Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Bad wording

Despite its Axis alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, by 8 May 1945 Germany had been defeated by the Allied Powers

This implies that the defeat of Germany was in spite of their alliance with Italy & Japan. Forgetting about the slavic states forced into German "cooperation" (and who quickly turned to join the Soviets in 1945), it is better to say that the alliance with Italy & Japan helped Germany's defeat - the former without Nazi help lost in battles against even the poorly industrialized Greece, let alone Britain everywhere in the Mediterranean, and the latter arguably gave Roosevelt the legitmacy to fight the Nazis and bring the second superpower of the world against his forces.

I.e. its not "despite" the alliance, but "with it's axis alliance", Germany was defeated. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Channel Islands were conquered by Nazi Germany

Surely Jersey and Guernsey should be part of the "today part of" box on the right. :)94.175.92.59 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

systematic extermination of an estimated 11 million to 12 million people in the midst of World War II

This figure as said in this article, includes a number of ethnic Poles who died as a result of warfare, famine, forced labor etc. If so, then one should also include 26 million Soviet citizens of whom only 8 million were military causalities and the other 18 million were civilians.--MathFacts (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, this figure usually rather includes 3 million Soviet POWs who were very systematically and deliberately starved etc., 200,000 Polish intelligentsia were systematically exterminated though (not random war crimes but a policy in which they were "arrested" and then shot). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviet actually take more than 8million military casualities, do you count militia as military? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.63.101 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What is Reich?

Yes, it was the Third Reich, which unhelpfully redirects to this article. It kindly translates Third Reich to German (not sure why) but at no point translates Reich to English. Context suggests Empire. Is this right? Can we provide a more relevant translation for this English Wikipedia article please? HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

the term "Reich" is never translated--no one speaks of the "Third Empire" for Germany. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that it's not a standard English word (which you have really just acknowledged), but no attempt to explain or define it is made in the article. Yes, I know it's common, but only in this context. It's part of a common title (and a redirect to this article). What does it mean? (Don't just tell me here. Put it in the article please.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, done. Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the term "Großdeutsches Reich" was definitely from 1938 on, NOT from 1933 to 1937. The difference between "Deutsches Reich" and "Großdeutsches Reich" was the joining of Austria. Please correct this.--86.32.50.82 (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The intro needs to be completely redone

This intro is rambling and long, it needs to be shortened to describe essential information, discussions of the "Hitler Myth", etc. can be put somewhere else.--R-41 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

good points. I rewrote the rambling opening to explain the topic in a nutshell, and will rework other parts of the lede. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

German-English translator needed

As you can see here: A-Z category of Nazi Party members on German wikipedia

the coverage of the Nazi party and its members is a great deal more comprehensive on the German Wikipedia than the English one. It would be great if we could find a fluent German-English speaker who could translate pages for some of these historical figures. For instance, it is rather embarrassing that the English Wikipedia does not have pages for some of the leading members, such as Karl Steibel, or some of the Commandants of concentration camps, such as Franz Reichleitner.

If one or two Wikipedia users could approach the translation process as a specialized task, that would be ideal.Hoops gza (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead and map

The map colours iceland red and notes it is occupied by the British. This should be altered to state that it was occupied by the British until July of 1941, and by America after that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.108.38 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The new lead of this article is poorly written. It reads like a sensationalist, editorialized narrative. "Hitler's hypnotic speaking"? The whole second paragraph is highly emotive. There is far too much on Hitler and his interests and not enough on National Socialist Germany. Yes, he is important, but this is supposed to be a summary of the entire history of the period. Also, the map doesn't accurately reflect Germany's eastern border. Why the modern world map? This is 1933-1945. A modern map is just confusing for those not familiar with the changes of European borders since the war. 192.148.117.83 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

the RS emphasize how much Nazi Germany was built around Hitler -- see Shirer and the 3 volumes by Evans for example. They all speak to his oratory and often call it "hypnotic" in terms of the effect on his audience. for example Shirer, The rise and fall of the Third Reich: a history of Nazi Germany makes the hypnotic point four times (Pages 109, 371, 840; 1039); "a speaker of unquestionable hypnotic power" says Zalampas (1989) p 18; Corelli Barnett says "Hitler too possessed until the end a similar hypnotic power of personality which enabled him to brain-wash the sceptical and disillusioned" Hitler's Generals p.2. Albert Speer asks "why was I willing to abide by the almost hypnotic impression Hitler's speech had made upon me?" (Inside the Third Reich: memoirs - Page 19 ); Rjensen (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, are we going to include Nazi mysticism in the lead too? Regardless, I find it poorly worded and formatted. It sounds somewhat emotive and amateurish. No offence to the person who wrote it, of course, but it needs to be revised. 192.148.117.83 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the map. Swarm ^X 08:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I originally changed that map to the ortographic one as they are becoming increasingly more common on Wikipedia (presumably to provide the viewer with an indication where the depicted state is located from a global outlook), and the administrative one that preceded it was too elaborate and already covered in the Geography sub-section. Is the issue here potential confusion to the random viewer?--Morgan Hauser (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't confusion, it's that it fails to accurately represent the maximum extent of Nazi Germany. The second issue is that orthographic projections don't show the rest of the area at the time. The political boundaries of surrounding areas are just as important as the political boundaries of the state the article covers. I agree that they're helpful in giving a global, modern day perspective, but this is at the expense of the historical perspective. Nothing's wrong with orthographic projections, I just don't think one should be used as the main image in this case. Swarm ^X 03:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

By "maximum extent" I presume you mean the military conquests of Nazi Germany and the other Axis Powers. That really boils down to whether it is explicitly the state itself (the Third Reich) that is the main focus of this article, or the territorial domain that it conquered in Europe and North Africa (the "Nazi German Empire"). Given that the Second World War is such a large part of Nazi Germany's history I'd be inclined to agree with the latter though. With confusion I actually meant precisely what you're referring to with showing historical boundaries, which would admittedly be a problem for those not well-versed enough in European history.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I really think the map should show France occupied. I mean, just change the title of the map to say "military conquests". At the moment it just seems like a strange and misleading map because it doesn't show anything much if it's not showing military conquests. Sorry.Andrewthomas10 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the map to the previous one per consensus.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The map File:Second world war europe 1941-1942 map en.png was being used in a way to make it seem Finland was part of Nazi Germany (Großdeutsches Reich), which is what the article is about. File:NS administrative Gliederung 1944.png shows the most relevant borders for that entity. I have reverted it to the location map for the moment, although I don't think it's particularly useful - a small blob on a globe conveys very little at all. (Hohum ^@) 02:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't actually, though I agree it should have been better worded. The undernote described it as "Areas under the control or influence of Nazi Germany at its greatest extent in 1941-1942.", not "Areas that were a part of the Third Reich", and the map itself also doesn't mark Axis-controlled Europe (not just Finland) as such. A complete administrative map that fully details every single province and district is just way too elaborate for simply showing the state itself (the side-map on the United States article doesn't show all the states and counties for the same reason, for instance). I suggest changing the wording to "Nazi Germany and the areas under its control or influence at its greatest extent in 1941-1942."--Morgan Hauser (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a response, I'm changing it back again, albeit with the new phrasing.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The caption says "Nazi Germany and the areas under its control or influence at its greatest extent in 1941-1942." Finland was neither under Nazi control or influence. The map is inappropriate. I have reverted its inclusion again. (Hohum ^@) 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] perhaps the problem is solved by changing the caption to something like "Nazi Germany and its allies and areas under its control at its greatest extent in 1941-1942." Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hohum, I think you’re taking too narrow a viewpoint on the intended meaning of the word "influence", but alright. I think Rjensen’s proposal would be the best option, but I would go one step further to having it state this: "Nazi Germany, its allies and co-belligerents, and the areas under its control at its greatest extent in 1941-1942." Would that be acceptable to you?--Morgan Hauser (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What would be better, would be a more relevant map, not twiddling with the caption on a poor one. Preferably it would clearly show show the difference between the core Großdeutsches Reich, allies & co belligerents, and occupied territories (like Norway - neither ally, co-beligerent, nor part of the Großdeutsches Reich) in a European scope. (Hohum ^@) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

