begins with "Hinrich Lohse was a Nazi German politician". It is clearly not the right format, Nazi German is not a nationality, it is German. Something like "German politician of the Nazi Party" makes more sense and is a proper format.

Let's also not forget that the English Wikipedia is read around the globe and frankly the "Nazi Germany" term is to me a very Americanised term. What I mean is that in many countries around the world the term (or equivalent) "Nazi Germany" simply doesn't exist, instead the more official term "Third Reich"/"Third Realm" is the known name.

In my opinion there needs to be a change in the way articles related to this topic are presented so that a) the formatting is correct and b) it represents a more accurate globally neutral name. Millscrepe (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You would need to make that case on each article, we can't change anything about any other articles here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That is true but it would still require some community discussion and acknowledgment here at the very core. --Millscrepe (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

But not here, as this is only about this topic, maybe village pump or another community page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Another suggestion of somewhere to ask would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. But I suspect that to propose the generalized removal of the word "Nazi" from articles on this topic would not be well received at all. We need to call a Nazi a Nazi. — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've asked there too - The point here is not to remove any wording, but fix the formatting and its meaning here. Also look below at an example I just came across about the problem that exists: --Millscrepe (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I made an edit request just now on Talk:The Eternal Jew (film) to change "is a 1940 antisemitic" to "is a German 1940 antisemitic". It was denied by someone saying it is clear enough that it's German because of the 'Nazi' mentioned, but I argued this contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus. This is because 'Nazi' is not known/used universally around the world (and I can vouch for that), so while e.g. all American readers would know this is about Germany, not necessarily everyone else reading it would. In any case, the format for any film article is year-nationality... --Millscrepe (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Please note that WP:COMMON calls for the use of the common English-language name of things. The common English-language name for the Nazi Party is "the Nazi Party". The same is true for "Nazi Germany" and "Nazi". This issue has come up many times before, and a change has always been rejected. Any article on Nazi Germany, Nazism, and Nazis of any length will use "Nazi Party" as its primary description, with occasional useses of "the party" or "NSDAP" so as not to be repetitive, but "Nazi Party" remains the standard name in English and on Wikipedia. If you want to change that, you're going to have to open an RfC somewhere and make sure that it's heavily advertised, possibly on WP:Centralized discussions. I really wouldn't bother though, it's guaranteed to fail, and rightfully so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• And, yes, Diannaa is absolutely correct. Now, at this particular moment in history perhaps more than any other since the end of WWII, we need to call a Nazi a Nazi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding. The OP who proposed this has not mentioned anything about renaming of Nazi Party or even the removal of mentioning Nazi about individuals. I think what they are trying to say is to know when it is appropriate to say German and when it is to say Nazi. I do agree with them with the point that the film articles should say and specify German film (at the end of the day whatever the genre is, it's a German film.). I think I once read Nazi army on an article here which to me is utterly ridiculous, so I get what they're trying to point out. We must remember that this site isn't just for native English speakers in the west, it has a global audience. --185.69.145.64 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is that when we say "Nazi propaganda film", for instance, that immediately identifies it as a German film, as there is no other nationality which a Nazi film can be. Saying "German Nazi propaganda film" is simply redundant and pedantic, which is not encyclopedic writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Standard procedure for a film article would say the country or nation of the film first before anything else, so it should be "German Nazi propaganda film" irregardless. (Also I think you'd be mistaken about your first point taking into consideration the Austrian Nazis.) I must say the OP is correct in saying we will need a neutral POV and not assume everyone in the world will immediately recognise Nazi = German. 185.69.145.64 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Good luck in your fight for a "neutral point of view" regarding the Nazis. I'm sure the families and descendants of the 14 million people murdered by them wish you luck as well. Go away, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me add and stress something here...not every Nazi was German originally. Eichmann, Kaltenbrunner, and others directly serving the regime (including Hitler) were Austrian. Add to this individuals of other nationalities and who faithfully joined the Nazis in their cause, and the case for being termed a Nazi is precisely what Diannaa described. A Nazi is a Nazi. There is no way to "euphemistically / neutrally" label somebody a Nazi and to do so borders on absurdity from a linguistic perspective as well, just as BMK points out. Find another more worthy cause to devote your intellectual energy towards would be my advice. --Obenritter (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You're not getting it. You say a Nazi is a Nazi. True, no one here is arguing against that - but what you're missing is that before they're Nazi, they are German, right? (or Austrian or whatever). As per all Wikipedia articles go, we start with a name followed by nationality. That is the standard procedure. It's like writing as a first sentence "Biden is a Democrat politician" without any mention that he's American.ed

You're not getting the 'neutral' either. I do not mean removing 'Nazi', rather to have 'German' in there so everyone in the world knows it's about Germany. Once again, you cannot expect everyone from around the world reading these articles to immediately know Nazi refers to Germany. Let me make it clear again: no one here has said that 'Nazi' should be removed. 85.255.236.108 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your logic here... I'm talking about formatting and language and you're suddenly throwing a tantrum about Nazi crimes? You're blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

Let me make something clear: no one here has advocated to rename Nazi. All I am saying is quite simply, to make sure we have German in the right place, i.e. German film in place of Nazi film, German politician in place of Nazi politician. (with exceptions of course if it is a non-German Nazi). Because it's common sense and logical to have nationality first before anything else. That's the standard for all Wikipedia.

