This is an archive of past discussions about Nazi Germany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 3 years ago56 comments12 people in discussion
This discussion led to an RfC, which settled the issue. Now the discussion is being trolled by 2 probable socks, so I'm collasping the discussion and archiving it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The infobox contains a list of entities that are listed under the columns "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by". These look odd to me, i.e. Poland and France, for example, did not precede Nazi Germany, they were occupied by it. Likewise, Occupied Germany and Yugoslavia, among others, did not succeed it. The Weimar Republic is fine to keep as a predecessor, but not sure what to include as the successor(s), since the article does not discuss this. I seem to vaguely recall that West Germany may have assumed treaty obligations of Nazi Germany, but not sure.
Poland and France preceded it, because of many former German territories were recovered from them. Yugoslavia succeeded, because part of the former Carniola. WP infobox succession-predecession does not follow international law, see spefific discussion once at Austria-Hungary and the edit logs, unrecognized entities remained as well in the list, together with recognized ones. Btw. in war conditions - as I urged and clarified in many topics with various examples - blind adherence to the so-called inernational law may be POV and mutually exclusive, etc. We only agreed to remove such impossiblities, like a Polish underground/in exile organizations could be identified as a country or a territory. On the other hand, if the timeline covers interruptions or changes of status quo, the same entity may be as well predecessor and successor. These are the most important factors currently at first glance which should taken into account.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC))
France did not cease to exists, it continued. It was occupied, not disbanded.12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I find that entire section in the infobox totally non-informative without an explanation of exactly what is meant by “preceded” and “succeeded.” Normally terms like that are used (for example) in boxes referring to country leaders, where predecessors and successors filled the exact same role under discussion in the article. That’s not the case here. France was not “Third Reich” before Third Reich. The whole concept of the box doesn’t make any sense that I can see. Can someone please explain the rationale behind it? Preceded and succeeded as what? France was France before, during and after the war. This simple fact is what got the west involved in the war, because every country involved viewed the occupation as illegal. With that view in mind, what is this box really saying? 73.69.251.97 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Not everything that seems obvious to one is obvious to all. Let’s assume it is obvious to you. Okay, I can accept that. Can you accept that it’s meaning is not obvious to me and others involved in this discussion? That fact appears to be fairly obvious to me. If the meaning of the infobox section is that obvious to you then please humor us by answering the questions I asked. Show us how obvious it is. Humor us also by dispensing with unproductive accusations. Calling me a troll is a clear personal attack and waste of time. It is what those involved in the indefensible resort to when they believe they are being challenged. I’m not saying that’s what you are. I’m saying if you don’t want to appear as such, then simply engage in the discussion. I am not challenging the information. I cannot challenge what I cannot make sense of. I’m saying I cannot make sense of it as it is currently presented. So please explain what it means, as if I’m asking genuine questions that deserve genuine answers. Because that is exactly what I am doing. Thank you. 73.69.251.97 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Here’s a thought. After poking around a bit I think I understand now why this particular section of the infobox seems confusing to some readers. Example: The predecessor France is not actually linked to the France article, but to the article French Third Republic. Others are similarly NOT linked to main articles of the country/region as spelled out in the infobox. I propose the place names used in the infobox simply be changed to match the article titles to which they are linked. For me, following the links cleared up my confusion. Had the place names already been named as they are in the linked articles, I (and I assume many others) would not have been confused in the first place. How about the names in the box match the linked article names? Seems simple enough. 2601:180:103:6270:C003:4A19:8D24:D590 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Just stop this, obviously they are not linked to the articles of present-day countries, but the contemporary ones, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
I agree this part of the infobox is confusing, even misleading. The predecessor to Nazi Germany was the Weimar Republic. The successor was West and East Germany. All the other states should be removed. An occupied state is not its occupier's predecessor state, nor does it become its occupier's successor state upon liberation. Nor do states become each other's predecessors or successors when alliances are formed or broken. Levivichharass/hound08:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Some of the conquered territories were incorporated into the Reich. I agree though that this is confusing, and perhaps should be removed.— Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