we can use the improved caption now, and replace the map when someone finds a better one. Norway was actually in German control. Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be ideal yes, but the problem is that there isn't currently a map available on Wikimedia that fits all those criteria (1)(2). Until somebody adds one that does this is the best we've got at the moment, certainly moreso than the ortographic one that is now displayed.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I started to make one File:Großdeutsches Reich-europe.png. It likely has plenty of issues (North Africa uncoded for a start). Feedback and suggestions for alteration are welcome. (Hohum ^@) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already completed one actually, simultaneously with yours it seems: File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg. It should meet all the above-stated requirements, I think.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! - although I suggest removing the rivers, they cause needless clutter. (Hohum ^@) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, I updated it and added it to the article page.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

deinitely i propose those who dont really know the real history to stop talkinh.Finland was under german control.Germans had there airfields,ports with supply for submarines and navy,a huge concentrating of german military personnel..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take your own advice. (Hohum ^@) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Way too large

This article is way too large and needs more put into sub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.123.77 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

democratically elected or not?

I don't understand, why we have to encrypt the fact that the nazi party was elected under democratic procedures it is a fact that we cannot hide in an encyclopedia

the nazi party was not a dictatorship. It was supported by the german people who vote for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.22.226 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It was both. They were democratically elected, and then they seized power and absolute control, making them a dictatorship. Fry1989 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put items in the lead which are not in the main body per WP:LEAD. If they are notable, put them in the main text with WP:RELIABLE references, and if they are important enough to be reflected in the lead, then put it there too. As such, I have reverted the unreferenced, WP:UNDUE soapboxing in the meantime, again.(Hohum ^@) 00:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the duty is on those who disagree to prove the election was a fraud. No historian has ever claimed the elections were stolen, and unless you can prove it, you can't remove that and pretend it was all a takeover. Infact, that is was a democratic election is what makes the entire situation even more tragic. Fry1989 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You also missed the point regarding the addition not conforming to WP:LEAD. (Hohum ^@) 02:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Coming of the Third Reich by well-respected British historian Richard J. Evans (Oxford-educated, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge) explains in detail how the last multi-party election in Germany in March 1933 was not free and fair: the Communist Party was suppressed, the Social Democrats and other parties were in hiding or in exile, the weight of the German State and its propaganda machine was brought to bear on the electorate to get the Nazis elected, Nazi storm troopers "oversaw" the polling in many areas to intimidate voters, and yet the Nazis did not win a majority. With only 43.9% of the vote, they had to form a coalition government with the conservative German National People's Party. They then banned other parties, or forced them to disband, including the Nationalists, using threats of violence and even violence against politicians of other parties, including those who had served in high positions in previous governments. So, go read that book, or pretty well any other mainstream history of the inter-war period in Germany, and you will have your proof that the Nazis were not "democratically elected" or supported by the majority of German people. They were only a minority who bullied their way into total control of Germany. Ground Zero | t 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't use a "so go read a book" attitude with me. Voter turnout is indeed something of debate, but if you want to use low voter turnout as a claim for it not being a democratic election, then you have to go out after all the modern countries today with low turnout. The fact is the people voted, and the results are now history. After they won the election, they did indeed ban other parties, and that was part of the process of seizing power, but NOT before the election, even if they put pressure on other parties to pull out prior. Now, did I claim they were supported by a majority of the people? No, those words were not used by me. But at the same time, just now in my country, Canada, only 40% voted for the governing party in the past election, and they used the media to attack the other parties prior to the election. Do you want to call that a NAZI power grab as well?. Fry1989 (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So, as I can see, in order to remain "democrats", we removed part of the history from wikipedia, so that some one who has no idea on the subject, will assume that the Nazi party wasnt supported by the majority of German people! Thats great! Furthermore, I propose to write down that the german army soldiers, werent germans, but robots or aliens! Too bad that some people, still, refuse to face the history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.22.226 (talk)

Provide WP:RELIABLE sources, also this is not a forum. (Hohum ^@) 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fry, you asserted that “no historian has ever claimed the elections were stolen”. I provided you the name of a leading historian who has documented how the Nazis banned the Communist Party before the March 1933 elections, forced many opposition politicians into hiding or exile, and posted storm troopers at polling stations to intimidate voters. These were not fair and free elections. And then you say “Don't use a "so go read a book" attitude with me.” You were the one who made an unsupported claim, and I told you where you could find the information to prove that claim wrong.

“just now in my country, Canada, only 40% voted for the governing party in the past election, and they used the media to attack the other parties prior to the election. Do you want to call that a NAZI power grab as well?” There were two legal communist parties that nominated candidates, no parties were banned, no opposition politicians were in hiding or exile, opposition parties had free access to the media, and the state-owned broadcaster, the CBC, could never be accused of being a propaganda organ for the Conservative Party. And when I went to vote, at least, there were no Nazi stormtroopers intimidating voters. So I would call it a fair and free election, no matter how much I disliked the result. Ground Zero | t 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked Evans. He says that the Communist Party was "effective outlawed" after February 28, but not completely banned until the day after the elections, so I was not technically correct in saying above that it was banned before the election. He does provide extensive details of how Communist Party officials were arrested or forced into hiding in February, how issues of KPD, SPD and Centre Party newspapers were banned, party members fired from government jobs, party meetings broken up by brownshirts, party offices raided and trashed, and how the propaganda machine and threat of violence was used to try to corral the voters into giving the Nazis a majority. I don't think this bears any resemblance to the 2011 Canadian election or any other free and fair election. I have included a selection of these details in the Wikipedia article on the German federal election, March 1933‎, because I think this is too much detail for the main article on Nazi Germany. You can check out this information, with references to Evans' book provided, in that article. Ground Zero | t 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is this in the intro? "when it was a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by Adolf Hitler, John Joseph McCabe (BSc, BAI Dublin) and their Nazi Party. John later went on to assassinate JFK and develop the blockbuster drug Lipitor."

This looks like vandalism to me

Ricardosj (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Which flag image to use

I'm well aware that there's a big debate about which flag (off centered or centered) was the official state flag of Hitler's Germany. In my research, I've found that the centered flag is more common in Nazi propaganda, parades, etc. Because of this and because of the fact it is a much more widely recognized symbol of the Third Reich, I propose we change the flag in the infobox to the centered version. Rockhead126 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Annexation of areas of northern Italy

Shouldn't the map of the size of Nazi Germany show the large areas of northern Italy that were annexed by Germany after the German occupation of Italy that followed the Italian armistice? --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Today Part Of

Many modern-day countries are not included in the "Today Part Of" section despite the map showing that nearly all of Europe was under Nazi control. Jacsam2 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Countries invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany didn't all become *part of* the Großdeutsches Reich. (Hohum ^@) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Shall we remove Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Italy, Estland, Latvia from the list then ? In the preceded/succeeded list are some occupied or allied countries as well. --Denniss (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your argument but I think that when Nazi Germany invaded all the countries that it would have then incorporated them into the Reich. So they should be listed. I don't understand how countries invaded did not become of the reich. Jacsam2 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "incorporated into the Reich" (=German territory) and occupied/governed areas. This list should only contain those countries/states who where in part or in full incorporated into the Reich. --Denniss (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say that occupied areas would be part of German territory. If not, who's territory is it? Jacsam2 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

They were nothing more then german-occupied territory, usually separated into governed sectors. They were not part of the german Reich. Have you ever looked at the map ? It's self-explanatory. --Denniss (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Who would be governing the sectors? Would not it be Germany? You said earlier that the list should only include countries that were in part/fully incorporated into the Reich. What would be the definition of incorporation into the reich that you are using? Maybe this will clarify things. Jacsam2 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Großdeutsches Reich / Nazi Germany is a specific administrative region. Only certain invaded areas became a part of it. You will need to find reliable sources that say that the additions you were trying to make were part of it per WP:BURDEN. (Hohum ^@) 01:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I understand but I haven't been able to come across a page were all the occupied countries are listed. Does one exist? Or does it need to be created?

