Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Archived the old talk and set up an archive bot for this page. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


The present derivation of "Nazi" is incorrect. It is not "NATIonal sozialismus" but "NAtional soZIalismus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it could be intepreted both ways. The part NATI in the word National in German is pronounced Nazi. However, some could take it as NAtional soZialismus.ItsJodo (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


The Education section should be expanded.ItsJodo (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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 site would do well with a series of maps showing the ter. growth of the nazi state and its final status at sur. in 1945 much larger than in 1943 which is already shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you misread the map ... with the exception of South Tyrol the full expansion of Nazi Germany (in its expansion years of 1938-1943/44) is shown via ALL the various colours on the posted map. By January 1945 the Nazi state was being invaded on both sides by Allied armies . . . the Allied governments had no intention of recognizing ANY of the land expansions of Nazi Germany since 1938 (e.g., Austria, Memelland, Sudetenland, Poland, Luxembourg, parts of France & Belgium, northern Yugoslavia).

3,000,000 Germans Imprisoned 1933-1945?

I'm reverting this recently addition: "Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons. "Tens of thousands of Germans were killed for one or another form of resistance. Between 1933 and 1945, Special Courts killed 12,000 Germans, courts martial killed 25,000 German soldiers, and 'regular' justice killed 40,000 Germans. Many of these Germans were part of the government civil or military service, a circumstance which enabled them to engage in subversion and conspiracy while involved, marginally or significantly, in the government's policies." Its source cites a 1946 source for the 3,000,000 statistic, which is not credible. The rest of the information is at least plausible, but the source is a book review in a non-scholarly publication, so we need better evidence. When I have time, I'll look into the matter. Bytwerk (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if no one objects, the numbers grow each day. Tomorrow morning maybe we come here and see lots of FACTS from RELIABLE sources that there were 40,000,000 Germans, 90,000,000 Jews, 120,000,000 Gays, 1 Billion Soviets etc... in the German concentration camps and who ever objects is a holocaust denier, a murderer, a terrorist, a fascist and lots of other things. lol --Professional Assassin (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Nikolaus Wachsmann, "HItler's Prisons: Legal Terror in Nazi Germany," provides imprisonment statistics for the period (p. 393). The total imprisoned for all causes was highest in 1944 (196,700). Looking at his graph makes it clear that the 3,000,000 figure is grossly inflated. Bytwerk (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is not a recent addition, it has been there for a long time and just was just recently removed.

Anyway that is a very narrow analysis you are making. Are you assuming that once you were imprisoned you never got out? Based on the Book of Wachsman, what was the total number of Germans who had been temporarily imprisoned for political reasons at one time or another, as for example Konrad Adenauer was?. Only if you can answer that will you be able to do a "semi" reliable OR comparison of the sources. Obviously a much larger number of people have been in prison the last 15 years in for example the US than the current number of actual prison inmates in the US. In either case, you are basing the deletion on OR.

Some comparative OR of my own, see the end of this page[1] for example, although you see no numbers it should give you an inkling of Nazi tactics, scare the general population by putting representative samples of them in the camps for a while, after that they, and their friends, will stay productive, docile and obedient. I've now reinserted the information and cited it to additional sources.--Stor stark7 Speak 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, my point is that if, at the high point of Nazi imprisonment there were 196,000 prisoners for all reasons, it is highly unlikely that 3,000,000 were imprisoned for political reasons alone between 1933 and 1945. But I'll have to dig up the sources rather than squabble about this at the moment. Bytwerk (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, for example, are statistics from Michael Balfour, "Withstanding Hitler in Germany, 1933-45": "6284 persons were found guilty on 'political grounds'; in 1940, the figure was 10,963, in 1941, 17,333" (p. 255). Now, he does cite the figure of 3,000,000 as the number that "saw the inside of a camp or prison during the twelve years of Nazi rule" — but that is exactly my point. The 3,000,000 figure is everyone, for whatever reason, not just people arrested for political reasons. Bytwerk (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess the key word here is imprisoned "for political reasons", as used by David Clay, "Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich", p.122. where he also uses 3 million held for political reasons. You did not need to have been "found guilty on political grounds" to be imprisoned for political reasons. Again, look at the Konrad Adenauer article, he was imprisoned twice, but both times released after a while, and never found guilty of anything apparently.
If you are able to (I don't have access), please check the 1946 source initially used, Gabriel Almond, "The German Resistance Movement", Current History 10 (1946), pp409–527 and see if the original "socialist review" cite miss-cites him, and what the breakdown is between political and other prisoners there. Another book that directly cites Almond on the 3 million is Otis C. Mitchell, "Hitler's Nazi state: the years of dictatorial rule, 1934-1945"‎ (1988), p.217 so at least another secondary source has evaluated him and found him good.--Stor stark7 Speak 09:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I just did that. I don't find the 3,000,000 figure there. On p. 410, he does say that "30,000 to 40,000 'subversive' Germans" were arrested in 1944. That was a year in which lots of people were arrested, which makes the 3,000,000 figure implausible. I also checked the other sources I could find that cite the claim — several do assert the figure is for political cases, but none so far provides a reference to a source that actually documents that. I suspect that this is one of those statements that gets printed once, then copied without anyone ever tracking down the original, but I'll do a little more looking around. Bytwerk (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


The sources which have been used in this article are mostly from allied countries which is obvious that are not neutral. The current form of article looks like a war time anti-German propaganda!--Professional Assassin (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral maybe but whether you like it or not it is the truth. What do you want next? "Hitler was possibly a decent guy?" Perhaps wartime anti-German propaganda was in essence correct - at least as noted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 22nd January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about the truth thing? If Hitler was not a good guy, he was not worst than Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. All three were blood-thirsty, power-hungry guys. Does this NOT neutral point of view at the moment, apply to their articles too? I don't think so.--Professional Assassin (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, here is a very very simple sample of allied propaganda even before the war to corrupt the face of National Socialist Germany. I guess you already know Jesse Owens. Here are some of his statements:

"It took a lot of courage for him to befriend me in front of Hitler. You can melt down all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the 24-karat friendship I felt for Luz Long at that moment. Hitler must have gone crazy watching us embrace. The sad part of the story is I never saw Long again. He was killed in World War II."[1]

"When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany"[2]

"Hitler didn’t snub me — it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram" – Jesse Owens: The Jesse Owens Story, 1970

And I think you know what did the Allied countries, say about behavior of Hitler towards Owens and racism and so on. :) --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the article, not your opinion of wartime or even pre-wartime propoganda. The sources in the article are either reliable secondary sources or you may challenge and eventually remove them. If you have reliable secondary sources that support a different perspective than what the article currently portrays then you should discuss those sources and how to best include the information. If you cannot provide reliable sources to advocate a change of the article then the neutrality tag will be removed. If you believe the article is factually biased it is up to you to show why, if you cannot then your assertion of a lack of neutrality has no basis. Weakopedia (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

daily mail

It has been susgested that this source [[2]] supports the text "Within six years from 1933 to 1939, Germany under the National Socialist government has changed from a total corrupt and poor country to a world's super power." I am having trouble finding a passage in the source that supports this, could the persono including this please provide the quotes?Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Since when did Nazi Germany become an empire? Hitler might be a dictator, but he was not an emperor. I've removed "Empire" from the infobox. Blodance the Seeker 08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From the lead: "Third Reich (Drittes Reich) denotes the Nazi State as the historical successor to the mediæval Holy Roman Empire (962–1806) and to the modern German Empire". I believe Reich in German can translate directly to Empire in English. Hohum (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Empires do not need to be lead by an emperor, please research before you change, thanks. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Reich means Kingdom (but as Hilter was not a king that just muddys the waters).Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Reich - No, Reich does NOT translate into "Empire" in English. the equivalent of "Empire" should be "Kaiserreich" in German (see the article "Deutsches Heer(Kaiserreich)" on de.wp) and "Kingdom" should be "Königreich". The direct equivalent of "Reich", would be "Nation". And being a successor state of an empire does not neccessary imply that it is an empire itself - see Soviet Union. Even if they are labeled as an empire (like "American Empire" and so on), its incorrect to describe it as a "governmental structure". One might also want to notice that the official name of Weimar Republic is also "Deutsches Reich", yet no one argued that Weimar Republic is an empire. Blodance the Seeker 05:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
So, I read the article Blodance linked to; Reich and it said The Nazis sought to legitimize their power historiographically by portraying their rule as a continuation of a Germanic past. They coined the term Das Dritte Reich ("The Third Empire" – usually rendered in English in the partial-translation "The Third Reich")...
However, the entire article is unreferenced, so it's as useful as a chocolate teapot.
German Reich is better referenced. Reich can mean empire... along with several other meanings, mostly relying on context (see [3]]). Although the Nazis self identified their regime as the Dritte Reich, succeeding the previous two reichs which would be described in English as empires; The Third Reich's structure, I agree, was not an Empire, much as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a Democracy. Hohum (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
See also the wiktionary entry of Reich. Yes, it can mean empire, but one cannot claim that it is an empire simply because the word can mean empire. Like I've said, the Weimar Republic's official name is also "Deutsches Reich" - Nazi Germany aside, how is Weimar Republic an empire? Also, they do have specific terms meaning "Empire"("Kaiserreich", see de:Deutsches Heer (Kaiserreich), "Imperial German Army") and "Kingdom"("Königreich", see de:Vereinigtes Königreich, "United Kingdom"). I agree that the meaning of "Reich" depends on context, and Nazi Germany did identify itself as the successor of Holy Roman Empire and German Empire (thus Third Reich). However being a successor state does not neccessarily mean that the successor retains the govermental structure of its predecessor - it's entirely different. Under most circumstances, it merely means that the successor intend to inherit its predecessor's territories and other properties (tons of examples - e.g. Republic of China succeeds Qing Dynasty). And as you can see, the Nazis seek to regain their "lost" territories and form the "Grossdeutschland"(Greater Germany). As such, I would even agree to translate "Drittes Reich" into "Third Empire" - but like "American Empire", its a label, not "governmental structure". Placing "Empire" under "Government" is utterly misleading. Blodance the Seeker 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have read my last sentence before replying ;) "The Third Reich's structure, I agree, was not an Empire". Hohum 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I know, just in case others dont disagree. :P Blodance the Seeker 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Loaded Statement

In the lead: "Despite an alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, that together formed the Axis powers, Germany had by 1945 been defeated and subsequently was occupied by the victorious Allied powers, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and France."

This strongly implies that Germany was at an advantage in this alliance when in fact it was outnumbered by massive ratios in terms of population, industrial capacity and resources distributed over multiple fronts with or without its regional allies. Moreover, the alliance with Japan proved to be an actual disadvantage in the end. It should probably be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't read it as a loaded statement. They formed an alliance with other nations and despite that lost the war, that's all it says. Fences&Windows 20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


"At this time Germany's borders were still determined by the Treaty of Versailles, the peace treaty between Germany and the allied powers of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, "

I don't believe the United States signed the Treaty of Versailles. -- (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's ignore the question why you question that, and just ask you to actually read Treaty of Versailles and World War I. Lars T. (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
They did sign the treaty, they just dint ratify it.--SelfQ (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image.

Why have Croatia singled out in blue for the map in the article infobox? Wasn't it a Nazi ally/puppet, which are otherwise shown in orange? (Hohum @) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Avala (talk · contribs) changed the image. Lars T. (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I'll rephrase: Singling out Croatia doesn't seem relevant to the purpose of the image, and its use in this article. I suggest that it would be a good idea to revert the change. (Hohum @) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole image is just plane bad for a infobox map. I suggest a map that only shows territory that was actually a part of germany, all occupied states, enemies and allies sould be gray. --SelfQ (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
So why do you complain about it here? Why not on the talk page for that map? And why don't you just revert the change of the image? Lars T. (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Because, when clicking on the talk page for the image I get the following:
"There are many things this page is NOT for: ... requesting corrections to the image (try the talk page of an article that the image is used in..."
...and before making a change, I thought I'd check to see what consensus was. (Hohum @) 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense to come here because this is the only article where this image is used, and this talk page is far more frequented than the image talk page. "Complaining" and "politely asking for the input of fellow editors before taking action when in doubt" are also too very different things. -- (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Deceptive map

Nazi Germany map? Its deceptive that Finland is in its influence or occupation sphere which was certainly not the case. Its simply erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

During the Continuation War, Finland (at least technically) fought on the side of the Germans and was at war with not only Russia (who had attacked them in 1939) but also Great Britain, even if they staid fully independent. Lars T. (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

UK declared war with Finland because of the pressure from Moscow. It still does not explain why Finland is portrayed as if being in the influence sphere of Nazi Germany. Finland was a co-belligerent with Germany not an ally.


I was going to make a similar criticism. The caption to the map, "Nazi Germany at its height in 1942," is very misleading.

What the map shows are Germany itself with its protectorates (General Gouvernement and Bohemia and Moravia) in red, Italy and its territories in green, and then the large orange region which is a combination of regions occupied militarily by Germany and states that may not have been occupied at all but were friendly to Germany.

The caption pretends that all of that area was annexed to Germany, which is a very ignorant assumption.

Even without the caption, however, there is still a problem with the map insofar as it blurs distinctions about the relationship to Germany of the various countries colored in orange. For example, France during most of 1942 was a neutral country, with German troops occupying the north by agreement. It was the Allied invasion of French territory that brought Vichy France into the war on Germany's side. The way this map is made represents a simplistic Allied propagandist view of the war. -Hadding

Typo on Libya

I noticed in reading this article that Libya was misspelled:

In Lybia, the Afrika Korps failed to break

should be:

In Libya, the Afrika Korps failed to break

I'd edit it but the article is locked.

Neutral3rdParty (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the catch. Lars T. (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nazi" - Germany isn't a scientific term

"Nazi" - Germany although used very often isn't a scientific term. It's use is kind of derogative. Think of the term "Kike" being used for Jews, which isn't scientific either. -- (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it's 'scientific' isn't really relevant. WP:EN suggests that the common English term should be used as the article title. 'Nazi Germany' fits the bill and is used in a descriptive (not derogatory) manner; similar to the descriptions of Weimar Republic, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, etc. DrFrench (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a mention, the de.wp article is titled "Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945" (German Reich 1933-1945). Blodance the Seeker 03:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those places where we run into the conflict of popular opinion versus educated opinion. Popular opinion is shaped by mass-media, and where a war is concerned, there is always a residue of war-propaganda. That's why the "common English term" is Nazi Germany, instead of National-Socialist Germany.

It seems to me that the origin of the term Nazi among enemies of National-Socialism ought to carry some weight in assessing whether it is an objective term or a term that is colored by a POV.

That seems like common sense to me, but Oh well, this is Wikipedia. -Hadding

I seem to recall that the term origonated in the Riechs post office.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME makes it very clear that articles do not need to use formally correct names, but the most recognisable, most used one, which is the case here. (Hohum @) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
All this discussion aside: (1) The formal term for the regime would be Deutsches Reich or German Reich (causing confusion with the Weimar Republic and the German Empire) or Großdeutsches Reich/"Greater German Reich" (which isn't entirely accurate, as that was only the name for less than half of its existence). (2) How many people today, even within the academy, call it "National Socialism?" It's not terribly many (except on first reference or when being ironic). List off all the educated people you know who call the Nazis the "National Socialists" on a regular basis. Go on. I'm waiting. Lockesdonkey (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Lockesdonkey.
The term Nazi Germany was invented by English-Speaking peoples after World War II. It is simply a "catch-all" term (for Hitler's Germany, A.D. 1933-1945). The formal Names of the countries would be,
(i). North German Union (i.e., Norddeutscher Bund), A.D. 1867-1871,
(ii). German Empire (i.e., Deutsches Kaiserreich), A.D. 1871-1918,
(iii). German Reich (i.e., Deutsches Reich), A.D. 1919-1943,
(iv). Greater German Reich (i.e., Großdeutsches Reich), A.D. 1943-1945,
...after that the ole Federal Republic of Germany (i.e., Bundesrepublik Deutschland).
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Germany in 1944

I believe Germany expanded its territory into northern Italy and further into Slovenia (Yugoslavia) by 1944. Why not show a 1944 version of the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust reference in 3rd paragraph

"The Nazis persecuted and murdered millions of Jews and other minorities in the Holocaust Final Solution" is out of place in this paragraph. Should be removed. Chrisklinger (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New Map

I'm wondering why the new map included in the infobox is being used over the previous one. The old one focused exclusively on German territory by law: that is, areas that were part of the Weimar Republic and which were subsequently annexed or protected by the German Reich. The new map shows that, Italy, and all German occupations: it seems a bit excessive for an article which is supposed to be about Germany itself. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

Is this the "previous one" you are referring to? - File:Nazi Germany.svg (Hohum @) 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. It's admittedly not the best map, but it's better than the current one. (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another concern about the map is the legend. In addition to Germany it identifies two categories: "Italian Territory" and "Allies and Conquests." Until late in the war, Italy was Germany's ally; at the same time none of those marked "Allies and Conquests" were allies except perhaps for puppet states set up after conquest. It seems to me that the legend should identify Italian territory as "allied" to Germany and the other areas only as "conquests." TheCormac (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were not "puppet states set up after conquest". It's also quite strange that (Vichy) France is represented in the German allies and conquests category on the map. The best map to probably use is File:GDR.png, however it's in German. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd support a switch to File:GDR.png, despite linguistic concerns. Non-English maps are used elsewhere. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
I have changed the lead map to file:Großdeutschen Reiches.png, which is derived from GDR.png. I have tried to make the core area more prominent and the surrounding areas less distracting. I can try and find the time to change the text to English, or language neutral. (Hohum @) 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

unbiased mentality- type of state

Once again we clearly see the BIAS in Wikipedia. I can introduce Hitler as an egomaniacal mass murdering totalitarian despot dictator in the first sentence and nobody would say a word, nobody! Yet when it comes to Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao I have to use titles such as: “President of the People’s committee, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, etc… —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I had changed the government type before to "Republic, Single-party state" (as it actually was per the constitution of the Reich and it's laws). But people keep edit warring and adding on all the other junk which which looks completely out of place ("Totalitarian autocratic national socialist dictatorship"). Indeed, its completely not NPOV to list all the other out of place things, while articles like the Soviet Union, and others are listed (as they should be) as Single-party state Republic's. - I changed it back to how it was before. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The article should include both the self-description of the type of government (whether it is accurate or not - properly sourced, and making it clear it is a self-description) as well as the actual government type - also properly sourced. (Hohum @) 09:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A Leadership, Leaderschaft, ... Führerschaft? A Lordship is run by a Lord, a Führerschaft is run by a Führer. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a typo under the flag image. It says 1933-35 and should say 1933-45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd paragraph: the use of et alii is just gratuitous and incorrectly punctuated, it is not an abbreviation and therefore should involve use of the full stop. Please either "fix" it up by using et al. or hotlink it to its definition in wiktionary. Much thanks. (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a small modification

Hi! Below the map File:Gro%C3%9Fdeutschen_Reiches.png, it should say "Großdeutsches Reich 1943", not "Großdeutschen Reiches 1943". That would be the correct form in German; it is called like this at the top of the containing table too. Bye, another user of the IP (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (I hope the previous bad edits made by this IP don't interfer with my constructive proposal.)

Yes check.svg Done Good catch Lars T. (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Erronous map

Can somebody re-edit the Third Reich-era maps that are displayed on this page? Don't know how to do so myself, but they need to be corrected in a lot of places.

- The USSR did NOT exist on the territory adjacent to East Prussia and the General Government after Operation Barbarossa. From 1941 to 1943/44 this area was divided between the Reichskommissariats Ukraine and Ostland, which were essentially Nazi colonies. Because the German government considered the Soviet Union to be a criminal institution they didn't even officially regard these lands as "occupied" territory for all intents and purposes.

- The borders are pretty weird in some places, especially in the General Government's East Galician parts, Hungarian-annexed Backa and Baranja (seems to extend too far south), and Bialystok's northeastern protrusion.

- The Reichsgau Wartheland was only called Warthegau for a very short time after the Invasion of Poland, after first being called the Reichsgau Posen.

- The General Government may not have been a direct component of Germany, but it was universally considered part of the "Greater German Reich" by Nazi officials, so this border should be extended to include it.

- The Kleinwalser valley of pre-Anschluss Voralberg was transferred to the Gau Swabia in 1938.

- Hultschiner Ländchen (in north-eastern Moravia) was given to Upper Silesia after the Sudetenland crisis.

- The Eupen-Malmedy and Moresnet territory was much larger, extending further east into the Rhineland.

- The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was administratively divided between the surrounding Gaus in addition to having its own internal organization.

- Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, the German-annexed parts of Slovenia, and the Bezirk Bialystok should be displayed differently, since they were never officially incorporated into Germany.

- It would also help if the first-level subdivisions of the General Government (divided into five distrikten in 1943) and Bohemia-Moravia (divided into two länder) were shown.

- If the Reichsgau Westmark is portrayed, then so should the Reichsgau Oberrhein (Upper Rhine) be. Composed of Alsace and Baden, this was another planned entity.

See also these maps for more help:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look [[4]] greetings (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

the holocaust

Just a quick comment- the phrase 'Jews and other minorities' describing the victims of the Nazi regime is perhaps misleading. It is important to understand that the racial or ethnic criteria people most often associate with Nazi oppression is only a part of it; political or social 'crimes' such as promoting other political ideologies or being homosexual were just as persecuted. Overall, Jews made up less than half of the population of the camps (though they were the largest single group) - and its a distinction very worth getting right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

really this is a new section. I tend to agree , but can't actualy find the quoted text.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A Republic?????

Definition of republic: A type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country. I don't think the all-powerful Führer has ever accepted to subordinate his permanency in the government to any kind of voting. Stalin and Hitler were the two main representatives of a totalitarian state, the opposing thing to a democratic republic.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

German documents and postage stamps announced that they were issued by the "Deutsches Reich," not "Republik." The Constitution of the Weimar Republic does indeed begin by saying that Germany is a republic. However, the Nazis speedily eliminated all republican elements of the Weimar Constitution in practice, so it is most peculiar to refer to it as a republic. As for the USSR, reminds me of the old East German (German Democratic Republic) joke that there were only three things wrong with the name: the GDR was neither German, nor democratic, nor a republic. Bytwerk (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
From 1871 to 1945/49 Germany was called "Deutsches Reich" and was then changed into "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
From Republic: The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch. Lars T. (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we say that North Korea is a democratic state?? After all, its real name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As you can see, this argument is baseless and ridiculous.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea is called "socialist republic".Check the article if you wanna see it for yourself. Wiki does not have to make a judgement call, whether the Third Reich lived upto the standards of the republic. If Germany was known as a republic during 1933-45, then the Wiki is obligated to chronicle it as "Republic".

Dont change the article without reaching a resolution first.

Cosmos 05:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is obviously sometimes a difference between the self description of a government, and what it truly was. In cases like this, it would probably be sensible to give both, and be clear about the difference. In an infobox, something like
  • Government type: XXX<reference(s)>
  • Self description: YYY<reference(s)>
(Hohum @) 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, Nazis never called the Third Reich a "republic" themselves, considering this word rather insulting. (Hitler also declared that democracy was a wrong "to be overcome"). But officially, Germany was a "republic" called "Deutsches Reich" (sic!) since 1918. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It is true that the "Weimar Republic" never officially called themselves a republic either, the name of Germany - from the founding of the Empire in 1871 until 1943 - was "Deutsches Reich", in 1943 it was changed to "Großdeutsches Reich". Regarding the definition of a republic - A type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country - there were still elections in the Third Reich, for the Reichstag and all other legislative bodies. What simply happened was that deputies of the Reichstag (elected deputies) passed the Enabling Act, which granted the Chancellor (Hitler) and his government plenary powers. To which Hitler used to create the office of "Führer und Reichskanzler", thereby eliminating the office of President, and becoming both Head of State and Chancellor, a measure which a plebiscite was held on as to whether the German people approved of Hitler merging the offices of President and Chancellor into one, the "Yes" vote amounted to over 90%. After this Hitler, with the approval and consent of the Reichstag, used his powers to ban the creation of new political parties, and all other parties were pressured into disbanding themselves or merging with the NSDAP. Hence where the Single-party state aspect comes into play. After these events, elections in Germany still took place as they had always been, however the only electable candidates for the Reichstag and all other offices were NSDAP members, as it was the only legal political party. The initial Enabling Act expired in 1937 when it was renewed by the elected deputies of the Reichstag, which it would continue to renew. The Reich was a Republic by its constitution, laws, and elections. It should be referred to as such, especially when other articles (such as the Soviet Union's) are listed as a Republic. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Totalitarian state

There are widely consensus about what is "totalitarianism" (which is a different thing from authoritarianism, because totalitarianism necessarily invade the private life of the citizens, not just the public aspect as the authoritarianism does). There are many authoritarian regimes in the world (like the former "military junta" in Argentina), but modern totalitarian states, there were, surely, at least two: USSR under Stalin and Nazi Germany (some academics support the idea that theocratic Islamism under Sharia law, like the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia, is another kind of totalitarianism, but that's another discussion). Indeed, many prestigious sources say that an absolutist totalitarian state was put into practice in all its extension during the national socialist regime in Germany. In fact, we can see this in the wikipedia's article of totalitarianism. In summary, a totalitarian system is a type of government where a person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life in the country wherever feasible.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Germans suffer like Russians under Stalin ?.No they were pretty exhuberant and gleeful when Nazis wrecked absolute havoc on all of Europe.Only after Allies defeated them, all these Germans protested that they were innocent and did not like the Hitler in the first place.

Did Germans live in a totalitarian and oppressed state where they had no say in the matters of the government ?. Definitely Not. Did Germans enjoyed their "Republic" till it lasted ? Absolutely!!!

I guess _YOU_ know best... (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless the "prestigious" sources are listed out with references that explicitly state that Third Reich was "totalitarian" per Wiki's norm.I oppose your revert.

Cosmos 09:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Reverting the edit.

Cosmoskramer, please link to your user page or talk page in your signature. Also, please provide reliable sources that indicate that Germans in general enjoyed the Nazi regime and had a say in matters of government, and specifically addressing the issue of whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian or not. In the absence of sources, this debate is not worth having. Fences&Windows 20:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To Fences and windows "Happy with Nazi prosperity, most Germans remained silently obedient, while political opponents, especially the Communists, Marxists, and international socialists were imprisoned".This is a direct quote from the article itself. Let me know if you need any clarification or a better source that you trust than the Wiki.

This reiterate my stand that these Germans were content with Hitler's antics and only changed their colors like chameleon after the Germany's defeat.

Cosmos 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember a story of 1943: a German woman, working in a factory, told her friends an innocent little joke about Hitler and Göring... minutes later, she was shot dead by SS officers. Answering your question, of course that German citizens suffered a totalitarian and intolerant regime... nearly 300,000 "Aryan" Germans were killed by the Nazi regime, due to their political views (democrats, socialists, intellectuals, pacifists, artists, etc), sexual orientation or other motives. So, if the Nazi regime did those things against its own citizens, imagine what could have done with all people who were not considered part of their "chosen race". I'm not comparing the suffering of Russians, Jews or direct victims of Nazism with the suffering of common Germans who opposed the government, but there is no doubt that the Nazi Germany was a brutal, totalitarian, genocidal and criminal regime for its own people too. There is a reason to explain why Angela Merkel was in the Moscow Victory Parade few days ago: she wanted to show the entire human kind that allied victory over Hitler wasn't the defeat of her country, but its liberation.
PD - By the way, answering some user who accused me of being "a German penitent for my past" (or something like that, which caused me a laugh attack), let me tell you the truth: I'm a Jewish, Zionist and Republican Argentinian (with Soviet ancestry). And I do not hate German people. I hope for the next time less accusations and more argumentation in this talk page. Greetings.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you both please start presenting sources? I don't care what our own article says - I don't trust it as it's not a reliable source! That statement you quote is unsourced, and I've tagged it appropriately as potentially being original research (remember that Germans may have begun happy with the Nazis, then changed their minds when they saw events like the Night of the Long Knives, e.g. army general Hans Oster[5]). Both of your arguments —however erudite— are irrelevant in the face of what sources say. Wikipedia is based on the balance of what reliable sources state about a subject. So go and find what sources say about whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian and then this will be a useful debate (and they do say an awful lot on the matter, but I'd like you to do some of the hard work on this rather than acting as a parent). Without reference to sources, this is just so many bytes on a talk page.
tl;dr? Present sources! Both of you! Fences&Windows 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, we have a start class article on the Nazis gaining control over German society at Gleichschaltung. Working on that article using sources to outline the process of "Nazification" of Germany and whether this resulted in a totalitarian regime —and then summarising that article here— would be a good approach. Fences&Windows 13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion, and I think the best sources to resolve it are democratic election results (where available). So note that the Nazis did not gain a majority at any election conducted while other parties were still allowed: The two democratic elections in 1932 saw them at around 38 37 resp. 33% of votes, and even the March 1933 elections conducted under Hitler's chancellorship, at which left parties were already strongly suppressed, did not lead to a majority for the NSDAP. So most Germans were apparently not happy with a Nazi government in 1932 or 1933. (The claim of Nazi "prosperity" is also POV, by the way.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: A source for the WP figures in the articles is given in the corresponding German article:
(Note that the July 1932 figures in the WP article linked seem to be slightly wrong, the German source gives a vote percentage of only 37.4 percent for the Nazis. I initially made the same mistake as Cosmos, considering WP a reliable source - sorry.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Roentgenium, but your approach would be interpreting primary sources (i.e. election results) to tell us whether Germans were happy living under the Nazis. That's not a good approach; approval ratings would give you a better idea, but I have no idea if such polls existed (though see [6] ;-P ). Also note that there are two things being conflated here: whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian is separate from whether Germans were supportive of the Nazi regime or content to live under it. Can we please all stick to the interpretations given by reliable, secondary sources rather than bringing our own ideas into the mix? (tedious, I know) Fences&Windows 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that its standard policy for the official lawful type of government to be listed for the government type in articles, as is the case with the Soviet Union, North Korea, People's Republic of China, People's Republic of Hungary, Socialist Republic of Romania, etc., the list is almost endless. Therefore, it would not be NPOV to list "Totalitarian state" in the government section. As for some kind of some kind of "approval rating" of Hitler, there was a plebiscite which was held on August 19, 1934, as whether the German people approved of Hitler merging the offices of President and Chancellor into one. "About 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million "Ja" votes (90 percent of the vote). Thus Hitler could now claim he was Führer of the German nation with the overwhelming approval of the people." ( Lt.Specht (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, now we're getting somewhere. This from Der Spiegel looks like a good source for the rise and popularity of Hitler:[7] Fences&Windows 01:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
First but least of all, there never was a "voter registration" in Germany like in the USA. Second, millions were refused the right to vote. Third: Hitler didn't need to be "elected", he already was declared Reichspresident beforehand, the vote was just a confirmation. People were told the (not even) three weeks from Hindenburgs death to the plebiscite how exactly they were supposed to vote in all papers and radio stations. And on the election day, the polling places were staffed with party members, while SA, SS and Hitler Youth were roaming the street looking for people who didn't have the voting receipt yet and draged them to the poll. There are various documented reports of intimidation, manipulation and fraud. But sure, since the Nazis held this plebiscite with the intention to show the world how united the Germans stood behind Hitler, lets follow their lead. Lars T. (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
@Fences: I doubt there were any (let alone reliable) "approval ratings" in Germany at that time. @Lt.Specht and Fences: Your sources contradict each other, with historyplace claiming 90% of votes for Hitler, but Spiegel claiming that more than a sixth of voters did not vote "Yes" (i.e. less than 83.3% for Hitler). To me, the historyplace source looks less reliable. And I agree with what Lars T. says, the plebiscite was certainly far from representative, which was why I cited the last (more or less) free election results. As regards to the original question, Nazi Germany was (IMO) clearly a totalitarian state, though the Nazis would not have called it thus. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much centred on Adolf Hitler

The text seems to place all focus on Hitler, there is a lack of background information on how and why the situation evolved and the public opinion managed, etc. A bit about the history of the Nazi party is also missing as links to other nations extreme right parties/movements like Spain, Italy, England and how Germany had a influence on the Russian revolution could also be productive as it relates to the Bolshevik revolution. -- (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Relations

I think this article needs a couple of paragraphs on Nazi German relations with neutral nations. Let's hear from an expert! Dynzmoar (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


I heard a rumour recently that Nazi Germany would eventually have collapsed on its own within ten years even if the Second World War hadn't happened. Are there any political or economic factors that lend credence to this view? (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Prof.feather, 10 August 2010


I suggest the last line of the third paragraph: "Despite its Axis alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, by 1945, Germany had been defeated and occupied by four of the Allied powers (France, Soviet Union, UK and US)." be changed to "Despite its Axis alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, by 1945, Germany had been defeated and occupied by four of the Allied powers." Allied powers" directly linked to the "Allies of World War II" Wikipedia article, without further specification.

Reason: to specify the Allied Forces in this context, starting with France, does little justice to the reality of Vichy France, nor to France's modest contribution to German Defeat. In fact, it could be argued that France, for the better part of WW II, had an alliance with Nazi Germany.

Source: Pétain's radio declaration of October 30, 1940: "J'entre aujourd'hui dans la voie de la collaboration...." ("I enter today on the path of collaboration....").

Prof.feather (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Sorry, but that change does not seem appropriate. The curent text is factually accurate since those were the four countries which occupied Germany after the war. Celestra (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The text states: "Germany had been defeated and occupied by...." The current text is factual only as far as the post-war occupation goes. The defeat of Nazi Germany had little to do with the war effort of the French. Therefore this text is not factually accurate. Prof.feather (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have altered the punctuation slightly to separate the defeat from the occupation. (Hohum @) 14:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Persecution and extermination campaigns

I have been talking to some of my students today and was told of some extraordinary numbers:

"Parallel to the Holocaust, the Nazis executed the Generalplan Ost (General Plan East) for the conquest, ethnic cleansing, and exploitation of the populaces of the captured Soviet and Polish territories; some 20 million Soviet civilians, 3 million Poles, and 7 million Red Army soldiers were killed."

Who is responsible for such historical revisionism? "some 20 million civilians"?, why "Parallel to the Holocaust"?? (as you cannot count them twice) and why are 7 million Red Army soldiers that were killed listed at "Persecution and extermination campaigns"? that is absolutey ridiculous!

The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands, including Jews (the Holocaust), totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR. This included 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory.

I would like to see any source that states that 20 million Soviet civilians were killed! and especially through Nazi Germany's "percecution and extermination campaigns". -- (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Figures for Civilian deaths due to Allied Bombing

Re Air Raid deaths in Nazi Germany here is a brief summary of the two official German sources:

The 1956 West German government figures published in Wirtschaft und Statistik 1956, 498, are as follows Within German borders of 1937- Total dead 593,000( including 410.000 civilians killed in Allied Strategic Bombing and 128,000 refugees killed in the flight from the Russians in 1945. The remaining balance of 55,000 dead were military, police, POWs and foreign workers. There were an additional 42,000 dead in the annexed territories(including 24,000 in Austria).

Here is the link that can be verified.[8]

In 2005 the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office, an agency of the German government) published Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Bd. 9/1, ISBN 3-421-06236-6

This study now estimates the total deaths of civilians due to Allied Strategic Bombing in the 1937 borders at between 360,000 and 370,000. They believe that based on research published in 1990 the earlier 1956 estimate of 410,000 civilians killed in Allied Strategic Bombing was overstated.

The earlier volumes of the Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg have been translated into English and published by Oxford University Press

I hope this clears up your dispute re the figures--Woogie10w (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You really should not have changed the information given at "World War II casualties", as the source is only one of many given ones, and it was cited in the right way. The cited information is still available at the "Bildungsportal des Landes Niedersachsen" what is part of the Federal Government of Germany. The PDF-File even bears its name
The source given by you might be right, however I would rather trust an official government source, rather than a quite suspicious website quoting figures from 1956.
The figure is the same! 600,000 is the rounded up figure of 593,000 in Wirtschaft und Statistik . We need to check the details and understand our numbers--Woogie10w (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
To confirm the figure of 500.000 - 600.000, available at the Federal Government of Lower Saxony - here, another source by the "Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" ...the website of the permanent official exhibition by the Federal Republic of Germany. (last paragraph)--IIIraute (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Show us where on that website there is a figure of 500,000-600,000, otherwise it will be deleted.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The text is full of quotes regarding the systematic bombardements of German cities. The figure of 500.000 - 600.000 civilian dead from Allied bombing is in the last paragraph. "Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" ...the website of the permanent official exhibition by the Federal Republic of Germany. (last paragraph)

Bildungsportal des Landes NiedersachsenBildungsportal des Landes Niedersachsen Is citing the figure of Die Welt -They are not the source!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This official source of the German Government also verifies the following:
1/5 of all private property in Germany being destroyed,
3,37 million completely destroyed flats, —Preceding unsigned comment added by IIIraute (talkcontribs) 01:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
3,6 million flats damaged,
20 million people losing their flats and property,
400 million cubic meter of rubble,
50 % of all transport routes destroyed

--IIIraute (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Let me again put emphasis on the fact, ...that this is only ONE of many sources provided at the "World War II casualties" section.--IIIraute (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you want? It would be fantastic if you could leave your comments below the ones I have left and not in the middle of the text!
The "Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" provides us with the following sentence: "Zwischen 500.000 und 600.000 Deutsche starben bei den Luftangriffen und 3,37 Millionen Wohnungen wurden zerstört." .... between 500.000 and 600.000 Germans were killed during air raids and 3,7 million flats were destroyed. ...the website of the permanent official exhibition by the Federal Republic of Germany. (last paragraph)--IIIraute (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The cited website from the "German Historical Museum" can also be found at: , section LeMo. For further research about the institution: , as well as: --IIIraute (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Rather than rely on tertiary sources and websites like Die Welt and the Deutsches_Historisches_Museum we need to use secondary sources like Wirtschaft und Statistik and the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I will not discuss this matter any further. I will report your changes (that were also not done in the manner they are supposed to, as it is almost impossible to see what you've really edited) - The German Historical Museuam (a) was contracted by the German Government, (b) has its own research departments with dozens of historians working for them. To Translate Allied "Luftangriffe" and "systematische Bombardierungen" with Air War is revisionist and wrong. --IIIraute (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edits by IIIraute

Please do not place information in sentences already supported by a citation, as it gives the impression that the source supports what you've added. Also, the six million figure in reference to the Holocaust is the estimate for Jews that were killed, not all victims, which ranges in the 11-12 million area. Lastly, I have no idea what you mean when you say that the source doesn't support the 30-45 range, as it clearly does. And I quote: "usually estimated at 30-45 million Slavs who would have been ruthlessly annihilated". Please read a little more carefully next time. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about; (1) the source "["very clearly talks about the "destruction of more than 160 cities, as well as 600.000 civilian victims." I guess you should be reading a bit more carefully. (2) The source " The Holocaust" speaks of the Holocaust as "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." Again, maybe you should be reading the cited sources, before reversing my edits. (3) The source "The Russian Academy of Science Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6" speaks of 2,5 not 3 million ethnic Poles that died.--IIIraute (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I corrected my previously wrong edit about the 30-45 million.

Here also some sources about the Holocaust:

"The Holocaust (HaShoah, in Hebrew) is the term that describes the murder of six million Jews in Europe during World War II that was orchestrated by the National Socialist ('Nazi') Party in Germany."

"... ist die zentrale Holocaust-Gedenkstätte Deutschlands, ein Ort der Erinnerung und des Gedenkens an die bis zu sechs Millionen Opfer."

"The Holocaust was the systematic annihilation of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War 2." I hope this helps.--IIIraute (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The Guardian article is a very bad reference, as it is about the controversy around Friedrich's book and not German civilian casualties. Note how the article underlines the controversy and is very careful to attribute his statements to him. Also see The Holocaust on the definition discussion.
  • This platform manifested itself in the displacement, internment, and systematic extermination of several million people in the midst of World War II, most of them being Jews targeted in what is historically remembered as the Holocaust (Shoah), 2,5 million ethnic Poles that died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine. The previous sentence taken from the same source states that some 13,7 million Soviet civilians (including Jews) and 2,5 million Poles died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine. So, even the "roughly half" from the previous version is doubtful, and your reduction of this to "most" makes it worse. --Illythr (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess then we just take the reference from Friedrich's book? and yes, the other refernce speaks of "13,7 million Soviet civilians (including Jews) and 2,5 million Poles died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine." but one cannot just set this information equal with the term "Holocaust".--IIIraute (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Another source to Friedrich's claims, supporting the citation: --IIIraute (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a better (and much less controversial) source for that. It only mentions 60 cities, though.
The second part doesn't focus on Holocaust either - it mentions Poles, Roma, gays etc. It just ignores the Soviets from the count. --Illythr (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the source; I guess it depends on how one defines a "destroyed city" as well as on what counts as a "city" in general.
The other problem is, that the "Nazi Germany" article (1) constantly repeats itself on numbers of victims in differnt ways, (2) constantly changes the perimeter on the definition of certain terms, as for example "Holocaust". --IIIraute (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The way in which the victims should be mentioned is shown best in the section "Persecution and extermination campaigns". When one speaks of the Holocaust, the latest historical research usually speaks of 6 million victims (as cited in lots of sources). Parallel to the Holocaust, some 13,7 million Soviet civilians (including Jews) and 2,5 million Poles died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine. The numbers of Soviet and Polish civilians are taken from "The Russian Academy of Science Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6"
Of this 13,7 million, a large number of Soviet civilians were jewish (Holocaust), and many jewish and non-jewish civilians as well polish civilians died as a result of warfare (collateral damage), forced labor or famine what one cannot set equal with the Holocaust or genocide.--IIIraute (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the problem stems from the fact that the multitude of sources tends to focus on some part of them (e.g. Jewish - on the Holocaust, Soviet/Russian on Soviets in general and so on). The ideal solution would be to find a source that deals with all the victims and make this article consistent throughout. --Illythr (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I do agree. Another problem is the repetitive way in which facts are dealt with. For example...
Introduction: "The Nazis persecuted and killed millions of Jews, Gypsys and other minorities in the Final Solution (Holocaust)."
The information is getting further explained in "Persecution and extermination campaigns". (what makes sense)
Then, the Holocaust, Soviet victims, etc. are listed again in "Capitulation of German forces", what I do not really understand, as it does not really seem to relate to the heading.
Another detailed listing in the section "State ideology", as well as "Racial policy". Please have a look at the mentioned paragraphs. Instead of explaining the necessary facts once (referring to the specific, more detailed wikipedia artices), the article gets very confusing, losing itself by constantly repeating the same information in different ways, with different numbers and sources--IIIraute (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Hans Adler, ...instead of following your own political agenda: why do you not first have a look at the sources cited. Many of the current numbers given in the article do NOT match their source. (see talk) Quotations, ie. cited data has to match its source.--IIIraute (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
True, the numbers in the article and the sources must match. On the other hand replacing "murdered" by ""killed" in the context of the Holocaust is certainly not necessary, and the justification "to be objective" is ludicrous. [9] There is nothing wrong with using precise language to make it clear that these victims were targets of deliberate, systematic murder rather than accidental war deaths.
This is what attracted my attention, and I apologise if I was a bit slow providing proper sources.
As a general comment on this article, there are at least two places in which victim numbers are listed. The numbers are consistent with each other, but may superficially appear otherwise. I think it would be better to have a single section that deals with the precise numbers, to avoid the appearance of bias, e.g. when one section stresses the Soviet victims (because the Soviet soldiers murdered as war prisoners were such a large, uniform group), and another stresses the ethnic Polish victims (because they were the largest group of murdered civilians after the Jews). Hans Adler 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Three places: Nazi_Germany#Persecution_and_extermination_campaigns, Nazi_Germany#Capitulation_of_German_forces and Nazi_Germany#State_ideology. The third one is probably the most problematic, as its choice of victim groups seems rather random. --Illythr (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I sometimes find it's better to give a range of figures, especially where estimates vary wildly. Further sources: in Rulers and Victims (Geoffrey A. Hosking, 2006, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-02178-9, p. 242), Hosking gives a total figure of around 27 million Soviet dead including 8.7 million combat deaths and those killed by their own government. The Holocaust seems to range from around six million if one defines it as the systematic genocide of the European Jews only, to 11-12 million if one includes other ethnic and minority groups, to 17 million if one includes all civilian deaths caused by the Nazis (Niewyk, Donald L. and Nicosia, Francis R. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, pp. 45-52). EyeSerenetalk 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just noticed the article already uses the Hosking source. Oh well :) EyeSerenetalk 22:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't give a range just because different sources use different definitions. That should be restricted to when they disagree, but since this topic is rather well researched the actual uncertainties are so low that so long as we stick to a single digit (perfectly acceptable in this article, IMO) we won't need ranges, except perhaps in one or two special cases. If we deal with this in a central location I am sure we can find good formulations in which all the different numbers appear so that readers understand which distinctions are crucial. E.g.: "Roughly 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Some authors also include the roughly 3 million mostly Polish other civilians murdered by the Nazis, and in some cases the 3 million Soviet prisoners of war who died in German hands. This raises the number to about 9 million or 12 million, respectively." Hans Adler 22:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Two more thoughts:
  • This should not be the primary article for developing a treatment of these numbers. I am sure this has already been done in detail elsewhere. All we need here is a section that summarises that treatment. This will probably make this article a lot more stable.
  • I think it's a good idea to to clearly divide the discussion into several aspects: 1) Victim numbers by country, then in some cases further subdivision into the most common causes of death. 2) Victim numbers by cause of death (Nazi crime against civilians/soldiers, civilian/armed war victims), then further subdivided into the most notable countries of origin. Separation of numbers by ethnic groups should probably be done following the Nazis' own logic, i.e. under causes of death, because this was so closely related. Hans Adler 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did NOT replace "murdered" by ""killed"... and @ Hans Adler: as an individual living in Germany you should know that the term Holocaust usually refers to the murdered Jews. The original point I brought up was that the article constantly jumps between definitions towards the term "Holocaust" and therefore ignores the generally accepted scholarly consent--IIIraute (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course the term primarily refers to the murdered Jews. But people sometimes come across different numbers, and it's probably a good idea to explain where these come from. The language I proposed would certainly need tweaking such as "Holocaust in a wider sense" or some way of avoiding association of the larger number with the term Holocaust at all. It wasn't a finished proposal offered for voting but a contribution to a talk page discussion on improving the article. Hans Adler 23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
...and I cannot understand any reason why approx. 600.000 German civilian victims that died from Allied bombing should not been mentioned at the appropriate part of the article? ...and I quote from the German Government: Bildungsportal des Landes Niedersachsen, ...that between 500.000 and 600.000 civilians lost their lives from Allied bombing; 250.000 civilians lost their lives in the period from autumn 1944 to may 1945 during the Allied invasion of Germany; 750.000 to 1.7 million civilians died when being forced to leave the East; approx. 5,3 million soldiers being dead, with an additional 1 million German soldiers still missing, with 27,6 percent of all soldiers being killed. An avarage of 40% of every German city being destroyed (worst cases: Düren 99,2% destruction; Paderborn 95,6%; Bocholt 89%; Hanau 88,6%; Cologne 70% etc.)
I don't see why not both sides of the coin should be shown; a bit less biased agenda--- a little more truth.--IIIraute (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the original concern was that you used the highly contentious Friedrich's book to back it up. If you use neutral sources along with their estimates, that should be perfectly fine. The current "killing thousands of civilians" when the actual number is over half a million is grossly incorrect anyway. --Illythr (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm, now that I re-read it, the passage is placed into the time frame of early 1942, whereas the information apparently refers to the whole period of bombing (Dresden is 1945). --Illythr (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I find myself deeply troubled by the apparent equation of bombing with Holocaust. This appears to fall in line with the recent Neo-Nazi garbage, & IMO is indefensible. As for the numbers, omitting the "others" (beyond the Jews) IMO is wrong. (It's a mistake to include the war casualties too, BTW.) The systematic execution of the Holocaust totalled at least 12 million: 6 million Jews, at least a million each Russians & Poles & half a million each Czechs, ethnic Germans, Roma, political opponents, homosexuals, & about half a million others. (Admittedly, the source is weak, The Odessa File, but Forsythe has a rep for getting it right, & the total is close.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nobody here is setting anything equal; but we are still discussing an article about Nazi Germany, are we? Well, so the collapse of Nazi Germany and its victims are part of it! This is not a Holocaust article.

And no, I did NOT introduce Friedrich as source, but only did add some information from it. The article is speaking about 1942 onwards; towards the Allied victory. Anyway I don't get your point; so here are the facts..... they come from the German Government; are you doubting their relevance? So we do not need Friedrich anymore... let us use the facts provided by the German Government. What is wrong about showing what evil, suffering and death the Nazi Dictatorship did bring to its own people? For decades the Soviets played down their WWII civilian and military deaths, because they did not want to seem so vulnerable. This biased double standard has to stop, bargaining for death. Don't you see that many of your figures do not match up? Not every person in occupied Poland was murdered by the Nazis... what's about the Soviets? So,civilians killed during the bombing of Warshaw were killed by genocide, but civilians that died in Hamburg by gentlemen's agreement?

