Talk:Nazi seizure of power

The sound file is too short! 172.176.103.178 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliminated? Were they killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.121.191 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I am puzzled by two claims:

1) that in German, both "Machtergreifung" and "Machtübernahme" are used to refer to the events discussed here. In my experience, only "Machtergreifung" is used as a term on its own. "Machtübernahme" (i.e. "coming to power", "takeover of the power") would always have to be qualified further, such as in "Machtübernahme der Nationalsozialisten". A sentence like "Nach der Machtübernahme 1933 ... " would sound odd.

2) that both words retain their general meaning when used without clear context. While this is certainly true for "Machtübernahme" (should be clear from what I just explained, i.e. it only has a general meaning), it is wrong for "Machtergreifung". I have only ever heard this term to refer to 30 January, 1933 in Germany.

I cannot cite any sources, but I am German, 40 years old, lived in Germany nearly all my life, and have had a keen interest in history since the age of, say, 15. But if the above claims are to be corrected, I would be glad to help (perhaps the claims themselves are taken from some other source?). --Fsavigny (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I did a random search and came here. Having never heard of the terms they are confusing. My Schoolboy German suggests the word is formed from Machter-greifung, and Machter seems to be power, but it would be helpful to have more information in the form of an etymology. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, no. The compound is Macht-Ergreifung. Macht is force (a little more than power) (e.g Die Macht der Gewohnheit = The force of habit), ergreifen (verb) or Ergreifung (noun) means to grip, to grab, to grasp, or literally "Ergreifung" (seizure) so to say "en-grip-ment", i.e. to take hold of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.250.37 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Machtergreifung revisited

Is this an article about a German word or the National Socialist German Workers Party obtaining power in Germany in 1933? Or both? Currently it's a confusing, grammatically incorrect "Hodge-Podge" of information, needing some kind of attention and/or correction, as it meanders between both concepts. Neither are handled in an encyclopedic manner. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation of "Legalitätsstrategie"

(I'm a Germany resident and a native German speaker. Not enough time for registration on en.wikipedia unfortunately.)
"Legalization strategy" would be "Legalisierungsstrategie", i.e. a strategy that involves turning an illegal activity into something legal, either by changing the activity or by changing the bounds of the law.
"Legalitätsstrategy" is a strategy where an essential part is staying within the bounds of Law. I'd translate the term as "strategy of legality".
I therefore suggest changing the translation to reflect the latter meaning (possibly to "strategy of legality" but I'm not a native English speaker).

I changed it to legality strategy.--Patrick (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a better translation to reflect "strategy where an essential part is staying with the bounds of Law" would be "lawful strategy" - and I've changed it accordingly

English Dialect

I checked the article after it was highlighted by another user over unjustified changes by 89.168.109.232, without checking this talk page. It did not appear to be in either American or British English, and checking the history prior to Dale Arnett's amendment, it appeared to have been in British English. I therefore reverted Materialscientist's change to remove his reintroduction of Dale's American spelling, and marked the reversion as a return to British English.

So, we have one flag at the top of this talk page and a different marker on the article's revision history. Anyone else any idea what language this should be written in (besides German)? Tim PF (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

rewriting history?

So the tone is that Hitler seized power by cheating, but actually reading the article, it is the opposition that tried to change the legislation to keep the Nazi party out. As I thought before seeing this article, The Nazi party was democratically elected with considerable popular support. What is the motivation here? 86.185.34.205 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reasons why this article should not be merged with Hitler's rise to power?

I'm not sure why this article even exists. It's completely unfinished, and the article covering hitler's rise to power is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:4258:7C12:EFAC:FE4:EA33 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)