Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Denmark

Is missing from the map. It needs to be marked as occupied. Dapi89 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Director: — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Protectorate until August 1943. King and government in control of the country. No German authority or institution, military or civilian, exercising any kind of formal governance over the territory. -- Director (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's nonsense. Are you saying that Denmark was free from interference from the German Reich and not occupied? If you are, you're most certainly wrong. The so-called sovereignty granted to it was an illusion. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflation. Not "free from interference", but not occupied either. It was a puppet, or satellite, protectorate, whatever you want to call it ("protectorate" government is common). Similar to Vichy France (in the Zone Libre). Occupation is a very specific thing, its when a country places its own institutions in control over a foreign territory - that did not happen in Denmark until after the Allied landings in Sicily. There were lots of occupied countries, and people suffering under actual occupation, under a civil (Reich commissioner) or military (military commander) controller. -- Director (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of what occupation is or means. Neither does Giltner's In the Friendliest Manner: German-Danish Economic Cooperation During the Nazi Occupation of 1940-1949 or Lemkin's Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. In both cases it was a clear occupation. In fact, the Gestapo assumed control of all news/media outlets. Censorship was established under German "guidance" and the police force was controlled by the "army of occupation." The current explanations are unsupported and unsatisfactory to justify omitting Denmark from the map. At best it is extremely misleading to the untrained eye. Dapi89 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh you'll find thousands of sources that just round it all off as occupation, or consider the situation a vague subjective kind of "occupation" - and you'll find many others talking about the Danish "protectorate" government - but to add 1942 Denmark, as you suggest, would basically define the whole of Europe as "Nazi Germany" in our locator map.. Slovakia, Croatia, Vichy France, even Hungary... I believe it is necessary to restrict ourselves to actual official occupation in the map. Otherwise we might as well just use 1939 Nazi Germany and do away with the "occupations".

And allow me to add that, on another level, its rather unfair to the millions that suffered under Nazi "occupation proper", to include a non-occupied territory where (if I recall correctly) about equal numbers died at the hands of Nazis as in the 5th SS division. And that almost all after August 1943 - when (let me emphasize) occupation actually DID happen. This is 1942, however.

P.s. could I ask you to please review the previous discussions on this? -- Director (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Would it really!? I'm struggling to see how Denmark, which was invaded, fought the invasion and lost, could be equated with Nazi allies.

I'll be blunt: the map is poorly considered. A better map detailing the standing of each country under German, let's say "guardianship", would be more appropriate. And that detail should include Denmark and not leave it greyed out as if to suggest it remained aloof to the war. Dapi89 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I did btw. I just don't think that the issue has been addressed adequately. As you say, this "vague" issue requires some clarity, even if it is a map. Dapi89 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

For the general article of "Nazi Germany" under Militaristic Foreign Policy section, the first paragraph discusses the declaration of German rearmament, the second paragraph then states: "When the Italian invasion of Ethiopia led to only mild protests by the British and French governments, on 7 March 1936 Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht Heer ground forces to march 3,000 troops into the demilitarised zone"

This is someones personal interpretation of historical events. The justification for the remilitarization of the Rhineland was stated by both German and British governments to be the French-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance. 23.247.147.5 (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Who's?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Arr I get what you mean now. Yes this is how Wikipedia operates, it uses material that RS have said.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hitler's stated intentions and motivations did not always agree with his actual intentions and motivations. Evans (2005) on page 632-633 states that when the Italian invasion went unchallenged by the British and French, Hitler took it as a signal that his move into the Rhineland would not be challenged either. He states on page 633 that Hitler used the Franco-Soviet Pact as a pretext for this action. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Incorporated in a subtle manner per Diannaa.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017

Spelling request - Change "enrol" to enroll Jdrbayne (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank-you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Article needs more information on the good things that Germany did in the 1930s

Germany did many great things during this era and those need to be included. For example the development of the MG42 machine gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.146.222 (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Were gas chambers also great or good ?Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please leave this kind of thing out. Attack what he has said (such as please explain why the dvelopment of the MG-42 is a good thing) and so not attack strawmen.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please leave this kind of thing out. Members of my family were murdered with good German guns. Let the person explains his/her ideas about good and bad. BTW - why do you think that a gun may be good and a gas chamber bad? It's not at all obvious.Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It is also (as I said) a strawman, he made no mention of gas chambers so let him explain what he thinks without putting words into his mouth. As I have not said a gun maybe good I do not have to explain why I think it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply the MG 42 light machine gun was years ahead of it's time in efficiency as a fighting tool. German gun manufactures under the Nazis made some of the finest guns the world has ever known. Guns are just "tools", they possess no morality or immorality other than what the may be used for, but that is on the operator not the thing in itself or the person who created it. For example: the American equivalent of the MG 42 was the Browning .30 Machine gun----- was that "evil" or was it "moral"? Actually neither, it is only a tool, same as the German MG 42. Under the Nazi regime there were MANY excellent technological developments which should be mentioned in this article.... the "good things" which Germany did and should be included to add proper balance. To assume the "everything" the Nazi's did was bad just isn't logical. If that is true then VWs, Audis and Porches are "evil" too. The Nobel prize is named after Alfred Nobel, the man who invented dynamite. Dynamite helped change the world; it is used in mining operations and in large scale construction. Just because it can also be used as a weapon does not make it evil.

And we are talking about morality, not technical excellence.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about technical excellence. Germany during the Nazi regime were responsible for many technically excellent developments. I never mentioned morality other than to defend my statement that there is not immorality in excellent technical development. That was a charge brought against me. The problem with any article that discusses "Nazi Germany" is that EVERYTHING attached to Germany during this era is almost automatically put down as evil. There were many good things that Germany did during this era even as they are obviously outnumbered by the many more bad things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.146.222 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious, can the same be said about the atomic bomb? Being a citizen of the United States, it isn't something that is "shined upon". Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I will add, where do we discus Nazi Germany's technical "badness" in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

2.7 million ethnic Poles were killed by the Nazis

They were killed by the SS, police, Wehrmacht, militias, civilians, only SS was a Nazi formation.

The Nazis were German or German from Austria or Volksgerman, but always German. The Nazism was radical German nationalism, racially lower collaborators weren't accepted. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not true, John Amery, Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, Bronislav Kaminski, [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Was Amery a member of the Nazi party?

Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski was born as a German citizen and was German. Millions of German citizens had Slavic roots, the same many Polish citizens had German roots: Władysław Anders, Józef Unrug. Obama is American.

Waffen-SS accepted some non-German units, like Kaminskis Brigade. Did the soldiers/criminals obtain German citizenship and NSDAP membership? Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

He had a Polish father, so are we talking about ethnicity or nationality? Also are we talking about collaborators or members of the Nazi party?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The foreign members of the Waffen-SS did not have to join the Nazi Party and did not have to become German citizens. To say Nazis were "always German" is also not correct. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither did those who worked for quisling regimes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Nazi is a member of the NSDAP, not a racially lower member of collaborationist units. When Germany lost the war in 1944, it accepted some non-German units into Waffen-SS, but the soldiers didn't have equal rights with German ones.

People collaborated with the Nazis and Communists not only because they shared the ideology, but to survive. Many Communists collaborated with the Nazis and later returned to Communism, if they were allowed.