Let me give you some sources and figures:

In August 2009 the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) researchers put the figure of Poland's dead at between 5,620,000 and 5,820,000; including an estimated 150,000 Polish citizens who died due to Soviet repression. The IPN's figures include 3 million Polish Jews who died in Nazi Germany's Holocaust, as well as ethnic Poles and other ethnic groups (Ukrainians and Belarussians) Source: Wojciech Materski and Tomasz Szarota. Polska 1939–1945. Straty osobowe i ofiary represji pod dwiema okupacjami.Institute of National Remembrance(IPN) Warszawa 2009 ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6 Czesław Łuczak estimated in 1994 the actual total of war dead to be 5.9 to 6.0 million, including 2.9 to 3.0 million Jews. He estimated the number of ethnic Poles who died at 2.0 million, including 1.5 million, due to the German occupation of the territory of modern day Poland and the balance of 500,000 in the former eastern Polish regions under both Soviet and German occupation. Łuczak also included in his figures an estimated 1,000,000 war dead of Polish citizens from the ethnic Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnic groups who comprised 20% of Poland's pre-war population. Source: Czesław Łuczak, Szanse i trudnosci bilansu demograficznego Polski w latach 1939–1945. Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI- 1994

Dr. Tadeusz Piotrowski estimated in 2005 Poland's losses in World War Two to be 5.6 million; including 5,150,000 victims of Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles and the Holocaust, 350,000deaths during the Soviet occupation in 1940–41 and about 100,000 Poles killed in 1943–44 during the massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Losses by ethnic group were 3,100,000 Jews; 2,000,000 ethnic Poles; 500,000 Ukrainians and Belarusians . Source: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has reported that in addition to 3 million Polish Jews killed in the Holocaust. "Documentation remains fragmentary, but today scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war". Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Poles as Victims of the Nazi Era. Polish Losses during the Soviet Occupation (1939–1941) In August 2009 the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) researchers estimated 150,000 Polish citizens were killed due to Soviet repression. Since the collapse of the USSR, Polish scholars have been able to do research in the Soviet archives on Polish losses during the Soviet occupation.Source: Krystyna Kersten, Szacunek strat osobowych w Polsce Wschodniej. Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI- 1994. Andrzej Paczkowski puts the number of Polish deaths at 90–100,000 of the 1.0 million persons deported and 30,000 executed by the Soviets. 72,372 In 2005 Tadeusz Piotrowski estimated the death toll in Soviet hands at 350,00047 An earlier estimate made in 1987 by Franciszek Proch of the Polish Association of Former Political Prisoners of Nazi and Soviet Concentration Camps estimated the total dead due to the Soviet occupation at 1,050,000. Source: Franciszek Proch, Poland's Way of the Cross, New York 1987 --IIIraute (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

...anybody not interested in the sources and figures I have presented here; is just ignoring current historical research and does not seem to be interested in an unbiased article of some quality and value, but more in historical revisionism that seems to serve some personal political agenda ...that's so unprogressive, ignorant and really belongs into the past--IIIraute (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh, calm down, flipping out like that will only assure your opponents that you're pushing some kind of Neo-Nazi POV here, whereas this seems to be just a failure to communicate. I'll try to explain again: The previous date in that section is "Beginning in 1942", the next one is ""November 1942" Someone then had stuffed the total German war casualties there. Then you added the total civilian casualties from the bombings, which seems logical, but actually throws the text flow from 1942 to the whole period then back to 1942. I would suggest to move the total German casualties into the section "Capitulation of German forces", specifically, into the paragraph beginning with "The war was the largest and most destructive in human history...". This paragraph summarizes the total loss of human life suffered in the war, and total German losses (both war and civilian) would fit much better there, than where they are now. And I certainly don't object to using the number used by the German govt, I merely tried to explain the reason for the opposition you're facing here. --Illythr (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Trekphiler, I am not really getting the point you are raising here? So because the Nazis (all the Germans?) commited horrible crimes, it is not worth mentioning their dead civilians anymore?
So, the police hunts down a criminal who has killed 100 people; while doing this, 10 civilians are killed by the police, so it isn't worth mentioning them in the next days paper.
What have hundreds of thousands of civilian victims to do with the other crimes that were commited by the Nazis, that it is not worth mentioning them? Do they all share collective guilt or what? To me that more looks like revenge, rather than an unbiased article.
Is it so difficult for you to raise above your emotional and political agenda, to acknowledge that those dead are part of the story? Again, this is not an article about Nazi atrocities, but about Nazi Germany!
Do you think the sentence "with thousands being killed" sums up 500.000 to 600.000 dead?
When I spend "thousands" on my car, one usually does not think of more than of 1/2 million, does one?
What do you think mentioning those dead civilians is taking away from you; that they seem less guilty?..... because, of course they ALL were? And even if they were; they were still Nazi Germany civilians, killed by allied bombing, so they do belong in the article. So what's your point....?
@Illythr, I am not pushing anything; especially not towards any Nazi-POV. The world is not black and white, and it doesn't suit the Wikipedia to pretend it is. I have given figures regarding the Allied bombing campaigns and victims, as well as regarding to the Polish victims; i.e. regarding the Holocaust, the Soviets, etc. They just cannot be ignored. I do not understand why the article is full of other figures? Looks like historical cherry picking to me!--IIIraute (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
IIIraute, when you descend on an article and start accusing its editors of having an "emotional and political agenda", don't be surprised if your complaints aren't taken too seriously. In my experience, those who shout loudest about other peoples' agendas are generally upset because their own agenda has been rumbled. Although the source is a controversial one, no-one is disagreeing with the 600,000 figure (in fact, I've seen as high as 800,000 quoted). The original issue was that your edit pattern seemed to indicate that you were engaged in a process of minimising the numbers killed by the Germans while at the same time trying to imply some sort of equivalence with the numbers of Germans killed by the Allies. As Trekphiler says, this is a common tactic by editors of a far-right political persuasion. I can accept your assurance that you believed you were simply, in all innocence, balancing the article. However, you must realise that this is a sensitive and controversial area, and when editors show up complaining about bias and unilaterally changing figures in certain ways, we (usually accurately) tend to assume the worst.
I think the suggestions above that parts of the article should be reorganised and possible rewritten are very sensible. However, for proper neutrality (in a Wikipedia sense) we should use a good selection of sources rather than rely on a single preferred source. Our task as editors is to tell the full story - if estimates have changed, we show the changes and, sources permitting, explain why. It's sometimes also a good idea to attribute in the text: "According to X writing in 1946, N million died. However, in 1996 Y revised this figure to M million...". Having said that, I appreciate Hans Adler's point that this article is an overview and not really the place to go into great detail. EyeSerenetalk 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I do understand your (and other editors) concern that I could maybe have tried to edit the article in a revisionist manner. But if you, Hans Adler and especially Parsecboy, had looked into my edits properly, you would have seen that I already had changed other uncited claims at much earlier stage (and also have given reasons for doing so). I have to admitt that I did not justify some of my later edits very clearly; so that might have given reason for alert.
I know that maybe some of my edits at first glance do not seem that transparent and academically sourced, but when I found the article (at some parts) in such a mess, with very problematic and alarming statements given; I thought of it as very important, to get them changed. To my excuse I am rather new to the Wikipedia and not that experienced with editing.
Let me try to explain my edits and put some light on the whole issue:
I have been involved for many years into doing reserch for and with German and British institutions regarding this topic. During this time I have experienced not only revisionist interests by far-right political persuasion, but at least as much from the far-left.
When I came across this article (checking some of the sources), I very much got the impression that this article was strongly biased by the latter. Let me give you some examples of deeply suspicious, uncited or wrongly cited information I came across in the cronological order of my edits: Line 195: This part of the paragraph originally stated the uncited claim that, parallel to the Holocaust "...some 20 million Soviet civilians, 3 million Poles, and 7 million Red Army soldiers were killed." By writing "parallel to the Holocaust" one very clearly separates the following information from the former. (reason for some of my later edits about setting the Holocaust equal to the 6 million figure; as done by most historians)
The uncited claim of 20 million Soviet civilians and 3 million Poles that were killed as a result of the Nazis executing their Generalplan Ost, is simply revisionist and wrong.
I did change this claim by giving information taken from The Russian Academy of Science and by exchanging the numbers with those given (and very well sourced) in the Wikipedia article "World War II casualties"
However, the given data is providing us with "total dead" (including Soviet atrocities, etc.) Apart from that, I also wanted to put emphasis on the fact that the dead not only result from directely intendet genocide per se, but also as a result of warfare, forced labor and famine.
When changing the number of Polish civilians killed from 3 to 2,5 million , I did very clearly refer to: see World War II casualties (civilian deaths by country) ...and this figure includes civilian deaths from Soviet genocide, etc.
In my next edit the source given very clearly speaks of the Holocaust as "...the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." I do know that there is other interpretation of the term "Holocaust", but then one should decide for a differnet- and also cite a differnt source. Apart from that I already did put emphasis on the issue that the term, ie. defintion Holocaust and the murder of Soviet and Polish civilans etc. was already seperated previously in the paragraph of " Persecution and extermination campaigns". One should, kind of, follow a line through the whole article; not constantly changing the definition for terms used.
Then, on the other hand, I came across the numbers of dead from allied bombing. Just before the citation of total military dead (what implied that one is also talking about total dead from allied bombing), and see that although this information is cited (Friedrich; whom I did not introduce), the paragraph only speaks of thousands of German civilians being killed. I did find this part very alarming and problematic, as the shift of balance became very apparent. As I said, I was only checking the cited sources given, so I added some further information from that source to bring more balance into the whole article. I also introduced the "bombing of Hamburg" to that sentence, as this event was one of the earliest and most severe of the allied campaigns.
I find it very problematic that a "balanced, neutral" article about, and let us be specific and put emphasis on this, "Nazi Germany" and not "Nazi Genocide", rightfully gives very detailed information on foreign (Soviet, Polish) civilians being killed as a result from Nazi genocide, warfare, forced labor and famine, but does not ONCE mention up to 3,228,700 million German, i.e. the "Nazi Germany" civilian dead (and total dead of up to 8,986,700 million), of which a large number results from allied bombing, reprisals, etc.
I think of it as very important, to explain the effects that Nazi Germany did bring on itself; the previously mentioned government source is a very good source explaining those effects.
I don't know about this one , probably just got it wrong because I was so in anger about previously mentioned revisionist figures. So thanks Parsecboy for bringing this one up; and I did revert my edit after acknowleding my mistake.
My other edits were, that I asked for some further citations to be added, I reverted some vandalism and that's about it.
Thankfully, Hans Adler, did put some paragraphs into order, but what will and can we do to bring more balance into the rest of this article?--IIIraute (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you IIIraute for your reasoned explanation, and please accept my apologies for my part in misreading your intentions. I agree that, in focusing on the many evils the National Socialist regime perpetrated on others, there's perhaps a temptation to overlook the evils they inflicted on Germany itself.
Perhaps we could address the deficiencies with the current article by creating a new subsection at the end of the History section entitled "Aftermath" or "Legacy" or anything suitable? This might be an appropriate place to explore your points. Alternatively, perhaps we could expand the "Fall of the Third Reich" section? It may be that a more extensive reorganisation/rewrite is needed, but I'm afraid such sources as I have access to deal mostly with the Normandy campaign and the Eastern Front. Thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 16:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The (suspicious) and uncited figures are now put into order (revised by HansAdler and -Woogie10w). I would suggest that we introduce an additional paragraph, right after the paragraph of "Capitulation of German forces", and that this text is kept rather informative and analytical, mentioning the consequences the war did bring on Germany herself, (similar to the figures published by the German Historical Museum; total civilian dead, POW's, total war dead, destroyed flats, etc.) We can introduce a wide range of sources, although I would recommend to take the casualties figures from the "WWII Casulaties" article and refer to its detailed listing. --IIIraute (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the website of the German Historical Museum is best for middle school students, we can do a lot better on Wikipedia and use only published reliable academic sources--Woogie10w (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To phrase publications and the information of permanent exhibitions of a worldwide recognized research institute and museum, that was contracted by the German Government - "for middle school students" - is quite arrogant. I only gave the German Historical Museum as ONE example, suggesting a variety of sources. The same figures you can find within the following bibliography. For more research:
  • Benz, Wolfgang, Potsdam 1945. Besatzungsherrschaft und Neuaufbau im Vier-Zonen-Deutschland, München 1994.
  • Benz, Wolfgang:, Die Gründung der Bundesrepublik. Von der Bizone zum souveränen Staat, München 1989
  • Broszat, Martin / Weber, Hermann (Hg.), SBZ-Handbuch. München 1990.
  • Buchheim, Christoph, Die Wiedereingliederung Westdeutschlands in die Weltwirtschaft 1945-1958, München 1990.
  • Steininger Rolf, Deutsche Geschichte seit 1945. Darstellung und Dokumente in vier Bänden. Frankfurt a. M. 1996.
  • Vaubel, Ludwig, Zusammenbruch und Wiederaufbau. Ein Tagebuch aus der Wirtschaft 1945-1949, München 1985.
  • Deutschland 1945-1949, Informationen zur politischen Bildung (Heft 259), Bonn, 2005
  • Wolfgang Benz, Infrastruktur und Gesellschaft im zerstörten Deutschland
  • Thomas Berger/Karl-Heinz Müller (Hg.), Lebenssituationen 1945-1948, Hannover 1983
  • Peter Graf von Kielmannsegg: Nach der Katastrophe. Eine Geschichte des geteilten Deutschland, Berlin 2000
  • Philipp Ther, Deutsche und polnische Vertriebene: Gesellschaft und Vertriebenenpolitik in der SBZ/DDR und in Polen 1945–1956, in: Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Band 127, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1998
  • Heinrich Siedler: Dokumentation zur Deutschlandfrage, Siegler & Co. KG – Verlag für Zeitarchive, Bonn 1961.

--IIIraute (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of Gypsy as a designation for the Roma

The AI and Council of Europe among others have declared that the designation Gypsy for the Roma is inaccurate, racist and pejorative. Please do not revert and waste editing time, please do google search for proof, see the holocaust museum site it uses the word Roma. [[10]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please bring the matter up at Talk:Gypsy; otherwise, it's an Easter egg to have the link as written. Until then, the links should remain as [[Gypsy]]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it should probably be [[Romani people|Gypsy]]s, as "Gypsy" is the term used by the Nazis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This is actually a tricky problem. We are under no obligation to use the Nazis' own terminology. As an extreme example, we would certainly not use (as opposed to mention) the designation "lebensunwert" (literally: unworthy to live). IMO we are free to use whatever is the best designation for this group of people. The problem is determining what that is.
At first I thought "Gypsy" is too vague, because it also includes other nomadic groups. On the other hand, maybe this vagueness is actually required:
  • As far as I know the largest group of "Gypsies" persecuted by the Nazis consists of the Romani people. But the dominant subgroup of these is the Sinti. It appears that, especially in Germany, the Romani insist on distinguishing the Sinti from the Romani in a narrower sense.
  • As far as I know the persecution did not distinguish between different types of nomadic ethnic groups. In particular, the term "gypsy" includes, and the Nazis persecuted, the Yeniche people. These are an ethnic group of heterogeneous origin that speaks the Yeniche language (related to German, Romani, Yiddish and Rotwelsch).
  • If any other group listed on the disambiguation page Gypsy had lived in Germany at the time, I have no doubt they would have been persecuted as well.
On balance I would say, if use of the term "gypsy" is politically correct in English, then we should use it here. The essentially equivalent German term "Zigeuner" is considered not politically correct and is usually replaced by "Sinti and Romani". But this gives somewhat special treatment to the subgroup of Sinti (justified by their large number) and completely suppresses the Yeniche (not justified in my opinion). In English "Romani and Yeniche" might work, but that may give too much weight to the Yeniche while perhaps suppressing yet another group I haven't heard of. Hans Adler 09:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Also many Gypsy groups in the UK use the term Gypsy to describe themsleves. So its not a term that every one sees as offensive.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you an analogy there is still a United Negro College Fund[[11]], would you justify that to use the word for Africans. The Holocaust museum uses the term Roma(Gypsies)[[12]], to start with why does this article not use that terminology? It should. I am sorry for going for the change before discussing it on the talk page. Please contemplate, discuss but implement the change. See we have a good verifiable source that uses this designation, I see no reason not to use it. There are about 10 to 20 million Roma in Europe who then have emigrated else where, they are Europe's largest ethnic minority. The term Roma is an umbrella term that also includes a small group, British Roma who sometimes use the self-designation Gypsy, but in Europe and esp. Eastern Europe, the word or its translation, Zigane etc. is considered as extremely racist by the Roma, see link above in my earlier comment. I strongly disagree with one editor, who says that as long as something is acceptable in UK, it should be considered acceptable in an English Wikipedia article, 40-50 million UK natives form only a small minority of English users the world over, the acceptability of any word should reflect this situation. The European Roma Rights Centre uses the word Roma. The ERRC has consultative status with the Council of Europe, as well as with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The Roma include many sub-groups, such as the Sinti. [[13]] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A map from Wikpedia with self designations, made by an editor, not a reliable source, used here nevertheless.
Distribution of the Romani people in Europe based on self-designation.
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Arthur the link for Gypsy leads to a dis-ambiguation page, which is bad practice for an internal link, how about linking it to Romani people, then it would not be an Easter egg. ? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Slatersteven according to a well sourced Wikipedia statement, Gypsy has several developing and overlapping meanings under English Law. Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, 'gipsies' are defined as "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such." This definition includes such groups as New Age Travellers, as well as Irish Travellers and Romany. Gypsies of Romany origins have been a recognised ethnic group for the purposes of Race Relations Act 1976 since Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton 1989 and Irish Travellers in England and Wales since O'Leary v Allied Domecq 2000 (having already gained recognition in Northern Ireland in 1997). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be making things easier than they are. A couple of points on which I would like to hear your opinion:
  1. Gypsy is the standard English translation of words such as Zigeuner or zigane. That doesn't mean that all these words have the same level of offensiveness. In Central and Eastern Europe the term got much of its offensiveness through a systematic hate and physical extermination campaign by the Nazis. This campaign did not happen in any English-speaking country. I have looked for evidence that your first edit summary, "Using Gypsy for Roma is like using the word n****r for black", is true as a statement about the English word. I have found no such evidence, and it seems unlikely: I know for a fact that it's not even quite true for the German word Zigeuner; the word is offensive but was the standard term until recently; it is comparable to negro, not to nigger).
  2. Your second edit summary says: "The AI and Council of Europe among others have declared that the designation Gypsy for the Roma is inaccurate, racist and pejorative." I have looked for evidence of this and could not find it. I interpreted AI as Amnesty International, but could find no statement of theirs on the word. The Council of Europe's 1993 Recommendation 1203 on Gypsies in Europe uses the word freely as an over-arching term that includes the Romani people and does not exclude other groups that are similarly marginalised. Did the declarations you mentioned refer to the English word gypsy, or were they in a different language and referred to a term in that language?
  3. Do you think it is OK to exclude the Yeniche people, who are gypsies but most certainly not Romani?
  4. Gypsies have always been the target of persecution, not because they are called gypsies, but because they are nomads. Conflicts between nomads and sedentary population exist practically everywhere in the world, and typically it's the nomads who are weaker and suffer from that. Under these circumstances every designation for local nomads will, after a while, become an invective. At that point it will be retired and replaced by a new one. This does not, however, solve any problems, and there is no advantage to be had from doing it prematurely. Hans Adler 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

using the word Nazi

Hullo, a quick question. What is WP's stance on using nicknames for political parties? I ask because it seems a little unencyclopedic referring to the reich as Nazis.

I personally have no problem with it, but it isn't what they called themselves. On the wermacht page they're called the Nazi army, and the reich is constantly called nazi germany.

I have looked at the USSR page and they aren't called "commies", so how come the 3rd reich are called Nazis? Why not Nationalsocialists or NSDAP?

As I said I am not an irate "nazi" with an axe to grind I am just interested in the reason for allowing this nickname. ta

Doktordoris (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. However, most English language history books typically refer to Nazis rather than National Socialists. (Hohum @) 11:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The Nazis did use the term for themselves occasionally, but most of the time used "National Socialist.” I suppose common English usage is the best justification? Bytwerk (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it would sound a bit odd in a formal context in German, but in English it sounds perfectly natural to me in all contexts. Hans Adler 19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This discussion on WT:MILHIST might be relevant here. EyeSerenetalk 07:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Section break

The term Roma (Gypsy) should be used for the following reasons

  1. The Holocaust web site uses the term Roma (Gypsy), which to I have provided a link above.
  2. The present internal link leads to a disambiguation page.
  3. I have provided one example of how the term Gypsy is considered inappropriate in Eastern Europe. See above for link. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Acknowledged. Please note that we are not obliged to follow random reliable sources in our usage, especially when other reliable sources (such as the Council of Europe) have different usage.
  2. We could turn it into a link to nomad, because that's the technical meaning of gypsy that we need here.
  3. This is not an article. It is a letter to the editor of a newspaper, i.e. practically unfiltered opinion of a single person. The writer is obviously a Rom and is speaking about a pure Romani context with no complications caused by the need to include the Sinti subgroup and the unrelated Yeniche (not Romani!) group. I would never refer to an individual Rom as a "gypsy", knowing that he is a Rom. That's just rude. But the main reason it's rude is because it avoids mentioning the actual ethnicity in favour of a typical characteristic – nomadicity.
This last point made me think: I don't know how many settled Romani there were before the Holocaust, but I doubt very strongly that they were spared. Moreover, I have read somewhere that persecution of the Yeniche people was in part because their language was confused with Yiddish, so the Nazis actually killed them because they thought they were Jews. These two things taken together are a good reason to actually use the term Romani and mention the Yeniche separately. Hans Adler 14:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Hans what you have written here is against established and verifiable facts. Germany's issue with the Roma was not about their itenerant life-style, or their belief which could be changed for example the communists could change their belief, or the JW's or the gays etc, but their ethnicity. Infact they were the only ones apart from the Jews who could not change and were condenmed to go down a one way street.
  2. The Holocaust museum is not a random reliable source, but can be considered as one of the most authorative sources on this subject.
  3. I am glad that you consider CoE's word as final. You are quoting an old CoE directive, it has since been changed, I will share it here as soon as I find it, it is hypothetical, but will you then back to ban the word here.
  4. You are right the word Gypsy is like N***o and not N****r, with relation to the example I gave.
  5. (Please check your email)
    1. In his keynote address at the European Commission Meeting in Brussels on March 10, 2010 Prof. Hancock comments on importance of the right designation quotes the a Chinese proverb "The Chinese say that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name.". I have the pdf copy of the address which I have sent to your email id, available on your page, I do not know whether it is in public domain.
    2. An CoE officer writes, "This to underline that the time when exonyms could be imposed on this population is definitely over and that the majority society, and the media in particular whose role to educate the public is of great importance, should start consider calling these people the way they want to be called." I am trying to find whether this is available in public domain.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we are discussing so many points in parallel, I will again use your numbering:
  1. I see what you mean, and you will have noticed that in a sense I have come around to your position anyway. But allow me to explain what I had in mind: As far as I know the Nazis (as a German myself I prefer to refer to them rather than to "Germany" in this context, because I prefer not to marginalise the German opposition of the time, even though it was too weak) started persecuting the Jews basically because they actually believed in the "Jewish conspiracy" nonsense. This is not an excuse. It's a scientific explanation (possibly a wrong one – I am not an expert and may remember incorrect information) of the kind that one needs in order to know what to watch out for, so that things don't go wrong again in a similar way. I am not aware of any "gypsy conspiracy" theory, so the persecution of the Romani must have had a different reason. That nonsense "Aryan race" ideology can hardly have been the original reason for doing it. After all, they had no problem with accepting the Finns as "equivalent", and due to the Romani's origins in India that kind of thing would have been more logical in the case of the Romani. Judging from today's still existing prejudice against the Romani, I am pretty sure that the original reason for the persecution was the difference of lifestyles. Once it was clear that they wanted to persecute the Romani, they used ethnic criteria, with the horrible consequences you describe. That's what I wanted to say without going into too much detail. Sorry if my brevity made it offensive in any way.
  2. I certainly didn't mean to disparage the Holocaust museum. As far as I know it's a highly reliable source. My point was that just because one source uses one word consistently doesn't mean that another word, used consistently by another source, is wrong. Especially if the words don't mean exactly the same thing.
  3. I never said I consider CoE as final. The same caveats apply as for the Holocaust museum. If they actually switched from "Gypsy" to "Romani" that makes your argument stronger than if they had used "Romani" from the beginning.
  4. Again, thanks a lot for sending me this interesting document.
    1. I note that you have taken the quotation out of context. Hancock's point was that one needs to distinguish between the different Romani communities. That's something I have brought up on this page before (w.r.t. the Sinti) as another thing to consider. Hancock seems to identify "Gypsy" with "Romani". Our disambiguation page Gypsy contradicts this to some extent, and I think that Germans also generally include the Yeniche among the "Zigeuner". From some surfing around I got the impression that the Yeniche themselves identify with the term to a great extent. But my current understanding is that due to some differences in the kind of persecution it's better to mention Romani and Yeniche separately anyway. That probably means that the Yeniche will get only a brief mention somewhere together with other small minorities, but I am not sure about the numbers. (There may not be any reliable numbers.)
    2. As I said, when referring only to Romani, Romani is of course the only polite option. (Some complication in Germany with the Sinti/Roma distinction, though, although I don't know if it affects the English language.) And as Hancock implies, when referring to a specific subgroup, it's better to refer to that subgroup specifically. But when grouping several ethnicities together there is often no other choice than using an exonym or enumerating them all.
I think we basically agree at this point, at least about the article. I have been bold and replaced the link Gypsy in the lead by Romani people. Hans Adler 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Another section break

I am replying to Hans following the same sequence.

  1. I have consciously used German and not Nazi. The so called Nazis were not Germans with a horn, or a forked tongue or a tail. They were regular German citizens with varying and sometimes exceptional degrees of talent, educational achievements and professional expertise who when the situation demanded or offered indulged in actions that lead to the events as we know and judge now. Established knowledge tends to disagree with your interpretation that the Roma were bothered with as they lived unacceptable life-styles. I quote Prof. Hancock from the above mentioned speech, "When the biggest daily paper in Romania, Evenimentul Zilei wrote that "Gypsies are believed to be genetically inclined to become criminals" it was repeating Hitler's rationale for the extermination of Romanies in the Third Reich." The Holocaust Encyclopaedia writes "Among the groups the Nazi regime and its Axis partners singled out for persecution on so-called racial grounds were the Roma (Gypsies). Drawing support from many non-Nazi Germans who harbored social prejudice towards Roma, the Nazis judged Roma to be "racially inferior." The fate of Roma in some ways paralleled that of the Jews."[14] It is not easy to understand the rational behind implementation of the German ideology that lead to the genocide, but it aimed at ethnic cleansing; Germany for Germans, and Germans were those who confirmed to then defined German-ness. That the Jews were economically formidable was another parameter that worked against them which gave rise to campaigns like the Jewish Conspiracy, for the Roma who existed at the other end of the economic spectrum, it was their pre-industrial ways. Please read further down the Holocaust article, even Roma soldiers who fought for the German army were not spared. They definitely were not socially or economically deviant but belonged to an unacceptable race to the Germans.
  2. &
  3. Information contained in my email to you corroborates my statement about CoE's recommendations on the use of designation for the Roma.
  4. -
  5. Oh you are most welcome.
    1. I quoted Prof. Hancock on the importance of the right designation, this quotation was to counter your argument that "...This does not, however, solve any problems, and there is no advantage to be had from doing it prematurely." The argument for which designation to use has been given elsewhere by me.
    2. I cannot see how one can draw the conclusion that we can use an exonym for a group from Prof. Hancock's speech, on the other hand there is a source quoted above by me that states that the use of exonyms for people is obsolete.

Thanks for the edit, I hope it stays that way. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for another very interesting email. Re 1: I don't think we disagree at all. I was looking at root causes in a scientific spirit; at times this can come across as if lacking empathy, even if it's done with the best intentions. Sorry if I wasn't entirely clear. I have not heard of Roma soldiers who were killed, but I heard of highly decorated Jewish WW1 veterans who were killed, so I would have guessed that Roma were also affected. Re 3: Assuming what you sent me is not a translation, for me personally that's a very strong reason not to use "Gypsy" in English. Thanks! I will keep this in mind in the future. Re 5: Maybe you know Prof. Hancock and can interpret his words in the context of what you know about his more general opinions. I have been trained to use language very carefully, and to be careful not to overinterpret what someone else says – so I am simply being a bit more careful. I think it doesn't really matter because we agree about the basics. Generally I agree that it's better to avoid exonyms. (On Wikipedia it is sometimes not possible because some rules require us to use the most common word.) But sometimes this gets tricky, e.g. when different groups claim the same word for self-designation, or in the case of the Sinti/Roma confusion of terms. In such situations there is often no perfect solution, and I have seen many conflicts on Wikipedia that resulted from such problems. Hans Adler 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello guys, please don't forget: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. In order to establish fruitful debates, please do your private exchanges and comments (e. g. on the difference between Germans and Nazis, or on your emails) on your own talk pages. Thanks in advance. And now back to the original topic. I'd like to know why this article now mentions the Romani people, but not the Sinti. And I'd ask one more favor, that's to keep your answers short and simple. Lengthy remarks are just tedious and, from my experience, not very helpful, especially when other readers try to follow the course of a debate. Catgut (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the previous verbosity. My current understanding is that Romani or Roma is the general term, and that the Sinti (the majority of the Roma in Germany) refer to themselves only as Sinti and use the term Roma for all others. This kind of language use is natural and is fine locally, but tends to cause all sorts of terminological problems internationally. Personally I could imagine some alternatives, such as "Sinti and Roma", or maybe "Travellers"? (The last one would include the Yenishe, who were also prosecuted and killed, but as "antisocial" rather than under ethnic criteria, or sometimes because their language was mistaken for Yiddish.) From an international, English-speaking culture POV I gues just "Roma[ni]" is most correct, but readers with a background from Sinti-dominated areas may not understand this.
Yogesh Khandke may have different ideas about this, so let's wait what he says. Hans Adler 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I too apologise. Actually I am privy to a few documents which are not in the public domain, I am trying to work with the present owners to make them public (which explains reference to emails, sorry you are right Cat, most of this should have been on our talkpages), which prove that the CoE regards the term Roma and Travellers as the most appropriate for Roma, Sinti, Kale, and related groups in Europe, and aims to cover the wide diversity of groups concerned, including groups which identify themselves as Gypsies. It also adds that "Today educated and professional journalists are required to avoid the use of derogatory words like "Eskimos to refer to the Canadian Inuits, or Lapps to refer to the Nordic Sami. The same respect should apply for the Roma. Terminology is important and should be carefully addressed in media reporting..." I checked the Joshua project site, it marks the Yenish ethnicity as South Asian, on the other hand their Wikipedia article suggests that they descended from Celts? I do not know now whether Yenish are included in this umbrella term, I am seeking information and will get back as soon as I have it. The remark about Nazis and Germans though unsourced at the moment has been made very seriously and purposefully. I know one journalist/activist/researcher who always uses the word National Socialists, a PhD and a reliable source. The Holocaust site juggles between Germany and Nazi Germany. However I do not wish nor do I have the means to debate on this at the moment. Thanks for bearing with me and sorry one more time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
On the Yenishe or Yeniche: They are generally believed to have originated as poor Germans who imitated the Roma lifestyle. (Initially both groups probably looked down on each other, and apparently they still tend to keep a distance.) There is definitely no connection with Celts (they only came up in the Middle Ages) or South Asia. I believe in Germany there are many more Sinti/Roma than Yenishe, but in Switzerland it seems to be the other way round. From my unsystematic research, the Yenishe are included in "travellers", normally included in "Gypsies", and not included in "Roma" or "Sinti and Roma". Nevertheless, the Porajmos monument in Berlin will mention "Yenishe and other travellers" explicitly as other groups also subject to (less systematic) persecution. Based on this and their relatively small number, I guess it's OK if we use a formulation that does not include them. Hans Adler 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Terminology used by the CoE, see under definitions pl. The term ‘Roma and/or Travellers’ used in the present text refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale, Travellers, and related groups in Europe, and aims to cover the wide diversity of groups concerned, including groups which identify themselves as Gypsies.[15] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct terminology

The term “Roma” used throughout the present text refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale, Travellers, and related groups in Europe, and aims to cover the wide diversity of groups concerned, including groups which identify themselves as Gypsies. [16] Whether the above definition includes Yenish is not known to me. Can we change the term Romani people to Roma please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The above is the latest EU definition of Roma. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (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)

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. (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. :) (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2011 (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). -- (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviet actually take more than 8million military casualities, do you count militia as military? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 3 February 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)

Hello, the term "Großdeutsches Reich" was definitely from 1938 on, NOT from 1933 to 1937. The difference between "Deutsches Reich" and "Großdeutsches Reich" was the joining of Austria. Please correct this.-- (talk) 09:19, 3 February 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)

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 (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. (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. (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:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg. 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 (talkcontribs) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Way too large

This article is way too large and needs more put into sub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (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, WP: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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Provide WP:RELIABLE sources, also this is not a forum. (Hohum @) 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fry, you asserted that “no historian has ever claimed the elections were stolen”. I provided you the name of a leading historian who has documented how the Nazis banned the Communist Party before the March 1933 elections, forced many opposition politicians into hiding or exile, and posted storm troopers at polling stations to intimidate voters. These were not fair and free elections. And then you say “Don't use a "so go read a book" attitude with me.” You were the one who made an unsupported claim, and I told you where you could find the information to prove that claim wrong.

“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?” There were two legal communist parties that nominated candidates, no parties were banned, no opposition politicians were in hiding or exile, opposition parties had free access to the media, and the state-owned broadcaster, the CBC, could never be accused of being a propaganda organ for the Conservative Party. And when I went to vote, at least, there were no Nazi stormtroopers intimidating voters. So I would call it a fair and free election, no matter how much I disliked the result. Ground Zero | t 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked Evans. He says that the Communist Party was "effective outlawed" after February 28, but not completely banned until the day after the elections, so I was not technically correct in saying above that it was banned before the election. He does provide extensive details of how Communist Party officials were arrested or forced into hiding in February, how issues of KPD, SPD and Centre Party newspapers were banned, party members fired from government jobs, party meetings broken up by brownshirts, party offices raided and trashed, and how the propaganda machine and threat of violence was used to try to corral the voters into giving the Nazis a majority. I don't think this bears any resemblance to the 2011 Canadian election or any other free and fair election. I have included a selection of these details in the Wikipedia article on the German federal election, March 1933‎, because I think this is too much detail for the main article on Nazi Germany. You can check out this information, with references to Evans' book provided, in that article. Ground Zero | t 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


What is this in the intro? "when it was a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by Adolf Hitler, John Joseph McCabe (BSc, BAI Dublin) and their Nazi Party. John later went on to assassinate JFK and develop the blockbuster drug Lipitor."

This looks like vandalism to me

Ricardosj (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Which flag image to use

I'm well aware that there's a big debate about which flag (off centered or centered) was the official state flag of Hitler's Germany. In my research, I've found that the centered flag is more common in Nazi propaganda, parades, etc. Because of this and because of the fact it is a much more widely recognized symbol of the Third Reich, I propose we change the flag in the infobox to the centered version. Rockhead126 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Annexation of areas of northern Italy

Shouldn't the map of the size of Nazi Germany show the large areas of northern Italy that were annexed by Germany after the German occupation of Italy that followed the Italian armistice? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Today Part Of

Many modern-day countries are not included in the "Today Part Of" section despite the map showing that nearly all of Europe was under Nazi control. Jacsam2 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Countries invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany didn't all become *part of* the Großdeutsches Reich. (Hohum @) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Shall we remove Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Italy, Estland, Latvia from the list then ? In the preceded/succeeded list are some occupied or allied countries as well. --Denniss (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand your argument but I think that when Nazi Germany invaded all the countries that it would have then incorporated them into the Reich. So they should be listed. I don't understand how countries invaded did not become of the reich. Jacsam2 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference between "incorporated into the Reich" (=German territory) and occupied/governed areas. This list should only contain those countries/states who where in part or in full incorporated into the Reich. --Denniss (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I would say that occupied areas would be part of German territory. If not, who's territory is it? Jacsam2 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
They were nothing more then german-occupied territory, usually separated into governed sectors. They were not part of the german Reich. Have you ever looked at the map ? It's self-explanatory. --Denniss (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Who would be governing the sectors? Would not it be Germany? You said earlier that the list should only include countries that were in part/fully incorporated into the Reich. What would be the definition of incorporation into the reich that you are using? Maybe this will clarify things. Jacsam2 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Großdeutsches Reich / Nazi Germany is a specific administrative region. Only certain invaded areas became a part of it. You will need to find reliable sources that say that the additions you were trying to make were part of it per WP:BURDEN. (Hohum @) 01:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I understand but I haven't been able to come across a page were all the occupied countries are listed. Does one exist? Or does it need to be created?

Jacsam2 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this be a protected topic?

Should this be made so that only registered users may modify this? (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dictatorship vs autocracy

I suggest that we replace the word dictatorship with autocracy, as the word dicatorship is a very charged and therefore subjective word. Autocracy, however, is more objective. No matter what we feel, history isn't supposed to be a normative science. It should therefore say Government: Totalitarian autocracy in the informations box. Magneman (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What do reliable sources use? (Hohum @) 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
From the point of view of plain speaking, most people understand what a dictatorship is, autocracy, less so, imo. (Hohum @) 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the word dictatorship still is somewhat biased. Germany today is described as a federal parliamentary republic. Many people don't know what a parliamentary system is, yet we don't simply replace federal parliamentary republic with democracy. My point is that historians and people who write history should be as neutral as possible, therefore charged words such as dictatorship shouldn't be used. As previously written, history is a positive science, not a normative. Magneman (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

the wikipedia rule says that we should follow the RS, and they generally use "dictatorship" with no suggestion of "bias" Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The Germans at the time thought dictatorship was good, just as the West thought democracy was good, so the terms are not loaded in retrospect: Germans had never had a constitutional democracy before - the Weimar Government was a foreign construction imposed on them by the U.S. Like Russia, Germany only understood absolute rule as both these states had not gone through civil wars to oust their monarchs as France, England and US did. In short, Germans and Russians had no notion of "liberty": hence their "enlightenment" had a totalitarian destiny rather than liberal. Liberty was alien to them and they were hostile to the very idea.-- (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge Flensburg Government article into Nazi Germany article

The Flensburg Government article is about an extremely-short-lived post-Hitler Nazi government that lasted seven days until it surrendered and weeks until ended its existance. This is too insignificant of a change to warrant its own article. Besides, the government was still representing Nazi Germany. Information on Flensburg government should be added to the history section of the Nazi Germany article.--R-41 (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Flensburg government is of great interest to historians. A number of books have been written specifically on this government, for example:
  • Marlis Gertrud Steinert, Die 23 Tage der Regierung Dönitz, Econ-Verlag 1967, 426 pages [17].
  • Walter Lüdde-Neurath, Regierung Dönitz. Die letzten Tage des Dritten Reiches, at least 6 editions since 1951, ~200 pages [18] [19] [20]
In addition, this topic will naturally have a lot of weight in the extensive literature about the last days of the Nazi regime.
Moreover, it would make no sense to integrate the full information in the present article, as it would have undue weight. Instead, it must simply be summarised here per WP:Summary style. Hans Adler 07:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
But was it a separate state from Nazi Germany? Different leaders and governments take power all the time, but they do not necessarily change the actual state to another one.--R-41 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a separate state to be of separate interest. Do you also want to delete History of the United States (1865–1918) and similar articles? Or was the US from 1865 to 1918 a separate state from today's US? Hans Adler 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The Flensburg government is of trivial interest to English readers. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia is not read by English readers only, or even readers who are native English speakers. And even these include people with a special interest for various reasons (research on the last phase of Nazi Germany for school or scholarship, or someone may be about to move to Flensburg and want to know what it's about). In any case once entire books have been formally published about a topic, no matter in which language, the standard of WP:GNG is met and exceeded, and the only reason for merging would be for organisational reasons or because no reasonable article can be written about the topic. That's not the case here. Hans Adler 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Adding the Flensburg Government article into Nazi Germany will just make the latter article even more long and unwieldy than it already is. Unless, of course, we take out a lot of the content and leave it just as a short section in the Nazi Germany article, in which case the content of this article will be lost, and Wikipedia will be all the poorer for it. The Presidency of Barack Obama is not a separate state from the United States, but it seems to warrant its own article. Same for Cameron Ministry and the United Kingdom. Finally, I don't understand where Rjensen gets the idea that the Flensburg Government is of trivial interest to English readers. It may be trivial to him/her, but not to me. And since when does triviality matter in Wikipedia, which has an article on List of treaties in Star Trek? Surely the Flensburg Government is less trivial than a list of fictional treaties in a science fiction TV and film universe. Ground Zero | t 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to remind the users here of my point: is the Flensburg government a successor of Nazi Germany as a state it is stated in it's article's infobox and the infobox of the Nazi Germany article. What evidence is there that it was a successor of Nazi Germany as a state? If it isn't and users still do not want to merge the articles, a solution could be simply to remove the infobox from the Flensburg government article and change the Nazi Germany infobox to show it being succeeded by the Allied-controlled territories. The Flensburg government article could still stand on its own as an article on a particular administration of Nazi Germany, but not as a successor of Nazi Germany.--R-41 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To tell the full truth, I haven't even looked at the Flensburg government article, because its current state is not very relevant to what you first proposed here. I wasn't aware of this infobox problem. What you propose sounds very reasonable to me. Hans Adler 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
R-41 is correct in saying that the Flensburg Government is clearly not a successor state to Nazi Germany, and should not be depicted as such. It was, however, a successor government to the government of Adolf Hitler. There must be a way of clarifying this point without deleting the infobox, let alone deleting the article or merging into an already lengthy article. Ground Zero | t 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It was still Nazi Germany even if the headquarters were outside Berlin. Indeed Hitler often made his own headquarters outside Berlin. If Hitler had moved to Flensburg then we would all agree. Doenitz was Hitler's designated successor and saw himself that way, as did everyone else. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
We're agreed that it was still Nazi Germany. It was clearly not the Hitler government though, as Hitler was dead (or spirited away to South America if you prefer) at this point. The Cabinet positions were shuffled, some were eliminated and new ones created. The point is still that if you merge this article into the Nazi Germany article, then this short-lived government will have undue weight compared to Hitler's 1933-1945 government. The only way to avoid this would be to delete content and diminish Wikipedia. The Germany article does not cover every facet of Germany - there are branch articles like History of Germany to allow that subject to be addressed in more depth. The History of Germany article similarly is an overview - it does not deal with the history of Germ,any in great depth, so there is a branch article on the German Reich to cover Germany from 1871 to 1945, and a branch of that article to cover Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 in more depth. That article has lots of branches, of which Flensburg Government is one, and the holocaust another, so that each of those issues can be dealt with in more depth than is suitable for an overview article. Ground Zero | t 01:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll rescind the merge proposal if the infobox claiming that it is a successor to Nazi Germany can be removed. I think this seems to be the best option that a number of users support.--R-41 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That is done now. I hope you understand that it is not necessary to propose a major change like merging articles in order to address a pretty simple issue with an infobox. Ground Zero | t 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Silly flag business

An anonymous editor has been edit warring to replace the (asymmetric) flag in the infobox by a very similar symmetric one. This is a totally trivial point, but I have done a little bit of research. Unfortunately I have found nothing about this in formally reliable sources, but the following appear to be quite competent: [21] [22].

It appears that the flag was originally symmetric, but that from approximately 1935 (or even precisely 1935) the swastika was shifted to the right just enough to make it look symmetric when flown. Since the symmetric flag was also in use, and since we are not actually flying the flag here but displaying it in a context in which it looks asymmetric when this correction is applied, I think it would actually be best to use the symmetric version here. The asymmetric version should be confined to whichever article (if any) discusses the various forms of the flag in detail. Hans Adler 07:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nazi Volkswagen.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Nazi Volkswagen.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Long tedious introduction?

The section in the introduction seems excessive in length, and overly preoccupied with talking about what people think and less about historical facts. If there is more to say about the Nazis than any other subject that ever existed, then at least transfer the bulk of the material to the main body of the article rather than dumping it all into what should be a short introduction. Yes the Nazis were evil, but the word evil does not need to be dumped everywhere whenever Nazi is mentioned. If this article is a template of Wikipedia's coherence, you might as well say on the article about slugs/worms/maggots that "most people think slugs are horrible, filthy creatures. Slugs have become synonymous with things we do not like" [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation] [citation]. I am generally skeptical of the massive value Wikipedia places in rubbish media sources and redundant web links rather than books and national records. Popular culture has objections to faeces, pigs, bacteria and the colour black, but these objections are not noted right away in the introductions to the articles in question. I believe this is a poorly composed article in the above ways and needs further attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sinebot, the first and last paragraphs are all that is really neccessary for the introduction. It sums up the topic of the article. All the rest of the material in the intro section appears later in the article. AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe the last paragraph, which talks about world opinion on Nazi Germany as the icon of modern evil, is the least valuable part of the introduction and should be moved elsewhere. Placing value on morals, what people think and socio-psychology is a mistake, when the Holocaust statistic is already present. We do not need priests telling us who and what is evil. People should be able to judge for themselves by looking at the facts. The "modern evil" assertion may come from a reliable source but is simply a waste of space. It is the profession of sociologists to say all sorts of intentionally perverse and digressing nonsense on various subjects just to stimulate contemplation, but Wikipedia doesn't every one of them in the introductions to its articles. (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The "evil" part is essential--most of the mentions of Nazi Germany in the public arena in recent decades is about their evil. The Nazis set the standard of evil that is actually used by prime ministers, novelists, historians, political commentators and ordinary people in 2011. (Priests, sociologists and psychologists are not involved here). Rjensen (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree that the intro is way too long and off topic. It should focus on the following things: (1) the name of the state and the years it was founded and dissolved; (2) one to two brief, to-the-point paragraphs on its historical context and significance including its instigation of the Holocaust and its campaign and defeat in World War II; and (3) one brief to-the-point paragraph on the territories it directly held. It is POV to focus on the "evilness" of the Nazis - just stick to the facts: there is massive documented evidence of the Nazi regime pursuing mass persecution and genocide of Jews, homosexuals, Romani and others - these are the facts, if a reader views that as evil, that is their view; if another reader views that as good (presumably only neo-Nazis and anti-Semites today), that is their view. But it is not up to Wikipedia to make moral declarations on the events of history, it only should present the facts.--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The lede has to summarize the main points of the history of Nazi Germany, in terms of what the RS actually say. It does that now. Erasing important information and leaving miscellaneous details like territories controlled at different points in time violates the rule that the lede should be self contained. The lede does not tell people what judgments they should make, it tells them what judgments the RS and the world generally have made about Nazi Germany, --that is a strictly factual matter that is not controversial and does not rely on opinions. Facts = what the RS tell us--and including facts that are considered so important by so many RS is Wiki's role. Rjensen (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you believe that this article can maintain NPOV status by including material that make moral judgements on acts in history. And if we put material on moral judgements on Nazi Germany, should we accept moral judgements on the sides of the French Revolution, moral judgements on the sides of the Rwandan Civil War and Genocide, or moral judgements on the Crusades? This is extremely controversial.--R-41 (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
there are no moral judgments made in this article. There are factual statements about the moral judgments people make about Nazi Germany. facts. By the way the complaint was the lede was "long" and tedious." It's not too long for a major article. I suggest a list of boundary changes should pass anyone's test for being tedious. The deeper question is whether the article conforms to the published reliable sources, and R-41 has given no hint whatever of what RS he is depending on for his judgments of what is important in Nazi Germany--mention of Rwanda makes it seem like a TV show is influencing him. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
But there is only one statement being shown. What if a user (probably an anti-Semite by nature) wanted to add another statement that other important people view the Nazis as a moral regime that was doing what it thought was right. To be neutral and have the first statement that says that the Nazis are a symbol of evil, another one that says the opposite would be needed to compensate the opposite point of view. And then there are people who do not believe in morality at all and are amoral who would judge the Nazis as neither being evil nor good because the concepts of good and evil are socially-constructed heuristics that are highly fallacious.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
we don't deal in opinions here, we deal in factual statements regarding what the RS say--from books by Richard Evans, Burleigh, Overy, Kershaw, Tooze, etc. What RS are you using? Rjensen (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not advocating one position or another. I am presenting a critique of a controversial inclusion of a moral judgement of history in the intro that is a precedent to include moral judgements of other topics or events in history in other intros. There can be good, evil, or amoral interpretations to any event in history. Most likely those views not condoned by mainstream society will be revisionist or fringe. Nevertheless to include a declaration that states that many people say the Nazis are evil is still POV. It's just as POV as if someone back a few centuries were to place a bold historical statement by the Catholic Church saying "many people believe that Copernicus is an evil heretic for his views on astronomy that contravene the truth of God's design"--R-41 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well now we're back to Copernicus. Talk about tedious! Let's talk about the reliable sources on the Nazis. Let's find some RS and see how they handle the matter. Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you understand what I meant by the Copernicus analogy?--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
you seem to be saying that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to report people's value judgments even when there are RS to support them. That is not in Wiki's rules and it makes no sense whatever. An editor can NEVER say "group XYZ complained loudly that it was screwed by the government." Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
So are you claiming that an RS has the right to decide what is good and evil and that the very concept of good and evil is to be accepted as a legitimate and applicable attribute by Wikipedia? Friedrich Nietzsche was an RS and a professor, he and fellow Nietzschean scholars of today would deny the very applicability of the concepts of good and evil to define actions, events, and people. How many different definitions of morality and moral evaluation by RS would we have to include in the intro to maintain its neutrality on evaluation of the Nazi regime based on conceptions of morality? Probably very many, it would be an article in itself.--R-41 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point of the intro. The intro is very poorly written with the following problems: (1) It is very long, (2) the intro meanders into indepth complex issues best put later on in the article, (3) the intro makes moral judgements - this is a problem because from a secular philosophical standpoint: morality itself is a concept not a truth - some people like Friedrich Nietzsche reject the concept of morality and believe that reality is amoral, plus I think rational readers can make their own assessment based on the fact of millions of people were killed, tortured, and persecuted with extreme violence by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What we need to do (in my opinion) is review the lead to bring it in line with the Manual of Style at WP:LEAD. The lead should not contain anything that is not in the body of the article, and it should present a concise overview of the material presented in the article. Many people try to have at least one sentence that covers the information presented in each section of the main article. Length guidelines call for an article of this size to have a lead section of three or four paragraphs (we presently have six). We therefore (in my opinion) need to re-work the lead to comply with the Manual of Style and to do so by ensuring that the material presented in the article is summarized, and in a concise manner. Regarding the immediate issue, I am in favour of stating somewhere in the article that the historical judgement of the Nazis is that they were evil, but it does not need to be in the lead. --Dianna (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
studies of users show that a majority of them spend only a few minutes on an article. They lede must contain in a nutshell what they want to know, so I've revised it to cover the main historical points. It now runs about 1000 words in 4 paragraphs, compared to some 20,000 words in the article as a whole. Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If the evil part does belong in the introduction and is very important, limit it to being used more shortly. For instance, start the article as "Nazi Germany was an evil state..." so that people do not miss the "evil" reference. This is now my suggestion since calling them evil in the introduction is clearly necessary. -- (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules do not allow an article to say XYZ was evil--that is POV. The article instead says that Nazi Germany is considered evil by many people and is heavily used as a symbol of evil. That is straight reporting of simple fact.Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

National Motto

Presently, the national motto is shown as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer," followed by a translation of "One People, one Reich, one Führer." Today, many people would use "Reich" and "Führer" as proper names but do not know what these words mean. It would be better to show the German motto as it is and translate it in its entirety: "One People, one Empire, one Leader." Jsamans (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. The words "Reich" and "Führer" in the motto link to the actual articles, which explain in detail what the words mean, so there's no point in using a limited translation in this article. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as how you just deemed someone else's punctuation-missing commentary "far better" than my copy-edited version, I've lost interest in allocating any more of my time to this anyway. Jsamans (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page Appearance

I just want to give mad props to the editors of this page; the use of colour on the country map gives the page a sinister tone appropriate for the subject matter and coordinates well with the other images at the head of the page. From an artistic standpoint it's extremely effective. It's a shame that it isn't general policy to use a country's national/flag colours for their map insert and other header images; national colours are designed to invoke certain feelings, and it'd be pretty neat if things could be set up so that a reader is immediately put into the mindset of the nation they are reading about through use of colour. It probably seems childish to the more serious editors here, but popping onto the USA page and seeing red, white and blue (to use an easy example) would be pretty rad. --Open sketchbook (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

text coat of arms

Shouldn't it read "of the Weimar Republic and of the Federal Republic of Germany (1950 to date)." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemotechnik (talkcontribs) 09:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Should Nazi Germany be identified as a "Nazi single-party state" or the more generic "fascist single-party state" in the infobox

