Talk:Lebensraum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lebensraum

I think that is important to talk about geopolitics and geopolitical representations when talking about lebensraum. After all, this is one of their main examples and Retzel is considered, with haushofer and MacKinder as one of the founding fathers of the discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.187.161 (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

World War I

On Lebensraum and the September plan--it was a proposal that was under discussion but was never adopted. To quote one historian, Professor Raffael Scheck in Germany 1871-1945: A Concise History: "The government, finally, never committed itself to anything. It had ordered the September Program as an informal hearing in order to learn about the opinion of the economic and military elites." Scheck. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You can not remove a source. You can say "A" said this and "B" said that but you can not remove "A" just because you like "B" more Gainswings11 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Polish Border Strip

On Polish Border Strip plan in WW1.--Molobo (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no Poland in 1913. This should be clarified.78.146.224.74 (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The practical implementation of the Lebensraum concept began in 1939 with Germany's occupation of Poland.

I take issue with this.

(I will only give rough details here, if necessary I have the exact dates, locations, quotes and refs upstairs in my notes.)

Basically, in his first speech to the Generals in Feb 33, he said he needed an army, but not for colonial and trade policy as the Kaiser had wanted, but for Lebenraum in the East.

Thus re-armament was the first practical implementation.

He said in 23/11/39 that the re-militarisation of the Rhineland was a necessary pre-requisite, and all his actions since had been based around this aim.

Many historians (who I can cite, - Hildebrand, Hillgrubber etc) believe that the re-militarisation made war inevitable. Churchill believed that it was the act of re-armament.

The Hossbach Memorandum in 37 planned the annexation of Austria and Cz. For autarky and to round off the frontiers, so he could peruse his aims of LR in the E.

Munich, he claimed shortly after, got him 2,000km of fortifications without a shot being fired. And the invasion of Cz took 35 Cz divisions out of the equation.

All these were practical steps for LR in the E.

In 1937, von Ribbentrop had told Churchill that Ger would guarantee the Gb Empire and the Fr frontier if they were given a free hand in the East.

11 Aug, 1939, he told the LoN High Commissioner in Danzig that it was all about Russia, and if the West were so stupid as not to see this, then he'd have to beat them first.

In May 39, he told his generals that Danzig was no the issue but LR in Russia was.

22 Aug 39, he told Canaris that he'd hoped to get Poland onside in a war with Russia, even offering them part of the Ukraine. He also said this had been part of his long-term plan (-stufenpaln, - step by step, termed coined by Hillgruber) and that the Rhineland DMZ had been the most dangerous part.

So Re-mil, the Rh DMZ, the four year plan of '36, the Hossbach memorandum, Anschluss, Munich, and the forced independence of Slovakia, the annexation of Czech and the calculated machinations over Danzig whereby he refused to allow another Munich to cheat him out of full-scale war, were all practical implementations of his LR policy.

He set this out in Mein Kampf and added the extra inter-continental bit in the Zweitbusch.

(also cf: in MK + before and after said that LR in E was final objective and all FP should be directed to that goal. Dussledorf Jan 32, Feb 33 - LR in E + ruthless Germanisation, Feb 34 -pre-emptive strike in W to allow war for LR in E, Mar 35 - whatever interim strategies he might adopt, ultimate aim is LR in E.)

Even David Cameron Watt's recently changed his mind now agreeing the Stufenplan theory (see his recent review of Goda's book about the planned naval base in Fr N.Africa for an invasion of the US), which Hildebrans, Hillgrubber, Broszat, Weinberg, Trevor-Roper, F.W. Hinsey, Dray, Goda et al all show convincingly.

So, as he said in Nov 39, all he'd done was for LR. How do I add this to the article if I disagree with the statement I quoted in the title?

The practical implementation began with re-armament. And continued up to and including Barbarossa.

Sorry. Wiki virgin. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.225.5 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Ganpati23 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Distortion

The article is distorting things on a massive scale. Total revision is necessary. --41.151.102.3 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

that is too vague -- First specify which Reliable sources you are using. Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it a distortion? I would like to write a section about Hitler's Long Term Plans for Lebensraum in the East being the sole cause of WW2, while adding to the WW1 Sept. Programme debate, as the many War Aims committees set up in Germany during the war did have the same annexationist aspirations. Ganpati23 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"living room" hahahah!