No one here has said that they shouldn't be called Nazi. Of course they still will be mentioned as Nazi immediately after the name and nationality introduction... So with due respect stop getting all emotional for no apparent reason (not that it matters if you're not willing to have a civil discussion). As for the neutrality that OP also mentioned: all it means is to make sure German is there; it does not mean to replace Nazi. 85.255.236.108 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC) - just to note that I am the same person as the 185. IP above.

• No, you're not getting it, and your comments on Talk:The Eternal Jew made that quite clear when you asked why it was called a "Nazi propaganda film", that it should be called a "German propaganda film". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's at Talk:The Eternal Jew (film) — Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect: I said it should be called a "German film", followed by "Nazi propaganda". Never did I or anyone else say the Nazi name should be eradicated. You're not grabbing the simple logic and just dramatising this issue. OP has a valid point. 85.255.236.106 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  What you said was:

  Then let me ask why should it even be "Nazi film" in the first place? It's a German film, created in Germany, irregardless of what the genre is or under what regime it was made. It must say "German film" first and foremost and that is standard procedure for all films on this site anyway. Do we ever call American films "Republican film" or a Chinese film "Maoist film"? It does not make any sense.

  Do you see where you said "Why should it even be "Nazi film"? Do you see that you did not say that "it should be 'German film', followed by 'Nazi propaganda'"? Do you not see that you have consistently been trying to soft-pedal the fact that The Eternal Jew is a notorious antisemitic Nazi propaganda film under the guise of adding "German" to its description? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  As my second sentence says "first and foremost" I was talking about the lead of the article. There may have been a misunderstanding in how I communicated it for which I'm sorry, but do not accuse me of 'soft-pedalling' or whatever. If anything, your behaviour here and on Talk:The Eternal Jew (film) shows that you're being unnecessarily arrogant.

  Beside this argument we're having, me and User:Marcelus on The Eternal Jew talk page have proven that you're going directly against standard wording consensus. Even another user (Slatersteven) other than the OP (Millscrepe) is not in support of your view, yet you're still being stubborn. Please stop and don't make false accusations about me. As a registered user you should know better, apparently not. 148.252.129.158 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that you think I'm arrogant because I refuse to accept your precepts. In point of fact you and Marcelus have "proven" nothing, all you have done is repeatedly asserted something without showing any actual proof in policy or guideline. I am not require to accept your statements simply because you make them repeatedly, especially since I have shown that your preferred format is redundant and -- in my opinion -- unnecessarily pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's incorrect from the beginning the argument was to use both adjectives "Nazi" and "German" if such usage is supported by sources (not all Nazi films were made in Germany, and not all film made in Germany were Nazi). Marcelus (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please cite a Nazi propaganda film that was not made (i.e. produced by and paid for) in Germany -- not filmed in another country, that's irrelevant. As far as I know, all Nazi propaganda films came out of Germany. Please prove me wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We need to be very careful that we don't decouple Germany's involvement with the atrocities of the Nazi regime - not all German holocaust participants and war criminals were members of the Nazi party (or even idealogical Nazis) - and there has in the past been movements to clame everything on the Nazis and minimise the involvement of others - for example see Myth of the clean Wehrmacht.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Nazi German is almost always redundant because the only political movement called "Nazi" in reliable sources (neo-Nazis are usually distinguished by the prefix) is the German one. To the best of my knowledge the Nazi party did not admit non Germans, although there were some nazi sympathizers. The wording Nazi German is found off Wikipedia mainly in Polish sources and is insisted upon by some editors who believe our readers are ignorant and lack reading comprehension and would miss that nazis are Germans. (I think Nazi Germany is okay as a common English language phrase for what Germans call NS-Staat and NS-Zeit, although Nazi state is also just fine imo) (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The prevailing term today used in Germany is "Drittes Reich" and "NSDAP" for the party.Nillurcheier (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia. The common name in English is what we use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, but the previous contribution made a comment on the terms used in Germany, hence I added the common German wording. English is up to you and other native speakers. --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe Nazi party was accepting ethnic Germans, which shouldn't be confused with the citizens of Germany (see: Nazi Party/Foreign Organization). There were also Nazi parties in Austria (Austrian Nazism), Lithuania (Union of Christian Socialist Workers of the Memel Region), Free City of Gdańsk (Albert Forster) and others. So as you can see even before the war the Nazism wasn't limited only to Germany. Marcelus (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The membership of the Nazi Party was overwhelmingly German and ethnic German, but in any case the nationality of the party's members is pretty irrelevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant because your whole arguments is that Nazism is equal to Germany. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not my argument at all. My argument is that all Nazi propaganda films are German films, so saying both "Nazi" and "German" is redundant. That has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the members of the Nazi Party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not a redundant if we are talking about two different things, those movies are both Nazi and German. Nazi because they were influenced by Nazi ideology or produced by Nazi party, and German because they were produced in Germany. Marcelus (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

According to the Nazis own conception citizenship was irrelevant in determining who was a German. They didn't admit people who were not German according to their own self perception and the party's point of view. Other definitions of Germanness are rather irrelevant. the foreign members of the party (regardless of their legal citizenship) would not have been fully accepted as Poles, Lithuanians, or whatever else according to the standard of the time. Anyway, as I stated above I'm not opposed to "Nazi Germany" but rather the ugly, redundant phrase "Nazi German" /"Nazi Germans", because they were German according to the standard most common at the time. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't written according to the Nazi conceptions of citizenship or ethnicity. Marcelus (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose redundant phrase "Nazi German" --Obenritter (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain why do you think "Nazi German" is redundant? Marcelus (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has rambled over multiple subtopics and the point of it is unclear to me. Is there a specific proposal? If so, perhaps make it via an RFC so we can be focused on something concrete, otherwise this just seems like a meandering waste of time. (Hohum ^@) 22:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have suggested numerous times that an RfC be started, and no one has taken the suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have created one. I think the OP laid out their points clearly before this turned into a whole argument about unnecesary additions. 185.69.145.87 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Unitary Government

