Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 3

Archives
Archive 1, May 2001 – April 2006
Archive 2, April 2006 – December 2006

I wonder why von Papen was put in the section "survivors". He was part of the coalition of the first government of Hitler and continued to work as offical for Nazi Germany in Turkey during WW II. Could someone who is authorized to change this article put von Papen in a different section of the article.

Von Papen was a nimble politician who managed to survive the Night of the Long Knives and other reprisals of the Nazi regime. At first a member of the Catholic Centre Party, von Papen as Vice Chancellor was useful to Hitler in presenting the Nazi government as a coalition of elements disaffected by the legacy German parties. How much von Papen actually knew about the barbaric activities of the Nazis has been a matter of conjecture, as has also the issue of what he could have done to stop what he knew, but he was in any event more interested in surviving than in interfering. Plots to murder him were launched by both Soviet and Nazi conspirators, but he survived. Calling him a "survivor" is not necessarily to his credit as others (such as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris) paid with their lives for interfering. As von Papen said in his 1934 Marburg speech, "Only weaklings suffer no criticism." That is why the world has no living dinosaurs but does have lizards. Von Papen was put on trial at Nuremburg and acquitted. See the English Wikipedia article on Franz von Papen. Again, the word "survivor" does not necessarily mean one to be universally praised. Richard David Ramsey 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What was supposed to happen after 1000 years?

The Reich crumbles and the struggle continues to build a new Reich or a new and better form sets in? Ex. a “thousand year socialist reign until communism sets in, etc”. What exactly?

-G

Adolf Hitler said "...Tausenden des Jahrreiches..." meaning that it never would have had an ending date.

206.172.193.28 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Supposed WWII Era Colour Photo

The Image:BerlinNaziEra.jpg is incorrect and I added a discussion about it last year. I live in Berlin and can confirm that the buildings to the right and left sides of the Brandenburg gate did NOT exist until Commerzbank built the left-hand one and the one on the right was an office building built after the wall came down. Here's what it looked like before those buildings existed: http://k2.csail.mit.edu/raw/gallery/ISCA_2004/incoming/cwo/Berlin_Brandenburg_gate_while_the_wall_was_still_up.jpg. Can anyone point out a Commerzbank, or is it just trees? Andem 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Image:BerlinNaziEra.jpg IS CORRECT! I live in Berlin too and I can confirm that there were buildings at the same location similar to the new bank buildings before the end of WW2. These buildings were like most of the other buildings in the city center destroyed. Here is the prove:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NAFFI_Mobile_Canteen_No.750_beside_the_Brandenburg_Gate.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brandenburger_tor_1871.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Allers_Spree_Berlin_%28Brandenburger_Tor%29.jpg

V-i-c- 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

World War Two Conquests

I have something to point out about the map in the WW2 section of the article. I'm not sure how many of you know this, but Finland was never conquered by Germany during the course of the war nor was it a full-fledged Axis member. So, would the map be incorrect? Repdetect

De-facto it was on a German side and fought against Soviet Union. Its soldiers received medals from Germans, etc. But I have another problem with the map, it mentioned "White Russia" in the key box, and there's no such thing. I suppose it's a silly translation from German weissrussland, but in English it's called Belarus. Besides, there's no much point in actually mentioning it in the key box, which should explain what happened to these territories (they were occupied) and the names be written on the map.--24.185.133.119 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC) The area now known in english speaking areas as Belaris was always called White Russia up until the mid sixties, check old atlas for references.

Sorry

Sorry for the accidental blanking. Disambiguation tool hiccough on that page. --Barberio 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you accidentally replaced it with the contents of the Hindenburg biography. I fixed it a minute later. No biggie. We've seen much worse done to this article. Fan-1967 16:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

National Animal Tiger?

Where does that come from? I can't recall a Tiger used in any Nazi national emblem and can't really imagine it as one of their national symbols.--Caranorn 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I had previously deleted this, but someone must have re-inserted it. While lion(s) had been in use as names and symbols throughout German history, I have no idea how the tiger should be related to Nazi Germany, apart from the Tiger I tank and the flag of the Azad Hind Indian Legion fighting for the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think this supposedly comes from the Tiger tank, but I agree, I've never seen an emblem with a tiger on it or any other mention of a tiger associated with the Nazis Elementalos 15:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the "National animals" entry in the infobox is unsourced and does not appear to be addressed in the article text, I've commented it out. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am german. i had history classes about nazi germany for about 5 years . belive me , there was no tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.70.229 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lebensraum

Alright, I have an issue with this article on the issue of Lebensraum. In the opening paragraphs, the article states that it (Lebensraum) was a major cause of the second world war, yet in the ideology section it states that Lebensraum only became part of the German policy in the midst of the war. Obviously, a cause of the war cannot appear in the middle, so can someone please correct this error? 75.176.185.69 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lebensraum was evident during the FIRST world war... and in Mein Kampf, so obviously it was the main cause and needed to be stated as so.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.139.30 (talk) 02:18, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Under the heading "Nazi Ideology" there is a request for a citaion: ""The Nazis endorsed the concept of Großdeutschland, or Greater Germany, and believed that the incorporation of the Germanic people into one nation was a vital step towards their national success.[citation needed]""

In 'Mein Kampf', VOLUME II: THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT, CHAPTER II: THE STATE' Adolf Hitler states: "As a State the German Reich shall include all Germans. Its task is not only to gather in and foster the most valuable sections of our people but to lead them slowly and surely to a dominant position in the world."

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to add this citation properly. Could someone add it for me. Bonacon-Lupinus1 (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Government Type

I think the government type needs to be fixed in the infobox. I don't know anything on the subject though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guitarhero91 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

It's a freaking dictatorship... not a republic. The Enabling Act makes that much clear.

Changed government type in infobox to (national) "socialist republic" for the sake of consistency with other (as it were "freaking") dictatorships like USSR, PCR and DPRK who are being labelled as socialist republics in their respective infoboxes. Regards, --3 Löwi 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact Hitler was a dictator but he acted as Chancellor (Head of Government) and, after Hindenburg's death, as President (Head of State). I think the correct term would be "Republic" or "Federal constitutional Republic". Greetings from Germany! --Willicher 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of editors would like to see "Dictatorship" removed from the article on North Korea. Those who have taken an interest in this topic here may wish to contribute there as well. Rklawton 14:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Technology

I am no fan of the nazis but don't you think their technical achievements deserve to be highlighted: Coal oil-Fischer Tropz process Submarines-Air independant propulsion Missiles-Practically invented everything Jet aircraft-From the first flying jet to the most advanced designs flying wings etc. the basis of several post war aircraft.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.8.198.65 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree, also the autobahn and their anti-smoking program. Steve Dufour 03:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, a fair assessment of their technological achievments is OK. let's be more specific: their technological system was basically one big military-industrial complex, including the autobahns (which were troop transport systems) and their health/eugenics programs. however, such a treatment should probably also cover the flaws of their research and development process, e.g. failure to develop atomic weapons (due to exile of most Jewish scientists and ambivalence of remainder e.g. Heisenberg), and of their weaknesses in the applications of this technology due to their undemocratic system, e.g. failure to respond to Enigma/ULTRA decryption despite suspicions that it had been broken. let's not forget that Nazi concentration camps are the sources of some of the most revolting experimental results in history, e.g. human survival times following freezing, burning, electrocution, depressurization, etc. -- Ian Holmes, 11:52 AM, June 23 2007

references

the 'readings' portion seems to be extensive. why does this article not cite these in their respective place? this could be quite an article. the_undertow ^talk 09:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Economic policy

The statement that the New Deal engaged a military buildup is patent revisionist history and wishful thinking. No officer of the United States Armed Forces at that time could call anything resembling Roosevelt's Military Policy a buildup. There was a reduction in most Armed Forces. I suspect the author here is referring to the replacement of several battleships, the creation of some aircraft carriers as a "buildup". This should be struck. The reference to Stalin's first five year plan should also be struck. Stalin was also engaged in replacing forces that were destroyed in the putsch and the Civil War.

