Talk:Nazi Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleNazi Germany has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article was included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Nazi Germany at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

"Government" section and the "Fuhrerprincip"[edit]

I have reworked the paragraph order in the Government section. As it was it began rather abruptly with some detail on district governance, and the rather more important concepts of the driving ideas of Nazi government were at the bottom. I think it would be more useful to the reader if this section began with the concept of the Fuhrerprincip and it's trickle-down effect. I agree with Diannaa that the Fuhrerprincip should not have been introduced in the lede, as I did yesterday, but it is a crucial aspect of understanding Nazi thinking, and I would suggest that it's optimal usage is as part of the intro to the government section. It also dovetails neatly with the linked article Government of Nazi Germany, which addresses the Fuhrerprincip in it's opening words. Comments welcome as always. Irondome (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe it works fine. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Richard Evans as an important source.[edit]

After reading the article, which I found very well written, informative on the subject, considering many points of view, I am surprised that many of the References point to just one author: Richard Evans. If you look at the list of references, of 419, 99 are from Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-303790-3, 12 are from Evans, Richard J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-303469-8, 35 are from Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-311671-4 and 1 from Evans, Richard J. (2009). Cosmopolitan Islanders: British Historians and the European Continent. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19998-8, giving us a total of 147 of 419, which is less than the half, but over a quarter of many cites on the article.

Evans is a very reliable source, and his trilogy of books covers a great deal of ground. What's your point? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW, 147 out of 419 is not best described as "less than half", but as "a little more than a third", considering it amounts to 35%. Also, according to this, there are 482 references, not 419, so that's 30.5%.
But this numbers games is silly. Are you doubting that Evans is a reliable source? Why do you bring this up? Do you think the article is excessively dependent on Evans? Kershaw, Shirer, Longerich and Overy are frequently cited as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Continuous "Nazi" reference.[edit]

Members of the NSDAP did not refer to themselves as "Nazis". The term "Nazi" was conjured by Communists as slang for National Socialists. Usage of the "Nazi" slur gives the article a left-wing politic tone for what should be an objective detailing of history. The entire article should have all instances of "Nazi" removed and replaced with the correct nomenclature of National Socialist/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reniflex (talkcontribs) 10:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know it was invented by the German post office.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
A look at Nazi Party#Etymology is helpful here. I don't think we can really blame those evil communists for this one. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The word "Nazi" is broadly used by a.o. historians since at least 50 years and I really don't see any good or acceptable reason to remove and replace a word that is used by all reliable sources having published on the topic. --Lebob (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
If we go around writing "National Socialist this" and "National Socialist that" without ever referring to them as "Nazis", very few people are going to know what we're talking about. It's good to change-up "Nazi" and "National Socialist" or "Nazi Party" and "NSDAP" at times just for the sake of variety and good writing. but there should be little doubt that "Nazi" is the preferred version, whether or not they called themselves that.
It's also worthwhile considering that quite often the push not to use "Nazi" and use "National Socialist" instead is an attempt to take some of the onus off the Nazis, and make it somewhat more palatable for contemporary neo=Nazis to espouse their philosophy, although I'm sure that's not the case with this comment from a brand-new one-off editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Nazideutschland is a common term in the German language and not considered a left/communist slang word. Despite being a non-scientific word, it is sometimes used by scientists. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I assume you mean "scholars" and not "scientists", or by "scientists" you mean "social scientists"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You could call it "social scientists" or "scholars" if you like (both are better words I guess); I was rather referring to engineers though. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Just curious as to in what context engineers would be using "Nazi" or "National Socialist"? In discussing the Autobahn? (A program which was actually instigated before Hitler came to power, although he accelerated it greatly.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I cannot speak for "scholars" / "social scientists" in this case since I don't know their field well enough. But I had German military vehicles in mind, there are several engineers and historians who work in the field "German historical (military) vehicles"; when addressing the context, the term "Nazideutschland" is widely accepted. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Nazi is just a Hollywood term that the Americans just love. It is incorrect, of course, as in itself it is slang. No-one refers to Conservative or Labour Britain or Republican or Democrat USA. The correct terminology is Germany 1933-45 or the Third Reich (if you must). 2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:F1B9:176C:48B5:2A22 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you that "Nazi" is used universally by Australians to describe what we are talking about here. We are not Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Same here in the UK. We call Nazis "Nazis" because they are Nazis. If Nazis want to be called something else then their one and only option is to stop being Nazis, at which point, if we are convinced of their repentance, we will start to call them "ex-Nazis".
The phrase "Nazi Germany" is completely appropriate because the Nazis took over the whole state and made all of Germany Nazi. I appreciate that some of my countrypeople might feel that Tony Blair was on TV far too much in the 1990s but it was never "Labour Britain" because Labour never took over the entire state at every level and bent every aspect of the national culture to their will.
I have never been to Hollywood and I'm pretty sure that Winston Churchill didn't get the idea to call Nazis "Nazis" from Hollywood. In fact, he always pronounced it "Narzeys" which suggests that he received the word in text form and not from film or radio. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, how historically ignorant can the IP editor be? "Nazi" was indeed a nickname, but it wasn't invented by Hollywood, it was created at the time of the Nazi's first coming to general attention in Germany, as a verbal shortening of "National Socialist". It caught on, and become the common name for those who belonged to or believed in the precepts of the NSDAP, both in Germany and around the world. There are those who wish to downplay it because (for some reason, probably having to do with starting a war which killed more people than any war in human history, and because they murdered up to 17 million people in cold blood) the name is stigmatized, which is entirely a good thing. It is nevertheless completely appropriate to use "Nazi Germany" to describe Germany under Hitler and the Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
And was widely used by a number of politicians well before America even decided Nazi Germany was a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018[edit]

