Talk:Nazi Germany

Archives
Archive 1, May 2001 – April 2006
Archive 2, April 2006 – December 2006
Archive 3, December 2006 – October 2009
Archive 4, October 2009 – present

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)

The exact area (territory) of Nazi Germany in numbers.

I am not good with editing or even with discussions at this level, yet I've decided to write here, because I am sure that the area of the Third Reich, in numbers was a lot larger than 696,265 km2 by 1941 (ergo during it's largest extent) -as it is wrongly stated in it's profile.

I've come to this conclusion by inspecting the map of Nazi Germany in 1941. During that time the area of the Third Reich included all the territories of present day Germany, Austria, Czeh Republic and Poland and other territories (including the area of Eupen and Malmédy, Luxemburg, Elsaice-Lorraine, parts of present day Slovenia, Eastern-Gallicia, Kaliningrad Oblast, and the Memel-land) but just by adding together the areas of the first 4 countries the number would be alredy as high as 832,444 km2 (based on the wikipedia profiles of these countries).

Therefore, I think this matter requires a closer examination. Thank you.

--Bbenjoe ^Speak 15:02, 26th October 2010 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

The infobox also needs more statistics from several key years for both territory and population given Nazi Germany's significant territorial growth both before and during WWII. My suggestion:

• 1937 (pre-expansion territory - does already include Saarland);
• 1939 (pre-WWII);
• 1941 (largest commonly agreed extent of the Third Reich after Operation Barbarossa);
• 1943 (creation of operational zones in Italy).

It should also be specified what regions are considered Reich territories in the total sum, and whether it's just German citizens (Reichsdeutsche) that are counted, or if ethnic German natives (Volksdeutsche) of annexed territories and their subjugated Czech, Polish, Ukrainian (the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia and the General Government were considered to be part of Greater Germany by the Nazis), Belarusian, French and so forth inhabitants are counted as well. Strange statistics in some areas due to the Deutsche Volksliste might be a problem though.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2010 (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)

Expansion of the Section on Education

I am considering adding information to the section on education, but first I wanted to make sure there was not an existing article. I haven't found any, save for the article on universities in the Third Reich. Please let me know if there are any! ...the point is to change it (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First additions made; please check citations for formatting; will add sources to the "Further reading" section. ...the point is to change it (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lead and map

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, of course, but it needs to be revised. 192.148.117.83 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)