Holocaust?

Shouldn´t something about the greatist genocide in history this STATE commited be written in the article?

Try reading as far as the 'Ideology' section, it's right below the lead section. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth: nazi germany berlin

Hi, I wonder if this must stay like it is: if you fly via google earth to germany with wikipedia buttons allowed, you see the big three words "nazi germany berlin". Later it divides into "nazi germany" and "berlin". At first I thought it would be a hacking aggression of something, but it isnt--- this view from above is a little strange in 2007. May be the wkipedia article can be linked to nürnberg. That would fit as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.177.4.122 (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

• Sorry, can't help. Nazi Germany is next to Berlin because Berlin was that state's capital. You should probably talk to the Google Earth people if it's really important. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much information on structure of government

There are too many distracting lists of government structure, these make the article look complicated, these should be reduced with paragraph form explanations of important posts in Nazi Germany. For indepth information of the structure of Nazi government, a new article should be made for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.169.40 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

structre of government is very important if you want to discribe a regime (wouldn't make sence without it!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.241.36 (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Motto

The article translates the Nazi motto: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!" as: "one people, one realm, one leader". I have always understood that "Reich" means something like "government", "reign", "sovereignty", or even "kingdom" - as in "Osterreich" (the Eastern Kingdom, or Austria). Is realm really the best translation? Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a recent edit, but I agree with it. Reich is best translated as realm, it's definitelly not government, reign or sovereignty. By the way translating Östereich as Eastern Kingdom doesn't make much sense as it never was a kingdom.--Caranorn 10:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did check out the article on Reich and I seem to have had the wrong impression. (I took a couple of years of German in college but have never been over there.) Still, to me the English translation seems to lack something compared to the original. I can't see anyone getting very excited over it. Steve Dufour 15:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"one nation, one empire, one leader" or "one people, one empire, one leader" would be my translations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.241.36 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reich means Country, State

Where does this insistence on "Reich" meaning Empire come from?

I'm from Sweden, officially called "Konungariket Sverige", translation "Kingdom of Sweden". "Konung" is included since its the old word for "king" as we have a king as head of state.

The Swedish word Rike and the German word Reich have the same Germanic origins and cultural meaning!

Still, no-one would dream of calling us the "Swedish Empire". The Swedish national bank is called Sveriges Riksbank, just as the German national banks used to be called the Reichsbank. The Swedish parliament is called Riksdagen, just as the German used to be called Reichstag. The supreme police authority in Sweden is called Rikspolisstyrelsen, i.e. the police governing board for the "rike". etc etc. When I do an online translation of rike [1] i get the following English translation:

Svenskt uppslagsord

rike riket riken rikena subst.

land, stat

Engelsk översättning

country, state

Exempel

fara land och rike runt---travel all over the country

Sammansättningar/avledningar

kungarike---kingdom

himmelrike---the kingdom of heaven, paradise

Riksbanken---the Bank of Sweden

To use the word German Empire is plainly wrong, German State is much more accurate as what was actually meant when using the word. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree (I am from Germany). But I am afraid, that there ist no literal translation in english that conveys the exact meaning of the word.--Gomeira 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct translation into English is empire, not state. The German word for state is Staat and the German word for country is Land. Blinder Seher 06:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"state" only means "nation", but in context to the Großdeutsche Reich, "state" is not the correct term. The national socialists wanted to have known it like the British Empire - however not like a monarchy but rather the same power and hegemony like Britain in the Commonwealth. --62.224.95.34 11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Realm still seems like the most appropriate translation. It's definitely not an Empire. I think we should agree to one term here.--Caranorn 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO "Reich" is the best word here. Perhaps it should be defined (like state, British Empire) in the footnotes. --62.224.85.224 05:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

reverted to "Empire" because it seems to be the fittest, but it should nethertheless be explained in the footnotes - maybe on the basis of its own lemma Reich. --62.224.85.224 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we use the same solution that the Weimar Republic article has used, using the original word Reich since no English word is available for a proper translation. It seems that Reich, can mean both state, land territory, empire, realm etc. The fact that the German republic stuck with the use of the term Reich means that in the new context the name did no longer mean Empire, as it did in Deutsches Kaiserreich. And as a reply to Blinder seher who brough up some translation synonymns I would like to remind him of the one he forgot to mention, Empire is best translated as Imperium in German, as in Britisches Imperium i.e. the Brittish Empire. See also some descriptions [2]. I would also point to the translation of Deutsches Reich, explanation. So to repeat, we should do what the article on the German republic has done and stick with just using the word Reich. If you insist on using the word Empire, please be consequent, the head of state of the German Weimar Republic, the Reichskanzler, shall then be Imperial German Chansellor! Feels really wrong to me though.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. By the way, the Reichskanzler in the past in the Weimar Republic can be equated with the today's German Bundeskanzler (Dr. Angela Merkel) because both formations of state are identical to each other - in form of government, too. Only the name "Deutsches Reich" has changed into "FRG" an now (since 1990) "Germany". --62.224.111.59 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. just a minor disagreement about what you said that the current German state formation and the one commonly called the Weimar republic are identical. There are as far as I know two main differences, 1. the new state is much smaller, having lost roughly 25% of its territory to Russia and Poland. and 2. more importantly, after the war France insisted that if West Germany was to be let loose from the occupation it had to be a weaker State, so they pushed for the creation of a "Federal" (the "Bund") Republic of many (some very small) states each with a high degree of autonomy. (from German friends I get the impression that this means, besides less power for the Government in Berlin, that money is constantly being wasted, and that it makes life slightly more complicated, with each little state for example being able to decide what its school curriculum should be etc. Just spreading off topic hearsay here though)--Stor stark7 ^Talk 12:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm having just read the article Weimar Constitution I must moderate myself, maybe there is less difference between todays and yesterdays failed republic than I first thought. They should have adopted a more centralized system in 1919, such as that of France, or as the country is called in German, Frankreich.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 12:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The German state is identically the same because it exists as a nation state since 1871. In 1949, there was no foundation of a new Germany (FRG or GDR), instead of that there were only formations or reorganizations. The GDR alleged an own foundation, but in fact it only was a succession of Germany (as a part of it like West Germany).

In comparison with the Weimar Republic, the federal formation of West Germany (FRG) only is slightly different, but both are a (the same) "Bundesstaat". The authority to act of the today's Bundespräsident is weaker than the Reichspräsident's one. The Reichspräsident also was called informal "Ersatzkaiser" (substitute Emperor) because of extensive full powers: one reason amongst others in such a way as to enable Hitler and the national socialists to seize power (e.g. "Notverordnung", "Reichstagsbrandverordnung"). The Bundespräsident only does a representation job and has to signing laws. However, he can reject bills and decline acceptance. --62.224.111.59 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are those that would not agree with you as regards the existence of a Germany without interruption since 1871. See articles such as Debellatio and Disarmed Enemy Forces. The non-existence of the German state has as far as I know been cited by U.S. sources as legal reason for not having to comply with international law when it came to feeding German civilians properly, and for using prisoners of war as forced labor for years after the surrender, instead of releasing them as international law ordains you shall do when the war is over.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My statement is the herrschende Meinung (prevailing opinion) in jurisprudence in Germany, alike the apodictic statements and givings of evidence by the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. See de:Rechtslage des Deutschen Reiches nach 1945. Therefore, not the German state - the Deutsche Reich (Nazi Germany) - did surrender, but only the German Forces (Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS).