Why does the article list Nazi Germany as being a unitary state, when they maintained the federal system of states under the Weimar Republic nominally? additionally, the Nazis set up a system of Reichsgauen that had federal powers, so it should be listed as a federal state, not unitary. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The government was under the complete and total control of the Nazi Party. The states may have nominally existed, but the Reichstag stopped meeting, so they had no effective purpose or power. The gaus were part of the party and not part of the government, and the Gauleiters were appointed by Hitler. To say that it was a "federal" system would be a misnomer and completely misleading to our reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, I feel like the article should say "Nominally federal unitary... state" or something akin to that, since Germany was never officially unitary in the words of the Nazis. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you'll need to find a subject expert who describes it that way in order to change it in the article. There are multiple sources which go into great detail in describing Nazi Germany as a unitary state under the near-absolute control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (and, no, I'm not going to cite them for you -- those familiar with the literature know that what I say is true); you'll need to find cites from reliable independent (i.e., no Nazis) sources that call it "nominally federal unitary", or whatever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

wrong flag

ive seen the real nazi flag in images of them taking over greece it needs to be changed that flag has plauged our minds its the iron cross design but insted of the iron cross its a swastika 2A02:C7C:2C1A:AB00:5176:B686:262:3DBD (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

picture? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence pointing to the change in the official name from "German Reich" to "Greater German Reich" in 1943?

Not only is this not sourced in the article, but I've found evidence pointing to the contrary, including a passport from 1944 and a Reichsmark coin from 1945 showing that the name remained "German Reich" even after 1943. Apparently the only thing remotely pointing to this name change is the word "Greater German Reich" in propaganda posters, but other than that it doesn't seem this was ever an official change. 2607:FEA8:BEE4:4E00:60AB:CC6C:8F85:2076 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article NS-Staat contains a section entitled Bezeichnungen für den NS-Staat (Designations for the Nazi state). In this section, it states under "Official Designations": "After the annexation of Austria in March 1938, the term Greater German Reich was officially in use for a time, including in the Reich Law Gazette. A decree from the Reich Minister and Head of the Reich Chancellery, Hans Heinrich Lammers, dated June 26, 1943 to the highest Reich authorities and the departments directly subordinate to Hitler made the previously unofficial regulation language binding." This is sourced in footnote 49 as Erlass (decree) RK 7669 E (June 26, 1943) and an image of the Reichsarbeitsblatt from August 15, 1943 (p. 413) that refers to the decree is also provided. The article also contains an image of a postage stamp from October 24, 1943 that contains the inscription Großdeutsches Reich. In addition, a series of three maps in the article, dated 1 January 1944, 1 March 1944 and July 1944 all bear the designation Großdeutsches Reich.

You are correct that the name change currently is not sourced in the English Wikipedia (and should be). However, it does appear that there is a basis to support the fact that an official change was made in 1943. I hope that this is helpful and responsive to your inquiry. Historybuff0105 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

Down in the explanatory notes, it describes a 'Reichskommissariat Kaukasus.' Rosenberg's plan calls for the establishment of a 'Reichskommissariat Kaukasien' not a 'Reichskommissariat Kaukasus.' Very minor but RK Kaukasus is a redirect and is not the name of the page it redirects to. I propose the following change:

Reichskommissariat Kaukasus (Caucasus)

to the following:

Reichskommissariat Kaukasien (Caucasia)

I would make the edit myself but I don't yet have ECP permissions. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the usage of 'German' and 'Nazi'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is merit to the proposal, especially the appeals to WP:WORLDVIEW. However, it effectively seeks to prescribe an interpretation of MOS:FIRST and MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Any decision on this page does not meet the required WP:CONLEVEL to amend the MOS. The wording of the RfC statement was noted to be vague and general, failing WP:RFCBRIEF/WP:RFCNEUTRAL. For these reasons, I am closing the RfC as no consensus due to the ill-formed proposal and the necessity of a higher CONLEVEL, but there is no prejudice against starting a follow-up RfC at WT:LEAD. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

---

In the beginning lead sentence of an article about a person/film/topic, should 'German' always be mentioned first before 'Nazi'? There are cases such as those in the discussion above where a Nazi Party politician's article doesn't even mention 'German' (see Erich Neumann) or instead says 'Nazi German' (see Hinrich Lohse). To cut it short the problem with this is:

• Every biographical article starts off with a nationality - that is standard Wikipedia procedure. Hence such an article should start with for example 'Neumann was a German Nazi...' or 'Neumann was a German politician of the Nazi Party'.
• 'Nazi' is not a nationality but an ideology/party, thus an article cannot just start with 'Lohse was a Nazi German...'. It must be 'Lohse was a German Nazi...' or 'Lohse was a German politician and war criminal of the Nazi Party'.
• It's the same story with a film: every film starts off with a name followed by year, then nationality, and then genre. So for example Erbkrank should not start with 'is a 1936 Nazi propaganda film', but change to 'is a 1936 German 'Nazi propaganda' film'
• Someone argued that 'German' is not necessary to have with 'Nazi' because "everyone knows it's about Germany". This is a narrow POV because not everyone from around the world will necessarily know the meaning of 'Nazi' from an western POV (The OP in the discussion above rightfully pointed out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus). Regardless this argument is null and needless as it goes directly against the standard Wikipedia format of: Name (DOB) > Nationality > Ideology/Genre/Topic.

