Talk:Nuremberg Laws
| WikiProject Germany | (Rated C-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Human rights | (Rated C-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 15, 2004, September 15, 2007, September 15, 2008, September 15, 2009, and September 15, 2010. |
[edit] Clarification needed - "Swiss Immigration officials"
The article says "Jews, at the insistence of Swiss immigration officials, were required to adopt a middle name: "Sara" for women and "Israel" for men when applying for a passport." What have Swiss immigration officials to do with it? The reference 17 does not mention Switzerland at all... 129.94.30.6 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing, but Swiss immigration official Heinrich Rothmund initiated the introduction of the "J stamp" (Judenstempel) in passports for "foreign" Jews (other than Swiss Jews). So there seems to be a confusion. --Alfons2 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Previously in the Racism article
The 8th line says Dharti Patell? Possible vandalism? Don't know where to flag it... :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.108.2 (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This article was removed to its own article for consistency. Hope this is OK. Wallie 18:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
hmmmm...how did the nuremberg laws affect the individual and their family member?
[edit] Needs more
There were actually 6 "Nuremburg Laws". They should be listed and described. --Zero 14:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
Nazi Nuremberg Laws → Nuremberg Laws … Rationale: Known generally simply as the Nuremberg Laws. Google only shows 300 hits for "Nazi Nuremberg Laws" outside of Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support; never read/heard these officially referred to with the "Nazi" prefix. Regards, David Kernow 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gryffindor 16:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Septentrionalis 05:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3rd Law missing
T(Empire-Party-Convention(?)) of the NSDAP (or "Reichsparteitag der Freiheit" - Reichsparteitag of Freedom (Working Title)) were:
- Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre (Blutschutzgesetz) or Common: Nürnberber Rassegesetz(Nuremberg Race Law)
- Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor (Blood-Protection-Law)
- Reichsbürgergesetz
- Empire-Citizenship-Law
- Reichsflaggengesetz
- Empire-Flags/Flag-Law ((...)flaggen(...) in this case is somehow ambiguous, better would have been Reichsbeflaggungsgesetz something like Empire-Flag-Usage-Law)
The 3rd one does not seem to be very expressive for "outer-germans" but it regulated the further usage of flags, an essential column of national identity. It ruled out the Repulic of Weimar german flag (the today's one) with the older Cesars-Empire-Flag (Black-White-Red) one wich correspondes with the One-Leader (Ein Führer) principle of a monarc and the colors of the NSDAP flag. It further regulated the enforced pair-usage with the NSDAP swastica flag if possible. outside of many Christian communities were able to hold those kinds of positions. I'm not sure if that’s entirely correct, however, I was led to believe there was a semi-factual basis for the exaggerated Nazi claims. The phrasing of that particular sentence is a bit off though. "certain" sounds a tad sinister. Little illy 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Text of laws
There are several problems with the article:
1. There is vandalism in section one of the first law.
2. The formatting of the page is odd - the contents box is placed between the introduction of the first law and its first article. Also, the heading of the first law is messed up.
3. Translations of the original text of the laws are given; however, the second section of the first law breaks form, and there is an additional comment in the fourth section with nothing to denote that it is not part of the text of the law.
The links at the bottom of this page each contain a translation of one of the laws; the second also has text of a supplemental decree from November 14, 1935. Perhaps useful... I hope that these issues can be dealt with - I myself am not familiar with Wikipedia formatting/editing guidelines, in particular for showing the text of a law (should there be quotes or something indicating that the text is a translation and not a summary?), but I can tell that there are some problems. 68.56.255.109 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I LOVE JOHNNY DEPP _
[edit] Religion vs. Ethnicity
Is it really fair to say, as the first paragraph read, that "race was determined by the religious observance of the grandparents?" This may make sense to Americans, but in Europe, "Hebrew" means a race, not a religion. How do you explain the term "secular Jews" or how can one explain that Hebrews from the Soviet Union, who, for the most part, did not practice "their" religion, were, and are, still considered ethnically Jewish. I dare anyone to say that Dimitri Mendeleev wasn't Jewish, just look at that last name, it's not Russian, I can tell you that! I speak from my own Slavic/Jewish background. —The preceding Ilya D. comment was added by 71.176.209.119 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Sabotage alert
This article has been seriously compromised. See especially the section "Introduction and History". I am not an expert so I am not touching it, but someone should quickly repair the damage. Axel 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gleichsetzung des Judentums mit dem Islamismus durch Deutsche Staatschristen Bundesregierung Bundesinnenminister Wolfgang Schäuble CDU/CSU Bundestagsfraktion
- "Die „größte und manifesteste Bedrohung“ für die Sicherheit Deutschlands ist, so Wolfgang Schäuble, weiterhin der islamistische Terrorismus"
194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#Forum Aar ► 01:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Information
With all due respect, I feel that to attribute the following as part of the Nuremberg Laws is misleading: “Amongst other things the Nuremburg Laws banned Jews from working for the state or being employed as lawyers, doctors or journalists. Jews were prohibated from using hospitals and could not be educated past the age of 14. Jews were required to adopt a middle name: "Sara" for women and "Isaac" for men. Their identification cards were required to have a large "J" stamped on them. War memorials were to have Jewish names expunged. Even the lottery could not award winnings to Jews.[1]
Nazi allies in Europe were required to pass similar legislation.”