The new term "DEF" only was used by the Amis because of the huge amount of German soldiers after the unconditional surrender in 1945, and they could not manage the adequate supply with food and medical care officinal by international law. So, Eisenhower declared them simply as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" to shift his responsibility. One fact, so that many Germans - some sources speak about hundreds and thousands - did die by starvation and diseases, e.g. in the Rheinwiesenlager. --62.224.93.31 10:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that only the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally, the Allies chose not to recognize any German government, but chose instead to assume supreme authority (Allied_Control_Council) of the territory that used to be Germany, and regarded themselves free to do as they pleased since the state no longer existed. That meant that they could take material out of Germany without having had a peace treaty drawn up stating what the exact sum of the reparations were to be. They were free to decide that Germany's border in the east was to be the Oder-Neisse line, annexing the territory east of it and ethnically cleansing its millions of inhabitants, they were free to hand over the Saarland to France as a "protectorate". They were free to neglect feeding the "enemy" civilian population under their control. (see Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: "Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe" ). Columbia University Press, (2003) ISBN 0-88033-995-0 Specifically the section by Richard Dominic Wiggers, "The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II") I did a Google and found a good document partly on the topic [3] Which for instance says that the United Nations charter places Germany as a second rate nation, not protected by the right afforded to other nations by the charter. "A curious aspect of the legal arrangements for the post–World War II occupations was Article 107 of the UN Charter. It states, in full: “Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.” Article 107 can be seen as a way of keeping the Allied occupations of Germany and Japan outside the control of the UN Security Council." Nevertheless if the German courts feel that Germany was never subject to Debellatio, fine, maybe they are right. But what matters is what U.S. courts thought. Any info on that?

As for DEF, the person that brought the topic of the sufferings of German POW's in American hands after the war up to the surface, the novelist Bacque, claimed that the German POWs that died as a result of U.S. policy was close to a million. This number is probably way to high, and has met with harsh critique by Stephen Ambrose[4], although Ambrose admitted that "we as Americans can't duck the fact that terrible things happened. And they happened at the end of a war we fought for decency and freedom, and they are not excusable.". The fact remains however. German POW's were mistreated, for some reason general Eisenhower forbade the Red cross from visiting the camps (what was he trying to hide?), and it took a Canadian novelist to bring the topic up to the surface, placing a great question mark on the competence and integrity of American and German historians that they have chosen to remain silent on the matter until now. Besides, the British for some reason did not see a need to take away the prisoners rights under the Geneva convention as the U.S. did, nor did they prohibit the Red cross from visiting them, as the U.S. did. Some quotes from Niall Ferguson [5] "Accordingly, the many leaflets Žfired by Allied artillery onto German positions – as well as radio broadcasts and loudspeaker addresses – emphasized not only the hopelessness of Germany’s military position but also, crucially, the lack of risk involved in surrendering. Key themes of ‘Sykewar’ were the good treatment of POWs – in particular, the fact that German POWs were given the same rations as American GIs, including cigarettes –and Allied observance of the Geneva Convention." "Perhaps the best evidence of the effectiveness of such psychological warfare was the evident preference of German troops to surrender to American units. ‘God preserve us!’ one German soldier wrote in his diary on 29 April 1944, ‘If we have to go to prison, then let’s hope it’s with the Americans." "It is clear that many German units sought to surrender to the Americans in preference to other Allied forces, and particularly the Red Army. With the beneŽfit of hindsight, they would have done better to look for British captors, since the British treated German prisoners better than the Americans did, and were also less willing to hand them over to the Soviets. But successful psychological warfare led the Germans to expect the kindest treatment from US forces." "The most that can be said is that those Germans who preferred to surrender to the Americans than the British made a miscalculation, since the mortality rate for German POWs in American hands was more than four times higher than the rate for those who surrendered to the British (0.15% to 0.03%)."--Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

--- Hi! I´m German and I can assure you that "empire" is the best translation for "Reich". As speakers of other germanic languages know, the combination of words can lead to a completly diferent translations in an other lagnuage. This is why "Reich" means "empire" and "Königreich" means "kingdom". Country is "Land" and State is "Staat", nothing to do with "Reich". In the English article there should only be the translation "Reich" in order to evoid confusions. I hope that i could help you.

No, unfortunately this is no great help. Everything has been discussed so far. You procure no new information.--Gomeira 11:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

....and furthermore your assured analysis is dead wrong, because the fascination with that word comes from its very polysemy: From the simple meaning of someone's domain (e.g. Königreich Hannover) to the inherent claim of universal supremacy (from the mediaeval Holy Roman Empire to Third Reich fantasies), Reich is plurivalent. If you want to be unambiguously clear about an empire, you need to say Kaiserreich (realm of an emperor), and you just can't translate Reichspräsident as Imperial President, since that'd be a contradiction in terms. Reich remains quite untranslatable and it makes perfectly sense to follow the link for further explanation. Teodorico 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose Reich would mean Empire by most English translations, though I see the word "realm", increasingly used to describe it. Realm does not necessarily have to be in a royal or monarchist sense, it can be "a the region, sphere, or domain within which anything occurs, prevails, or dominates" [[6]]. This means that realm CAN describe the Weimar Republic's name, "Deutsches Reich" which did not have royalty or an emperor. The use of the word reich should be looked upon. To me, it must be a word that is applicable to a non-monarchy state, after all look at the words "Kaiserreich, Konigreich". It would make sense that it be called "Emperor's Realm, King's Realm", an English translation to "Emperor's Empire", or "King's Empire" does not make sense. But this does not entail that the realm from 1871 to 1918 wasn't described as an empire, it was a literal "Emperor's realm", which simplified DOES mean empire. R-41 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I just checked the Austrian Empire page, the literal translation of empire from English to German is actually "Kaisertum". The Austrian Empire's translation was Kaisertum Osterreich. R-41 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reich does not have a literal English translation. All the words used here; empire, state, realm, land, etc. are correct, so if you're trying to pinpoint an exact definition you'll be chasing your tail indefinately. Reich is a uniquely Germanic word that can be inserted into just about any situation where you're talking about a political entity, be it a country, empire, kingdom, whatever. So basically what I'm trying to say is, this whole discussion is pointless. :)

Reich is not a uniquely Germanic word, in Dutch there is the word 'Rijk', wich means the same as reich. There is no English translation form it as English has a word for each for of state and 'reich' is a word mostly combined with another word to make for example 'Kaiserreich' meaning empire and as Hitler was not the emperor but the führer of Germany what means guide, the translation 'state' is the most correct and thus the translation of the motto should be addapted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomvasseur (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reich should be translated, or it is not understandable and confusing German word to average english speaking readers around the world

There is definitely translation for the german word "reich" no matter what. German word shouldn't be used in English encyclopedia, since it should only be english. Reich means "empire," "realm" or "nation." See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reich it's not a "state" as it says. People reading the english encyclopedia won't understand what "reich" means, that is my main concern. I'm sure german speakers can understand that word, but average english speakers won't understand the term. You see the point? This word should be translated no matter what. Include foot note, but shouldn't be just "reich" because it sounds and looks good. period. Reich doesn't mean it is "country" or "state." Since "empire" is the first term in the dictionary for the word "reich," empire should be used instead of reich since more people understand the word empire, but footnote should be included in there. The word "reich" is still discussed as the german name of the nation, so it is not going away. it is there.67.41.157.5 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First, this is an encyclopedia, if there is something you do not understand, such as the word German Reich, then you click on the link to the article explaining it in greater detail. To use possibly misleading words such as German Empire which is NOT a direct translation of Deutsches Reich just because you are unable to click on the link is rather un-encyklopedic. Second, using the word Empire to directly translate Reich because it is listed as the first word in a translation might be OK, but deciding that the combination "Deutsches Reich" means "German Empire" because of it is Original Research, and thus can be reverted with impunity.