Jacsam2 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this be a protected topic?

Should this be made so that only registered users may modify this? 203.160.126.141 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dictatorship vs autocracy

I suggest that we replace the word dictatorship with autocracy, as the word dicatorship is a very charged and therefore subjective word. Autocracy, however, is more objective. No matter what we feel, history isn't supposed to be a normative science. It should therefore say Government: Totalitarian autocracy in the informations box. Magneman (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What do reliable sources use? (Hohum ^@) 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

From the point of view of plain speaking, most people understand what a dictatorship is, autocracy, less so, imo. (Hohum ^@) 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the word dictatorship still is somewhat biased. Germany today is described as a federal parliamentary republic. Many people don't know what a parliamentary system is, yet we don't simply replace federal parliamentary republic with democracy. My point is that historians and people who write history should be as neutral as possible, therefore charged words such as dictatorship shouldn't be used. As previously written, history is a positive science, not a normative. Magneman (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

the wikipedia rule says that we should follow the RS, and they generally use "dictatorship" with no suggestion of "bias" Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Germans at the time thought dictatorship was good, just as the West thought democracy was good, so the terms are not loaded in retrospect: Germans had never had a constitutional democracy before - the Weimar Government was a foreign construction imposed on them by the U.S. Like Russia, Germany only understood absolute rule as both these states had not gone through civil wars to oust their monarchs as France, England and US did. In short, Germans and Russians had no notion of "liberty": hence their "enlightenment" had a totalitarian destiny rather than liberal. Liberty was alien to them and they were hostile to the very idea.--81.5.150.96 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge Flensburg Government article into Nazi Germany article

The Flensburg Government article is about an extremely-short-lived post-Hitler Nazi government that lasted seven days until it surrendered and weeks until ended its existance. This is too insignificant of a change to warrant its own article. Besides, the government was still representing Nazi Germany. Information on Flensburg government should be added to the history section of the Nazi Germany article.--R-41 (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Flensburg government is of great interest to historians. A number of books have been written specifically on this government, for example:

• Marlis Gertrud Steinert, Die 23 Tage der Regierung Dönitz, Econ-Verlag 1967, 426 pages [1].
• Walter Lüdde-Neurath, Regierung Dönitz. Die letzten Tage des Dritten Reiches, at least 6 editions since 1951, ~200 pages [2] [3] [4]

In addition, this topic will naturally have a lot of weight in the extensive literature about the last days of the Nazi regime.

Moreover, it would make no sense to integrate the full information in the present article, as it would have undue weight. Instead, it must simply be summarised here per WP:Summary style. Hans Adler 07:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But was it a separate state from Nazi Germany? Different leaders and governments take power all the time, but they do not necessarily change the actual state to another one.--R-41 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a separate state to be of separate interest. Do you also want to delete History of the United States (1865–1918) and similar articles? Or was the US from 1865 to 1918 a separate state from today's US? Hans Adler 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The Flensburg government is of trivial interest to English readers. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is not read by English readers only, or even readers who are native English speakers. And even these include people with a special interest for various reasons (research on the last phase of Nazi Germany for school or scholarship, or someone may be about to move to Flensburg and want to know what it's about). In any case once entire books have been formally published about a topic, no matter in which language, the standard of WP:GNG is met and exceeded, and the only reason for merging would be for organisational reasons or because no reasonable article can be written about the topic. That's not the case here. Hans Adler 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Adding the Flensburg Government article into Nazi Germany will just make the latter article even more long and unwieldy than it already is. Unless, of course, we take out a lot of the content and leave it just as a short section in the Nazi Germany article, in which case the content of this article will be lost, and Wikipedia will be all the poorer for it. The Presidency of Barack Obama is not a separate state from the United States, but it seems to warrant its own article. Same for Cameron Ministry and the United Kingdom. Finally, I don't understand where Rjensen gets the idea that the Flensburg Government is of trivial interest to English readers. It may be trivial to him/her, but not to me. And since when does triviality matter in Wikipedia, which has an article on List of treaties in Star Trek? Surely the Flensburg Government is less trivial than a list of fictional treaties in a science fiction TV and film universe. Ground Zero | t 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to remind the users here of my point: is the Flensburg government a successor of Nazi Germany as a state it is stated in it's article's infobox and the infobox of the Nazi Germany article. What evidence is there that it was a successor of Nazi Germany as a state? If it isn't and users still do not want to merge the articles, a solution could be simply to remove the infobox from the Flensburg government article and change the Nazi Germany infobox to show it being succeeded by the Allied-controlled territories. The Flensburg government article could still stand on its own as an article on a particular administration of Nazi Germany, but not as a successor of Nazi Germany.--R-41 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To tell the full truth, I haven't even looked at the Flensburg government article, because its current state is not very relevant to what you first proposed here. I wasn't aware of this infobox problem. What you propose sounds very reasonable to me. Hans Adler 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

R-41 is correct in saying that the Flensburg Government is clearly not a successor state to Nazi Germany, and should not be depicted as such. It was, however, a successor government to the government of Adolf Hitler. There must be a way of clarifying this point without deleting the infobox, let alone deleting the article or merging into an already lengthy article. Ground Zero | t 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It was still Nazi Germany even if the headquarters were outside Berlin. Indeed Hitler often made his own headquarters outside Berlin. If Hitler had moved to Flensburg then we would all agree. Doenitz was Hitler's designated successor and saw himself that way, as did everyone else. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We're agreed that it was still Nazi Germany. It was clearly not the Hitler government though, as Hitler was dead (or spirited away to South America if you prefer) at this point. The Cabinet positions were shuffled, some were eliminated and new ones created. The point is still that if you merge this article into the Nazi Germany article, then this short-lived government will have undue weight compared to Hitler's 1933-1945 government. The only way to avoid this would be to delete content and diminish Wikipedia. The Germany article does not cover every facet of Germany - there are branch articles like History of Germany to allow that subject to be addressed in more depth. The History of Germany article similarly is an overview - it does not deal with the history of Germ,any in great depth, so there is a branch article on the German Reich to cover Germany from 1871 to 1945, and a branch of that article to cover Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 in more depth. That article has lots of branches, of which Flensburg Government is one, and the holocaust another, so that each of those issues can be dealt with in more depth than is suitable for an overview article. Ground Zero | t 01:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll rescind the merge proposal if the infobox claiming that it is a successor to Nazi Germany can be removed. I think this seems to be the best option that a number of users support.--R-41 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is done now. I hope you understand that it is not necessary to propose a major change like merging articles in order to address a pretty simple issue with an infobox. Ground Zero | t 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Silly flag business

An anonymous editor has been edit warring to replace the (asymmetric) flag in the infobox by a very similar symmetric one. This is a totally trivial point, but I have done a little bit of research. Unfortunately I have found nothing about this in formally reliable sources, but the following appear to be quite competent: [5] [6].

