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)

Lead and map

The map colours iceland red and notes it is occupied by the British. This should be altered to state that it was occupied by the British until July of 1941, and by America after that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.108.38 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I've changed the map. Swarm ^X 08:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I originally changed that map to the ortographic one as they are becoming increasingly more common on Wikipedia (presumably to provide the viewer with an indication where the depicted state is located from a global outlook), and the administrative one that preceded it was too elaborate and already covered in the Geography sub-section. Is the issue here potential confusion to the random viewer?--Morgan Hauser (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't confusion, it's that it fails to accurately represent the maximum extent of Nazi Germany. The second issue is that orthographic projections don't show the rest of the area at the time. The political boundaries of surrounding areas are just as important as the political boundaries of the state the article covers. I agree that they're helpful in giving a global, modern day perspective, but this is at the expense of the historical perspective. Nothing's wrong with orthographic projections, I just don't think one should be used as the main image in this case. Swarm ^X 03:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

By "maximum extent" I presume you mean the military conquests of Nazi Germany and the other Axis Powers. That really boils down to whether it is explicitly the state itself (the Third Reich) that is the main focus of this article, or the territorial domain that it conquered in Europe and North Africa (the "Nazi German Empire"). Given that the Second World War is such a large part of Nazi Germany's history I'd be inclined to agree with the latter though. With confusion I actually meant precisely what you're referring to with showing historical boundaries, which would admittedly be a problem for those not well-versed enough in European history.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I really think the map should show France occupied. I mean, just change the title of the map to say "military conquests". At the moment it just seems like a strange and misleading map because it doesn't show anything much if it's not showing military conquests. Sorry.Andrewthomas10 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the map to the previous one per consensus.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The map File:Second world war europe 1941-1942 map en.png was being used in a way to make it seem Finland was part of Nazi Germany (Großdeutsches Reich), which is what the article is about. File:NS administrative Gliederung 1944.png shows the most relevant borders for that entity. I have reverted it to the location map for the moment, although I don't think it's particularly useful - a small blob on a globe conveys very little at all. (Hohum ^@) 02:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't actually, though I agree it should have been better worded. The undernote described it as "Areas under the control or influence of Nazi Germany at its greatest extent in 1941-1942.", not "Areas that were a part of the Third Reich", and the map itself also doesn't mark Axis-controlled Europe (not just Finland) as such. A complete administrative map that fully details every single province and district is just way too elaborate for simply showing the state itself (the side-map on the United States article doesn't show all the states and counties for the same reason, for instance). I suggest changing the wording to "Nazi Germany and the areas under its control or influence at its greatest extent in 1941-1942."--Morgan Hauser (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a response, I'm changing it back again, albeit with the new phrasing.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The caption says "Nazi Germany and the areas under its control or influence at its greatest extent in 1941-1942." Finland was neither under Nazi control or influence. The map is inappropriate. I have reverted its inclusion again. (Hohum ^@) 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] perhaps the problem is solved by changing the caption to something like "Nazi Germany and its allies and areas under its control at its greatest extent in 1941-1942." Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hohum, I think you’re taking too narrow a viewpoint on the intended meaning of the word "influence", but alright. I think Rjensen’s proposal would be the best option, but I would go one step further to having it state this: "Nazi Germany, its allies and co-belligerents, and the areas under its control at its greatest extent in 1941-1942." Would that be acceptable to you?--Morgan Hauser (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What would be better, would be a more relevant map, not twiddling with the caption on a poor one. Preferably it would clearly show show the difference between the core Großdeutsches Reich, allies & co belligerents, and occupied territories (like Norway - neither ally, co-beligerent, nor part of the Großdeutsches Reich) in a European scope. (Hohum ^@) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

we can use the improved caption now, and replace the map when someone finds a better one. Norway was actually in German control. Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be ideal yes, but the problem is that there isn't currently a map available on Wikimedia that fits all those criteria (1)(2). Until somebody adds one that does this is the best we've got at the moment, certainly moreso than the ortographic one that is now displayed.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I started to make one File:Großdeutsches Reich-europe.png. It likely has plenty of issues (North Africa uncoded for a start). Feedback and suggestions for alteration are welcome. (Hohum ^@) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already completed one actually, simultaneously with yours it seems: File:Europe under Nazi domination.png. It should meet all the above-stated requirements, I think.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! - although I suggest removing the rivers, they cause needless clutter. (Hohum ^@) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, I updated it and added it to the article page.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

deinitely i propose those who dont really know the real history to stop talkinh.Finland was under german control.Germans had there airfields,ports with supply for submarines and navy,a huge concentrating of german military personnel..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take your own advice. (Hohum ^@) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The intro needs to be completely redone