You can't translate Lebensraum as living room. The word livingroom already exists in English and translates as Wohnzimmer. If you want a semantic translation look at "space to live"or the such 92.40.254.101 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The term Lebensraum is generally used in translation to "living space" but the term living room is also acceptable and is in many books regarding Adolf Hitler, Third Reich and Germany's history.--Windows66 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lebensraum should not only be described as the Nazi propaganda that it was. It was and IS an every day word in the german language and this article gives people the wrong idea. When you talk to a german and ask them about the word and its meaning, the idea this article gives you is the last they would think of. Moreover it seems to be adapted in biological terms in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.29.253 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination

The GA nomination is premature, there are a lot of citations in the lead (see WP:LEAD), and uncited paras. Unless you have been a major editor of an article, it is a good idea to contact the major editors before nominating the article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lebensraum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• First, the lead section is quite too long, and should be cut by at least half. See MOS: [1] More later. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Removed all the fluff and unneeded/mentioned in the article bits that go into way too much detail. KevinNinja (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are unsourced paragraphs under Racist ideology, The Septemberprogramm, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, The East–West frontier, and The ideology of Lebensraum.

Any progress on this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• This image could need a file description template on Commons:[2]

• Fixed. KevinNinja (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• This image may be a bit iffy, as it seems all other images extracted from Meyer's lexicon have been deleted:[3]

• Replaced with a more sourced image. Working on the rest.. will take a bit. KevinNinja (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• This image has no proper date, and the source seems a bit iffy:[4]

• Fixed. KevinNinja (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since the nominator seems to be ignoring this article, I'll have to fail the nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Shortened Lead

I have removed all the parts in the lead that are unnecessary in my view and have been mentioned later in the article. The lead shall only be used as a quick overview of the topic (the important parts) and as a summary. Please post here before editing or undoing. KevinNinja (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Original purpose of article lost

A few months ago this article was focused mainly on the historical German and especially National Socialist concept of the need for their country to expand in order to counter a percieved overpopulation, while related concepts (such as that of Facist Italy) were only briefly mentioned as such (they already had articles to themselves). Recently, this article has undergone a dramatic change, becoming a generic page where vaugely similar notions are given just as much room. Along with this, the article seems to have fallen victim to constantly shifting partisan definitions (someone altered the lead to describe it first and foremost as a 'racist doctrine' and after being altered again now features a very complicated description of the notion in geopolitical terms). Both of these definitions are arguably correct, but are given special significance based on the opinions of certain editors, and as I said earlier are unstable. There are similarly partisan descriptions throughout the article. I suggest one should take time to read the article and earlier versions of it to reach their own conclusion whether its orgional purpose has been belied. Regards, Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The significant pre-Nazi and Nazi conceptions of lebensraum that involve a definition of support for territorial expansion, need to be described. This article currently possesses no understanding of significant motivations beyond Nazi ideology as to why lebensraum was promoted, one was the beliefs that existed for years that Germany was overpopulated and/or did not have enough agricultural land, also very importantly the concept of lebensraum grew in support in response to the British blockade of trade to Germany during World War I where food shortages occurred in the country.--70.26.120.207 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also there is no reason to have Italian Fascism's spazio vitale described so prominently here, it is not about the German conception of lebensraum, also the section on Axis ideas of division of spheres of influence are irrelevant here - it is not clearly about the topic at hand.--70.26.120.207 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No Polish state prior to WW I

Currently, the article has a sentence that reads:

In September 1914, when German victory in the First World War appeared feasible, the government of Imperial Germany introduced the Septemberprogramm as an official war aim (Kriegsziel), which was secretly endorsed by Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg (1909–17), whereby, upon achieving battlefield victory, Germany would annex territories from western Poland to form the Polish Border Strip

Of course, the casual reader is going to think that "western Poland" refers to the westernmost territory of the Polish state. However, there was no Polish state from the 1790s until after World War I. So this clearly refers to the territory inhabited by the stateless Poles. However, even then there is confusion, for the westernmost areas with Poles had been annexed into Prussia/Germany more than a century prior. So this needs to be re-written, but I'm not sure I'm up to it. Someone who cares about this article should take it on. Unschool 05:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Area and population data in 1939 of Nazi German Gaue that included annexed territories of Poland: Estimates of 1947[94] as cited by Stanisław Waszak, Demographic Picture of the German Occupation (1970)[95]