It appears that the flag was originally symmetric, but that from approximately 1935 (or even precisely 1935) the swastika was shifted to the right just enough to make it look symmetric when flown. Since the symmetric flag was also in use, and since we are not actually flying the flag here but displaying it in a context in which it looks asymmetric when this correction is applied, I think it would actually be best to use the symmetric version here. The asymmetric version should be confined to whichever article (if any) discusses the various forms of the flag in detail. Hans Adler 07:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nazi Volkswagen.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nazi Volkswagen.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Long tedious introduction?

The section in the introduction seems excessive in length, and overly preoccupied with talking about what people think and less about historical facts. If there is more to say about the Nazis than any other subject that ever existed, then at least transfer the bulk of the material to the main body of the article rather than dumping it all into what should be a short introduction. Yes the Nazis were evil, but the word evil does not need to be dumped everywhere whenever Nazi is mentioned. If this article is a template of Wikipedia's coherence, you might as well say on the article about slugs/worms/maggots that "most people think slugs are horrible, filthy creatures. Slugs have become synonymous with things we do not like" [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation]. I am generally skeptical of the massive value Wikipedia places in rubbish media sources and redundant web links rather than books and national records. Popular culture has objections to faeces, pigs, bacteria and the colour black, but these objections are not noted right away in the introductions to the articles in question. I believe this is a poorly composed article in the above ways and needs further attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.150.96 (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sinebot, the first and last paragraphs are all that is really neccessary for the introduction. It sums up the topic of the article. All the rest of the material in the intro section appears later in the article. AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the last paragraph, which talks about world opinion on Nazi Germany as the icon of modern evil, is the least valuable part of the introduction and should be moved elsewhere. Placing value on morals, what people think and socio-psychology is a mistake, when the Holocaust statistic is already present. We do not need priests telling us who and what is evil. People should be able to judge for themselves by looking at the facts. The "modern evil" assertion may come from a reliable source but is simply a waste of space. It is the profession of sociologists to say all sorts of intentionally perverse and digressing nonsense on various subjects just to stimulate contemplation, but Wikipedia doesn't every one of them in the introductions to its articles. 81.5.150.96 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The "evil" part is essential--most of the mentions of Nazi Germany in the public arena in recent decades is about their evil. The Nazis set the standard of evil that is actually used by prime ministers, novelists, historians, political commentators and ordinary people in 2011. (Priests, sociologists and psychologists are not involved here). Rjensen (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree that the intro is way too long and off topic. It should focus on the following things: (1) the name of the state and the years it was founded and dissolved; (2) one to two brief, to-the-point paragraphs on its historical context and significance including its instigation of the Holocaust and its campaign and defeat in World War II; and (3) one brief to-the-point paragraph on the territories it directly held. It is POV to focus on the "evilness" of the Nazis - just stick to the facts: there is massive documented evidence of the Nazi regime pursuing mass persecution and genocide of Jews, homosexuals, Romani and others - these are the facts, if a reader views that as evil, that is their view; if another reader views that as good (presumably only neo-Nazis and anti-Semites today), that is their view. But it is not up to Wikipedia to make moral declarations on the events of history, it only should present the facts.--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede has to summarize the main points of the history of Nazi Germany, in terms of what the RS actually say. It does that now. Erasing important information and leaving miscellaneous details like territories controlled at different points in time violates the rule that the lede should be self contained. The lede does not tell people what judgments they should make, it tells them what judgments the RS and the world generally have made about Nazi Germany, --that is a strictly factual matter that is not controversial and does not rely on opinions. Facts = what the RS tell us--and including facts that are considered so important by so many RS is Wiki's role. Rjensen (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe that this article can maintain NPOV status by including material that make moral judgements on acts in history. And if we put material on moral judgements on Nazi Germany, should we accept moral judgements on the sides of the French Revolution, moral judgements on the sides of the Rwandan Civil War and Genocide, or moral judgements on the Crusades? This is extremely controversial.--R-41 (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

there are no moral judgments made in this article. There are factual statements about the moral judgments people make about Nazi Germany. facts. By the way the complaint was the lede was "long" and tedious." It's not too long for a major article. I suggest a list of boundary changes should pass anyone's test for being tedious. The deeper question is whether the article conforms to the published reliable sources, and R-41 has given no hint whatever of what RS he is depending on for his judgments of what is important in Nazi Germany--mention of Rwanda makes it seem like a TV show is influencing him. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But there is only one statement being shown. What if a user (probably an anti-Semite by nature) wanted to add another statement that other important people view the Nazis as a moral regime that was doing what it thought was right. To be neutral and have the first statement that says that the Nazis are a symbol of evil, another one that says the opposite would be needed to compensate the opposite point of view. And then there are people who do not believe in morality at all and are amoral who would judge the Nazis as neither being evil nor good because the concepts of good and evil are socially-constructed heuristics that are highly fallacious.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

we don't deal in opinions here, we deal in factual statements regarding what the RS say--from books by Richard Evans, Burleigh, Overy, Kershaw, Tooze, etc. What RS are you using? Rjensen (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not advocating one position or another. I am presenting a critique of a controversial inclusion of a moral judgement of history in the intro that is a precedent to include moral judgements of other topics or events in history in other intros. There can be good, evil, or amoral interpretations to any event in history. Most likely those views not condoned by mainstream society will be revisionist or fringe. Nevertheless to include a declaration that states that many people say the Nazis are evil is still POV. It's just as POV as if someone back a few centuries were to place a bold historical statement by the Catholic Church saying "many people believe that Copernicus is an evil heretic for his views on astronomy that contravene the truth of God's design"--R-41 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well now we're back to Copernicus. Talk about tedious! Let's talk about the reliable sources on the Nazis. Let's find some RS and see how they handle the matter. Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you understand what I meant by the Copernicus analogy?--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