Fuzzy words make any discussion impossible. [2] Nazi is a member of the NSDAP, other meanings often not capitalized.

Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Your point is that only Germans were nazi's and only Germans committed atrocities, this is simply not true. [Blue Police] is an example, they were poles.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have found the dictionary definition. Please discuss with the authors.

My point is that only Germans were Nazi (not nazi).

My point is that many non-Nazi Germans committed atrocities.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh I see, and what are you suggesting we change about the article?Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

1939 population

17 May 1939 census figure: 79,375,281. That includes of course Sudetenland, Austria, Memel, etc. Could it be the current figure used in the article counts population only within 1937 borders?Ernio48 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The footnote in the source document says "Gebietsstand: 31.12.1937." so yeah, it looks like the data was collected from within the 1937 borders. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

How about changing it? Since these areas were de facto, and I think, de jure incorporated into Germany? Or at least noting which borders it concerns?Ernio48 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed it up by noting the census used the 1937 borders. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Territorial changes

Unprecize caption.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed part of the caption. People will have to click through to see its meaning. I am not thrilled with this map as the colors are too alike. People with poor vision will find it useless. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Endphaseverbrechen

de:Endphaseverbrechen, Death marches (Holocaust) should be mentioned parallelly to the suicides. Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Economy

The section does not describe the Nazi robbery system, see "Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State" by Götz Aly. Germany was the only state which didn't finance the war, the victims did.Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure this is true, ever herd of war reparations?Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Which reparations, WWI or WWII?

The book is about the war (WWII), which was financed by the Jews and occupied nations, the level of life of Germans was similar like before the war.Xx236 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WW2, and by the way [3], Germany was not alone in this, they just occupied more places.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss the subject with Götz Aly.

This page is about Nazi Germany and the section Economy doesn't inform about German robbery.

The situation of the UK was very difficult, the level of life low. Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

He is not here you are. Also does he say that Germany was the only WW2 combatant to do this, or just that they did it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please consider that I'm not a native speaker and I don't understand you. (He is not here you are)

This page is about Nazi Germany.Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Xx236, you must remember this is an overview article and the matter is already mentioned and can be covered in greater detail in the appropriate sub-article; that is what sub-articles are for; readers can link through to them for more detailed information. Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Economical and populistic foundations of the Nazi Germany are basic.

Where are they mentioned here? Pre-war trivia and war slave work are mentioned, finances aren't. Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Czech industry was very important for the Nazis - not bombed, no underground. The only problem was the Anthropoid attentat.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Dachau wasn't the first

Dachau was the first stable, big camp, but not the first camp. At least Breslau-Dürrgoy concentration camp was founded before Dachau, probably a number of small camps either.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they were both founded in March 1933, and the camp you link was short-lived. And the other small SA camps were not organized; most were basically short-lived holding camps or jails. Dachau was the first well organized camp which became the "prototype and model" for all subsequent Nazi concentration camps as to how they were built and run. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No but almost yes. Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

de:KZ Nohra was the first officiall camp, March, 3, 1933.Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This article would not meet our standards, it seems totally uncited.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

[4], [5] Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That is more like it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a small camp which was not organized on the scale and "model" of what all subsequent Nazi concentration camps followed. It was a holding camp; as the article states: people were locked up 24 hours a day, no walls, no fencing and they were not made to work. I stand by my statement above. As Evans writes: most of the early camps were closed down in later 1933 and early 1934. p. 81, "The Third Reich in Power". Himmler had remembered that Eicke had organized a camp in Italy with some success and appointed him the replacement commandant of Dachau. He issued comprehensive regulations and rules. Eicke's reorganization won Himmler's approval. Eicke's systematization of the concentration camps "became the basis for all camps". pp. 82–84. Kierzek (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If RS call Dachua the first can we see them?Slatersteven (talk)

edit conflict, I just finished the addition with the RS cited text for my post above, when you posted. So see above. I think there's a little misunderstanding about what I am conveying. Dachau was the first big organized camp that was the original and first model camp for all Nazi concentration camp's. I said there were some early small camps, detention centers and in fact torture centers, as well. Many were run by the SA, they were disorganized and ironically some were considered illegal. This is covered in the pages I cite above. Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is not what we are disusing, it was not the first camp, any thing else "the first big organised camp" just seems like weasle wording (not that your edited text above even supports that. Only that it became the model for all subsequent camps (which is irrelevant on a page about Nazi Germany)). Nor was it the original, as your text makes clear the one in Italy was.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, "Dachau was the first organized Nazi camp which became the 'prototype and model' for all subsequent Nazi concentration camps"; that is and has been my point and that is what the RS sources state. Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Then you agree it was not "The first Nazi concentration camp", so what is the debate about?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've amended the prose to indicate it was the first major camp. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states it succinctly: "The Dachau concentration camp was established in March 1933. It was the first regular concentration camp established by the National Socialist (Nazi) government." I agree with Diannaa's tweak. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Das Lied der Deutschen

When I play Das Lied der Deutschen in the infobox, the subtitles begin with "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" (Unity and Justice and Freedom), which is the third stanza of the original song. The third stanza is the current German national anthem, but in Nazi times it would begin with the first stanza "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" (Germany, Germany above everything). Nicolas Perrault (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You are quite right. The tune is the same, of course, but the lyrics begin with the third stanza, as in the modern German national anthem. It is, I believe, critically important to begin with the first stanza for this article. After all, Nazi Germany is the reason why the modern anthem begins "Unity and right and freedom" instead of "Germany above all" -- and it is worth noting that the original first stanza defines "Germany" as a much larger territory than it is now: "From the Meuse to the Nemen, from the Adige to the Belt." That is, for example, the eastern border of Germany is Memelland: Klaipeda in modern Lithuania! There must be copyright-free recordings of the song that could be used, so that the true pre-1945 anthem is reflected on this page. Roches (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming change discussion at WP:MilHist

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#"Nazi Germany" as name of combatant in WWII articles Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

2001:4640:7C7B:0:AD35:AA61:35A9:3694 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Map is wrong - Denmark was occupied

The map on top, captioned "Germany at the height of World War II success (late 1942)", shows the German influence in 1942, but leaves Denmark grey, it should be green with the caption of "Civil occupied territories" as Denmark was indeed occupied by Germany from 9 April 1940 - 2 May 1945. 80.197.107.218 (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The pale green denotes areas under Reichskommissariat rule. At this point, Denmark was formally a neutral self-governing country that permitted German troops to be stationed there, rather than officially under Nazi rule (Vichy France is shown in grey rather than green for the same reason.). ‑ Iridescent 15:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it affects the map, it is worth noting that Nazi officials saw occupied Denmark as a way to promote their image of a "model protectorate". -Indy beetle (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What's with the map?

Why doesn't the map show Vichy France and Denmark as holding some sort of relationship with Nazi Germany? After all, they were unofficially under Nazi rule, were they not? Ftrhi (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

They were not technically part of Nazi Germany.08:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands and Belgium are missing in preceded by and succeeded by.