I don't quite understand what this part is supposed to say, there isn't really any context given. The numbers themselves might be some post war Polish propaganda claiming hardly any Germans had been expelled, but they don't depict the population numbers in 1939 (cf. e.g. wiki article on Eastern Prussia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:16C0:273C:74E6:8EBF:FC16:D67F (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebensraum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318131952/http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1%2C41565%2Cdruk.html to http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1%2C41565%2Cdruk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebensraum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021032507/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrest.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrest.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding Some Extra Content

As part of the Wiki Educational project at ABTech and Western NC's 3rd Annual Holocaust preservation Edit-A-Thon (https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/westernncs3rdannualholocaustpreservationeditathon/overview), I am adding some additional content to this page. Any improvements, revisions or suggestions are welcome! Mrpineapplecow (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Lebensraum Border Addition?

I wonder whether this page could use the addition of a section explaining the territorial history of the implementation of the Lebensraum policy? I'm thinking a table would suffice, explaining when a territory was taken by Germany under Lebensraum and when (or if) it was lost. A map showing Germany in one colour, with territories acquired under Lebensraum in another could also be useful - potentially the territories could be coloured by date of acquisition. I think it would be useful for visual learners. Though, I don't have the skill or knowledge to do this myself :) PunkAndromeda (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lebensraum

I think it's unfair that the idea of Lebensraum seems to be only focused on the distorted way the Nazi's used it. The term was indeed coined by Retzel, and was meant as a geographic idea, uniting social and natural sciences. Modern Geography was greatly influenced by this idea, and still today, it has a great impact on geography (especially in the USA).

Also his writing about society a liquid mass moving in a quest for Lebensraum, with expansions and contractions in regression and progression is important in understanding the term.

Perhaps it would be wise to ensure the page at least mentions his theory, before moving on to how Nazi Germany used his term and theory to justify expansion.

The literal translation from german is "habitat", "living space" or "room for life". The term has commonly been used in the 19th century (and later misused) not only to describe the need for space, but also the dependency of limited natural resources like acres for corn and cattle, raw materials like coal and iron ore, etc. Even if some writers attribute coining this term to Friedrich Ratzel, he has probably not been the inventor. Malthus' "Essay on the Principle of Population", written in 1798, (online availascussions.

Associating the concept of understanding habitats and the limited resources in ecosystems with Nazi ideology is probably misleading, maybe a formulation like "The term Lebensraum in historic and english writings is usually used in the context of imperialist and Nazi ideology, trying to justify expansionist ideas. In common german language it's also used neutrally (e.g. the phrase: der Lebensraum der Tiere - the natural habitat of animals)."

— 212.144.193.114 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it important that this article mentiones that Hitler's struggle for Lebensraum was part of his (crazy) racist worldview, that an apocalyptic Endkampf (final struggle) between races was near. Hitler was not just someone who wanted more territory for Germany! Not just ! The racist aspect in Hitler's motivation certainly distinguishes his war for Lebensraum from most other aggressions. - That's why I made my contribution. If you dislike the wording, change it, but please leave the message: Without understanding that Hitler believed in a struggle between races, one could not comprehend his concept of Lebensraum. 84.189.113.31 18:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC) mroo

In addition: Lebensraum is a German word. Today, noone in Germany would call the expansion of any state a struggle for Lebensraum, even if it's an ethnic struggle. This word is reserved for The Third Reich, maybe except for its use in biology. Thank you. 84.189.113.31 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC) mroo

Additionally, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so articles are by topic, not word. I'm changing the article to reflect this. This article is on the Nazi concept, other meanings of the word should have there own page linked by a disambig. Ashmoo 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a nation requiring Lebensraum is certainly not limited to Germany. There should be an article on the historical concept. The greatest examples would be Russia and the USA in the 19th century. China remain wedded to the idea of physical expansion. German Lebensraum was relatively limited and ineffective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an English wiki page, and in English, the term Lebensraum is almost exclusively associated with Hitler's plans and actions from Mein Kampf to Barbarossa. The work of Fritz Fischer in the 60s had led to a discussion about the similarity of aims with Germany in WW1, but a student should be able to put Lebensraum into wiki, and get a page which discusses the WW1 September Programme, the war-time War Aims committees and the imposed Brest-Litovsk peace. They would then expect to find Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf that Germany should change from Wilhelmine colonial and trade policies and look to living space in the East. They should then see his speeches in power from 1933 onwards talking about how this would be implemented, including his comments to the LoN High Commissioner in Danzig that all was about Russia, not the West, and his comments to the Generals that he needed lands of the East so they wouldn't be starved out as they were in the last war. This is what a student would want to find and this is what the page should provide. The German page should cater to modern understanding of the term in Germany. Ganpati23 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lebensraum is alive, kicking and cavorting on Earth today under a new label.