Since you obviously don't speak German, let me inform you that for instance Frankreich (the Reich of the Franks, or in your terms the Frankish Empire) and Österreich (The Eastern Reich, or in your terms the Eastern Empire) are modern countries without any imperial connotations in German, yet I assume that if you had your way they should be translated from German as empires as well? The Austrian Empire doesnt seem very imperial though. Now, if you can provide a secondary source that states the the combination "Deutsches Reich" as it was used by Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic, means German Empire instead of simply being a way of naming "Germany", then fine, but so far I've seen no-one providing such.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point. I understand that. My main concern was the word "reich." I'm not interested in German Reich or Greater German Reich, but I'm trying to translate the word "reich." If it is in context "Deutsches Reich," that is fine, but there should be literal translation of the word on this nazi germany article. Ok yeah, "reich" is "reich," but I want to see what it means. Also there is another guideline, where you don't hyperlink headers in wikipedia like Greater Deutsche Reich, but whatever. There should be literal translation of Greater German Reich to its literal word in English, which is "Greater German Empire/Realm/Nation." Though it might not be official name, which I kind of agree, there should be literal translation of the official German name of the country to English. Also since there is two "reich" in the template header makes it look like a german wikipedia. Leave the literal state translation to English in this article, which I did. 67.41.157.5 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the my Pons dictonary "Reich" translates to "empire, realm, kingdom". "das Deutsche Reich" translates to "the German Reich", up to 1919 also "the German Empire". "das Dritte Reich" is "the Third Reich". R kleineisel 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "Drittes Reich" ever was an artistic description and never an official name for the German Reich or Germany in 1933-1945. --Orangerider 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

James Murphy's translation of the unexpurgated edition of "MEIN KAMPF" was first published on March 21st, 1939 by HURST AND BLACKETT LTD. In the Translator's Introduction he answers the question of REICH this way: "The word Reich, which is a German form of the Latin word regnum, does not mean Kingdom or Empire or Republic. It is a sort of basic word that may apply to any form of Constitution. Perhaps our word, Realm, would be the best translation, though the word Empire can be used when the Reich was actually an Empire." Bonacon-Lupinus1 (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

About german allies

In the text, there is a map, where german occupied territories and allies are marked with blue color. Finland is also in blue. Finland was never an ally of Germany during second world war. It is true that there was weapon-cooperation between the countries, and that Hitler announced in his radio speech 1941 when operation barbarossa against Soviet union begun that "Finland is allied with us and fighting against soviet union". However, the alliance was never confirmed by Finland, the country never considered them as an ally of Germany. Therefore it is not correct to claim Finland as an ally.

Agreed, but at the same time they were fighting the Russians... an enemy of an enemy is a friend as they say. World War 2 involved lots of conflicts all over, but it's basically a 2-sided war and for simplicity's sake, Finland was on the Axis team.

Paul von Hindenburg

I thought he became President of Germany in the 1920s. Wasn't Ebert the first President?Tishbite37 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hindenburg became President in 1925. See the English Wikipedia article on Paul von Hindenburg. Richard David Ramsey 05:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talk • contribs)

Right. I was pointing out that an earlier version of this article claimed that Hindenberg was President from 1918-1934.Tishbite37 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

broked

The before and after links in the infobox aren't working, any reason for this? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation in Introduction and "Government" sections

The manner in which some information has been portrayed in this article is biased. The introduction and "Government" section claims that the Treaty of Versailles literally "humiliated" Germany through war guilt on Germany, this is false in a literal sense, it demanded that Germany accept responsibility for paying for the damages that it caused to the Allies. Germany perceived this as war guilt and considered Versailles to be a plot to destroy Germany. It definately was meant to weaken Germany, but was no "humiliation". The end combined result of British, French and American negotiations, was far less radical than initial plans proposed by the French government alone to completely dismantle Germany. Alsace Lorraine which was lost, had been part of Germany for only thirty years compared with centuries in France, while the creation of the Polish Corridor to the Baltic Sea on largely German-populated land was very controversial, it was done to prevent a possible outbreak of further war in Europe between Poles and Germans.

I have removed the word "humiliation" being attributed to Versailles from the introduction, but it has been re-added and I believe is too hazy to be added. What should be put there is that Germans were angry over territorial losses they deemed to be excessive and humiliating to their country.

The second violation of NPOV in this article is in the section titled "Government" which says the following:

"The Versailles Treaty had put war guilt onto Germany in an age where the British were the leading Empire builders. Reparations, lost lands and the Allies refusing to disarm as they had demanded of Germany made the situation highly volatile. Inside Germany itself the country was torn apart by civil war, unemployment and the influence of liberals, industrialists and Jews, all eager to fight only for their own narrow causes."

First of all, this section appears very biased and very offensive in claiming that liberals, industrialists and Jews were all self-interested and had little care in Germany's well-being. Yes there were some profiteers, a number of liberals and left-leaning politicians opposed the war during its later stages when German food rations grew scarce, and accusations of Jews being involved in communist movements were technically true, but so were many non-Jews.

It was the perception by some Germans, especially German far-right nationalists that Liberals, industrialists, communists, and Jews all brought about Germany's woes during and after World War I. In reality it was the deep social problems resulting from war exhaustion and Germany's economic and food distribution problems coming from the country's dependence on exports which were being blockaded by the Allies that caused society to become polarized and civil war.

These articles have to be cleaned up of misleading information, but I don't have sources right now to prove the points I have made, but I am very sure that they can easily be found from reliable, non-biased sources.. -- R-41 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In complete agreement with the above, just removed the opening paragraph of the 'Government' section, it served no purpose other than to cast traditional enemies of Nazism in a bad light. It also said nothing not covered in the paragraph it preceded.

In the second paragraph of the same section, there is information on the 'german spirit' - could this go elsewhere?

--87.123.118.243 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

POV throughout this article

I'm not a fan of Nazi ideas, however, I have to say this article is very unbalanced with weasel words. The context of this article goes beyond factual, logical, non-bias information to form a negative shadow over the entire article making it read much less like an encyclopedia an more like a Nazi-idea-bashing campaign.

Realm etc.

I don't why some people here like to make such a fuss about how to translate "Reich" but let's cut the crap for a minute and just accept that "Reich" can easily be translated. An "Empire" does not have to be governed by an Emperor, as was the misconception in the article. The Dutch Empire for example, was governed by merchants and a republican government. "Realm" is much, much vaguer than Empire, and also (for in case some might think otherwise) etymologically much more distant. An empire is a state that extends dominion over and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Which it, and it's predecessors did. The pre-World war I German Empire had the exact same name as the Third Reich, there is no need whatsoever to use a different translation. Some more facts:

• Empire interwiki-links to Reich on the German Wikipedia.
• The Roman Empire is Römisches Reich.
• The Holy Roman Empire is Heiliges Römisches Reich.
• Reichstag is Imperial diet in English.
• Every English-German dictionary will give Reich as a translation of Empire.

