Talk:Nazi UFOs

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

This is all unsourced hoax...[edit]

...and so it should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Aviation History[edit]

...and so it should not say "science fiction, conspiracy theory" nor should it be merged with "Space Nazis". (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"first modern sightings" unsourced[edit]

in fact the "first modern sightings" were a good bit earlier according to UFO [1]. So we need a citation for the claim that they occured at this time. --Alvestrand 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Technology used not that complex[edit]

Nazis at that time used ionization. Basically if you were to electrify a ring you would def. create a lift. The ring would be so ionized that it would lift up a craft. This is done with nuclear fusion reactors within the craft. Then you would need controls to move it forward. This can be done via jet turbines. The technology was primitive compared to vacuum pluralization methods, or even plasma for solar travel, it was limited to the atmospheric oxidized space but its not being used today, so it was advanced. Ionization just creates lift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Pauwels and Bergier[edit]

"A 1967 book by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier made many spectacular claims about the Vril Society of Berlin. It claimed that the society had made contact with an alien race and dedicated itself to creating spacecraft to reach the aliens. In partnership with the Thule Society and the Nazi Party, it developed a series of flying disc prototypes. With the Nazi defeat, the society allegedly retreated to a base in Antarctica and vanished.[5]"

Are you sure? I've read that book and I can't remember that they made any claims about nazi ufos. They've invented the vril society, that's true, but the association between the vril society and that nazi ufo stuff was fabricated by other authors (Juergen-Ratthofer, Van Helsing) Crypto-ffm 10:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've checked my copy of Pauwels & Bergier (just for sure). And I have to underscore what I wrote above. P&B never related the vril society to ufos, aliens, or similiar things. Therefore, the section should be reformulated, e.g:
"A 1967 book by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier made many spectacular claims about a so-called Vril Society of Berlin [5]. In the sequel, authors as Jan van Helsing claimed that this society had made contact with an alien race and dedicated itself to creating spacecraft to reach the aliens. In partnership with the Thule Society and the Nazi Party, it developed a series of flying disc prototypes. With the Nazi defeat, the society allegedly retreated to a base in Antarctica and vanished." Crypto-ffm 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your changes! I've added the citations you requested. Crypto-ffm 12:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi UFO?[edit]

Since UFO stands for unindentified flying object but these are identified as Nazi, are they really UFOs or more like NFO (Nazi Flying Objects)? Just a semantics thing I guess but if someone could clear this up. Thanks.VarunRajendran 18:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi UFO" is a term that English writings on the subject use. Gazpacho 02:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that "nazi flying saucers" would be far more appropriate, despite of the popular misuse of "UFO". I think that using "UFO" because it's popular is somewhat like grouping spiders with insects (as insects, not arthropods) since many people don't make these distinctions. --Extremophile 14:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
We know very little of this (maybe) objects, so can be clasified as Unidentified. At least in some form or aspects. -- (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think calling them unidentified is not a big problem. Timthemerciful (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are theese pictures a hoax? And can it be regarded open content?[edit]

Yes these are hoaxes. Most of the Nazi UFO stuff started with Allied pilots seeing things. Nazis never seemed to know anything about this, of course the Nazis never saw Allied UFOs,?. The few Germans who followed this are very similar to the few Americans who follow this - medication frequently helps. 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue[edit]

  • the following sentence in the opening statement does not sound neutral, but could just be me (:OP any ideas on how we can make it more neutral? (:O) -Nima Baghaei

It states the facts and nothing but the truth. That's about as NPOV as it gets, except for people who believe that there actually are/were Nazi UFOs, and those people's opinions are to be discounted in any case. Jtrainor 12:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

talk · cont · email 18:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no commonly accepted evidence that any such craft ever existed, beyond the well documented German development of jet aircraft, such as the Me 262 and rockets such as the V1 and V2.

German synonyms[edit]

The listed terms are not synonyms for Nazi UFOs.

  • These are specific names for classes of UFOs:
    • VRIL; Haunebu
    • Hauneburg-Geräte, Andromeda-Geräte (both plural, Gerät meaning "device"; see Google images)
    • Kugelblitz (ball lightning), Diskus (discus), Feuerball (fireball)
  • These are general denotations for this special kind of aircraft:
    • Flugkreisel (flying spinning top)
    • Kugelwaffen (spheric weapons)
    • Rundflugzeug (round aircraft)

Most important of all, "Reichsflugscheiben" (-n plural) has no apparent ironically connotation. Maybe this should be improved in the introduction. -- Gohnarch░░░░ 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