As per the question in the lead. The first indicates that it was dedicated to Nazism, it makes clear what specific variant of fascism the state adhered to, it may be valuable if the Wikipedia Community wants to make clear the exact ideology that the state adhered to, rather than the generic ideology. The second makes a more generic association of the state to being a fascist government, it is useful if the Wikipedia community wants common generic terms to be used to describe the types of government, rather than each individual variation of fascism like "Nazi single-party state" for Nazi Germany, "Ustaše single party state" for the Independent State of Croatia, and "Iron Guard single-party state" for the Kingdom of Romania during Iron Guard rule. I for one specifically oppose the inclusion of "totalitarian dictatorship" in the government form section of the infobox - because totalitarianism was an integral part of Nazism and fascism in general but it was only one part of the schema of the ideology and thus should not be separately mentioned.--R-41 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the entry in the infobox should be restricted to broad categories of government, i.e. classification of countries based on the origin, delegation, separation, and control of power/sovereignty. Ideology should not be an issue unless it very strongly determines the issue of power. If a group of vegetarians had staged a coup and replaced Hitler with someone else who kept the same power structure but banned the eating of meat, it would not have changed the type of government. So I don't think there is justification for differentiating between different types of authoritarian dictatorship unless something like the origin of power is affected. This may be the case for socialist dictatorships or theocracies, say, because they are differentiated by the alleged source of power (e.g. the workers or a supposedly omnipotent, metaphysical entity). So I would differentiate between monarchies and republics, unitary and federal states, etc. but not by ideology, unless that ideology is based on the origin of power and is shared by other countries to a sufficient extent to make it a category of more than 1. --Boson (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
"Ideology should not be an issue unless it very strongly determines the issue of power" yes that is correct and R-41's edits always add the ideology to the infobox , like the soviet union as "marxist lenininst single party state" so i dont know why it seems to be a problem for-R-41 , nazism does strongly determines the nazi state and not something else , as for "totalitarian dictatorship" the term in the infobox was a long term consensus until somebody removed it (really look at the page history it about YEARS !) the fact that the nazi germany was totalitarian is widely accepted to be one of the most common description about the nazi system , and therefore it should be properly noted ! AMPHELICEs (TALK) 16:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


Being an unregistered user I cannot fix it, but it seems to me that the flag featured in the infobox has been wrong for several months.-- (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit? --Boson (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No need to. I've just noticed that the current image was the official flag of Nazi Germany from 1935. It just looked odd, that's all.-- (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake on map

The blue areas on the map of Europe right below the infobox are being held by the British (part of the Allies), but the legend says only the red areas are Allied-held. I can edit the page, but I don't know how to fix it. Can somebody fix it, please? Agent 78787 talk contribs 23:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

countries it is now part of- URGENT EDIT

in the sidetab which gives general information it came to my attention that certain key nations were missing from the section "today part of". The two which i found were missing were Denmark and Norway, please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Norway and Denmark were not aprt of the third reich.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the "Nazis are evil" statement, isn't this POV assuming validity of morality, there are people who believe morality is socially constructed

Saying that "Nazis are evil" is a POV statement, it assumes the validity of the concept of morality. First of all I accept morality and I know the Nazis did atrocious crimes, but there are those who believe that morality is a socially constructed concept - this is called moral nihilism. Secondly, the intro seems to assume that readers are too stupid to comprehend for themselves whether genocide, persecution, slavery, and torture committed by the Nazis is evil or not.--R-41 (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The point is clear from the content of the article. It is un-encyclopedic to have to include the phrase. I read once that Wikipedia was to be written on an 8th grade level; certainly then the article should reflect that. Kierzek (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. I have removed this questionable phrase.--IIIraute (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
A descriptive title on my watchlist, and sure enough - another valid proposal by R-41. Agree as well. -- Director (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
the text in question does NOT say the Nazis are evil and does not involve any judgment on them. The passage is talking about non-Nazis in the 21st century and their reactions to memories of the Nazis. "In the 21st century Hitler, Nazism, the Swastika, and the Holocaust are often invoked as symbols of evil in the modern world. Newman and Erber (2002) wrote, "The Nazis have become one of the most widely recognized images of modern evil. Throughout most of the world today, the concept of evil can readily be evoked by displaying almost any cue reminiscent of Nazism ... " The passage is fully sourced and not in the least bit controversial. People who think evil is socially constructed will note that is exactly what this text says (ie "invoked as symbols"). Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

.....the text in question has still been in the article anyway (see: Legacy), however it does not belong in the introduction. This is an article about Nazi Germany, a former sovereign country, NOT the Nazis per se or Nazism!--IIIraute (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to lead

I have re-worked the lead in an attempt to comply with WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarise the whole article, not just give a chronology of events. We need to mention of all the main sections. If we do not have mention of the economy and the other things in the lead, we do not have a complete summary of the article. The Great Depression was not over when the Nazis came to power. Schutzstaffel needs to be linked spelled out in full on first mention. We do need to mention the concentration camps in the lead, as this was one of the defining things that the Nazis did. Please discuss any intended changes here on the Talk page rather than reverting me again. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In the lead, the following sentence needs to be rephrased: The Nazis intended to establish a "New Order" of complete hegemony, while eliminating the Jews and Slavic inhabitants of Europe. not right that way per se; especially for the Slavs. The goal was not to eliminate (annihilate) the Slavs - see: New Order (Nazism). Also, the idea for the annihilation of the Jews was not developed before 1942 (Wannsee Conference).--IIIraute (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Diannaa means that she will be discussing her edits her before making them. Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
@ IIIraute: You are right. I will edit this part. -- Dianna (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that "The Nazis intended to establish a "New Order" of complete hegemony, while eliminating the Jews and Slavic inhabitants of Europe." in fact follows the recent historiography. eg Tooze, Snyder Bloodlands. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Dan Stone's claim about the ethnic cleansing of some 30–45 million Slavs is very interesting.... so would they have been moved or killed? Quite a difference, isn't it?--IIIraute (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
that was the long-term plan -- officially they were to move to Siberia. In practice their food was cut 90% and millions starved. see also E. M. Collingham, The Taste of War: World War II and the Battle for Food (2011) ch 1. This article starts in 1933 so I trimemdd the pre-1933 material and used better sources (Evans and Kershaw are now standard--Shirer is over 50 years old and he did not have access to the records recent historians use. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
well, there is a lot of if and speculation in those claims; but I guess that the current generation of historians needs new stories to write about as well. However... there is another problem in the lead; the following phrase is somehow misleading: Concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold slave laborers and as sites to carry out the extermination of European Jewry. Slave labory is not quite true; at least not for 1933. Well, I guess one has do define slave labory. Are some of the current inmates of US prisons are used as slave laborers? Also, concentration camps were not used as sites to carry out the extermination of European Jewry. Concentration camps were not extermination camps. There were no extermination camps on German soil.--IIIraute (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
...also, where did the following Notes go: Germany would be limited to an army of 100,000 men, with mandatory lengthy terms of enlistment to prevent the establishment of reserves. The General Staff was to be dissolved along with certain military colleges. Tanks were forbidden. Limits were placed on the navy in the form of the size and types of ships permitted, including a prohibition against submarines. A military air force was forbidden. and The Nazi Party did not achieve a parliamentary majority, however, before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. The Nazis’ plurality diminished from 230 seats to 196 seats after the federal election of November 1932.
If this article starts in 1933, it also ends in 1945, so we can drop all the if and other speculations and future mind games of Dan Stone and compagnons, etc.!--IIIraute (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Stone is not projecting the future--rather he is saying what was the Nazi plan in 1941. The nazi operations on the eastern Front were in conformity with that plan. as for the Versailles Treaty of 1919--14 years before this article--that has its own article. Likewise the Nazi party before 1933 is well covered in linked articles. Rjensen (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But what about this part: Concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold slave laborers and as sites to carry out the extermination of European Jewry I did mention earlier. In 1933, the concentration camps were mainly used for Romani people, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and especially members of the political and religious opposition. At that time the Nazis still tried to force the Jews to leave the country. Many of them did. The purpose of the camps (Dachau, for example), at that time, was not for the extermination of European Jewry; as, until 1942 those plans were not even made (and concentration camps are not extermination camps).--IIIraute (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Conquest of Europe

Air superiority over Britain, at the time, was attempted to force Britain into an armistice or surrender, not necessary for an invasion. Operation Sea Lion had been planned as an option - not the ultimate goal.--IIIraute (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

you're right--good point. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Book details needed

Rjensen, I was wondering if you could provide a little more information on the sources you have added? It would be better if we had details of the particular edition from which you drew the material (publisher, year, ISBN). The citations that need further information are as follows:

  • Richard J. Evans, The coming of the Third Reich (2005) pp 6-7
  • Glenn R. Cuomo, National Socialist Cultural Policy (1995) p. 231

I think I have these two figured out, but I would like confirmation, if you have a minute:

  • I think "Paul D. Van Wie, Image, History, and Politics (1999) p. 37" is van Wie, Paul D. (1999). Image, History and Politics: The Coinage of Modern Europe. Lanham, Md: University Press of America. p. 37. ISBN 9780761812210. 
  • I think "Janusz Gumkowkski and Kazimierz Leszczynski, Poland under Nazi Occupation (Warsaw, Polonia Publishing House, 1961) online" is Gumkowski, Janusz; Leszczyński, Kazimierz (1961). Warsaw: Polonia Pub. House. OCLC 456349.  Missing or empty |title= (help) A page number would be great too, please, if it's not too much trouble. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Evans = {cite book|author=Richard J. Evans|title=The coming of the Third Reich|url=}} (the paperback and hardcover & British editions have different ISBN with identical texts.; Cuomo = Glenn R. Cuomo (1995). National Socialist cultural policy. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-09094-4. . Gumkowkski and Leszczynski = all I have seen is the online webpage that has no page numbers. Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

One People, One Reich, One Leader

This should actually be "One people, One REALM (ie nation), One Leader. it is a more accurate German translation rather than the word "reich" which isn't a word per-se in the German language and doesn't translate into itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --illythr (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The translation "Realm" sounds odd to me. I am a German native speaker and I would be unable to translate the word back into "Reich". "Realm" is misleading or at least utmost confusing. Furthermore the article speaks of the "German Empire" (1871–1918). It is inconsistent to translate the same German term "Deutsches Reich" in two different ways. The official name of the country was never changed from 1971 to 1945. (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Mortran

spelling mistake

can a registered user please 'change siezure' in the third History paragraph to 'seizure' please (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Done.--IIIraute (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And why there is no picture of Russian soldiers and two pictures on Allies forces?

It should be at least equally divided participation in Victory, and the "Raising a flag over the Reichstag" must be there. Mclaudt (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hotel Adlon is also nice (and maybe less staged?). --IIIraute (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your operativeness. Now it seems to look fine. Mclaudt (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


You forgot Greece at the "Today part of" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Today part of..." only refers to the boundaries of former Nazi Germany (Deutsches Reich), not to the areas under German and/or Axis occupation.--IIIraute (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reich as an English word

"Reich" as in Third Reich has, like many other German words, been adopted into English. It's in the English dictionaries like Random House : "Reich | Define Reich at 1. (with reference to Germany) empire; realm; nation. 2. the German state, especially during the Nazi period. Compare First Reich, Second Reich, Third Reich." also see Free Dictionary Oxford Dictionary; Collins English Dictionary, etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is to check usage. Try "Google Books". One gets 2,850 hits for "Third Empire: + "Hitler", 1,100,000 when searching for "Third Reich" + "Hitler". Also, the official name of Germany remained "Deutsches Reich" during the Weimar period, when Germany was hardly an empire. To assume Reich = empire is to make the mistaken of thinking that there is a one-to-one correspondence between words in differing languages. Ditto for the translation "realm," which occasionally slips in. Hardly any English-language book uses that. 13:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Bytwerk (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen in that the term has become accepted in English works over the years, without further translation. As a commonly used term, like "Nazi Germany" discussed above, it should be continued in use in this article; per WP:COMMONNAME. "Blitzkrieg" is another example. And as Bytwerk points out, it gets many more hits, thereby is used to a much greater degree. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen, et al. "Greater German Realm" is definitely not the conventional long name in English. Reich has been adopted into the English language as a loan word. Though alternative translations of "Reich" are of linguistic interest, this is a historical, not a linguistic, article, so, if anywhere, the parenthetical linguistic discusssion belongs in a footnote, which could include a link to the Wiktionary article, which gives the etymology. The linguistic issue is not important enough to the topic of the Third Reich to be treated as the sort of salient data that is included in an infobox. --Boson (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A translation section is supposed to translate the word

In the translation section of the infobox, the word should be fully translated, because that is the purpose of the translation section - to translate. Outside of the translation section of the infobox and the explanation of the translation of the name in the one section of the article, I support the WP:COMMON NAME use of the common half translation throughout the rest of the article. "Reich" is not an English word and the description of it as "referring to Germany" is a vain description that does not even address its German use to refer to non-German entities. The reason why reich is used is not because it has become an English word but because English speakers have been confused about how to translate it because many thought it meant empire but then saw it being used after the monarchy by a republic.--R-41 (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ironically and as we can see without success, the Weimar Republic's English-language translation of its constitution explicitly sought to clarify this confusion and specifically stated in the translated version that the word means realm. And other evidence demonstrates that the word means realm, I found a source that described the term's use during the German Empire (Deutsches Kaiserreich) period - it says that people confused the meaning of the word with empire (Kaiserreich) - when in fact the German Empire was officially called German Realm (Deutsches Reich) because there was no "Emperor of Germany" - there was an "Emperor of the Germans" as in the people - and the state was officially a sort of federal monarchical presidency with the Kaiser as the nominal head of a federation of German states. There are multiple modern sources that follow this accurate translation - including those of German historians who translate their work into English. As I said above, I believe that in the translation section of the infobox and the section that explains what the name means, a fully-translated name should be used, elsewhere in the article the common half-translation should be used.--R-41 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
a bad translation is not useful to anyone. The English version of "Reich" is "reich" according to the dictionaries listed above and common usage by scholars and the general public. Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a bad translation, it is a translation. There are multiple examples of it being fully translated. The reason why it is not fully translated is obvious: because people confused the term with meaning "empire" and when the monarchy with its emperor was replaced by a republic, English people became confused with what it means - that is why the untranslated "reich" is used, because of a confusion of its meaning. I said that for the main body of the article the common half-translation is fine, but in a translation section, it should be fully translated in the known accurate form as translated by Germans to English and as known by experienced linguists who know German: and that is "realm". The Oxford English Dictionary has very poor quality translations of complex terms. English dictionaries mention foreign words that are not native to English: such as leprechaun - it is an Irish term that is commonly used in an untranslated form in English, this does not mean it is an English word.--R-41 (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
R-41 does not trust dictionaries or scholars -- but he does not say where he gets his unique ideas--no RS for his contested points, which violated WP:OR Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You keep deleting the material I add that explains it. The English language dictionaries you have quoted are not defining it at all, they are saying that it is a foreign word that is used in English, like leprechaun - it is not an English language word used for universal purposes - it is an untranslated term that is used in reference to a specific instance - particularly Nazi Germany, just as leprechaun meaning essentially a fairytale dwarf is only used in reference to the use in Irish fairytales. There are multiple scholarly sources that accurately translate the word: in the Weimar Republic article there are multiple references for its use, including this:
  • Dan Diner. Beyond the Conceivable: Studies on Germany, Nazism, and the Holocaust. University of California Press, 2000. Pp. 69. - like what I am proposing this author fully translates the word, saying "the word Reich (realm)", but goes on to use the word reich after translating it. This is what I propose: a full translation in the translation section and then using the common name.
  • Royal Institute of International Affairs. A history of the Peace Conference of Paris , Volume 3. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 1969 Pp. 347. On the topic of the Weimar Republic constitution, it states that "The word Reich we translate as Realm" in the context of the name Deutsches Reich as German Realm.
  • Bo Göransson. Universities in Transition: The Changing Role and Challenges for Academic Institutions. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2011. Pp. 261. Describes German Realm as the definition of "Deutsches Reich". Pp. 261.
  • Marion Isabel Newbigin. A new regional geography of the world. Harcourt, Brace & company, 1929. - a standard geography book of the time period in which "reich" was used in Germany's official name, says "Germany (Deutsches Reich or German Realm)"
  • John Frederick Unstead, Edmund William Gilbert. A systematic regional geography:a post-matriculation course, Volume 2. University of London Press, 1939. Pp. 94 - specifically translates Deutsches Reich into "German Realm" - and it is specifically about Nazi Germany during its annexation of Austria.

There you are. No original research there, please rescind your false and nasty-sounding remark - that is not in accord with "being welcoming" as Wikipedia advises users to be. What I am proposing is very moderate and simple: the translation section should fully translate the German word "reich" into "realm". The rest of the article should use the common half-translation "German Reich" or "Third Reich" in accordance with WP:COMMON NAME.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

we're talking about Nazi Germany here and they are not. (the only cite in the last 70 years is by Göransson and it is about "a stable German realm (Deutsches Reich) in the period of 1871–1918." Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The first sources are modern. Why would Goransson put a bracketted German term "(Deutsches Reich)" - why wouldn't he just use an English version? - He was using the English term and then showed what he was translating. Look at the other sources as well - multiple uses of the term - demonstrating that your accusation that I am making this all up is false. Nazi Germany kept the same name as that of the Weimar Republic (Deutsches Reich), the Nazis didn't even formally change the Weimar Republic constitution - they just ignored it, it's the same name and thus pre-Nazi era translations of the name are acceptable. You have ignored Dan Diner's recent source from 2000 that translates it as realm, but also uses the term reich as the common name - that is what I am asking for: a full translation in the translation section of the infobox and the common name "reich" throughout the rest of the article.--R-41 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a very valid source that is a dictionary:

  • *Webster's II New College Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005. Pp. 956. It defines reich as having two possible translations "empire, realm" and describes the "reichsmark" as being a "genetive of Reich, realm + Mark, a unit of currency."
This is more evidence and from the type of source you wanted, an English dictionary.--R-41 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Henning Andersen. Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. Pp. 26. - this source is by a linguist and says: "Gm. Reich 'realm'" and it goes on to explain the origins of the German word reich.--R-41 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The term "reich" became associated with nazism and therefore should not be translated. Notice that Germany does not call itself the Fourth Reich, and renamed the Reichstag, the Reich Chancellor and the Reichsmark. TFD (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that's nonsense. The Reichstag is still called Reichstag - Österreich, Frankreich, etc.--IIIraute (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
sorry--Webster's II New College Dictionary. treats Reich as an ENGLISH word (derived of course from the German word). Henning Andersen. Language Contacts in Prehistory" is about prehistory not Nazi Germany. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Upon examining policy WP:COMMON NAME does not apply to the full name section of the infobox - because it specifically asks for the full name and a translation - it is not asking for the common name. The infobox has a translation section for foreign words and in that section, and that section alone - it should be fully translated as "realm" - outside of that section in the article the common term of "reich" should be used. The German word "reich" has entered the English lexicon as a common cultural reference; it is always used in reference to Germany from 1871 to 1945 - but it is not a universal English word, just as the Irish word "leprechaun" can be found in an English language dictionary, that is always used as a cultural reference to Irish mythical dwarves and not to "small body" people (as it literally means in Irish) in general. Do you see English regularly using the word "reich" universally and regularly in the English language as defined by Webster's dictionary as in "the reich of science" or the "reich of fiction" or a "Commonwealth reich"?--R-41 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I have a personal leprechaun, it so happens, and he whispered to me: "When dealing with the Nazi era, the best translation of the German word "Reich" is the English word "reich." -- I asked him why should we use an English word instead of an Irish word but he ran off to chase a rainbow. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, if you are not going to take this seriously, and are just ignoring everything that I have said, then you are violating WP:DISRUPT and the principle of WP:DON'T BE A DICK.--R-41 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
R-41 is quite right that dictionaries of translation will give "realm" as a translation of Reich. However that is because German uses "Reich" in phrases like "Reich der Ideen" [realm of ideas]. In that case it would be silly to translate the phrase as "Reich of ideas." However for every one case that R-41 can find in which someone uses "realm" to translate "Reich" referring to the Third Reich, as I noted above, there will be 300 who do not. It simply is not standard English usage. Why confuse the readers with nonstandard usage? If one of my university students gave me a paper in which he talked about the "Third Realm," I would be most amused. Bytwerk (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Not really. It is more to set equal with (for example): Eastern Realm - Reich des Ostens; Snow Realm - Schneereich or Realm of Darkness - Reich der Finsternis. --IIIraute (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1) when we translate a word we pick the best English word. 2) when talking about the Nazis the best translation of the German word REICH is the English word "Reich," as shown by Webster II and other English dictionaries. qed. It's much better than "realm" or "empire" or whatnot (although those words are better when dealing with pre-1918 Germany). 3) if you want to be taken seriously then please don't get started on leprechauns. And when you cite a source like Webster II then please use it--it contains definitions of ENGLISH words, like "Reich" and "Blitzkrieg" for example. Rjensen (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I stated in my first post, a moderate and reasonable solution: for the infobox translation section alone reich should be fully translated as "realm" - as this is the accurate translation from German. Elsewhere the common cultural reference of "reich" can be used. Rjensen keeps saying they are English words, they are - they are cultural references - because they are not universally applied in the English language. Rjensen has no reason to take a condescending tone when I mentioned the Irish word leprechaun - what, does he think it's funny because some US multinational corporation stole an Irish mythical legend to make cereal? I am part Irish and I study Irish history and am interested in its legends - the leprechaun an Irish term to describe a small person, and they are commonly depicted as magical in Irish legends - the English language has adopted the Irish term leprechaun as a cultural reference to the Irish legendary tales - and not to the Irish meaning which is a "small bodied" person - hence a non-universal word in the English language like "reich" that is used as a cultural reference. If Rjensen can't help thinking and laughing about the stupid stereotypical and partially racist rendition of the myth in the American Lucky Charms cereal, maybe he should think how condescending he is being to Irish culture.--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It is probably moderate, but not reasonable. It simply is not standard English usage. It is not "the accurate translation." If it were, there would be far more people using it. Imagine Shirer's book titled "The Rise and Fall of the Third Realm.” It highlights an unusual and potentially confusing translation of the word. Again, why would one insist on using "realm" when it is very, very, very rare in English usage. I suppose it's time to try the old "let's vote on this." See below. Bytwerk (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The term "Reich" should be used for general reference - however there is nothing wrong to explain to the reader what Reich means in this context.--IIIraute (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the introduction

The article's lead - it's awful - and full of trivial & broad-brush statements...

...the introduction bears resemblance to a cheap novelette. --IIIraute (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction needs a lot of work. It does does not adequately summarize the content of the article, and it should have only four paragraphs. I think one problem may be the misleading article title, which tempts editors to conflate Nazism in Germany - which has a separate article - and the history of Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the Third Reich), which is supposed to be the topic of this article (as a sub-article of History of Germany). --Boson (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The name "Nazi Germany" has never been existed, it is wrong

The name was "Drittes Reich" (Third Reich), "German Empire" or "Deutsches Reich". The Term "Nazi Germany" was invented by German leftist after 1970. It has never been in use. (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Which leftist? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Winston Churchill, perhaps?[23] TFD (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Churchill used "Third Reich" all the time in his 6-volume history of WW2 that appeared in 1947+. Volume one has N=34 uses of "Reich" and N=16 uses of "Nazi Germany" says Google books. Rjensen (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Do a search for "Nazi Germany" using Google books and limit to before 1970. 142,000 hits. I'd say it's been in use. Bytwerk (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
But it seems like the most common used term is Third Reich[24]WP:COMMONNAME. --IIIraute (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but the point of the post was that the term "Nazi Germany" supposedly had never existed before it was invented by leftists after 1970. One can't disprove that claim by showing that "Third Reich" is the most common term. Bytwerk (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I was mainly referring to the section "Change of the article's name"↑ and therefore also supporting this users claim that "the name was "Drittes Reich" (Third Reich)" and "Nazi Germany" should not be the article's heading.--IIIraute (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If you push for that change in name, I'd probably even support it. Bytwerk (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that.--IIIraute (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, its clear that the term Nazi Germany was not invented by German leftists in the 1970's.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Poll on "Reich" vs. "realm"

Kindly express your preference on translating "Reich" as "Reich" or as "realm."

And I'll be the first to vote in favor of "Reich". Bytwerk (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
"Reich" Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • both - although, the term "Reich" is generally used, of course "Reich" literally translated means "realm". [25] [26] who would seriously doubt that? And of course we will also give notice to this on the WP. please also see Reich. --IIIraute (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Reich, although a footnote could be added (with cites). Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Wasn't sure of the exact procedure.
As to "who would doubt that," well, do a Google search for "Greater German Realm" and limit it to .edu sites. You will not find a single academic site that uses the phrase. If not a single academic site on the planet uses it, and only a tiny minority of books, there is good reason to doubt its appropriateness. I can only say that if I submitted an article to an academic journal that used the phrase, I'd be laughed at. Bytwerk (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
this is why "Reich" is generally used - but it still literally translates as "realm".[27] & Reich. I have been teaching at university, both in the UK and Germany - not a single German would doubt that Reich translates as realm. There is a very clear etymology to the word, and we will also mention this. What a nonsense discussion, as the term obviously refers to the third Reich. So just orientate yourself on the two other ones. --IIIraute (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize that the citation in the "Reich" article is to Harper's Magazine of about 1883? That's pretty poor support. Bytwerk (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Every dictionary will translate "Reich" as realm or Empire and not as "Reich", as Reich cannot be the translation - it is not an English word. etymology: [28] --IIIraute (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That I find incomprehensible. Of course a dictionary won't define Reich as Reich. It won't define dog as dog, either. That would be rather circular. English has absorbed all sorts of foreign words. Reich is one of them. It is as much an English word as czar, bratwurst, or guru. As previous posters have noted, you can find it in English dictionaries. And do you really want to depend on a 125-year-old magazine article to support Reich as realm? Bytwerk (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
there are lots of sources of what "Reich" means in this context: de:Drittes Reich - de:Reich (Territorium) - de:Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung). Do you want to rewrite the whole WP - just to prove your point?--IIIraute (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Langenscheidt's Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the English and German Languages ("Der Große Muret-Sanders"), edited by Dr. Otto Springer, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literaures, University of Pennsylvania, 6. Auflage, 1992 ISBN 3-468-01124-5), German-English, Vol 2: P. 1252: " das (Deutsche) Reich hist. the German Reich (od. Empire) . . . das Dritte Reich hist. the Third Reich . . ." --Boson (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "Reich" as the English version. We do not need to discuss how the word should theoretically be translated in isolation. We just need to use the (conventional long) name etc. by which it is called in English. --Boson (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this so difficult to understand - within its historical context "Drittes Reich" translates as "Third Reich" - fact - however to understand the word "Reich" in the context of its German meaning and etymology, it does translate as "realm" - therefore it will also be mentioned - there are enough sources to support it.--IIIraute (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

please read : de:Drittes Reich - de:Reich (Territorium) - de:Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung). If you can not read it - you should not take part in this discussion.--IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all difficult to understand. I have no objection to a short footnote explaining the etymology; however, this article is a historical article about the Third Reich, not about the etymology of the word "Reich", or the use and abuse of the word in Germany. So in this context, the translation is "Reich". In an article on the word "Reich" or "das Reich Gottes" we might need different translations. We must avoid slipping into the error of thinking that all words, in isolation, have a "literal meaning" (i.e. a single equivalent in another language). One cannot say that the English word "brush" is (always) literally translated as "Bürste" in German, or the German word "Linse" is (always) literally translated as "lense" in English. The translation of a word depends on context, and in the context of an article about the Third Reich, "Reich" is translated as "Reich", which is not to say that the English word "Reich" means exactly the same as the German word "Reich". --Boson (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I support that - however nothing speaks against explaining the etymology of Reich/realm in the Name section[29]as well as having a link to Reich. Why withhold useful information from the reader? Especially since the German meaning is of importance in an historical context with the period of Nazi Germany.--IIIraute (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
My main concerns are that
  • we should remove "realm" from the infobox (since "realm" was never part of the conventional English long name of the state);
  • we should avoid any implication, in the name section, that the word "realm" was ever commonly used in English as part of the name of the German state (since that would be misleading).
  • any discussion of translation issues be largely restricted to a footnote (because it is largely off-topic).
I have no objection to a link to Reich.
I would prefer the name section to discuss the use and/or non-use of the term (Drittes) Reich by the NSDAP, which is a historical, not just a linguistic, issue. If that also manages to convey to the reader the real meaning of Reich, so much the better, but at the moment, the tail seems to be wagging the dog. --Boson (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I support your suggestions, however the term "(Drittes) Reich" must be dealt with in the "name section", as it bears an essential clue to understand the social, cultural, historical and linguistic meaning the term "Reich" (as realm) has to Germany.--IIIraute (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Having taught at a German university, written three books on the Third Reich, and translated thousands of pages of Nazi-era material into English, I would be most interested in knowing what the "essential clue" that "realm" helps me see in the German concept of "Reich" is. I've missed it. I can't think of a significant book on the Third Reich that devotes time to explicating the matter. Could you either give a reference to said clue or explain? Bytwerk (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
obviously you did not read History at the University of London, Cambridge or Berlin, as otherwise you would understand - please see: de:Drittes Reich - de:Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung).--IIIraute (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Since few readers of the page will have studied at London, Cambridge, or Berlin, I will not be the only one unable to understand. Rather than dodge the question (which suggests you cannot back the claim), could you please make clear what that "essential clue" might be? I do not think is unreasonable to ask you to justify your rather curious argument. Bytwerk (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The term will be dealt with in the article. For further comprehension and sources please see: de:Drittes Reich - de:Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung).--IIIraute (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have done so, and since I did not attend the three fine universities you mention I apparently remain too dense to understand even after reading them. Why not start another heading and give your best shot at explaining that "essential clue"? If it really is that important, surely it can't be that hard for you to answer the question. Bytwerk (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not responsible for your personal education, and since you have "taught at a German university, written three books on the Third Reich, and translated thousands of pages of Nazi-era material into English", I am sure you will find a way to comprehend. If not - try to figure it out - otherwise you'll have to wait - so please stop being a WP:DICK.--IIIraute (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The only conclusion I can draw is that you are either unable or unwilling to respond to a reasonable request to support your argument. Can't argue with someone who isn't willing to supply evidence for his case, so enough is enough. Bytwerk (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
...yeah, whatever. We'll see about that.--IIIraute (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Both - I support the use of the term "realm" as the translation of "reich" in the translation section in the infobox - it is the accurate translation as per evidence by a linguist's description in this source: Henning Andersen. Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. Pp. 26. - this source says: "Gm. Reich 'realm'". The translation section is supposed to give a translation. I support the use of the term "reich" for the rest of the article as it is the common reference term.. Reich is not a common English word because it is not universally-applicable to what it is defined as in its German root - reich is used in English as a cultural reference to refer to Germany (1871-1945) - that is not a term and translation is about translating the term - there is no "commonwealth reich" or use of reich in place of realm in English - i.e. no one in English talks about the "reich of science" or the "reich of fiction". In general I support IIIraute's statements, with the conditions that I have just mentioned here.--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the translation section in the infobox. Do you mean the parameter "conventional_long_name"? --Boson (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And that is the English translation of the native long name in the infobox.--R-41 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the template documentation, it is the "full name in English". To me that would mean the full "official" name used by diplomats, e.g. as used by the British Foreign Office - or the German Foreign Office when writing in English.--Boson (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Following one of Illraute's points where he claims that Germans would accept the definition as "realm", I suggest that this be followed up a request could be sent to ask for assistance from German Wikipedians who also can speak English be consulted on this topic and to ask if they can provide sources on German-to-English translation that can what reich means in English - particularly in the context of its use in the German phrase Deutsches Reich during the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany.--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. --Boson (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is really understanding the German term, but understanding the meaning of the word "realm" to a native English speaker, which is a state with a hereditary monarch (usually a king or queen, but sometimes with a lesser title) as head of state. It is not used as part of a name. It derives from the Old French reaume (cf Royaume-Uni). In the non-figurative, non-rhetorical sense - at least in British English - "realm" is now largely a term of (constitutional) law, designating any one of the domains of a monarch, especially the person of the current British monarch. Thus, the United Kingdom, Canada, Belize, and Tuvalu are all (separate) realms (of Queen Elizabeth II). Its connotations include the territorial integrity and constitutional order of the state and the relationship between the monarch and the territory. The word "realm" may sometimes be used in an attempt to explain that, in relation to Germany, Reich does not necessarily mean "empire", but it is misleading (which is, no doubt, why the word Reich is commonly used in English).--Boson (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Realm is a broad sense means a territory governed by a sovereign - essentially a sovereign state, or in a general sense realm is commonly used as another word for "domain". Also, English books about Germany during the Weimar Republic period translated the republic's official name "Deutsches Reich" in English as "German Realm".--R-41 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This gives a rough idea of how many books used the term "German Realm".--Boson (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Look for the horizontal line at 0.0000000%. --Boson (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
When I searched the same engine just to check its scope - the word "Hitler" registers extremely low at 0.000001 percent at its highest. [30] Even the common word "cat" also registers extremely low at its highest level at only 0.002 percent [31]. Also the word "politics" at its highest level is at only 0.008 percent [32] something is really wrong with that search device because I'd assume that the word "cat" would have a significant body of books for veternary and pet owner's purposes on Google Books, and that "politics" shows up as so unpopular at less than a hundredth of a percent is insane. The infobox translation of the long form native name is not about common name - we do not put "Nazi Germany" for the official name of the state merely because it is the common name. As I said I support the use of the common reference of "reich" in the main body of the article. But the translation of the native name in the infobox should present a full translation of "reich" into "realm". I may change my position upon what the invited German Wikipedians will say. Let's wait until some German Wikipedians arrive to state their view on the translation.--R-41 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing "really wrong" with the Ngram viewer. All the percentages may seem low to you because they show occurrences as percentages of the whole corpus. So 0.008% is a high number. But 0.0000000% is still a low number. Look at the curves.
I do not understand why you seem to be insisting that the "conventional long name" is supposed to be what you regard as the best ("literal") translation of the components of the German official long name. The conventional full name of a country in different languages is usually decided in diplomatic circles. For existing countries, the foreign office of the appropriate countries and UN bodies have lists (eg here). For former German countries we can use the archives of the German or British foreign office.
The official English term for "Deutsches Reich" used by the German Foreign Office is "German Reich". See here, for instance
". . . international treaties of the German Customs Union, the North German Confederation, the German Reich, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany from 1831 . . ."
"In 1917, the German Reich was instrumental in Finland’s breaking away from Russia"
". . . commemorating the signing of the trade, friendship and shipping agreement between the German Reich and the Kingdom of Choson . . ."
". . . the 1957 Federal Act for the Settlement of the Monetary Restitution Liabilities of the German Reich . . ."
The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses the same official English name, as here:
"On 27 February, the first Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister of the German Reich to Bucharest, count Von Wesdehlen presented his accreditation letters to ruler Carol I."
--Boson (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "Realm" or "Empire" as most dictionaries would do (in Spanish we translate "Reich" as imperio). But I'll also appreciate an opinion from German Wikipedians.--Jabotito48 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "Reich" I know of no opne who calls it the third empore or third realm, its allways the third reich.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are examples of drittes reich being referred to as "Third Realm" [33] [34] by the notable American conservative author William F. Buckley [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. I am only supporting a full translation of "reich" into "realm" in the infobox section that is the translation of the native long form name because a section that is supposed to translate should translate. I support the rest of the article using the common term "reich".--R-41 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "Reich" in the context of the Nazi Third Reich as that is the most common name used in the literature. Never heard it called the Third Realm or its organisations called the Realm Minister, Realm Railway, etc... --Bermicourt (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
We do not use the common name in the long-form name in the infobox because its official name was not Nazi Germany. (The following is as written for two comments above): Here are examples of drittes reich being referred to as "Third Realm" [43] [44] by the notable American conservative author William F. Buckley [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. I am only supporting a full translation of "reich" into "realm" in the infobox section that is the translation of the native long form name because a section that is supposed to translate should translate. I support the rest of the article using the common term "reich".--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Request that the question be rephrased and clarified, and request the users who already have voted here be contacted and asked if they would agree or disagree with the revised question. The question of this vote of choosing only the word realm or only the word reich As I brought forward the issue in the first place, I note that I specifically said that it is not a realm "versus" reich issue for the entire article, and I specifically advocated that the term "realm" should only be used for the full translation of the long-form native name in the infobox and similarly in the main body where the term "Deutsches Reich" is being translated into English; and that outside of direct translation sections, the term reich should be used throughout the article as it is the common term.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Good clarification. I vote for Greater German Reich on the infobox with the German term underneath as now. "Reich" is a proper English loanword, especially when referring to Nazi Germany, that translating it into Realm creates a confusing distinction without a meaningful difference. The vast majority of English literature uses Third Reich or derivatives (even tho Germans rarely called it Drittes Reich, that use is more common now because of English usage). If Reich really needs clarification perhaps it can be defined parenthetically in the first sentence of the intro paragraph like the page Reich (disambiguation). In addition, other languages (i.e. French, Dutch and Italian) also just use "Reich" in this case (rather than their own words for Realm or Kingdom or Empire), so common is the word globally and so specific is its meaning -- Ultracobalt (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As the person who started the whole mess, I concur with the suggestion by Ultracobalt. It should not be in the infobox, but one mention (possibly in a footnote) would be reasonable. Consider, as the discussion has shown, that diplomats of major countries (who are very fussy about terminology) translate it as "German Reich." Consider that no significant historian I have seen has used the term in recent years. Consider the information on our infrequent "realm" is used in comparison to "Reich". Consider that one of the major sources cited for "realm" is an obscure article in Harper's written before Hitler was born. R-41 has worked assiduously to chase cites, and what he ends up highlighting is William F. Buckley, Jr., a fine writer, but his use is idiosyncratic, a style he rather liked. It is peculiar to have a comparatively rare, non-standard translation highlighted in the info-box.
Since I've not tried anything like this before, I'm not sure how best to proceed. Advice from the more experienced? A multiple-choice revised poll? For example three choices: A) Put it in a footnote; B) make a single reference in the text; C) Keep in the Infobox. Bytwerk (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, I vote for "Reich", with a footnote added to it as to "realm", with cites. So, choice A. Kierzek (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a multi-choiced poll that clearly describes those options would be acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of File:Warning Jews.jpg

I do not think this to be an appropriate image for this article (or in general?) → File:Warning Jews.jpg[53]. Where does it come from? (author unknown); the spelling of "Neurenberg" (Nuremberg); where was it photographed? (Kurfürstendamm or Dachau concentration camp); source = scan (from what, by whom?). --IIIraute (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Though it is labelled as public domain, the source is given as "scan", which suggests that it may have been scanned from a derivative work, which may well be copyright. --Boson (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The source is quite clearly given as Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
someone changed that - the original file used in this article said the source was a "scan" and that it was from around 1935! → please see: [54] (comment). --IIIraute (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Which means it is copyright? I think yes, as it says so at the bottom Copyright 2011... but first someone needs to confirm if Yad Vashem gave their collection away to Wikipedia in the same way the Bundesarchiv did. If they did not, then a deletion process in Wikicommons needs to be started. Anything from Germany that was NOT public domain in 1996 is NOT public domain in the US, the latest acceptable date for such works would be 1923. Ultracobalt (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
it's not a good image for this encyclopedia. we do not know when or where or why it was made, so it's hard to see what useful info it conveys. Rjensen (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


I would like to draw attention to the article as a whole, which (IMHO) more and more resembles the articles on Nazism, The Holocaust, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, and Nazism and race. Although all of these topics were an integral part of the Third Reich, the article should not be reduced to them to such a degree - especially since they are extensively dealt with at appropriate level in their own articles. Maybe this also supports the view to have the heading changed to "Third Reich", instead of "Nazi Germany", as it seems to reduce "Germany (1933-1945)" to the Nazi government and its policies only, while other topics, such as (the constituent states/gaus, Infrastructure, Transport, Energy, Science and technology, Architecture ,Popular culture, Music, Demographics, Religion, Literature and philosophy, Leisure, etc.) are neglected. Also all other topics (Economy, Culture, Cinema and media, Sports, etc.) are dealt with from the perspective of Nazism only. Many sections, such as: "the lead; Persecution and extermination campaigns; Capitulation of German forces; State ideology; and Racial policy" reiterate their content, while such topics as (for example): German resistance, German casualties in World War II, Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union, and Flight and expulsion of Germans are hardly, if mentioned at all. I know I am touching a sensitive nerve here, but especially because of that, the article should be consistently more balanced and versatile, and deal with Germany from 1933-1945, and not just "Nazi" Germany.--IIIraute (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article is suffering from both the best and worst of Wikipedia. Naturally it attracts many ardent contributors, but taken as a whole it's haphazardly written, thoroughly redundant with itself and the articles you mentioned, yet lacks key topics proper country summaries should have (i.e. Demographics, Infrastructure, Administration, Transport). Including them would not detract from Nazi horrors, but you're right to worry that suggesting "balance" might touch a nerve (maybe balance is the wrong word). It maybe more palatable to request (or just do) expansions to include the missing topics and then afterward copyedit to remove all the duplication. I also agree Nazi Germany is a bad title. It's perfectly OK as a #REDIRECT, but as jargon it differs from all other country titles, current or historic (i.e. there is no "Fascist Italy" page either). Even the article on the Nazi puppet state of Slovakia is entitled Slovak Republic (1939–1945), not "Nazi Slovakia". I would also suggest Third Reich (iffy, but the Russian and French pages call it that and they care a lot about this) or Germany (1933-1945)-- Ultracobalt (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I broadly agree. I also agree with the two possibilities for the article title. From the point of view of neutrality and historical correctness, I would choose the descriptive name Germany (1933–1945) but, on balance I would go for Third Reich, which is supported by WP:COMMONNAME and is less prosaic (more "engaging", as WP:Featured article criteria would put it). --Boson (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem with replacing the word Nazi Germany on claims that it labels Germans as "Nazis" and does not represent all Germans at the time is the following. The article on the Soviet Union does not represent the views of all the peoples of the Soviet Union - there were many who opposed the Soviet Union who lived within its borders.--R-41 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any argument that the article title "Nazi Germany" labels Germans as Nazis. The problem is that it is not an appropriate title for this particular article which is supposed to be about all aspects of that period, and that it is not the most common name for that period in the literature - unless you want to go back to the period before 1970, when it may have been more common in English literature (possibly because of anti-German feeling during and after the War).--Boson (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article reorganization concept

To the great point IIIraute (talk) made, and in the spirit of not just criticizing but offering solutions, I mocked up the following to at least get stuff in the article into the right spot before it is further edited. Much fits already, but for instance there are now 3 major sections on NS Foreign policy. To create this I just compared with other good national articles. It's imperfect (esp. sub bullets) but topic order is pretty standard. I left the Social Policy section standalone, since the Nazi's were obsessed with this, but it could also be divided between Politics and Demographics. Also note: the HISTORY OF NAZI GERMANY points to this article, so if it is agreed that a general summary of Third Reich History has a home here, care needs to be taken on structure. Obviously SEE ALSO pointers to the MANY special articles is implied in all sections:

  • 1 Etymology <- essentially the current NAME section, + the talk above re: REICH
  • 2 History
    • 2.1 Beginnings
    • 2.2 Machtergreifung - Seizure of power
    • 2.3 Gleichschaltung - Consolidation of power
    • 2.4 Remilitarization of the Rhineland
    • 2.5 Anschluss with Austria
    • 2.6 Munich Agreement Occupation of Czechoslovakia
    • 2.7 World War II
      • 2.7.1 War breaks out Outbreak of war
      • 2.7.2 The conquest of Europe
      • 2.7.3 Turning point
      • 2.7.4 Collapse
    • 2.8 Aftermath
      • 2.8.1 Casualties and war crimes
      • 2.8.2 Concentration camps and slave labor
      • 2.8.3 Home front and war production
      • 2.8.4 Allied occupation
    • 2.9 The Holocaust
  • 3 Geography
  • 4 Politics
  • 5 Economy
    • 5.1 Reich Economics
    • 5.2 Science and technology
    • 5.3 Transportation
    • 5.4 Wartime
  • 6 Demographics
    • 6.1 Ethnic groups
    • 6.2 Languages
    • 6.3 Religions
    • 6.4 Education
    • 6.6 Health
  • 7 Society
    • 7.1 Social welfare
    • 7.2 Racial policy and Eugenics
    • 7.3 Eugenics
    • 7.4 Environmentalism
    • 7.5 Women's rights
    • 7.6 Animal protection policy
  • 8 Culture
    • 8.1 Architecture
    • 8.2 Art
    • 8.3 Leisure
    • 8.3 Literature and philosophy
    • 8.4 Media and propaganda
    • 8.5 Music
    • 8.6 Sports
    • 8.7 Symbolism
  • 9 Legacy
  • 10 See also
  • 11 Footnotes
  • 12 Bibliography
  • 13 Further Reading
  • 14 External links

--Ultracobalt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


That looks good to me, overall. I don't like the heading "Etymology" since that implies "Etymology of Nazi Germany", and it is words or expressions that have an etymology, not historical topics - and etymologies generally belong in Wiktionary. Even if the article title is changed to "Third Reich", it is the words that have an etymology, not the topic. The section also - rightly - includes various names, and the etymologies of the various names are not discussed. I think I would prefer "Outbreak of war" for 2.7.1. I think the separate section on the Holocaust is a good idea, though I'm not quite sure how it will work. --Boson (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes I see what you mean - I did intend "Etymology of Nazi Germany", not of the History. See France. If that's confusing maybe another title is better I just didn't like "Name". The 'Reich' 'Realm' 'Third Reich' 'Großdeutsches Reich' definitions would be here, plus a link to Glossary of Nazi Germany and Name of Germany to cover words/abbrevs and avoid too much re-explaining in the rest of the article. Holocaust would have be summarized with links back to important main articles to cover it but avoid redundancy. How it will work is ya hmm me thinking... -- Ultracobalt (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
we do not really need an own Holocaust section, as it will be covered by other topics, such as Concentration camps and slave work, Occupation, Casualties and war crimes and Racial policy, (with the appropriate links), for example. We should avoid to reiterate the same content over several sections of the article.--IIIraute (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) ...or, let's say we have a Holocaust section, we should really try to keep the other sections more straight forward on-topic - and not reiterate the same content all over again.--IIIraute (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks generally good to me. Thanks for the work. Several suggestions. After 2.2., consider a section on the absorption of the rest of Czech territory and the Memmel District in spring 1939. Also a mention of the treaty with the USSR? That will come up under 4.4., but the gap between 2.6 and 2.7 is a very significant year. Those had little to do with the Munich Agreement. Under 4 (Politics) it might make sense to have a section on the role of the Party. It can be brief with a link to the article on the party, but since the party had a significant role in the political system, some mention is appropriate. Eugenics (7.3) might be a sub-point of Racial Policy. Bytwerk (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Very good points thanks. I'll take a little license to edit my own list with these suggestions vs. reposting the long thing. Then I'll wait a few days to implement. My plan will NOT be to edit all the text, rather to move existing paragraphs into this structure so the redundancies will become obvious and they can be copyedited by experts on each aspect. In cases where one para covers multiple topics, I'll do my best to split it. One thing this article is begging for is a better 1st paragraph with accurate dates, I'll do that now in prep for this. Ultracobalt (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Although for children? the website gives a god overview of topics that should be covered (among others) → [55].--IIIraute (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The current intro is long, dragged out and makes statements that are not common knowledge but fails to provide any references. Controversial statements are made in the intro, such as the claim that Hitler was almost completely unopposed after the German economy recovered in the 1930s, again with no source to verify this.--R-41 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree 1000%, I only changed the 1st paragraph. The rest of the intro para's need be rewritten or removed, I just kept them for now before changing the article to the above format. Ultracobalt (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think all controversial statements need citations in the lead, provided that they are summarizing what is stated and cited elsewhere in the article. I think the main problem is that the lead does not properly summarize the article in a concise manner and with appropriate weight accorded to the different sub-topics, given that this is supposed to be an article on a particular period in German history, not an article on the rise and fall of Nazism. It might be better to leave the lead until the rest of the article has been sorted, but I would tentatively suggest that the lead should have 4 paragraphs of 2-4 sentences:
  1. Define topic, establish context
  2. History: rise and fall of the Nazi party, holocaust, WWII, aftermath
  3. Geography: territorial changes
  4. Politics etc.: foreign policy, Nazi ideology, economy, culture
I would suggest that the following are too specific for the lead:
  • Assessments of the degree of cohesion in the regime, the popularity of Hitler, idolization of Hitler
  • Details of racial policy
  • Membership of the Hitlerjugend etc. (just have one sentence on Gleichschaltung)
  • Details of educational policy, number of women enrolled in secondary education, etc.
--Boson (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Historians are pretty well agreed that the themes of Hitler's power & its sources & and racism are central to Germany 1933-45. They should be in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Kressel and Herb, etc. really do not belong in the lead.--IIIraute (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The perfect article... starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.WP:LEAD, WP:BETTER, WP:MOSINTRO. --IIIraute (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that things like Hitler's power and racism should be mentioned, but we need to get the whole of the Third Reich into about four brief paragraphs; details and explanations do not belong in the lead. --Boson (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring completed

I implemented the above structure, moving paragraphs without altering them (except for minor fixes). I didn't implement everything: i.e. "extermination campaigns" are inside WWII because the existing text fit best there and in this new org it stands out well. The many redundancies, overly long writing, and other problems should be easier to find and fix now. Some other sections didn't make sense to add until copyedit is done. Particular problem areas I saw (among others):

  • LEDE (as discussed above)
  • Politics LEDE + subsections (sections overlap)
  • Racial policy subsection (long, convoluted)
  • Economics (good, but longish and choppy)

Things missing:

  • A summary paragraph on Axis agreement of 1936 (Foreign policy section)
  • A summary paragraph on paramilitary organizations (SA/SS)
  • Demographic #'s any country article should have (pop, ethnic dist, etc)
  • Cultural subsections on Architecture, Nazi art, etc.

I'm willing to rewrite the 1st section ("NAME") to include the Realm talk and historic meanings of REICH and German translation of it all in a single paragraph to help out. Ultracobalt (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose to merge "Seizure of power" and "Consolidation of power", since the former is very short and the Machtergreifung is really the period 1933/34 rather than a single event, as portrayed in the first section. I would also suggest using the term Machtergreifung. If not, the header should include "by the Nazis", since the article topic is a country, meaning that "by the Nazis" is not implied (though it is if we use the German word).--Boson (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed and done - also changed "Beginnings" to "Background" Ultracobalt (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Revised Poll on "Reich" and "Realm"

Here is a more clearly stated question on the matter. In using "Realm" as a translation for "Reich," should the mention or mention(s) be:

A. Only in a footnote from an early mention of "Reich" in the body of the article.
B. The discussion should be in the body of the article.
C. The discussion should be in the body of the article and the Infobox should use the translation "Greater German Realm." This is the current situation.