Rex 12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in German the word reich is used the same way empire/kingdom is in English, moreover there seems to be no distinction in its use between whether it is referring to a monarchy or not. Don't forget the 'British empire' was effectively ruled by the British parliament rather than the King or Queen. Bleh999 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Kingdom isn't Reich, but Königreich in German.Rex 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Inca empire is also called inkareich in German, persian empire = Perserreich Bleh999 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the tone by Rex Germanus to be very bad taste, I changed it to realm based on new information that I found and the increasing use of the word realm to describe reich and realm has no other German equivalent than reich, unlike empire which can translate to kaiserreich and kaisertum. No one has to "just accept" that it translates to empire, when there are increasing sources describing it as realm, it is worth reviewing which I did. Now that I see the multiple examples, I agree now that reich probably best translates as empire, though empire does have literal translations in German. I will revert my previous edits and re-edits to rename reich to empire. The nasty comments by rex were completely unecessary, all I needed were examples where it unwaiveringly can be translated into empire, which have been posted now. R-41 12:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would advise that people look at the translation of Reich to an english form by looking at the article Reich, it does not easily translate, though I found that realm was the most reasonable translation in that it can describe a variety of uses of the word. R-41 12:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't use multiple varieties. It uses but one.Rex 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that a previous discussion is discredited like "bogus", but I therefore don't cause a stir because I don't care whether there is "Reich", "empire" or "realm". --Orangerider 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why Rex Germanus is so keen on having the article read Empire, but I have the distinct feeling he has something against the German people as a whole. I first encountered him when he created List of terms used for Germans. Funny that there is no equivalent for the Dutch. That aside, since what seems to be Rex Germanus native tongue, Dutch, has the same roots as German and therefore is closely related, I would like to draw the attention to the Dutch word Rijk, which is the exact equivalent of the German word Reich. For example in the combination Frankrijk. Wheres the Empire there? There obviously is Rijk (Reich) there, but I don't see an Empire... The German Empire, i.e. the Deutsches Kaiserreich ended in 1918 when they lost the Emperor that had ruled over all the kings of the multitude tiny German kingdoms. The Emperor and the kingdoms were gone, and only a democratic German unified Realm remained, the German realm, i.e. Germany. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say in the opening paragraph of this section, but the "distinct ethnic minorities" ruled over by German Nation after 1918 were relatively small (mainly some Poles and a sprinkling of French), I would hazard to guess far smaller in proportion than those ethnic minorities in existence within the Netherlands today. And while we are on Reich, why not look at Österreich, Frankreich--Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Also I would like to remind Rex Germanus of the many previous discussions on the topic. For example using Rex example of using Imperial Diet to translate Reichstag. Intresting. I guess the current Swedish Parliament "Sveriges Riksdag" must also be an "Imperial Diet". How cool is that, jay. Bottonline, don't trust wikipedia articles unless they are well sourced, and even then you cant be 100% sure. Also, to Remind Rex, Empire is only one of many translations of Reich. To draw the conclusion that therefore Deutsches Reich mutt mean German Empire is OR, as I'm sure you know. Why cant't you simply show us a secondary source that shows that "Deutsches Reich" as it was used between 1919-1945 meant German Empire? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To the Storstark7-dude, who I don't know. I'd like to remind you that making personal attacks or bringing in unrelated article to try to create a negative image around a contributor does not make any difference. Well, other than me reporting you if you continue. I will not go into semantics such as Frankrijk and Oostenrijk, Note that Empire of the Franks would be Rijk der Franken in Dutch and Eastern Empire would be Oostelijk Rijk. For that matter. The Swedish Imperial diet is a dated term, Sweden is not longer the Swedish Empire, just as Germany isn't anymore. You'd think this al is very simple, but somehow you don't seem (or want ) to get it.Rex 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude indeed. I just tried to understand your motives. So now Frankreich and Österreich are simply semantics? Why didn't you tell that to the editor who brought up Inkareich and Perserreich?

It is true that Sweden has not been an empire for many hundreds of years. Yet we still we have our very own Reichbank (Riksbank) and Reichstag (Riksdag). I believe it is you who is unwilling to realize that in the new context of a democratic Germany in 1919 the word Deutches Reich no longer held any imperial connotations, just as Sweden no longer has an Imperial Diet, even though it still has a Reichstag. The meaning of words often depends on the context, and with a tiny democratic Königreich Schweden, no "Empire" translation can be applied. The same goes for the Weimar Republic. I'm curious about the dutch linguistics you bring up. For example Frankreich which in the article Frankish Empire translates the German Frankenreich as "Frankish Realm". You say that to make it into an empire we would have to call it "Rijk der Franken" Wouldn't "German Empire" in Dutch then also have to be Rijk der Deutschen?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to enter into a personal argument, but from what I've seen I agree with the points made by Stor stark7, realm is the best word to describe reich for articles about the mainland territory of the "Deutsches Reich" while Kaiserreich (literally Emperor's Realm) describes the full territory including colonies run by the empire. The example of Kaisertum Österreich which is loosely translated as Empire of Austria under the common translation of reich to empire, would concisely translate as Empire of the Eastern Empire, which doesn't make sense. It is very possible that Germans translate many important nations whether they are republics or monarchies as being realms. The word realm rarely if ever contradicts translations of reich, i.e. Germans seeing the Roman Empire as a Roman Realm isn't that different, the only thing is that realm can be used in multiple uses of the word Reich unlike empire, i.e. Konigreich (King's Realm), rather than King's Empire, or one example I saw where reich is used to describe what heaven is, heaven is not an empire, but it can be seen as a kingdom and a realm. Also I've looked up Römische Kaiserreich and it is a definate German translation of Roman Empire rather than the more loose Römische Reich. R-41 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have found a reliable source to back up the argument for the use of realm to describe reich. A Time Magazine article called "Realm Day" in 1931, describing Germany's celebration of its independence in 1871. The article defines the Deutsches Reich formed in 1871 as "German Realm". Take a look at this link http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,769459,00.html Another article by Time Magazine in 1945, describes "German Realm" in referring to the activities of a British traitor nicknamed "Lord Haw Haw" who worked for the Nazis in the Second World War, take a look at this article's use of realm http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775999,00.html R-41 23:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But the last link is about the Holy Roman Empire (Heiliges Römisches Reich) in 1351.

Firstly, this was only a confederation (also see article: The Holy Roman Empire was a supranational state, a conglomeration of mainly Germanic and Italian lands, consisting of kingdoms, principalities, duchies, counties, other lordships, and republics (Free Cities of the Empire) in Central Europe during the Middle Ages and the early modern period.), and therefore not (only) a German realm, not a (institutional) nation state like Germany since 1871.

Secondly, it was a completely different international legal personality and not identical (both according to international law and under constitutional law) with Germany.

Therefore this example is out of place. --Orangerider 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From an old statement in Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive_2:
When one looks at Nazi treaties, laws, propaganda etc translated from German into English, the word "Reich" is never translated into "Empire" as it is in this article. In English, the formal term "Empire" connotes a monarchy, which Nazi Germany clearly was not. There is no word in English that is analogous to "Reich" which is probably why in the Nazi era English translations just left the word in German. --Orangerider 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well despite some apprehension of English translators to translate reich, realm seems to be the best word available. Other "possible translations" of Reich like empire, nation, and state are inaccurate because each of these words have their own translation, "kaiserreich/kaisertum for empire, nation (staying the same in german), and "staat" for state. Meanwhile "realm" has only one single translation in German, which as you guessed it, is reich. I think the onus now is on those who oppose the use of the word realm to look at the evidence provided and prove for certain why realm is an unacceptable translation, because I see no problem with it, unlike the use of empire to describe reich. Meanwhile I'm switching this page and others using reich to describe empire, to be changed to describe realm.--R-41 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When I was using the term Romische Kaiserreich, I was referring to the German translation of the old Roman Empire not the Holy Roman Empire, sorry for confusing you. Still Whatever the constitutional nature of the Holy Roman Empire, its name translated from english can be accurately described as Heiliges Römisches Kaiserreich. I see no apparent contradiction with Germans describing the Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ which in english Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation to the German translation of the latin where they can describe it as either a realm Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation or as an empire Heiliges Römisches Kaiserreich Deutscher Nation, more usually simplified as "Heiliges Römisches Kaiserreich". From what I see of the use of reich being used where the more accurate Konigreich and Kaissereich could be used, could be a simplification of the two words to avoid having to say the first syllable. While English may have a loose view of what is an empire and what is not, it seems that in German they specify literal empires only with kaiserreich or in some cases kaisertum. An important or powerful nation that does not necessarily have an emperor or even colonies as the case of Sweden can be seen as simply a realm as Stor stark7 has pointed out. The German wikipedia page for the state which we in English normally call the Persian Empire, Germans call Perssreich. The German page desribes this particular reich as a grossreich, which can be easily translated as a "great realm" rather than a confusing and seemingly exaggerated translation to "great empire" which is unecessary to describe an empire. "Persisches Kaiserreich" is a literal German translation of Persian Empire. To put a third example of literature use of reich meaning realm, look at this link http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1526-422X(193610)47%3A1%3C70%3ACITTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H to an article written in 1936, titled "Culture in the Third Realm", talking about American interpretation of Germany under the Nazis prior to the war. Look up "Third realm"+Germany or "german realm" on Google and you will find interative archived articles from JSTOR will pop up from the 1930s and 1940s using the word realm to describe reich. Now as for the other possible translations of reich, such as "nation" or "state", again these have their own literal translations, nation being the same word in German and state being "staat" in German. With all the evidence piling up for the use of reich being literally translated as realm, and kaiserreich being translated as empire, I think the onus for those opposed to this is to prove why realm is not an acceptable translation of reich.--R-41 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