Someone (Millscrepe) tried to amend this on Talk:The Eternal Jew (film) which was refused by someone else (Beyond My Ken) despite clear support by me and others for the proposer. The latter even made a false accusation against me above, I'm letting it slide but don't want to receive such a thing again. 185.69.145.87 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

---

• Tend to agree with all of that logic, even the last bit (there were plenty of Nazis in German-occupied territories outside of Germany, and even Hitler himself was actually Austrian).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This RfC is much too general, and needs to focus on specific cases, as the adoption of general rule as suggested above would give rise to a lot of redundancies and awkward writing which would not be helful to our readers. The actual specific instance of dispute concerns "Nazi propaganda films", about which I have argued that "German" is not necessary to add, as all Nazi propaganda films were German, and therefore in that specific circumstance the addition of "German" to the lede sentence description would be utterly pedantic and unnecessary. Also, this RfC on this talk page can currently only decide above the usage on this article. For general usage, an RfC should be opened in a central location and advertised on WP:Centralized discussions, per WP:RFCTP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• I also wonder why the RfC OP puts "Nazi propaganda film" in scare quotes above. Do they not believe that reliable sources call Erbkrank a Nazi propaganda film? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're over thinking once again. The quote marks I put to make it represent the link to the Nazi propaganda article. 185.69.145.83 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Quote marks don't "represent" links. If you want to put in a non-working link, precede and end it with "nowiki" tags. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Once again you're looking too much into meaningless pedantics. Can you please not? --185.69.145.72 (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll stop pointing out your parapraxis when you stop making them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Very vague & bizarre proposition since the RfC isnt pointing out a particular issue, but speaking in general terms like "person/film/topic", which is beyond the scope of this article.

Regarding Nazi propaganda films, it isnt necessary to add "German Nazi propaganda film", since almost everyone recognizes that it was produced by Nazi German Reich. Although it isnt inaccurate to describe this as a "German Nazi propaganda film", why should they be always labelled as such?

Also, Ngram results for "Nazi propaganda film" far exceeds that of "German Nazi propaganda film", a term which has almost null use in English academia. So "Nazi propaganda film" is the Common name and also the precise, concise term. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid your argument is null when the standard format for any film article on Wikipedia is Name > Year > Nationality > the rest. Your Ngram results are baseless technicalities: there is a fixed standard of how this should be written. 185.69.145.72 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please point to the specific policy or guideline in which this "fixed standard" is set out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• No. It can be used when this is helpful in resolving any potential ambiguity but it is not necessary in the majority of cases. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Over the years I've questioned a few instances of "Nazi Germany" when "Germany" suffices, for instance when the context has already been established. I would be in favor of describing historical Nazis as Germans who were active in the Nazi Party, etc. But a blanket solution doesn't have to be thrown over every situation. Let's retain some flexibility. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• No, we don't need a blanket rule dictating how to handle this. I've seen instances of the awkward phrase "Nazi German" but these are best resolved on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Manual of Style for films does call for the country of origin to be mentioned in the opening sentence if known. For The Eternal Jew I would go with "The Eternal Jew is a 1940 antisemitic Nazi propaganda film, produced in Nazi Germany and presented as a documentary." But this doesn't work in the short description, where we are limited to 40 characters and are already at 37. For people, using the term "German Nazi" often works, both in the artticle proper as well as in the short description. Note that children encountering the subject for the first time might know nothing about Nazi Germany. It's been 78 years already since the end of WWII, so it's best in my opinion to pay good attention to detail, and we shouldn't assume that the reader will know that Nazism originated in Germany. — Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the general use of the redundant phrase "Nazi German" except when required for clarification.--Obenritter (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words you agree with the RfC propsal about the "Nazi German" term? --185.69.145.72 (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree to the general rule that "Nazi" cannot replace nationality/country of origin of the article subjet Marcelus (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: This debate does not appear to apply to this article. It should be continued somewhere else. Senorangel (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I, for one, thank the initiator for bringing this issue to the fore. However, the RfC is far from clear in its proposals. We should perhaps discuss the issue in a less rigid manner and then, if specific choices arise, initiate an RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I was here before the RfC and this was being discussed. The original user who talked about this made valid points but the discussions got into a mess mainly thanks to one editor. We were only then told to open an RfC as a way of going forward. And could I ask what exactly isn't clear about the proposals? I laid them out in a 'change A to B' format. --185.69.145.72 (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree to the general rule that "Nazi" does not adequately replace nationality of a person, nationality is basic biographical info. Anyway 'Nazi' can refer to an era as much as an political ideology - much as 'Soviet' refers to an era as well as a nationality. However on balance I Disagree that country of origin is always essential to a film/book etc. In that context anyway, 'German' can mean production company's country or language employed. I can imagine scenarios in which "Nazi" or "Nazi-era" film/book etc is more informative than 'German', though 'German-language' should be made clear regardless. we don't need a blanket rule dictating how to handle this but readers shouldn't have to fish around to find out that Erich Neumann was German - not all Nazis were after all. Also note that this is being discussed as though the only possibilities are to put 'German' and 'Nazi' alongside each other. Barack Obama isn't called an American Democratic politician, nor a Democratic American politician, either of which would be clumsy and ambiguous. Other phrasings are not only possible, but clearer and more elegant. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree that the MOS should have thoughtful advice along these lines. Perhaps not just for Nazi Germany, but, for example, for subjects of nationalities under Russian and Soviet colonization as well. Careful with examples: I don’t know if the specific line “X was a German Nazi” is useful as a defining statement on many subjects, as Nazi is not an example of an occupation or reason for notability.  —Michael Z. 17:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting last sentence, though we have many other examples like Henry Cabot Lodge or Andrey Andreyevich Andreyev in this format. I don't think it's a bad format, but either way the main issue with the German/Nazi ones in question is that the party is put before (or without) nationality which is ridiculous and inconsistent with MOS, hence this RfC. --185.69.145.72 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Those people are defined with the nouns “politician, historian, and statesman” and “politician” – not by a political identity as “was an American Republican.” Nor “was a Soviet communist.” Which would be parallel to “X was a German Nazi.”

