Talk:Nazi Germany

Map

the original map is also more useful it shows how europe was under german domination why do we have to replace with a low quality version? the new map is incorrect and people opposed it, if we dont show the full extent of nazi german influence whats the point to have 2 maps? Dannis243 (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a country article, not an article about occupied Europe as a whole, or World War II. The Nazi Germany infobox really shouldn't be cluttered with information not directly related to Nazi Germany as such - and that's the format used practically universally across Wikipedia: a green-on-grey locator map for the infobox. Furthermore, the old improvised PNG map isn't intended for infobox use, and thus contains a lot of information not legible from the infobox. As regards quality - its SVG (as opposed to PNG), its a superior format by Wikipedia guidelines.

That said, a new SVG version of the old map is in the works over at Commons. When that's done, I hope to introduce it into the main body of the article, per Diannaa's original suggestion. So in a while, the map that "aesthetically pleases" you will be back in the article. I responded above in that regard: aesthetic concerns are quite secondary on our project to instructive effectiveness, and your own personal perceptions need not be shared by others. (But, since I had a lot to do with how the old map looks, I'll take that as a compliment. :))

Most importantly: the map was discussed at length, introduced, and is in the article for quite a while now. Do not remove it without a consensus on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We discussed this at length six weeks ago, see Talk:Nazi Germany#Locator map. While in my opinion the old map is aesthetically preferable, the new map is more in line with what we see on other articles about countries and former countries. Consensus is that the new map should be used. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Map

i propose we either use the new SVG VERSION of the orginal map IN THE INFOBOX or just use the map below (File:Grossdeutsches_Reich_NS_Administration_1944.png) Dannis243 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As Director said "This is a country article, not an article about occupied Europe as a whole, or World War II." then it would not make much sense to include occupied countries like denmark or northern france if we do that then we will have to include the other occupied europe countries Dannis243 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the above discussion on this topic.

The standard locator map you oppose does not "include occupied countries", it includes German military and civilian occupation entities, controlled by German state institutions. I support including them (because that's how its generally done in locators), but I'm not married to this version: we can easily use this one, or even a pre-war locator (as in German Empire).

However, I do strongly oppose re-introducing the old map, in PNG or SVG format. I worked on it for a long time, and its a good map - for WWII and occupied Europe in general. For the purposes of an infobox locator map - its cluttered, it carries too much information, and it generally just doesn't do the job as well as a standard locator. That's because the standard locator is an old and perfected format for illustrating the location of a country, whereas the map of occupied Europe is a (partially) re-purposed image from a series on the course of WWII. It includes and points out places like Algiers, Russia, Britain, all sorts of unnecessary stuff...

All that said (again) - I myself requested an updated SVG version of the old thing because, as I mentioned, I think its a good map. Goran is working on it (and doing and excellent job) as we speak. It certainly should have a place in the article (when its done), just not the infobox. -- Director (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeating my remarks from above: We discussed this at length six weeks ago, see Talk:Nazi Germany#Locator map. While in my opinion the old map is aesthetically preferable, the new map is more in line with what we see on other articles about countries and former countries. My opinion is that the new map should be used, and the old map added elsewhere in the article once the new version is ready. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa's assessment herein. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I do as well. We don't need a cluttered map, just a simple locator. It's fine if it shows the extent of nearby occupied territory, as an afterthought, but this article is about German, during the Nazi era, not about the Nazi military apparatus and its full extent. I.e., we should not be showing German-occupied Africa, etc., here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship?

Hitler was Democratically elected. That is NOT a "dictatorship"!184.155.138.213 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read Nazi_Germany#Nazi_seizure_of_power. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

There is a mistake in this article, specificaly: Czechoslovakia was a part of Nazi Germany, later Czechoslovakia divided to two countries - Czech republic and Slovakia. Slovakia is missing. And in "parts of nazi germany" there's also Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is today a part of: Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, Bosna and Herzegovina and Slovenia. Also, Soviet Union derives from more countries. Skyblik (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to come to some kind of consensus as to what to include in this field, as countries have been added/removed several times over the years. see for example this diff. I think the list should only include those territories officially incorporated into the Reich. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree as to including those territories officially incorporated into the Reich for a selected specific timeframe. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The version of the article that passed GA did not include this "now a part of" business in the infobox at all. It was removed during the peer review. If we're going to include it at all, I think we need to be specific about what the criterion for inclusion is, and arrive at a consensus that we can point to in the future. I think a simple way to do it is to include all the territory shown in the darkest green in our infobox locator map. This includes (if I am understanding it correctly) Germany, Bohemia & Moravia (present-day Czech Republic), The General Govt (now part of Poland), and Austria. This means we would include in the "Succeeded by" section these four: Occupied Germany, Occupied Austria, part of Poland, and part of Czechoslovakia. In the "Now part of" section these four: Germany, Austria, part of Poland, and Czech Republic. Hopefully a few more people will add an opinion so we can build a strong consensus, whether we follow this suggestion or decide upon something else. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Good article star or not, any article can be a better article. So the first step should be to define what consisted part of Nazi Germany and what not (should be in the article anyhow). Then it is obvious what countries succeeded in 1945 and what country they are part of now. BTW Talking of which: I don't see how Russia is controversial. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