The applied ‘living room’ definition of Hitlerian lebensraum has been dug up by arch-committed environmentalists but kept under ideological wraps, mixed with Malthusian brew, and is being issued as a fatal toxic injection under the label of Sustainability with the same long-term goals and objectives of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Environmentalists want a totalitarian ‘green’ dictatorship over Earth, of course, to save Earth. Environmentalists believe there is not enough lebensraum for global environmental sustainability, therefore many people must cease to exist before Earth can be saved. 9 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:776F:DEB0:1516:D68C:7286:9AE8 (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

None of this is true or relevant. This is page is not a blog or a soapbox. -- Jibal (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Term used w.r.t. Israel

Could someone please explain, with reference to policy and evidence, what exactly is wrong with this recently reverted addition?

The term has also been linked to Israel, both in its actions during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and later to its settlement policies in the Palestinian territories

In anticipation of objection to the citation of Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the book has been regarded as a serious piece of scholarship on the topic in peer reviewed journals. See e.g Reviews in Middle East Policy [5], Foreign Affairs [6] Dlv999 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you quote please the relevant sections of the books as some of the links appear of no relevance. Ankh.Morpork 09:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant sections of the books are the parts that link Israel's policies with the term "lebensraum" thus justifying the proposed text that states Israel's policy's have been linked to the term. Dlv999 (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And I cannot see this in source 1,2 or 3 other then an incidental use of the word. Are you going to provide the relevant sections that link this doctrine with Israel's policies? Ankh.Morpork 09:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The section discusses the post war usage of the term. The article states that "The term "lebensraum" has been applied to many post-war nations", then goes on to list examples where RS have applied the term to post war nations. RS have used the term in relation to Israel's post war policies and that is relevant and notable to the section and the article. The sources support the proposed edit. Dlv999 (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

When you choose to provide the sections of the various sources for analysis, I can assist in deciding the material's relevance and notability. Ankh.Morpork 09:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The sections are clear from the link. The term "lebensraum" is highlighted in the link as part of the discussion of Israel's policies. Me typing out the material that I have already linked is not going to add anything to this discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Finkelstein link is not directing to the cited page (given as a full citation). If this is what the issue is I apologize. I will be happy to link the cited page, or you can just turn the pages using your browser to find the cited page if you would prefer. Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Kramer'#s making use of a word does not mean he is explicitly linkling to a particular doctrine. Same goes for Kapitan, he mentions the word and you interpret this as sufficing to support the term being associated with Israel. Two opinion pieces and Finkelstein is undue for this inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 10:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This section of the article states that "The term "lebensraum" has been applied to many post-war nations", then lists nations that RS have applied the term to. The cited sources I have presented have applied the term to Israel's policies and actions. The proposed text is relevant to the section and the sources support the proposed text. It seems to me that this is just excessive parsing of sources to remove significant viewpoints that have appeared in RS from the article.

I have found more RS to support the text. As you have reverted my addition of sources to the proposed text above, I will present the updated text for discussion:-