if you look at the territory of 1937 (as many scholars do) territorial successors are Soviet Union, Poland, GDR and FRG (and Berlin). If you refer to the maximal incorporation around 1943, the mentioned countries share territories which have been part of the Nazi Reich at that time. Nillurcheier (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok just to be clear, it's not the history that I don't understand. I know how far the Nazis expanded and what those territories were before and after the expansion. The question is: why are we listing these "territory successors" and predecessors instead of listing the sovereign states that were successors and predecessors? When people look at the infobox for a sovereign state they will expect that "predecessor" and "successor" would be the predecessors and successors of the state not of the territory that the state held at any point in time. England is not the successor of Normandy. The USA is not the successor of indigenous tribes. Etc. Levivichharass/hound16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a better question: is there any source that describes France or Poland (or the other countries) as "predecessors" or "successors" of Nazi Germany? Levivichharass/hound16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
See earlier talks with Havsjö at Austria-Hungary (already archived) or the Second Polish Republic talk. Any territory which belonged to another state before is listed, even unrecognized entities, in full cover, commonly applied in inboxes. It does not define legal successors or predecessors of a state necessarily, but the belonging of the territories covered before and after (extensively and even interlaced, see e.g. several Yugoslavia or UkrSSR articles, etc.) Surprised some editors are/was not aware of this. As well, in many cases you would not be able to name any predecessor/succ of a state, because such would not exist, for various reasons (newly created, no legal continuity, totally abolished/destroyed, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
Yes. They are illuminating (ok, the AH talk is too short and specific between editors who already understood, but the other not), because if you read carefully this thread, some user's don't understand the concept of this pred-succ lists (=why some countries are in), the principles are fully explained.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
Everything in the infobox must be supported in the article, and what's in the article must be supported by a source. This global consensus is not negotiable. Further, we can't just say what we think are predecessors and successors: those words have specific meanings, and reliable sources explicitly describe the predecessors and successors of Nazi Germany. The predecessor (Weimar Republic) was already in the article; I've added the successor states (West Germany, East Germany, Austria) to the article, and updated the infobox to match what the article currently says. (The article's coverage of successor states could certainly still be expanded.) If we want to add France or Poland or any other country to the predecessor/successor fields in the infobox, we must first write the content in the article, with a source. There is no other way. Levivichharass/hound16:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, you misinterpret something, although you were explained, the, pred-suc chartbox does not contain what you say, but what have been explained, successors and predecessors on territory, as it is widely used everywhere, killing in one article the whole contructed predecessor/succession system which leads through over a millenia in the many chained articles is not a solution (but utterly avoidable like this), and as well in this discussion there was no consensus to be achieved for such change.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
This isn't about how it looks, it's about sources. Sources state what are the predecessors and successors of Nazi Germany. (And I don't think Allied-occupied Germany is a successor of Nazi Germany in any sense of the word. "Nazi Germany" was a state; "Allied-occupied Germany" was not a state, it was the absence of a state.) Levivichharass/hound23:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, I understany your concern, but please see that even unrecognized entitites (=not (legal) states) are as well on the lists). I gave you good examples with the Yug or Ukr articles. This is meant for users to easily navigate between articless in a preceding/succeding way, chaining together the articles over the entities lifespan over time in a given territory. Again, if the approach you claim by legal successors and predecessors, many entries would became missing - as you acknowledged - since such entry may not exist, navigation would be stucked. Over 1000 articles may be effected, even if you say the given situation would be the weakest form of consensus. Excuse me, we cannot break this with a partisan action at one article, since then the symmetry would be harmed, this cannot be handled locally. I use it as well often if we wish to precisely see what was a fate of a state/entity and these helped me to very good locate the appropriate article I searched for. Also consider, if we open this can of worms, in many articles people will initiate endless debates to claim a state of their legal predecessor/successor, which would be at certain areas the subject of dispute (and yes, they would present their sources for even conflicting claims and it would never end). This is a very complex and difficult issue (I mean to find a new solution that would satisfy all claims and aspects). Once I wanted to make a reform and get rid of unrecognized entities, I quickly failed on that and was opposed. Now the practise is applied by adjacent timeline-interwall chaining, which means all entities are in the pred-succ list: the article has a scope intervall between A and B (A-B). Pred list contains everything that is touching A (pred=X-A), succ touches everything that is touching B (succ=B-Z) - simplified version for understanding.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC))