From your comments I can easily see you still don't grasp the basics. An Empire does not need an emperor, it doesn't even need an absolute monarch. Get that, then we'll continue.Rex 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the English use of empire, which is very vague, and given to any state that is powerful, even if they don't have colonies. The German use of empire, Kaiserreich, is a title of empire which is not given out to any state which is powerful, it is given to a state that is run by an emperor. Have you looked at ANY of the links or evidence I have posted which show realm being used as the translation of reich. Reich translated to empire is a bad translation on behalf of English dictionaries and translators. For instance, not too long ago, someone found out that the name of a famous Japanese island, which in English used to be called Iwo Jima has been found out to be a bad translation, the real name of the island is Iwo To. So I don't have to "get that", because it is a poor translation, which doesn't match up to the evidence out there, especially the fact that realm's only, single translation in German is reich, while empire has two confirmed translations, kaissereich and kaisertum, the last of which was used to describe the Empire of Austria, or more definate translation from the German as I see it, the Empire of the Eastern Realm, not Empire of the Eastern Empire. If you had of looked through the evidence I have provided I have shown the use of kaissereich being used to describe the Persian Empire. More likely, Germans prefer to use the one syllable Reich to describe any sort of realm, rather than using the specific kaiserreich or konigreich which literally describe empire and kingdom. whether it be run by a king, emperor or head of state, which does not neccessitate imperialist expansionism as empire does. I know why people are nervous about changing the name, they think that if the word empire is replaced by the word realm in this article, people will say that wikipedia is somehow "giving credit to the nazis" or not recognizing the nature of the Third Reich. Well I for one have no sympathies with Nazi Germany and its insane leader, I am interested in the history of Germany. Yes Nazi Germany was a de facto empire but it was described as a realm by its own government and by a number of literature in the 1930s and 40s and by correct translations, just look up German Realm on google, you will find many links. I myself used to firmly believe that reich meant empire, but when I ran into realm being used, I looked it up and found it to be the more concise and accurate translation of reich.R-41 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You see that's your problem. Google is not a source, it's a search engine. I'm not going to explain to you (again) what constitutes an empire, this is the English wikipedia and the German word Reich is translated as Empire here. What the nazis wanted it to be translated as ("literature of the 1930/1940s") is uttely irrelavant.Rex 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex, you are being abusive and stubborn. If you keep talking in a threatening tone, I'll report you. I believe you are calling my sources Nazi propaganda, THEY ARE FROM TIME MAGAZINE, Time Magazine is American, and one of articles is from 1945 which uses the word realm instead of "empire" to describe the British traitor "Lord Haw Haw's" loyalties to the "German realm". The ones from the 1930s, are not for or against anything, one is about Germany before the Nazis, another is stating the massive change in Germany when the Nazis came in, but focus more on German people rather than the regime. By 1945, there could be no chance of any pro-Nazi material in Time Magazine, with the U.S. government adamant on keeping out Nazi propaganda. For your information I am not a fascist! I am very liberal and I am proud of my democratic and multicultural nation of Canada.

Now look at these references before you judge.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,769459,00.html http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775999,00.html

After seeing these and if all you have to contribute in response is ignoring the references, and hurling insults at me and other users like Stor stark7, then you're contributions will not be considered seriously in this discussion by me and other users. --R-41 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with R-41's stance. If other English language wikipedia articles translate the term "Reich" generally as Empire then those articles are incorrect and should be corrected. Likewise for the interwikis.--Caranorn 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder who's being stubborn here. Rather than making a fuss about me supposably calling you a nazi, which I didn't, you should focuss on the matter at hand. In English (ie this wikipedia) "realm" is associated with monarchic rule. Much more so than Empire. Just because time used "realm" in a little article over 60 years ago proves nothing. And I got the impression realm was used mockingly. Empire is must ambiguous and true to the language. The German empire (ruled by the emperor) might have ended in 1918, the name stayed and does not require a sudden re-translation. That's OR and not done on wikipedia.Rex 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany from 1871 to 1918 had two official names, one, Deutsches Kaiserreich which directly translates to German Empire, was abandoned by the anti-imperial, anti-monarchist government. The other name, Deutsches Reich remained the same because it was more neutral in political definition than Kaiserreich. Realm is not always tied to monarchial rule, realm is a very similar word to domain, describing an area of control, so a German Realm or a realm of the German nation can be interpreted from a republican perspective as territory in which the German nation had claim to (or in the case of imperialism or nazism, non-German territory which they say Germany formerly had or "needed"). To prove my point that reich is best described as realm in almost any case, I will go a little of topic for a moment, which may aggravate some people, but will show that the use of reich certainly does not best describe empire but does best describe realm. Reich can be used to describe "realms" that are not monarchies or even empires or states, i.e. the "realm of science" is defined as "reich der wissenschaft", one example when I looked up "reich der wissenschaft" on Google, is a phrase for a German science book on the German version of Amazon.com, http://www.amazon.de/Kalk%C3%BCl-Unbefleckt-Theaterst%C3%BCcke-Reich-Wissenschaft/dp/3852184363. Realm itself in English can describe a domain, any form of a monarchy, and important nations After World War II, the word reich became synonomous with the Nazi empire and deemed a bad word, thus the Germans abandoned calling their country that, even though they continue to call France and Austria Frankenreich and Osterreich, even though their empires are long since gone, as has been mentioned repeatedly above in the discussion. Realm is a multiuse word which is used exactly like reich is used in multiple contexts, from "reich der wissenschaft" to "Deutsches Reich".--R-41 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No! That is wrong. "Deutsches Kaiserreich" never was an official (state) name for Germany. Everytime, the only legally and official state name was "Deutsches Reich" for Germany from 1871 until 1945. In 1949, Germany changed its official name to "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (FRG), but the state (the German nation state) is the very same until today. But not always the form/type of the state, because in 1871-1918 the form of government was a constitutional monarchy and in fact the type of the state was a federal state. Therefore "Deutsches Kaiserreich" is only a description for a type of monarchy.

"Still Whatever the constitutional nature of the Holy Roman Empire, its name translated from english can be accurately described as Heiliges Römisches Kaiserreich." Sorry, that's wrong, too. There was never an name like that - both in German ("Heiliges...Kaiserreich") and English - because the Holy Roman Empire never was an (unique) empire. It had an emperor, that's true, but it only was a confederation of German and Italian states. But nevertheless its name was "Holy Roman Empire" and there was no "First Realm", too. Its common name only is "First Empire".