I now see the examples in the proposal say “was a German Nazi . . . ,” where the dot-dot-dot could be inferred to be followed by a noun, but I did read “Nazi” as a noun, and so the given examples are insufficiently clear.  —Michael Z. 19:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's entirely possible to have non-German Nazis, e.g. "Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website", as well as, well, the entire article Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II, "German" is useful context, but, grammatically, it should come before Nazi. e.g. "German Nazi", or, if referring to the country at the time, the clearest phrase is "Nazi-era Germany", with "Nazi Germany" an acceptable substitute in some cases. One thing we absolutely want to avoid is referring to the victims of the Holocaust as Nazis because we're treating it like a nationality. "X was a German Jew who was killed under the Nazi regime in the Holocaust" is appropriate, not "X was a Nazi German Jew who was killed in the Holocaust". We should be somewhat careful who we label as a Nazi, especially as party membership, as I understand it, was compulsory, removing an obvious way to check, and a situation that leads to a lot of Righteous Among Nations people being labelled Nazis misleadingly feels like a terrible choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 12:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Please note that the actual underlying purpose of this RfC -- although inappropriately posted here -- appears to be to add "German" to "Nazi propaganda film" in those articles. My claim (see the discussion above, and on Talk:The Eternal Jew (film)) is that this addition would be unnecessary, redundant and pedantic, as every Nazi propaganda film was a German film; there are no examples of non-German Nazi propaganda films. Further, the OP has been unable or unwilling to cite any policy or guideline which requires the nationality of a film to be the leading descriptor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • (1) Since Nazi Germany ceased to exist 78 years ago, people that are new to the subject will not know that every Nazi propaganda film was made in Germany. So that's a good piece of information to include. (2) The Manual of Style for films states: "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence." So including the country of origin (where known) is an appropriate thing to do (if sourcing for it is available). — Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

    Absolutely, these are solid points. And I will echo again the Neutral POV guideline to further support your (1) point: not only will people new to the subject not necessarily know about it being 78+ years ago, but also in regions of the world where it isn't taught much. Especially considering English is a world language and there are millions who use it in places like India, Malaysia or Nigeria where the teaching and awareness of Nazis and Germany's history greatly differ from the US and Europe. This is a point I've been trying to get across several times. 148.252.129.147 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

    WP:NPOV is totally irrelevant to this question, you keep on trying to apply it, but it's about something else entirely, not about what's taught in different parts of the world. We are not responsible for the state of awareness or education anywhere, nor are we required to write to the lowest common denominator, far from it. We don't "write down" to people, we write with hope that reading Wikipedia will educate people upwards. We are responsible for making sure that our articles neutrally report the facts about a subject, and that those facts are supported by citations from reliable sources. If, somewhere in the world, there is someone who doesn't know what a Nazi is, or what Nazi Germany was, or what the Nazi Party represented, our articles will tell them that, and that's what we're here for, not spoon-feeding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose While I appreciate the points the OP brings up, I have to oppose the vagueness and insist a clearer distinction be made. Most of the argument seems more suitable for a style guide discussion than an RfC specific to only this page, since any agreement made here cannot carry over to other WP pages. Penguino35 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm having a little bit of a hard time determining the asked question, but I'll try my best to answer it. Agree. I personally prefer the status quo, but don't make Nazi German a nationality. I believe that members of the Nazi Party should be mentioned as "XXX was a German war criminal and member of the Nazi Party", or a format similar enough to that. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't what you're saying here basically against the status quo and in favour of change? The problem as implied was exactly that there were many cases of 'Nazi German' like a nationality. 148.252.129.147 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  by that interpretation, I would choose to be in favor of change. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader, I think you should put Agree in your comment for ease of consensus. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Doing now InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree per nom. "Nazi German" is not a nationality. It should preferably be in the format "XYZ was a German politician of the Nazi party...". PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment directed to those who "agree" - What, exactly, are you agreeing to? The RfC doesn't ask a specific question. The closest it gets to doing so concerns other articles (about Nazi propaganda films) not this one, so an RfC here has absolutely no pertinence to those articles. Since it wasn't held on the talk page of one of the Nazi propaganda film articles, and pointers were not placed on the talk pages of the other articles on that subject, no one who edits Nazi propaganda film articles knows this RfC is going on here. Given all that, what does your "agreement" mean to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this RfC has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• A neutral pointer to this RfC has been placed on the talk pages of the articles in Category:Nazi propaganda films and in its subcategories, and on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects and Task Forces listed for those articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are issues around the way German vs Nazi are treated but this proposal is far too vague and confusing. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose outside of Wikipedia, the main use of compounds like "Nazi German" and "German Nazi" is from Polish authors (check Google Scholar) . This in itself is a good reason not to use it because we strive for relatively universal style and avoid such clunky phrases.