Of course not, you may randomly check any state/entity article and you'll find the same navigational structure over the chain of articles. It is not known so far that any kind of RFC or anything has been discussed in the past regarding this...they have have been just implicitly formed over a decade.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC))
You're right about it being like this for over a decade (Special:Permalink/416234457) more or less. But do you acknowledge that you do not know of any sources that use the words "predecessor" or "successor" to describe Poland and Nazi Germany? I'm not keen on opening up a can of worms over infobox parameters that have been more or less stable for 10+ years. But I don't get how it's a navigational aid to list Poland as both a successor and predecessor (Poland and the other countries are on both sides of the chain, both forwards and backwards), as opposed to a navigational confusion. And most importantly, I can't point to any sources that use the words "predecessor" or "successor" to describe Poland and Nazi Germany. Levivichharass/hound05:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not aware of any sources that describe Nazi Germany as being a successor to Poland for example, or, conversely, Allied-occupied Germany being a successor to Nazi Germany. If such sources cannot be found, then these extraneous and counter-factual entries should be removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, but not just here, but in vast majority in articles...you are riding on words, the infobox templates and parameters are suffering from many inconsistencies and inaccuracies ingeneral, you should not take any terminology or expression mentioned there as something carved in a stone, given the fact that parameters may appear in a different names as they are coded...if you don't understand the princpiple of interlaced pred-succ chaining, just check Kingdom of Italy which helps with dates. That means, in both sides may be entities that preceded and even succeded them, given the territorial changes during it's lifespan. Analyze Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which is a good example of this, until that principle is not fully understood, we should not go on further.
K.e.coffman, with respect, please a bit "open your eyes". In WP, country articles are following by a successive chain. Like Duchy of Austria->Archduchy of Austria->Austrian Empire->Cisleithania->Republic of German-Austria->First Austrian Republic->Federal State of Austria->Austria under National Socialism->Allied-occupied Austria->Austria (this is an easier example with less divergence, highlighting and narrowing to the Austrian states mainly). Just because in WP the successive article's name is Allied-occupied Germany, it does not mean Nazi Germany was not followed by that, it was, lifespan 1945-1955, and after again the wheels of history turned, see there the pred-succ list there. Those navigator instances are not connection with RS, and counterfactual outcome would only happen if we would follow what you propose. Read back if it's not clear, it's about territory, not about legal successors or predecessors neither how the article is named in WP, nor one narrowed interpretation of the exact word parameter shown.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC))
Just because it's done that way on other articles doesn't mean it makes sense for this article. If the consensus is that it's confusing and not relevant for this article, then it can and should come out. See for example where Roman Empire does not list every country ever conquered by the Romans – it only lists Roman Republic→Eastern and Western empires.— Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, it makes sense, if we don't want to break symmetries and create inconsistencies (technically on the local consensus you are correct, but it should be really theoretical). I hope you realized that your example fails, since the two entity which is lited as sucessors covers the entire territory of it (it is not about listing "every country conquered", it seems you don't understand the issue appropriately, it is about territorial coverage of a preceding or succeding entities, please read back).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC))
Why do the predecessors and successors now only have Austria? Shouldn't the Sudetenland and Bohemia and Moravia also be represented there? Or you can list all states that were conquered by Nazi Germany. It makes no sense to only list Austria as an annexed area. Txbiassss (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but that has nothing to do with countries. The Sudetenland was also part of Nazi Germany and I think either one refers to all areas that were annexed before the Second World War or one generally refers to all countries and areas that were occupied and annexed during the war. But I don't think it's correct to just name Austria and ignore the other regions. Txbiassss (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The infobox is the result of a long discussion between editors, some of whom held your opinion. They did not prevail, so the infoxbox is as you see it, a result of editorial consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why this has now been changed. If Austria is shown as predecessor and successor, Poland and Czechoslovakia, for example, are also predecessors and