you seem to be saying that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to report people's value judgments even when there are RS to support them. That is not in Wiki's rules and it makes no sense whatever. An editor can NEVER say "group XYZ complained loudly that it was screwed by the government." Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So are you claiming that an RS has the right to decide what is good and evil and that the very concept of good and evil is to be accepted as a legitimate and applicable attribute by Wikipedia? Friedrich Nietzsche was an RS and a professor, he and fellow Nietzschean scholars of today would deny the very applicability of the concepts of good and evil to define actions, events, and people. How many different definitions of morality and moral evaluation by RS would we have to include in the intro to maintain its neutrality on evaluation of the Nazi regime based on conceptions of morality? Probably very many, it would be an article in itself.--R-41 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic and pointless discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consider also that the German national socialists inspired countless popular non-Western movements (more in fact than Marxism has), such as Baathism and the Hindu-supremacy "Hindutva" ideology that India's (recently) ruling BJP originated from. In fact, in postcolonial societies where Western democratic political opinions are scorned, national socialism is regarded with favour. These countries in total account for at least one half of the world's nations, so it could be said that half of the world in fact believes the Nazis were not evil but should be imitated. Either this or they have no opinion. Nazism did not scratch the Southern Hemisphere, and most of the countries there don't mourn over the trauma of WW2 but rather over colonialism which they consider a worse trauma. Many political movements like Hindus inspired by Sarvakar, Arabs inspired by Nasser, etc. have imitated Nazism because they viewed it as anti-modern and imitated it in postcolonial ideology to attack the West. I CAN provide reliable sources from academia to back up these claims. I would argue that Nazism is considered evil only to the extent that political Islam or other hyper-nationalist ideologies are considered to be evil in contemporary politics - and it is considered evil only in the liberal West, which is certainly not the entire world. Those who consider the Nazis evil are always modernists or adhere to a doctrine peculiar to the West, and would generally also believe that Hamas and the Taliban are "evil", "barbarian" and "backward" so these racist, narrow, orientalist views which are in RS should all be endorsed by Wikipedia if your policy is correct. 81.5.150.96 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC) I don't see the above argument as particularly relevant. It may be that some elements of Nazism have been adopted by some other countries but what I don't see is any other country validating the practice of wholesale ethnic genocide in its national ideology. Sure, there have been genocides since the Nazis and, in some cases, these may have been partly inspired by the Nazis (Idi Amin's regime springs to mind) but genocidal regimes tend not to last long. They do not reflect the morality of general populations. It seems bizarre to suggest that "it is considered evil only in the liberal West". It seems rather insulting to the rest of the world to say that. It also seems insulting to non-liberals in the west. If you ask people whether it is evil to murder whole ethnic groups you will get pretty much the same results worldwide and across all political and social divides. Of course, there are many people who do not have an opinion on the Nazis because they have never learned about them but that does not mean that they would approve of them if they did. I vaguely remember some poor fool who opened an "Adolf Hitler Cafe" in India and got a ton of flack for it. Turns out he wasn't some genocide fanboy, just somebody who had never learned the facts about the Nazis. He renamed his cafe shortly afterwards. The bottom line is that almost nobody but other Nazis likes Nazis. No government anywhere in the world would want to be associated with Nazism. There may be an element of hypocrisy in that given what goes on sometimes but it is still a fact that almost nobody has a good word for the Nazis. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) My assertion was only that the claim that 'invoking the image of Hitler and his Nazis produces the comment that these are images of evil in cases' is incorrect. At most these images produce that comment only to the extent that the recipient is influenced by Western culture and Western history. You have supported this assertion in your above argument. Your argument is also orientalist in that you are assuming that non-Western political opinion is inconsequential, inferior, irrelevant to modernity, etc. Your allegation in your final sentence is not only incorrect and unsupported by anything I wrote, it is personally insulting. Care to apologise for it? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC) LOL Maybe you should call me evil and get it over with. I am sure that your God will concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.150.96 (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Oh dear. I fear I have taken Assume Good Faith too far and stepped over into Feeding The Troll. Sorry everybody! Time to wrap this tedious and off-topic nonsense up and get back to productive discussion of how to improve the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point of the intro. The intro is very poorly written with the following problems: (1) It is very long, (2) the intro meanders into indepth complex issues best put later on in the article, (3) the intro makes moral judgements - this is a problem because from a secular philosophical standpoint: morality itself is a concept not a truth - some people like Friedrich Nietzsche reject the concept of morality and believe that reality is amoral, plus I think rational readers can make their own assessment based on the fact of millions of people were killed, tortured, and persecuted with extreme violence by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What we need to do (in my opinion) is review the lead to bring it in line with the Manual of Style at WP:LEAD. The lead should not contain anything that is not in the body of the article, and it should present a concise overview of the material presented in the article. Many people try to have at least one sentence that covers the information presented in each section of the main article. Length guidelines call for an article of this size to have a lead section of three or four paragraphs (we presently have six). We therefore (in my opinion) need to re-work the lead to comply with the Manual of Style and to do so by ensuring that the material presented in the article is summarized, and in a concise manner. Regarding the immediate issue, I am in favour of stating somewhere in the article that the historical judgement of the Nazis is that they were evil, but it does not need to be in the lead. --Dianna (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

studies of users show that a majority of them spend only a few minutes on an article. They lede must contain in a nutshell what they want to know, so I've revised it to cover the main historical points. It now runs about 1000 words in 4 paragraphs, compared to some 20,000 words in the article as a whole. Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the evil part does belong in the introduction and is very important, limit it to being used more shortly. For instance, start the article as "Nazi Germany was an evil state..." so that people do not miss the "evil" reference. This is now my suggestion since calling them evil in the introduction is clearly necessary. --81.5.150.96 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules do not allow an article to say XYZ was evil--that is POV. The article instead says that Nazi Germany is considered evil by many people and is heavily used as a symbol of evil. That is straight reporting of simple fact.Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

National Motto

Presently, the national motto is shown as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer," followed by a translation of "One People, one Reich, one Führer." Today, many people would use "Reich" and "Führer" as proper names but do not know what these words mean. It would be better to show the German motto as it is and translate it in its entirety: "One People, one Empire, one Leader." Jsamans (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. The words "Reich" and "Führer" in the motto link to the actual articles, which explain in detail what the words mean, so there's no point in using a limited translation in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as how you just deemed someone else's punctuation-missing commentary "far better" than my copy-edited version, I've lost interest in allocating any more of my time to this anyway. Jsamans (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page Appearance

I just want to give mad props to the editors of this page; the use of colour on the country map gives the page a sinister tone appropriate for the subject matter and coordinates well with the other images at the head of the page. From an artistic standpoint it's extremely effective. It's a shame that it isn't general policy to use a country's national/flag colours for their map insert and other header images; national colours are designed to invoke certain feelings, and it'd be pretty neat if things could be set up so that a reader is immediately put into the mindset of the nation they are reading about through use of colour. It probably seems childish to the more serious editors here, but popping onto the USA page and seeing red, white and blue (to use an easy example) would be pretty rad. --Open sketchbook (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

text coat of arms

Shouldn't it read "of the Weimar Republic and of the Federal Republic of Germany (1950 to date)." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemotechnik (talk • contribs) 09:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Should Nazi Germany be identified as a "Nazi single-party state" or the more generic "fascist single-party state" in the infobox

As per the question in the lead. The first indicates that it was dedicated to Nazism, it makes clear what specific variant of fascism the state adhered to, it may be valuable if the Wikipedia Community wants to make clear the exact ideology that the state adhered to, rather than the generic ideology. The second makes a more generic association of the state to being a fascist government, it is useful if the Wikipedia community wants common generic terms to be used to describe the types of government, rather than each individual variation of fascism like "Nazi single-party state" for Nazi Germany, "Ustaše single party state" for the Independent State of Croatia, and "Iron Guard single-party state" for the Kingdom of Romania during Iron Guard rule. I for one specifically oppose the inclusion of "totalitarian dictatorship" in the government form section of the infobox - because totalitarianism was an integral part of Nazism and fascism in general but it was only one part of the schema of the ideology and thus should not be separately mentioned.--R-41 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the entry in the infobox should be restricted to broad categories of government, i.e. classification of countries based on the origin, delegation, separation, and control of power/sovereignty. Ideology should not be an issue unless it very strongly determines the issue of power. If a group of vegetarians had staged a coup and replaced Hitler with someone else who kept the same power structure but banned the eating of meat, it would not have changed the type of government. So I don't think there is justification for differentiating between different types of authoritarian dictatorship unless something like the origin of power is affected. This may be the case for socialist dictatorships or theocracies, say, because they are differentiated by the alleged source of power (e.g. the workers or a supposedly omnipotent, metaphysical entity). So I would differentiate between monarchies and republics, unitary and federal states, etc. but not by ideology, unless that ideology is based on the origin of power and is shared by other countries to a sufficient extent to make it a category of more than 1. --Boson (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Ideology should not be an issue unless it very strongly determines the issue of power" yes that is correct and R-41's edits always add the ideology to the infobox , like the soviet union as "marxist lenininst single party state" so i dont know why it seems to be a problem for-R-41 , nazism does strongly determines the nazi state and not something else , as for "totalitarian dictatorship" the term in the infobox was a long term consensus until somebody removed it (really look at the page history it about YEARS !) the fact that the nazi germany was totalitarian is widely accepted to be one of the most common description about the nazi system , and therefore it should be properly noted ! AMPHELICE_s ^(TALK) 16:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag

Being an unregistered user I cannot fix it, but it seems to me that the flag featured in the infobox has been wrong for several months.--82.18.111.178 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit? --Boson (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to. I've just noticed that the current image was the official flag of Nazi Germany from 1935. It just looked odd, that's all.--82.18.111.178 (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake on map

The blue areas on the map of Europe right below the infobox are being held by the British (part of the Allies), but the legend says only the red areas are Allied-held. I can edit the page, but I don't know how to fix it. Can somebody fix it, please? Agent 78787 ^{talk contribs} 23:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

countries it is now part of- URGENT EDIT

in the sidetab which gives general information it came to my attention that certain key nations were missing from the section "today part of". The two which i found were missing were Denmark and Norway, please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.24.111 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Norway and Denmark were not aprt of the third reich.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the "Nazis are evil" statement, isn't this POV assuming validity of morality, there are people who believe morality is socially constructed

Saying that "Nazis are evil" is a POV statement, it assumes the validity of the concept of morality. First of all I accept morality and I know the Nazis did atrocious crimes, but there are those who believe that morality is a socially constructed concept - this is called moral nihilism. Secondly, the intro seems to assume that readers are too stupid to comprehend for themselves whether genocide, persecution, slavery, and torture committed by the Nazis is evil or not.--R-41 (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The point is clear from the content of the article. It is un-encyclopedic to have to include the phrase. I read once that Wikipedia was to be written on an 8th grade level; certainly then the article should reflect that. Kierzek (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. I have removed this questionable phrase.--IIIraute (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A descriptive title on my watchlist, and sure enough - another valid proposal by R-41. Agree as well. -- Director (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

the text in question does NOT say the Nazis are evil and does not involve any judgment on them. The passage is talking about non-Nazis in the 21st century and their reactions to memories of the Nazis. "In the 21st century Hitler, Nazism, the Swastika, and the Holocaust are often invoked as symbols of evil in the modern world. Newman and Erber (2002) wrote, "The Nazis have become one of the most widely recognized images of modern evil. Throughout most of the world today, the concept of evil can readily be evoked by displaying almost any cue reminiscent of Nazism ... " The passage is fully sourced and not in the least bit controversial. People who think evil is socially constructed will note that is exactly what this text says (ie "invoked as symbols"). Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

.....the text in question has still been in the article anyway (see: Legacy), however it does not belong in the introduction. This is an article about Nazi Germany, a former sovereign country, NOT the Nazis per se or Nazism!--IIIraute (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to lead

I have re-worked the lead in an attempt to comply with WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarise the whole article, not just give a chronology of events. We need to mention of all the main sections. If we do not have mention of the economy and the other things in the lead, we do not have a complete summary of the article. The Great Depression was not over when the Nazis came to power. Schutzstaffel needs to be linked spelled out in full on first mention. We do need to mention the concentration camps in the lead, as this was one of the defining things that the Nazis did. Please discuss any intended changes here on the Talk page rather than reverting me again. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In the lead, the following sentence needs to be rephrased: The Nazis intended to establish a "New Order" of complete hegemony, while eliminating the Jews and Slavic inhabitants of Europe. ...is not right that way per se; especially for the Slavs. The goal was not to eliminate (annihilate) the Slavs - see: New Order (Nazism). Also, the idea for the annihilation of the Jews was not developed before 1942 (Wannsee Conference).--IIIraute (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Diannaa means that she will be discussing her edits her before making them. Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@ IIIraute: You are right. I will edit this part. -- Dianna (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that "The Nazis intended to establish a "New Order" of complete hegemony, while eliminating the Jews and Slavic inhabitants of Europe." in fact follows the recent historiography. eg Tooze, Snyder Bloodlands. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Stone's claim about the ethnic cleansing of some 30–45 million Slavs is very interesting.... so would they have been moved or killed? Quite a difference, isn't it?--IIIraute (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

that was the long-term plan -- officially they were to move to Siberia. In practice their food was cut 90% and millions starved. see also E. M. Collingham, The Taste of War: World War II and the Battle for Food (2011) ch 1. This article starts in 1933 so I trimemdd the pre-1933 material and used better sources (Evans and Kershaw are now standard--Shirer is over 50 years old and he did not have access to the records recent historians use. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

well, there is a lot of if and speculation in those claims; but I guess that the current generation of historians needs new stories to write about as well. However... there is another problem in the lead; the following phrase is somehow misleading: Concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold slave laborers and as sites to carry out the extermination of European Jewry. Slave labory is not quite true; at least not for 1933. Well, I guess one has do define slave labory. Are some of the current inmates of US prisons are used as slave laborers? Also, concentration camps were not used as sites to carry out the extermination of European Jewry. Concentration camps were not extermination camps. There were no extermination camps on German soil.--IIIraute (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

...also, where did the following Notes go: Germany would be limited to an army of 100,000 men, with mandatory lengthy terms of enlistment to prevent the establishment of reserves. The General Staff was to be dissolved along with certain military colleges. Tanks were forbidden. Limits were placed on the navy in the form of the size and types of ships permitted, including a prohibition against submarines. A military air force was forbidden. and The Nazi Party did not achieve a parliamentary majority, however, before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. The Nazis’ plurality diminished from 230 seats to 196 seats after the federal election of November 1932.

If this article starts in 1933, it also ends in 1945, so we can drop all the if and other speculations and future mind games of Dan Stone and compagnons, etc.!--IIIraute (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Stone is not projecting the future--rather he is saying what was the Nazi plan in 1941. The nazi operations on the eastern Front were in conformity with that plan. as for the Versailles Treaty of 1919--14 years before this article--that has its own article. Likewise the Nazi party before 1933 is well covered in linked articles. Rjensen (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But what about this part: Concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold slave laborers and as sites to carry out the extermination of European Jewry I did mention earlier. In 1933, the concentration camps were mainly used for Romani people, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and especially members of the political and religious opposition. At that time the Nazis still tried to force the Jews to leave the country. Many of them did. The purpose of the camps (Dachau, for example), at that time, was not for the extermination of European Jewry; as, until 1942 those plans were not even made (and concentration camps are not extermination camps).--IIIraute (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Conquest of Europe

Air superiority over Britain, at the time, was attempted to force Britain into an armistice or surrender, not necessary for an invasion. Operation Sea Lion had been planned as an option - not the ultimate goal.--IIIraute (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

you're right--good point. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Book details needed

Rjensen, I was wondering if you could provide a little more information on the sources you have added? It would be better if we had details of the particular edition from which you drew the material (publisher, year, ISBN). The citations that need further information are as follows:

• Richard J. Evans, The coming of the Third Reich (2005) pp 6-7
• Glenn R. Cuomo, National Socialist Cultural Policy (1995) p. 231

I think I have these two figured out, but I would like confirmation, if you have a minute:

• I think "Paul D. Van Wie, Image, History, and Politics (1999) p. 37" is van Wie, Paul D. (1999). Image, History and Politics: The Coinage of Modern Europe. Lanham, Md: University Press of America. p. 37. ISBN 9780761812210.
• I think "Janusz Gumkowkski and Kazimierz Leszczynski, Poland under Nazi Occupation (Warsaw, Polonia Publishing House, 1961) online" is Gumkowski, Janusz; Leszczyński, Kazimierz (1961). Warsaw: Polonia Pub. House. OCLC 456349. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) A page number would be great too, please, if it's not too much trouble. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Evans = {cite book|author=Richard J. Evans|title=The coming of the Third Reich|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=hx62NyAzEu8C%7Cyear=2005%7Cpublisher=Penguin%7Cisbn=978-0-14-303469-8}} (the paperback and hardcover & British editions have different ISBN with identical texts.; Cuomo = Glenn R. Cuomo (1995). National Socialist cultural policy. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-09094-4.. Gumkowkski and Leszczynski = all I have seen is the online webpage that has no page numbers. Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