The term has also been linked to Israel, both in its actions during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and later to its settlement policies in the Palestinian territories. Efraim Eitam, an Israeli government minister under Prime minister Ariel Sharon, explicitly used the concept of Lebensraum as the basis for his arguments that all Arabs and Palestinians should be persuaded or forced to leave Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Dlv999 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is all WP:Fringe, WP:Pointy, WP:POV nonsense. Please stop wasting your time and everybody else's. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources are academic standard, plus two articles in leading Israeli and Egyptian newspapers - the charge of fringe is absurd. I am simply representing RS on this topic. The article states that the term has been applied to many countries. Then lists several with appropriate sources. Why does it suddenly become an issue when Israel is listed among other countries with appropriate sourcing. Why do editors place impossible barriers to including any viewpoint about Israel published in RS that is not 100% consistent with its own self image? Dlv999 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can people please provide policy-backed reasons for expunging sources published by, among others, Princeton University Press, Routledge, and Wiley-Blackwell. A claim of WP:FRINGE is so specious that it merits no response. nableezy - 16:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit interesting how an editor from I-P who has never made a single edit before to the article or the talk page of an article about Nazi Germany and Jews winds up here. --Jethro B 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You want to say something come out and say it and deal with the consequences of doing so (and unsurprisingly, you dont know what you are talking about). Otherwise, please do not disrupt the purpose of this talk page, that being, you know, to discuss the content of the article. And there has yet to be a single policy based reason given for removing such sources and material. nableezy - 17:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, please stick to Wikipedia policy and evidence based discussion aimed at improving this article. I am still waiting for an explanation for each and every source you recently deleted from the article. If you want to ask about why editors are here you should go elsewhere, but before you question Nableezy, you should first talk to AnkhMorpork, Ynhockey, Jethro B, Dlv999 and Plot Spoiler Dlv999 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Such personal attacks on other editors is not acceptable. -- Jibal (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The nonsense is that comment. None of those policies applies, and the claim that people's time is being wasted fails to assume good faith and violates the very purpose and intent of WP talk pages. -- Jibal (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This was again removed without cause. There has yet to be an explanation for the removal of such sources. Absent that explanation, I am restoring the material. nableezy - 08:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And now there is a misrepresentation of what WP:UNDUE means. Shrike, please justify your removal. nableezy - 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It was justified in edit summary.Why Israel should get a special treatment and get whole paragraph while China and USA got half of the sentence each.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no it was not. If you feel that those issues are not given enough detail then add to it. WP:UNDUE calls for due weight given to each viewpoint, it does not call for the type of editing where an editor can claim that one issue is given more detail than another to delete that material. nableezy - 21:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree there is no obligation to add material only to "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." And that exactly what I did.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you decidedly did not do that. You removed material on Israel on the sole basis of other material not being included. Where exactly does WP:DUE support such an edit? nableezy - 21:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, when assessing due weight we look at the sources and Wikipedia policy. We have a high quality academic source stating that a government minister used the concept of Lebensraum to support his arguments for a removal of an ethnic group from a territory. That is certainly relevant and due for a section on the post war usage of the Lebensraum concept. The problem here is not the sources or due weight per wikipedia policy. The problem is that the minister happens to have been an Israeli and we have a systemic bias in articles related to Israel, such that a number of editors will remove material based on their own opinions of neutrality, rather than application of wikipedia policy and source analysis. If we had the same source, making the same statement about a minister of any other country, I think it would have been included without comment. Dlv999 (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You still have not explained why Israel should get more space then USA and China?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, look at the sources that have been brought with respect to China and the US and then look at the sources that have been brought with respect to Israel. WP:NPOV states that we represent views in proportion to their prominence in RS. We have more RS and a wider variety of RS(both academic and mainstream Israeli/Egyptian media) discussing the concept in relation to Israel. Also consider that an academic source discusses an Israeli cabinet minister who used the concept to support his arguments. No such source has been presented with respect to American or Chinese government ministers. It is possible that more sources exist discussing China, USA or other countries, if they can be found then that would warrant further mention of those countries also. But as it stands your arguments are not consistent with the source evidence we have in front of us. Dlv999 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No one needs to explain that. Removing material on the basis that it's longer than other material violates several WP policies. -- Jibal (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda Lies

"It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people." But there isn't any truth to it. --41.151.30.3 (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes please, provide us with some evidence about this, I'm Russian myself and I don't want accuse other people of something they didn't do, even if it supposedly was against my own people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.131.155 (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement in the article is very emotive and largely unsupported by the evidence. Certainly Nazis regarded Slavic races in particular as inferior, but to say the it was stated policy to "kill, deport, or enslave" them is going too far. I would be happy to be proven wrong. But unless someone can produce a policy document or statement which supports this claim it ought to be deleted.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a fact ... Hitler stated this explicitly numerous times, especially with his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Obersalzberg_Speech -- Jibal (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would anyone give a speech admitting to genocide? Why would the chief of intelligence then choose to leak it to some random nobody? This Obalzberg speech looks even less credible than the infamous Steele Dossier. Steven talk (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)