Kingdom of the Netherlands and Belgium are missing in preceded by and succeeded by. Tim de Vries (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

This article states the NSDAP was a "far-right" group when in reality, the NSDAP and NAZI party were radically left-wing. The National Socialist German Workers' Party, or NAZI party, was a socialist party that has vastly more in common with leftist ideology than anything else. This should be corrected in both instances where "far-right" is mentioned. 174.127.214.115 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And North Korea is Democratic. We have had this discussion before, and it is regarded by RS as far right.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

The article has several instances where "organisation" was used in various ways. As you can see, the word is misspelled and should be corrected to "organization." Csmoptix (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. The article is written in British English (and contains the {{Use British English}} template), in which "organisation" is the correct spelling. General Ization ^Talk 19:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Reich"

Full disclosure: I do not speak, write or read German, but I'm a little concerned about translating "Reich" in Drittes Reich as "Third Realm", since, to my understanding, "Reich" can also mean "Empire" as well. Does the capitalization of "reich" to "Reich" imply "Empire" over "Realm", and did the Nazis really have "realm" in mind by making the analogy of their "Thousand Year Reich" with the Kingdom of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire? It seems to me that they were actually using the sense of "Empire" and not the much more prosaic "Realm". Would those who are German speakers like to speak to this point? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

My German-English dictionary translates it as "empire; kingdom", not "realm". All nouns are capitalized in German (not just proper nouns), so don't read too much into that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the German term (Deutsches Reich) actually remained the same as during the German Empire and the Weimar Republic. It’s not easy to translate it, as the nuances of meaning depend on context, but "realm" as a literal translation (itself from a french word for "kingdom") is at least not wrong (the word Reich is closely related to the -ric in bishopric). By the way, we have the articles German Reich and Reich. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 08:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It comes from the word, "realm", but as used, the meaning is "third empire". So, it is not clear cut. Ping: @Obenritter:. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Did the NAzis issue official communiques that translated the phrase into English?Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, to which I don't have an answer, but it did prompt me to search the New York Times archives.

• This article [6] from January 1, 1931 refers to the Nazis ("Adolf Hitler's Fascists") wanting certain events to happen "to hasten the coming of their 'third realm'" [note no caps]
• This article [7] from December 31, 1931, about the "Tactics of Hitler", refers to the Hitler's desired state as "the 'third realm'" [note no caps]
• This article [8] from January 1, 1934, after Hitler had become Chancellor, and the passing of the Enabling Act, refers to a book which the author declares "is written for all Germans who live outside of the coercion of the Third Realm [note caps and no quotes] and have not surrendered the right to think for themselves."

On the other hand,

• This article [9] from July 4, 1930, about government employees being banned from joining extremist political parties, refers to both the Communists and "the Faciscti" wanting to bring down the government in a putsch in order to set up "a dictatorship and a 'third Reich'" [note mixed capitalization and quotes]
• This article [10] from September 26, 1930, about Hitler speaking at the Leipzig trial, refers to Hitler as saying that he would set up a "'Third Reich'" [note caps and quotes]. Interestingly, in Hitler's words, he cites the Empire under the Kaiser as the first Reich, and Weimar Germany as the "second Reich". I believe that the Nazis later dropped any identification of the hated Republic as being in any way a precursor of their beloved Third Reich.

and,

• This article [11], an interesting overview from June 7, 1931, "The Tune Hitler Beats for Germany", specifically refers to "Hitler's slogan, 'The Third Empire'" [caps and quotes]
• This article [12], "The Battlecries of Hitlerism Modified as Election Nears" from July 10, 1932, says:

  "But what is this ideal State to be like, this National Socialist 'Third Reich'? [caps, quotes] It is prefigured as a State which may hope to see the resurrection of glories that departed from the Holy Roman Empire of the Hohenstaufens and from the Second Empire, [no quotes] the sad epilogue in now being enacted in Doom. [Yes, they actually used to write this way in news articles.] The Third Empire [caps, no quotes] is visioned as a glamorous abode of pure-blooded Germans... [etc.]"

So, while we still don't know how the Nazis translated Drittes Reich in their despatches, we can see that at least one American newspaper (not yet the "newspaper of record") was fairly promiscuous in translating "Third Reich" as either "Third Realm" or "Third Empire". Whether this gives us guidance, I'm not sure, but it's more data to add to the pile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Since "Drittes Reich" was used by the Nazis as a way of legitimatizing their projected state by comparison with the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire, I think using "Third Realm" instead of "Third Empire" as the literal translation is somewhat deceptive to our readers, or, at least, doesn't present the full connotations of the term. Therefore, since this discussion is still taking place, I've added "Third Empire" to "Third Realm" in the lede of the article as translations of Drittes Reich. If we decide here that one or the other is the better to use, the lede can be amended, but in this way we're not doing a disservice to the readers who consult the article in the interim by withholding a legitimate translation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to suggest "kingdom", but then this distinguishes between "Königreich" (kingdom), "Kaiserreich" (empire) and "Deutsches Reich" (German empire). 95.251.163.194 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... not this again. "Reich" is fine. English sources use it overwhelmingly over "realm" or "empire" - or "kingdom"(!?), that's just nonsense.
Also don't add another name in there, there's already a footnote for the little Nazi propaganda name change in 1943 that nobody cared about. -- Director (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose we highly protect this article, so that admins only can edit this. It's too controversial. GermanGamer77 21:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. I believe that the regular contributors here are able to keep the vandalism under control, and are also able to request the proper level of protection should it become necessary.

Did you have any specific reason for believing that full protection is required? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary. Kierzek (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Full protection is only used when there's an edit war underway or some other extremely compelling reason (for example when someone highly famous unexpectedly dies, the pace of editing can literally crash the site if not stopped via page protection. This has happened twice I think). The article is semi-protected. There's been no real trouble for quite some time, just minor disagreements over what to show on the maps and stuff like that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nazi Germany. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204111257/http://www.spio.de/media_content/610.pdf to http://www.spio.de/media_content/610.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920455-2,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Publikationen/Querschnittsveroeffentlichungen/StatistischesJahrbuch/Downloads/Jahrbuch2006Inland,property=file.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Flag

The NSDAP Swasika flag didn't became the flag of Germany until 1.September 1935. The Swedish encyclopedia Nordisk Familjebok, third edition, second printing, in article "Flagga" (Flag) , there is a poster of most flags of independant countries. Germany is reperesented by the old Imperial flag + the Swastika-flag, with the comment "from 1.September 1935". Within Germany the Swastiska-flag was more common to see, but it didn't really represent Germany until that date. And internationally never.
Also the period February 1933 - August 1934 , Germany was in a period of "Nazification". The change of the flag can be seen as the very last part of this process. By 30.January.1933 Hitler still was just the 21st (or so) Chancellor of the German Republic ("the Weimar Republic") since 1919, and the President (Hindenburg) stood above Hitler. If the parliamentary situation called for a dozens of Chancellors 1919-1933, there were only two Presidents, Friedrich Ebert 1919-1925 and Paul von Hindenburg 1925-1934. The Presidents of the Republic were "strong" Presidents, standing above the Chancellor and his Government, as the ultimately responsible. Just as Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor, he could have fired him again. Boeing720 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Importance of the Royal Navy in Sealion`s cancellation

I`m surprised that someone thought it necessary to delete an addition stating this. I don`t think there`s any modern historian who doesn`t take the same view of the RN`s role in deterring Hitler from attempting to invade the UK in 1940. Even Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz believed air superiority [on its own] was not enough and admitted, "We possessed neither control of the air or the sea; nor were we in any position to gain it". As for citations, you can use the same ones on the Sealion page, or, indeed the Sealio--JustinSmith (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)n page as a citation......