To avoid making it difficult to track, could you kindly vote only for your choice here, and put discussion under another heading. Bytwerk (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support A. Strongly oppose C. For main reasons see discussion above. The content of any translation discussion anywhere on the article page (including endorsement of a particular translation) is a separate issue, to be discussed later. --Boson (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A. oppose C..Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A. Bytwerk (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A or B. Strongly oppose C. Ultracobalt (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A. Kierzek (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A. Oppose B or C. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A. Oppose B or C. Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A or B, → (change heading to "Third Reich").--IIIraute (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support C.--R-41 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like everyone interested has had a say. "A" is the clear choice. Shall I make the appropriate changes, or give it a while longer? Bytwerk (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that was long enough - as you said - "A" is the clear choice. The next vote should address the heading → (Nazi Germany vs. Third Reich).--IIIraute (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Put it up and I will support it. Bytwerk (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I made the relevant changes. Someone might want to improve the new footnote by expanding the explanation and finding, perhaps, a better source than the outdated Harper's citation. Bytwerk (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error


The following coordinate fixes are needed for (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. You haven't described what correction you think needs to be made to the coordinates. The ones in the article look OK to me. Deor (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The intro is too long

The intro is over the recommended four paragraph limit, and the paragraphs are too long for an intro. Detailed investigation into specific topics should not be discussed in the intro but in the main body of the article. I advocate that the intro be reduced to four small paragraphs at most.--R-41 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and am working on it :) the first paragraph is finished, someone may come up with a better 3 remaining paras before i finish, but yes they are a bit redundant and need wordflow improvement... -- Ultracobalt  (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
it is not too long for one of the most complicated and controversial and studied episodes in world history. Keep in mind that most people ONLY read the lede--the average user spends 5 to 7 minutes on Wikipedia and is unlikely to casually read the entire rather difficult article. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I trimmed the lede especially dropping difficult German words that are not needed in the lede and are covered in the text. eg Großdeutsches Reich, Führerprinzip, Schutzstaffe -- words very rarely used in English. Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed! Führerprinzip has no business in the LEDE, it's a more detailed concept for the body.-- Ultracobalt  (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not our business to cram everything into the intro merely because we assume that the reader is too disinterested in reading the rest of the article - that is up to the reader to take the initiative to read the article. Intros are supposed to should a concise and short summary of the key topics addressed. Such topics should include: (1) that it was a totalitarian state led by Hitler and the Nazi Party, where no opposition movements were allowed and opponents were persecuted; (2) that it persecuted and committed genocide against Jews and other people deemed "life unworthy of life"; (3) that it pursued an aggressive foreign policy that led to World War II, its brief conquest of much of Europe, and its collapse. These three aspects are what Nazi Germany is the most remembered for. Mentioning that Hitler "hypnotized" Germans may be interesting but does not belong in the intro, it should be in the main body - he had a totalitarian state to put people to work to his aims regardless of what people wanted. Also, mentioning Hitler's direct influence in what was done in the state is a controversial topic for historians - some historians that he had strong influence, others claim that he was very lazy and delegated much of his duties to others - again the intro is not the place to have that debate, the main body of the article is where that should be. And considering the magnitude of the Holocaust and World War II, I do not see how mentioning the autobahns in the intro is significant in comparison.--R-41 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your points above, R-41. I trimmed the lede as to the "hypnotic eyes" part. The lede could still use a little more work. Kierzek (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I see this part was re-inserted by another. It really is not a necessary point in the lede and could be moved to the body; I don't feel that strongly about it so I didn't remove it all again. With that said, it should be trimmed for redundancy, which I have done. Kierzek (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Material in the intro on the autobahns, and the 1936 Olympics is not significant in comparison with the magnitude of the Holocaust and World War II. Construction of major highways happens in all countries and multiple countries have had the Olympics, those should be removed from the intro and mentioned in the main body. Info on youth and women mentioned in the intro should be moved to the main body of the article. The intro should focus on key major themes.--R-41 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Nazi Germany invented the autobahn which was later copied in the US interstates. That is important. The Berlin Olympics were a very famous world showcase that used sports for Nazi propaganda--it is still much talked about. The argument "every country has xx" is irrelevant (every country has leaders and wars so we perhaps should not include them???) Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that building a highway and holding an Olympic games is on the same level of importance with the mass murder of millions of people in the Holocaust, or the massive changes in Europe caused by World War II?--R-41 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
No they are not on the same level. But they are important and we have space enough for them. The Autobahn brings in themes of technology, economic recovery, and an innovation that changed the world. Propaganda is a big theme for the topic and the Olympics were the biggest propaganda story. The article does not attempt to cover the massive changes that took place in 15 or 20 other countries--they each have their own articles where that material belongs. Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If the Olympics and the autobahns are sub-themes as you seem to indicate, then it is the main theme theme that should be briefly mentioned in the intro rather than the subthemes. If the Olympics were used for propaganda - what propaganda were they used for? The answer is the Nazi totalitarian state - so Nazi totalitarianism is the them, propaganda itself whether we like it or not is used by all governments - it was the totalitarian agenda of the Nazi propaganda that is the issue. If the sub-theme of the autobahns is an example of themes of technology, economic recovery, etc., then the themes of the economics and scientific development should be briefly mentioned the intro.--R-41 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor changes

in the Nazi seizure of power part, in the forth paragraph "Weimar Republic" should be a link g.rocket (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done "Weimar Republic" is already linked; per WP:OVERLINK, more links would be too many. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Change of the article's name

As a serious encyclopedia Wikipedia should avoid informal talk unless it comes from a quotation. It's more appropriate to use the phrase "National Socialist Germany" than "Nazi Germany". I'm fully aware that the attribute "Nazi" is prevalent in the English vernacular, but contractions such as these should be avoided in formal texts. Zlatno Pile (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

the major publishers, journals, editors and writers strongly prefer "Nazi Germany" to "National Socialist Germany." gives a ratio of about 50 to one. The term "National Socialist" is rarely used in titles. Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the term "Nazi" is widespread, but so is "Commy". Should the article on the Soviet Union be properly be titled "Commy Russia"? Zlatno Pile (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"Commy" is slang. "Nazi" is not. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If it isn't slang, how come National Socialists never used it when referring to themselves, even in informal settings? Zlatno Pile (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting find. I'd agree that "Nazi" can be rude. "Grammar Nazi" is meant to be a little derogatory, but is usually said in fun. I really doubt that the word "Nazi" is used in a truly offensive way these days, at least where I come from. I reckon that article has it wrong. The paragraph on "Nazi" has only one source, which is completely useless. (The links don't mention "Nazi".) "Nazi" is meant to be neither rude nor offensive in "Nazi Germany". HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
...and I've now opened a discussion about it on that Talk page. Feel free to contribute there too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually Zlatno Pile, I reckon that WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we should use what you call informal talk in cases like this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The correct term would be: Deutsches Reich 1933 to 1945see: de:Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945.--IIIraute (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. As was stated "Nazi Germany" is a term that the Western Allies used and since this is English language Wikipedia, it should be retained for the article title (with an explanation in the article of the term and the German terms they used, which has been done; See: [56] Name section). And as Hohum stated in the past discussion: "WP:COMMONNAME makes it very clear that articles do not need to use formally correct names, but the most recognisable, most used one, which is the case here." I agree with his statement. Kierzek (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
"Deutsches Reich" and "National Socialist Germany" would be terms completely unfamiliar to most English readers. "Nazi Germany" is the most commonly used name. Let's stick with that. Ground Zero | t 10:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
So what if it's unfamiliar. Encyclopedias are read with the intention to familiarize oneself with something new. It's not even that unfamiliar. "Nationalism" and "Socialism" are familiar words. That "Nazi" is common is irrelevant. The word "Commy" is also common by the criteria of quantity, but this doesn't make it correct to use.
"Nazi" is also misleading and obfuscating. It gives the false impression that it was the word with which National Socialists described themselves, when it's actually a contraction that was used solely by native political opponents of National Socialists.
And you can't title an article with a contraction or slang. You must give the full name of the concept. Zlatno Pile (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"National Socialist" was not the full name of the party either. TFD (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
But it seems like the most common used name is Third Reich[57]WP:COMMONNAME. --IIIraute (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
As first, my english will not be perfect because I am German.
I just wanted to say that out of my view the articles Name feels like theres only brown uniforms for every person that lived in Germany. I have seen the name "third Reich" very often in english books and every person of every english speaking country should know this name. I felt the need, posting here, because where ever people begin talking about the Hitler time with the word NAZI there is no chance talking factual about the theme anymore. I hope you will understand what I tried to tell. (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I think you worry too much. "Nazi Germany" is the common name in English for Germany during the time of Nazi rule, whether you like it or not. It doesn't mean that we all think that everyone in Germany at that time was a Nazi. We speak of Victorian England (and yes, I know it's a redirect), but we certainly don't think that everyone there looked like Queen Victoria. I've known many people who lived in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. (Yes, I'm old.) I don't think any of them were Nazis. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this answer. It helps me reading english forums with this theme a bit easier. I think as a german I just take it a bit to serius (ernest? don`t know whats right here). (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Phantom footnotes

For some reason the footnote numbers in the text are always 2 digits higher than the footnote listing in "References". #5 in the text is #3 in the "references" listing. etc through all of them. #1 and #2 disappeared?? Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be to do with the use of a nested and named reference using {{refn}} in the infobox. Which is either a wiki issue, or syntax, but I can't figure out how to fix it. (Hohum @) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012

The seventh sentence in, the one pertaining to reference 5, has the word "curry" in it, "The government was not a coordinated, cooperating body, but rather a collection of factions struggling to amass power and curry favor with the Führer"

A much more correct word would be "gain" --Brockc (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Brockc (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Done thanks for making your request clear and easy to understand :) - I've made the change here. Cheers, — Deontalk 05:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously curry would have been not in line with the high racial principles. d&r Agathoclea (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi occupation - only in Europe?

Were there any Nazi-occupied territories outside Europe? In other words, should German-occupied Europe article be moved to Territories occupied by the Nazi Germany, or is it fine where it is? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No need, because there wasn't. There was German action in North Africa and Iraq, but never any occupation outside of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Cole (talkcontribs) 05:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues with the Introduction

Germany made increasingly aggressive demands...

This is cited, but: to go from making ultimatums that Czech leaders break up the country they dominated, Czecho-Slovakia, and throwing it into the dustbin of history to pressing Poland to allow for Germany's incorporation of the Free City of Danzig, a city Poland did not even control (and a city that, since 1920, even the Weimar government had pushed to reincorporate) is hardly an example of "increasingly aggressive demands". That is perhaps the irony of the war and the circumstances around which it began. It probably began because Poland did not want to end up like Czecho-Slovakia! It's a shame Wikipedia doesn't care to respect that. Does this site exist to educate or not? What's the deal here? Why aren't we telling the truth. and what's the point of this site if the truth is not being told??

...and the Sudetenland was taken via the Munich Agreement in 1938, with the rest of Czechoslovakia taken over in 1939.

No, the "rest" of Czechoslovakia was not taken over. The Hungarians took their part, the Poles took Zaolzie. Bohemia and Moravia became German protectorates, Slovakia became a German client state.

Hitler made a pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II.

Again, not true. World War II only began in Europe after this date. And we can say that because the Polish-German conflict was a part of World War II. But why oversimplify here? Just because it sounds nicer? Why compromise facts with oversimplified fictions? -- (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

the text is in full accord with the major Reliable Sources. What sources is ............. using to detect his "oversimplified fictions"? The RS all say the war started with the invasion of Poland, and they all say Hitler made increasingly aggressive demands (Rhineland, Austria, Czech., Poland = escalation). Rjensen (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh it is? Are you going to stand by that bold claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
If the war began with the invasion of Poland in 1939, then please explain at what point after that it trickled over into Asia. Or are you suggesting that the conflict over there was not part of the Second World War? Good to know that Wikipedia considers Eurocentric - read: ignorant - sources reliable. That, my friend, is what I refer to as an oversimplified fiction. At least the page on Wikipedia about World War II understands this. Have you read the intro?
Hitler did not demand Poland, he demanded a semi-independent city and a referendum. If he had demanded Poland, Poland is bigger than Austria and the Czech Republic, so you would have a case for increasingly larger demands. But you don't, because he didn't. I don't see how the reality of the situation is "increasingly aggressive". This is just the mantra used to oversimplify the situation and it has no place in honest scholarship.
I've paged back a few years. I like the intros which were less about what historians think of Hitler's eyes, mentioned repeatedly in the intro. There are other points that are repeated. I propose mixing some of the past points into what we currently have and slimming down the intro. I note that it currently gives no explanation as to why this state is called the Third Reich. I'm also comparing this article to the Soviet Union article. Thoughts?
Here's a proposal:
Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common terms for Germany when it was ruled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) from 1933 to 1945. On 30 January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, quickly eliminating all opposition to rule as sole leader. The state nation idolized Hitler as its Führer ("leader"), centralizing all power in his hands. The rest of the government was not a coordinated, cooperating body, but a collection of factions subordinate to Hitler's word which was above all laws. Top officials reported to Hitler and followed his policies, but had autonomy. The Nazi government brought prosperity to Germany and ended mass unemployment using military spending and a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices. Extensive public works were undertaken, including Autobahn construction. Thus, the regime gained enormous popularity and, with the suppression of opponents, Hitler's rule went unchallenged.
The Gestapo (secret police) and SS under Heinrich Himmler destroyed the liberal, socialist, and communist opposition, and persecuted and murdered Jews and other "undesirables". The Nazis claimed the Germanic peoples were the purest representation of the Aryan race, and therefore the master race. Education focused on racial biology, population policy, and physical fitness. Membership in the Hitler Youth organization became compulsory and women faded from of post-secondary education. Calling women's rights a "product of the Jewish intellect," the Nazis practiced what they called "emancipation from emancipation."[7] Entertainment and tourism were organized via the Strength Through Joy program. The government promoted specific art forms, discouraging and banning others, portrayed as Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art).[8] Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels used film, mass rallies, and Hitler's oratory to control public opinion.[9] The 1936 Summer Olympics showcased the Third Reich on the international stage.
Until 1936, the state's borders were those given to Germany after World War I; they extended to Lithuania in the east, but the state was split in two, with Poland and the Free City of Danzig in between; to the south, the state's main borders were Austria and Czechoslovakia; to the west, the Rhineland, the Saarland and Low Countries like France. Hitler advocated the creation of a Greater German ethno-state, which led to the reclamation of the Rhineland, Saarland and the Memelland and the annexation of Austria, as well as the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. The rest of Czechoslovakia not partitioned by others came under the state's influence. Additional expansion occurred in the Second World War, which began in Europe after the state, in cooperation with the Soviet Union, invaded Poland and declarations of war followed. Poland fell and the Nazi-controlled part became the General Gouvernment, where brutal policies were implemented.
Germany defeated France in 1940, but the conflict with the United Kingdom expanded when, for example, Hitler's ally, Mussolini of Italy, pursued failed gambits in Africa. Hitler’s state nevertheless invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Major military defeats, including the Battle of Stalingrad, ruined the effort. Meanwhile, concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold political prisoners and opponents. The number of camps quadrupled between 1939 and 1942, as slave-laborers from across Europe, Jews, political prisoners, criminals, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally ill and others were imprisoned. The system that began as an instrument of political oppression culminated in the mass genocide of Jews and other minorities in The Holocaust.
By 1944, the United Kingdom and its ally, the United States, had introduced the large-scale systematic bombing of all major German cities, rail lines and oil plants, which left the state in ruins. The state was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the Western Allies from the west. A policy of denazification began and so did a trial for Nazi war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials.
current version:
Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is the common name for Germany when it was a totalitarian state ruled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). On 30 January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, quickly eliminating all opposition to rule as sole leader. The state idolized Hitler as its Führer ("leader"), centralizing all power in his hands. Historians have emphasized the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups. Kessel writes, "Overwhelmingly...Germans speak with mystification of Hitler's 'hypnotic' appeal..."[4] Under the "leader principle", the Führer's word was above all other laws. Top officials reported to Hitler and followed his policies, but they had considerable autonomy. The government was not a coordinated, cooperating body, but rather a collection of factions struggling to amass power and gain favor with the Führer.[5] In the midst of the Great Depression, the Nazi government restored prosperity and ended mass unemployment using heavy military spending and a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices.[6] Extensive public works were undertaken, including the construction of the Autobahns. The return to prosperity gave the regime enormous popularity; the suppression of all opposition made Hitler's rule mostly unchallenged.
Racism, especially antisemitism, was a main tenet of society in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo (secret state police) and SS under Heinrich Himmler destroyed the liberal, socialist, and communist opposition, and persecuted and murdered Jews and other "undesirables". It was believed that the Germanic peoples—who were also referred to as the Nordic race—were the purest representation of the Aryan race, and were therefore the master race. Education focused on racial biology, population policy, and physical fitness. Membership in the Hitler Youth organization became compulsory. The number of women enrolled in post-secondary education plummeted, and career opportunities were curtailed. Calling women's rights a "product of the Jewish intellect," the Nazis practiced what they called "emancipation from emancipation."[7] Entertainment and tourism were organized via the Strength Through Joy program. The government controlled artistic expression, promoting specific forms of art and discouraging or banning others. The Nazis mounted the infamous Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) exhibition in 1937.[8] Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels made effective use of film, mass rallies, and Hitler's hypnotizing oratory to control public opinion.[9] The 1936 Summer Olympics showcased the Third Reich on the international stage.
Germany made increasingly aggressive demands, threatening war if they were not met. Britain and France responded with appeasement, hoping Hitler would finally be satisfied.[10] Austria was annexed in 1938, and the Sudetenland was taken via the Munich Agreement in 1938, with the rest of Czechoslovakia taken over in 1939. Hitler made a pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II. In alliance with Benito Mussolini's Italy, Germany conquered France and most of Europe by 1940, and threatened its remaining major foe: Great Britain. Reich Commissariats took brutal control of conquered areas, and a German administration termed the General Government was established in Poland. Concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold political prisoners and opponents of the regime. The number of camps quadrupled between 1939 and 1942 to 300+, as slave-laborers from across Europe, Jews, political prisoners, criminals, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally ill and others were imprisoned. The system that began as an instrument of political oppression culminated in the mass genocide of Jews and other minorities in The Holocaust.
Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich in the major military defeats of the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk in 1943. The Soviet counter-attacks became the largest land battles in history. Large-scale systematic bombing of all major German cities, rail lines and oil plants escalated in 1944, shutting down the Luftwaffe (German Air Force). Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the Allies from the west. The victorious Allies initiated a policy of denazification and put the surviving Nazi leadership on trial for war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials.'
Around twenty seventy words shorter, fixes historical inaccuracies and the "name" section underneath can be eliminated and integrated into the text, so that will make it even shorter. Thoughts?

Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

Should redirect for "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

(See also the 독일의-Wikipedia's Drittes Reich (Frege) -
"In dem Aufsatz Der Gedanke des deutschen Philosophen und Mathematikers Gottlob Frege (1918) bezeichnet der Ausdruck Drittes Reich einen Bereich der Realität, in dem die nach seiner Auffassung objektiven Gedanken angesiedelt sind:
Die Gedanken sind weder Dinge der Außenwelt noch Vorstellungen. Ein drittes Reich muß anerkannt werden. Was zu diesem gehört, stimmt mit den Vorstellungen darin überein, daß es nicht mit den Sinnen wahrgenommen werden kann, mit den Dingen aber darin, daß es keines Trägers bedarf, zu dessen Bewußtseinsinhalte es gehört. So ist z. B. der Gedanke, den wir im pythagoreischen Lehrsatz aussprachen, zeitlos wahr, unabhängig davon, ob irgendjemand ihn für wahr hält. Er bedarf keines Trägers. Er ist wahr nicht erst, seitdem er entdeckt worden ist, wie ein Planet, schon bevor jemand ihn gesehen hat, mit andern Planeten in Wechselwirkung gewesen ist.[1]
Mit dem Argument, dass es andernfalls keine Intersubjektivität geben könne, postuliert Frege neben dem Reich der subjektiven Vorstellungen und dem der "objektiv-wirklichen" physischen Gegenstände noch ein "drittes Reich": das der "objektiv-nichtwirklichen" Gedanken. Sie werden vom Bewusstsein erfasst, aber nicht hervorgebracht."
  • I don't speak German, but "Third Realm" and "Drittes Reich" both redirect to Nazi Germany.
  • There is often a problem when Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., are translated by lighter weight thinkers (i.e., by anyone).
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is WP:RS.
  • According to reliable secondary source Gideon Rosen in the "Abstract Objects" article at SEP, "Frege concludes that numbers are neither external ‘concrete’ things nor mental entities of any sort. ... He says that they (thoughts - by which Gideon Rosen means the senses of declarative sentences, apparently with Rosen using Frege's highly technical meaning of "sense") belong to a ‘third realm’ distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness... As this new ‘realism’ was absorbed into English speaking philosophy, the traditional term ‘abstract’ was enlisted to apply to the denizens of this ‘third realm’."
Note: Rosen does not provide citations in support of this particular SEP:OR "encyclopedia" article statement, re what he calls "absorption" and "enlistment", likely because of a lack of historical scholarly works to rely on re the etymology of "abstract object". But we at Wikipedia have higher standards than SEP when it comes to OR.

I propose a disabiguation page. But having inadvertently stepped from writing WP:BLPs into trying to edit the Alternative medicine article, I assume per User:IRWolfie's comments at alt med, that it is best to first propose things in a small way at talk pages, before editing on any articles involving religion, racist groups, evolution, alt meds, and articles about topics involving groups of irrational people that are still in existence.

Discussion is here ParkSehJik (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction Request

The 5th sentence of the 3rd paragraph ends, "Germany conquered France and most of Europe by 1940, and threatened its remaining major foe: Great Britain"

This is incorrect."Great Britain" should be changed to "the United Kingdom".

I understand that this terminology can be confusing for non-British people, so here's the explanation: the term 'Great Britain' refers to the island consisting of mainland England, Scotland and Wales. 'The United Kingdom' is the name of our country which consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Confusing the matter further, the term 'Britain' often refers to the United Kingdom and this usage is correct. Also, the UK competes in the Olympics as 'Team GB', I can only imagine that this is because the Ukraine got first dibs on UK! But nevertheless, the use of the term 'Great Britain' in this sentence is incorrect.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Map issue: Sources claiming that Germany did not officially annexed Alsace-Lorraine or Luxembourg, however German maps show it annexed

I am confused as to how to address the issue I have mentioned. This image of a map that appears to have been produced in Germany in 1942, shows Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine as annexed. [58] and this map from 1944 [59]. However there are written sources that say that neither were annexed.

According to Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (2005), Germany never officially annexed Alsace-Lorraine, it informally incorporated it and controlled it through a military commander. The book Nazi war aims: the plans for the thousand year Reich (1962) says that "The story of what happened in Luxembourg is practically identical with that of Alsace-Lorraine. Luxembourg was never officially annexed by law but was annexed in fact." This source Hitler and Nazi Germany: a history (2009) by Jackson J. Spielvogel and David Redles, says that "Although not officially annexed, Luxembourg was attached to a Nazi Party administrative district" and goes on to say "In western Europe, direct annexation was at first limited to three small territories—Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet—that had been awarded to Belgium after World War I." Now the last source indicates that annexations were "at first limited".

Now, the only thing I could presume is that these regions were not officially annexed until 1942 when the Grossdeutsches Reich was officially proclaimed.--R-41 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The situation is discussed in the article de:Chef der Zivilverwaltung ("chief of civil administration") on the German Wikipedia. The coloured areas on the map in that article were quickly annexed de facto but never de lege. They had a special administrative status, each under the administration of the Reichsstatthalter of a neighbouring area in Germany (+ Austria) proper. The idea was to prepare these areas for annexation, which from the Nazi point of view meant considering them a normal part of Germany just like Austria had become. Hans Adler 08:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Hitler orientated part of introduction

I fully accept that you cannot discuss Nazi Germany without discussing Adolf Hitler but

This part of the introduction

Historians have emphasized the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups. Kessel writes, "Overwhelmingly...Germans speak with mystification of Hitler's 'hypnotic' appeal..."[4] 

is reproduced in the Adolf Hitler article @ [ref][/ref]

and I think is better suited to its single inclusion in wiki there rather than in the introduction of the nazi stateCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molby61 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree - especially since this article is actually about a period of German history that happens to have been given the article title Nazi Germany rather than a more neutral title, such as Third Reich or Germany from 1935 to 1945.--Boson (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dating of Nazi Germany & Hitler's dictatorship

Ladies and gentleman - as a matter of historical clarity - it would benefit many to be more precise when dating the period of "Nazi Germany". The language currently in place is beneficial in that the process by which the Nazi Party, precisely, Adolf Hitler, began to achieve his dictatorship indeed became more real with his appointment as Chancellor by the President of the struggling Weimar Republic, Paul Von Hindenburg, 01/30/33. And, was indeed accelerated by the passing of the Enabling Act of March 1933. He was of this period, however, still facing serious challenges to his ultimate goal: Full and real dictatorship.

Once the Enabling Act became law, after the Federal elections held 03/05/33, 56% of the seats of the Reichstag were still controlled by opposing parties. President Hinderburg controlled the German military as Commander and Chief as stipulated by the Constitution which was not taken from him by the Enabling act. Read Article 2 of the Enabling Act. Though Hitler had established an impressive paramilitary force, he had no power to direct or command the military forces of the Weimar Republic as Chancellor under the Enabling Act. Nor, was Hindendurg a sympathetic supporter of Hitler or was the Vice- Chancellor, Franz von Papen of the nationalist monarchist party to which Hindenburg was. This is a far cry from being a bona fide dictator with "dictatorial powers". Though Hitler abused his power under the Enabling Act - this was not the goal - far from it.

Rather, he achieved his objective with the death of President 08/02/34, the passing of legislation that same day stipulating he was the sole ruler [Fuhrer] of Germany, the dissolution of the remaining parties in the Reichstag soon after and an national referendum vote - yes or no - held August 19, 1934 with the Nazi Party legislation being the only selection on the ballot. This is when he achieved his goal as dictator and Nazi Germany came to full bloom. Thank you for your consideration. All this is properly cited on Wikipedia concerning these specific points. I encourage you to research this point. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talkcontribs) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Hitler reached his ultimate goal through events of 1934; however, the start date for Hitler and the Nazi Party as far as the beginning of national power in Germany is seen as Jan. 1933 by mainstream historians/authors. Now, it is true that national power was gained, in the end, by Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, like the others before him (during that timeframe); so after it was handed to him, Hitler started on the path of consolidation of power into a dictatorship (which was not completed until 1934). The process known as Gleichschaltung (coordination) of social and political control into NSDAP control. Kershaw, Hitler: A Biography, pp. 260-261; McNab, The Third Reich, p. 14 and Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, p. 154. Kierzek (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Kierzek Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

These are good points, Kierzek. It comes to how the phrase, "Nazi Germany", is defined. And, the image that creates in the mind of a reader. It implies the Nazi Party had full absolute control of Germany in 1933. Does it not?

If we define "Nazi Germany" as full and complete control then this period start date of, 1933, is vaguely correct, but woefully, imprecise. The Nazi Party of 1933 still faced serious obstacles: In March of 1933 - post the Enabling Act -, 56% of the Reichstag seats were controlled by opposing parties, the President of the Weimar Republic, Paul von Hindenburg, was still Commander and Chief of the military and remained so through 1933, and until his death, 08/02/34. His cohort [Hindenburg's], Franz von Papen, and the vast majority of his constituents: the aristocracy, the Weimar military and the industrialists class were not sympathetic of the Nazi Party in 1933. Most of Franz von Papen's constituents/adherents [Hindenburg among them] were supporting a bicameral monarchy modeled after Great Britain, or the Weimar Republic, throughout 1933. And, in fact, this carried into and throughout the war period. A major thorn in the side of the Nazi Party - and the source of many inside plots against Hitler.

Even though Hitler abused the "Enabling Act" to ban his rivals starting in July of 1933 and other such abuses? They, namely, the Socialists and Communists, took to "the streets" and underground causing serious resistance in 1933. Some of this was financed by the Soviet Union. It may be helpful to point this out - and - introduce an intermediate period, say 01/33 - 8/34, that offers much more clarity that reflects history as it happened. All that is referenced here is cited on Wikipedia - in part to your good work. Thank you again.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk -- (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)• contribs) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC) 

As we reflect and discern the insightful theory of - Gliechshaltung - contributed by, Sir Richard J. Evans? It is a sociological study of transformation covering the period 1933-37: how the Nazi Party implemented, achieved and maintained its absolute authoritarian rule over Germany. It does not, nor attempts to, define: "Nazi Germany".

As was rightfully pointed out, this process of transformation began, in real terms: in 1933. Its achievement was not fully realized - politically and/or in terms of governance - until 08/19/34 with the Referendum vote, which we seem to have reached a consensus. This achievement [the results of the August 1934 Referendum] was then cemented/reinforced by a series of programs of indoctrination on a national scale, such as, mandated participation in Youth groups, and so on, which were in full stride by 1937.

Are we stating then that "Nazi Germany" ended in 1937 in line with Sir Evans theory just as we are with the start date? Of course, we're not, however, to state "Nazi Germany" was truly "Nazi Germany" in 1933? Is akin to stating WW II in Europe ended 06-06-44, the Allied invasion of Normandy. It was the beginning of the end, to be sure. But, the Allied Forces had a long road ahead to the end. Thank you all again.

 Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC) (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It was profoundly encouraging to see progress made on this matter without it slipping into an "edit war" followed by a painful journey into that time eating machine known as DNR and/or unwarranted accusations of intentional, or willful "vandalism". As stated, this is a good faith effort seeking genuine clarity of history as it happened vs a vaguely correct "glossing over" leaving much to be desired that creates more questions than answers. Or worse, becomes the source of wholly preventable disputes in the future. So, thank you, Kierzek - and others - who guided me well through this process, thereby, avoiding common lethal pitfalls of earnest good faith editing and offered patient input.

Where this article is now seems a sound compromise. It now reveals the truth of history as it happened more clearly. A further suggestion. Can we agree the definition of "Nazi Germany" can legitimately be stated to have begun in 1933, wherein, the introduction sentence reads this way, or similar language: "Nazi Germany" . . . . common name for Germany during an Era of transformation from a democratic Republic to a totalitarian state under Adolf Hitler and its destruction in by Allied forces in 1945? My sincere, thanks for your consideration. --Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The above was added. However, since then there seems to be a slow edit war brewing over this matter. I don't want that; I only want the article to be correct. The lead sentences did need a little work more work to be clear and Malljaja did a nice job as to ce on them. I then added cites to the points conveyed. The problem seems to be that one or more ip address wants to start the article at the totalitarian state of 1934; however, the problem is that Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 and that is when the Nazis came to national government power or as the Nazis liked to call it, the Machtergreifung, "seizure of power"; the country then transformed from the death-knell of a republic to the totalitarian state under Hitler in 1934. It is important that general readers understand the transition or Gleichschaltung process of what then became known as the Third Reich from then on until 1945. Kierzek (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavs section needs to be made more clear!

The Nazis did not view Slavs as non-Aryan because they were not racially Aryan but rather because of the movements the vast majority of Slavs at that time belonged to (at least in the eyes of the Nazis), the emphasis should be added about the racial theorists in Nazi Germany did still view Slavs as Aryans, including Rosenberg - one of the most prominent ones - who also hated the way many were treated although he did have some negative thoughts about certain Slav groups mostly the Poles the Czechs.

The Ahnenpass which was to said to actually prove that one was Aryan and everybody in the Reich had to have one included the Slavs in its description, but like I said many anti-Slavic propaganda was still used by the Nazis.

For example, Danzig was actually originally Polish although the present-day area it is in now was settled by Celtic, Germanic and Baltic tribes as these groups are older than the Slavic tribes) and was founded under Poland yet the Nazis still said that Danzig is German because the Free City Of Danzig was over 90% ethnically German and Hitler and the Nazis wanted this back because it was taken away from Germany after WW1, the Nazis couldn't give a monkeys if it was originally Polish and belonged to Poland. Many borders have changed, the same as Silesia was originally German.

Also, the Nazis had the idea that Bolshevism was what Slavs belonged to and that Slavs were "born slaves" and the Germanic peoples were above all other Europeans (and non-Europeans) including Slavic peoples, Celtic people, Romance people, Baltic people and so on.

But there is nowhere that the Nazis said that the Slavs were not racially Aryans, quite the opposite - they acknowledged the Slavs as racially Aryans.

I find the way the information on the "Attitude towards Slavs" is somewhat not informative enough, all the stuff I put in is cited by credible sources and I see no reason why it was removed. It is important that the idea the Nazis had that Slavs were an inferior race was not racially but politically, the struggle against Jewish Bolshevism which the Slavs belonged to and that the Nazis needed Eastern Europe for living space for the German people it wasn't because Slavs are a different race to Germanics or anything like that, in fact there is just as many or possible even more Slavs with the "ideal Aryan traits" than what is found among Germanics.

I'm not going to say that the Nazis viewed Slavs as on the same level as Germanics but they did still view them as racially Aryans and many were still considered Aryans by the Nazis and there was also several attempts by the Nazis to Germanize the Slavs they found suitable, which included ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and so on. Also, there was many Slavs who had ranks within the Nazis, including Hitler's own chauffeur Erich Kempka who was an ethnic Pole. Goebbels also had a relationship (rather an affair) with an ethnic Czech, Lída Baarová. There was also many army divisions that was purely Slavic including Polish, Russian and Ukrainian who was on the Nazi side not the Soviets. Also not to be forgotten is the kidnapping of Polish children to be raised as Germanized Germans in Germany.

To say that the Nazis thought that all Slavs were subhuman is inaccurate and not correct. There is no doubt anti-Slavic propaganda was used for the invasion of Poland, the invasion of the USSR, the superiority of Germanics, the justification for living space in Eastern Europe but there is nowhere that they say that Slavs are not racially Aryans, I consider this section to be either a) be reverted to how I put it with the pictures that are currently on it or b) at least altered to make it more clear that the definition of an "Aryan" was not always racially motivated, there was many Germans (and Germanics) who were also deemed non-Aryan.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your assertion that the Nazis viewed the Slavs as Aryan. The sources quoted to not back up that claim. None of the sources I have checked so far back up that claim. -- Dianna (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The National Socialist Ahnenpaß understands Aryans expressly following persons, regardless of where they live in the world, "as an Englishman or Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian." Source here Clearly shows that the Nazis DID acknowledge the Slavs as racially Aryans. The source I provided shows that they were anti-Slavic because of the Bolshevik in the East/Eastern Europe which the Slavs belonged to.

The Ahnenpass I just showed you proves they considered Slavs as racially Aryans and there is no evidence that there did NOT consider them as racially Aryan.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A newspaper article by one unknown editorialist cannot take precedence over serious researchers such as Richard J. Evans and Peter Longerich. In The Holocaust (2010), Longerich says on page 30 that the Nazis conceived of a racial hierarchy with the people at the top being those with the purest Aryan blood. In his biography of Himmler (2012 - page 575), Longerich says that the Nazis defined the Aryan race as those of the Nordic race who spoke Germanic languages - the Teutons. Poles and Slavs were not included in the Aryan race, though they were considered racially superior to Jews and Gypsies. Himmler's policy was to eliminate all the Slavic people in Russia and Poland and replace them with Teutonic Germans (Longerich, 2012, page 579). -- Dianna (talk)

You are confusing the word "Aryan" with "master race" the same as Aryan is often confused with Nordic, Germanic and German.

Stefan Scheil is not an unknown historian to the Germans, the two historians you cited won't exactly be very popular in Germany (or German-speaking countries) will they? No.

Can you even refute the article I sent you instead of just deflecting it by saying he is an "unknown editorialist"? Show me anywhere that the Nazis actually say they are "not racially Aryan". The conception of 'Aryan' by Indo-European definition does include the Slavs.

The Nazis did not consider them racially inferior but rather politically inferior, they did view them lower than Germanics but so was the Celts and so as well. They considered many people 'racially inferior' to the Germanics than just the Slavs, like the Celts and Romantics and so on... below in the master race hierarchy.

Alfred Rosenberg The Myth of the Twentieth Century also considered Slavs to be Aryan, but lesser than Germans. He was pro-Nordic and believed the Germans were superior to everyone else (including other Germanics).

Himmler's own views regarding the Slavs does not necessarily mean the whole of Nazism considered Slavs to be racially inferior. Himmler also considered some Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and other Slavs to have Aryan "traits" (i.e Nordic) and were seen fit to be Germanised.

Also read this:

He [Himmler] then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. 'To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time' [Himmler said]. 'This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space (...) After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family (...) has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate (...) I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans (...) This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race (...) it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race (...) At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness (...) I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer. Silgailis, Artur: Latvian Legion. James Bender Publishing, 1986. p. 348 – 349

Also, I've found a Holocaust book that also says "The Nazis viewed Slavic peoples as Aryans".[3]

You need to remember this whole notion of Slavs being "inferior" was because the Nazis believed that the Germanics had a right to conquer Eastern Europe and enslave, expel or even exterminate the population there, they did view the Germanics as higher than any other Europeans, nobody doubts that but the idea of them being subhuman because of their racial origins is bonkers mad.

I have provided two sources which the first you just deflect and don't even bother to refute, it is also used and cited on other Wikipedia pages, it is a perfectly cited and fine source to use according to the rules.

Also another one when 'reverting' my edit says that it is about Nazi Germany not Slavs but the article regarding Nazi Germany's policy on Slavs needs to be more clear!

I'm not even Slavic but the way it is now is completely biased. Unless you can actually refute what I said then I see no reason to refute it.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What other accounts have you used in the past to edit Wikipedia? -- Dianna (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on behavioural evidence, I'd say it's likely that YS is the new account of a user who was blocked repeatedly under various names most recently as English Patriot Man. 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The user has been blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. I am glad I only wasted a minimal amount of time on this person's complaint. -- Dianna (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm starting a new talk page section where we can try to settle the wording of the opening paragraph of the lead. I have just put in a new amendment to say "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into a totalitarian state using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination)" and am posting here for discussion of this wording. -- Dianna (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. As I stated in an earlier discussion section "Dating of Nazi Germany & Hitler's dictatorship", it is important that general readers understand the transition or Gleichschaltung process which took place under the Nazis who then turned Germany into a totalitarian state (which became known as the Third Reich until 1945). Kierzek (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't had time yet to read all the old talk page discussions but will get to that soon. -- Dianna (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
it is important to state that nazi germany acually was a totalitarian state in the lede after Gleichschaltung, the one you proposed just mentions a transformation INTO a totalitarian state not that it was one Peterzor (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit; the sentence as written clearly states that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state after Gleichschaltung under Hitler's rule. Your alternative suggestion was grammatically confusing because of an incorrect use of tense. Malljaja (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
i have corrected my edits now and am mentioning the Gleichschaltung process Peterzor (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The version present in the article when I got home from work was poorly worded and did not impart the necessary information, so I reverted it. "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was a totalitarian state after the Gleichschaltung (coordination) process" -- this wording is not grammatically correct English and is difficult to understand for that reason. Also, it does not tell the reader that the nation changed from a republic to a totalitarian state. -- Dianna (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we not work on a compromise then? i think this is the olny and correct thing to do istead of going to war Peterzor (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do you want to remove the information that Germany changed from a republic to a totalitarian state? -- Dianna (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Because the lede is set at "into a totalitarian state" and does not actually state nazi germany as a totalitarian state as in my version "Germany WAS a totalitarian state" Peterzor (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It was not a totalitarian state until after the process of Gleichschaltung. The process changed it from a republic to a totalitarian state. -- Dianna (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I am reporting you for edit warring. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How about, "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into the totalitarian state known as the Third Reich using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination)". Just a thought. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking it might go into the opening sentence: "Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state". It would mean re-working the whole opening paragraph, but it might be worth doing, as we want to use the plainest easy-to-understand language. How about this for a starting point:

Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, was the totalitarian state that existed in Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into a dictatorship using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination). Nazi Germany ceased to exist at the end of World War II after the allied forces defeated the Wehrmacht in May 1945.

-- Dianna (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that it was not a totalitarian state until Aug. 1934; Hitler was in power since Jan. 1933; then the Nazi Gleichschaltung on a national basis began at full bore. So, one cannot say "during the period from 1933 to 1945". See the discussion above at "Dating of Nazi Germany & Hitler's dictatorship" for more detail. I am open to a re-write but the above must be kept in mind. Kierzek (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you are right and I am wrong. This is why saying "Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state" does not work—it's not true; it was only true for the period from August 1934 until the end of the war. Let's try again; how about this:

Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, was the state that existed in Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). Under Hitler's rule, Germany was gradually transformed from a republic to a totalitarian state using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination). Nazi Germany ceased to exist at the end of World War II after the allied forces defeated the Wehrmacht in May 1945.

-- Dianna (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds good, but I would take out the word, "gradually". Otherwise, I believe it covers the facts well. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
One of the interested parties has been blocked for edit warring, so it might be best to wait. -- Dianna (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

-Just to point out: being a totalitarian state (of whatever ideological persuasion) and being a republic are not mutually exclusive: China, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam, Myanmar, and many, many other states are both republics and totalitarian dictatorships. As the Weimar constitution was never repealed and indeed was still technically in effect throughout the existence of Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany was formally (and, in the sense it did not have a monarch, actually) a republic. Perhaps the words 'transformed from a democracy to a totalitarian state' would be better.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Why is the Motto not fully translated?

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer means One People, one Empire, one Leader

I feel the scare, to compare the english empire and some other to the Nazi Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias2Shalom (talkcontribs) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Translating Reich is problematic. The word designates a state (or group of states under one rule). If ruled by an emperor (Kaiser), it is an empire (Kaiserreich), if ruled by a king (König), it is a kingdom (Königreich). Reich cannot easily be translated when it refers to a territory that is ruled by neither an emperor nor a king; so the word has been adopted in English as a loan word. Cf. The Chambers Dictionary: "Reich: the German state; Germany as an empire (the First Reich) . . . and Third Reich as a dictatorship under the Nazi regime . . .. If we wanted to avoid the loan word and avoid mistranslation, we could translate the slogan as "One people, one state, one leader".--Boson (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I like "state" better than "realm", which implies a kingdom governed by a sovereign. -- Dianna (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Since it's a commonly used loanword we could simply keep it as Reich and wikilink it (although that article could do with improving). (Hohum @) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Reich has become a commonly used loanword; however, I don't feel strongly about it; state is better than realm. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
"State" would be an unusual translation for "Reich." And Reich is used enough in English such that it does not need to be translated. And this has been discussed at length before. Bytwerk (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Bytwerk, could you please explain why you think "reich" needs to be capitalised in the motto? Unlike German, we don't capitalise nouns in English unless they are proper nouns. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

'Nazi Germany' corroboration?

The first sentence of this article starts off "Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is the common name for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945..." Aside from debate about the exact period this article covers, what evidence is given for the *common* use of this phrase, as opposed to 'Wartime Germany', 'Hitler's Germany', 'Third Reich Germany'? Can it be shown to be a universal term used equally by all nations and academic disciplines? I would suggest that it is not an accurate description, a viewpoint shared by Richard Overy in the web page

Would it be accurate to refer to 'Communist Russia' or would 'Soviet Union' be more accurate?

Robata (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Odd as Richard Overy seems to be saying the opposite, that the term is over used but not really valid. Thus the sentence in the lead would be correct, it is the common name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence makes the claim that the term is in common use but no source is provided to back up this claim. You seem to suggest that Mr Overy supports that assumption so perhaps he should be listed as a source? If academics state that use of a term should be restricted and it is not generally applicable, should it be used? (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not academics who say the use of the term "Nazi" is overused. It's one historian – Richard Overy - in one editorial. The editorial actually could be used as a source for the claim that this is the most common term for the era. Google hits on the various phrases used above are as follows: "Nazi Germany" gets 10.1 million hits; "Hitler's Germany": 554,000 hits; "wartime Germany": 41,500 hits "Third Reich Germany": 36,100 hits. -- Dianna (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the Google ngrams viewer, based on Google Books, it looks as if "Third Reich" is slightly more common in British English, and "Nazi Germany" is slightly more common in US English, but there's not much in it:

"Nazi Germany" seems to have been used more frequently during the War and the post-War period (1943-1968); that was probably the period with more anti-German sentiment.--Boson (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Core Contest, Peer Review, Good Article nomination

As my entry in WP:The Core Contest, I undertook improvements to this article during the period from 15 April to 12 May. The article was completely re-written, and is almost ready for a GA nomination, which will happen at the end of the month, once some real-life tasks are completed. As part of the Core Contest, a Peer Review was done, which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1. One of the people who responded to the Peer Review noted that the lead was too long and detailed, and a lot of effort was put into trimming it down to its present size. Incorrect and overly-detailed information was removed from the lead by me just now with this edit. Further discussion is welcome -- Dianna (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I also have been following the Peer Review in the edits I have made recently to improve the article. The lede is only to be a summary of the main article. Further it is important to keep the byte size of the article down, as well. Therefore, I agree with Dianna's edits herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted Peterzor's removal of the phrase "which brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control", as the addition of this explanation was specifically requested in the peer review. Wikipedia:Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1. Please feel free to discuss this edit here on the talk page. Thanks, -- Dianna (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
now i have correted my edit as SPECIFICALLY requested wording at the Wikipedia:Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1 it does not support "which brought all civilian organisatins except the church under party control"THIS wording is the one really requested "he NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung (coordination) to rapidly centralize their power and control over Germany" Peterzor (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me like you've got it backwards, Peterzor. The previous wording, which you have just re-added, was found to not adequately explain and define the term Gleichschaltung. That's what is needed here, is a definition of the foreign word, not an explanation of what the process of Gleichschaltung was trying to achieve. At least that's the way I am reading Boson's comment. -- Dianna (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I think my comment is a bit poorly worded so I am going to add something. What Boson wants to see (in my opinion) is not just a translation of the German word, and not just an explanation of what the end result of the process would be, but rather an explanation of what the process itself entailed. So I changed the wording in the lead from "to rapidly centralize their power and control over Germany" to read "which brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control" and added more explanation of the process to the body of the article. Perhaps if we add the phrase "brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control" to the sentence? the sentence would then read "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into a dictatorship using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination) to rapidly centralise their power and control over Germany by bringing all civilian organisations except the church under party control." Or here's an even better wording: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into a dictatorship using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination). This process brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control and rapidly centralised their power and control over Germany." The source for this information is Evans (2005) page 14 of the paperback edition.-- Dianna (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Dianna, the second one suggested by you above is the one we should use. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


The section on casualties needs to be improved. For starters, R. J. Rummel's estimates are not generally accepted by historians, we need to cite others besides Rummel. Timothy Snyder put the victims of the Nazis killed only as result of deliberate policies of mass murder such as executions, deliberate famine and in death camps at 10.4 million persons including 5.4 million Jews. The German scholar Hellmuth Auerbach puts the death toll in the Hitler era at 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust and 7 million other victims of the Nazis.Dieter Pohl puts the total number of victims of the Nazi era at between 12 and 14 million persons, including 5.6–5.7 million Jews. According to the College of Education of the University of South Florida Approximately 11 million people were killed because of Nazi genocidal policy--Woogie10w (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We went through all this for the Hitler article, all that needs to be done is copy edit it over with cites. Kierzek (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Woogie10w. There's extensive discussion on this topic at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. Note that Snyder's figures only include the killings that took place within the geographic area covered by his book, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. -- Dianna (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW Snyder cites Dieter Pohl for many of his figures. Pohl's book Verfolgung und Massenmord in der NS-Zeit 1933–1945,is a concise guide to the crimes of the Hitler period. I hope it is translated into English. The younger generation of historians in Germany has confronted the issue of the Nazi crimes, 40 years ago it was a taboo subject for too many Germans--Woogie10w (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case Diannaa, the casualty section needs a cleanup ASAP

Re casualties Article reads- and millions of German civilians The sources cited here do not support this statement and should be removed:

German Armed Forces Military History Research Office (1979–2008). Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Bd. 9/1. Beiträge zur Militär- und Kriegsgeschichte (in German). Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. ISBN 3-421-06236-6. "Gesetz über das Staatsoberhaupt des Deutschen Reichs. § 1" [Law Regarding the Head of State of the German Empire. § 1] (in German). 1 August 1934.

This source deals with a 1934 law on the head of state not casualties.

Spieler, Silke, ed. (1989). Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen, 1945–1948 :

Covers only expulsions and puts total losses at 600,00--Woogie10w (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have something different. That's your document → [60]. However, the cited source, page 460! is "Band 9/1: Ralf Blank u.a.: Die deutsche Kriegsgesellschaft 1939 bis 1945 – Erster Halbband: Politisierung, Vernichtung, Überleben, Im Auftrag des MGFA hrsg. von Jörg Echternkamp, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 2004, XIV, 993 S. ISBN 978-3-421-06236-9", page 460.--IIIraute (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, someone added this in the last 24 hr and I assumed it was OK. I will revert to the previous version right now. -- Dianna (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I find it rather irritating to see that an article about Germany (1939-1945) that is up for GA review does not include any German casualties (military and civilian). Woogie10w, you know the numbers published by the German government.--IIIraute (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Flight and expulsion of Germans: In 2006 the German government reaffirmed its belief that 2,2 million civilians perished. They maintain that the figure is correct because it includes additional post war deaths from malnutrition and disease of those civilians subject to the expulsions. --IIIraute (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
IIIraute that statement of 2.0 million by Bergner is pure politics for a German audience: The German government does not want to reopen the issue and investigate the number of deaths. Bergner: Also ich habe die damit befassten Referate konsultiert und die Antwort, die ich erhalten habe, gibt jedenfalls für mich keinen Anlass, jetzt, im viel größeren zeitlichen Abstand, hier noch einmal Ermittlungen und zusätzliche Erhebungen zu beginnen. Aber ich bin sehr dafür, dass wir den Prozess der Aussöhnung mit Polen fortsetzen und ernst nehmen. [61]--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Questioned on whether the government figures are accurate: "I have consulted the relevant departments, and the answer I did receive, does not give occasion - now, or in the near future - to reopen further investigations and inquiries." But that's quite a clear statement, or not? --IIIraute (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel makes this article look real foolish, the man is generally accepted as an authority on casualties. Outside of Wikipedia one finds few places that cite Rummel. If you add all of his figures over 75 million people were killed in Europe in WW2 1939-45. The war itself 29 million, famine 7.0 million, Stalin 18 million and Hitler 21 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to word this and what sources should be used are welcome. These figures by Auerbach and Pohl look useful. Could you please provide citation details on these sources? -- Dianna (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Give me a few minuets to do a quick and dirty piece for you guys to review.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, we can probably update several articles with improved figures and citations. Thanks so much. -- Dianna (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The military casualties of Nazi Germany included men conscripted in Germany within 1937 borders, Austria and the ethnic Germans of east-central Europe. A recent study by the German historian de:Rüdiger Overmans put military dead and missing at 5.3 million. According to the German government civilian deaths due to allied strategic bombing were 410,000 in Germany within 1937 borders and 24,000 in Austria. Civilian deaths also include 300,000 Germans (including Jews) who were victims of Nazi political, racial and religious persecution and that 200,000 were murdered in the Nazi euthanasia program. Civilian deaths due to the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) and the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union are sometimes included with World War II casualties, during the Cold War the West German government estimated the death toll at 2.2 million. This figure was to remain unchallenged until the 1990s when some German historians put the actual death toll in the expulsions at 500,000 confirmed deaths. The German Red Cross still maintains that death toll in the expulsions is 2.2 million.