Conclusion 1: The word "empire" in an official name need not to suggest that it need to be an empire. It could be, but it needn't.

Conclusion 2: If an state or confederation (Holy Roman Empire) has/had an emperor, it need not to suggest that it need to be an empire. It could be, but it needn't.

The emperor in the Holy Roman Empire was the head of this supranational state or conglomeration of different states. But he was no emperor like in an empire as usual.

The emperor in the German Empire (1871-1918) did an representation job, because the chancellor was the head of government.

The German ending "-tum" need not to describe the type of the state because it is more likely to show the type of government. Therefore, "Kaisertum" is more likely to show the imperial dignity of type of government, not necessarily the type of state. But in case of Austria, the Kaisertum was also an Kaiserreich. --Orangerider 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment on one point from here and one from further up the discussion. First, if Lord Haw Haw was convicted for working for the Holy Roman Empire, then I'm very much afraid about the state of the U.K. law system. Reading the provided source I come to a different conclusion to Orangerider though. Haw Haw had engaged in treasonous activities in the "German realm", which in the context of the article referred to the Deutsches Reich, not to the ancient Holy Roman Empire. The only ancient thing about the article was that the law used was ancient. the law itself never made any reference to any other stats than "the Kings realm", i.e. the British kingdom of the time the law was made. [7]. Look at it this way. If the U.K in 1970 enacted a law about treason by working for a foreign power in that power, and someone today was caught working for Russia in Russia. Do you really think the charges would read "treason by working for the Soviet Union". just because that territory was part of the state called "the Soviet Union" at the time the law was made up? German Realm as used in the article referred to the Deutsches Reich that was run by the Nazis.

Trying to make the Kaiser look as merely a figurehead seems not entirely correct. Read the article on William II, German Emperor, his influence is disputed, but he had quite a lot of power, and when his opinion collided with that of the Iron Chansellor he dismissed him.

Third, look at this empire without an Emperor, the standard name in German seems to be Britisches Imperium. Gee, the Germans have the word Imperium, and it is used to denote some "Empires".--Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Orangerider is on to something. Orangerider is right about the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation not translated as a Kaiserreich as I had assumed. Orangerider is probably right about kaisertum, though it is used on a number of sites when searched to describe the Austrian Empire.

Still, under reich's definition to realm, which as said earlier can be used in multiple ways, the German translation from the original latin, may be speaking of a realm, i.e. the first realm of the Germans as German nationalists would describe it. After all, before the Holy Roman Empire, there was no single organized German state of any kind, the Germans were divided into tribes, it could be translated as realm. But Orangerider is right about the Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't a true empire, rather a confederation. Realm in either a monarchial or non-monarchial sense does describe the German translation and confederation nature of the Holy Roman Empire. I will try to find out if Deutsches Kaiserreich is an official name of the German Empire or if it is not as Orangerider says. But on German wikipedia sites, Kaiserreich is used on the German wikipedia site as the title of the German Empire article at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Kaiserreich. Though the official title of the state is displayed as Deutsches Reich in the side table. Reich could be used to describe a de facto empire, but it could be that Germans prefer the word realm to describe important states. There's not much more I can add that's new, other than to reiterate that Kingdom in the German königreich can be broken down into "king's realm", and the (for sure) translation of empire, kaiserreich, can be broken down into "emperor's realm", while the translation of reich to empire does not make sense with either königreich or kaiserreich. One example of an empire described with the reich alone, such as the Persia's empire, translated Perserreich are described in the article specifically as a "großreich" which makes sense to be described as a "great realm" rather than "great empire". The use of imperium to describe the British Empire as Stor Stark7 pointed out is interesting, I've not seen that use in German before, but it probably is another German translation for empire.--R-41 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Imperium" does not fit to describe the Großdeutsche Reich, because in German a synonym is "Weltreich", and the Deutsche Reich never was a "world empire" like the British one with its Commonwealth. Therefore, "Imperium" is totally out of place here. --Orangerider 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And about this Haw Haw stuff: I simply had it misread because of that date 1351, but anyway my statements about the Holy Roman Empire and all the others are correct. --Orangerider 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, imperium isn't a definition of empire. I think wikipedia is going to have to have a vote or something on whether reich should be described as realm or empire, because both sides have their merits. Me and others use the variety of use of reich to say that it describes realm, which also has a variety of uses, while those who believe it describes empire, point out the large number of empires, which are described as "reichs". A solution may be to define the translation in the case of this page as "Great German Empire/Realm" and "German Empire/Realm" for the German Empire page. Still, people like me, Stor Stark7 and probably others want a direct translation which is a universal for reich, which we see as realm. For certain, defining reich just as empire, has sparked multiple edit wars. Time should be taken to accumulate more evidence for both sides, before making a decision, and I hope more people, especially German wikipedians, take part in helping Wikipedia solve this dilemma we have on the English wikipedia.--R-41 22:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles Reich and Deutsches Reich should be a good starting point. Deside there what it should be and refer back to those from other articles using Reich.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::German wikipedians should stay as far away from this discussion as possible. For the simple reason that they don't understand that an Empire doesn't require an emperor and that a realm reaquires a monarch.Rex 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) --Willicher 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike now that there is NO translation for reich on this page now. I'll concede now that the best description is empire, and that it probably can literally translate to realm or empire in whatever the context. But I'll turn this page back to saying Great German Empire. If anyone gets in touch with someone who can FOR SURE say it is otherwise and that empire is an unacceptable translation, then we can discuss. Personally I think realm is a more precise translation of reich by itself, but the context in which it is often used is associated with empires, so empire should be used on this page until it can be definately proven otherwise to avoid serious edit wars (which I am partly to blame for). R-41 10:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We need no discussion about "empire", "realm" or what ever because this would always be POV. Simply please read talk:Deutsches Reich and the Kellogg... between the U.S., the "German Reich" (official quoting) and other nations. The term "Reich", also in English, is the solely official use. Any translations about "reich" are be explained in Reich.

Conclusion: WP:OR, therefore a simlpy link to Deutsches Reich in the introduction of Nazi Germany is enough.

--Orangerider 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Now where exactly is the problem with having "Reich" untranslated? As a matter of fact, if Germans talk about the British Empire, they never say Britisches Reich, but mostly Britisches Empire (German Wikipedia uses Britisches Imperium ).

Samwyse 18:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

][][][ You guys just have to accept the fact that there are some words in every language that have no literal English translations... especially a word like Reich, which has been around since before there even was an English language. Reich is a very old word, older than the German language even, and it evolved from a completely different language group (Proto-Celtic) than English (Germanic/Romance). The word comes from the Celtic "rig" loosely translated as "king", adopted into early Germanic as "riks". Eventually the word evolved to mean not just the king but the lands of the king (which could be taken as a "realm" in English), however over the course of thousands of years the word has evolved into a one-size-fits-all word which COULD mean realm, or empire, or country, or state (and yes, I know state is staat is German but are there no words in English which also have multiple defenitions?). The definition from the dictionary I have with me right now defines "Reich" as such; The Territory or Government of a State. No mention of empires, kings, or anything of that nature. This doesn't mean that Reich means State, but it does mean it CAN mean state. In conclusion, everyone taking part in this discussion is correct. Reich is a very old and vague word, which is why Germans like slapping so many prefixes to it. It means whatever the context determines it should mean. If I tell you to close the door, you won't have to argue that "close" could mean either shutting something or being in short proximity to something. You know based on the context that close means to shut the door.