Could someone please correct the spelling of Weimar? In the last sentence of the Censorship section, it's spelled "Wiemar". 32.218.45.69 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 32.218.45.69 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Horst-Wessel-Lied[edit]

The Horst-Wessel-Lied was never the (or a) national anthem of nazi Germany. It was always played after the anthem (on Hitler orders) and is therefore confused, but it only was the anthem of NSDAP. As the article is locked, could someone check and change? 47.71.27.83 (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the "Horst Wessel Song" became a national anthem in 1933. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Solution, what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the body of the article, Cuomo 1995, p. 231 says the song "became a second national anthem". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
So it did not replace the old one? So do we have a source that says is was not (either officially or defacto) a second nations anthem?Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
My impression is that it was a second anthem, like America the Beautiful in the US or God Save the Queen in Canada. i.e. both anthems were in use. The article Horst-Wessel-Lied contains more details with sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe one could add "de facto" behind it. As of now it makes the impression, as if the Horst Wessel-Lied was an official anthem or used interchangeably with the Deutschlandlied, which is not true.--Qwertz1894 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
According to Stanislao G. Puliese: Italian Fascism and Anti-Fascism. A Critical Anthology. Manchester University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-7190-5639-X, pages 18; 54–55 the Horst Wessel song has never been an official anthem of Nazi Germany, but it was de facto used as an anthem. Wilhelm Frick, then German Reichsinnenminister, ordered to play the Horst Wessel song after the first verse of the German anthem Germany song (Deutschlandlied). The reason for never being the official anthem of Nazi Germany is said to be that Adolf Hitler objected it. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out (although Kierzek just opposed without knowing and reason). Please note that it is still wrong in "simple english" and in Horst-Wessel-Lied, maybe more. As IPs tend to be reverted, please change someone logged in. I guess it is important. 47.71.2.160 (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh please, I did not "oppose" without reason. The evidence shows that it was a co-national anthem; maybe "de facto", but that does not mean it was not so. Kierzek (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the Horst-Wessel-Lied was the co-national anthem of Germany during the Nazi regime, as it was required to be played and sung (one verse of it) along with Deutschland uber Alles. I'm not home at the moment, but I can cite reliable source to back that up whe I return. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Source request[edit]

[copied from SV talk] Hello: with this edit you state a page cite is needed [1]. I did not add this particular sentence and citation to the article, but it does have a sfn RS cite therein. Can you tell me what you believe is still needed there. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kierzek, I'm responding to this here so that it goes into the talk-page archive. The source is Fritzsche 2008, pp. 76–142, supporting three sentences beginning "The Nazis would take ...". That's a range of 66 pages. We need a more precise citation, particularly for the sentence immediately preceding it, which doesn't look right. In the 2008 hardback edition of Fritzsche's book, Life and Death in the Third Reich, that page range covers the whole of chapter two, "Racial grooming". SarahSV (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)