The source for the following list actually describes a series of anti-Semitic laws passed under the Third Reich between 1933-1939 [1] , and given that the fact that the phrase Nuremberg Laws is generally understood to refer to the laws passed by the Reichstag on September 15, 1935, it is rather misleading to attribute all of the following to the Nuremberg Laws. If my memory serves correctly, I believe that the requirement that a “J” be stamped on passports belonging to Jews was passed until 1938, and then only in diplomatic response to pressure from Switzerland, which wished to exclude German Jews from going to that country. Likewise, if my memory is serving me well, I believe that the requirement that German Jews adopt as their middle name “Isaac” or “Sara” was a measure passed in the autumn of 1941, a good six years after the Nuremberg Laws were passed. It was six years ago that I read an abbreviated version of Raul Hilberg’s monumental The Destruction of the European Jews, which is where I am taking this from, but when I have the time, I check up on this, and if I am correct, then I believe the above should be excluded. My understanding is that the Nuremberg Laws provided only for the banning of sexual relations and marriage between Germans classified as belonging to the “Aryan” race and the “Jewish” race, plus banning those as classified as “Jewish” from employing female servants.
Moreover, I feel the statement that “Nazi allies were required to pass similar legislation “ to be somewhat misleading. One may consider reading the article “The Origins and Development of Racial Anti-Semitism in Fascist Italy” pages 431-453 from Journal of Modern History, March 1977 by Gene Bernardini, which I think establishes fairly well that the anti-Semitic racial laws passed in Italy in 1938 were an indigenous measure that was NOT a response to German pressure. I think it would be better to say that the Nuremberg Laws were the inspiration for similar legislation as opposed to saying that such laws were a German import. Moreover, the popular belief that the Nuremberg Laws deprived German Jews of their citizenship may be mistaken. According to Hans Mommsen, that did not take place until 1938 [2] , and all that the Nuremberg Laws said, which was odious in its own right was deprive German Jews of the benefits of German citizenship. In saying all this, I do not mean to minimize the rather sick outlook that gave birth to such hateful laws, or the ultimately lethal consequences for the Jews of Europe of that worldview, but I think it fair to say that when talking of the Nuremberg Laws, we should be attributing to those laws only what they actually stated.--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My grandmother's passport was issued in 1939 and has a "J" stamped on it. The middle name is Sarah and was not her real middle name. If you like I can e-mail you a photo of it and of her US naturalization certificate which gives her middle names. I diasagree with your miniamzlist approach. I will create a section about other discriminatin against Jews, since reading this gives the impression that persecution was quite mild. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I inserted a copy of the front page of her passport.
In addition to Italy, similar laws were also passed in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and in Nazi created states like Vichy France, Croatia and Slovakia. The focus on the Germans has allowed a lot of these countrie to escape scrutiny and a quick search suggests that one has to look into each country individually to find anything. Maybe I will create a new entry on European persecution in the pre-war period. I suggest changing the intro to say that Nazi allies "emulated" the Nuremburg laws, implementing local variations based on the German example. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the required middle name for men was "Israel", not "Isaac". Zerotalk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- It makes sense to describe the sequence of Nazi racial laws in one article, but Brown is correct that only a certain batch of laws go by the name "Nuremberg Laws". Perhaps this article should get a more general name, such as "Nazi racial laws", with the present name redirecting to it. Zerotalk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes you're right it should say Israel. When people refer to the Nurembrug laws they need to see the whole gamut of what was involved, otherwise it gives a misleading impression that nothing much happened, renaming it is a possibility, or we could put in a careful seperation and have both.
German Jews started losing their citizenship in 1933 according to the German embassy in Canada http://www.toronto.diplo.de/Vertretung/toronto/en/04/Citizenship/seite__we116.html and this went on for some years, with most losing it in 1941.