One People, One Reich, One Leader

This should actually be "One people, One REALM (ie nation), One Leader. it is a more accurate German translation rather than the word "reich" which isn't a word per-se in the German language and doesn't translate into itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --illythr (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The translation "Realm" sounds odd to me. I am a German native speaker and I would be unable to translate the word back into "Reich". "Realm" is misleading or at least utmost confusing. Furthermore the article speaks of the "German Empire" (1871–1918). It is inconsistent to translate the same German term "Deutsches Reich" in two different ways. The official name of the country was never changed from 1971 to 1945. 41.139.185.58 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Mortran

spelling mistake

can a registered user please 'change siezure' in the third History paragraph to 'seizure' please 84.9.247.175 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Done.--IIIraute (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And why there is no picture of Russian soldiers and two pictures on Allies forces?

It should be at least equally divided participation in Victory, and the "Raising a flag over the Reichstag" must be there. Mclaudt (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hotel Adlon is also nice (and maybe less staged?). --IIIraute (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your operativeness. Now it seems to look fine. Mclaudt (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Greece

You forgot Greece at the "Today part of" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.167.0 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Today part of..." only refers to the boundaries of former Nazi Germany (Deutsches Reich), not to the areas under German and/or Axis occupation.--IIIraute (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reich as an English word

"Reich" as in Third Reich has, like many other German words, been adopted into English. It's in the English dictionaries like Random House : "Reich | Define Reich at Dictionary.com: dictionary.reference.com/browse/reich 1. (with reference to Germany) empire; realm; nation. 2. the German state, especially during the Nazi period. Compare First Reich, Second Reich, Third Reich." also see Free Dictionary Oxford Dictionary; Collins English Dictionary, etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is to check usage. Try "Google Books". One gets 2,850 hits for "Third Empire: + "Hitler", 1,100,000 when searching for "Third Reich" + "Hitler". Also, the official name of Germany remained "Deutsches Reich" during the Weimar period, when Germany was hardly an empire. To assume Reich = empire is to make the mistaken of thinking that there is a one-to-one correspondence between words in differing languages. Ditto for the translation "realm," which occasionally slips in. Hardly any English-language book uses that. 13:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Bytwerk (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen in that the term has become accepted in English works over the years, without further translation. As a commonly used term, like "Nazi Germany" discussed above, it should be continued in use in this article; per WP:COMMONNAME. "Blitzkrieg" is another example. And as Bytwerk points out, it gets many more hits, thereby is used to a much greater degree. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen, et al. "Greater German Realm" is definitely not the conventional long name in English. Reich has been adopted into the English language as a loan word. Though alternative translations of "Reich" are of linguistic interest, this is a historical, not a linguistic, article, so, if anywhere, the parenthetical linguistic discusssion belongs in a footnote, which could include a link to the Wiktionary article, which gives the etymology. The linguistic issue is not important enough to the topic of the Third Reich to be treated as the sort of salient data that is included in an infobox. --Boson (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A translation section is supposed to translate the word

In the translation section of the infobox, the word should be fully translated, because that is the purpose of the translation section - to translate. Outside of the translation section of the infobox and the explanation of the translation of the name in the one section of the article, I support the WP:COMMON NAME use of the common half translation throughout the rest of the article. "Reich" is not an English word and the description of it as "referring to Germany" is a vain description that does not even address its German use to refer to non-German entities. The reason why reich is used is not because it has become an English word but because English speakers have been confused about how to translate it because many thought it meant empire but then saw it being used after the monarchy by a republic.--R-41 (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironically and as we can see without success, the Weimar Republic's English-language translation of its constitution explicitly sought to clarify this confusion and specifically stated in the translated version that the word means realm. And other evidence demonstrates that the word means realm, I found a source that described the term's use during the German Empire (Deutsches Kaiserreich) period - it says that people confused the meaning of the word with empire (Kaiserreich) - when in fact the German Empire was officially called German Realm (Deutsches Reich) because there was no "Emperor of Germany" - there was an "Emperor of the Germans" as in the people - and the state was officially a sort of federal monarchical presidency with the Kaiser as the nominal head of a federation of German states. There are multiple modern sources that follow this accurate translation - including those of German historians who translate their work into English. As I said above, I believe that in the translation section of the infobox and the section that explains what the name means, a fully-translated name should be used, elsewhere in the article the common half-translation should be used.--R-41 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

a bad translation is not useful to anyone. The English version of "Reich" is "reich" according to the dictionaries listed above and common usage by scholars and the general public. Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a bad translation, it is a translation. There are multiple examples of it being fully translated. The reason why it is not fully translated is obvious: because people confused the term with meaning "empire" and when the monarchy with its emperor was replaced by a republic, English people became confused with what it means - that is why the untranslated "reich" is used, because of a confusion of its meaning. I said that for the main body of the article the common half-translation is fine, but in a translation section, it should be fully translated in the known accurate form as translated by Germans to English and as known by experienced linguists who know German: and that is "realm". The Oxford English Dictionary has very poor quality translations of complex terms. English dictionaries mention foreign words that are not native to English: such as leprechaun - it is an Irish term that is commonly used in an untranslated form in English, this does not mean it is an English word.--R-41 (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41 does not trust dictionaries or scholars -- but he does not say where he gets his unique ideas--no RS for his contested points, which violated WP:OR Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep deleting the material I add that explains it. The English language dictionaries you have quoted are not defining it at all, they are saying that it is a foreign word that is used in English, like leprechaun - it is not an English language word used for universal purposes - it is an untranslated term that is used in reference to a specific instance - particularly Nazi Germany, just as leprechaun meaning essentially a fairytale dwarf is only used in reference to the use in Irish fairytales. There are multiple scholarly sources that accurately translate the word: in the Weimar Republic article there are multiple references for its use, including this:

• Dan Diner. Beyond the Conceivable: Studies on Germany, Nazism, and the Holocaust. University of California Press, 2000. Pp. 69. - like what I am proposing this author fully translates the word, saying "the word Reich (realm)", but goes on to use the word reich after translating it. This is what I propose: a full translation in the translation section and then using the common name.
• Royal Institute of International Affairs. A history of the Peace Conference of Paris , Volume 3. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 1969 Pp. 347. On the topic of the Weimar Republic constitution, it states that "The word Reich we translate as Realm" in the context of the name Deutsches Reich as German Realm.
• Bo Göransson. Universities in Transition: The Changing Role and Challenges for Academic Institutions. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2011. Pp. 261. Describes German Realm as the definition of "Deutsches Reich". Pp. 261.
• Marion Isabel Newbigin. A new regional geography of the world. Harcourt, Brace & company, 1929. - a standard geography book of the time period in which "reich" was used in Germany's official name, says "Germany (Deutsches Reich or German Realm)"
• John Frederick Unstead, Edmund William Gilbert. A systematic regional geography:a post-matriculation course, Volume 2. University of London Press, 1939. Pp. 94 - specifically translates Deutsches Reich into "German Realm" - and it is specifically about Nazi Germany during its annexation of Austria.