successors. You can't just name an annexed country and ignore the others. The English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia in which the predecessors and successors are displayed in this way. In my opinion it would actually make the most sense to just indicate the Weimar Republic as the predecessor and states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Austria etc. as the successor. I think that especially with the English language Wikipedia it is very important that the information is complete and correct. I don't understand the reason why only Austria is listed. Due to the listing, there could be misunderstandings that e.g. Nazi Germany and Austria were a union like the Soviet Union. The list of predecessors and successors has been changed from a very detailed version to a very shortened and actually incorrect version. Txbiassss (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. Hitler sent an ultimatum to Suschnigg and even members of the Nazi party in Austria were against annexation to Germany. Austria asked Italy for support against Nazi Germany, but Mussolini was known to be on Hitler's side Txbiassss (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes and in the Sudetenland (Czechia) and the Memelland was also no conflict. If the site stays that way, it looks like Nazi Germany only consisted of Germany and Austria during its existence. And I don't think it's correct that all other states and territories that have been annexed or occupied are ignored. Because if Nazi Germany only consisted of Germany and Austria then I don't understand why the Second World War broke out or what the Munich Agreement is. According to the reasoning, it would only be correct if one only entered the Weimar Republic as the predecessor and the occupied Germany as the successor because the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were legally the same states. Txbiassss (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Norway is not a country? Denmark is not a country? France is not a country? Czechoslovakia wasn't a country? Poland is not a country? Belgium is not a country? The Netherlands is not a country? Luxembourg is not a country? etc. And do regions not count? The article for the Soviet Union even lists the puppet states. As it is now, it's just not correct. It would even be more correct to simply add the German nation-state as a predecessor and successor (Weimar Republic - Nazi Germany - Allied occupied Germany) Txbiassss (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The current infobox is the result of a very recent WP:RFC. Please feel free to open a new RFC if you believe the consensus has changed.— Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes I have read it. The problem I see there is not that it was changed, but how it was changed. Either you just list the German nation-state or you name all annexed areas (there are, for example, Wikipedia pages about the Sudetenland). It doesn't make sense to just name Austria. Then you should rather do it like in other Wikipedias that you just name Germany. But as it stands now, it's just wrong. It shouldn't be a problem to change it in the name of correctness. Txbiassss (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes I know. nevertheless, was there anything wrong with what I wrote? I am trying to improve this site with my contribution. Unfortunately I do not have the authority to edit pages. Txbiassss (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It would be very good if at least one could add the other areas that were annexed before World War II. I think that on the one hand it would be good for you to have a complete page and on the other hand there would be no more discussions. Txbiassss (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
N Not done: We just had an RFC on this issue, and what you see in the infobox is the result of that discussion. Please consider opening a new RFC if you wish to pursue this. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Predecessor and successor
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
(The last discussion was closed so I'll write it again) It would be very good if at least one could add the other areas that were annexed before World War II. I think that on the one hand it would be good for you to have a complete page and on the other hand there would be no more discussions. Txbiassss (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It makes no sense that only Austria is listed as a predecessor and successor as other territories were also annexed before and during the Second World War. The current list is incomplete, misleading and incorrect. One might think that Nazi Germany and Austria were one union like the Soviet Union, for example. I think that you either only list the German nation-state as predecessor and successor (Weimar Republic - Nazi Germany - Allied occupied Germany), you only list the areas and countries that were annexed before the Second World War, or you generally list all countries that were also during the WWII annexed or occupied by Nazi Germany. I don't understand why only Austria is listed as an annexed state and the other states or areas are ignored. Txbiassss (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the best solution would be to list the Weimar Republic as the predecessor and to add all states and areas which were annexed and occupied during the course of the Nazi rule to the side of the successors. Txbiassss (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Not done: We just had an RFC on this issue, and what you see in the infobox is the result of that discussion. Please consider opening a new RFC if you wish to pursue this. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)