Furthermore, in the historical context nationality and citizenship were legally separate (for example, Czechoslovakia recognized a variety of nationalities for its citizens, including German, Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, etc.). Only people of German nationality were eligible to join the party. So even though Hitler was an Austrian citizen, German Nazi is still redundant. People not of German descent could be collaborators but not nazis. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Redundancy isn't the main concern here. Nazi isn't a nationality, Nazism is not a state, it was an ideology. Wikipedia MoS states that that nationality must be mentioned in the lead before stuff like ideologies. PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: Where does MoS state that? And even if it does, you are aware that MoS is a guideline and not policy; it is not mandatory. In any case, please cite specifically where MoS says that the "nationality must be mentioned in the lead before stuff like ideologies". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Read MOS:FIRSTBIO. Location or nationality should be stated in third (after date of birth and death), and before "noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for", which should be stated in fourth in the lead sentence. Yes, it is a guideline not a policy, and I can't do much about it if you don't wish to follow guidelines made by consensuses. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

And how does that relate to the articles about Nazi propaganda films which provoked this terribly ambiguous and unfocused RfC? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Agree that "Nazi" should not be used as a nationality, even if everyone in the German Nazi Party was technically German it should be pretty clear to everyone by now that there are plenty of Nazis around who are not from Germany. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree per nom. Germany existed before and after the Nazi regime. It is better to describe a German member of the Nazi party as "German member of the Nazi party" instead of as a "Nazi German", especially considering that many people alive during the Nazi period were born in Imperial Germany and lived through that Germany as well as Weimar Germany, and then had to live on and contribute to the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or East Germany if they were less fortunate). Nazi German is not a nationality.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  That works okay in the article proper, but is too long for the short description, where we are only allowed 40 characters. For example Herman Göring: "German Nazi politician and military leader (1893–1946)" is already too long, at 54 characters. It might become "Politician and military leader; German member of the Nazi party (1893–1946)", which is at 76 characters nearly double what we're supposed to do. — Diannaa (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think that Hermann Göring could be summarized most shortly in the short description as "German military and political leader", which would be 36 characters. He could also be said to have been "Military and political leader of Nazi Germany" - 45 words, shorter than the current description, but still longer than the allowed number. I think we could leave out the lifetime years in short descriptions in some cases because I think it's common knowledge that Nazi Germany was exclusively in the 20th-century. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• I Agree with this proposal based on common sense. A film created by the Nazi party is a German film first, and a politician of the Nazi party remains a German to begin with (or Austrian in a few cases like Hitler). Because Nazi is not a nationality, it should not be represented as such as it currently is. --86.187.166.250 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Along with the comments other editors have mentioned, this RfC seems too vague and unfocused to be accepted. Would recommend the RfC is reworked and resubmitted.BogLogs (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Several people -- myself included -- have pointed out the vagueness of the RfC, as well as it being placed in an inappropriate talk page. I certainly hope that the closer takes that into account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC, oppose this is the wrong place for this RFC, which aims to create a Wikipedia policy, rather than change a single article. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:DCC2:BBA4:C746:B4FC (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  You have it the wrong way round. This RfC is about making a change on this article (and related ones) based on existing Wikipedia policy. 148.252.129.158 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with the intention of this RfC, and the discussion prior. I don't think this discussion should be limited to "Nazi Germany", as I'm certain we can find similar faults with other political systems + country articles. I suggest that this issue be opened up for a Wikipedia-wide discussion, and that whatever policy is developed, that it allows for exceptions in which a hard rule would be inappropriate. There is one snag to be taken into account – WP:COMMONNAME may setup a contradiction with the more accurate naming scheme, a problem I've run into before. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, or at least "mostly oppose". I can understand where the proposer is coming from, but I think this is something where common sense should be applied and taken on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, context may require clarification, such as specifying ideology-nationality, but in other cases the nationality is irrelevant (such as if the ideology spans multiple nations or the nationality is obvious from context). I don't think there should be any all-encompassing rule, and making a rule but saying there can be exceptions is really the same in essence as there being no rule at all, isn't it? Vontheri (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Taking a look at these discussions there have been many in support of the proposal and many against too. But crucially of those who opposed, it seems most have sympathised with certain points made by the proposer, while several opposed just for technical reasons (that this shouldn't be an RfC). I think it's fair to say that we'd like to see at least some changes made to the current status quo, but it warrants a further discussion of what and how. (and if should be in this RfC). --148.252.129.152 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The White Circle is Off-Center in the flag. Purposeful?

I’ve just noticed on the starting page, the Nazi flag’s white circle is off-center. Is this purposeful, or is it not? 174.165.213.3 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve also just checked the flag of the Nazi party, and it’s on-center.

(hope i didnt piss anyone with ocd) 174.165.213.3 (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As shown here, the state flag is being used - this means the flag is off-center. Hope this helps. B3251 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It did. Thank you! 174.165.213.3 (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jesusslno (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jesusslno (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

Replace East and West Germany with Allied-Occupied Germany Loganp23 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Großes Reichssiegel (Great Seal)

You guys should consider adding this seal to the page, may or may not be useful. Bigbreh (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Change Map

The current map cuts off at the Caucasus, so the map wouldn't show the German forces reaching Stalingrad, arguably the most pivotal city in World War II. I propose we change the map to this map, which is the same as the current map in style, but extended to show the complete extent of Nazi Germany.