This seems to be more a case of "but it's not in that citation", then an actual understanding of the topic. Yes this is fairly well known, and not even new. Just add a cite that says it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, but note that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

True, but he is not using Wikipedia as a source, he is telling you the sources are there.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

He was trying to use Wikipedia as a source; someone add a proper RS source herein and add back in the information as it was copy edited. And secondary RS sources and not primary source quotes is the best way to go. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have located the sources for the quotations that were added, using Google preview and Worldcat. I agree with Kierzek that secondary sources would be better, but at least what we now have is properly cited. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed Kershaw 2000 "Nemesis" and re-cited the material to this, correcting an error of chronology (The Blitz wasn't started after the realization that they couldn't achieve air superiority, it was part and parcel of the Battle of Britain, the loss of which led to the scraping of Sealion) and moving the primary sources into a footnote. I think this cleans up the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added a citation directly to Doenitz though I must say I find the idea that Wikipedia itself is not regarded as a reliable citation to be slightly bizarre.... Doenitz actually thought Naval superiority was probably more important than air superiority because the latter is a fluid concept anyway, unless you`re talking the complete destruction of the RAF, which was always going to be impossible bearing in mind the limited range of the German fighters (apart from other factors).

I have not bothered to replace the sentence about putting pressure on the UK Govt to come to terms (using bombing), even though that`s commonly understood to be the case, because I cannot find a direct citation in the time I have available. The losers are the readers.--JustinSmith (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your latest change because (1) it again mistates the chronology: Operation Sealion was not called off (or, actually, "permanently postponed") until after the Blitz, not between the attacks on the air bases and the attacks on cities. Kershaw (and every other source) is clear about this. (2) You ascribe to Raeder an opinion expressed (afterwards) by Donitz, and confuse sourcing at the same time. Kershaw (2000) says that Raeder told Hitler in June hat air supoeriority was necessary, it makes no mention of his specifying Naval superiority as well. Both the statements by Rader and Donitz are ex post facto statements made after the war, and therefore suspect, which is why they were in a footnote and not in the main text. Your elimination of them almost entirely confuses the issue.

In short, your change was not an improvement, which is why it was reverted. Please do not make that or similar changes again until you have a WP:COnsensus to do so after discussion on this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think those were my edits; you are correct, the Blitz started before Hitler made the decision to call off the invasion. Sorry for the mistake. I have edited the section again to try to make the prose simpler, and have moved the two citations to the end of the paragraph as the two citations cover the whole paragraph. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it. See what you think. Kierzek (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not mention the fact that the Navy did not think the Luftwaffe was capable of protecting them (even if they had air superiority)? In fact quote a few historians think that it was the RN, not the RAF that "won" [13]Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I added a word on that using the source you provided. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The article size has been creeping up on us - I will make time to do some edits for length over the next few days. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Why don`t editors on here read Wikipedia`s own page on Sealion, this for instance :

"In fact, in November 1939, the German naval staff produced a study on the possibility of an invasion of Britain and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had" - Operation Sea Lion – The German Invasion Plans section (David Shears) – p. 156

As it happens I don`t see as it makes any difference at what point in history Doenitz made his comment which I quoted, unless you`re saying he didn`t think that at the time or never in fact thought it at all, which I think is highly doubtful. As it happens Slatersteven is right, many think it was mainly the RN which prevented Sealion though I`m not sure I`d go that far on Wkipedia, it`s a bit contentious. What we do know for an absolute fact is the RN were just as important as the RAF in preventing Sealion taking place. As such it should be in this article. I have changed eth citation but really, I think this is all so unnecessary. As it happen I`m stil unhappy with this sentence "By the end of October, Hitler realised that air superiority could not be achieved, even though he had ordered nightly air raids on British cities, including London, Plymouth and Coventry." Blitzing British cities at night was nothing to do with trying to gain air superiority. The Blitz was because the Germans didn`t have air superiority, and certainly not an attempt to gain it. But I do not want to get into a revision war about something I`m not that bothered about. What is important, is that the deterrent effect of eth RN, and the implication Sealion couldn`t have gone ahead anyway, more or less regardless of the BofB`s outcome, is what is important.
If editors are unhappy at chronology or inference I think they should be modifying the text, not just deleting something which is pretty well agreed by most historians and, as it happens, has citations anyway--JustinSmith (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.

First, this is an article on Nazi Germany as a while, and therefore an overview. The section as it is is quite sufficient, and does not need further detail. Besides, the naval superiority of the British was a given, and there was nothing whatsoever the Germans could do about it - the fleet being harbored beyond the range of their bombers. The only thing they could do is to have air superiority to give them at least the possibility of protecting an invasion fleet. That was the purpose of the Battle of Britain, to knock out the RAF so that the Luftwaffe could then protect an invasion fleet from the Royal Navy without having to worry so much about air-to-air battles. The Kriegsmarine may have tried to convince Hitler that even if the Luftwaffe was defeated, the overwhelming numbers of the Royal Navy would make an invasion untenable, but that is not the situation as Hitler -- who had no feeling at all for naval warfare -- accepted it, nor did that affect the mission given to Goring.

Once again Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

One thing further. The Blitz came about because German bombers accidentally bombed a British city (London, I believe), and the Brits then retaliated by bombing a city in Germany (Hamburg?). Hitler was so incensed that he ordered the systematic bombing of English cities that became known as The Blitz. In a way, that was lucky for the RAF, because they were reeling from the German attacks on their air bases, and the Blitz gave them time to regroup. Ironically, if the Luftwaffe had continued to bomb RAF bases and not been diverted by Hitler's rage, there's at least the possibility that they might have prevailed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as bombing of cities, it started in the European war with the Germans bombing in Poland. And before that there was the city bombings in the Spanish Civil War. The British had already bombed German ports. But the RAF had not yet specifically targeted civilians. Two German bombers, I recall on 24 August, are the ones that strayed off course and dropped their loads over London. Then the British made a raid on Berlin the night of 24/25 August. Going from memory. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That all sounds right to me, without looking anything up - the two stray bombers in particular. I had forgotten about the port cities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Blitz came about because German bombers accidentally bombed a British city (London, I beleieve)"
This is folklore, not given credence by most historians, it gained much traction with the masses because of the film the BofB. A good reference on this is Overy`s "The Bombing War".
I think the fact this article reinforces the myth that it was the RAF wot saved Britain (even worse, just the RAF, because that is what it says in the article at the moment) is a travesty. Remember, that fact that Germany didn`t (couldn`t) invade the UK was, arguably, the pivotal moment in the whole war. Thus I think some editors should think very carefully about what is said in the little paragraph concerned with Sea Lion`s cancellation (yes we now that technically it wasn`t ever cancelled, but equally, many think it was never ever seriously considered either). Not me, I`ve had enough.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry when I read the edit ("reverted") I drew the obvious conclusion. Here is the article by Andrew Gordon on the RUSI website. Does Wikipedia still disapprove of external links, particularly within the main body (as opposed to a foot note which hardly anyone reads...) ? I personally think the relevant sentence should include the link to the article. But I can`t be bothered to get into a revision war over it.--JustinSmith (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Justin, I have never seen the film BofB, sorry I only read and cite RS books and sources. You seem to have a pov axe to swing here. I suggest you swing it over at the BofB article or Operation Sea Lion article. The fact again is that without having air superiority first, there would be no second action possible; no chance at all of the sea operation and the navy coming into play. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I did add a word about Andrew Gordon's view on the role of the navy on December 22. We don't have room for big additions here, in fact I am in the process of trimming the article for length as it has grown by 1400 words since passing GA. Ideally we are supposed to be at 10000 words or less and presently we are at 13433. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Beyond My Ken here. One night during a German air-raid around what's today is the Docklands, one bomber flew wrong, and either westernmost of East End or the easternmost part of the City (of London) was bombed accidentally. I've read exactly the same story (and watched TV-documentaries about this event). It's well put. Including the conclusions, which I would like to say are fairly well known. Boeing720 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