This intro is rambling and long, it needs to be shortened to describe essential information, discussions of the "Hitler Myth", etc. can be put somewhere else.--R-41 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

good points. I rewrote the rambling opening to explain the topic in a nutshell, and will rework other parts of the lede. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

German-English translator needed

As you can see here: A-Z category of Nazi Party members on German wikipedia

the coverage of the Nazi party and its members is a great deal more comprehensive on the German Wikipedia than the English one. It would be great if we could find a fluent German-English speaker who could translate pages for some of these historical figures. For instance, it is rather embarrassing that the English Wikipedia does not have pages for some of the leading members, such as Karl Steibel, or some of the Commandants of concentration camps, such as Franz Reichleitner.

If one or two Wikipedia users could approach the translation process as a specialized task, that would be ideal.Hoops gza (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Way too large

This article is way too large and needs more put into sub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.123.77 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

democratically elected or not?

I don't understand, why we have to encrypt the fact that the nazi party was elected under democratic procedures it is a fact that we cannot hide in an encyclopedia

the nazi party was not a dictatorship. It was supported by the german people who vote for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.22.226 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It was both. They were democratically elected, and then they seized power and absolute control, making them a dictatorship. Fry1989 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put items in the lead which are not in the main body per WP:LEAD. If they are notable, put them in the main text with WP:RELIABLE references, and if they are important enough to be reflected in the lead, then put it there too. As such, I have reverted the unreferenced, UNDUE soapboxing in the meantime, again.(Hohum ^@) 00:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the duty is on those who disagree to prove the election was a fraud. No historian has ever claimed the elections were stolen, and unless you can prove it, you can't remove that and pretend it was all a takeover. Infact, that is was a democratic election is what makes the entire situation even more tragic. Fry1989 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You also missed the point regarding the addition not conforming to WP:LEAD. (Hohum ^@) 02:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Coming of the Third Reich by well-respected British historian Richard J. Evans (Oxford-educated, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge) explains in detail how the last multi-party election in Germany in March 1933 was not free and fair: the Communist Party was suppressed, the Social Democrats and other parties were in hiding or in exile, the weight of the German State and its propaganda machine was brought to bear on the electorate to get the Nazis elected, Nazi storm troopers "oversaw" the polling in many areas to intimidate voters, and yet the Nazis did not win a majority. With only 43.9% of the vote, they had to form a coalition government with the conservative German National People's Party. They then banned other parties, or forced them to disband, including the Nationalists, using threats of violence and even violence against politicians of other parties, including those who had served in high positions in previous governments. So, go read that book, or pretty well any other mainstream history of the inter-war period in Germany, and you will have your proof that the Nazis were not "democratically elected" or supported by the majority of German people. They were only a minority who bullied their way into total control of Germany. Ground Zero | t 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't use a "so go read a book" attitude with me. Voter turnout is indeed something of debate, but if you want to use low voter turnout as a claim for it not being a democratic election, then you have to go out after all the modern countries today with low turnout. The fact is the people voted, and the results are now history. After they won the election, they did indeed ban other parties, and that was part of the process of seizing power, but NOT before the election, even if they put pressure on other parties to pull out prior. Now, did I claim they were supported by a majority of the people? No, those words were not used by me. But at the same time, just now in my country, Canada, only 40% voted for the governing party in the past election, and they used the media to attack the other parties prior to the election. Do you want to call that a NAZI power grab as well?. Fry1989 (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So, as I can see, in order to remain "democrats", we removed part of the history from wikipedia, so that some one who has no idea on the subject, will assume that the Nazi party wasnt supported by the majority of German people! Thats great! Furthermore, I propose to write down that the german army soldiers, werent germans, but robots or aliens! Too bad that some people, still, refuse to face the history, and thus, they stay prone to repeat it