The current map on the left, versus my proposed map on the right.

Qbox673 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the map Germany possessing Southern Schleswig?

I cannot tell. Although, I believe it does not. If it indeed does not show that. It should be updated. NesserWiki (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

Please shorten this short description that exceeded more than 40 characters:

{{Short description|German state from 1933 to 1945}}

49.150.4.134 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I modified your suggestion a little but brought it under 40. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate flag

I think the flag of East Germany in the "Succeeded by" section should be changed. East Germany used the same flag as West Germany before 1959 (see Flag of East Germany#History). Janomoogo (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

It would be appropriate to add the exact date of existence in the introduction, as in the article on the Weimar Republic, as follows: ...was the German state between March 23, 1933 and June 5, 1945, when Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party controlled the country, transforming it into a totalitarian dictatorship. 2001:871:B:2DDD:9090:E14F:95C1:D7BF (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What not the "Seizure of Power" (30 January 1933) when Hitler became chancellor, or the Reichstag Fire Decree (28 February), which presaged much of the Enabling Act, for the start date? I would favor the former, earlier date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Next step following the RfC proposed before...

I am the person who made the proposal/RfC on 21 July. There have been plenty of replies and discussion but no action taken yet as it has buried. As I stated following these discussions, I sense that there is definitely a consensus to (at the very least) making some change to the status quo. The main criticism was that the RfC was 'vague', so I'd like to get the issue settled as many here have understood or sympathised with the points I made about the usage of 'Nazi' and 'German' terms here.

Perhaps a more experienced user here can take the reins regarding this proposal, and what the best course of action is.

@SMcCandlish @Shadowwarrior8 @DanielRigal @Binksternet @Diannaa @Obenritter @Marcelus @Senorangel @The Gnome @Pincrete @Mzajac @Penguino35 @Adam Cuerden @PadFoot2008 @InvadingInvader @Dan Carkner @Buidhe @Adamstom.97 @Cukrakalnis @86.187.166.250 @BogLogs @2603:7000:CF0:7280:DCC2:BBA4:C746:B4FC @CJDOS @Vontheri @Millscrepe @Hohum @Nillurcheier --148.252.129.158 (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Since you are the person who opened the RFC, it's inappropriate for you to close it. You need to go to Wikipedia:Closure requests to ask for an uninvolved person to impartially assess the consensus and close the RFC. Make sure your request is neutrally worded; don't make a suggestion as to what the outcome should be. — Diannaa (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. --148.252.129.158 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that Erich Neumann still hasn't acquired a nationality. Readers still have to 'fish around' the article, or just make assumptions to find out where he came from. While the assumption that all Nazi propaganda films etc were German might be viable, the same assumption about people simply isn't. Pincrete (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) … I've rephrased Neumann to lead with his nationality. My phrasing might not be perfect, but the lead should obviously state that he was German. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

From what I see on this Talk Page and when reviewing edits to the Nazi Germany page, there was never contention on this topic to begin with. As a "more experienced editor," my suggestion on proceeding is to BE BOLD. Try out the solution you suggested back in September in 5 or 6 places on this article where you believe it aids in clarity to the article as a whole, therefore improving the article. I caution you, however, against prescriptively changing every usage to fit into a stylistic rule you wish existed. But ultimately, the RfC in question should not have been created in the first place. Allow the whole process: make edits, allow people to potentially revert your changes, engage in a dialogue about the reversions on the Talk Page, and then if consensus can't be reached on specific use cases, that's when we create an RfC. Good luck editing! And get yourself a username! ;) Penguino35 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

The Motto of Nazi Germany was "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer", which means "One People, One Realm, One Leader." Shouldn't Country Infoboxes include Official Mottos? Ironzombie39 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It was never an official motto. It was more a rallying cry or slogan. — Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Map

I believe the map of Germany-controlled territories at the end of 1942 is not good. Albania, Yugoslavia and Greece were occupied at the time by the Wehrmacht and that is not reflected in the map. 108.4.229.56 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Albania ,Yugoslavia and Greece were under still Italian occupation in that year. They will be under full German control in 1943 after Italy's surrender. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference and geo coordinates

We need a reference for Nazi Germany, officially known as the German Reich until 1943, later the Greater German Reich, is the term used by historians to describe the German state Why should a coordinate in Berlin ( which one) be the coordinate of the "NS-Staat", please delete the coordinates Oursana (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Coordinates are common practice for countries.
• Nazi Germany is used per WP:COMMONNAME (common as in recognizable)

Do you have a specific request for an edit regarding referencing the name? JackTheSecond (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I cannot see why a coordinate in Berlin is given for Nazi Germany to compare with the coordinate of the United Kingdom or Germany in the middle of the country. Interesting enough, there are no coordinates for "German Reich".

I ask for a reference for the statement, that Nazi Germany is the term used by historians to describe the German state in that period. This very outstanding absolute statement needs citation to be kept in the article. I doubt that historians exclusively or mainly use this unofficial naming. Oursana (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked three books (Evans, Beevor, Shirer) and did not see it in use. We shouldn't say historians use the term unless we've got at least one who does so. The wording was not present when the article passed GA. I took it out for the time being. We can re-add it if a source is later found. — Diannaa (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

</ref>

Venex yt1 (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

German conquests and the Second World War

Nazi conquests began in 1938 with the annexation of Austria, followed in 1939 by the annexation of half of the former Czechoslovakia. The part taken corresponds to today's Czech Republic.