use of the word "hypnotic" (source - traced to "American psychologist Henry Murray - CIA" )

trace was made to "Amanda Macias May 13, 2015 Business Insider" - is (simply) perhaps a naivety by the source (not CIA officer), and the reason for this - used by the propaganda minister 23h112e (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=816792312

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/ahspeak.htm

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypnotic

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-hitler-was-such-a-successful-orator-2015-5?IR=T American psychologist Henry Murray describes the Führer's overall presence as "hypnotic" in "The Personality of Adolf Hitler," a 229-page report that was commissioned in 1943 by the Office of Strategic Services, a precursor to the CIA.

This is the reason the change was made - this isn't the case of Henry Murray stating "hypnotic", therefore this user and anyone else feels and is hypnotized. 23h112e (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User 23h112e (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Jan_Hanussen - there is no evidence showing the connection to the individual A. Hitler at the article link identified by this user 23h112e (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC) - reference 1 at the link is a dead link Thanks 23h112e (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Google scholar gives thousands of examples of Hitler hypnotic. It's standard for historians. It appears in scholarship BEFORE Murray's 1943 secret report. See 1) FW Lambertson in Quarterly Journal of Speech (1942) who wrote "Hitler himself apparently realizes this power for he says that when folks are in a state of fanatic devotion his ideas will remain 'like words received under an hypnotic influence.'" also: 2) "HR Trevor-Roper - 1945 " In a megalomania fired by almost hypnotic personality"; 3) F Guerin, Technologies of Memory in the Arts (2009) "explanations of such frightening historical realities as Hitler's hypnotic power over his audience hold up a dark mirror to our own anxieties"; 4) Rowland 1999: " Hitler's hypnotic power is understood as a mass projection"; 5) Hypnotic leadership by M Popper - 2001: " I chose these men [includes Hitler] because they were clearly destructive leaders who merited the title 'hypnotic'" 6) JP Stern - 1975 - "the famous laundry-blue eyes, whose supposedly hypnotic spell is mentioned by a variety of witnesses" etc etc Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored "hypnotic" for the reasons given by RJ, and because it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Hitler was a "professional hypnotist" or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

that's fine, though all the reports repeating the description of his speech being hypnotic, if he were a professional hynotist, his speech would be therefore hypnotic because he is a hypnotist, to state his speech is hypnotic, and he isn't a professional hypnotist - this is some-how a little mysterious - you might or might not agree - how anyone thought to describe his speech as hypnotic - what you think this actually refers to - the sources - numerous sources state - hypnotic - how this word is actually though in reality representative to his speech - they all repeat it - but it isn't true, "hypnotic" is the same as hypnotic - to me the use of the word is the same as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality - where the evidence the description should be "hypnotic" and not instead "skilled", "charismatic", "charming - like a psychopathic trait identified in this article" - for me the indication of "hypnotic" is only relevant to his use of the drugs Barbiturates and nothing else. You both expect this user and other viewers to accept "hypnotic" without any indication of how his speech might be hypnotic - what you and the other editor involved is trying to imply be maintaining this description - tell me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_health#Drug_use indicates "hypnotic" The choice of Beyond My Ken is by his own definition beyond his "range of vision or comprehension" I think (how I would trust the opinion of someone who identifies himself as this), how either of you think the description originates other than as how I've indicated. (M Popper - 2001) indicating Hitler and who-ever else (and who-ever else might indicate to support your opinions) - yet I don't see Hitler in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis#Applications- do any of the sources you indicate understand actually the nature of hypnosis, they are just repeating the term as a by-word for some other term - charismatic, persuasive - because of the notion - Hitler's influence over others was powerful and he controlled others, this is to state implicitly "he terrorised people" therefore they obeyed him - "he was a dictator" not he was hypnotic. c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis#Hypnotherapy his "hypnotic" speech was some-how healing, he was a therapist and healer also in his spare time (where the sources are for this claim - I'm still looking) 23h112e (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing at all "mysterious" about it, "hypnotic" can mean "to produce results as if hypnotizing". There's actually nothing to the idea that there's a special "hypnotic state" which can only be produced by specific techniques used by "professional" hypnotists - the placebo effect and the willing participation and belief of the subject plays a very significant part. There are many things which can produce psychological states which are recognizable as "hypnotized", so to look for indications that Hitler did the exact same thing that a therapist who uses hypnosis does is simply ridiculous. I myself experienced such a state when listening to LaMonte Young's music, where the band played the opening chord of a 3-chord blues progression for about 20 minutes, and I passed from interest through irritation and boredom until I reached a hypnotic state which was only broken when the band finally moved to the next chord, and I realized that I had been spell-bound for some time. For me, at that concert, Young's music was definitely "hypnotic", in exactly the same way that Hitler's speeches were to his audiences.

As for Hitler, as Rjensen says, the description of him as producing a hypnotic state did not originate with Murray, it was a standard way that newspapers of the period described the effect he had, not only on a mass audience, but on individuals. Even people who disagreed with him felt the pull of his personality, and, in particular, his eyes. Just for one well-known example, Goebbels was a lefty, and opposed to Hitler, until he met him and fell under his spell. When he was away from Hitler, his diaries are replete with criticisms of the Fuhrer (sometimes expressed as criticism of "Munich"), but whenever he met with Hitler face-to-face, he invariably wrote about how great he was, etc.