None of Russia was ever officially incorporated into the Reich. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No. But part of Germany was. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of Germany was incorporated into Russia; yes, that is correct. So I amend by suggestion to this: "Succeeded by": Occupied Germany, Occupied Austria, part of Poland, part of Czechoslovakia, part of USSR. In the "Now part of": Austria, part of Poland, Czech Republic, Russia. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So, where are we now?

• Austria Y
• Czech Republic Y
• Poland Y
• Russia Y

But how about:

• Memelgebiet (today LT)
• Bezirk Bialystok/Gebiet Grodno (today BY)
• Distrikt Galizien (today UKR)
• Untersteiermark/Oberkrain (today SLO)
• Operationszone Adriatisches Küstenland (today HR)
• Operationszone Alpenvorland (today I)
• Elsass-Lothringen (today F)
• Luxemburg (today LUX)
• Eupen-Malmedy (today B)
• Reichsgau Flandern/Reichsgau Wallonien/Distrikt Brüssel (dito)
• Duivelsberg (NL)
• Petržalka, Devin (SK)?

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should not include these, but just paint the broad strokes. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

All these territories were part of the Grossdeutsches Reich. How are you judging the borders Diannaa? I think it's factually correct to include all the territories that were officially part of the Grossdeutsches Reich. If you decided to include Kaliningrad, why not Alsace? -- Lokisis (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2015 (CET)

I've been trying to get a discussion going for the last week, and few people have shown up to comment. What I'm trying to avoid here is a situation like this, where every place where German troops ever set foot is included in the info box. What I would like to see happen is enough people comment to make a firm consensus that we can point to in the future, to lend stability to the article and avoid edit wars over these lists. That's my main concern, as this is a Good Article and an important one. I've already stated my opinion above, and now you've stated yours. Further comments welcome -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the list is getting longer and longer, why not put an anchor and say "see Territorial changes"? That way all the relevant changes can be listed and explained, while the infobox does not overflow with flag icons. All the territories listed above are relevant, but are often rather minute in physical terms. So, list - say five, weight by extent, in the infobox, and deal with the rest somewhere more appropriate. This might avoid debates about relevance and 'de facto' vs 'de jure' in the future and keep everyone happy - sort of. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that Evans 2008 page 373 says that Alsace-Lorraine was never officially incorporated into the Reich but was placed (like Luxembourg and Bialystok) under the authority of the closest Gau. I think ÄDA - DÄP is understanding my primary concerns quite well, which are that we need the article to be stable and the infobox to be of a reasonable size, not flooded with excessive detail. I like ÄDA - DÄP's idea of offering guidance (perhaps in the infobox footnote) as to where to go for additional info. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, I agree with your suggested guideline for inclusion as stated above and agree with ÄDA - DÄP's suggestion for a footnote as to other territories. Although in further thought, if we are including the "occupied Soviet Union", that makes it harder not to include some others "areas", such as, Norway and France (not including Vichy France). Although turning my hat around, one can argue that the area of the Reichskommissarit Ostland and Reichskommissarit Ukraine, were seen as foundations of the new Grossdeutsches (Greater Germany). Kierzek (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not including "occupied Soviet Union", but rather that part of East Prussia (including the city of Königsberg) which became part of the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification; I was going by the discussion above; but given the clarification, then the German Reich proper should be in the map with the territories in footnote. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm understanding your concerns, but my concern is this; The list only includes territories that were part of Germany before the war, not the ones that were added later. Of course we shouldn't include territories that were only occupied, like Tunisia that also appeared on the list, but I think that we should include all the territories that were part of the Großdeutsches Reich.