There you are. No original research there, please rescind your false and nasty-sounding remark - that is not in accord with "being welcoming" as Wikipedia advises users to be. What I am proposing is very moderate and simple: the translation section should fully translate the German word "reich" into "realm". The rest of the article should use the common half-translation "German Reich" or "Third Reich" in accordance with WP:COMMON NAME.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

we're talking about Nazi Germany here and they are not. (the only cite in the last 70 years is by Göransson and it is about "a stable German realm (Deutsches Reich) in the period of 1871–1918." Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The first sources are modern. Why would Goransson put a bracketted German term "(Deutsches Reich)" - why wouldn't he just use an English version? - He was using the English term and then showed what he was translating. Look at the other sources as well - multiple uses of the term - demonstrating that your accusation that I am making this all up is false. Nazi Germany kept the same name as that of the Weimar Republic (Deutsches Reich), the Nazis didn't even formally change the Weimar Republic constitution - they just ignored it, it's the same name and thus pre-Nazi era translations of the name are acceptable. You have ignored Dan Diner's recent source from 2000 that translates it as realm, but also uses the term reich as the common name - that is what I am asking for: a full translation in the translation section of the infobox and the common name "reich" throughout the rest of the article.--R-41 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a very valid source that is a dictionary:

• *Webster's II New College Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005. Pp. 956. It defines reich as having two possible translations "empire, realm" and describes the "reichsmark" as being a "genetive of Reich, realm + Mark, a unit of currency."

This is more evidence and from the type of source you wanted, an English dictionary.--R-41 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Henning Andersen. Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. Pp. 26. - this source is by a linguist and says: "Gm. Reich 'realm'" and it goes on to explain the origins of the German word reich.--R-41 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "reich" became associated with nazism and therefore should not be translated. Notice that Germany does not call itself the Fourth Reich, and renamed the Reichstag, the Reich Chancellor and the Reichsmark. TFD (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that's nonsense. The Reichstag is still called Reichstag - Österreich, Frankreich, etc.--IIIraute (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry--Webster's II New College Dictionary. treats Reich as an ENGLISH word (derived of course from the German word). Henning Andersen. Language Contacts in Prehistory" is about prehistory not Nazi Germany. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon examining policy WP:COMMON NAME does not apply to the full name section of the infobox - because it specifically asks for the full name and a translation - it is not asking for the common name. The infobox has a translation section for foreign words and in that section, and that section alone - it should be fully translated as "realm" - outside of that section in the article the common term of "reich" should be used. The German word "reich" has entered the English lexicon as a common cultural reference; it is always used in reference to Germany from 1871 to 1945 - but it is not a universal English word, just as the Irish word "leprechaun" can be found in an English language dictionary, that is always used as a cultural reference to Irish mythical dwarves and not to "small body" people (as it literally means in Irish) in general. Do you see English regularly using the word "reich" universally and regularly in the English language as defined by Webster's dictionary as in "the reich of science" or the "reich of fiction" or a "Commonwealth reich"?--R-41 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I have a personal leprechaun, it so happens, and he whispered to me: "When dealing with the Nazi era, the best translation of the German word "Reich" is the English word "reich." -- I asked him why should we use an English word instead of an Irish word but he ran off to chase a rainbow. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, if you are not going to take this seriously, and are just ignoring everything that I have said, then you are violating WP:DISRUPT and the principle of WP:DON'T BE A DICK.--R-41 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41 is quite right that dictionaries of translation will give "realm" as a translation of Reich. However that is because German uses "Reich" in phrases like "Reich der Ideen" [realm of ideas]. In that case it would be silly to translate the phrase as "Reich of ideas." However for every one case that R-41 can find in which someone uses "realm" to translate "Reich" referring to the Third Reich, as I noted above, there will be 300 who do not. It simply is not standard English usage. Why confuse the readers with nonstandard usage? If one of my university students gave me a paper in which he talked about the "Third Realm," I would be most amused. Bytwerk (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It is more to set equal with (for example): Eastern Realm - Reich des Ostens; Snow Realm - Schneereich or Realm of Darkness - Reich der Finsternis. --IIIraute (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

1) when we translate a word we pick the best English word. 2) when talking about the Nazis the best translation of the German word REICH is the English word "Reich," as shown by Webster II and other English dictionaries. qed. It's much better than "realm" or "empire" or whatnot (although those words are better when dealing with pre-1918 Germany). 3) if you want to be taken seriously then please don't get started on leprechauns. And when you cite a source like Webster II then please use it--it contains definitions of ENGLISH words, like "Reich" and "Blitzkrieg" for example. Rjensen (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I stated in my first post, a moderate and reasonable solution: for the infobox translation section alone reich should be fully translated as "realm" - as this is the accurate translation from German. Elsewhere the common cultural reference of "reich" can be used. Rjensen keeps saying they are English words, they are - they are cultural references - because they are not universally applied in the English language. Rjensen has no reason to take a condescending tone when I mentioned the Irish word leprechaun - what, does he think it's funny because some US multinational corporation stole an Irish mythical legend to make cereal? I am part Irish and I study Irish history and am interested in its legends - the leprechaun an Irish term to describe a small person, and they are commonly depicted as magical in Irish legends - the English language has adopted the Irish term leprechaun as a cultural reference to the Irish legendary tales - and not to the Irish meaning which is a "small bodied" person - hence a non-universal word in the English language like "reich" that is used as a cultural reference. If Rjensen can't help thinking and laughing about the stupid stereotypical and partially racist rendition of the myth in the American Lucky Charms cereal, maybe he should think how condescending he is being to Irish culture.--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is probably moderate, but not reasonable. It simply is not standard English usage. It is not "the accurate translation." If it were, there would be far more people using it. Imagine Shirer's book titled "The Rise and Fall of the Third Realm.” It highlights an unusual and potentially confusing translation of the word. Again, why would one insist on using "realm" when it is very, very, very rare in English usage. I suppose it's time to try the old "let's vote on this." See below. Bytwerk (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "Reich" should be used for general reference - however there is nothing wrong to explain to the reader what Reich means in this context.--IIIraute (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the introduction

The article's lead - it's awful - and full of trivial & broad-brush statements...

...the introduction bears resemblance to a cheap novelette. --IIIraute (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction needs a lot of work. It does does not adequately summarize the content of the article, and it should have only four paragraphs. I think one problem may be the misleading article title, which tempts editors to conflate Nazism in Germany - which has a separate article - and the history of Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the Third Reich), which is supposed to be the topic of this article (as a sub-article of History of Germany). --Boson (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The name "Nazi Germany" has never been existed, it is wrong

The name was "Drittes Reich" (Third Reich), "German Empire" or "Deutsches Reich". The Term "Nazi Germany" was invented by German leftist after 1970. It has never been in use. 89.204.155.38 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Which leftist? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Winston Churchill, perhaps?[7] TFD (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Churchill used "Third Reich" all the time in his 6-volume history of WW2 that appeared in 1947+. Volume one has N=34 uses of "Reich" and N=16 uses of "Nazi Germany" says Google books. Rjensen (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do a search for "Nazi Germany" using Google books and limit to before 1970. 142,000 hits. I'd say it's been in use. Bytwerk (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But it seems like the most common used term is Third Reich[8] → WP:COMMONNAME. --IIIraute (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but the point of the post was that the term "Nazi Germany" supposedly had never existed before it was invented by leftists after 1970. One can't disprove that claim by showing that "Third Reich" is the most common term. Bytwerk (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was mainly referring to the section "Change of the article's name"↑ and therefore also supporting this users claim that "the name was "Drittes Reich" (Third Reich)" and "Nazi Germany" should not be the article's heading.--IIIraute (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you push for that change in name, I'd probably even support it. Bytwerk (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that.--IIIraute (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, its clear that the term Nazi Germany was not invented by German leftists in the 1970's.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)