So the hypnotic power of Hitler's personality and his speaking was no mistake, it's a major part of what brought Hitler to power, although not, of course, the only factor. In any case, its use in this article is quite appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The matter is well cited and something of general agreement by RS historians. I am not sure we need the latest addition in the mention of it in the article to make the point. Kierzek (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What made it possible for Hitler to became a dictator ? The "hypnotic eyes" mainly affected those who became his close supporters (like Goebbels). His eyes couldn't be seen through radio. If it were not for the Wall Street Crash, the NSPAP wouldn't have grown in the 1930 Parlamentary election. Here one also must remember that Germany was in chaos after WW1, and during the French occupation of the Ruhr, the German Mark was subjected to hyperinflation. Only during a few years, between 1925 and 1929, Germany had a brief period of "good times". Also the treaty of Versailles was pretty unfair. It's just to compare the Wilson Doctrine (President Woodrow Wilson's demands for peace, early in 1918) with the actual treaty. The major differences are two - 1. Germany was blamed for the entire war ! (which began with Serbian terrorists killing the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke and counterpart to the Prince of Wales - and the German Empire had no no territorial requirements after 1871, not in Europe at least) 2. The astronomical amount of money which Germany should pay France until 1981. But most of the border-changes were not a huge problem for Germany (with exception of Danzig and the corridor which actually divided the German territory in two parts, and the fact that the "new Austria" wasn't allowed to join Germany - which was totally inline with the Wilson Doctrine). It wasn't just Hitler who thought this was unfair, not even just the Germans but many others as well. If Germany had decided to continue this madness, which WW1 really was, it's not even certain the American's could have managed to invade Germany within a reasonable time frame. Remember, the only real battles inside Germany during this war, was the Tsar-Russian intrusion in East Prussia, in August 1914. There it became obvious how one single German army, by the use of their own railways, could defeat Russia's two best armies. Many more millions would have died before the Americans possibly could have reached Berlin. One could argue that the new Social Democracies in Berlin were the first who realised the madness, but they were punished by Georges Clemenceau and Lloyd George at Versailles. And this later gave birth to the Stab-in-the-back myth. In any case, there was more than "hypnotic eyes" involved. Bad times mainly and Versailles secondly, were the reasons behind the Rise of the Third Reich. Boeing720 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"The matter is well cited and something of general agreement by RS historians" -

that may be the case, but there is something of the post facto about this acceptance of Hitler's apparently superhuman ability to carry a crowd with his oratory. As Laurence Rees points out in Chapter 1 of his book "The Nazis: A warning from history" (also a BBC television documentary series), Hitler became leader of the Nazi party in 1921 - when the Nazis took part in the 1928 election seven years later, they polled 2.6% of the vote. That's seven years in which Hitler's abilities have been on display to the German public. Hitler was certainly a gifted speaker, but then so are all successful politicians. The suggestion that Hitler had some mysterious animal magnetism is a later addition, with "evidence" being found to support it in early sources in the same way that dinosaur bones "proved" the biblical flood myth, and stories of giants. Hitler was no more or less "hypnotic" than any other crowd-pleasing speaker - be it a politician, a comedian, an actor or singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.245.91 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

the journalists at the time and the scholars ever since are agreed on his highly unusual powers; they attended the rallies, interviewed thousands of live Germans and reviewed the films for evidence. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is incorrect - it was not ex post facto. Many people came under his spell, and commented on his "magnetism" at the time'. It simply took time for the effect to spread, as Hitler addressed more and more crowds of larger and larger size. Ceratinly it was not the only thing the Nazis had going for them, but it was very clearly one of the factors which contributed to their success. It was not a later addition to the mythos. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

"invaded Poland in September 1939, launching World War II in Europe."

It's debatateable when WW2 started (dates vary from the start of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 to the entry of Japan and America in 1941) - this would better read "invaded Poland in September 1939, leading to war with France and the British Empire, often cited as the beginning of WW2". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.245.91 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Also

"Hitler's refusal to admit defeat led to massive destruction of German infrastructure and additional war-related deaths in the closing months of the war."

A more neutral POV might say "Hitler's belief in the power of his ideology to ultimately triumph, despite the overwhelming evidence of defeat, led to massive ........etc" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.245.91 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You mistake what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean giving the facts in a way that is not unfavorable to anyone, instead it means that we present the facts as provided by reliable sources in as neutral a way as possible, but we do not distort the facts in doing so. I believe that the vast majority of reliable historians date the beginning of WW2 from when war was actually declared between the Allies and Nazi Germany. Certainly the Spanish Civil War was an important precursor, but so was the Anschluss, the appeasement which led to the Germany getting the Sudetenland, and the invasion of the rest of Czechoslivakia. But none of those caused the start of a war between the major European powers, and the invasion of Poland did.

Similarly, no historian of WW2 worth his salt would warp the facts about the effects of Hitler's prolongation of the war the way you suggest we do. (Poor guy, that Hitler, so wrapped up in his ideology he didn't realize what he was doing to his beloved country.)

In other words, as we say here in New York City "Fuhgeddabowdit!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If World War II had actually started in 1936 it would have been known as "World War II" and not the "Spanish Civil War". The clue is in the name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The map in the infobox

Why isn't the General Governorate shown as being separate from Germany Proper? It was annexed in 1939. 85.167.120.156 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And why is Denmark not marked as occupied? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nazi Germany. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021060807/http://www.bundesarchiv.de/benutzung/zeitbezug/nationalsozialismus/00303/index.html.de to https://www.bundesarchiv.de/benutzung/zeitbezug/nationalsozialismus/00303/index.html.de

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Flag(s)

Flag of the Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany 1933–1935 (wanna add to infobox secondary)	Weimar Republic is not the same as 1933–1935
	Nazi Germany 1935–1945 (added in infobox)

An editor is attempting to add to the infobox the flag of the Weimar Republic, to supplement the flag of Nazi Germany. My feeling is that this is deceptive, because even though Hitler became Chancellor under the flag and constitution of the Weimar Republic, there was a time of transition before the country fully became what we now call "Nazi Germany". Even if the Weimar flag was still official for some period during that transition, it does not symbolize the Nazi state in the same way the Nazi flag does, so its inclusion is misleading to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The Flag of German Reich (1933–1935) is a well-known historical fact, it isn't flag of the Weimar Republic, because colours are different, is indentical with flag of former German Empire (1871–1918) and there is no reason to revert editation or write comments for long-term discuss. Stop revert, thanks. Dragovit 21:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we'll wait for a consensus of editors here, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got reliable sources that says that the flag you want to add is the flag of Nazi Germany, per se? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can't be denied, that tricolor flag was used before year 1935. Nazi Germany was founded three years before and typical red flag with swastika was introduced in 1935. Simple counting. It can be based on reliable sources like literature, this flag is also added in many wiki pages and nobody has a problem with it, only you. Look here, here or here and many others. Dragovit 15:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So the supporting citation would be: von Hindenburg, Paul (12 March 1933). "Erlaß des Reichspräsidenten über die vorläufige Regelung der Flaggenhissung" [Decree of the President for the provisional regulation of raising flags]. documentArchiv.de (in German). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The question in my mind is not when the flag was introduced, but when did "Nazi Germany" start? The simplest answer is when Hitler was named Chancellor -- and indeed the round-up of Communist and Socialists which started at that time, and the assignment of the SA as auxiliary police, would indicate that Hitler was starting to wield dictatorial power even without the actual authority to do so then - but a case can also be made that it started when the first Presidential emergency decree was issued (before the Reichstag fire) giving Hitler the power to rule by fiat.

In any case, I still believe that having the additional flag in the infobox is confusing for the reader, but I withdraw my objection in the face of consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your question about date of foundation of Nazi Germany and then consideration about Hitler's position in government aren't relevant subjects of our discussion. Sorry. If you want discuss about date or Hitler's career, you must open new topic. We talking here only about flags and attempt to start a debate about Hitler's career here is inappropriate off-topic. Officialy the Nazi Germany was founded in 1933 and red flag with svastika was introduced in 1935, so logically Germans had to use another flag before. These informations are mentioned in the article and the files on the Wikimedia Commons. So there is no historical obstacle to inserting the second-additional flag into the infobox, only technical. The question is, is it confusing? I've seen other articles with infoboxes that have the additional flags, for example Qing dynasty. No problem there. Nazi Germany existed short time, but i think, it is important to show what the former flag looked like.Dragovit 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Careful, you'll hit someone with all that hand-waving.