I created a collapsible list of territories that were part of Germany in 1943. I specified some of the territories that don't include all or most of the country and I used modern names for the territories, because some of them were incorporated into already existing German regions, like Eupen-Malmédy or Petržalka. Please, let me know what you think about it. I think it solves all your concerns. Lokisis (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2015 (CET)

Also, let me know what you think about including Białystok, Galicia, Northern Italy and Istria. Not all sources show it as part of the Reich Lokisis (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2015 (CET)

Terminology

The term "Nazi-Germany" is unencyclopedic. It's basically a polemical term from the era. But it is scientifically incorrect. Correct name would be National Socialist Germany --165.165.64.91 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

An interesting point. I'm not sure where science come into this, but you might want to have a look at WP:COMMONNAME which I think probably supports the current title. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A quick search in 'worldcat' produced 1,800 titles including "Nazi Germany" and 120 including "National Socialist Germany". I doubt that many of the former are polemical, though. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out several times in the past, WP:POVNAME specifically discourages titles like this:

“ Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious ”

Regardless of its widespread use, the word "Nazi" is a texbook colloquialism. I fear, however, that politics and ideology come into play here: "National Socialism" includes the word "socialism" which seems to add weight to certain lines of US right-wing libertarian thought, wherein Nazism is claimed to have been "socialist". In their eagerness to suppress this silly notion, many Wikipedians (presumably of left-wing leaning) tend to favor the word "Nazi" over the actual name of the ideology ("National Socialism") at every turn. For the longest time even the Nazism article neglected to mention that the word is just an abbreviation of the full name. As an outsider to the North American political scene (from Southeastern Europe), I find this understandable, but rather disturbing. -- Director (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We have been through all this before, see archive for consensus; it really should be a WP:deadhorse at this point. Kierzek (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It really isn't deadhorse if its been months or years since its been discussed... that said, I certainly won't pursue the matter myself: I don't feel like banging my head against a brick wall in a political issue. But that doesn't mean I won't point out there's a perfectly valid WP:TITLE argument against using the abbreviation: its not a cut-and-dried WP:COMMONNAME issue. -- Director (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, in my view, until "Nazi-Germany" becomes commonly referred to as "National Socialist Germany" in the English-speaking-world the former should stand.--Aspro (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And I am interested, but unconvinced, by the argument that we're saying Nazi because we daren't say Socialist. Is there any evidence for this belief? Somewhat unscientifically I can assure you that in a single-person poll of, er, me, it has no truth at all, though clearly the other people on the planet may have a different feel for it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I merely wanted to present, plainly and frankly (cuz that's how I roll :)), the ideological divide in this issue.. its nothing new. Ever since 1941(!), the right has been emphasizing the alleged socialistic aspects of Nazism, whereas the left has been downplaying them (both quite logically so). I obviously can not and did not presume to claim anything on behalf of everyone out there, or anyone specifically. The reason I lean towards the actual, full name is that, when in doubt, I prefer to just post the basic term, rather than any derivations thereof that may or may not be POV. It makes sense to me.

Both of you cite COMMONNAME as your backing in policy. To that I can only repeat: WP:TITLE outright recommends that, regardless of whether they're COMMONNAME(!), words like "Nazi" should be avoided in the title for the sake of NPOV. Of course, since Wikipedia basically functions as a democracy in most cases, whether that applies here depends exclusively on the position of the majority of involved users.. on whether they think it should apply :) -- Director (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

But again this is only your opinion, as mine is only mine. You say "WP:TITLE outright recommends that ... words like "Nazi" should be avoided" but I don't see that; the policy recommends that some types of words should be avoided but it does not mention "Nazi" as an example, which makes your "outright" dubious. Your point then revolves around whether "Nazi" fits into the exceptions given at WP:POVNAME - you clearly feel that it does, but I don't. Since we seem unlikely to agree, you could perhaps make a move request? That should at least shake some other opinions out of the tree a bit! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we can debate whether "Nazi" is indeed a colloquialism.. that's one point where personal opinion seems to come in. But, even were everyone to agree that it is, we could find a dozen other such points ("POVNAME only says we 'often' avoid such terms, not always", "all policies are just suggestions", etc.). As you correctly point out, the only way to resolve the disagreement is to essentially call a definitely-not-vote.. Like I said, though, I certainly don't feel like pursuing this matter. Even if I did, the article to do that first and foremost would be Nazism. -- Director (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll chime in here if more voices are needed. Anybody who has a good faith argument that the article should be renamed is entitled to propose it. So long as it isn't the same people vexatiously proposing it over and over again, that is allowed. It is also completely pointless. The article is not going to be renamed as it already has the title that almost all English language sources use for it. This dead horse has already been flogged to a fine paste and made into microwave lasagnes. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I know! I'm not going to! :D People randomly come in and point out that the title appears unencyclopedic, whereupon they're swiftly bludgeoned usually bludgeoned over the head with COMMONNAME. I'm just pointing out that its not nearly as cut-and-dried as that: there are exceptions to COMMONNAME, and colloquialisms are one. And that is it. I'm not posting an RM, I'm not that bored or silly :). -- Director (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Horsemeat then bludgeoning? Blimey. Not me guv. :) DBaK (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we last went through this in April 2014 and I believe our time can be better spent elsewhere. There is still plenty of work to be done. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ at the top of Talk:Nazi Party shows that Direktor is probably right. 216.8.170.184 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)