I think there were also revocations of Jews who had been naturalized (they were mostly of Polish origin). I guess the text needs to be made more accurate.
Telaviv1 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Semitic=Jewish?
I noticed that the word "Jewish" in this article has been used frequently to refer to "Semitic", which I think is inaccurate, the Nuremberg Laws has been also applied on other non-Jewish communities, according to several historians. I'll try to find the right sources and make the necessary changes afterwards. Modi mode (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removed section
We don't need ridiculous coatracking about From Darwin to Hitler arguments and the like, especially when they are blatant original synthesis. Please refer to the Wikipedia:No original research policy on this, as well as established scientific consensus on the lack of theoretical or historical connections between Evolution and Eugenics. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Its not ridiculous. Its widely accepted in both the scientific and the historical community. Its not original research - it is the consensus. See the book by nobel prize winner James Watson "DNA". The first chapter is called "From Mendel to Hitler" and describes everything that is there. Houston Stewart Chamberlain was Wagner's son in law. Read the article. When I ahve more time I will restore the section and expand it with more sources. Telaviv1 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Anentiresleeve was correct to revert you, and your edit summary was wrong about original synthesis. James Watson is a biologist whose historical theories have not won much attention from historians. Zerotalk 09:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviusly hitler had a number of influences and the text should reflect that. I accept that it needs a rewrite.
The antisemitic mayor of Vienna was a major influence. Karl Lueger is quoted in mein kampf as an influence. Houston Stewart Chamberlain is another.
The nazis practised Eugenics and the murder of insane asylum inmates prceeded the systematic murder of the Jews and was based on eugenics. the same can be said of restrictions on inter-marriage. If you know other sources and different causes you're welcome to put them in. Steriliziation of prisoners was lawful in California before it was in Germany and used to justify preventing Jews from entering the USA. Eugenics is related to social darwinism.
Social Darwinism in European and American thought, 1860-1945 By Mike Hawkins page 286.
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany [Paperback] Richard Weikart (Author) 2004
the rise and fall of the thrid reich pages 86 and 89 (eugenics) page 103: "I have heard more than one follower of Hitler say Houston Stewart Chamberlain was the spritiual father of the Third Reich"
Death and Deliverance - Michael Burleigh -
Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene by Aly Gotz
Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis - Robert Proctor
Richard Dawkins: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2488
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/book-review--understanding-by-numbers-the-final-solution-origins-and-implementation--ed-david-ceserani-routledge-35-pounds-1401962.html "The preaching of class prejudice has been much less systematically studied than that of anti-Semitism. Little has been written of the history of eugenics, the pseudo-science from which so much of the killing stemmed."
I put the section in after someone put in a crude incorrect section pinning it all on the American south.
James Watson discovered the double Helix and has written some well known books about the history of genetics.
Telaviv1 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that most of this is off-topic. The article should not be expanded to encompass more than its title suggests, otherwise it will overlap too much with other articles. For example there is already an article on eugenics and even one on Nazi eugenics. In the last part of the 19th century and first part of the 20th century, eugenics was a popular idea over most of the world. It was popular in the Zionist movement too (if you doubt this, go to Google Books and search for "Jewish eugenics"). It is certainly true that eugenics was a major component of Nazi racial theory, but if one followed naturally from the other all of the world would have taken the Nazi route. There are also plenty of historians who don't agree that Hitler's hatred of Jews was based on eugenic thinking. It has even be argued that it was the opposite: Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews not because they were inferior but because only the Jewish race was superior enough to threaten the hegemony of the Aryan race. Zerotalk 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- While I agree with you, we should stay on point here. You have astutely noticed that the main reason it is unencyclopedic to have From Darwin to Hitler in this article is not that they're wrong (though they are), but that it is a blatant coatracking onto an unrelated subject. We already have an article on Nazi eugenics. Try to get it introduced there, though I'd recommend you start on the talk page, and see how that goes. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Obviously belief in eugenics is not the sole cause of the Holocaust, I think if the article notes the link to eugenics and that the laws were justified by scientific theories and provides links to Nazi eugenics, Nazism and race that might provide a solution. Why Hitler hated Jews is not relevant here, whereas the inspiration for the Nuremburg laws is relevant. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Visigothic code
Excuse my ignorance, but how are these two subjects related? --Phagopsych (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Why do you ask? Telaviv1 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Because of the See Also entry, when compared with ראו גם --Phagopsych (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.
- C-Class Germany articles
- High-importance Germany articles
- Unreferenced Germany articles
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2010)