This article is titled "Nazi Germany". "Nazi Germany" is not an official title, it's the WP:COMMONNAME for Germany in that period of time. Obviously, then, what thet period of time is exactly is extremely pertinent to which flags should be shown in the article. Just as "Nazi Germany" is a commonly understood expression, so what the flag of Nazi Germany was is commonly understood. If we're going to show another flag, we should be certain that everyone is in agreement that when that flag was flown, "Nazi Germany" had already begun.

I'm perfectly willing to give way to a consensus decision that is different from my own, but I have little interest in your simply waving off the actual issue in question as unimportant, when it is actually definitive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's my 2c:

• After the Weimar flag was ditched by the Nazis, Germany had two flags: #1 the Imperial tricolour (with different proportions than during the Kaiserreich) - AND #2 the Nazi Party flag - which had a fully centered sun disc. Both were concurrently official flags of the country 1933-35. That means we would need a third flag in there, the Parteiflagge... so this starts really looking bad... which brings me to my next point:
• We don't do this. With rare exception. We use a single, most representative flag (the one used for the longest time), and/or sometimes the last flag (in my experience sometimes the last flag was picked for being the last one in use)... so this is really out of the ordinary. There's a "Flag" wikilink which will direct the reader to the relevant article if he wants to know the details of Nazi-period vexillology... I don't see the point.

P.s. The dual flag situation is really interesting in that it's so illustrative of the political foundations of Nazi Germany, in how it rested on an alliance of old-school, religious, aristocratic conservatives - and the Nazis.. specifically the right wing of the Nazi Party (the left having been dismantled by Hitler). By 1935 the conservatives will have been definitively relegated to a secondary role, but they were still part of the regime's political foundation (basically until 1944). -- Director (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

Error in top right graphic where it shows "Germany at the height of World War II success (late 1942)". Graphic misses out the inclusion of Denmark which was occupied in April 1940. This should be included as one of the German civil occupied territories. Aczmcghie (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Aczmcghie (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Robert Ley

A new editor insists on adding Robert Ley to the infobox. It is my contention that while Ley was a significant figure in Nazi Germany, he was not significant enough to be included in the list of government officials in the infobox, especially when much more powerful persons, such as Göring, Himmler and Speer are not included. I'm opening this to give the editor a chance to present their views on the matter, and to see if other editors agree with my judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

He should not be included in the info box. He was most important in the pre-war years and then lost power (even though he remained in the outer rim of Hitler's "inner circle") and retreated to his estate and did nothing; most notable after the war for being a Nazi War Criminal and taking the coward's way out; suicide by hanging per the toilet pipe. Seriously, if Göring, and Himmler are not included, certainly, Ley should not be. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

It CANNOT be true that a page like this is "protected from vandalism" yet still there are subtitles in Horst-Wessel Lied mocking Hitler. Remove them. 109.57.196.37 (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done That isn't actually part of the article. The media file, with its subtitles, are pulled in from the Wikimedia Commons so the protection of this article doesn't affect that file. I have put the subtitles back to normal over there, not because I give half a shit about anybody mocking Hitler but because the subtitles should be accurate and also because the casual homophobia of the vandalised subtitles was no way to mark a man who killed so many gay people. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Confusion over Großdeutsches Reich

Hi everyone (and @Beyond My Ken in particular),

In the lead, it says that the official name of Nazi Germany from 1943 to 1945 was Großdeutsches Reich, followed by a piped link, [[Greater Germanic Reich|Greater German Reich]]. The article Greater Germanic Reich starts off with a hatnote: "This article is about the conceptual entity that the Nazis planned to establish during World War II. For the historically existent "Greater German Reich", see Nazi Germany", pointing to this article. In that article's lead, it says "The Greater Germanic Reich (German: Großgermanisches Reich), fully styled the Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation (German: Großgermanisch Reich der Deutschen Nation) is the official state name of the political entity that Nazi Germany tried to establish in Europe during World War II" (italics my emphasis).

Is the piped link in this article correct? Was the Greater Germanic Reich ("Großgermanisches Reich") a hypothetical, proposed political entity, separate from the historical Greater German Reich ("Großdeutsches Reich")? Or are they interchangeable? And if so, is the piped link necessary? While similar in English, Great German ("Großdeutsches") and Great Germanic ("Großgermanisch") do have a different emphasis in German. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

These names were added without a source in 2012. I am tempted to remove it. There's some information on pages 159-160 of this book but I don't speak German so I can't say whether it backs up this content or not. It's a citation from Reich to support the statement that in 1939 the press was ordered to "use expressions such as nationalsozialistisches Deutschland ("National Socialist Germany"), Großdeutsches Reich ("Greater German Reich"), or simply Deutsches Reich (German Reich) to refer to the German state" (paraphrased from Reich). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The articles and hatnotes are correct. Grossdeutsches Reich was the official name of "Germany proper" from 1943 to 1945 (which is described under "Nazi Germany"), whereas Großgermanisches Reich was the name of the planned extended empire including the occupied territories of many more European nations. The book cited by Diannaa explains that Hitler already ordered the press to use Grossdeutsches Reich instead of Drittes Reich since 1939, but the expression did not stick until later. I can admit it sounds confusing in English; perhaps we can improve the hatnotes and/or the article text. Things are explained very clearly in the German-language articles. — JFG ^talk 18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Various proposed changes to the lead

The lead of this Good Article is of course already well written. But I would still kindly like to propose the following changes:

1) Rephrase the opening sentence so that the term "Nazi Germany" is described as the name of a country rather than that of a period in German history. Currently, the opening sentence reads:

"Nazi Germany is the common English name for the period in German history from 1933 to 1945, when Germany was under the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler through the Nazi Party (NSDAP)."

But "Nazi Germany" is not the name of a period. If it were, it would be possible to write sentences like "Germany in Nazi Germany was controlled by Hitler" to mean "Germany in the time of the Nazis was controlled by Hitler". The opening sentence could read:

"'Nazi Germany' is the common English name for Germany from 1933 to 1945, when Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party (NSDAP) controlled the country through dictatorship."

2) Remove the blue link on the term "Großdeutsches Reich" that links to "Greater Germanic Reich". On the page of the Greater Germanic Reich (also a Good Article), it is written that this "is the official state name of the political entity that Nazi Germany tried to establish in Europe during World War II". The "Greater Germanic Reich" (Großgermanisches Reich), hence, existed only as part of a plan that was never accomplished (thank goodness). The Greater Germanic Reich and the Greater German Reich are therefore not the same thing. I notice that this has already been discussed on this talk page in June.

3) The sentence reading

"The official name of the state was Deutsches Reich ("German Reich") from 1933 to 1943"

might alternatively be expressed as

"The official name of the state was Deutsches Reich ("German Reich") until 1943".

As it currently stands, the sentence may be taken to imply that Germany was officially renamed to Deutsches Reich in 1933, whereas this had been Germany's official name since 1871.