I have the sources to back up these figures--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you post the sources here on the talk page so I can help you format them? We are using Harvard citations with sfn templates, which not everyone has seen before. Your paragraph can be used to replace the first paragraph of "casualties", and it's actually better, because it's Germany-specific. I have copy-edited your paragraph and removed some material about deaths in the Soviet Union, which while interesting, is not really relevant to this article. Here's what I have got so far (spots are marked where cites are needed):

Proposed Draft--Woogie10w (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

World War II was responsible for more than 40 million dead in Europe.[4]. Most estimates of the victims of the Nazi regime, including 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, range between 11 [5] and 14 million persons [6] However according to political scientist Rudolph Rummel, the Nazi regime was responsible for the democidal killing of an estimated 20.9 million civilians and prisoners of war.[7] In addition to the victims of the Nazi regime, 29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre of World War II.[8]

Estimates for total German war dead, within 1937 borders, range from 5.5 to 6.9 million persons. [9]A study by the German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts German military dead and missing at 5.3 million, including 900,000 men conscripted from outside of Germany's 1937 borders, in Austria, and in east-central Europe.[10] According to the German government, civilian deaths due to allied strategic bombing were 410,000 and 20,000 in the land campaign[11] Other civilian deaths include 300,000 [12]Germans (including Jews) who were victims of Nazi political, racial, and religious persecution and 200,000 [13]who were murdered in the Nazi euthanasia program. Political courts called Sondergerichte sentenced some 12,000 members of the German resistance to death, and civil courts sentenced an additional 40,000 Germans.[14] By 1950 over eleven million ethnic Germans fled or were expelled from east-central Europe to Germany.[15] [16]During the Cold War, the West German government estimated a death toll of 2.2 million civilians due to the flight and expulsion of Germans and through forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

This figure remained unchallenged until the 1990s, when some German historians revised the death toll to 500,000 confirmed deaths.[17][18]The German Red Cross still maintains that the death toll in the expulsions is 2.2 million.[19]Mass rapes of German women also took place.[20]

At the end of the war, Europe had more than 40 million refugees,[21] its economy had collapsed, and 70 per cent of its industrial infrastructure was destroyed.[22]

-- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Must I put source in bibliography before I use this cite ref system? I really should know this after seven yrs of editing on Wikipedia, sorry --Woogie10w (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The movement of Germans involved a total of at least 12 million people, with some sources putting the figure at 14 million. What about the 1945 military land campaign (non-strategic bombing) civilian- and 22,000 Battle for Berlin casualties?--IIIraute (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
We should not get hung up on petty details in this short section on casualties. This is only a summary. The article German casualties in World War II covers all these fine points. I hope this excercise does not turn into a laundry list of war dead and a place to plug the number of victims of each and every ethnic group.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Petty details?? All civilian deaths during the 1945 land campaign and the Battle of Berlin, are "petty details"? The topic of this article is "Germany". Also, this needs a change: "The German Red Cross still maintains that the death toll in the expulsions is 2.2 million." - so does the German government.--IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
@IIIraute: We can add that too, if you have got sources. I think Woogie is right when he says the article needs to stay focused on German casualties, not for the whole European theatre or the whole war. @Woogie, I will put some general instructions for using the {{sfn}} templates on your talk page. The system is fairly new, but it's ideal for articles that are sourced mostly to books and journal articles. -- Dianna (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I am talking about German civilian casualties during the 1945 Allied land campaign, and the Battle of Berlin. They are not included yet.--IIIraute (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
What you need to do is present some sourced content, and then we can try to work it into the revised section. Word count is a problem on articles like this one. Wikipedia guidelines for size call for articles to be no more than 10,000 words maximum, and as of this moment we are sitting at 12,625 words. Wikipedia:Article size. People on slow connections or trying to view the page on their cell phone or other mobile device are likely having trouble loading the page. That's why we have to be choosy about what we include, and how much detail we go into. If you have sources that give total German civilian deaths from all causes, that would be ideal, as so far I have not found any such summaries. -- Dianna (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Dianna I agree but I have no doubt that in the future ethnic warriors will show up and plug in inflated figures for their country--Woogie10w (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On the 12-14 million "Flight and expulsion of Germans: Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II, preface, xii. → fourteen million expelled, 2 million dead.[62]
For the 2,25 million Red Cross and government figure sources are available here Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)#Casualties and this 2006 government reaffirmation[63], for example.--IIIraute (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Re Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II, I remember it being deleted as spam, in any case there were 11.9 million expellees in 1950, including 300,000 born 1946-50.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
please support your claim.--IIIraute (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
22,000 Battle of Berlin civilian casualties: Antill, Peter (2006), Berlin 1945, Osprey, page 85. ISBN 978-1-84176-915-8 --IIIraute (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Civilians Killed in 1945 Land Battles: 20,000 → German casualties in World War II#Total Population Losses 1939-1946--IIIraute (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can't use Wikipedia itself for a source. External sources will have to be found: Books, journal articles, reliable newspapers, etc. I will look at your other sources later, Illraute. I am moving a copy of the draft to my sandbox to work on the citations. -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not - the sources are right there at the article → Sources for figures: Wirtschaft und Statistik October 1956, Journal published by Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (German government Statistical Office).--IIIraute (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you personally looked at the source? We cannot add it unless the source has been checked out. -- Dianna (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"Durch Endkämpfe umgekommene Zivilpersonen": 20,000"Source: Wirtschaft und Statistik October 1956, pp. 493-500, as well as → [64]--IIIraute (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Air Raids: Why only within 1937 borders - dead German civilians within the 1943 borders are still German casualties → [65]--IIIraute (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Expulsion of Germans, ca. 2,2 million [66]--IIIraute (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Civilian populatian losses [67]--IIIraute (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute I suggest that we use the Statistisches Bundesamt figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute that Red Cross figure of 2.252 million stands alone without any support. You are told by the government it is true and you must accept it on faith. If you disagree, well they will tell you where to go. Rüdiger Overmans maintains that their are 872,051 cases with no information provided are “Karteileichen”( “card corpses)of persons who could not be traced because insufficient information was provided and therefore of doubtful validity. He considers this to be the most important consideration in the analysis of expulsion losses--Woogie10w (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec):But you also mention other sources. Please also add the 2006 German government reaffirmation to the "Red Cross" sentence. That's what Bergner said → Questioned on whether the government figures are accurate: "I have consulted the relevant departments, and the answer I did receive, does not give occasion - now, or in the near future - to reopen further investigations and inquiries."--IIIraute (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Schieder commission, Red Cross, German 1958 report; reaffirmed in 2006.--IIIraute (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Expellees as defined by German Law

Category of Expellees(pre war origin) 1950 1982
1 - Pre-war Eastern Europe and Oder-Neisse region 11,890,000 15,150,000
2 - Pre-war Soviet Union 100,000 250,000
3 - Germans from west of Oder Neisse Resettled during war 460,000 500,000
4 - Pre-war Western Europe and Abroad 235,000 240,000
5 - Resettled in Western Europe during war 65,000 80,000
Total 12,750,000 16,220,000

Source: Gerhard Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, part 1, Bonn: 1995, pp. 44–59

--Woogie10w (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Merten number includes people like Erika Steinbach who were resettled in Poland during the war and children born in post war Germany. Merten's figure is inflated propaganda. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But they had still settled and were moved. On the casualties: Schieder commission, Red Cross, German 1958 report; reaffirmed in 2006. The government maintains that the figure is correct because it includes additional post war deaths from malnutrition and disease of those civilians subject to the expulsions --IIIraute (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote But they had still settled and were moved Go tell that to the 1.0 million Polish people who were evicted by Hitlers goons back in 1940 to amke room for the resettlers--Woogie10w (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
what has this to do with the fact that they had settled and were moved?--IIIraute (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The resettlers were what we in America call Carpetbaggers, the Poles sent them back to Germany where they came from, they were not expelled from their 800 year old house because it was Polish house in the first place--Woogie10w (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Many of the children were born there; ergo, they were expelled from their place of birth - I also find your "death certificate" (Karteileichen) confirmed deaths argumentation rather distasteful. Just imagine! you'd do the same for Soviet POWs and Polish or Jewish casualties. The source does explain very well on what the numbers are based (including people whose fate is unknown/went missing and their death never got confirmed). They have still perished!--IIIraute (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case we need to see the details of the figures of the Search Service, and understand what they mean.

There were 473,013 confirmed deaths and 1,905,991 Unsolved Cases -Details of the 1,905,991 Unsolved Cases - Deported 68,416; Interned 17,704; Missing 768,010; Deaths 179,810; No Information provided(ohne jeden Hinweis) 872,051. Rüdiger Overmans maintains that the 872,051 cases with no information provided are “Karteileichen”( “card corpses)of persons who could not be traced because insufficient information was provided and therefore of doubtful validity. He considers this to be the most important consideration in the analysis of the 1.9 million unsolved cases

You wrote-I also find your "death certificate" (Karteileichen) confirmed deaths argumentation rather distasteful. Overmans used the term Karteileichen not I.

Also re the resettlers in Poland the Statistisches Bundesamt did not include them in the 1958 study, they are not inincluded in the figures released by Bonn. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Woogie10w: I am ready to add what we have got prepared so far, but I need page numbers for the second citation to Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, 1939/50, where it says there were death toll of 2.2 million civilians due to the flight and expulsion of Germans and through forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. Also, page numbers for Haar 2009 and Kammerer and Kammerer 2005 please. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have hard copies of these sources, I can send PDF files via E mail if needed for verification:

Re Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, 1939/50, Pages 38 and 46

Re Haar 2009 Pages 363 to 381- On page 378 Harr writes " "Die zahl der konkert bezeugten Opfer belauft sich jedoch nicht mehr als auf 0.5 bis 0.6 Mio Personnen ingesamt"--Woogie10w (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Kammerer and Kammerer page 12--Woogie10w (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia I try bore down to get the details of a number posted so readers can judge for themselves. Some authors and politicians become ethnic warriors and take the high number or the low number in order to push a POV--Woogie10w (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not want to ascribe bias to anyone - however I would like to have an answer on why a "Germany (1933-1945)" article on GA-review, did not have "any" figures on German casualties in the casualties section. I will provide more sources.--IIIraute (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Illraute, I spent four to five hours a day, every day from April 15 to May 12, doing a complete re-write of this article as my entry for WP:The Core Contest. The reason the article did not have these statistics is because the sources I used to do the re-write did not contain them, so sorry. I did as much as I could possibly do in the time available using the sources I have available locally (Alberta, Canada). Obviously any article on this wiki can and should be improved when additional sources can be found. Note that though it likely will be nominated for GA at the end of the month, the article is not presently on GA review. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Dianna, What about the 1st paragraph with the 40 million?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need it? We don't want the article to be about WWII in general, and that info is available elsewhere. -- Dianna (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
We have to be concerned about length, and Nick-D remarked in the Peer Review that the article needs to focus on Nazi Germany, its people, and its economy etc. So I am inclined to leave it out. -- Dianna (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Good work Dianna--Woogie10w (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I am logging off now, ttyl. -- Dianna (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


why did someone remove my new improved compromise Peterzor (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is conveying in better grammar, the same information. Kierzek (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
if you consider it to be the same thing why do you bother then? and it is better grammar "rapidly centralised their power and control over Germany and all organisations except the church" what EXACTLY is wrong with grammar there? Peterzor (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The phrase at the end, "and all organisations except the church", just kind of dangles there without a verb. It's not grammatically correct English. I suspect that English is not your first language, Peterzor, so you might have to take my word for it that it's grammatically incorrect. I am posting another wording. -- Dianna (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Large addition about slavs

Editor Yamaha Spirit has added a very large section on Slavs to the article, which I removed as giving this topic undue weight. Jews were the main victims of the Nazi regime, not Slavs. I have reverted the addition twice now, and have brought the matter here for the discussion and opinions of other editors. -- Dianna (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow! What about using numbers? The number of dead Slavs was much higher than the number of dead Jews.
Many German Jews were expelled before the war and survived, the French ones were preserved, the Ostjuden were the main victims. Nothing is obvious.

Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xx236. I don't think you have read the peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1. One of the reviewers specifically suggested the removal of peripheral material to leave room for more details on the impact the regime had on Germany, its people, and its economy. Detailed information on the various victims of the regime are better covered in articles about those topics, not here. -- Dianna (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
If it was only "tweaking" of detail (and text) to a small degree, that would be okay; as long as it was cited properly. But otherwise, I would have to agree with Diannaa, per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay maybe not as much as what I put it does need to be emphasized maybe in an additional paragraph that the Nazis still did consider them as racially Aryans but the notion of Slavs being a "racially inferior" peoples was for the political ideologies of Nazi Germany's expansion into Eastern Europe and the fact that the Jewish Bolshevism was said what Slavs belonged to and thus a threat to the Aryan race.

Read below for what I put, I feel that the Slav section is somewhat mis-leading and needs to be made more clearer, for example the Ahnenpass document stated:

"wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian". Source here, of course like I said it should also mention that there still was anti-Slavic propaganda used for many reasons, the expansion, the invasion of Poland and the USSR, etc etc.

The section on Slavs needs to be made more clear, many "pure Slavs" not just Slavs that were deemed to have Germanic blood in them were also fit to be accepted as Aryans.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing is that the Nazis also considered Slavs to be barbarians and would lead to collapse of the Western civilization and that the Jews were running the power in Russia - which again is in accordance to the invasion of the USSR.Source here--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Länder were not abolished.

The organisational reforms undertaken from 1934 did not abolish the various lander of Germany, as is claimed in the article.

'Atlas of Nazi Germany', page 44 states:

'The Länder still existed on paper and were used for some government departments such as health care', and rather helpfully gives us a map of the Third Reich in 1942 showing the Länder and Reichsgau.

'Governing Germany' by William E. Patterson and David Southern, edited by Gillian Pale (1991), states on page 144: (note: bold text is mine)

"The Nazis suppressed but did not destroy regional and municipal autonomy. The Reich Reconstruction Law of 30 January 1934 transferred to the Reich all sovereign powers still held by the Länder. All Prussian ministries were merged with their Reich counterparts. Otherwise the state cabinets remained in existence but they became the agents and appointees of the Reich government. Both the state legislatures and elected local authorities were dissolved permanently. A Reich Governor (Reichstadthalter) was appointed to supervise each state government, who in almost all cases was a Gauleiter...All Prussian civil servants were transferred to Reich authorities. All the seventeen states existing in 1933 were retained as administrative units, apart from Lübeck, which was deprived of its Länd status in 1937, reputably because it was the only Länd in which Hitler had never been allowed to speak in the Weimar period. Quite distinct from the federal states, the Nazis established thirty-two party districts (Gaue), each headed by a Gauleiter. The Reichsrat was abolished."

-yes, they lost most of their former autonomy, yes, they were largely replaced by the Gaue, but they were not abolished. The Nazis even bothered to abolish Lubeck as a separate Länd and merge the two Länder of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Mecklenburg-Schwerin. This was why the allies during the occupation could abolish Prussia in 1947 (because it had still existed throughout this period), why they could reorganise the Länder (because they had never been abolished), and why people like Goering could for example still be appointed minister-president of a specific Länder.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Evans (2005) page 47 says that on 30 January 1934 a new law "abolished all the federated states, from Prussia downwards, along with their governments and parliaments. ... Characteristically, however, some elements of federalism remained, so the process of dissolution was incomplete." Shirer (page 275) says a series of laws passed from 1933 to 1935 "deprived the municipalities of their local autonomy and brought them under dircet control of the Reich Minister of the Interior". The article already says that the process was incomplete, and gives Goering's situation in Prussia as an example. So I am unclear what edit you are proposing. -- Dianna (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. If Prussia and the other Länder has been abolished, (as Evans puts it) then why:

  • were minister-presidents appointed for the each Länder right up to 1945?
  • were Reichstadthalter appointed to oversee the governments of each Länder, if these Länder had supposedly been abolished?
  • did official Acts and Laws continue to mention them? (Prussia, Oldenburg, Hamburg and Lubeck are all mentioned in the text of the Greater Hamburg Act,, even though they had all supposedly been abolished.)
  • do government publications continue to mention them?
  • do official maps continue to show them?
  • did the Allied Control Council need to abolish Prussia in 1947 if it had already been abolished in 1934?
  • did the maps the allies used to show how Germany was to be occupied after the war, made in 1945, show the Länder? This official US Army map: Source shows the Allied occupation zones superimposed over the Lander and the Prussian Provinces, all with the adjustments made by the Nazis after 1934-including the merging of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Mecklenburg-Schwerin in 1934 to form the single land of Mecklenburg in 1934, the abolition of Lubeck and other territorial adjustments made in 1937, and the New Prussian Provinces created in 1944.

-Evans is just incorrect in this instance. The Länder were largely reduced to an irrelevance, but they most certainly were not abolished, whereas it states in the article that they were abolished.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason the names continued to be used is because the process was incomplete. "Largely reduced to an irrelevance", sure, but they were officially dissolved. Your demonstrations that the names were still in use and therefore Evans is wrong, is another case of original research on your part. -- Dianna (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I've provided sources, so how the hell is that original research?!?

Nope, it wasn't merely the names that were kept, the Lander officially still existed.Prussia was not abolished by the Nazis in January 1933, it was abolished by the Allied Control Council Order No. 46. on February 25th, 1947.

See here, cited in 'Germany 1947-1949, a Story In Documents', by the United States Department of State:

Here is the order in full:

"ABOLITION OF THE STATE OF PRUSSIA Control Council Law No. 46 and Excerpt from Report of Military Governor [ February 25, 1947]

The Prussian State which from early days has been a bearer of militarism and reaction in Germany has de facto ceased to exist.

Guided by the interests of preservation of peace and security of peoples and with the desire to assure further reconstruction of the political life of Germany on a democratic basis, the Control Council enacts as follows:

Article I The Prussian State together with its central government and all its agencies is abolished.

Article II Territories which were a part of the Prussian State and which are at present under the supreme authority of the Control Council will receive the status of Laender or will be absorbed into Laender.

The provisions of this Article are subject to such revision and other provisions as may be agreed upon by the Allied Control Authority, or as may be laid down in the future Constitution of Germany.

Article III The State and administrative functions as well as the assets and liabilities of the former Prussian State will be transferred to appropriate Laender, subject to such agreements as may be necessary and made by the Allied Control Authority.

Article IV This law becomes effective on the day of its signature.

Done at Berlin on 25 February 1947.

P. KOENIG, Général d'Armée

V. SOKOLOVSKY, Marshal of the Soviet Union


B. H. ROBERTSON for Sir SHOLTO DOUGLAS Marshal of the Royal Air Force

[ February 1947]

Control Council Law No. 46, signed on 25 February, liquidates the State of Prussia, its central government, and all its agencies. This law is in the nature of a confirming action; the eleven provinces and administrative districts of prewar Prussia have since the beginning of the occupation been split up among the Soviet, British, and U.S. Zones and Poland."

-Now, how is that possible if Prussia had been abolished in 1934?

As Patterson and Southern showed, the Prussian government and cabinet was not abolished, but it was 'bought in line' with the Reich government.

The standard history of Prussia, 'Iron Kingdom: Rise and Fall of Prussia 1600-1947' by Christopher Clark (2007) (oh look; 1947-funny that, thought it had been abolished in 1934) here:

agrees with everything that Patterson and Southern said as regards Prussia. It states:

"The Law on the Reorganisation of the Reich of January 1934 placed regional governments and the new imperial commissars under the direct authority of the Reich ministry of the interior. The Prussian ministries were gradually merged with their Reich counterparts (with the exception for technical reasons of finance) and plans were drawn up (though they remained unrealized in 1945) to partition the state into its constituent provinces. Prussia was still an official designation and remained a name on the map."

The Atlas of Nazi Germany, as I stated earlier, shows a map of Greater Germany in 1942, showing the Lander, the Prussian Provinces, and the Reichsgau formed from the conquered territories. It also states that, though the Gau largely had took over the role that the Lander had prior to 1934, they were retained for purposes of (and I quote), health and education. This map is on page 59: it also shows how the Nazis created, the example they give is Thuringia on page 57, showing how the Gau Thuringia (the local party region), the Land Thuringia, and other local agencies, for the Army (Kreis IX), Railways, and others, were given boundaries that deliberately did not match so Hitler could foster competition and dissent in the lower ranks of the Nazi hierachy

on page 60 it states in relation to this:

"...more often intensified its structual and jurisdictional chaos, was pluralism in the holding of offices. This found most widespread expression in relation to the Party. The offices of Reich Governor (reichstatthalter) for the lander were largely filled by existing Gauleiter. Thus there was a fusion of personnel authority even if the territorial boundaries of the respective domains did not match."

The Theory and Practice of Modern Government, by Herman Finer (Prager, 1971) states on pages 213-214, in the sections 'Federalism, Germany 1918-39' and 'Nazi Federalism':

"The particularist sentiment even defeated the avowed intention of Hitler's government to resubdivide the Reich into entirely new administrative areas. The nazis talked much, in the early years, for plans for the establishment of economic-physiographic regions in place of the historic dynastic state boundaries, together with some return to ancient tribal regions (Gaue) as parts of the Reich. On November 15, 1934, Dr. Frick, Reich Minister of the Interior , stated that in the near future the Reich would be reorganised into twenty regions (Reichsgau), with three to four million inhabitants each. "These new regions," he declared, "and their governors will be instruments through which the Reich government will impose its authority on the humblest hamlet." These regions "will rest on considerations of an economic and geographic nature dictated by national interests." Earlier, Goebbels had enunciated a plan to set up thirteen tribal provinces, and other nazi leaders had propogated similar ideas. The matter was lost to view; it was probably never anything but romantic talk; military-economic tasks were far more important. Little terriorial reform was actually accomplished. On January 1, 1934, the two states of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz were unified into one state of Mecklenburg, and in 1937 the free city of Lübeck was incorporated into Prussia. Otherwise only minor boundary corrections were made between Bavaria and Wurttemberg and between Prussia and her neighbors, Oldenburg, Hamburg, Mecklenburg, Anhalt, Hesse, and Schaumberg-Lippe; these were made in 1934 and 1935, following a trend already apparent during the last years of the Weimar Republic. Exchanges of territory of somewhat greater importance occured between Prussia on the one hand and Hamburg (1937), Oldenburg (1937), Bremen (1939), Brunswick (1941), and Anhalt (1942) on the other. The opposition to territorial reform came largely from two sources: (1) the Prussian aristocracy objected to any division of Prussia, which any through reform would involve; and (2) many nazi jobholders, headed by Goering as Prussian Premier, feared that their positions would be abolished by territorial change. Prussia was incorporated in the Reich, but not fully. The führer became the governor of Prussia; but on April 11, 1933, he appointed Goering Minister-President and entrusted him with his powers. Goering was responsible, therefore, only to Hitler. By a law of July 20, 1933, the twelve provincial councils were changed from elective legislatures to honorary advisory bodies appointed by the Minister-President. The provincial chief presidents (Oberpraesidenten) were thus given all executive, legislative and administrative power. By the decree of November 27, 1934, they were made nationally appointive and were given increased powers, so that they then occupied a status similar to that of national governors, that is, agents-general of the Reich, while as an inheritance of the older régimes they had detailed local administrative powers beyond those of the governors. Yet they were responsible to both the Reich and Prussia. All Prussian ministries, except the prime ministership and the Ministry of Finances, were amalgamated with the corresponding Reich ministries, so that for many years, Prussian government, laws, and budget, still prevailed. In September, 1944, Prussian finances were also taken over by the Reich "in order to set free additional manpower for the conduct of the war." The status of Prussia in the Third Reich was the reverse of that in the Bismarck constitution. Prussia was intermerged with the Reich: the Reich dominated, but did not abolish, Prussia. Yet the personal relationship between Hermann Goering, the Prime Minister of Prussia, and Hitler, meant that Prussia was still a weighty, leading element in the Reich, with a power of independent leadership."

-So see? Not abolished. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Another step was taken on 30 January 1934 when, under pressure from the Reich Interior Ministry under the Nazi Wilhelm Frick, a new law abolished all the federated states, from Prussia downwards, along with their governments and parliaments, and merged their ministries into the corresponding Reich Ministries." Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-14-303790-3.  The source you are quoting from says essentially the same thing on page 211-212. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet Finer states: "Prussia was intermerged with the Reich: the Reich dominated, but did not abolish, Prussia" as well as "The particularist sentiment even defeated the avowed intention of Hitler's government to resubdivide the Reich into entirely new administrative areas.".Patterson and Southern state the "state cabinets remained in existence but they became the agents and appointees of the Reich government", and the Allied Control Council Order No. 46 states "The Prussian State together with its central government and all its agencies is abolished. (i.e. both Prussia and its central government continued to exist prior to this date, which indeed they did.)

I get what Evans, and indeed everyone is saying, but it is incorrect to state that the Länder were abolished: they were reduced to an irrelevance by the existence of the Gau (which were by the way only theoretically regional divisions of the Nazi Party), and their governments were headed and controlled by the local Gauleiters (as stated in the above sources), but they were not formally abolished. The Nazis spoke about it in speechs and indeed drew up plans to do so, but it was never carried through. The present day German Länder are direct continuations of these Länder; Bavaria, Saxony, Bremen Hamburg being identical, the others being formed from the remainer which were merged with various Prussian Provinces after Prussia's abolition by the allies. They were not de jure abolished.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This map:


-which by the way is the same as the map in 'Atlas of Nazi Germany', shows Prussia (marked in sky blue, the other Lander and the Reichsgau of Greater Germany in 1944. This map:

NS administrative Gliederung 1944.png

shows the Nazi Gau, that is (theoretically) the Regional divisions of the NSDAP. Note that the boundaries of Germany itself are the same in both maps (though the first map doesn't show the general-government). Many of the Gauleiters (Head of the Gau) simultaneously held the posts of Minister-President (Head of the civilian government of the Länd of Thuringia) or Reichstadthalter (Representative of the Reich government in each Länder)of their local Länder, or in the case of areas within Prussia, they were appointed Oberprasident (Provincial Governor) or their local Province.

So, for example, Fritz Sauckel was at the same time Gauleiter of the Gau Thuringen-head of the party in Thuringia, whilst at the same time he was Minister-President of the Free State of Thuringia-head of the civilian government in Thuringia, whilst he was also Reichsstatthalter of the Free State of Thuringia, that is, the person responsible for keeping the government of the Free State of Thuringia in line with the wishes and dictates of the Nazi Reich government. This continued right up until 1945, despite the intentions of Frick, Goebbels and others to abolish the Länder.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

These huge walls of text are problematic for me. Can you instead please give a proposed new wording and list what citations you have that support the change? Please keep in mind that the article is already 2700 words over the recommended 10000-word limit, and thus we can't afford to add a lot more material here. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the word 'abolished' is inaccurate, as they were demonstratably not abolished.

Is the following too long?

"A law promulgated 30 January 1934 abolished the autonomy of the existing Länder (constituent states) of Germany and largely replaced them with the new administrative divisions of Nazi Germany, the Gaue, headed by the NSDAP leaders (Gauleiters), who effectively became the governor of their region. Officials known as Reichsstatthalter were appointed to oversee the governments of various Länder, in many instances, this position was given to the local party gauleiter. However, the Länder still existed on paper, and were used for some government departments, such as health and education, and prominent Nazi officials were made minister-presidents of certain Länder. For example, Göring remained the Reichsstatthalter (Reich state governor) and Minister President of Prussia until 1945."


  • Finer, Hermann. The Theory and Practice of Modern Government,(Prager, 1971), pages 213-214
  • Freeman, Michael J. The Atlas of Nazi Germany (1985) pages 57, 59, 60.
  • Clark, Christopher. Iron Kingdom: Rise and Fall of Prussia 1600-1947(2007) Last chapter 'merged into Germany'
  • Allied Control Council Order No. 46, February, cited in the US Department of State publication 'Germany 1947-1949, the Story In Documents':
  • Greater Hamburg Act, 1937:
  • Patterson William E. and Southern, David Governing Germany (1991) page 144. (edited by Gillian Pale)
It certainly does not need five citations, since the difference is only 25 words. Essentially you are recommending adding two sentences, one of which states the Lander still existed on paper, which directly contradicts the information in the opening sentence. That won't pass a GA nomination. So I propose this instead:

"A law promulgated 30 January 1934 abolished the autonomy of the existing Länder (constituent states) of Germany and largely replaced them with the new administrative divisions of Nazi Germany, the Gaue, headed by the NSDAP leaders (Gauleiters), who effectively became the governor of their region. Reichsstatthalters (imperial deputies) were also appointed to oversee the government of each region. In many instances this position was given to the local party Gauleiter. The change was never fully implemented, as the Länder were still used as administrative divisions for some government departments such as health and education."

We need a citation to cover the new information that there were Reichsstatthalters appointed as overseers, and a citation to cover the new information that some ministries continued to use Länder for administrative purposes. The revised edit doesn't add any words to the article, as I omitted the part about Goering. -- Dianna (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay Diannaa, that's fine,

as regards the ministries that continued to be divided by Lander, the Atlas of Nazi Germany on page 6:

"Then there were still the remnants of the Länder which, although emasculated of separate political power in the Gleichschaltung of spring 1933, remained as bases for the administration of education and other social services", which is also mentioned on page 59. See here for page 6:

-I'm not sure if 'imperial deputy' really is an accurate translation of 'Reichsstatthalter' however. (as 'Imperial' implies that an Emperor is involved, just as 'Royal' suggests a King or Queen) 'Reich' has no real translation in English, and 'statthalter' etymologically is equivalent to the 'Stadtholder' position held by the House of Orange in the pre-1795 Dutch Republic. Perhaps 'Reich governor' would be more accurate?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany never annexed any part of Denmark.

At the bottom of the info box, it states that part of Nazi Germany is now part if modern-day Denmark, but no part of Denmark was ever annexed by Germany at any point in the war, even during the occupation from 1940-1945, despite Denmark having taken away the northern part of Schleswig-Holstein after World War One. Thus, this is inaccurate.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

On 29 August 1943, the German military effectively replaced the Danish government with a military government: the imposition of martial law. Page 232 of "The 'Final Solution' and the war in 1943', a chapter within Germany, Hitler, and World War II: Essays in Modern German and World History. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, but they didn't annex a single square foot of itinto the Reich though. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC) In other words, occupying a territory is not the same as annexing it-the USA for example militarily occupied Iraq in 2003 but that did not mean that the USA annexed Iraq.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume you are commenting on the presence of Denmark in the info box? I removed all those flags on the recommendation of Brian Boulton in the Peer Review, but people just keep adding them back. By the way the flag is currently not in the info box; someone took it out. -- Dianna (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Dianna, go ahead and take the flags out per the peer review. That should free up some bytes, as well. Kierzek (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I will try, -- Dianna (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am, Dianna. At one point the article included in that part all the countries occupied by German forces, such as France, regardless of whether they were actually annexed as part of Germany or they were just occupied by Germany. Denmark for some reason somehow crept back in.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the same with the photos. At one point there were more images of Russia and Poland than there were of Germany, quelle merde. -- Dianna (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

All organizations "except the church"

Protestant Reich Church was pro-Nazi, wasn't it?Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis were unsuccessful in their attempts to form a single unified Nazi church. They made efforts to disband or nazify the 28 existing Protestant churches and created the Protestant Reich Church. Opposition groups and a rival church called the Confessing Church were formed by 1934. The Confessing Church became very popular, especially in rural areas, and Hitler was worried that the move to disband the churches would lose him too much support, so he decided to abandon the amalgamation plan. The Catholic churches were not disbanded at all, but they were not allowed to operate any lay organisations or publish a newspaper. Religion in the Reich is covered in Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin. pp. 220–272. ISBN 978-0-14-303790-3.  and Shirer, William L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 234–240. ISBN 978-0-671-62420-0.  -- Dianna (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

new grammatically correct revision

new grammatically correct revision; i corrected my mistake, see discuss here on this talkpage before reverting Peterzor (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty good edit in my opinion, as it conveys essentially the same information using fewer words. The grammar has no errors. -- Dianna (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


User:peterzor keeps reverting the words 'from a democracy to a dictatorship' to 'from a republic to a dictatorship' in the opening text, stating that the 'weimar constitutional law was subverted' and that 'nazi germany was never a republic!'

Not only was the former text reached via prior discussion on this talk page, but there are several problems with this, namely:

i. A republic and a dictatorship are not mutually exclusive: modern day North Korea, Syria and Belarus are all examples of present-day states that are both republics and dictatorships; all 'republic' means in constitutional theory is 'a sovereign state that is not headed by a monarch', which was certainly true of Nazi Germany: Hitler never restored the pre-1918 German monarchy.The user is clearly confusing 'republic' with 'democracy', which are NOT synonyms: the UK, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands for example are all democracies but none of them are republics.

ii. More or less everything Hitler and the Nazis did was perfectly legal under the 1933 Enabling Act which gave the German government extraordinary emergency powers to deal with political enemies, restrict free speech, etc. This was renewed every few years by the Reichstag. There was thus no constitutional difference between what we now call 'the Weimar Republic' and what we now call 'Nazi Germany'. No-one sat down in 1933 and signed a law saying 'the republic is abolished in 1933, or 1934, or any year during the Nazi period for that matter.

iii.Furthermore the Weimar constitution was never abolished by the Nazis and thus remained technically in force from 1933 to 1945, a fact that was remarked upon at the Nuremburg Trials and by foreign newspapers during this period.

'Sources?' I hear you say:

"The old Constitution adopted at Weimar in 1919, when the German Republic was founded, has never been repealed.":,9171,755790,00.html TIME Magazine, Feb. 10, 1936

"As Arendt points out, the Nazis never bothered to abolish the old Weimar constitution. They even left the civil services more or less intact (374). When Stalin inaugurated the Soviet constitution in 1936, he declared it ‘provisional’ (394-95). The constitution thus, according to Arendt, was ‘dated’ from the moment of its issuance. It was never repealed.": Footnote #3. Numbers in parentheses are page numbers in The Origins of Totalitarianism.

"The Weimar Constitution was never abrogated or replaced. it remained in force until 1949 - throughout the 12 years of the Third Reich.":

"Q. Was the Weimar Constitution ever formally repealed?" "A. No, the Weimar Constitution has never been repealed." -- Nuremberg trials:

Article 1 of the Weimar Constitution states very clearly 'the German Reich is a republic', which only re-enforces my first point.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure whats being argued here ... Technically everything you say is true - however - most histories (books) would say the Weimar Republic was overthrown in 1933 and replaced by the Third Reich and finalized with the Gleichschaltung policy in 1935 - as outlined in a text book kids have to read in school K. J. Mason; Philip Fielden (2007). 3, ed. Republic to Reich: A History of Germany, 1918-1939. McGraw-Hill New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-07-471745-5. . Have any real books by historians we can link to over the self published websites above that say "the German Reich was a republic" during Hitlers time? Just because it was not abolished formally does not mean it was still in uses.Moxy (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well; for a start:

i.if the Weimar Constitution is still in force when the Nazis are in power and it says in article 1: "The German Reich is a Republic" then surely that's a republic? -Here is the text of the Weimar Constitution, pretty easy to find anywhere.

More to the point, 'Weimar Republic' was not the actual name of the state, it is just a term we use to describe Germany during this period. Likewise 'Nazi Germany' and even 'the Third Reich' are just terms used by historians to describe a state that throughout this period from 1918 to 1943 was just called officially 'Deutsches Reich' or in english 'German Reich' (changed for a short while 1943-1945 to 'Grossdeutsches Reich' or 'Greater German Reich'), the constitution stating that it was a republic, in much the same way the actual name of the Republic of Ireland is officially called 'Eire' or 'Ireland', but the 1949 Republic Act describes it as a republic. If historians descibe the weimar republic as being 'overthrown' in 1933, then they don't mean literally, that overnight the constitution was abolished and replaced, the name of the state changed, and the Head of State replaced. The Nazi seizure of power was more gradual than that. The constitution was not abolished, it was just used to further their own ends after the anti-communist hysteria following from the Reichstag fire, President Hindenburg stayed in power until his death, and the name of the state was not changed, nor were any of the other lander nor any of the other key institutions (with some exceptions such as the Landtag and the Lander assemblies) abolished, they just mean that the democratic period (the Weimar Republic) was replaced with a dictatorship (Nazi Germany), though through perfectally legal, constitutional means. Similarly, historians today may speak of 'Soviet Russia' to describe the period 1924-1991 in Russia, even though it was actually called the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'.

ii.The TIME magazine article is not self-published.

iii.Lastly, in what way, shape or form was Nazi Germany not a republic? It did not have a monarch, and indeed during several parts of its history (1933-1934 and towards its end in 1945) it had a president. If Nazi Germany was not a republic, then neither is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)the Republic of Belarus, the People's Republic of China, or the Republic of Syria today.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of linking many things to get to a single conclusion above. Technically your right however the wording is simply misleading to the average reader and how the period is interpreted now. By 1956 scholarly sources like Max Knight (1952). The German Executive: 1890 - 1933. Stanford University Press. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-0-8047-3903-0.  are saying "The Nazis did not formally abrogate the Weimar Constitution, but they made it obsolete by a number of laws." All that said are there any scholarly sources that implicitly say it was a working republic during Hitler's time in power. The TIME magazine article is from 1936 way early in history for us to draw a conclusion from that - we need to know how historians describe this after reflection and research - not what it technically may be. Searching the terms the republic of Nazi Germany or Third Reich republic gets us NO hits. So i ask why would we use this non conventional term to describe the governing/political style of the period. Moxy (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question; how was Nazi germany not a republic?

The fact it was a totalitarian dictatorship does not mean it was not a republic simultaneously.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In Jan. 1919 the Weimar Republic was established. It was a constituent assembly. Bruning was appointed Chancellor in 1930. He was forced to resign in 1932. Franz von Papen replaced him. Papen agreed to dissolve the Reichstag and new elections were held that year. In early Dec. Papen is forced to resign and Schleicher was appointed Chancellor. Papen then aligned with Hitler to return to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in Jan. 1933 (and Papen, Vice-Chancellor). Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, like the others before him, was handed to him. Hitler started on the path of consolidation of power into a dictatorship (which was not completed until 1934). As I said above, the country then transformed from the death-knell of a republic to the totalitarian state under Hitler in 1934. "The Enabling Act" was passed in 1933, giving Hitler dictatorial power over legislation of the country. On 14 July, the "Law against the Establishment of Parties" was passed. By then, the unions were also under Nazi control. Then in Aug. 1934, Hitler merged to offices of the President and the Chancellor. The action was approved by legislation (rubber stamped by the Nazi controlled Reichstag) and an national referendum vote, as well. Further, the armed forces were made to swear their oath to him. Also in 1934, the regional governments were brought under Nazi control by the "Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich". The start date for Hitler and the Nazi Party as far as the beginning of national power in Germany is seen as Jan. 1933 by mainstream historians/authors. That is seen as the start date of "Nazi Germany". The totalitarian dictatorship was complete by Aug. 1934. By then it was no longer a "republic". Kershaw, "Hitler: A Biography", pp. 260-261; McNab, "The Third Reich", pp. 13-14 and "Encyclopedia of the Third Reich", p. 154. Kierzek (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Merriman-Webster's dictionary defines 'republic' as: 'a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president' and this is the same definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as others. The 'Enabling Act' was perfectly legal within the confines of the Weimar Constitution, which itself was never abolished. There was no law passed between January 1933 and August 1934 declaring that Germany had ceased to be a republic, as was specified in the Weimar Constitution, which is why for example Doenitz used the title 'Reichspresident' after Hitler's death, as that was the title of the Weimar Head of State.

Is that a direct quote from the two above sources, or are you just yet again confusing the words 'republic' and 'democracy'? There is nothing stopping a totalitarian dictatorship from also being a republic. North Korea is certainly a totalitarian dictatorship and it is also most definitely a republic.

So again, in what way was Nazi Germany not a republic? The only type of state that is not a republic is a monarchy, and Nazi Germany certainly was not a monarchy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "Republic" as a state in which power is held by the people and their representatives, which is presided over by a president. They define "Democracy" as a state where people can vote for representatives to govern the state on their behalf. My Webster's New World Collegiate defines "Republic" as a state or nation in which supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected by them and responsible to them.

So according to these definitions, the Weimar Republic was both a democracy and a republic. And according to these definitions, Germany was no longer a republic during the Nazi era, as power was held by the Führer and his cronies (not the people and their representatives), and North Korea is not a republic either (though it self-identifies as such). -- Dianna (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As regards North Korea, not quite. The North Korean constitution ( (Article 4) states that:

'The sovereignty of the DPRK resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs -- the Supreme People’s Assembly and local people’s assemblies at all levels.'

-In other words, de jure, (in theory), sovereignty of North Korea resides in the people. Of course, we all know that de facto, supreme power resides in the Kim Jong Un, but he does not hold sovereignty, the people do. (in fact, constitutionally speaking, Kim Jong Un is not even offically the head of state of North Korea, he is just the head of the ruling party and head of the armed forces)

Don't forget that Hitler often used (faked) plebiscites to justify his rule (his did so on assuming the powers of the Presidency in 1934 and on the 1936 Anschluss with Austria), and elections were still held and the Reichstag was still held (regardless of whether it was just a rubber stamp.) so to say the Nazis did not make at least token gestures to what the people wanted is not true. In theory, supreme power still resided in the people because the constitution said i did and furthermore the Reichstag and elections still took place

power was held by the Führer and his cronies -So, the USSR was not a republic, even though its constitution clearly stated it was and the word was part of its official name? Is Syria? Is Belarus? Was the Commonwealth of England not a republic because it was dominated de facto by one man? Was the classical Roman Republic not a republic? Was the Athenian Republic? Were all the various Latin American 'banana republics'? (clues in the name there folks)-were the Dominican Republic in the 1940s and Argentina under Juan Peron not republics because they were ruled by dictators? Nope, because their constitutions still said they were.

The term 'republic' comes from the latin 'res publica', meaning 'common wealth' or 'public concern'; that is, sovereignty at least theoretically resides with the people. If the constitution of a country calls it a republic and declares sovereignty resides with the people, then it's a republic, regardless of what the de facto situation may be. This is in contrast with a monarchy, (derived from the ancient greek 'monos archos' or 'rule by one') where sovereignty resides with one person; that is, the monarch. Again, this is regardless of what the official situation may be. So, somewhere like the United Kingdom for example is in reality much more democratic and free than somewhere like North Korea, even though in theory ultimate power resides with the monarch, and not the people, which is true for other democratic constitutional monarchies like Canada, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and many others. So, yes; North Korea is a republic.

Furthermore, defines a republic ( as:

'a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch' defines a republic ( as:

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. defines a republic ( as

a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

'Republic' is not simply a synonym for 'democracy'. If that were true, the United Kingdom would be a republic, which it demonstratably is not.

In other words, a republic is any state that does not have a monarch, not 'any state that is a democracy'-republics may be democratic, but they may also be dictatorships, and the same is true of monarchies as well.

By contrast with the present-day United Kingdom, as the Weimar Constitution was still in effect, Nazi Germany was still officially a republic. All the Enabling Act was in theory was extraordinary, emergency legislation designed to protect the state in the event of a national emergency, which is what the Nazis claimed was the case after the Reichstag Fire. It did not in theory replace or abolish the Weimar Constitution, but existed via some of its provisions. Hitler always tried to make at least a show of legality.

Also, if Nazi Germany was not constitutionally a republic, then why, after the death of Hitler, was Doenitz made Reichspresident(an office created under the Weimar Constitution)? The Nazi party was not abolished during this period, and neither was any of the other attributes of the Nazi state.

To wit: North Korea is a republic, but it is also a dictatorship. The United States of America is also a republic, but it is a democracy as well.

The United Kingdom is a monarchy, but it is also a democracy. Saudi Arabia is also a monarchy, but it is a dictatorship. No state with a monarch today is a republic. Any state without a monarch is a republic.

Also, how about the CIA World Factbook? – the definitions of "republic" and "monarchy" used there for listing countries by "government type" are mutually exclusive, in other words: none of the listed "republics" has a king or monarch as head of state, nor is any of the listed monarchies also indicated as "republic". Nazi Germany did not have a monarch and its still-in force constitution declared it to be a republic. Therefore it was technically a republic. What it was not was a democracy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that the words "democracy" and "republic" are interchangeable; it's obvious that they are not, since nations can be democracies without being republics. The UK and Canada (where I live) are both examples of democracies that are not republics. I think you are incorrect when you say that a country can simultaneously be a republic and a dictatorship. Countries such as the Soviet Union and North Korea may self-identify as republics and even use the word in their names, but that does not mean that they actually are republics. -- Dianna (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In pre-modern periods, the word 'republic' was often used to mean 'democracy', for example in Machiavelli's 'the Prince'. However, that is not the modern meaning. Countries like North Korea and China and other will explicitly declare in their constitutions that all power derives from the people(As I demonstrated with North Korea's constitution), just the same way as, for example, the Constitution of the United States does. Of course, in practice; it is very different, and human rights and freedom are very different in these countries as they are in western democracies. But that does not change the fact that in theory sovereignty comes from the people and not from a monarch or anyone else. That is why they are republics. It's not as simple as 'their official name is 'republic of _', (to give a good example. the USA is not officially called a republic but it most definitely is) they explicitly mention in their constitutions that sovereignty is vested in the people, and there will be assemblies (however rubber-stamp) that reflect this fact. All this was just as true of .

However, this will not be found in the constitutions of, for example, Australia Tonga, or New Zealand, where power is described as coming from the monarch. Thus, they are not republics for that very reason.

A nation-state is either a republic (whether it be democratic or authoritarian/dictatorship) or a monarchy (whether it be democratic or absolute/dictatorship).JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see that User:peterzor is unwilling to come to this talk. That said - No more synthesis of what you think it should be called because of what others may be called - Do you or anyone have a scholarly source that say what you are saying besides one lonely news article from 1936. So to be clear a source that calls Nazi Germany a republic? As for your question to me above - pls read the sources provided that disagree with your interpretation. Moxy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a tick; what on earth was wrong with 'from a democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship' anyway? The Weimar Republic was indisputably a democracy, the Third Reich was indisputably a totalitarian why change it to 'from a republic to...'JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JWULTRABLIZZARD. Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjensen. At least somebody does.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think either wording would be fine; I have no real preference, as both things are true imo. It changed from a republic to a totalitarian state; it changed from a democracy to a totalitarian state. It was Peterzor who objected to the use of the word "democracy", and he hasn't participated in this thread for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I also believe that either way is sufficient. If consensus is for the word "democracy", then that is fine with me. Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way anyone can say the Weimar Republic was not a democracy (indeed, the Weimar Constitution was one of the most democratic in the world for its time-it introduced full adult female suffurage a good decade before the UK for example), and there is absolutely no way in hell Nazi Germany can be described as anything other than a totalitarian dictatorship.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am gonna change it to say Democracy, as that is the current consensus. -- Dianna (talk)
this is not "current consensus" please read the editors opinion in this section. JWULTRABLIZZARD is the olny user who wants "republic" to be removed while Rjensen seems to agree on a remark without supporting neither and all other users talk about "I think either wording would be fine" (Diannaa), "I also believe that either way is sufficient" (Kierzek) and Moxy who disagrees with nazi germany to be described as a republic so most most users here are against calling Nazi Germany a republic Peterzor (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There are more who either want the change or have NO objection to the change to democracy. Kierzek (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I am in favour of "democracy" (since it better expresses the contrast between 'rule' by the people and rule by a dictator). --Boson (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Boson. "democracy" conveys important correct info and "republic", while technically correct in a very narrow way (not-a-kingdom), gives no info and falsely suggests "republicanism." Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Other groups persecuted and killed included Jehovah's Witnesses, Poles and other Slavs, homosexuals, social misfits, and members of the political and religious opposition

The list needs to be rewritten according to some logic - numbers of dead victims, numbers of imprisoned. 1200 Jehovah's Witnesses and millions of Slavs died. Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not yet read the peer review, where one reviewer specifically requested that this article contain less about events of World War II and focus instead on the impact of the war on the German population and economy. Information about victims of the regime is summarised without giving a lot of statistics that are readily available in other articles and need not be repeated here. -- Dianna (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
In another words - German POV is more important than the one of the victims. Now I understand the article and I'm going to change it according to Wikipedia rules. Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

28 million of non-German refugees

Europe had more than 40 million refugees, which means that 26-28 million were non-German, in another words 33% German and 66% - non-German. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't really have space in this article for this peripheral information. -- Dianna (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The information about German refugees is more peripheral (33%) than about non-German ones (66%).Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Poland and France

The subsecion "Poland" doesn't inform about Polish-French relations. GB didn't have any common border with Germany and any army.Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Content about Polish-French relations is beyond the scope of this article, which needs to have a tight focus on Nazi Germany and its citizens, economy and culture. Wikipedia:Article size calls for Wikipedia articles to be no more than 10,000 words, so that people on slow internet conections and those tryng to access the article using their cell phone or other mobile device will be able to load and view the article. This article is presently at around 12,700 words, so we don't have space for additional peripheral material. -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
If we don't have place, why do we mention here GB?Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

German administration was established in Poland - unprecize

There was no unified G. administration of occupied Poland. Parts of Poland were annexed to different parts of Germany and GG was created. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is more detail than we need in this article, which is about Nazi Germany, not Poland. France was also split into occupied and unoccupied zones, and we don't have space to talk about that either. -- Dianna (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"We" ?
Nazi Germany committed genocides outside Germany so the subject of Nazi administration in the East belongs here.
Germany didn't committ any genocide in France, so yes, we don't have space to talk about France here.Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Two POVs

  • This article describes Nazi Germany as seen by the Germans. What about the POV of the victims?
  • The subject of German borders and occupied lands is poorly described, eg. the General Government isn't mentioned in Occupied territories section but only in the Holocaust one.
  • Germany was fed and finnaced by the occupied nations. This article mentions only "forced labour". The Holocaust section is about the extermination but not about robbery.

Götz Aly: Hitlers Volksstaat. Raub, Rassenkrieg und nationaler Sozialismus. 5. Auflage, S. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-10-000420-5. Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Snyder about Evans' POV:

"Germany ... was a complex society, defined by Christian morality, in which the majority was opposed to the persecution of Jews."