above all, it needs to be referenced. We can include any sort of nonsense, just as long as it is attributed, but we cannot keep around unreferenced nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 15:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, the term “Reichsflugscheibe” does not have an ironic undertone; this article simply misrepresents this. I only asked for the “satirically as” to be removed from the introduction. The word is used unbiasedly to describe this topic. Just as the German article states:
„Unter dem Begriff Reichsflugscheiben wird ein Mythos behandelt…“
“The term Reichsflugscheiben is used to deal with the myth of…”
This has nothing to do with “unreferenced nonsense”, as you call it. It's about the linguistic comprehension or connotation of the term in its country of origin, for the introduction lists German synonyms. User:Michael Zimmermann changed it in this edit.
The others words aren't nonsense but simple translations of the noted words! You need nothing more but a dictionary to verify it. Additionally, it is as comical as it is useless to cite nebulous esoteric issues. Besides, the terms are named in the article, and they are also uncited Icon smile.gif -- Gohnarch 17:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Points of expression don't need references. And you're right, "National flying disc" is bland, not ironic. Be bold, fix the articles! Corella (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? There are tons of mocking nicknames formed with Reichs-: Reichshund (a pre-Nazi-era example), Reichswasserleiche, Reichsgletscherspalte, Reichstrunkenbold, Reichsheini, Reichskaulquappe, Reichsschamhaarmaler, Reichsmordwoche; even Reichskristallnacht was originally a mocking term. Reichsflugscheibe is clearly formed according to the same pattern, even if it may only have been coined after 1945. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bell's 1950s crash?[edit]

The article says "The Bell supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania in the 50's." Ignoring the rogue apostrophe, for now, this appears to refer to the Kecksburg UFO incident, but that happened in 1965. Either way this needs clarifying. (Emperor (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Space Nazis[edit]

Would anyone else support merging the above article into this one? They're not quite the same thing, admittedly - that article is about a fictional trope whereas this one's about allegedly real claims - but they cover similar enough ground that I think they could be covered in a single article. Robofish (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll just do it if nobody objects. --John (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I object. These subjects aren't the same thing at all and need differing treatment. The separate articles are better as they are. Britmax (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Pop some valid third party sources onto the Space Nazis article and it can survive as a standalone article. Otherwise it's in breach of WP:V. Say a week? --John (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Its a disambiguation article like zombie, headcrab, revenant,reaver, etc. So obviously the WP:V is in the linked through material. The disambiguation should be made nore obvious and the kookiness in the first sentence removed (although I like it).Corella (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The Space Nazis article currently has a whole five examples of space nazis being used in sci-fi, and three of those are Star Trek alone. It should really, really be merged. OohBunnies! (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It should really, really be merged, but not to this article. Might I suggest Nazis in fiction? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - It is my view that the two articles function better as stand-alone ones than merged. They are indeed "not quite the same thing." Jusdafax 09:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


"end up battling with a President of the United States who coincidentally resembles Sarah Palin." It seems strange to claim this is coincidence, surely it's satire? sheridan (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


Instead of these aircraft or spacecraft being referred to as "Nazi UFOs", should they not be referred to as NFO? Or, Nazi flying objects? It makes more sense so if anyone wants to make those edits throughout the article you have my full support. -- biggayal ( (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC))

Why? Britmax (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what the user meant is that he is claiming fact to all unidentified flying objects as only Nazi and yes there is documentation but like this article, it remains subjective belief to a large extent and ultimately does not belong here on Wikipedia. I mean really, I could throw a funny shaped ruler across the room, would that be an unidentified flying object? \nn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Vril Society[edit]

The reference to the Vril Society should be qualified. There is no evidence that such a society existed. (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Haunabau Real?!? Its true history[edit]

Like the first ever v-shaped jet by the empire of japan, the a9yt and its torpedo bomber counter-part, not many people know of information about this craft, the haunabau. It was infact real, it used induction coils and 6 bmw engines via nuclear fusion, a primitive form of plasma or plasma drives. The induction coils create recyclable energy with electricity and nuclear power. However, they do not spin like you see in clique science fiction novels, they infact are stagnate and is why projectiles mounted on them become useless. The craft itself can not fire through the magnetic field it creates via induction coils. It could maybe go to mars and back, and if it reaches mars to fire a cannon, it could maybe need turn off its electromagnetic field that recycles the nuclear waste. It is the most primitive concept of ufos ever released. It was not released to the public because nazi germany couldn't figure out how to use them. The vril for instance or pleaidian ships were superior ofcourse, because they are unearthly. The haunabau was not though, a case as to why world war 2 was lost was because the allies nuked japan. Japan had a naval flanker, which would infact destroy naval carriers whom were equipped with cannons and machine guns. The fact is is that UFos which are petroleum based do not work because too much heat is created via fuel, a jet engine is a motor basically (see also the failure of the avrocar). Even electromagnetic coils would not be able to contain the excess heat of a petroleum based craft. The mescherschmidt 262 went too fast, no one could catch up with it, it was uttery useless in terms of dogfighting. In terms of naval flanking it could have been useful, yet naval carriers were not in the waters of nazi germany, because they held supremacy in submarine technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdc1980 (talkcontribs) 22:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Entirely fictitious[edit]

These stories of UFO's, secret Nazi bases in Antarctica or the Moon, Vril Society, etc. are all entirely fictitious. They should be mentioned at the outset.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

From the lede In UFOlogy, conspiracy theory, science fiction, and comic book stories, claims or stories have circulated linking UFOs to Nazi Germany. The German UFO theories describe supposedly successful attempts to develop advanced aircraft or spacecraft prior to and during World War II... - so I believe that is well covered. And additional section with any debunkings of Nazi UFO claims might not go amiss though. Artw (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nazi UFOs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)