4) Various (tiny) changes to shorten and tidy up the lead:

a) "Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state in which the Nazi Party that controlled nearly all aspects of life". There is a distinction between the German state and the Nazi party, but it does not seem necessary to make this distinction here.

b) Remove the following reference to an alternative name for the period:

"and the National Socialist Period (Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, abbreviated as NS-Zeit, literally "Time of National Socialism")"

In my opinion this German expression is not common enough in English to occupy prime space at the top of the article.

c) "with the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empires being the first two". Removing one instance of the word Empire could make the sentence lighter.

d) The following bracketed phrase could very well stand alone as a sentence; removing the brackets could make it even easier to read:

Before: "The period is also known under the names Third Reich (Drittes Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", with the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire being the first two)..."

After: "Germany in this period is also known as the Third Reich. This is from the German Drittes Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", the first two being the Holy Roman and the German Empires."

5) Remove the blue link to the English language in the first sentence. This seems unnecessary, the reader will understand that "English" refers to the English language and not to England.

Greetings from Canada and thanks for your interest :) Nicolas Perrault (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

These all sound like reasonable and useful changes in order to clarify the lede section for our readers. I would only disagree to "optimizing" the Holy Roman and the German Empires, because that implies a connection between those two very distinct empires; we can keep the full names as the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. — JFG ^talk 09:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me, I applied the changes. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert again, but for the future: a single comment does not a WP:CONSENSUS make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The current version is very close to the wording when the article passed GA back in 2013. I think it's fine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Government" section and the "Fuhrerprincip"

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

I believe it works fine. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Richard Evans as an important source.

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

Evans is a very reliable source, and his trilogy of books covers a great deal of ground. What's your point? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW, 147 out of 419 is not best described as "less than half", but as "a little more than a third", considering it amounts to 35%. Also, according to this, there are 482 references, not 419, so that's 30.5%.

But this numbers games is silly. Are you doubting that Evans is a reliable source? Why do you bring this up? Do you think the article is excessively dependent on Evans? Kershaw, Shirer, Longerich and Overy are frequently cited as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

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

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

Source request

[copied from SV talk] Hello: with this edit you state a page cite is needed [14]. I did not add this particular sentence and citation to the article, but it does have a sfn RS cite therein. Can you tell me what you believe is still needed there. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Understood, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Continuous "Nazi" reference.

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

As far as I know it was invented by the German post office.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A look at Nazi Party#Etymology is helpful here. I don't think we can really blame those evil communists for this one. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The word "Nazi" is broadly used by a.o. historians since at least 50 years and I really don't see any good or acceptable reason to remove and replace a word that is used by all reliable sources having published on the topic. --Lebob (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If we go around writing "National Socialist this" and "National Socialist that" without ever referring to them as "Nazis", very few people are going to know what we're talking about. It's good to change-up "Nazi" and "National Socialist" or "Nazi Party" and "NSDAP" at times just for the sake of variety and good writing. but there should be little doubt that "Nazi" is the preferred version, whether or not they called themselves that.

It's also worthwhile considering that quite often the push not to use "Nazi" and use "National Socialist" instead is an attempt to take some of the onus off the Nazis, and make it somewhat more palatable for contemporary neo=Nazis to espouse their philosophy, although I'm sure that's not the case with this comment from a brand-new one-off editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nazideutschland is a common term in the German language and not considered a left/communist slang word. Despite being a non-scientific word, it is sometimes used by scientists. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean "scholars" and not "scientists", or by "scientists" you mean "social scientists"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You could call it "social scientists" or "scholars" if you like (both are better words I guess); I was rather referring to engineers though. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just curious as to in what context engineers would be using "Nazi" or "National Socialist"? In discussing the Autobahn? (A program which was actually instigated before Hitler came to power, although he accelerated it greatly.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I cannot speak for "scholars" / "social scientists" in this case since I don't know their field well enough. But I had German military vehicles in mind, there are several engineers and historians who work in the field "German historical (military) vehicles"; when addressing the context, the term "Nazideutschland" is widely accepted. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

I can assure you that "Nazi" is used universally by Australians to describe what we are talking about here. We are not Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Same here in the UK. We call Nazis "Nazis" because they are Nazis. If Nazis want to be called something else then their one and only option is to stop being Nazis, at which point, if we are convinced of their repentance, we will start to call them "ex-Nazis".

The phrase "Nazi Germany" is completely appropriate because the Nazis took over the whole state and made all of Germany Nazi. I appreciate that some of my countrypeople might feel that Tony Blair was on TV far too much in the 1990s but it was never "Labour Britain" because Labour never took over the entire state at every level and bent every aspect of the national culture to their will.

I have never been to Hollywood and I'm pretty sure that Winston Churchill didn't get the idea to call Nazis "Nazis" from Hollywood. In fact, he always pronounced it "Narzeys" which suggests that he received the word in text form and not from film or radio. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how historically ignorant can the IP editor be? "Nazi" was indeed a nickname, but it wasn't invented by Hollywood, it was created at the time of the Nazi's first coming to general attention in Germany, as a verbal shortening of "National Socialist". It caught on, and become the common name for those who belonged to or believed in the precepts of the NSDAP, both in Germany and around the world. There are those who wish to downplay it because (for some reason, probably having to do with starting a war which killed more people than any war in human history, and because they murdered up to 17 million people in cold blood) the name is stigmatized, which is entirely a good thing. It is nevertheless completely appropriate to use "Nazi Germany" to describe Germany under Hitler and the Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And was widely used by a number of politicians well before America even decided Nazi Germany was a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Horst-Wessel-Lied

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

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

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

According to the body of the article, Cuomo 1995, p. 231 says the song "became a second national anthem". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

So it did not replace the old one? So do we have a source that says is was not (either officially or defacto) a second nations anthem?Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that it was a second anthem, like America the Beautiful in the US or God Save the Queen in Canada. i.e. both anthems were in use. The article Horst-Wessel-Lied contains more details with sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe one could add "de facto" behind it. As of now it makes the impression, as if the Horst Wessel-Lied was an official anthem or used interchangeably with the Deutschlandlied, which is not true.--Qwertz1894 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Stanislao G. Puliese: Italian Fascism and Anti-Fascism. A Critical Anthology. Manchester University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-7190-5639-X, pages 18; 54–55 the Horst Wessel song has never been an official anthem of Nazi Germany, but it was de facto used as an anthem. Wilhelm Frick, then German Reichsinnenminister, ordered to play the Horst Wessel song after the first verse of the German anthem Germany song (Deutschlandlied). The reason for never being the official anthem of Nazi Germany is said to be that Adolf Hitler objected it. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out (although Kierzek just opposed without knowing and reason). Please note that it is still wrong in "simple english" and in Horst-Wessel-Lied, maybe more. As IPs tend to be reverted, please change someone logged in. I guess it is important. 47.71.2.160 (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, I did not "oppose" without reason. The evidence shows that it was a co-national anthem; maybe "de facto", but that does not mean it was not so. Kierzek (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the Horst-Wessel-Lied was the co-national anthem of Germany during the Nazi regime, as it was required to be played and sung (one verse of it) along with Deutschland uber Alles. I'm not home at the moment, but I can cite reliable source to back that up whe I return. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)