Talk:Nazi Germany

Archives
Archive 1, May 2001 – April 2006
Archive 2, April 2006 – December 2006
Archive 3, December 2006 – October 2009

ceased to exist

I've removed the last 4 words of this sentence that was found in the overview.

Despite an alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, that together formed the Axis powers, by 1945, Germany had lost the war and ceased to exist.

If you look at it you see that the statement that Germany ceased to exist is challenged, and thus needs a more nuanced presentation, and also if you look closelly at the sources used to support it you get a feeling of WP:Synthesis, since none of them is a source that focuses on the issue of the legal status of germany after the military surrender, rather they are snippets from documents focusing on other issues.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 14:51, 25th November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The sources which have been used in this article are mostly from allied countries which is obvious that are not neutral. The current form of article looks like a war time anti-German propaganda!--Professional Assassin (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral maybe but whether you like it or not it is the truth. What do you want next? "Hitler was possibly a decent guy?" Perhaps wartime anti-German propaganda was in essence correct - at least as noted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.46.81 (talk) 21:56, 22nd January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about the truth thing? If Hitler was not a good guy, he was not worst than Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. All three were blood-thirsty, power-hungry guys. Does this NOT neutral point of view at the moment, apply to their articles too? I don't think so.--Professional Assassin (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here is a very very simple sample of allied propaganda even before the war to corrupt the face of National Socialist Germany. I guess you already know Jesse Owens. Here are some of his statements:

"It took a lot of courage for him to befriend me in front of Hitler. You can melt down all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the 24-karat friendship I felt for Luz Long at that moment. Hitler must have gone crazy watching us embrace. The sad part of the story is I never saw Long again. He was killed in World War II."

"When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany"

"Hitler didn’t snub me — it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram" – Jesse Owens: The Jesse Owens Story, 1970

And I think you know what did the Allied countries, say about behavior of Hitler towards Owens and racism and so on. :) --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the article, not your opinion of wartime or even pre-wartime propoganda. The sources in the article are either reliable secondary sources or you may challenge and eventually remove them. If you have reliable secondary sources that support a different perspective than what the article currently portrays then you should discuss those sources and how to best include the information. If you cannot provide reliable sources to advocate a change of the article then the neutrality tag will be removed. If you believe the article is factually biased it is up to you to show why, if you cannot then your assertion of a lack of neutrality has no basis. Weakopedia (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

daily mail

It has been susgested that this source [[1]] supports the text "Within six years from 1933 to 1939, Germany under the National Socialist government has changed from a total corrupt and poor country to a world's super power." I am having trouble finding a passage in the source that supports this, could the persono including this please provide the quotes?Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Empire"?

Since when did Nazi Germany become an empire? Hitler might be a dictator, but he was not an emperor. I've removed "Empire" from the infobox. Blodance the Seeker 08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From the lead: "Third Reich (Drittes Reich) denotes the Nazi State as the historical successor to the mediæval Holy Roman Empire (962–1806) and to the modern German Empire". I believe Reich in German can translate directly to Empire in English. Hohum (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Empires do not need to be lead by an emperor, please research before you change, thanks. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reich means Kingdom (but as Hilter was not a king that just muddys the waters).Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Reich - No, Reich does NOT translate into "Empire" in English. the equivalent of "Empire" should be "Kaiserreich" in German (see the article "Deutsches Heer(Kaiserreich)" on de.wp) and "Kingdom" should be "Königreich". The direct equivalent of "Reich", would be "Nation". And being a successor state of an empire does not neccessary imply that it is an empire itself - see Soviet Union. Even if they are labeled as an empire (like "American Empire" and so on), its incorrect to describe it as a "governmental structure". One might also want to notice that the official name of Weimar Republic is also "Deutsches Reich", yet no one argued that Weimar Republic is an empire. Blodance the Seeker 05:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, I read the article Blodance linked to; Reich and it said The Nazis sought to legitimize their power historiographically by portraying their rule as a continuation of a Germanic past. They coined the term Das Dritte Reich ("The Third Empire" – usually rendered in English in the partial-translation "The Third Reich")...

However, the entire article is unreferenced, so it's as useful as a chocolate teapot.

German Reich is better referenced. Reich can mean empire... along with several other meanings, mostly relying on context (see [2]]). Although the Nazis self identified their regime as the Dritte Reich, succeeding the previous two reichs which would be described in English as empires; The Third Reich's structure, I agree, was not an Empire, much as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a Democracy. Hohum (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See also the wiktionary entry of Reich. Yes, it can mean empire, but one cannot claim that it is an empire simply because the word can mean empire. Like I've said, the Weimar Republic's official name is also "Deutsches Reich" - Nazi Germany aside, how is Weimar Republic an empire? Also, they do have specific terms meaning "Empire"("Kaiserreich", see de:Deutsches Heer (Kaiserreich), "Imperial German Army") and "Kingdom"("Königreich", see de:Vereinigtes Königreich, "United Kingdom"). I agree that the meaning of "Reich" depends on context, and Nazi Germany did identify itself as the successor of Holy Roman Empire and German Empire (thus Third Reich). However being a successor state does not neccessarily mean that the successor retains the govermental structure of its predecessor - it's entirely different. Under most circumstances, it merely means that the successor intend to inherit its predecessor's territories and other properties (tons of examples - e.g. Republic of China succeeds Qing Dynasty). And as you can see, the Nazis seek to regain their "lost" territories and form the "Grossdeutschland"(Greater Germany). As such, I would even agree to translate "Drittes Reich" into "Third Empire" - but like "American Empire", its a label, not "governmental structure". Placing "Empire" under "Government" is utterly misleading. Blodance the Seeker 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read my last sentence before replying ;) "The Third Reich's structure, I agree, was not an Empire". Hohum 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, just in case others dont disagree. :P Blodance the Seeker 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Loaded Statement

In the lead: "Despite an alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, that together formed the Axis powers, Germany had by 1945 been defeated and subsequently was occupied by the victorious Allied powers, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and France."

This strongly implies that Germany was at an advantage in this alliance when in fact it was outnumbered by massive ratios in terms of population, industrial capacity and resources distributed over multiple fronts with or without its regional allies. Moreover, the alliance with Japan proved to be an actual disadvantage in the end. It should probably be changed.