Now I understand better this article. What about reading a second book?Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added some material on the General Government to the "Occupied territories" section. Thank you for the suggestion. Your multiple posts in various threads all have a common theme: you believe that this article needs to have more information on the Slavic victims of the regime. Sorry, I do not agree with you. This does not mean that I am pushing a pro-German POV or any other POV. Nor does it mean that I have only read one book on this topic. The reason the article doesn't contain extensive material about Slavs is because it is not about Slavs. There's quite a bit about the Nazi treatment of the Jews, but it for the most part focuses on events in Germany, and the fate of the Jewish population of Germany. It's more appropriate to add material about victims of the regime to articles such as Generalplan Ost, Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, or The Holocaust in Russia, so that this article can focus its attention on the impact of the regime on the German people, economy, and culture, as recommended in the Peer Review. -- Dianna (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of first paragraph

The first paragraph is getting to look a bit like a camel (a horse designed by a committee). I propose rewriting it as follows:

Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party or, in German, NSDAP. Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all public life was controlled by the Nazis. Nazi Germany ceased to exist after the Allied Forces defeated the Wehrmacht in May 1945, thus ending World War II in Europe.

The changes are intended to address the following issues:

  • Avoid unnecessary controversy over "republic", "democracy", etc.
  • Lede could do with condensing a little.
  • Details do not belong in the introduction.
  • Difficulty of stating exactly which organizations were not controlled by the Nazi Party - best left to body of article, where more details are possible.
  • Exact year it became a totalitarian state is a detail not needed in the introduction.
  • Nazi Germany and Third Reich are both common names (roughly equally common in Google books).
  • Remove unnecessary introduction of foreign word Gleichschaltung in the introduction (it is best introduced and explained later).

--Boson (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me, however, I would state: Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party or NSDAP. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Using little-known foreign words in the lead must be off-putting to many of our readers. I think this is a good edit. Slightly different wording: "Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), commonly known as the Nazi Party." For the second sentence, spheres that are part of private life were also controlled by the Nazis, such as marriage and recreational activities, so that should be re-worded perhaps to say "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state. Nazi Germany ceased to exist after the Allied Forces defeated the Wehrmacht in May 1945, thus ending World War II in Europe." -- Dianna (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.The only problem I see is that people might wonder why "National Socialist German Workers' Party" abbreviates to "NSDAP". Perhaps a footnote with the German name? --Boson (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
An explanatory note using {{efn}} could be added. -- Dianna (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Dianna version but i also agree with Boson regarding the "NSDAP" it does not belong in lede just as "Gleichscaltung" Peterzor (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Also i would be completly satisfied if we somehow changed "into a totalitarian state" to "was a totalitarian state" Peterzor (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" as a motto should be restored (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Nazi germany was an empire! (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Dianna, I agree with your version and agree it should remain with the wording: "transformed into a totalitarian state"; for the reasons, I have stated above in other sections when this was discussed. Kierzek (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Note the IP is very likely Peterzor, editing while logged out. (I have removed the "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" as it was not an official state motto; it was a rallying cry and political slogan of the NSDAP. This matter is discussed elsewhere on this page.) We don't need to introduce the abbreviation in the lead. I am going to go ahead and put in the edit. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of other groups

Are Slavs still Untermenschen? [68] as if the Soviet victims of Nazi Germany were somehow not as important. The USSR took the vast majority of the casualties and the economic losses, the infrastructural damage, etc. Heinrich Himmler stated openly before the German invasion of the Soviet Union: "It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply."

The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands, including Jews, totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR. This included 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals.[23]

  • Timothy D. Snyder: "Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union."[69]
  • Jack Fischel, The Holocaust, Introduction: "Jews were not the only targets of the Germans. They also killed an estimated 10,547,000 Slavs, which included millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Soviet prisoners of war. Others whom the Nazis marked for death included the gypsies, and about 5,000 homosexuals of an estimated million Himmler believed resided in Germany. These numbers suggest that the Nazi genocide was far-reaching in its preoccupation with the creation of a master race and that although the Jews composed the primary category of people designated by the Nazis for extermination, there were many such categories." -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added this: "The Soviet Union lost 27 million people during the war; less than nine million of these were combat deaths.(Hosking, 2006. p.242) One in four Soviets were killed or wounded."(Smith, 1994. p.204) It's in the section "Persecution of other groups" -- Dianna (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans

The movement of Germans involved a total of at least 12 million people, with some sources putting the figure at 14 million.--IIIraute (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Since, "Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II", preface, xii. → fourteen million expelled, 2 million dead [70], is just "SPAM" [71] - here, some other sources:
  • "In all 14 million ethnic Germans were expelled and it has been asserted that as many as two million might have perished in the process." David P. Forsythe, Encyclopedia of human rights - Volume 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, page 164, [72]
  • "In all, 12 to 14 million ethnic Germans fled or were expelled or transferred." Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses, The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010 [73]
  • "Altogether, the expulsion operation permanently displaced at least 12 million people, and perhaps as many as 14 million." R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War, Yale University Press, Yale, 2012, page 1 [74]

I will provide some information & sources regarding the German government reaffirming the 2,2 million casualties figure at a later date. --IIIraute (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The German government puts the number at 12 million by 1950. The higher numbers include people who emmigrated after 1950 and children born after the war.

Flight,Expulsion and Accounting for Expellees up to 1950

Description Population
Flight of civilians & returned POW during 1945 4,500,000
Official Deportations 1946-50 4,500,000
Returned POW 1946-1950 2,600,000
Total 11,600,000

Source:Hans Henning Hahn and Eva Hahnova, Die Vertreibung im deutschen Erinnern. Legenden, Mythos, Geschichte, Paderborn: Schöningh, 2010, Page 659

Expellees as defined by German Law

Category of Expellees(pre war origin) 1950 1982
1 - Pre-war Eastern Europe and Oder-Neisse region 11,890,000 15,150,000
2 - Pre-war Soviet Union 100,000 250,000
3 - Germans from west of Oder Neisse Resettled during war 460,000 500,000
4 - Pre-war Western Europe and Abroad 235,000 240,000
5 - Resettled in Western Europe during war 65,000 80,000
Total 12,750,000 16,220,000

Source: Gerhard Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, part 1, Bonn: 1995, pp. 44–59

I get the impression you are trying to push the higher figure of 14 million without showing the details--Woogie10w (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to show the details? I have presented three WP:RS by the current state of scientific/historiographic knowledge, published by the Universties of Yale and Oxford, within the last three years. Why not let experts with professional competence take care of the details. --IIIraute (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I consider this material very important but it relates primarily to the post-Nazi era, where it had a major impact. It belong in another article. Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It does not. The article currently states: "By 1950 over eleven million ethnic Germans fled or were expelled from east-central Europe to Germany."--IIIraute (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
(P.S. Very cheap shot. If necessary, I will take this to WikiProject History/WikiProject Germany.)--IIIraute (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We should change the wording to read "By 1950 between eleven and fourteen million ethnic Germans fled or were expelled from east-central Europe to Germany." and quote one of the above sources. I am working on putting this in right now, using the Douglas citation, as it is a recent book, and I can look at it on Google preview. -- Dianna (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting to this matter, IIIraute. I have been working on another article today. -- Dianna (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I just added the sentence about the German government reaffirming its stance, in 2006. Here some information & sources:
On 29 November 2006 State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, Christoph Bergner, outlined the stance of the respective governmental institutions in Deutschlandfunk saying that the numbers presented by the German government and others are not contradictory to the numbers cited by Haar, and that the below 600,000 estimate comprises the deaths directly caused by atrocities during the expulsion measures and thus only includes people who on the spot were raped, beaten, or else brought to death, while the above two millions estimate also includes people who on their way to post-war Germany have died of epidemics, hunger, cold, air raids and the like. → [75]
Horst Köhler, President of Germany, from 2004 to 2010, at "Tag der Heimat des Bundes der Vertriebenen", 2. September 2006, in Berlin → [76]
Federal Agency for Civic Education: "Die Vertreibung der Deutschen aus den Gebieten jenseits von Oder und Neiße" → [77] --IIIraute (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Motto ?

What is your source that "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führe" was a Motto? Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a rallying cry and political slogan more than a motto. I will remove it from the info box. -- Dianna (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
What makes for a national motto? I think this one does qualify. Bendersky (2007) says: "The slogan "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" left an indelible mark on the minds of most Germans who lived through the Nazi years. It appeared on countless posters and in publications; it was heard constantly in radio broadcasts and speeches." See his insightful discussion of its central role in shaping popular thought at Joseph W. Bendersky (2007). A Concise History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 105. . Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I will add this as a source for the claim that this was a national motto. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The source doesn't actually support the claim it was a national motto, it just says it was a slogan extensively used in propaganda. --Nug (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I am taking it out then. -- Dianna (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
My removal has just been reverted by User:Rjensen. Dr Jensen, perhaps you have not yet read this material at the dispute resolution page, in which Transporterman states, in part, that the template documentation "clearly contemplates that whatever is filled in will be "the" national motto, not "a" national motto. I hope you will self-revert this, Dr Jensen. -- Dianna (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Casualties (2)

Why is there no mention of Poles, Jews and Czechs who lived in the General Government and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (autonomous Nazi-administered territories)?[78]

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason the article doesn't contain extensive material about casualties is because I was trying to keep the article focused on events in Germany and their impact on the German people, its culture, and its economy, as recommended in the Peer Review. But if you think we need additional material about ethnic Poles, Jews and Czechs who lived (and died) in the General Government and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (autonomous Nazi-administered territories) perhaps you could post a proposed addition and your sources here on the talk page? -- Dianna (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dianna. My point is that the General Government (Poland) and the Protectorate (Czech lands) were incorporated into the Greater German Reich, in effect annexed to Germany (1939–1945).
-- Tobby72 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Now I am confused, because this information already appears in the article, in the section "Occupied territories". -- Dianna (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlike the rest of the occupied countries, Poland and Czech lands can be considered as de facto parts of Germany, although it is true that only ethnic Germans were granted citizenship of the German Reich, whereas the Czechs, Poles and Jews become second-class (or third-class) noncitizens. German and Jewish victims are already covered. Perhaps we could briefly mention the Polish victims (2 mil.) of the Nazi regime..?[79] -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we should do that. I will add it where I added the content about the Russian dead -- Dianna (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
US Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Documentation remains fragmentary, but today scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war. This approximate total includes Poles killed in executions or who died in prisons, forced labor, and concentration camps. It also includes an estimated 225,000 civilian victims of the 1944 Warsaw uprising, more than 50,000 civilians who died during the 1939 invasion and siege of Warsaw, and a relatively small but unknown number of civilians killed during the Allies' military campaign of 1944—45 to liberate Poland."[80]-- (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Good catch -- Dianna (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

let's remove or drastically alter the paragraph "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a democracy into a dictatorship"

Under Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a democracy into a dictatorship THAT IS A LIE !!! now how is that even theoretically possible? when germany already was a De facto authoritarian state ruled by emergency decree under president of the weimar republic Paul von Hindenburg so hitler did not turn germany to a dicatorship, germany was already a dictatorship! Peterzor (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

no it's not a lie. that what the RS say. perhaps the most famous expert on democracy is Robert Dahl--he says the transition to dictatorship was 1933 in Robert A. Dahl (1986). A Preface to Economic Democracy. U of California Press. p. 38. . Bracher is his german counterpart--see Karl Dietrich Bracher (1995). Turning Points in Modern Times: essays on German and European history. Harvard University Press. pp. 108–9. . Also of value see Stephen J. Lee (2003). Europe: 1890 - 1945. Routledge Chapman & Hall. p. 248.  Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Peterzor could we get you to propose the changes here first - lots of reverting going on with you reverting yourself and people reverting aand or correcting your edits. Would be easier if we just agreed on a text here on this talk instead of editwaring.Moxy (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
So? it still does not change the fact that germany wasn't a democracy! yes there was a transformation in 1933-1933 but the country was alredy run by emergency decree Peterzor (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see the section immediately below, where and editor has proposed completely removing this sentence from the lead. -- Dianna (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
my rhetorical question retorical question "So?" refers to my answer to Rjensen not moxy Peterzor (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:peterzor has been blocked as he has been identified as a sockpuppet. Now perhaps we can improve this page without it going off on unnecessary and irrelevant tangents and edit-wars.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer is Nazi Germany's Motto Peterzor (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peterzor. The material I looked at says this was a slogan and rallying cry of the NSDAP, not a national motto of Nazi Germany. The material was removed as unsourced, as you can see in the other thread on this topic. Talk:Nazi Germany#Motto ? -- Dianna (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What makes for a national motto? I think this one does qualify. Bendersky (2007) says: "The slogan "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" left an indelible mark on the minds of most Germans who lived through the Nazi years. It appeared on countless posters and in publications; it was heard constantly in radio broadcasts and speeches." See his insightful discussion of its central role in shaping popular thought at Joseph W. Bendersky (2007). A Concise History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 105. . Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support for inclusion of the motto.
    • Given the nature of the regime, it may not always be clear what is a party slogan and what is a national motto.
    • The slogan itself implies the unity of party and state and suggests that it was also intended as a national motto.
    • I think there should be some lattitude in populating infoboxes, since they should present salient information in summary form.
    • I think the exact nature of the slogan should be further explained in the body of the article and/or in a footnote, so that the reader is aware of the discretion used in classifying it as the motto of the Third Reich.
--Boson (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: This is only weak support because I don't think it is a clear-cut national (as opposed to party) motto, and I do not support its inclusion as the national motto without qualification (as mentioned above). I would exclude other possible candidates because they applied only to individual Nazi organizations or movements (e.g. the SS motto Meine Ehre heißt Treue and the DAF motto/organization Kraft durch Freude).--Boson (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The book National Slogans from Around the World by Henry Conserv[81] lists "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" (One Nation, one People, one Leader) as just one of many mottos used, such as "Deutschland Erwache" (Germany Awake), "Führer befiel, wire folgen!" (The leader commands, we follow!), "Alle sagen Ja!" (All say Yes!) and "Heute gehort uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze welt" (Today we have Germany, tomorrow the whole world), etc. These all are just slogans used for propaganda purposes. --Nug (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there were lots of Nazi mottos, for example "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), "Kraft durch Freude" (Strength through joy), "Meine Ehre heisst Treue" (My loyalty is my Honour), etc, etc. --Nug (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of the motto. This was a political slogan and rallying cry of the NSDAP, not to my knowledge adopted as an official motto of the country, which its inclusion in the info box in the "national motto" field implies. -- Dianna (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it was and is one of the best known mottos but not the only one used, as noted; further, agree not clear cut as an "official" one for the nation. Better argument for the NSDAP in the 1930s, pre-war. Kierzek (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
there is a false assumption here that "motto" means something official. It is merely a tag invented by a wikipedia editor and is perfectly flexible. It does not say anything about "unique" or "official" motto. The record dfoes show that this one was omnipresent in Germany at the time and highly influential. Let's keep thinking on this issue Rjensen (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
If there was one slogan that could be characterised as a "national motto" it would be "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), not only is this slogan reflected in the colours of the national flag, it forms the essence of Nazi ideology were the land is bound to German blood (and hence the exterminationist policies of "purifying" that land) and the foundation of the concept of Lebensraum that drove Nazi attempts to conquer Europe. --Nug (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
My removal of the motto has just been reverted by User:Rjensen. Dr Jensen, perhaps you have not yet read this material at the dispute resolution page, in which Transporterman states, in part, that the template documentation "clearly contemplates that whatever is filled in will be "the" national motto, not "a" national motto. The sourcing provided does not back up the claim that this was the national motto, so I removed it. It was an NSDAP motto, one of many that they used. If you wish to argue over the implementation of the "national motto" field, I guess I can't stop you, but I can't get the article promoted to GA either as I am unable to proceed with the nomination while there's ongoing edit wars and disputes that need to be resolved. And if the content is sketchily sourced, a GA reviewer will ask for its removal regardless. -- Dianna (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa that there should be no motto in the infobox. Instead, the various mottoes should be explained in the article body, as appropriate to weight. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to be disruptive here--but a couple points: a) the "motto" business is a Wikipedia device to appeal to popular readers; most countries do not have official mottos in the first place. b) discussion should be based on RS -- I have provided a good RS that says the motto in question was ubiquitous, veryh eavily used in all media, and central to the ideology Nazi Germany. That qualifies it as "the" national motto. Other editors have not provided any RS to say that the various other slogans meet the criterion or were of comparable importance. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Your source does not say it was central to the ideology of Nazi Germany. --Nug (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The source does not say that. The source says the concept of Volksgemeinschaft was central to Nazi ideology, not the slogan. It says the slogan was ubiquitous, not that it was a national motto. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research. Also, I am not seeing anything in the template documentation to back up your statement that we display national mottos as a device to appeal to popular readers; perhaps this statement is original research as well. -- Dianna (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a matter of editorial judgement, and in this case I would be quite happy to delegate the final judgement to you, since you are doing most of the work here. However, I do not accept your above argument, which I think may help to set an unfortunate legalistic precedent regarding information in such infoboxes. The name of the template parameter and any documentation are internal Wikimedia matters written by Wikipedia editors and they are not constrained by policies related to "reader-facing" content (such as WP:OR). The purpose of infoboxes, as I understand it, is to present similar information in similar articles in a consistent fashion. So we are not talking about a statement like "The national motto of the Third Reich was . . ."; we are talking about the presentation of a motto, preferably for all countries, in a consistent fashion. If we add a (sourced) note explaining what this motto is, we are in no way violating WP:OR, since it is a motto, it is related to Nazi Germany, and the information is correct and sourced, without any synthesis. The raison d'être of infobox templates is consistency between articles. The editorial judgement is about whether the reader will be misled (for instance, into inferring that this is the single, official motto of the former state, even if we provide a prominent note stating otherwise). The problem is that a heading in a table cannot make a detailled statement. I believe there have been similar debates regarding other articles. In my opinion, there is no problem with what amounts to statements like
  • This is the place for the country's coat of arms. Italy does not have a true coat of arms, but it has an emblem that is used like other countries' coats of arms, so it is listed here. If it helps, read "coat of arms" as "coat of arms or other emblem used in a similar way".
  • This is the place for the country's motto. England does not have an official motto but Dieu et mon droit is the motto on the coat of arms heraldic achievement of the English monarch and is therefore listed here. If it helps, read "motto" as "motto of the country or its ruling monarch, etc.".
  • This is the place for the country's motto. The Federal Republic of Germany does not have a true motto but Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit is used like a national motto, so it is listed here". If it helps, read "motto" as "unofficial motto associated with the country".
  • This is the place for the country's motto. Nazi Germany did not have a single official motto but it was a one-party state and a ubiquitous motto used by the party was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, so it is listed here. If it helps, read "motto" as "common slogan associated with the regime".
I don't have a problem with "We could include the motto, but it's iffy; it's a judgement call and and the consensus is that it is better to leave it out."
--Boson (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This source, The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, makes an explicit claim for "the common slogan":
"German society was theoretically reconstructed as a Volksgemeinschaft, a 'people's community' of equal racial status but differentiated functions, under the common slogan Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (the common need before individual needs)."[82]
--Nug (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. If we wanted, I suppose we could find adequate sources to include a note stating that Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz was a motto that is usually associated with Montesquieu and was used on coins during the Nazi period, whereas Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer is nowadays much more commonly associated with Nazi Germany. Within the limits of policy, it is a matter of editorial judgement which verifiable facts we regard as relevant and weighty enough (based, for instance, on their treatment in reliable sources) to include and whether to include them in the infobox, the body of the text, or a footnote. --Boson (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason we call it NAZI Germany is that the Nazis tried, with considerable but not total success in 12 years, to unify One People around One leader. The slogan exemplifies the main goal and that's why it was used so much more than any other slogan. See the chapter on the slogan at Milton Meltzer (1991). Never to Forget: The Jews of the Holocaust. HarperCollins. pp. 19ff ch 3. . Friedman says the Fuhrer principle was imprinted on the Germans' minds by the slogan [Jonathan C. Friedman (2010). The Routledge History of the Holocaust. p. 77. ] Historians use in in book titles [Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer: the Nazi annexation of Austria,: 1938 by Dieter Wagner]; Sven Hacker (2005) says "The slogan 'One people, one empire, one leader' became the dogma of German nationality policy." My point is that major RS devote far more attention to the "Ein" slogan than to any other slogan, which demonstrates its priority for the RS and hence for Wikipedia. To say there are many other slogans is true for Germany and every country, but besides the point, unless one of them is shown by RS to equal "Ein Volk..." in importance. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I must still agree with Dianna, Nug and Binksternet, for the reasons I stated earlier above on 25 May. It is a motto, but it is not the only motto, nor is it an official national one. It should not be included in the info. box as it will be given WP:Undue weight. Kierzek (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Evans, Richard J.

While using Evans is ok so far, his views aren't universally shared by all historians. Certainly the degree of participation and support for genocide among German citizens is matter of debate and we should present other than Evans views on the matter. Also the claim that there weren't mass suicides or public displays of grief in 1945 is a bold one and standing in opposition to known other historic research.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I will take out the bit about public displays of grief, as he is quoting one observer in Hamburg, and this may not have been true in all areas. Hopefully this addresses your concern. -- Dianna (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The passage you marked as "needs quotation" I think I was reading too much into the material on pg 560-561 when I said they were afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals from the SS. Hopefully you will be able to see the pages on Google preview here. I am going to remove part of the passage. -- Dianna (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Malobo's observation that While using Evans is ok so far, his views aren't universally shared by all historians

  • German men serving in the Wehrmacht were responsible for war crimes being committed, shooting of POWs and hostages, deportation of civilians and the confiscation of food from civilians.[83] Millions of German men served on the eastern front and were well aware of the crimes being committed. German veterans I spoke forty years ago to were frank to admit the brutal nature of the war, it was no secret.
  • Mass suicides in 1945 Germany are well documented [84] [85]

The article for the most part based on English language sources which tend to downplay or ignore the huge losses of the civilian population in the USSR and Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please remeber the Hitler's ordinary men described y Browning and Hitler's willing executioner, including (also female) clerks supervising the Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Woogie. It's not my intention to downplay those losses or to give the article a particular slant. This article is not supposed to be about the USSR or Poland or about the war dead in those countries. It's supposed to be about Nazi Germany, its people, its economy, and its culture. Therefore we should be giving a general overview of the events of the war without going into too much detail. In fact, this was specifically requested at the peer review. There's not room for a lot of further additions on any topic as the article is currently at 12774 words and the recommended maximum length is 10000 words. This is not an arbitrary style guideline but a way to ensure that our readers can load and view the article when attempting to do so from a slow internet connection, cell phone, or other mobile device. My intention was to nominate the article for GA, so any article improvements, corrections of errors, or suggestions for better/different sources are welcome. The article gets around a quarter of a million views every month so it's important that we get it right.

There's already content about the Wehrmacht in war crimes; it's in the section "Wehrmacht". And there's a mention that off-duty soldiers revealed what they saw and did, in the section "The Holocaust". Soldiers looting (and widespread theft of art treasures etc) is mentioned at the bottom of the section "conquest of Europe." The huge loss of life in the USSR is covered in the section "Persecution of other groups". I will amend the section that talks about suicides after I read the sources you have posted. -- Dianna (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The main goal of Nazi Germany was conquering the Lebensraum in the East and constructing slave work system there. Its economy was based on robbery and slave work, its culture was abominable, its people were racist or at least opportunistic.
I agree the article is way to long to load onto an Android telephone, IMO its best to trim it down, why not start with the Russian file of the Horst Wessel Lied.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
How big would it have to be to load on an Android phone, do you think? I suppose it would vary depepnding on the individual phone being used -- Dianna (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Android phones will hold most or all of Wikipedia. Mine has 16 gig of memory and a slot to add another 16 gig. Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
That's good to hear, because plenty of people have ideas for more stuff to add, but virtually no one has suggestions as to what should be taken out :/ -- Dianna (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Except for Woogie, hee hee -- Dianna (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
There are articles over 300,000 characters, why this one should be shortened?Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Two reasons. First, Wikipedia:Article size calls for articles to be no more than 10,000 words maximum, and as of this moment we are sitting at 12,868 words. People on slow connections or trying to view the page on their cell phone or other mobile device are likely having trouble loading the page. I am going to be nominating the article for Good Article and to pass GA we need to follow as closely as we can the mandates of the manual of style. Second, to pass GA is that the article needs to stay focused and on topic. It's a GA requirement. We therefore can't include a lot of peripheral material or the article won't pass GA, especially if it is already way over the size guideline, as this one is. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

German casualties

The subsecion doesn't explain responsibility - Nazi euthanasia victims and Allied rapes victims are listed in one paragraph.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is about German victims and casualties, so I am not sure what you are driving at or how to address your concerns. Obviously various people were responsible for these casualties -- Dianna (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Some people (...) others attempted to get word to the outside world as to what was happening.

Who exactly "attempted to get word to the outside world as to what was happening"? Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The source says it was mainly efforts by the Polish underground, who got word to the Polish government in exile in London. I have added more details. -- Dianna (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nazi Germany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've begun here by reading through the peer review, and given the level of detail there the commenters focused on, I don't imagine this will have any difficulty meeting GA standards. I've made it perhaps halfway through the article in the comments below; hope to finish later this afternoon/evening. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A few tiny things:

  • Hague Convention needs DAB Green tickY
  • "Using propaganda, a cult of personality was developed around Hitler" -- dangling modifier (i.e., who is using propaganda) Green tickY
  • "The wording of the law also opened the door for the Nazis" -- slightly idiomatic; try to rewrite per WP:IDIOM ("allowed"?) Green tickY -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article's a little long. This isn't a problem for an article of this importance (for GA anyway), but FWIW, here's some sentences I think could be cut or in some cases moved to explanatory footnotes. Don't worry about replying to any of these, it's not an issue for GA-- just for you to take or leave.

  • "The NSDAP continued to eliminate all political opposition." Green tickY
  • "Workers were desperate for an economic turnaround." Green tickY
  • "In one rural area, German soldiers were attacked with pitchforks by local residents when they tried to stop the advancing Americans" (seems like a fairly trivial incident) Green tickY
  • "On 22 April, Hitler announced he would stay in Berlin until the end and then shoot himself.[106] As the Red Army drew closer, both Göring and Heinrich Himmler attempted but failed to seize power from Hitler.[107][108]" Green tickY
  • " Goebbels and his wife Magda committed suicide the next day, after murdering their six children.[112]" Red XN
  • "Some 22,000 citizens died during the Battle of Berlin.[120] "
  • "The German Red Cross still maintains that the death toll from the expulsions is 2.2 million." Green tickY Moved to a note
  • "More such districts, such as the Reichskommissariat Moskowien (Moscow), Reichskommissariat Kaukasus (Caucasus), and Reichskommissariat Turkestan (Turkestan) were proposed in the event that these areas were brought under German rule." Green tickY Moved to a note
  • "The process of nazification extended to sports clubs, choirs, and volunteer groups, who had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathisers or party members. By June 1933 the only organisations not in the control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches.[15]" -- these sentences occur almost identically in different sections--I'd suggest cutting them from "government" since the examples here aren't really government examples anyway. Green tickY
  • "Röhm favoured a "second revolution", which would tear down industrialists, big business, and the Junker aristocracy, and eliminate Prussian control of the military.[193] To fulfil this goal, he intended to assume command of the army and absorb it into the ranks of the SA.[194]" Green tickY
  • "; its size was reduced by 40 per cent over the next year as it was converted into a sports and training organisation" Green tickY -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Khazar2! Thanks so much for taking on this review. As you can see, my friend Kierzek and I have dealt with some of the above suggestions. Kierzek will be helping further as the review goes on. I have ticked off the completed items for my own reference. I think we should leave in the material about the Goebbels suicides and the murder of the children as there's a tie-in with material about mass suicides further down. -- Dianna (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the fast responses. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Continuing under a new header for clarity. This is really a terrific article, btw; it does an excellent job of covering social and cultural aspects of Nazi Germany as well as the better known military/atrocity angles. I learned quite a lot from reading it (hope that doesn't disqualify me as its reviewer). Please feel free to revert any of the tweaks I've made directly to the text if you see any you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Small suggestions:

  • "By spring 1934" -- probably better to say "early" or a month here per WP:REALTIME, a subcriterion of 1b Green tickY
  • "by autumn 1944" -- ditto Green tickY
  • "By 1939 around 250,000 of Germany's 437,000 Jews emigrated to the United States, Palestine, Great Britain, and other countries" -- is it correct to put the US at the top of this list? My understanding was that the US was not terribly good about accepting Jewish refugees--but perhaps it was still better than others.
    • The maps on pages 556 and 558 of Evans 2005 show the US as accepting 102,000 immigrants, Argentina 63,500, the UK 52,000, Palestine 33,390 (they were the top four, according to these two maps). So it's correct to put the US at the top. I will amend slightly and put these top four in order.
  • I don't think this is a GA issue, but the images get a little cramped around the wartime economy/Holocaust section. MOS:IMAGELOCATION calls for text not to be between facing images, as happens on my display in "Wartime economy". I'd suggest cutting the Speer image and moving the IG Farben image to its place. In the Holocaust section, the Zboriv image could perhaps be removed. While both very good images, btw, if two images are used for the Holocaust section, having two firing squad images in Ukraine may be mildly redundant; other aspects, such as gas chambers, camps, etc. might be pictured here. Green tickY We have a Featured Picture of the crematorium at Auschwitz.
  • "But the law only loosely enforced" -- missing a "was", presumably. Green tickY
  • "by the summer of 1933" -- per the above -- "mid-1933"? Green tickY -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible cuts: Again, these are side suggestions only, and not relevant for GA. Feel free to take or leave, no response needed unless you're interested in discussing.

  • ", who were viewed as being inferior to the Aryan master race and part of a Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy" -- already well-establishedGreen tickY
  • "One suggestion was a mass forced deportation of Jews. Continued deportations into occupied Poland were rejected by Hans Frank, Governor of the General Government;[248] the harvest was poor in 1941, and he was unwilling to accept any more "useless mouths".[258] Adolf Eichmann suggested they should be forced to emigrate to Palestine.[248] Franz Rademacher proposed that they should be deported to Madagascar, an idea dismissed as impractical in 1942.[248]" -- I wouldn't suggest cutting this, but I wonder if it could be shortened to a sentence: "One suggestion was a mass forced deportation of Jews to Poland, Palestine, or Madagascar."Green tickY
  • "and members of the Polish underground got word to their government in exile in London as to what was happening. When reports of the genocide reached Britain, Churchill and the Allies concluded that the best plan was to concentrate on winning the war as quickly as possible" -- allied responses to the Holocaust may be slightly off-topic here;Green tickYagreed.
  • "Citing the Aryan Paragraph, they demanded that all Jews employed by German churches be dismissed from their posts." -- seems like a comparatively small number of people affected compared to other events in the article Green tickY
  • "including Martin Niemöller, one of the founders of the Confessing Church; he remained confined in concentration camps almost until the end of the war" Green tickY
  • "Several Nazis were environmentalists.[341] Himmler made efforts to ban the hunting of animals, and Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.[342][343]" Green tickY
  • " Cardinal Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, repeatedly protested these violations of the Concordat, but to no avail. " (though context on Pacelli should be combined w/ next sentence) Green tickY tweeked
  • "Politically undesirable teachers such as socialists also lost their jobs. " --following sentences make the required conformity clear Green tickY
  • "These findings were largely forgotten after the war, but interest resumed in the 1950s, when American and British researchers began re-examining the question." Green tickY
  • The paragraph on medical experimentation on concentration camp inmates may be more detailed than needed for this overview; I wonder if you might reduce it to simply the first sentence and the last. Green tickY trimmed
  • "The current animal welfare laws in Germany are adapted from laws introduced by the National Socialist regime" Green tickY
  • "Drawing in part on existing ideas and legislation, " Green tickY
  • " The legislation provided a framework for long-range planning regarding the use of natural areas and allowed for the expropriation of privately owned land to create nature preserves" -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Green tickY tweaked
  • Not an issue for GA, but is worth including as an external link? It describes itself as "basically one-man project by myself, Marcus Wendel," which suggests to me it's not a major scholarly resource; FWIW, I'd suggest cutting it, but I could be missing something here. Green tickY -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. -- Dianna (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I concur, your suggestions have been very helpful. --Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Very glad it's been a help! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. See minor prose point above.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See minor WP:WTW point above re: seasons.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. On a superficial pass, the article appears complete; also, article has received extensive review without persuasive complaints of omission.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). At 78kb, article is a little long, but not unreasonably long for a major topic. I suggested some very small cuts above, but there's very little fat here.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Talk page is active, as you'd expect for a top-importance article, but no significant warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA
Okay, have to sign off for a bit now, but it appears this is very, very close to GA. Due to the complexity of this topic and the number of editors who appear to be actively following this one, I'm going to hold off for another 2-3 days before giving a final pass; I want to make sure we give at least a brief window for others to chime in if they like, in case I'm missing anything obvious.
Thanks again to all involved in bringing to the article to this point! It's a terrific accomplishment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
All right--all my issues seem to be resolved. Anybody see anything else? Otherwise, I'll pass this at some point over the weekend. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Since no one else has raised any issues, I'm passing this as a GA. Congratulations again to you both (and any other contributors) on an outstanding revision of a highly popular, vital article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking on this important work. -- Dianna (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Outside comment

  • FWIW, I don't think its inclusion endorses a pro-Nazi POV any more than the Star Spangled Banner on the page USA endorses pro-American propaganda. I'll leave it to more regular editors of this page to work out whether it does, indeed, belong here (I realize there are other issues involved), but I don't see it as a problem for the GA criteria on first glance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
the Horst Wessel Lied is banned in Germany because it is Neo-Nazi propaganda. The significance and meaning of this song has apparently has gone over the heads of the folks who edit here.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No reason to get emotional here. They are written about in all major histories of Nazi Germany. With that said, I think a link to both "Anthems" is sufficient without the audio files and it will save bytes, as well. Kierzek (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. There are good reasons to get emotional here, millions died and many people alive still remember the horror of Nazi Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Offering links to the relevant articles is as effective as offering ogg files of the anthems, imo. If people want to hear the songs they're readily available on the Commons or YouTube. -- Dianna (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing to stop us sharing the views of German and Austrian legislators on the publication of Horst-Wessel-Lied; there's also nothing to stop us from disregarding non-ubiquitous laws that have no place in countries without a history of Nazism or Nazi occupation. It is true that Horst-Wessel-Lied will be a "top hit" for neo-Nazis, but I fail to see how this is of any relevance here. It's an historical piece of music - it's not something that portrays the Third Reich in an overly or unnecessarily positive light (except in the eyes of a German-fluent neo-Nazi) - and, dare I say it - it's less offensive than some of the photographs on this article. I myself find the photo of starving prisoners 'offensive' - but it's history, and it shouldn't be watered down for anyone. I agree with what Boson has said in that it's likely that only a small number of people will have any interest in Horst-Wessel-Lied, and I agree that a link to the song on the article for Horst-Wessel-Lied would be equally appropriate, but I stand against deletion of the OGG partly out of principle (let's not water down history), and partly because the argument for removal just isn't strong enough; articles on countries (and 'periods' within countries - even the evil ones) have sound files in their infoboxes.Surlyduff50 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Horst Wessel Lied

The Horst Wessel Lied drags this article into the gutter, the song is at the top of the hit list for neo-Nazis. In Germany it is banned. Get rid of this eyesore.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I see it was removed, it is amazing that it got pluged on the page in the first place. I must assume that editors acted in good faith and were not aware of the fact that it is offensive to victims of the Nazis.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yah, I took it out before I went to work. It was added to the article a few weeks ago and I did not realise at the time that it should come out. Sorry, -- Dianna (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
No need to feel sorry, we all work together as a team on Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some might find Horst-Wessel-Lied "offensive" is not sufficient grounds for removing the Deutschlandlied and Horst-Wessel-Lied OGG files. The fact that the piece is illegal in Germany is also of no relevance, given that we're discussing the English article. It is offensive to some - yes - but it is in no way obscene, graphic or in breach of Wikipedia's rules. A /ton/ of content on Wikipedia will prove offensive to certain groups. This is supposed to be an objective article; Horst-Wessel-Lied was at the centre of Nazi Germany. I'm sure there are plenty who find "The Internationale" OGG file on the Soviet Union article "offensive", too. If you disagree with me, then fine - but you'd surely disagree with the presence of "The Internationale" at the same time - given that it too would prove offensive to, say, the victims of Stalinism? Surlyduff50 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the sound files of the Horst-Wessel-Lied and the Lied der Deutschen

Even if policy permits us to include a song here, that does not mean that we are obliged to do so. We should not conflate the issue of editorial judgement with what policy requires. There is a reason for the prohibition applying to the distribution of the Horst-Wessel-Lied, and there is nothing to stop us, as responsible editors, sharing the views of the German and Austrian legislatures on the inappropriateness of its publication without accompanying commentary. In my view, it is sufficient to provide a link to the article on the song, where such detailled commentary is possible; the few people reading this article who need to know more about the Horst-Wessel-Lied can click on the link. So I

  • support removal of the sound files.--Boson (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing to stop us sharing the views of German and Austrian legislators on the publication of Horst-Wessel-Lied; there's also nothing to stop us from disregarding non-ubiquitous laws that have no place in countries without a history of Nazism or Nazi occupation. It is true that Horst-Wessel-Lied will be a "top hit" for neo-Nazis, but I fail to see how this is of any relevance here. It's an historical piece of music - it's not something that portrays the Third Reich in an overly or unnecessarily positive light (except in the eyes of a German-fluent neo-Nazi) - and, dare I say it - it's less offensive than some of the photographs on this article. I myself find the photo of starving prisoners 'offensive' - but it's history, and it shouldn't be watered down for anyone. I agree with what Boson has said in that it's likely that only a small number of people will have any interest in Horst-Wessel-Lied, and I agree that a link to the song on the article for Horst-Wessel-Lied would be equally appropriate, but I stand against deletion of the OGG partly out of principle (let's not water down history), and partly because the argument for removal just isn't strong enough; articles on countries (and 'periods' within countries - even the evil ones) have sound files in their infoboxes. Surlyduff50 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion of removal of the ogg files has taken place on the GA review page: Talk:Nazi Germany/GA1#Outside comment. The current consensus is that the ogg files should be removed. I will be doing this in the next few days if there's no further comments on this issue. -- Dianna (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Another example of Wikipedian high school history

From the lede:

" All opposition to Hitler's rule was ruthlessly suppressed by the Gestapo (secret state police) and SS under Heinrich Himmler. "

All? Was the Gestapo responsible for all that?? The assertion regarding the Gestapo should be replaced with the link to the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office); because the Gestapo was just one agency of several that had almost similar roles rooting out dissent within Nazi Germany, and later occupied Europe. Furthermore this sentence suggests the Gestapo took precedence for such activity (being backed up by the SS) as with inclusion of the conjunction "and". BUT they were not separate, because the Gestapo was just one agency (the others being the Sicherheitsdienst, Sicherheitspolizei, Kriminalpolizei) of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt that was part of the Allgemeine SS.

This statement is so ambiguous it is frankly meaningless. Pure Pop history 101. I pity the fools who copied that one for their school essays! (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The second half of the statement could be omitted: "All opposition to Hitler's rule was ruthlessly suppressed" -- Dianna (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously not all, the wives of Jews weren't punished.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wehrmacht also supressed all opposition inside, eg. 15,000 deserters were executed and wounded soldiers ("Simulanten") forced to return to the front.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I have taken out the word "All" because obviously that is an overstatement. -- Dianna (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"All" is pretty accurate. Historians have not found any opposition that was not suppressed, and very harshly indeed. people knew that if they said the wrong thing they would get arrested--that is suppression. Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
That is cowardice.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
yes that's how history works. Rjensen (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor living conditions led to high rates of sickness, injury, and death, as well as sabotage and criminal activity.

You reduce the workers to almost animals. Some of them belonged to anti-Nazi organizations, collected intelligence data, see Olimp (organization).Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

I have reversed Cherubinrule's recent edit - none of the books listed in Further Reading were used to prepare the article, even as general references, so they should not be listed in the bibliography. They need to be in a separate section. WP:FURTHER -- Diannaa (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

We should look this over links like [ this] are not helpfull. Will look over all the books,Moxy (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Moxy, that's a great idea. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Kierzek (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Cherubinirules has again been tinkering with the book lists, and I have reversed his edit. I Think he did not see my post here on the article talk page on this matter, so I have posted my rationale for retention of the present layout on his user talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. I wrote him a note, as well. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Powszechna PWN

It's Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC

There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control#RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppression of Christians

It is a gross understatement -if not a travesty - to sum up the oppression of the Catholic Church and other Christians as merely some were "disciplined, arrested and put in jail." This is far from the truth, nor anywhere remotely correct. Thousands upon thousands were murdered, spent years in concentration camps -not "jail"- and suffered greatly under this nightmare simply for holding to their faith and/or defending the Jewish people. This current summary is woefully short of the reality.

And, the "handy work" of the Nazis to harass the Catholic Church began in the late winter early spring of 1933 - not 1935. Of the 20 odd books I have read on this topic from mainstream historians notes this. So . . . . what is the concern bringing this to light with RS citation? (talkcontribs) 19:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Integrityandhonesty (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The source used for this section (Evans 2005) does not mention any Christian deaths at all, which I found kind of surprising. Shirer covers the same material on pages 234 to 240 and he does not mention any deaths of Christians either. If you have sources that talk about thousands upon thousands of Christians being killed, please present them here on the talk page for discussion. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa- Good to hear from you. Well, in this very Article the Section, "The Outbreak of War", cites (Evans 2006) stating that by the end of 1939 - less than four full months after the invasion of Poland, 65,000 were targeted prior to the invasion, then killed within the intelligentsia - among them-clergy. Poland, then and now, is predominately - Catholic Christians.

In the wiki Article covering the concentration camp of Dachau it discusses the "priests barracks" where 1034 Catholic clergy and some 30 Protestant pastors met their deaths, citing Ian Kershaw "The Nazi Dictatorship, Problems and Perspectives . . . . " 4th edition and others. Further, in Robert P. Ericksen's, "Complicity in the Holocaust", p. 109, he writes, "perhaps as many as 1,000 Polish priests were murdered for fear they might be potential leaders of a future rebellion." Therefore, the 'testimony' of just these three sources alone places the number over 2034+ at a minimum. And, we can go on and on. It is in the aggregate - rather than a single source - that the picture comes into focus.

Last, in Robert A. Krieg's, "Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany", states that the powers given to Hitler as Chancellor - due to the Reichstag Fire Decree of Feb. 28, 1933 - were used/abused to require civil servants to members of the Nazi Party in the states where they had control. Clearly, harassment to all. Then on p. 7 he states, "During June 1933, Nazis waged a strong anti-Catholic campaign ....", clearly long before 1935, or the signing and ratification of the Concordat. So, I ask again. Why is this not reflected in this summary? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not convincing. The Nazis harassed the Catholic Church in Germany but did not suppress it or kill its leaders. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deaths of the Polish priests is already covered in the section on Poland. There's figures for deaths of priests in Dachau concentration camp and Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp, but the numbers are totally without sources. Kershaw is used as a source in that article, but not for that particular point. Obviously, priests were placed in KZs as well as jails, and I can source that with materials on hand, so I will add that right now. If you can find a source for these deaths, of course we can add the information. Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not well enough informed on what Hitler did to Christians to comment on the content, but what I do know is that Christianity is not a race. The content is in the wrong place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, Hi-Lo. I think i will move it to "Society" -- Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree the placement is better for the section, now. The concordat with the Nazis was for international PR opinion, as well to protect the power of the church and the practice of Catholicism in Nazi Germany; which included Catholic youth groups and schools. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors- thank you for your input. Whether this topic is under "Society", or otherwise, seems of modest concern. Our focus s/b historical accuracy. In reverse order? The Concordat was a goal of the Catholic Church since the start of the Weimar Republic in 1919 - not simply an ad hoc response to Nazism. Was it PR? Well, that may have been so for Hitler - but not the Catholic Church. Was it to protect its "power"? If by "power" you mean maintaining control over its institutions? Yes, that's on the mark. As for the youth groups and lay organizations? That was never fully resolved-it was a constant bone of contention between Berlin and Rome post the treaty being ratified and until the end of the war. It's unfortunate as well, Kierzek, that your link to "Catholicism" is a discussion of the concept/notion of the word catholic in Christianity - not the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany. Annoying -I know, but . . . . it is what it is. The Article that covers this topic in depth is the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany.

In response to Rjensen? You're entitled to your POV. All that was pointed out above is founded in RS citations of respected scholars. What are you offering other than a vague, "I'm not convinced" based on "leaders" not being murdered? If by leaders you mean: bishops, or the pope? Yes, that's correct. But, to have done so would have caused rebellion in the German military. The Nazis were ruthless-not stupid. Yet, many Christian leaders were murdered for resisting founded upon their faith, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or the religious philosopher, Edith Stein And, many others like the priests mentioned. As well, being sent to a Nazi concentration camp goes a touch beyond mere "harassment".

Lastly, how do we define: confiscation of land, property, printing presses, publications, radio stations, the shuttering of seminaries, monasteries, convents and schools, which the Nazis had done, other than suppression? Thank you Integrityandhonesty (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are reading too much in my link Integrityandhonesty; I was linking (here only) the "practice" of that faith which is part of what the church in Germany wanted to protect at that time. BTW-Dianna has recently made some good tweaks along the lines of this discussion to which I appreciate her time and effort. Kierzek (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood- this subject is highly complex and full of subtle nuance, which require sorting through to "get it right". This much I've learned over the years. Until next time. All the best.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that a European perspective is useful. Nazi Germany played a major role in protecting the Catholic Church in Spain (1936-39), where priests were indeed murdered by the thousands (over 6000). How many German Catholics were killed because of their religion? "thousands and thousands" is not supported by the RS. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- Once more, you're entitled. Do not wish to be appear to be "combative". The Nazis involved themselves in the Civil War in Spain for a host of reasons. Priming their military, and fighting their arch rival - the Communists among several. The Communists were a major force in Central Europe since the 1920's and were seeking further expansion via Spain. Not that complicated when you get to the fundamentals. Was Communism synonymous in the Nazi mind to the Jewish people? Yes. And,yes, many priests and religious were murdered in cold bold by the Communists there.

To say the Nazis were there to "protect the Catholic Church" as its primary motive, or even truly a viable point ? I'm sorry, but that's a 'straw-man' debate. A connecting of dots that do not stand up to the hard facts. Was the Catholic Church encouraging opposition of the Communists? Yes, without a doubt. But, for the same motivation as the Nazis? Categorically - no. The Catholic Church has been denouncing Communism sine 1891 with the publication of Rerum Novarum when Hitler was an infant and Franco was a one year old. This is like stating the Ocean is wet because the water is blue.

Robert Krieg, Robert Ericksen and Ian Kershaw are not RS's? Okay. Have any of you been to Dachau? If you have not. In the museum there? What I just put forward? Is in the displays and education kiosks. And, in the Article on Dachau? The numbers are sourced regarding the # priests who died there: 1034. Ericksen tells us around 1000 priests were murdered during invasion of Poland. So . . . . a touched confused on that point. Is not Dachau in Germany? Was not Poland a Nazi territory? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Integ seems to have a great "insight" into what the Nazis "really" intended to do when they seemed to be helping the Catholic Church, but he gives no sources and does not mention the Vatican role. Then again he can't tell the difference between Poland and Germany, or between harassment (which happened in Germany) and systematic destruction (which did not happen in Germany). He needs to look at German history (Bismarck was much rougher on German Catholics) as well as the Catholic response--see the articles on Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XI and Germany and Pope Pius XIIfor leads to the major scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning - Just to wrap up this whole issue. Rjensen? It's okay. But, there is not a requirement for any of us to write a virtual treatise to make a point;willing to work with you - not do your homework for you. Read more.

Yes, the Vatican had a vested interest in Spain during the Civil War there. Just as they did when the Russian Empire fell - for the very same reason. An atheistic power was brutally enforcing its will. And, it is clear that the Nazis walked more cautiously in their own homeland for a litany of reasons. Yet, they showed their contempt when the risks were low i.e., Poland and Eastern Europe.

Just what part of Evans (this Articles' own reference) statement that 65,000 were killed/executed soon after the invasion of Poland in cold blood, pre-meditated murder - and among them clergy confuses you? And, there is no mystery that- overwhelmingly- Poland was - Roman Catholic. This apparent denial of history, or innocent ignorance, is no excuse to belittle the memory of the thousands of Christians that were targeted and murdered by the Nazis because of their faith based resistance. I'll leave it to your conscience to work that out.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Integrityandhonesty" is an unfortunate username for an editor who refuses to read the many monographs and scholarly studies on how Germany treated Catholics and Protestants. None of them say that thousands and thousands of Catholics were murdered by the Nazis because of their faith (that happened in Spain and Russia). The idea of suppressing the Catholic Church in Germany and arresting the bishops was Bismarck's (1870s). Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- If we're speaking of Germany "proper" (as in, pre-1936 borders) what you state is correct. We agree. Inside Germany "proper" the verifiable figures are less than 1100 +-. Outside the borders of Germany 'proper' (as in, the Nazi Empire )-particularly at its peak ? Then, the figures soar dramatically, leaving Spain aside altogether.

With that, it's an injustice - in my view- to summarize the fate of Christians inside Germany who resisted, and assisted the Jewish people based on their faith, as merely harassed, disciplined, arrested and jailed. This language places their fate no worse than a fraternity party gone bad. They were beaten, murdered, dispossessed and placed in concentration camps left to die. This was the fate of at least 1100 between 1934-1945 that can be reasonably verified inside Germany. Again, the Dachua priests barracks being the obvious example. This is what I'm stating. Hope you see the merit of this position. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

you're making assumptions not supported by any RS: a) occupied Poland should be treated as integral to Germany; b) the priests were often arrested for defending Jews. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- These are verified historical facts. If you visit the, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Article you will see the data on the Dachua priests barracks. Perhaps, I was seeing an illusion at the Dachua museum with the list of over 1000 priests that perished there. More broadly - if you visit the Article Holocaust victims and read the Section, religious persecution you'll read the following: 2,000 Jehovah Witnesses were placed in concentration camps in Germany; thousands of clergy were killed. 3000 of the Polish clergy murdered - 1992 in concentration camps. 2600 Catholic priests from 24 different countries killed in concentration camps in Germany, 1034 from Dachau alone.