September 1, 1939 marks the start of the Second World War with the German invasion of Poland. On September 3, 1939, France and the United Kingdom declared war on Germany to help Poland. The USSR, allied with Germany, invaded Poland, which capitulated on October 6, 1939. It was then divided between Germany and the Soviet Union at the border between present-day Poland and Belarus.

On December 2, 1939, the USSR invaded Finland, and Germany deployed troops to support Finland. The invasion ended in March 1940.

On April 9, 1940, Germany invades Denmark, which capitulates after 6 hours.

On April 10, 1940, Germany invades Norway, which loses almost all its territory except for a part in the north.

On May 11, 1940, Germany invaded Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium, then France, in order to bypass the Maginot Line set up by France. On July 10, 1940, France surrendered and was divided into an occupied zone and a free zone. Meanwhile, Norway was fully occupied and governed by Germany.

On April 6, 1941, Germany invaded the former Yugoslavia, which capitulated on the 18th.

On April 7 Germany invades Greece, which capitulates in early June 1941.

On June 21, 1941, Germany invades the USSR.

On November 11, 1942, Germany reclaimed a large part of Free France, and the rest went to the Italians.

On September 10, 1943, Germany annexed Italy, which had suffered an American landing, enabling Germany to reach its territorial goal of 3.35 million km2.

Biggest extent of germany in between september 1943 and october 1943

But after that, Germany suffered nothing but heavy military defeats, and with the arrival of the Allies in Berlin and Hitler's help, it was forced to capitulate on May 8, 1945.

What do you want to change? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a bad bot edit to me, looking at the links in the markup. JackTheSecond (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This material is already covered (with sources) in the article. Also, some of it is incorrect — Diannaa (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

so, yes fascism does exist, but this is the nazi state not the "fascist state", it seems to imply a own form of government its possible that i am mistaken and am open to a diffrent perspective anyhow such a bold claim needs citations its possible that nazi germany could informally called a fascist state but no "fascist state" stand alone concept Gooduserdude (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Nazism is a form of fascism. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

yes Nazism is indeed a form of fascism, still it does not justify the specific edit, fascism is a form of nationalism (albeit a far-right and racial ultranationalist one) does it that mean we should call nazi germany a fascist nationalist state? as i will repeat since you seem to miss my above point, such a bold claim needs citations its possible that nazi germany could informally called a fascist state but no "fascist state" stand alone concept Gooduserdude (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa:(you seem to have edit this page quite frequently and an admin), meybe you can come to this discussion? meybe if such a stand alone concept exists, it could be a new article Fascist state (currently a redirect) otherwise why should an informal term be used in the infobox as a government type? Gooduserdude (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say "fascism" is an informal term? I don't think that's so.

I see that in the body of the article we describe Nazi Germany as fascist, sourced to Spielvogel (2016). Our article Nazism notes that "Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system" and offers four citations, one of which is the same work by Spielvogel. The Spielvogel citation contains a quote: "Nazism was only one, although the most important, of a number of similar-looking fascist movements in Europe between World War I and World War II." So the decscription as it being a fascist state is okay to keep in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: my concern was not fascism being a informal term, fascism is an ideology (or group of ideologies), but "fascist state" implies a specific form of government, i meant "fascist state" is informal, since its while its indeed used by historians (not so often at all https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Fascist+state&oq=fa) i cannot find material for a Fascist state article, hence the term is informal not a seperate form of goverment Gooduserdude (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If you really want, we could link only 'fascist' but I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it is. Something can be 'fascist'. That's a trivial statement. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

ok JackTheSecond is right, it does not have to be a bigger deal than it is. Something can indeed be called fascist, this concludes this discussion. Gooduserdude (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

@Docd13: recently changed the image in the infobox to one which is apparently more accurate, but he forgot to include the "frameless" parameter that was previously there. As a result the infobox is far too big.

Whatever image is used, someone should add the frameless parameter back. InherentDogma (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Done prior to request. JackTheSecond (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait

Isn't it also known as the Third Reich? 2600:1700:3680:8B70:35D5:B2D7:C65:3053 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, mentioned in the second sentence. — Czello ^(music) 07:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Succeeded by

Currently, the "Succeeded by" section of the infobox contains East Germany, West Germany, and Allied-occupied Austria. It also references a talk page consensus on these choices, which I have been unable to locate (I'm sure it's around, I just haven't found it). Why are East and West Germany chosen instead of Soviet occupation zone in Germany, American occupation zone in Germany, British occupation zone in Germany, and French occupation zone in Germany? If following the page's logic, then why isn't Austria included instead of Allied-occupied Austria?

If this decision was based the current options being more notable, I feel that this is a poor decision for providing factually correct information, as the occupation zones WERE the direct successors, and the page should reflect as such. East and West Germany were not created until four years after Nazi Germany ceased to exist. At the very least, if these two must be included, why not still include the occupation zone articles as well, and put the years of each entity's creation in parenthesis next to it, similar to what KGB has for preceding and succeeding agencies? Just things to consider.

Thanks, SavagePanda845 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The main previous discussions are located at Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 11#Predecessors and successors and Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 13#Predecessor and Successor. Searching the archives using the search term "successor" reveals there may be discussions or comments in other archives. — Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sicily pertains to Italy...

Please correct: "The Allies landed in Sicily in July 1943 and in Italy in September." to "The Allies landed in Sicily in July 1943 and in CONTINENTAL Italy in September." 62.211.181.80 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. --Obenritter (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)