Is this body count sufficient to count as an RS? Or, do we need more? Here is a sampling of German Christians in Germany who where murdered in Germany for their faith: Josef Wirmer - hung. Willi Graf-head of Catholic Youth Groups and member of the White Rose-beheaded. Maria Restituta - beheaded for placing a crucifix in a classroom and writing a poem denouncing Hitler. This is not to mention the other more infamous individual cases such as, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Does this look anything like simply being "disciplined" - "arrested" and "jailed"? We can go on and on. And, these are the cases we know about. I'm not interested - just as are you- in empty debate. Again, I hope you see the merits of the position.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

no the body counts do not meet Wikipedia's criteria of a "reliable secondary source." The raw numbers do not provide the motives. You have found no evidence that the people were killed for religious reasons. Real persecution is what the Nazis did to the Jews (or racial grounds) and Jehovah Witnesses (on religious grounds), not what they did to people who happened to be Catholics. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- This is, well, pointless. No matter what objective evidence is placed before you it's as if it does not exist. I offered respected RS's such as Krieg, and Ericksen and several links within Wikipedia that already provide further RS citations. Yet, you have provided not a single RS that denies or refutes any of what has been put forward. Can you produce a single citation that states no German Christians (including Catholics) were murdered by the Nazis in Germany for their faith based resistance, or placing themselves at great risk to assist the Jewish people motivated by that faith? If not? Then, what does that tell us? We need to move on now - if you can not produce this. Of the 11 or so concentration camps in Germany on any given day from 1936/7-45 you will have found thousands of Christians there because of their faith based resistance. I challenge you to produce one historian of credit that refutes this historical reality. And, I will let what has been put forward speak for itself. As for Catholics? An incredible statement on your part. So, if we're to take what you're implying, then Roman Catholics were - what-exactly? Not that I have put forward Catholics exclusively here. You have singled out Catholics. Please feel free to elaborate, however. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- Not much coming forward. Or, can we look forward to more vague repeated circular language of denial of history void of a single quote of an RS? I think there is a phrase that is useful in circumstances such as this. It goes like this Rjensen. You say, "You're right - I'm wrong. Let's move on." Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet, you have provided not a single RS that denies or refutes any of what has been put forward. No--that is not the way Wikipedia works. If an editor believes A,B,C are true, he has the burden of providing us with reliable secondary sources that state A,B,C Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Editors- First, thank you Diannaa for adding "concentration camps" to the list of horrors that Christians in Germany who resisted based on faith to the Section under discussion. And, Kierzek for pointing to the edit. Yet, this is a start - not fully complete. They were dispossessed, families torn apart and thousands murdered in the most brutal inhumane/ unjust fashion conceivable. This is not to take away - at all- from the fate of others. But, what is the "message sent" to omit one concise sentence? Are not readers entitled to know? Are not future generations to hear the full truth?

Rjensen- I'm not at loss;your position lacks merit thus far. Your complaint that I have not provided RS's is just - well- not true. I provided several, one of them existing in the Article from Evans. And-once again- several Wikipedia links with numerous RS's that support what is being offered. While you have yet to produce a single RS quote to refute. Not a very solid argument. Not only this, I offered links to individual cases of those - yes, murdered by the Nazis in Germany for resisting based on their faith; each Article providing an abundance of RS citations in their own right.

This all started with the point about Christians - not only Catholics. Every historian of this period knows 2000+ Jevovah's Witnesses (from Germany in Germany) were murdered in cold blood for refusing to compromise their faith. Are they not Christians? Every historian knows that well over 1000 catholic priests died in the Dachua concentration camp - in Germany. They even have a memorial plaque on the grounds for Pete's sakes! With their names on it. Were they all there for resisting based on faith alone? No, but most were.

And, this notion of proving the motivation of the executioner is -again- off the mark that is, whether its political, or religious persecution. The real question is what motivated the victim to resist in the first instance. Yes? Politics, or their faith? The motivation of the executioner is secondary. In the eyes of the victim resisting based on faith? You can be sure they understood what was really happening. They literally staked their lives on it.

My motivation is not ideological, political, theological, or an agenda of some sort. My motivation is -justice and impartial objectivity. And, no more. To deny this fact based history is a grave injustice wether you have a bone to pick with any particular religion, or faith tradition, is not relevant to the objective reality of what actually- happened. With that, yet more victims of the Nazi nightmare who were killed, no, murdered or died in a concentration camp because of their faith based resistance to Nazism - in Germany- from Wikipedia with an overabundance of RS citations in each:

Paul Schneider (pastor) Protestant pastor, Maria Skobtsova Russian Orthodox nun, poet and French Resistance member, took the place of a Jewish woman about to taken to the gas chambers in a concentration camp- in Germany. Wladyslaw Goral - bishop murdered in a concentration camp - in Germany, Titus Brandsma catholic priest and renowned scholar of philosophy murdered in Dachua by lethal injection in a "medical experiment", and there is plenty more where this came from -sadly. Now, I place the rest on the conscience of the good editors of this Article. And, have said my piece. Thank you all.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Ethnic German Catholics were treated differently from non-German ones. Also some in German Catholic Church supported extermination of Poles and invasion of Poland.The Nazis who viewed Poles as subhumans planned to exterminate all Polish Catholics after their long planned war would come, and engaged in mass executions of clergy and destruction of churches.

How Catholic Church was being destroyed on Polish territories annexed by Germany during the war can be read here: --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount - Thank you! Very much on the mark. There were some Christians (using that label loosely) -nor singling out Catholics, or the "Catholic Church"- who adapted: the Racial policy of Nazi Germany - the source of this hateful "subhuman" concept of the Slavic people and others. And, there was a movement called Positive Christianity among the Nazis who explicitly and formally incorporated this racism into their "faith tradition"; composed mostly of lax Protestants of northern Germany and some former Catholics. It is also true and correct that nationalism played a part.

As for the Catholic Church? The leadership (meaning the bishops as a body) formally denounced this racism. And, among the Protestants-most notably - the Confessing Church had done the same. The Orthodox Churches also published similar documents and positions. Like most history- we prefer simple answers to complex issues, but if we're seeking truth we have to contend with the complexity of the human experience. No escaping it.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To give you a second opinion, it seems to me that you, Integrityandhonesty are wrong on this issue, at least as far as THIS article is concerned. Lets take one of your statements as an example:

  • it's certainly true, that many catholics in poland were killed; however that was only incidally; they were not beeing killed because they were catholics; they were killed for reasons like being not german or for resisting or impeding german plans. It may be true, that some resisters were resisting because they were catholic; but that's a mere guess; no one knows that for sure. In my opinion that's very unlikely; I think most people who resistet were resisting because - whatever their religion: it was just the most ethically sound thing to do. I would call that human behaviour; not catholic behaviour.
  • Furthermore; even if you could somehow prove the motives of long dead people; it does not matter; because the germans weren't killing them for their catholic religion but for other reasons. Historic knowledge about polish motivations for resisting may fit into another article; but it's just not relevant for this article because their is no reason to believe that nazi germany wanted to hurt catholics; that would be rather suicadal; given that about half of them were catholics themselves!
  • If you are not convinced by now; imagine tommorow comes a plumber who has convincing statistics, that the germans did indeed kill many hundreds of polish plumbers; many of them active in the resistance. That's almost certainly true; just because a) many poles - esp skilled - were killed and b) many poles were plumbers; and c) many were resisting. So; is that a reason to grant his wish to mention the polish plumbers in this article? Would you comclude the germans seem to have had a special hate for plumbers? If so, you have no reason to refuse mentioning the other thousands of sub-groupings within the polish population that suffered life losses.
  • And you can be very certain: if you include catholics; in no time you will have atheists, protestants, buddhists, homosexuals, and so on claiming that they resistet too and were also cruelly killed for their beliefs. But how could this be important for understanding the history of nazi germany? It isn't, because it's just a statistical fluke: if you kill many people in christian nation; you are almost certain to kill many christians just by chance.
  • Note: you would have a point if you could prove that catholics were e.g. much more resisting or much more jew-saving than people of other religions. (Do you really believe this is true? Ok, but please understand that such overbearing claims need exceptionally good RS) That would have a place in another wikipedia article. To include it here you would furthermore need to prove german intent. Against that, you argued, the victims did care more about their own reasons than about german intent. Even if, what follows? That every victims reason be listed here? No, just your petty reason? Why? Does not every victim care more about his own personal reason than about your fav? That kind of thinking leads nowhere. Invoking the pain of victims does not make you right.

--lucid (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anonymous

The topic and subject is/was the section already existent in the Article titled:Oppression of Christians.

The exclusion of non-christian faith traditions, (i.e, Muslims - or others) and so on is because it is not the topic. Whereas, you make an indirect valid point. Why stop at Christians as to faith based (motivated) resistance and their oppression by the Nazis?

In the case of Poland, it was and still is, a people who - in the main - profess to be Catholic. As stated, this is not to saying this is the only Christian faith tradition then, or now, that resisted in Poland, or elsewhere. Or, that Catholics were the only people to resisted based on their belief in the existence of God, Christian, Jewish or otherwise. Never stated that. My input was to address the topic at hand- which was - and is, the dilution of the reality that thousands of Christians were murdered by the Nazis precisely because they were motivated by their Christian faith. More to the point? The point in its entirety is to state it's unjust to reduce this history to a mere foot note that Christians were merely arrested, or harassed, but indeed, were murdered in pre-mediated cold bold, precisely because of their Christian faith inspired resistance. And, I offered multiple RS sources in my submission.

In point in fact, I specifically stated this and offered examples of non-Catholics who resisted as well who resisted to the point of being murdered. So, not certain where you're taking us. Nor, did I state atheists, or agnostics were/are less inclined to resist for ethical, or moral reasons, objective crimes against humanity regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, or vocation as in your analogy of your beloved plumber. So, I struggle to see your point in response to what was actually stated in this regard.

Further, there are many well documented examples of many people of faith who were murdered precisely because of their faith based (motivation) resistance to the Nazis. Their own surviving writings, the Nazis own surviving documents and first account witnesses are in the thousands, such as Maximilian Kolbe. Nor, was there an attempt in any form or fashion to "prove" Catholics vs others ('religious' or not) were more "Jew saving"- as you put it - than any others. Where do you see that in what was submitted? With all this, there are literally hundreds of scholarly works and books on this topic. I suggest you read a few and learn for yourself that thousands upon thousands of Jews were spared the fate of the Holocaust by people of faith precisely because of their faith. And, many were oppressed and paid with their lives in the process of their faith based resistance.

As for diminishing, or dismissing, the pain of others? Once more - the topic was explicit and exclusively about Christians as the section is titled Oppression of Christians. And, it was stated very clearly that this was not in any manner to take from the suffering of others - period. But, the injustice of grossly understating that Christians suffered explicitly because of their faith. If you visit the Article Catholic Church and Nazi Germany or Religion in Nazi Germany you'll discover an abundance of 'exceptionally good' RS's' to the point raised, that indeed there were powerful forces within Nazism motivated and desired to dismantle Christianity. Thank you for your comments - while I challenge now a legitimate refutation (with 'exceptionally good' RS's) that Christians did not suffer persecution under Nazi rule and thousands murdered because of their faith based resistance. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Integrityandhonesty,

"The topic and subject is/was the section already existent in the Article titled:Oppression of Christians."

  • Yes. And this section is quite good as it is now, because it describes the situation in germany rather well as a continuation of an ongoing struggle between the state and the churches about influences on society. Note that this is nothing specific to germany, but happened in all european states to some degree. The state government does not want the churches to work against its policies; the creation of national states in europe almost always constrained the churches power to religious issues which was used to much broader powers in the past. The idea of the nation state and democracy is just incompatible with major political decisions being made in rome. Thus, there was much fighting until stable demarcations of legitimate spheres of influence were agreed on. During that struggle states often tried to reduce religousness and further identification with the state, sometimes using questionable means. BUT this was in no way meant to be anti-christian or anti-catholic; the state couldn't care less about religion as long as it did not interfere with its aims. Actually in many european states politicians rather wanted to promote religion; to maintain the morale order and of course because they were religious themselves. In the soviet state or in most cummunist states the church fared FAR WORSE; christians being converted to atheists using force. Overall there was less anti-christian sentiment in germany than in many other european countries (eg france). It's true that there were some nazis wanting to reintroduce germanic gods, etc.; but this had neither wide support, nor was it realized to any degree.
  • So, while the existing conflicts between state and church continued after the nazis rose to power; there is just no evidence that they wanted to harrass christians or the church. Also, that would have been stupid, because that would have provoked widespread opposition. Moderate anti church measures just happnened to be neccessary for aims like consolidation of power. I oppose changing the article the way you suggest, because it would imply anti-religous sentiments and persecution that simply didn't exist in germany. Germany was a christian nation with a christian population (although doing some not so christian things).

"The exclusion of non-christian faith traditions, (i.e, Muslims - or others) and so on is because it is not the topic."

  • This article is called "Nazi germany". If you get in your favourite victim group for no other reason that nazis killed some of that group; dozens of other groups would be justified to also mention broadly their favorite victim group. That would make the article worse because it would give false impressions. While it is indeed justified to write about christian situation at that time, that's already done in a nice balanced way; your changes would unbalance thatand create false impressions. Thus we have to stop this now: NO SPECIAL VICTIM GROUPS at all without good justification.
  • About your insistance on the section topic: this obviously does not justify writing about all there is to know about the literal section topic; but only that which is relevant to the article subject at the same time and balanced and proven. Yours is neither in my view.

"In the case of Poland, ..."

  • As i said, I don't see any RS that proves anti-catholic intent; it was coincidental; almost the same would have happened if poland had been 99% protestant or buddhist. Furthermore, this article is not about poland but about germany.
  • Also, you didn't respond to the problem of proving that resistance was faith based. That's just unlikely, knowing from psychology that all humans would feel compelled to resist. This is just a biased interpretation from people that like thinking that way. All this 'wanting to see victimization and discrimination of special groups' seems to be a disease of our times. As a christian, think about homosexuals complaining about being discriminated against by the church and state today. You seem to be doing the same ... structurally.
  • Regarding that powerful forces in germany; sorry no, being anti-christian was not even a minority view in germany; just some lunatic theorists; most likely LESS in number than e.g. in france.
  • Regarding things you did or did not say or imply: Yes, it is indeed very strange that you use arguments which speak against your view as if they were supporting your view. E.g. you concede that poland was almost 100% catholic, but you dont seem to notice that this undermindes your claims. Imagine poland was only 10% catholic but the nazis still managed to kill almost all of them while leaving almost all non-catholics alive: THAT would be rather good evidence for a special nazi hatred against catholics. But when almost all are catholic, even if you kill randomly you will kill mostly catholics; thus that does not mean anything in that case.

--lucid (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anonymous

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. There is no attempt to suggest this Article is "Anti-Catholic/Christian" but rather pointing out that it was an injustice to characterize the fate of many Christians (including in Nazi Germany) who suffered being murdered for their faith based resistance. Once more, if you visit the Articles referenced you will discover this, which within themselves provide a cornucopia of RS's. This has been addressed by the way. Weeks ago just to let you know. Nor, am I (or others) concerned about 'winning arguments' but getting to objective history.

Indeed, there was a response to 'proving' faith based resistance. Did I not express that we have surviving documents of the victims themselves? Were not several Article references offered for you to visit? Not sure where you're going here either. What manner of evidence does one need beyond the words of the victims themselves, testimony of eyewitnesses and the Nazis as to why and what events led to their murder? Beyond this, it becomes circular. When a conversation becomes circular there is usually an ideology to blame. Not interested in that either - but seeking and supporting the truth.

To suggest thousands were not murdered by the Nazis in Germany and throughout the Nazi Empire because of their faith inspired resistance is to deny reality and a great injustice to objective history. It's that plain and simple. Like the noses on our faces Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis murdered priests along with other intellectuals because they were intellectuals, not because of their notional faith-based resistance. Plenty of priests were not resisting. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet- Yes, this is indeed correct also, but we assume all these priest's were simply victims with no faith behind their offering their lives for their faith for all to see and remember. As priests - this is part and parcel of their vocation. Yet, this was not the point I was making from the start; nor was I singling out Catholics - clergy or lay - but, again, all Christians regardless of faith tradition, as the Article section was titled: Oppression of Christians. And that, prior to this, it (the Article section) simply stated they (Christians) were merely arrested and harassed for their resistance. A gross understatement to put it mildly. This is far from the reality of it.

Thousands were, yes, arrested, and harassed in Germany. But, also, dispossessed, tortured and murdered. Thousands of them - not simply a rare exceptional 'saint'. And, it was their faith that motivated them in most cases. As an example Erich Klausener and others I have already pointed out above. The most clear case is the Jehovah Witnesses who resolutely refused to recognize Hitler as the Nazis required. In Germany - it is estimated 2,500 to 5000 were killed for this alone.

Of course - we can all agree- most 'Christians' (including some/many priests) did not resist as they were called to. Otherwise, none of this would have - perhaps -happened in the first instance. This only tells us few had the courage - or sincerely believed what they professed - to live out their faith in the face of a brute thug, and when much is on the line to 'push back'. So, it begs the question. We're they truly following the example of Christ? The answer is clearly - no. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. You Christians are so not like your Christ." But then, he was murdered by a Hindu extremist. Yet, we should be slow to judge. In the face of raw murderous industrialized thuggery reason goes out the window.

This being objectively true - in no manner should this fact take a single ounce or iota away from those who had, and clearly those that had paid handsomely - in the thousands - in Germany. And, history should preserve and honor their memory. Enough said.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in Territorial changes

In part Territorial changes is written: "The Saarland was made part of Czechoslovakia" Shouldn't be there France instead of Czechoslovakia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helldix (talkcontribs) 17:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thank you for spotting this mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Saarland prior to being incorporated into the Federal Republic of Germany was a French Protectorate, but it was never annexed by France.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


@Binksternet. Should we then remove "E pluribus unum" from the USA article? Or the "(popular)" and "(unofficial)" anthems from German Empire? etc. -- Director (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not want an unofficial motto in the infobox, but I have no problem with prose in the article body telling the reader about various mottoes, including "Volksgemeinschaft" (The People's Communiity), "Wach auf, du deutsches Land!" (Germany awake!), "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), "Bread and work", "All wheels must roll for victory", "The common good before the individual good", "through death to a millennium", "He who possesses the youth, possesses the future", and of course, "The Fiihrer is always right". Trying to choose one of these for the infobox is too thorny a task. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR: There was extensive discussion about this point in May, and the decision was taken that this was more a party slogan than a national motto. We couldn't find any sources to back up the assertion that this (or any other) motto was the official national motto, and as far as I know all content in a GA-level article must have sources, so we took it out. There's more information at Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4#Motto. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, we already discussed this (per the link above) and the consensus was removal. Kierzek (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that was the most popular "motto", I'll see if I can find the publication. -- Director (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that "ein rich" was A motto, but putting it into the inforbox implies it was The motto, which I think is unsupported, even with the current ref. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Large addition about religion

I have removed a large addition by Ozhistory about religion. My opinion is that a thousand-word addition on this topic gives it undue weight (increasing the article size from 12,400 words to 13,400 words). It makes the section on persecution of the Christian Churches more than triple the size (1510 words versus 439 words) of the section on persecution of the Jews, which was the core thing the Nazis did. An off-topic addition this size could possibly even jeopardise its status as a Good Article, as this article should be a summary of key points without going into too much detail. Perhaps the material could be added to Religion in Nazi Germany instead? I would be interested to see opinions of other editors. Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The section should retain its brief summary style layout. It should not be expanded to cover more details. The details belong in the main article on the subtopic of religion in Nazi Germany. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both of you; this article covers a lot of ground as it is; only an overview should be included with links to sub-articles, as it is now. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa - you make a good point on relative size to Jewish section. Still, the existing section on the churches is inadequate, and in need of improvement. This can be achieved with the insertion of a few basic wikilinks - eg to kirchenkampf, Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp, perhaps Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland (insofar as it relates to areas annexed to Germany) etc, and just some basic stats, and key players. Additionally there are some inaccuracies (or incomplete thoughts) in the existing text - such as the implication that Mit brennender Sorge was issued by Pius XII (it wasn't, it was an encyclical by his predecessor Pius XI); the suggestion that oppression of Catholics started around 1935 (rather than 1933) and; and the statement that 700 Confessing Pastors were arrested (the regime seems to have done this 700 man round up at least twice in response to specific actions by that Church). Overall the length and breadth of the Church Struggle is not yet summarised. I propose to work on a minimalist "brief summary style layout", which improves accuracy and detail, without significantly expanding length. Ozhistory (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to present the length and breadth of the struggle here; this is supposed to be an overview article. The addition of a few wikilinks is a good idea, as is correcting any inaccuracies. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ozhistory:, none of your citations conform to the existing citation style (Harvard citations using {sfn} templates). Please fix this problem if you know how. If you don't know how, please say so. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC) No comment for now on the quality of the material; I am too tired to review it right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa - no sorry, I don't know how to conform to the citation style. I will pay attention to how this is done for future reference. Please do check for any of my own errors or omissions in new content. I have stuck to three paragraph structure and note that the combined section on "Persecution of Jews" and "Holocaust" amounts to 8 paragraphs (rightly given much weight); while sum total of "Oppression of Christian religions" section is comparable to length of "Education" and "Role of Women & Family" sections in the Society section.Ozhistory (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course I will check your work, as it took me some 200 hours to bring the article to Good Article status, and I don't want anything to jeopardise that. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of the links already appear elsewhere in the article, and there's some obvious errors in grammar. I will start with the citations. The pagination matches on Shirer, so I will go ahead and convert to cite to the edition that's already in the bibliography. For Kershaw 2008, the copy I use is over at the library, so I will check and see when I get to work whether or not the pagination agrees. @Kierzek: I think you have access to Kershaw's Problems and Perspectives? If so, could you please check out the material in this addition and see if the page numbers agree? That way we won't have to add another edition of this book to the bibliography. Thanks.
@Ozhistory: Please provide ISBN numbers:
  • Rising '44: the Battle for Warsaw
  • Plotting Hitler's Death: The German Resistance to Hitler 1933-1945 - this one is also missing the year of publication
  • An Honourable Defeat: A History of the German Resistance to Hitler
  • Encyclopædia Britannica: Dachau, by Michael Berenbaum - also needs a volume number, page number, edition number, publisher name, and location. Green tickY resolved - it's a web page.
That's all I have time to do for now; I have to go to work. I hope this content is so much better that you think absorbing four or five hours of my editing time is worthwhile – time that in my opinion would be better spent improving a krappy article rather than on an article that has already achieved Good Article status and is in far better shape than most. I know you mean well and want to help, but still, I am angry. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Was asked to get theses books ISBN's .... as for Encyclopædia guess is that its this page -- Moxy (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Moxy. But it would be better if Ozhistory provided the ISBNs from the volumes he actually used to source the content. That way we can be sure the page numbers given in the article will match up with the source text. For example, the copy of Davies you give was published by Pan Macmillan in 2008, but Ozhistory is citing a 2003 edition published by Viking. Is the pagination the same in the two editions? -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Identifiers as follows:
* Rising '44: the Battle for Warsaw - ISBN 0-670-03284-0
* Plotting Hitler's Death: The German Resistance to Hitler 1933-1945 - published 1996 - I will confirm ISBN shortly.
* An Honourable Defeat: A History of the German Resistance to Hitler - I will confirm ISBN shortly.
* I have deleted the Britannica citation, as it is not necessary to the text.
As for whether these additions are worth your time, Diannaa, I can't say - but I certainly have put more than 4 of 5 hours into them myself, and believe that the end result will be a worthwhile improvement. If the overall article is "good status", this particular section wasn't (sourced to only one text, containing inaccuracies and ambiguities, and failing to make use of existing material by wikilinking). Through linking to wikipedia articles on the Kirchenkampf, Ludwig Müller, Martin Niemöller, Hanns Kerrl, Erich Klausener, the Priest barracks of Dachau, and the Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland etc, the visiting reader is now far better placed to read further on the topic, and my citations for the additional texts are the product of several months study, now shared for the benefit of wikipedia. Thank you for your work on formatting of citations. Two more ISBNs to follow (I need to view these at library) Ozhistory (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe the addition could still use trimming; Sorry, Dianna but I don't have Ian Kershaw's book, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation; btw- I am glad you removed Encyclopædia Britannica; it should not be used as an RS cite source here, anyway. Kierzek (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes Kierzek, I'll do another trim review. Ozhistory (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Ozhistory: Sorry to be so grouchy. You are right, the whole section was sourced to Evans, so this was worth doing. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've haven't yet mastered the sfn citation system, sorry, but have added another couple of names to list of assassinated leaders.Ozhistory (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany's war in the east was based..

Germany's war in the East was based on Hitler's long-standing view that Jews were the great enemy of the German people and that Lebensraum was needed for Germany's expansion. He focused on Eastern Europe, aiming to defeat Poland and the Soviet Union and remove or kill the resident Jews and Slavs

Either this is worded incorrectly, or it is a ridiculous assertion as to why Germany invaded "the East" in the first place.
as for Poland, Germany didn't invade because of "Hitler's long-standing view that Jews were the great enemy of the German people and Lebensraum was needed" Germany invaded Poland because Poland failed to allow Germany unrestricted passage to its exclave East Prussia and allow for a revision of the status of a city that was 95% German - Danzig. You can argue that this has something to do with Lebensraum, but then at least give a quote for Lebensraum vis-a-vis the invasion of Poland.
As for the Soviet Union, where is the source stating that Germany invaded because of "Hitler's long-standing view that Jews were the great enemy of the German people and Lebensraum was needed"? What about Hitler's belief that a victory there would force the UK to negotiate a peace with Germany and end the war - a conclusion based on the misconception, as evidenced through the "all we have to do is kick in the door" remark, that the Soviet Union was still the largely-unindustrialized, poorly organized country that had attacked Germany in 1914? What about the fact that, as long as the war with the UK was still on, Germany was dependant upon oil from Rumania, and it was only through trade with the Soviet Union that Hitler could get what the UK was sitting atop in the Middle East?
Where is the statement that these military actions were carried out purely because of racial ideology and not due to circumstance or military assessment? -- (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
These points are already addressed in the article, as far as I can see. for example, in the section about the conquest of Europe, it says that "the Nazis seized from the French thousands of locomotives and rolling stock, stockpiles of weapons, and raw materials such as copper, tin, oil, and nickel.[74] Financial demands were levied on the governments of the occupied countries as well; payments for occupation costs were received from France, Belgium, and Norway" and "Barbarossa was intended to destroy the Soviet Union and seize its natural resources for subsequent aggression against the Western powers" and at the top of "Turning point and collapse" it says "Germany, and Europe as a whole, was almost totally dependent on foreign oil imports. In an attempt to resolve the persistent shortage, Germany launched Fall Blau (Case Blue), an offensive against the Caucasian oilfields, in June 1942." And as far as why Germany invaded Poland, you might be confusing the reasons for the invasion given in their own propaganda with the actual reason, and the reason that's backed up by the sources used to prepare this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewording needed.

"Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state." That in the first paragraph, to avoid redundancy and to get more to the point, should be written as: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the Nazi Party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but then we've got three sentences in a row that use the word "Nazi". Not sure which is better., -- Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
When read in context, the first and second sentences are clear enough that the country was under the control of Hitler and the Nazi Party; which formed the Nazi state, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether to portray the era as one of statism or one-party dictatorship. The ideology of the party is probably more the issue than the statism, since statism was common among the great powers of Europe anyway. All of the Fascists and Communists were statists, and the Nazis likewise. Furthermore, it must be stressed that party loyalty resulted in treason to the Weimar state--Reichstag Fire et al, so statism was not exactly the point of Nazi Germany, nor a point of difference from Weimar, or from Prussian Germany before, etc. Political affiliation defined Germany at this time, regardless of official state identification with Nazi party. It is strange, however, that the article is not called the Greater German Reich, when that is the official name, otherwise we would be reading the title of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or Soviet Union article as Communist Russia or Red Russia as opposed to White Russia. Nazi Germany is a political description for the article that does stress the partisan identity of Germany at the time, no less than Communist Russia would, had it been chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the article, "Greater German Reich" gets 640,000 Google hits and "Nazi Germany" gets over 58 million hits. And here on Wikipedia, "Greater German Reich" gets about 500 hits per month, and "Nazi Germany" gets over 100,000. Therefore the article is titled "Nazi Germany" because, as the most common name, that's where people are expecting to find the information. Regarding the differences between "statism" and "one-party dictatorship": We are using the word "state" to mean state (polity) or sovereign state, not meaning to imply that the Nazis were proponents of statism. That sort of distinction is probably beyond the scope of this article, even assuming that such material could be found in the sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Reread the quote. It clearly makes the case for statist control of the population. Because statism was hardly unique to Nazi Germany, it begs the case for a rewording. The description should read more like the Great Purge by Stalin, for political supremacy over the people, rather than that the state in and of itself simply bossed people around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that the passage needs to be re-worded, so sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

did nazi germany have a national motto?

Did nazi germany have a national motto and if so which one? (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

we can resolve the issue here instead of edit warring (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

they may have, but we need sourcing to determine if so and which one, which we do not have. For example, here are other phrases which are refereed to in reliable sources as "the nazi motto" (Used in the sense of "The phrase X" (none of which are the "official motto"

  • "The jews are our Misfortune" [[86]]
  • "Deuchland uber alles" (also the national anthem)
  • Kraft durch Freude (Joy through Strength) [[87]]
  • Arbeit macht frei [[88]]
  • Blut und Boden [[89]] [[90]]
  • Blut und Ehren [[91]]
  • Gott mit uns
  • Loyal and Firm behind the fuhrur [[92]]
  • The german everyday shall be beautiful [[93]]
  • Deutschland, erwache [[94]]

And I could find many more quite easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ok can some one find the correct one, because it is very important to the infobox of the article (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The one that seems to be the "most official" is actually Gott mit uns, which was on the coat of arms of the empire, etc, but I don't think there is sufficient sourcing to declare it the winner by any means. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is "important to the infobox". The infobox is there to serve the reader—period. If there is no particular slogan or motto that can be described as the official one then we leave that infobox parameter empty. The existence of an infobox parameter does not mean we require an entry in it. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
"Gott mit uns" is not nazi germany it is the german empire (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Like many things, the 3rd reich attempted to provide continuity with the 1st and 2nd reichs. They used the motto extensively (Although I still would say none are sufficiently sourced to be "official", and there may in fact not have been an "official" motto, which would have required some sort of deceleration or law being passed saying it was the official motto. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Where is the laws about the the other historic german entities, on wikipedia they all have one motto (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The issue of a national motto has been repeatedly discussed since May 2013. I have checked and found no reliable sources that name any one motto as the national motto of Nazi Germany. The IP who opened this RFC is very likely banned user User:Chaosname, as the IP geolocates to his known location. He most recently socked under username Peterzor. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Either there was one or there was not. Unless a reliable source states a motto is the "official" one, it is irrelevant. If there isn't one, we don't put one in the article. Easy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Or it would be if a slew of other former country infoboxes weren't crammed full of "unofficial" mottoes, anthems, flags, symbols etc. People have a tendency to get hung up on these kind of issues here. Imo pick the most common one if possible and use that, making clear its "(unofficial)". To my knowledge that's the "Ein... etc" stuff. -- Director (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Peacemaker67: If there's no evidence for an official motto then no motto should be listed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't grounds for picking some unofficial motto. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
And I concur with the 'naut on this: if none, then omit. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As Dianna states above, we have been all through this before; there was no official motto. Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be any clear official motto. In that case, I favor just skipping it... unless someone can conclusively show that there was an official motto. My research show virtually no results for "official nazi motto". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason that we do not include a motto in the infobox is that there is no agreement that there was a (single) established motto. Though a motto needs to be established, there is no obvious requirement that it has to be official. This may be important because infoboxes are intended to provide consistency. Some countries may have both a conventional motto and an official motto. In other cases, the "officialness" (or even legality) of an actual motto may be unclear. It is, of course, important that the reader is not misled. --Boson (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a winner among this list: however, the phrase on the crest could be put in the infobox as "Gott mi uns" (on the crest). Perhaps the others could be added to a new section about mottos? theonesean 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to leave the infobox here without a motto, but as a general rule I think we should remember that the primary method of establishing a motto is to use it on a heraldic achievement (particularly on the motto scroll below or above the coat of arms). I suppose this is best discussed somewhere else such as {{Infobox country}}.--Boson (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not the motto of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Germany. It was however the motto of the German army (which was a semi-autonomous institution) under both regimes and the Weimar Republic (the SS, who were of course all Nazis, used the rather different 'Mein Ehre heisst Treue' (roughly 'my honour is my faithfulness'). 'Gott Mit Uns' was still used by the paramilitary West German police until the 1960s. I have never heard that Nazi Germany had any 'official' motto, although I think (can't be sure off-hand) the one most widely used 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer' (one people, one land, one leader). Hope that helps. (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Many slogans were used by the Nazis but the main was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer literally translated into One People (Aryans) One State (Greater German Reich) One Leader (Hitler).--Sphere1994 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


I've edited text into the article "At the same time Nazi propaganda created the concept of "race defilement" (Rassenschande) to justify the need for a restrictive law." The reason I've added it is rather simple, after the laws came intact this was the official law against it and it is worth mentioning, it is found on almost anything to do with Nazi Germany articles since it was a prominent key of Nazism ideology.

@ My apologies Diannaa the information is not from the cited Evans book (I have put a full stop in between that and the other sentence that is cited for Evan's work).--Windows66 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything in a GA level article and above needs sources (except for the most common knowledge), and especially once it's been challenged. In fact we are past the stage on this wiki where we are accepting unsourced content in any of our articles. Referring to other Wikipedia articles is not adequate, as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. I have found relevant material in Evans 2005 on page 539 so I have added a citation. Note this article puts the German terminology first and then gives the translation in brackets, so I have changed that, and tweeked the wording a bit as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's no problem, I seen the source myself via Google books and it does in fact mention this which I was unaware of, thanks for adding this bit in.

Should this not be re-worded:

"These laws initially prohibited sexual relations and marriages between Aryans and Jews and were later extended to "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring"."


These laws initially prohibited sexual relations and marriages at first between Aryans and Jews but was later extended to "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring".

Would this not make more sense?--Windows66 (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the first version is better, because it uses a simpler sentence structure and is more direct. But it should say "later extended to include "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring"." -- Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Google books will only take you so far, as they will only allow about ten views and then you won't be able to view that book any more from that IP (so as to encourage you to buy the book). I bought the Evans series and a few other books and have access to more at my local library. I often get stuff in on inter-library loan as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That's better, thanks for the minor edit. I did not actually know that about Google books ten times from your IP to encourage you to buy the book, I guess you learn something new everyday. :D!--Windows66 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't bank on getting ten looks - That's just an estimate. I've had occasions where I've gotten a lot fewer looks than that. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


someone changed the intro of nazi germany from the original which is better:

Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party. Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state.

to this:

Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party, with Adolf Hitler as Führer. Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state through hierarchical institutions.

the first is better and is more good and simple Ionchari (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The two versions also have different meanings. The original version says that Hitler was in control, and Michaelwuzthere's version says the country was controlled by the Nazi Party. I think the original version is better and more accurately relfects the decision making process in Nazi Germany - Hitler was in control. Once the material has been challenged, per the B-R-D cycle it needs to stay out, unless a consensus is reached to change it. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa, overall. Hitler was the center of the Nazi wheel around which all revolved. The second part I would probably tweak to read: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state." This gives a little more detail as to what type of totalitarian state. But with that said, I can live with the original version, if need be. Kierzek (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Kierzek, your suggestion is essentially to add the word "Fascist"; I think that's a good idea. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is my suggestion, as it was a type of "Fascism". Kierzek (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I would also change National Socialist German Workers' Party (this English version is seldom used) to NSDAP (the much better known version of the German initials) Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with these two small amendments. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

German citizens classified according to their appearance

"Not only were the Jews racially categorised, but German citizens were also classified according to how Nordic/Aryan they were."

This bit of text has no source and from all my reading and studying of this era it appears that this is not true. If you look at the racial Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany there is no mention of anything to do with physical appearance of the citizen but rather their ancestry and that is all that mattered. Only Europeans "Aryans" were able to be citizens of the Reich but again there is no mention of the physical look of one, the Nazis were well aware of the different sub-races within Europe and if you look at the top Nazi leaders there is hardly much resemblance between say Hitler and Goebbels (Hitler had blue eyes, Goebbels had brown eyes) but neither of them were viewed any higher or less than each other. Racial Nazi theorists also recognized all the different sub-races and categorized Germans into different sub-races such as Nordic and Alpine but they were not viewed higher than the other. While Himmler was certainly pro-Nordic (despite his own appearance) again there is no mention of "Nordics only". In fact there were many people who identified themselves as Jewish or were of Jewish descent with "Nordic looks" but this was not taken into account, physical appearance was not relevant in Nazi Germany. I will put a citation needed for this text as it seems to be incorrect.--Windows66 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This content was added in mid-December by User:Obenritter - everything from the phrase "Upon seizing power, the Nazis took repressive measures" to the end of the section was added at that time. In my opinion all of it is redundant as it is a summary of the following material, and apparently some of it is not backed up by the quoted sources. We don't normally summarise / repeat content in our articles, so therefore I think all of it can be removed without damaging the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not arguing for retention of the material, as I think it is already adequately covered, but will point out Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany which has several items backing the "looks" particularly " although efforts were made under the order of Himmler to identify people who were seen by the Nazis as descendants of German settlers, particularly the Nordics, in eastern Europe. The people then underwent a "racial selection" process to determine whether or not they were "racially valuable", if the individual passed they would be re-Germanised and were then forcefully taken from their families in order to be raised as Germans" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The new material is a little different, though: It says that people in Germany proper (not the conquered territories) were also "classified according to how Nordic/Aryan they were". Do we have a citation for that specific fact? -- Diannaa (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, it just seems as though nowhere can confirm that German citizens (whether Germans themselves or "related blood") were judged on their appearance of being Nordic. Heydrich had a Nordic appearance but certainly was not viewed more highly than say Hitler. Most certainly there existed a stereotype "Jewish look" by Nazi propaganda but nothing suggest that Germans who were non-Nordic were viewed as not the same as Nordic Germans. It also says "Not only were the Jews racially categorised" which is also incorrect as either one was an Aryan, Jew or Mischlinge - there were no bits in between, apart from what is irrelevant in what we are discussing is that some Jews and Mischlinges were declared "honorary Aryans".

@Gaijin42 - that is not about German citizens though and them being categorized by their appearance of how "Nordic" one was. As you are aware, the Nazis wanted to reclaim all the people belonging to the "German race" and the people who looked Nordic were viewed as more than likely of Germanic descent, not all people who were Nordic and were tested for their "racial examination" got the so-called pass of being racially valuable by the Nazis. Many Germans were reclaimed that were not Nordic too.--Windows66 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I say remove it. Racial classification was a part of the concept of Lebensraum, through a reclaiming of territories lost per the Versailles Treaty, making and expanding/seizing territory to the east for the German people. Racial classifications were also part of the major anti-Semitic laws which started in April 1933 and subsequent laws which went on to include ethnic people considered of non-Aryan descent both inside and then outside Germany proper. But, although, physical features of Aryan/Nordic considered Germans was championed as ideal, the citizens of the Reich had to prove their Aryan/Nordic racial background. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've put a citation template on the text but if someone wants to remove it then go for it as that is what I also propose. Citizens of the Reich were never determined by their physical appearance.

@Kierzek - But the citizens of the Reich only had to prove their Aryan background, Nordic was irrelevant. Although the Aryan master race ideal stereotyped image was Nordic but not standard or essential.--Windows66 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it that way because there are several historians who use the terms together or interchangeable in a general sense, whether you (or even I) agree or not is not relevant. What is relevant is we agree it was a racial not physical classification for citizens of the Reich, per WP:RS. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the one sentence. Since my idea of removing the entire paragraph is not gaining any support, I am stopping there for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Kierzek, Windows66 and Diannaa - The statement did not claim that German citizens were judged by their physical appearance. It said they had to prove how German/Nordic/Aryan they were. This is an irrefutable fact. Not sure if you are aware of this or not but Germanic ancestry and Nordic/Aryan are related according to the Nazi understanding of the world. (See for instance: George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. New York: Howard Fertig, 1999.) So what you are contending is essentially semantics. The reason Nordic and not merely Germanic heritage applies is that it was suitable for a German to marry an Englishman or somebody with roots in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Holland as they were considered racial cousins (Nordic/Aryan) despite that they were not German. For more on the particular topic of racial categorization, see: Eric Ehrenreich: The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-253-34945-3 or Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann. The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991 (ISBN 0-521-39114-8), especially pp. 23-43 where Burleigh relates how in the context of Nazi Germany, nearly everything was about the "Volk" which in the community of the Third Reich meant race. (You could actually re-insert the sentence and refer to those pages in Burleigh and Wippermann's book). As you know, Hilter was obsessed with racial purity and avoiding ethnic pollution, hence the measure to identify Germans and distinguish them from Jews. Think for a moment of the number of instances where the Germans use racial delineations and the profound number of linguistic expressions in German in this regard: Rassengenossen (racial comrade), Volksgenossen (ethnic comrades), Volksgemeinschaft (ethnic community) Volksseele (soul of the people), Volkskörper (ethnic body politic), Rassenstaat (racial state), Rassenstolz (racial pride), Rassenpolitik (racial politics), Rassenschutz (racial protection) and of course, Rassenschande (despoliation or defilement of the race). To think that German citizens were not likewise categorized is defied by the mere existence of these words in the LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii)- Language of the Third Reich (borrowing from Victor Klemperer here).

Another thing for you take a look at the Nazi use of the Ahnenpass to establish legitimate Germanic/Nordic/Aryan bloodlines. For those "wishing to join the SS - this went even further as they had to submit a detailed "Sippentafel" to prove purity but I will forego an explication hereby for the sake of brevity. Just suffice it to say that it went deeper into the historical genealogy than even the Ahnenpass. So for you to say that the Reich did not racially categorize its own people, is incorrect. Otherwise, why would it be necessary for pairs to be married to have to prove their ancestral purity - see: Der Ahnenpaß des Ehepaares. Verlag für Standesamtswesen, Berlin 1939. Both the Ahnenpass and the Familienstammbuch (another important component in establishing suitable racial identity for those in the Volksgemeinschaft) were about establishing racial purity for German citizens. Once you have reviewed these, you can also look at the work of Dr. Volkmar Wiess in his article: Weiss, Volkmar: Die Vorgeschichte des arischen Ahnenpasses. Teil I: Das sogenannte Blutsbekenntnis. Genealogie 50. Jg. (2001) S. 417-436; Teil II: Historische oder völkische Genealogie?, S. 497-507; Teil III: Die Machtergreifung der Viehzüchter. Heft 7/8. You may also want to peruse the two Wikipedia sites Nazism and Race and/or Racial Policy of Nazi Germany again for a better understanding over the connection between Nordic/Germanic/Aryan. Nowhere however, did the sentence mention the attempt to gauge human beings by appearance - although it did happen in varying degrees in and out of Germany.

The reason for the inclusion (the summary if you will) was to bring together the disparate subject matter about the Nazi seizure of power since it was not really coherently aggregated. It is akin to the closing of a book chapter and is of value to the reader. Historians would not do this unless it had merit. There are several other places where I find the Wikipage on Nazi Germany lacking in this respect but the section on the Nazi seizure of power was most overt due to the fact that so much material was glossed over at breakneck speed.

Once you come to the realization that the original sentence was NOT in error, please consider revising it back to its original form. Nevertheless, as I am not the originator of the page nor do I possess administrative authority for its content, I will defer to those of you who do. I will refrain from adding substantive content to this page in the future despite my corresponding expertise. (talk)

I think the sentence is still wrong in all categories no matter which way you look at it, the source you use The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution does not mention anything of a Nordic Aryan being viewed any higher than a non-Nordic Aryan. Jews were racially categorized differently to Germans and in the Nazis eyes were not even German and became known as "subject of the state" with loss of German citizenship and forbid from having sexual relations and marriages with Germans and other Aryans. The term "Aryan" given by your source according to official Nazi definition were all non-Jewish white Europeans, this includes more than just Germanic or Nordic people. The original sentence is in error because it is stating that German citizens were judged by how Nordic/Aryan their looked but this utterly false, a German was a German to Hitler and the Nazis, it did not matter whether one was Nordic, Alpine or any other sub-race they were still "German". The also view that Jews were racially categorized is not true, people altogether were categorized as either Aryan, Jewish or Mischlinge "mixed" - that is all. The Ahnenpaass was just one form of attaining an Aryan certificate which became compulsory under the Third Reich it was nothing to do with one's physical appearance. The whole "blonde hair and blue eyes Nordic look" is blown totally out of proportion, it was certainly seen as ideal but was not standard. Nowhere in Nazi "proof of one's Aryan ancestry" whether it be for the SS or to be a citizen mentions anything regarding physical appearance. Race was key to the Nazi ideology and Nazi beliefs but the whole Aryan = Nordic is incorrect and nowhere in official documents from the Nazis says anything of the kind that Germans or "related blood" were viewed more highly if one was Nordic.--Windows66 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The reason we don't add summary paragraphs is because Wikipedia articles are already a summary, an overview of the main material about a topic. Nai Germany is a big topic, so each subtopic gets a smallish section. Wikipedia guidelines call for our articles to be no more than 50 kB of readable prose, with a maximum size of about 10,000 words. This article is presently 80 kB for the prose alone, and clocks in at 12,920 words. That's why you get the impression that the article is moving along at a a fast pace, and that's why we don't actually have room for duplicate material or summary paragraphs. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Diannaa, I did not mean by my comments that only that sentence should be removed. I am always for redundancy removal. I agree with Windows66 as to the notion of Nordic appearance/physique; it was not the standard and certainly many Nazi leaders, such as Himmler and Goebbels did not come close to meeting the so-called "ideal". Aryanism was a racial ideology; and race/bloodline was the standard. Much of the Nazi policies in the 1930s was focused on separating and removing "undesirable racial stock". Kierzek (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa and Windows66. Your prompt reply on this subject and the authoritative manner in which it was made would indicate that you have read in their entirety, the books and academic sources I cited since yesterday. I have a hard time believing that. By the way, nowhere did the sentence state that German citizens were judged by their appearance. Proving how German/Nordic/Aryan they were had as much to do with genealogy as it did with anything else. Likewise - in no place did I state that Nordic was superior to German or Aryan in any context. What is being construed from this discussion leads me to believe that I am actually wasting my time proving my points. The original sentence merely stated that they (German citizens) were categorized to the extent that they had to prove how "German" they were. Submitting the Familienstammbuch and the Ahnenpass was evidence of that alone as I noted before. Removing the term Nordic was acceptable to me but not the entire sentence. Nonetheless, Nordic comprised an important ideological component to the Nazi understanding of race. See also besides the works I mentioned before, the relatively recent work: Christopher M. Hutton. Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Dialectic of Volk. New York: Polity, 2005, pp. 101-138.
In fact, Nordic purity provided the archetype for the SS. See: Geoffrey G. Field, "Nordic Racism", Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977, p. 523. Historian Jill Stephenson when discussing the Nazi ideology of Alfred Rosenberg (the official Nazi policy over race matters apart from Hitler), Walther Darre, and Hans F. K. Gunther commented that, Germans were considered pure blood, when that heritage derived "from Nordic ancestors," people whom the Nazis "portrayed as culturally the most highly developed people, indeed the supreme people." (See: Jill Stephenson, "Inclusion: Building the National Community in Propaganda and Practice," in Jane Caplan, ed. Nazi Germany (Short Oxford History of Germany). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, 99-100. By the same token, the very highest policymaker of Nazi racial ideals (Alfred Rosenberg) promoted the image of Nordic/Aryan/German as one in the same. Rosenberg wrote: "No people of Europe is racially homogeneous, also Germany is not. According to the latest research, we accept five races all of which reveal perceptibly different types. But it is beyond question that the true culture bearer for Europe has been in the first place the Nordic race. Great heroes, artists and founders of states have grown from this blood." ("The Myth of the Twentieth Century") - Pages 576, 1930. Let me reiterate - this is the official most responsible for Nazi Germany's racial policy. Coincidentally, you should also look at these two Wikipages since you seem to think that Nordicism was inconsequential: Nordic Race and Master Race.
To say that Germans were not gauged by their appearance is also incorrect - despite the fact that the original sentence in dispute said nothing of the sort. This is directly from the USHMM, "Nazi teachers in school classrooms began to apply the "principles" of racial science. They measured skull size and nose length, and recorded the color of their pupils' hair and eyes to determine whether students belonged to the true "Aryan race." (see: Nazi Racism). Whether or not the government sponsored this teaching, it tacitly approved them by propaganda. Further substantiation of this fact can be found here: Heredity and Racial Science for Elementary and Secondary Schools by Karl Bareth and Alfred Vogel Look closely at the bullet in the elementary school teaching material, "The Nordic Race is the Blood Foundation of the German People." The original German title of the work from Bareth and Vogel is: "Erblehre und Rassenkunde für die Grund-und Hauptschule". If the Nazi party took opposition to this belief, the teachers throughout Germany espousing such ideals would have been scrutinized, which they were not.
While I have more than once substantiated my contribution with multiple academic sources, you've only rebutted with comments based on your limited reading. Moreover, the sentence which was added has been misinterpreted and removed without sufficient justification. You can do what you wish on the page, as I stated before - I will decline from putting anything else on the Nazi Germany page as it appears amateurism will prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talkcontribs) 20:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from getting personal WP:PA in trying to say what I and another have read. I have read a lot of books on Hitler, Nazism and Nazi Germany thank you very much. Anyways, the sentence that was removed was giving the indication that "German citizens" were judged on how Aryan/Nordic the individual was. This is incorrect, you could not be a German citizen without being Aryan under Nazi Germany, the Ahnenpass was just one method of gaining an Aryan certificate to show prove you was an Aryan. Of course there were elements of Nazism and some Nazis who were overwhelmingly pro-Nordic but the whole Aryan = Nordic (hence the Aryan/Nordic insert) is nonsense, Nordic was ideal but not standard. A German was a German in the eyes of the Nazis just like an Aryan was an Aryan in the eyes of the Nazis, do you really think many of the linguistic groups or ethnic groups that were officially "Aryan" were majority Nordic? As long as you could provide proof of your Aryan ancestry that was all there was to it. Yes, education quite often talked about the Nordic race but this was just ideal stuff not standard or compulsory. You can show evidence that the Nazis were pro-Nordic (this is undisputed) but the original sentence that got removed was saying that all German citizens got judged on how "Aryan/Nordic" one was which was not true... even Nazi racial theorists were aware that the majority of Germans were not Nordic.--Windows66 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated before - the sentence was misunderstood and maybe the way it was worded was slightly misleading. Still, Germans had to prove that they were German if they wanted full rights within the Reich, to include being married. A German citizen could lose their civil service position if they could not prove that they were sufficiently German, which means if you had a single Jewish grandparent etc., you would become ineligible to keep that position. See the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentum, also called Berufsbeamtengesetz. That means if you were 75% German - you were not German enough - that 25% Jewish disqualified you.
In fact, the Enabling Act of 1933 conveniently allowed the Nazis to enforce these laws, known in English as the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. German citizens who could not prove their German heritage at sufficient depth could lose not only their jobs under this rule, but the pension they had worked for all their life. See: Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service If that is not about proving your German-ness (or how German you were), then please explain this otherwise. Robert Proctor talks about the extensive time taken in the Third Reich training doctors in genetic pathology and in the analysis of racial traits, skills they would employ as expert witnesses in German courts in cases of questionable parentage. Moreover, scientists and doctors developed anthropological criteria to establish ethnic/racial affiliation. Mandates like the aforementioned Civil Service laws were used to "determine German citizenship on racial grounds". Steps like these were being taken to separate Jew from German which also had the negative consequence of making Aryans prove that they were indeed Aryans. Section 4 of the Civil Service Law "required that Volk comrades be "of German blood, independent of religion". (See: Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988, 110, verbatim citation from p. 134). They did all of this because many Jews had converted to Protestantism and they wanted to single them out and exclude them from the Volksgemeinschaft. On 17-18 February 1935, the Völkischer Beobachter "announced the introduction of ancestral health books to be carried by everyone in the Reich." (Proctor, pg. 135). Germans did indeed have to prove their German-ness, which is about classifying human beings, Jews and Germans alike. Racial sanitation/racial differentiation would be otherwise impossible. Gauging human beings based on their Germanic/Nordic/Aryan heritage against others allowed the pseudo-science of the Nazis to determine who could work, where they could work, if they could marry, breed, etc.
Calling the lack of effort to provide academic substantiation amateur was not meant as a personal attack but an attempt to elicit an academically substantiated response. My apologies to anyone who took it that way. By the way, this is not a contest about who has read the most but it is about the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia content. Perhaps the sentence could be revised to say: "Not only were the Jews racially categorised, but German citizens of the Reich also had to be prepared to unequivocally prove their German ancestry on demand to retain their full rights" [Referencing Proctor's book - pages 134-135. Nonetheless, I maintain that Germans were indeed classified by the regime's insistence on additional documentation to remain a Civil Servant, to get married, and for anyone wishing join the SS. There was a racial hierarchy as Alfred Rosenberg stated and they did apply it in numerous places to their own German comrades. The general practices of the Reich support this fact despite your misgivings to the contrary. Just FYI - I am a professional historian by trade and education with over 20 years on this subject. Tis' been fun - hopefully you will concur with the suggested revision. Based on what you inferred from the original sentence, it establishes to me that it was awkwardly worded. Suddenly I am reminded of Merleau Ponty and his work on language and the phenomenology of perception. Way to stick to your guns Windows66. I think you understand now what the sentence was meant to imply. The poor structure of the sentence and maybe even the word-choice made it something that it was never intended to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talkcontribs) 03:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is not about who has read more but you was getting personal towards me and another user because you have the belief we have not read the books you cited. The thing is though Jews were not racially categorized, neither were Aryans and neither were mixed people, a Jew was a Jew, a Aryan was a Aryan, a Mischling was a Mischling. People were categorized into one of these three categories and in order to be a citizen of the Reich one had to be Aryan. In 1920 the Nazi party made it so that only people of "pure Aryan descent" could be party members and in 1935 with the Nuremberg racial laws coming intact all German citizens had to be Aryans. Also whilst one Jewish grandparent made you non-Aryan and thus not a German citizen he/she was not classified as a Jew but Mischling (part Aryan, part Jewish). That is the problem, the sentence was mis-leading as how I took it was that German citizens (after proving their Aryan ancestry) were judged on how Nordic their looked, which was not the case. You can cite as many sources as you want showing pro-Nordic elements of Nazi Germany and Nazism but the fact remains that citizens of the Reich who were Nordic were not viewed anymore "better" than non-Nordic Aryans. You should also be aware that a Mischlinge of second degree could marry a spouse classified as Aryan without permission required because the offspring would not interfere with the racial laws as the Jewishness would be past 1/4 ancestry.--Windows66 (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jews were indeed racially categorized, which is why it was necessary to discuss how they were to be classified at the Wannsee Conference, which is where they determined who they were going to let live. There were quarter Mischlings, half-Mischlings, etc. And as you stated Mischlings of second degree could marry an Aryan. Of course, they would be subject to verification in that, they would have to prove that they were no more Jewish than that. That is racial categorization by definition. Why this is escaping you is beyond me. Why do you keep returning to the issue of how Nordic Germans appeared? That is not what the sentence stated. It was about proving your heritage as I made clear to you - despite the fact that they valued and idealized "Nordic" over other racial categories. In the annexed territories, the Germans even had 4 categories on the Deutsche Volksliste (German Ethnic Registry). See: Peter Fritsche, Life and Death in the Third Reich (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), 169. In this case, merely removing the word "citizens" from the original sentence and just having it say "Germans" makes it 100% correct. Where are you getting Germans citizens "after they had proven they were Aryan" from the original sentence. You keep adding things to the sentence that were never stated.
Anyway - this issue is closed as I still do not think you have understood things in their entirety. I can provide more sources where it explicitly states that Jews were racially categorized/classified and you will contend otherwise. Proctor's book goes into this subject at length in places and Claudia Koonz of Duke University has likewise stated as much in her book The Nazi Conscience (See pages 105-117 and then read 133-162). There were lots of difficulties for the regime in identifying Germans from Jews and the lengths that the State went to in trying to standardize and establish clear standards about racial categorization were exhaustive. It was not just as simple as German and Jew. It was about how German or how Jewish one was in the collective. That actually could be the difference between life and death in the Third Reich. Therefore, the original sentence was not clear because you have added (by inference) the issue of appearance to it when Nordic/Aryan was merely meant to be equated with German-ness. That was just as much about the information in one's Familienstammbuch as it was about anything else. You are missing the forest for the tree of "appearance" which was only made more difficult by your interpretation of the sentence. Reread the sentence and replace Nordic/Aryan with German and maybe it will make it clear for you. Once you see that - maybe you will understand that the sentence really is not in error. It just needs to be more clear due to the risk of it being misconstrued as something else. Dismissing the mounds of evidence off the cuff as you have done is a bit disconcerting by the way. The subject of that sentence has been clarified with academic substantiation par excellence, but there is argument against the evidence. Nowhere did the sentence say the Nordic was better than German and nowhere did it say that Germans were judged based on their appearance. Again, wording solutions/proposals have even been made and you have not even acknowledged any of this. This is my last post about this subject. Hopefully, somebody else who has taken the time to cross-reference material and carefully examine the evidence can 'intervene' and make a call as we clearly do not see eye to eye on this subject. THE END. --Obenritter (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

People were racially classified into the three categories I have mentioned Jewish, Mischlinge, Aryan; A Jew was a Jew there was no "Ashkenazi Jews" or "Sephardic Jews" just "Jew" which were liable for several sorts of persecution such as loss of citizenship, forbidden to engage in sexual relations or marriage with Aryans, etc etc. Mischlinge were not viewed as Jews but people of both Aryan and Jewish ancestry and it depended on which degree what sort of persecution one suffered. Aryans were Aryans and were able to be citizens of the Reich, whether German or not as long as Aryan (European). You see the sentence is not correct and you seem to still not be forgetting this and are having a go at me for mentioning "Nordic Germans" but this is what the sentence mentioned that it somehow mattered whether you were Nordic or not and that Nordic equaled Aryan when neither of this is true. German citizens had to prove their Aryan ancestry in order to be German citizens not whether or not their had Nordic heritage or Nordic appearance, completely irrelevant. THE END.--Windows66 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well – I thought it was the end but then I coincidentally reread something of significance from Detlev Peukert. He explicitly writes, “Nazi eugenics – that is, the classification and selection of people on the basis of supposed genetic ‘value’ – was not confined only to sterilization and euthanasia for the ‘valueless’ and the encouragement of fertility for the ‘valuable’; it laid down criteria of assessment, categories of classification and norms of efficiency that were applicable to the population as a whole. The goals were people of German blood and Nordic race.” See Detlev Peukert, Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in Everyday Life. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1989, pg. 208. From Richard Evans, "the racial hygiene movement introduced an ominously rational and scientific categorisation into people who were 'valuable' to the nation those who were not." In order to accomplish this, Jews and German would both have to be categorised (synonym of categorise - class, classify, group, grade, rate, designate, label, tag, brand; order, arrange, sort, rank, type, break down; file, catalogue, list, tabulate, index, assign - from Oxford's Thesaurus). Hence, the aforementioned Ahnenpass etc. Evans goes on to say, "by labeling people in this way, the race hygienists opened the way towards the control, the abuse and finally the extermination of the valueless." (see Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich. New York: Penguin, 2005 pg. 38.
That means racial classification/categorization was for everyone – part control mechanism, part racial police policy. If there were only Aryans, Mischlinge, and Jews, how does one account for the following observation from Detlev Garbe, who says that Aryan homosexuals were "categorised as being of 'lesser racial value'...they shared this classification with those Aryan men and women who were compulsorily sterilised in order to inhibit their capacity to reproduce." (See: Detlev Garbe, "The Healthy Instincts of the Nation": 'The Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany' in Michael Burleigh, ed. Confronting the Nazi Past: New Debates on Modern German History, pgs. 162-164.) Again – further and irrefutable substantiation of the original points which were nonetheless corroborated in the multitude of works already cited. It has already been stated by this author that removing Nordic from the original sentence to make it clear and remove any unintended inferences was acceptable. All that has been offered as contrarian argument is mere opinion and nothing more.--Obenritter (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What Richard J. Evans states is correct, the Nazis did want to get away with the valueless people Aryan or not, but this is not what "German citizens" were required to be categorised into but only to prove Aryan ancestry, it did not matter if they were Nordic or not (this is what was originally said Aryan/Nordic, a Nordic Aryan was not viewed higher than a non-Nordic Aryan. And all them categorising of what Evans talk about is not racially categorisation. This is now going off topic from racial categorisation to every day life categorisation, this is not what the original sentence stated.--Windows66 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC) You're now what it appears to seem be confusing Nazis view on the Aryan master race and the actual requirements of the German citizen. In order to be a citizen of the Reich all one had to do was prove Aryan ancestry, please see Nuremberg Laws. The homosexuals were categorised as being of lesser value because they could not reproduce but they were still seen as part of the Aryan master race. Please provide proof from a quote from a speech or document by the Nazis saying they were of "lesser racial value" that is just one historians word. For example, one source states "While the Nazis did generally regard everyone with sexual preferences outside the petit-bourgeois norms as “community pests,” they did not necessarily see it as imperative to physically eliminate them, especially if they belonged to the “master race.”" and "Gay artists were generally not persecuted in occupied Paris as long as they were of Aryan origin."[95]. What Evans states is correct, but that is every day life categorising not racial categorising, if you see the racial laws of Nazi Germany people were identified as Aryan, Mischling or non-Aryan (Jewish, Gypsy, Negro) and that is it. Whether one was Nordic or not did not matter.--Windows66 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course Evans is right. So is George L. Mosse, Eric Ehrenreich, Michael Burleigh, Wolfgang Wippermann, Volkmar Weiss, Claudia Koonz, Alfred Rosenberg, Christopher M. Hutton, Jill Stephenson, Geoffrey G. Field, Walther Darre, Hans F. K. Gunther, Jane Caplan, Peter Fritsche, and Detlev Peukert among the other sources where it was clearly shown how classification of human beings, Germans and Jews alike figured into the Nazi ideology. Again - the original sentence has been misconstrued which is why changes were suggested. It has been unequivocally shown that as far as German anthropologists and Nazi racial theorists were concerned - Nordic / Aryan / German were for all intents and purposes of the same fold. See several paragraphs worth of proof from the earlier discussion. If Jews and Mischlinge were that and nothing more, why the need for the following classification chart:
Racial classification chart based on the Nuremberg Laws.
On the chart, you should clearly see that there were varying categories for Jews and Mischlinge. One could be mostly German but a little Jewish, or half-German, half-Jewish, mostly Jewish but a little German, in varying degrees. That is racial categorization/classification by definition. If it cannot be understood from this visual image that simply using the term Jew and/or Mischling is reductionism, particularly in the context of this entire discussion, then nothing will make it clear. BTW - Please see the proposed change to the sentence made long ago: "Not only were the Jews racially categorised, but German citizens of the Reich also had to be prepared to unequivocally prove their German ancestry on demand to retain their full rights." Citing Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988, pgs. 134-135. Jews were categorized as Mischlinge of varying degrees which is classifying/categorizing them beyond just the simple term Jew or Mischling. Germans had to prove their German ancestry (which included as acceptable lines Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, British, etc.) up to a certain number of generations to remain Civil Servants - which is classifying them in the collective as Detlev Peukert remarked and as the other cited academic sources have demonstrated. Please see the multitude of sources being ignored as well as the proposed restructuring of the sentence being ignored.--Obenritter (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you now say the sentence was wrongly worded which indeed it was, so what do you suggest? The reason for the racial classifications is exactly what I have said all along, people were racially categorised of course. The reason for the charts was to distinguish between Aryans, Jews and Mischling people. Non-Aryans could not be citizens of the reich, the racial enemies of the state were Jews and gypsies. Germans to prove their Aryan ancestry which were all white Europeans so Dutch people, Polish people, Italian people, Irish people or whatever could be citizens of the Reich. But you going on about other categorising is irrelevant to what is being discussed as the every day life categorisation is not even doubted but we are on about the original sentence which said German citizens were judged on how Aryan/Nordic one was.--Windows66 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


The whole entry has several bad mistakes. First of all, the Soviet Union was not Nazist. Subtitling under one photograph says something about occupied areas suggesting the Nazist SU occupied Germany. Which is wrong either way. Neither was the SU Nazist nor was it totally occupied.

Further it is wrong to say Church was suppressed during the rule of Adolf Hitler. This was not the case. It was certain Christian individuals like the brothers and sisters Scholl, Christian, who actively fought this new rule. More likely the German Church lost attention it had before. But I still think most of the Nazis had a baptism and a communion and were churchgoers as everybody else, more or less believers. The worse of the matter is not investigated nor published, not at all clarified, that is strong connections between parties and politicians of the time and the German Church. Himmler is said to have been a Jesuite or even had a Jesuite education. After the end of World War II, the German Church did not undertake any of the procedures of cleaning herself from the recent past. It went on doing as before. Denazification was stronger in the Eastern part of Germany, about the Western one the results are better known. Nothing is known - because it did not exist - about opposition against deportations and support of the Jews - whatever classification applied - undertaken by the German Church. One of the more recent failures in this respect was one or the other acitivity of the Pope Benedict, former Kardinal Ratzinger seated in Bavaria, who showed a certain unwillingness towards the problem. He even considered the holy status of the Pope of then. His generation still experienced the war and the rule of Hitler, nothing is known about personal opposition of him then, nor did anything become known afterwards which was related to denazification in a positive way.

Is there anything known precisely on the intelligence service of the Third Reich? Does it link to this expression Der Schwarze Ganter (lit. The Black Male Goose). I came across it once, nothing there to be found yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

subtitling again

The subtitles as well as the photographs are misleading.

Indoctrination was done using words (and violence).

The row of photographs touches certain issues prevalent in the GDR, for example women working in factories.

It looks as if there is a hidden subtext. Federal Republican German propaganda has a similar equation which is wrong: GDR = Third Reich. Further short comments are impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Change of the article's name (continuation)

There have been several attempts to change the name of this article. Here is a list of related archived discussions: May 2013; April 2012; April 2012; August 2010; March 2010; July 2007. Those who suggest changing it claim that the word Nazi is a slang derogative, propagandistic and biased term. Those who argue that the article's name should remain argue that Nazi Germany is the common name in English for the designated period in German history. The Polish, French, Spanish & Russian WP articles as well as Britannica (1973) use the title Third Reich. The German WP article uses the official name used by the then territorial government and specifies the period Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945. I agree that the term Nazi is not an appropriate encyclopedic designation for a country and suggest the less biased and also widely used in English Third Reich. Axelode (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. The majority of our readers will be high school students studying the topic for the first time. I think the article needs to be at the most common English language name, "Nazi Germany". -- Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa's arguments. Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Most common English language name → [96] --IIIraute (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Strong agreement with Diannaa. WP:COMMONNAME by a ridiculous long shot. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
...what "ridiculous long shot"? → [97] --IIIraute (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the intricate knowledge about the subject and active editing of this article by the above users but I also believe that they are mainly expressing an English speaking North American point of view when it comes to its title. English Wikipedia is the beacon of open source knowledge around the world and its articles shine across all platforms. Restricting the naming of an article to a historically politically motivated propagandistic expressions might not be the best way to enlighten future generations. I will extend invitations to participate to this discussions to a wider pool of users and I encourage all to do the same so that this ongoing debate stops popping out still born. Axelode (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Axelode. Is there an Encyclopædia Britannica "Nazi Germany" article - no, there is not.
Encyclopædia Britannica: The Third Reich → [98] --IIIraute (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
An encylopedia written in english, primarily for english speaking users, uses the most common wording in english? Astonishing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
...why do you insist on "most common wording" → [99]? Btw. quantity ≠ quality. --IIIraute (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't insist on anything. Its an established wikipedia consensus. WP:COMMONNAME. Those looking for an exception to the consensus need to justify it, not the other way around. NAzi may be propaganda in some contexts, but not when you are talking about the actual Nazis. (And hey, isn't "The Third Reich" actual propaganda,used by the Nazis? Should we switch our article name on "The Holocaust" to "The Final Solution" to match?) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you do seem to insist. Regarding WP:COMMONNAME, please see → [100]. Please also note, that according to "international law" even "Nazi Germany" had the right to designate the name of their own state - or am I wrong? --IIIraute (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Opponents of "Nazi Germany" "claim that the word 'Nazi' is a slang derogative, propagandistic and biased term." In my opinion that is not true for the reliable scholarly sources that use the term in the best scholarly venues. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It should kept with the name most commonly used and known in English works; therefore, I agree with Diannaa and Rjensen, etc. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the sharpest argument is that "Nazi Germany" requires much less historical knowledge to recognize (at this level everyone knows both 'Nazi' and 'Germany' and easily puts the two words together). The term "Third Reich" is not at all self explanatory -- no one who has not been told ahead of time could possible figure out that it means Germany in the 1933-45 era. Rjensen (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec)It is not the "most commonly used and known name in English works".[101] Please show me the Encyclopædia Britannica "Nazi Germany" article → Encyclopædia Britannica: The Third Reich → [102] Do you know why - because there never was a state called "Nazi Germany".--IIIraute (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is also no state called "The Third Reich". EB uses the phrase "Nazi Germany" repeatedly and exclusively however, whenever they are discussing the topic in related articles, not "Third Reich" btw. That they named their section title "Third Reich" in their massive 100+ page article entitled "Germany" has more to do with their structural organization imo, than any editorial decision. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica: "Third Reich, official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945, as the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire from 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich)."[103] --IIIraute (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just using Google hits by itself: Nazi Germany has 52,400,000 hits; Third Reich has: 10,900,000; The Third Reich has: 18,100,000. BTW-citing an old Encyclopædia Britannica does not carry much weight. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What "old Encyclopædia Britannica" (updated 1-21-2014) → [104].
P.S. Your "google" search results do include every Nazi fansite, while Ngram reduces the results to published books. --IIIraute (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was Nazi Germany and forever must it remain so. Giano (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to lalaland. I'm outty! --IIIraute (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Some interesting points have been raised by both camps. Although I still believe that the title Nazi Germany is not appropriate, I agree that Third Reich could be unfit for opposite propagandist reasons. But that doesn't mean that we should keep propagating WWII propaganda into the 21st century by keeping the existing title as a lesser of two evils.
If we look at the graph presented by IIIraute, it shows that the two propositions have been nose to nose in published books since 1933 even though there is a slight favor towards Nazi Germany since 2003. On the other hand, the huge discrepancy from a straight Google search as presented by Kierzek does not carry much weight for if we were to search Fucking instead of Sexual intercourse in a similar way, the slang word would prevail...
I believe that we should keep the debate open so that more intelligent voices can express their views on the subject in the coming days Axelode (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Back in October 2008, Josh wrote a very interesting exposé opening the door to a much more complex reorganization around Germany's articles. Food for thoughts... Axelode (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe "Nazi Germany" provides instant recognition of the topic as it is self explanatory, while "Third Reich" does not. (Hohum @) 18:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The word Nazi is a commonly used historical word and is what people not familiar with the topic at all will call this. Would should however explain more about the name in the name section to avoid confusion. Lets explain that is an acronym that was used for Allied propaganda in the beginning but has since been used by historians in the west despite its undertone meaning . -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact is, Wikipedia is written for the general population, including the many students of different age groups which use it. I used numbers from the general hits as an easy, minor example to show that overall the word Nazi Germany provides greater recognition for the general population. I agree with Hohum, that Nazi Germany provides instant recognition of the topic without further explanation. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"Nazi" did not originate as a propaganda term. The OED dates the word to 1920 and gives this citation from the Times of London : 19 Sept. 10/1/1930 Herr Hitler, the leader of the victorious National-Socialists (Nazis), has very carefully refrained from saying anything.... That is it is not somehow "propagandistic" but rather the standard English term for the NSDAP party. It is used in print by all the leading scholars, editors, publishers and journals. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionaries (OED) also has no article for Nazi Germany but rather has one for The Third Reich defining it for what it was, the era of The Nazi regime, 1933-45, a regime not a country. Likewise, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica both have articles for The Third Reich and none for Nazi Germany making WP the only serious reference tool using this denomination. Axelode (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"only serious reference tool " nonsense. OED and Ency Brit reflect editorial decisions made many decades ago. To understand 21st century standards we must look at look at new reference books: all these use "Nazi Germany" as an entry: The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World (2008); Encyclopedia of the Great Depression And The New Deal (2001); Encyclopedia of Europe (2008); Encyclopedia of Literature and Politics (2005); Encyclopedia of Political Thought (2001); Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work (2006); Encyclopedia of Terrorism (2009); Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide (2009); Encyclopedia of genocide (1999); Historical Dictionary of American Propaganda (2004); Historical Dictionary of the 1940s (2006); The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations (2002); The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History (2008) Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it appears that we'll pause this conversation, for now, on these enlightening scriptures. Axelode (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC on the Gun control talk page which may be of interest to editors of this page:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Third Reich

Should the term "the Third Reich have it's own article? (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What would the content be? Currently "Third Reich" redirects here. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It should not. The redirect makes the point and direction to this article of the common English used name/term. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As a scholar of the Third Reich and one who teaches this subject at the university level - it is more than sufficient that the Wikipedia search directs people who look for "Third Reich" to the English colloquial expression "Nazi Germany" as the two are synonymous for all intents and purposes. We are talking semantics here. Naming convention aside, the opening statement of the article Nazi Germany makes this very clear. My strongest case here would be for those of you who have heartburn with the naming convention to visit List of books about Nazi Germany and see how many times both titles are used by eminent scholars. Kierzek and I have worked exhaustively on getting the scholarly works deserving mention on Wikipedia to that page. Let me make the point here by mentioning a few of the more recognizable and important ones for you; all of the historians/authors listed hereby are considered foremost experts on this subject and use the titles interchangeably.
  • Bartov, Omer. Hitler's Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992. (Notice Bartov uses both terms Nazi and Third Reich in the title)
  • Benz, Wolfgang. A Concise History of the Third Reich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007.
  • Burleigh, Michael. The Third Reich: A New History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.
  • Caplan, Jane. Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Dülffer, Jost. Nazi Germany 1933-1945: Faith and Annihilation. London: Bloomsbury, 2009.
  • Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich; The Third Reich in Power; The Third Reich at War.
  • Fischer, Klaus. Nazi Germany: A New History. New York: Continuum, 1995.
  • Fritzsche, Peter. Life and Death in the Third Reich. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008.
  • Gellately, Robert. Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford Paperbacks, 2001.
  • Hildebrand, Klaus. The Third Reich. London & New York: Routledge, 1986.
  • Kitchen, Martin. Nazi Germany at War. London & New York: Routledge, 1994.
  • Peukert, Detlev J.K. Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in Everyday Life. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1989.
  • Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988.
  • Spielvogel, Jackson J. Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 2004.

Ok - so without belaboring the point further by making an exhaustive A-Z list (which the aforementioned Wiki page shows), I think you catch the drift. If the two terms are acceptable to the foremost scholars in the field - it is silly to argue this point any further. A page titled Third Reich would equally have to include the term Nazi Germany right? My consensus is with that of Kierzek, Diannaa, and the others who feel that Nazi Germany (with a redirect for Third Reich) is perfectly acceptable as it stands. This is not a position taken from Wolkenkuckucksheim or "La La land" as one of the "Third Reich" proponents has implied. An objective evaluation of the scholarly literature available on the topic makes it clear that either term is more than acceptable. --Obenritter (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Third Reich is the proper name, as I see 'Nazi Germany' is a disgrace because the entire country was not nazist's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreshadowing111 (talkcontribs) 23:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No one said that all Germans were Nazis. "Nazi Germany" is shorthand for "Nazi-ruled Germany". It no more implies that all Germans were Nazis than "Reagan's America" implies that all Americans in the 1980s supported Ronald Reagan's policies. --Khajidha (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Map

Proposed map
Map currently in use

The current infobox map gets the point across and is very well put together. I believe it should be included somewhere in the article. However, it is a little too complicated and just all over the place to be honest. I feel this map I created is better for the infobox. It shows Greater Germany, areas under Nazi control and even puppet governments of the Nazis. I don't feel the need to include Germany's allies and the Western allies. You dont see the infobox map of the US highlighting its allies. My map is the map used by a majority of infoboxes so it would fit better with other articles. Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the new map is very useful, because none of the countries are labelled. Also, I find the hot colours garish and hard on the eyes. The map currently in use provides a lot more information, especially if you take the time to click through and make it full-size. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the current map as it is much more detailed in the information that is given. It gives a better overview for the general reader. Kierzek (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The detail of the current map is good. Shades of grey are not so good for everyone. My ageing eyes prefer the brighter colours. And the OP's point about a map of the US not highlighting its allies is an interesting one. Obviously the US cannot be seen as a primary protagonist because of its late arrival in the war, but a map of Britain showing its allies (including the US) would be more equivalent, and would be interesting to see. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all the arguments for the currently used map, which has more information. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Piling on, the new proposal is simply too over-simplified in both content and layout way. walk victor falk talk 22:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
To be constructive, text labels in occupied and allied countries should perhaps be white for higher contrast, like in Germany. No, just in occupied ones, that would provided a quick way to differentiate between territories under direct German rule and others. walk victor falk talk 22:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done walk victor falk talk 06:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinions: External Links

I recently suggested as an addition to "External Links" the following page at the Spartacus Educational website: . This struck me as a useful resource because it includes biographies of over 140 important figures in Nazi Germany. (In retrospect, perhaps it should have been in "Further Reading".) Editor Kierzek reverted the edit on the grounds that Spartacus Educational is not considered WP:RS source. I would be grateful for other opinions on this. (It is briefly discussed here:

I have been consulting the Spartacus website for some years and find it a useful resource. It IS the work of one man, and he appears to have an interest in the civil rights movement, women's suffrage etc, but I have never detected any bias in individual articles. I have always found the footnotes and references useful, and errors rare. Any thoughts...?Tartarusrussell (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

user:Kierzek makes the reasons for exclusion quite clear. The source has demonstrable, obvious errors and no indication of reliability (i.e. sourcing). Why on earth should we treat it as a reliable source. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion Spartacus is not a reliable source. It's one person's personal web page. On a highly sensitive Nazi topic we should instead use the hundreds of solid scholars who do publish RS. On the other hand he does publish excerpts from primary sources that are useful and can work as external links Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartacus Educational earlier today and I also saw reference to this discussion on User:Kierzek's talk page. As it pertains to Spartacus Educational, I have very little knowledge of military history but I am more familiar with issues related to various conspiracy theories involving the assassination of JFK. I agree with the others who indicate that it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Simkin gives an inordinate amount of weight to primary source material, including people who simply make stuff up, then reports it as fact. A source that accepts unreliable or uncorroborated sources is not a reliable source. Likely fails WP:ELNO #2. Location (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Das Drittes Reich"

The article refers to Nazi Germany as "Das Drittes Reich"; that is a grammatical mistake. It should be "Das dritte Reich". "Dritte" is not capitalised in German as it is not a noun, even in a context where, in English, every word would be capitalised (eg. The Third Reich, or the title of a book or movie). And when using a definite article (in this case "das") the adjective ends with "e", regardless of whether it's masculine, feminine or neutral. "Dritt" (or any adjective) would only end with "-er" or "-es" when preceded by an indefinite article or none at all, eg. "Ein drittes Reich" or "drittes Reich". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrected to "das dritte Reich". Thank you -- Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
That is only partially correct. Drittes Reich / das Dritte Reich is treated like a proper noun (Eigenname) in German, so it is indeed capitalized, see also the German article on the phrase. Rgds -- Torana (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What an Article

The article's first para is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Form of government

Totalitarian dictatorship is not a form of government. Totalitarianism is a concept, and dictatorships are not forms of government. --TIAYN (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

check the dictionary: 1) Totalitarian = "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2) "dictatorship" ="a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator." Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Today part of" field

What exactly is the criteria for this list? Anywhere in Europe a German soldier stood? I'd think a list of countries that today comprise what was once Nazi Germany should be limited to, you know, areas that were actually Nazi Germany at one point. Bulgaria, for instance, was never incorporated into Grossdeutschland, nor were half of the other entries in the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The version of the article that passed GA in June 2013 did not incorporate the list at all. It got added at some point and has just grown from there. We should either remove it, or restrict it, like you say, to areas officially incorporated into the Reich (which included Austria, the Sudetenland, and part of Poland, if I recall correctly). -- Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree, the list should be edited or removed. Kierzek (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Since there's been no further comments, I have removed the list, as that's the condition the info box was in when the article passed GA. Further discussion is still welcome if anyone is interested, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
"Today part of" should include only territories that actually made up Nazi Germany proper - territories which became provinces of Nazi Germany itself, and not wartime occupied external territories (such as Vichy France, Norway, Denmark, and the Reichskommissariats in Russia) which were never incorporated into Germany proper. In this case, this should only include Germany, Austria, Czech Republic (Bohemia-Moravia), Poland and Slovenia. Derkommander0916 (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The list was re-added in the past and substantially expanded today without any explanation. I've removed the whole thing. --NeilN talk to me 02:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There was also a discussion on the same topic back in May 2013: Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4#Nazi Germany never annexed any part of Denmark. Also, recommendation at the peer review was to not include these flags. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good catch, NeilN. Kierzek (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Does this title already ok? Nazi Germany? I mean you can write" old germany", or "national" But not "nazi" - its a swearword of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesseblue2006 (talkcontribs) 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Common name

"National Socialist Germany" is not a common name for Nazi Germany, with only 74,600 Google hits compared to 9,190,000 for "Nazi Germany". I don't think it belongs in the opening sentence. Discussion welcome, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa. Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I further agree, per WP:COMMONNAME. Kierzek (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. -- Director (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
i agree also with Dianaa! talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesseblue2006 (talkcontribs) 07:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Flensburg government as a successor historical state

Is this really a good idea? How is it helpful to list a government of Nazi Germany as the successor to Nazi Germany? Has this been discussed? Am I missing something? We're talking about a government headed by Dönitz, a high-ranking member of the NSDAP, at Hitler's own appointment, and clearly representing the same German state ("Greater German Reich") that existed up to that point. It came about in what is, as far as I can tell, a perfectly legal transfer of power within the same context - that of Nazi Germany (since Hitler's orders were law). -- Director (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't the new map include Denmark being under civilian/military occupation?

I find this strange, yes, I understand countries/entities such as Vichy France or Slovakia or the state of Croatia were allies/puppets of Germany, but Denmark was under occupation. Guy355 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Because Denmark wasn't under a formal occupation in 1942. It was kind of a strange arrangement, comparable to that of Vichy France. The country remained legally sovereign, headed by its king and his government, and didn't have any German occupation authority (military or civilian) presiding over it. Of course, that changed later on... -- Director (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. P.S It also changed later on for countries such as Vichy France, when in 1943 Germany occupied the rest of the free zone of mainland France. Guy355 (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. In November 1942, to be exact (the locator map depicts the state of affairs in summer and early autumn of that year, that being the height of Axis success). Not the whole of the Free Zone, though: the Italians took control of a part as well at that time; this was under Italian military administration until September 1943. -- Director (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Somebody forgot to tell the Danes they were not occupied. And the map doesn't represent "the height" of Axis success, as it doesn't include southern France occupied in early November 1942, so I've been bold and edited the caption to the map accordingly. --Nug (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok Nug. Who was the military commander of Denmark in 1942?
I fixed the caption. It now reads "height of WWII success", rather than "expansion" (which it was). I really think its time to stop talking about that week in November. It has been explained that the map would be unrepresentative due to the briefness of the time span, and that it would represent a period where the Axis already lost nearly all of Africa. -- Director (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


The capital should be say Berlin (1933-1945) and then Flensburg (1945). -- (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No. "capital" is not merely the desperate last-minute unready hideaway of a few leaders as Flensburg was, but rather the permanent center of decision-making, senior officials, support agencies, and large bureaucracies. Furthermore the capital is always an official designation and receives general recognition, which Flensburg never had. I have never read a historian who calls Flensburg the capital. Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
True.. but unofficial capitals are often noted in the infobox nevertheless - with brackets, such as "(unofficial)" or "(de facto)"... I mean look at Vichy France: at no point was Vichy actually designated as the capital of that state, in any way. -- Director (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Vichy held all the government agencies, top officials, and ambassadors over several years. Flensburg had a few officials for a few days and no diplomats, no agencies, no bureaucracy. Including it will just confuse readers and produce a negative impact on their learning. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen; it should only state Berlin. Kierzek (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. -- Director (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Military-administered occupied territories

I can see there has been some discussion about the current map featured in the infobox, but I still wonder why Denmark, Yugoslavia and Greece is not shown as "military-administered occupied territories"? I'm aware Denmark was allowed to maintain partial sovereignty, but was nevertheless occupied by German forces until May 1945. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Denmark was not under military administration in 1942, legally it was fully sovereign. It was invaded, but wasn't subsequently occupied by the German military (until later). Its status was (at that time in the war) similar to Zone Libre Vichy France; that is: it was firmly within German control, but it certainly wasn't occupied.
  • Yugoslav territory was partitioned-off among its neighbors (Germany among them), included into puppet states (primarily the NDH), and the remaining part which was under direct German administration is indeed depicted as such.
  • Greece was an occupied country, but the vast majority was under Italian military administration in 1942. Again, those areas administered by Germany are depicted as such.
-- Director (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Denmark was de facto occupied and under German civilian administration after April 1940, at least to historian Werner Röhr. There was a Marine-Befehlshaber Dänemark between April 1940 and 1945, so there was a military presence of sorts. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) BTW Duivelsberg is still part of the Netherlands, however they are missing on the "Today part of" list.
Yes but by those criteria most of Europe could arguably be designated as "de facto occupied". All of France (and her north African colonies), for starters. Legally, the Danish institutions remained sovereign. There was a German naval presence, but there was no military commander of the country, and certainly no "civilian administration" (as in Norway and the Netherlands).
Ultimately the criteria for inclusion into the locator are up to us editors. In the above thread it has been proposed that only Germany proper be included, which I opposed, advocating the position that areas under control by German institutions should be included. I dunno. I don't think we can include Denmark but not Vichy or, even more so, the actual puppet states such as Slovakia and Croatia. This is a locator map for Germany.. I think we should stick to those areas administered by Germany. Otherwise we enter into subjective ground defined by differing assessments of informal German "influence": its a slippery slope that we really don't need to go down, imo. -- Director (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Locator map

Submitting a proposal to fellow editors for the introduction of a proper, standard SVG locator map for Nazi Germany: as previewed here.

I like the old PNG map of occupied Europe: its informative, its detailed - in fact I am in good part responsible for its current state, having been editing it for a long time. But its fundamentally unsuitable for infobox use, or as a locator map. Its ancient: its just one of many PNG maps from a series on the course of WWII (like these [105][106][107], etc.) that we have sort of transformed into a map that's supposed to depict Nazi Germany, however - it still doesn't. Its still a map on WWII first and foremost, depicting all sorts of things like Nazi allies, co-belligerents, Western Allies, the Soviet Union etc. etc..

For the infobox, we need a simple, standard-issue vector map, that works in the scale that an infobox mandates. Its not for no reason that we use the same kind of image all over Wikipedia, practically in every single country or former country article, for example Empire of Japan, Fascist Italy, the United States, Soviet Union, etc.. The map to the left essentially tells the reader what "Nazi Germany" was in the territorial sense, and what areas it controlled as occupation zones. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added the current map for easy comparison. Thanks so much for your work on File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg. If consensus is to replace the infobox map, I would like to see it used elsewhere in the article, perhaps replacing the map currently in the Geography section. My reasons for preferring the current map are as follows: None of the countries are labelled on the new map. The map currently in use provides a lot more information, especially if you take the time to click through and make it full-size. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The new map is more in style of a locator map, but to be honest, given that this article is about the (Groß)Deutsches Reich, showing occupied areas here is not necessary because we have German-occupied Europe with the relevant map. We don't generally show adjacent occupied areas in locator maps for countries, for example you will not see the Occupied Palestinian territories shown on the locator map of Israel. The USA has militarily occupied Iraq and Afghanistan two to threes time longer than Germany has occupied parts of Europe, we don't go adding Iraq and Afghanistan to the locator map of the USA. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dianna. Thank you for your input. As far as I understand it, the idea of a locator map in your typical country infobox is precisely to avoid other countries and emphasize the one we're describing in said infobox? There's no question that the current PNG map contains oodles more information, but that's exactly why I'd prefer the new one: an infobox is imo no place to go describing the entire layout of occupied Europe, it should focus on the country. That said - by all means lets keep the current map in the article. In fact I'm looking into putting together an SVG version for that exact purpose, but its not for the infobox imho.
@Nug. I understand your position, the thought has occurred to me as well. I myself would be perfectly fine with either version (tomorrow I'll upload a file with Germany alone).. but frankly I think it would be too much of a leap from what we have now. Also, if you think about it more carefully, I think the analogy with the US falls apart rather quickly: firstly, Its a fact that many areas under German occupation (most really) were intended for eventual incorporation into Germany; so there's that. Secondly, Iraq and Afghanistan (or arguably just Afghanistan today) would be "puppet states" so to speak, not actual occupied territories, and hence wouldn't be highlighted by the criteria of the SVG locator map. There is no United States civil or military body that is formally the governing authority of either country.
So again, I think areas under actual German occupation can very much be legitimately included here (see Empire of Japan), and I'm leaning in that direction, but if the consensus is in favor of Germany alone, I'm ok with that too. My goal is to have the infobox locate Nazi Germany.
P.s. A small caveat: "Greater Germany" or "Greater German Reich" is the official name adopted by Nazi Germany in 1943 (hitherto the 'German Reich'). As this map represents the state of affairs in 1942, it can't be said to be depicting "Greater Germany". "Greater Germany" is not a term used to refer to anything at that time, in fact, Nazi propaganda (clever as ever) specifically avoided and forbade it, building up for a grand renaming of the country next year. The current label in the infobox is quite wrong (its pretty recent I think). -- Director (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Director, can you expand on why you chose green for the map, rather than (say) red or black? I know some people with vision issues have problems with contrast on the grey-scale, but the last thing we want is for the article to look jolly. Needs to be sombre and low-key, imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I..uh, didn't consider the mood green would convey, to be honest. I just went with it because its used in practically every locator map I've ever seen. I really don't think there would be any point in trying to gauge subjective impressions from the colour scheme, if any. As regards serious color vision deficiency, let me assure you the proposed map would be a pretty significant improvement from what we have now (given the current map's usage of both green and red). But if green is unacceptable for that reason, I'm afraid we've got a lot of recolouring to do over at commons: green and grey is by far the most common scheme [108]. In fact, pick any country at random - I guarantee it has a grey and green locator map on enWiki... -- Director (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Boundaries of Nazi Germany
I wouldn't point to locator map for Empire of Japan as a glowing example because it is inaccurate. It includes Thailand, which wasn't a puppet state but an ally of Japan, similar to the relationship between Finland and Germany, yet we don't see Finland (or Italy) in your map. There certainly was a formal US body governing Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I get your point about the lack of US plans for incorporating that territory. But as you say, this map represents the state of affairs in 1942, so I don't think we should speculate on what Nazi Germany might have looked like had it won the war, I don't think the Nazis themselves had a solid idea. We already have Greater Germanic Reich that has a locator map spanning those occupied areas anyway, so my preference is to just confine the locator map for this article to Nazi Germany to that of it's greatest extent as represented to the right. --Nug (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh I'm sure the Thailand bit was just an oversight, people probably don't really know that much about WWII Thailand. Either way I've fixed it (thank you for bringing it up, please do so in future for any other errors you uncover). Bear in mind that the map seems to be mislabeled at the Empire of Japan article, its different colours reflect period of "acquisition", not status.
But while the map may have contained a technical inaccuracy, its a good example of the general layout and appearance of your typical locator map, and the fact of its being used for years now for countries very similar in situation to Nazi Germany.
Well yes of course there was the CPA immediately after the invasion, and if we were to make a map of the United States for the year 2003 - we may well be justified in including Iraq (in light green). There was never such a situation in Afghanistan, though, and today neither country would appear on the map, as they constitute "puppet states" at the very most (though I should think many would contest that assessment).
In short, occupied territories, governed by the country, imo warrant highlighting on a locator map of that country (ping: what's your opinion on this Diannaa?). I am leaning in that direction, but, as I said, I'm essentially fine if its decided that they shouldn't be, as it depends on arbitrary rules we decide upon as editors (I've uploaded the version). The thing I am concerned with is having the infobox objectively function better, by having a map that suits its format. -- Director (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree the occupied territories should be included, as they were governed by Nazi Germany and it was their intention to permanently incorporate all of it into their country. The map for China shows Tibet and Taiwan in light green, though both of these are "claimed territories" only. Why the Israel map does not show occupied territories is open for debate and something we don't need to get into here. We should leave allies out, as that would mean introducing a fourth color, and that info is included in File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg, which we should include further down in the article. I did investigate your point about map color Director, and most country locator maps are indeed green (Most of the African ones are blue), so I would agree to green for consistency's sake, though next to the red flag of Nazi Germany the green looks kinda Christmas-y which is why it struck me as inappropriate. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I get what you're saying ([109] :)), but going with black (or rather, shades of grey as it would turn out), wouldn't look good on a background of grey. I'm the guy who originally introduced greyscale in the PNG map (replacing the old blue), and I've had second thoughts about it later, given that neutral countries are depicted white there, but as the map highlights many other countries besides Nazi Germany (German allies, the Soviet Union, the UK) and uses different colours, I figured it wouldn't be a problem. Red, on the other hand, is probably the most ideologically-charged colour, and I think we'd do well to steer clear of the issue of the "socialisticness" of Nazi Germany. The primary colour of Nazism is, technically - brown, so I guess we could go with that to avoid ruining Christmas :), but I think the best thing would be to simply stick with the standard and not give any special treatment whatsoever.
Agree re occupied territories. Because they were actually, formally controlled by German institutions, I don't think we can avoid highlighting them.
(Caveat: not all occupied territories were to be incorporated by all accounts: most of occupied France would probably have been left to Pétain's state upon the end of the war, areas in the Balkans would have been dealt out later in some way or another, and arguably Norway would have been granted independence under Quisling as a form of puppet state; the rest was indeed most likely slated for eventual annexation). -- Director (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Well if you want to base your locator map on territory the Germans were intending to claim, then you need to add New Swabia and the African colonies lost after WW1, the Nazis having established the Reichskolonialbund with the purpose of reclaiming those territories. --Nug (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Certainly not, I never said that... kind of a straw man. We don't even really know for certain what territories the Germans intended to annex, that would be a most arbitrary criterion. Quite simply: if a territory is administered by Germany, it warrants highlighting on a locator map of Germany. The same goes (re your analogy) for Iraq and the US in 2003. -- Director (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Well then the whole of France fell under German military administration after Case Anton in November 1942, Northern Italy came under German administration in September 1943 after the surrender of the Italian government to the Allies, so that will have to be added. Also the area east of Finland was under Finnish military rule, so that should be taken out. Have to check with Hungary and Romania, I recall they also fell under German military rule at some point. --Nug (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
??? Obviously both maps up there are snapshots taken at the (arguable) zenith of comparative German success. The blank 1942 map (on which I built the locator map) depicts the period at the height of Nazi expansion, which is the period immediately before Operation Uranus and the unexpected collapse of the German front in the East. Not only is that the "standard", but we can not depict all periods even if we wanted to - it would be an unconscionable mess: we're not just talking changes in the extent of German occupation zones, but also changes in territory all over Europe, as in Italy and North Africa, or the Balkans. Anachronistic maps are usually a bad idea on this scale, but as a useful infobox locator map?? I would say that's just out of the realm of reasonable possibility.
Re Karelia... do you have a source on the military commander of that area? I was investigating that myself but could not find definitive info. At first I thought it must have been under Finnish control (hence the current state of the PNG), but later I remembered there were German troops up there as well, in no small number, and that their commanders often took operational control.. then it dawned on me the area is pretty much devoid of population, and that there may well not have been any real military occupation structure in place..?
Hungary fell under the control of its local Nazis (rather than the ultraconservatives), it never actually became occupied. Romania.. if it was ever under German military control it was a very short period, probably not formalized at all.
Either way, an anachronistic map - very bad idea imo. Especially for an infobox locator. Literally the only useful format I can think of would be some kind of animated gif, but I don't think I have the time to sit down and put together something like that for the entirety of WWII. -- Director (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Extent of Finnish occupation

If your map depicts the period at the height of Nazi expansion in the period immediately before Operation Uranus, then you definitely need to include all of France, since Case Anton was fairly well completed two weeks before Operation Uranus commenced. With regard to Finland, German troops were located in the Arctic north of Finland and did not make much headway beyond the Finnish border, Karelia was occupied by the Finns, as the map shows, the Germans being the black symbols and the Finns the blue. --Nug (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Re Case Anton. The idea is to depict Nazi Germany "in 1942" in a general sense (please see the source file for the locator map), not a ten-day period. That would be a most unrepresentative snapshot to take. Please, lets not make this overly-pedantic..
Re Karelia. Yes I saw that map from the Continuation War article. I see Finnish troops in the south, and German troops in the north, and not much more. We can't very well highlight only the north of the area and not the south, unless the two areas were administered by different commands (if indeed any). Frankly, given German overall command on the Eastern Front, I'm not inclined to unhlighlight Karelia (or especially just south Karelia), unless we have sources explicitly confirming that the area was under a Finnish occupation authority. Recall, for example, that Hungarian and Romanian troops occupied large stretches of the front at that time, but we wouldn't declare those areas to not have been under German control. -- Director (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
You are not really being consistent, first you argue that maps represent the "zenith of comparative German success", so when it is pointed out then that the whole of France should be included you move the goal posts with "The idea is to depict Nazi Germany "in 1942" in a general sense". Facepalm. With respect to Finland, are you kidding? See Finnish military administration in Eastern Karelia. --Nug (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded map: Nazi Germany (and occupied territories), 11–19 November 1942
Re Case Anton. You're right. I'm not being 100% consistent. I did say "immediately" before Uranus, and the 8 days in November between Anton and Uranus do in fact represent the highpoint of German territorial expansion in terms of occupied territory. However, I think actually using that tiny period as the basis for the locator map is being too pedantic about the point. It is imo much more instructive to go with the state of affairs pre-Anton, as that lasted for more than a negligible period. That's why it was chosen as representative of the 1942 blank map of Europe we are basically using to locate Germany.
Again, though, I'm perfectly happy to completely defer to the community on that point (I've uploaded a file for the period in question [110]): do we go with the 8-day period where the Germans had the most territory? Or the immediately-preceding period where they didn't have quite as much territory, but that lasted for months?
Re Karelia. Well thank you for bringing that to my attention, I'll modify the map accordingly. I've been looking for definitive info on that for a while now, and I did ask for assistance on that point. I'm puzzled, though.. why didn't you point to the article in the first place..? And why, I must ask, are you being abrasive about that now? ("are you kidding?") -- Director (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If I seemed abrasive then it's probably because I hadn't had my coffee yet. Note that Germany did occupy the whole of France from Anton in November 1942 until Overlord in June 1944, similar to the duration they held the eastern occupied territories, so I think it reasonable to include the whole of France. --Nug (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a common misconception: it actually took the Allies until August 1944 to break out of Normandy... and Italy also occupied a pretty big chuck of France until September 1943, so its not technically "the whole" of the country - but I get your point. However, as I said, the map would only be accurate for 8 days, and that just seems kind of silly to me.
Also, consider looking at the issue from the perspective of overall fortunes in the war: by late October 1942 they were already turning against the Nazis. The Second Battle of El Alamein, the Torch landings... Hitler didn't really want to occupy the Free Zone in Vichy France, he was forced to do it by Allied efforts... so arguably that's kind of a bad thing for him, and the "highpoint" of Nazi Germany was just before torch and El Alamein, before he was forced to take defensive action in the southern front. And speaking in terms of territory, while German-occupied territory did technically increase on 11 November 1942, overall Axis-held territory had significantly diminished.. Vichy France lost all the colonies, etc.
That, in addition to the "its only 8 days" point, is why we should really go with late October 1942, pre-El-Alamein. -- Director (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hitler didn't really "want" to invade France neither, except that the French and British rejected Hitler's peace offer, the Germans where "forced" to occupy Norway to pre-empt the British, who were planning their own occupation. The Second Battle of El Alamein and the Torch landings in a different theatre, apart from the question of should North African territory occupied by the Germans be also included in the map, so what? Re this "its only 8 days" point, peaks or zeniths by their nature are narrow, you climb the slope, reach the top then descend down, why pick some arbitrary point on the ascent below the peak as representative? The war lasted six years, the peak occurred half way through in 1942, the decline was as long and the rise, so I think it reasonable to represent the peak of Nazi Germany that occurred in the middle of its existence. Certainly much easier to define than argue over some arbitrary point below that peak. --Nug (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Its a very arguable point whether Hitler wanted to invade France... maybe not just then, but eventually? All I can do is repeat my points:
  • The summer and early autumn of 1942 are the height of German military success, whereas by November 11 they have been driven back in North Africa and lost proxy control over vast areas of that continent. November 11 is a technical highpoint solely in terms of territorial extent (when strictly looking at Germany as such), not in terms of actual wartime success. (The comment re theatres is kind of pointless: we're not really talking about "theatres of operation" at all here.. France and Russia are different "theatres" too; whereas North Africa is very much part of the general German war effort.)
  • There is such a thing as too narrow. Would you still hold that position if the map were accurate for, say 17 hours? 8 days is far too narrow a period for me to agree that it can be representative of a country in a locator map, particularly as it represents only a technical territorial highgpoint, not a highpoint of military success in the war.
I want the map to be able to say "Nazi Germany in 1942", and have it be a roughly accurate statement. I don't want to have to qualify in the caption "Nazi Germany 11-19 November 1942". I think we shouldn't have to use a period so narrow we need to qualify so strictly, and I think that qualification would make the map less relevant (plus frankly kind of silly). -- Director (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on this, Director. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I've introduced the pre-Alamein locator again, now that its been corrected in Karelia and Thrace. Hopefully it will be satisfactory.
P.s. That was me editing the article. I log in to Commons as "DIREKTOR", and when next I open Wiki I'm "DIREKTOR" here as well. I just returned from a rather long break - does anyone know what the devil happened? -- Director (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: the old PNG map is currently being upgraded to an SVG format, whereupon I'd like to introduce it (per Diannaa's suggestion) into the main body of the article. @Dannis243, please accept that aesthetic concerns are generally not a priority on our project, and that your perceptions of what is more or less "aesthetic" may not be shared by others. Don't edit-war: talk. -- Director (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


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)


Hitler was Democratically elected. That is NOT a "dictatorship"! (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)


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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015