Nazi Germany is the wrong title

I thought a long time about the title of this article. I think the titel is very anti-German. Between 1933 and 1945 Germany was ruled by the NSDAP but the majority of the Germans were no "Nazis". They were normal citizens suffering from the regime. I propose to move it to "Deutsches Reich 1933 till 1945" or something like that. --Greetings from Germany! 16:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-German? First let me say it's once again a pleasure (note the sarcasm) to meet a German with a warped view of his/her own history. Dear user, Hitler got over 40% of the popular vote, and the other 60% did nothing to stop him when he 'seized' power, you know why? They were too busy cheering for the German troops who invaded Poland! Then concerning supposed "anti-German sentiment", "Nazi Germany" is the term used in English, just as "Colonial America" is. Plain and simple. A term for America in the colonial age and a term for Germany when its people supported the greatest scurge of the 20th century. Rex 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You know General Rommel? He organised the war in Africa and tried to stop Operation Overlord, but he was a opponent of Hitler. The 12 million soldiers of the German Armed Forces had to serve in the forces. The most soldiere were not voluntary. Before the attack on Poland Hitler invented the operation of Polish soldiers on German ground to have a reason for the war and to be backed by the German People.

The most Germans had angst, they were suppressed by the Gestapo and manipulated by propaganda. So they were not able to resist. Because of this reason the title "Nazi Germany" is wrong. We need a more neutral one. --Willicher - Greetings from Germany! 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no mood to hear your revisionism, next thing you'll claim the Germans were victims of "the nazis". I wonder if Merkel claimed such things what the political reaction in Europe would be... something the likes we've never seen I guess. Nazi Germany is the term used in English. Period.Rex 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything, a title like "Nazi Germany" might risk absolving more recent generations of Germans of their share of responsibility for the crimes committed by their ancestors during WWII. The title definitely doesn't seem anti-german. Note how I'm rarely in agreement with Rex (certainly don't agree with his rash accusations in this case), but here he reacted correctly by moving the article back to its established name.--Caranorn 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But can we think about a new title? I think yes! There was a lot of crime during Hitler's government, the current German people know that and we are sorry for that but pay attention to the fact that only a small minority of the people and of the soldiers were NSDAP-members. The most Germans were forced to do what they did, for example to participate in the war or to discriminate against the Jews. --Willicher - Greetings from Germany! 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't going to be a "new" title. It's like renaming Titanic to "That big black and white ship that sank after it hit an iceberg". An like I said, I don't need to hear your revisionism. I suggest you read a book. If you're interested in real history that is. Oh yeah, if you replace my comment with a (Personal attack removed)-template, while there are no PA's present one more time, I'm reporting you as a vandal.Rex 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To call me a revisionist is a personal attack. I opened the discussion for everyone and not for you. Apropos "vandal" think about that. I'm an expert in german law and you deleted a very important detail in Deutsches Reich. I don't know who is the vandal. --Willicher - Greetings from Germany! 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, people. I have to agree with Rex. Nazi Germany is the most common and most understood term in English to describe this period. So the name should stay as is. - 52 Pickup 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What an embarrassing nonsense, Willicher! Though you and I are certainly not responsible for what our grandfathers did, the Nazis didn't come from Mars! In English Nazi Germany is the proper term for Germany under Nazi rule. Deal with it! Teodorico 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"German law" (in which you claim to be an expert) has nothing to do with this. This is about the English language and usage of terms on the English wikipedia. As for you being a revisionist, I think it is acceptable to call someone who thinks Germany was held hostaged by nazis just that.Rex 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't write such false allegations of revisionism anymore! Because of your denial of the German situation I can give you a comparison:

Today, the American people are also led and blinded by the propaganda of the Bush administration and its "democratic imperialism" and their horniness for bellizism! But the significant difference is, that in 1933-45, the Germans were additional terrorized and intimidated by the Nazis, e.g. the Gestapo: any resistance was punished by death penalty. Did you know, how many assassination attempts there were on Hitler? Several, but: death penalty. Did you ever heard about "Weisse Rose" or Stauffenberg?

Ok, the Germans had their "Kraft durch Freude" program, but the Americans have their fastfood. And the synonym to the Gestapo in the U.S. is called "NSA", the U.S. "Ermächtigungsgesetz" is called PATRIOT Act, and their concentration camp is called "Guantanamo".

Therefore, we should rename United States to United States of imperialism or United States for Oil.

OMG, was it treated harshly now? ;-) --Orangerider 07:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just enlighten us kindly what your dramatic statement has got to do with the current discussion. Teodorico 07:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just an answer on unilateral revisionism attacks.

What's about "German Reich 1933-1945" for this article and "Nazi Germany" and "Third Reich" redirects there? --Orangerider 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Such "comparisons" are totally out of order! You can say a lot about George Bush or the Americans, but you can not compare a nazi institution to fastfood, or compare Guantanamo to concentration camps. I have yet to see pictures or hear stories on doctors experimenting on live people, it raining human ash from the sky, or smell 6 million people dead in mass graves. You should be very ashamed of yourself.Rex 09:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And again I have to agree with Rex, you can't compare Bush to Hitler or today's US to the 3rd Reich... Doing so shows you haven't fully understood the gravity of the crimes committed by Germany in WWII. Note by the way how the article American Empire already exists, though it doesn't deal with the current situation in particular.--Caranorn 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suspend this discussion untill the sockpuppet investigation on Willicher and Orangerider is completed. There is strong evidence that they are in fact the same person.Rex 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)What is the big commotion here? Wikipedia is not the place to cook up new politically correct terms for anything. Rather our naming policy points us to English usage of any item. Like it or not it is called Nazi Germany over here. Agathoclea 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If only that tiny bit of information would penetrate their skulls.Rex 10:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a German as well, but I disagree with User:Willicher|Greetings from Germany! I'd say Nazi Germany is totally alright. It's common practice to use this term in all English speaking countries, and everybody would know what's meant. Majority or minority of Nazis in Germany at this time, doesn't matter, it was when the Nazis ruled Germany, end of story. This discussion is bloody useless. Full stop. Wolfgang K 07:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany is a political and populist appellation and is incorrect for any reference book. You could call it the Third Reich, but essentially it is just Germany. The party of government does not normally enter into these things. We would not argue that "Conservative Britain" or Communist Russia" would be correct titles for an encyclopaedia page would we? David Lauder 08:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general. --Orangerider 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The terminus "Nazi Germany" is not widely used in Germany. It seems to be an english terminus, i think. In Germany, it is usually refered as "Drittes Reich" (= third empire, originally coined by the poet Stefan George). The Nazis themselves used the term "Drittes Reich" sometimes, but officially the National Socialists called their state "Deutsches Reich" and later "Grossdeutschland" (after 43). The years 33-45 are (at least in Bavaria) also refered as "Hitlerzeit" (this would correspond to the English "Hitler administration"). As concerning "Nazi", i personally prefer "National Socialist", that's the correct name. So, I think the article should really be called "National Socialist Germany". PS: The term "Nazi" was coined by the Social Democrats (during the Weimar Republic). Marxists were (and still are) very upset by the the "usurpation" of the term "socialist" by the far right, so they shortened "National Socialist" to "Nazi" (likewise to a nazi, a social democrat was called a "Sozi"). Compare also the frequent substitution of "Fascism" for "National Socialism" by left/marxist sources or authors.

Excuse me! This is an article on the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Nazi Germany is the name it is known by everywhere in the English-speaking world. I have lived in Germany for 28 years now, and have never heard it referred to as anything other than "die Nazi Zeit" or "die Hitler Zeit". The etymology of the term is totaally irrelevant to this article. TINYMARK 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What was the real/official name of this state anyway? Aaker (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The official name was Deutsches Reich (German Empire), from 1943-1945 Grossdeutsches Reich (Greater German Empire). Now it's Bundesrepublik Deutschand (Federal Rebublic of Germany). Wolfgang K (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, I would argue that a title that omits the word Germany would be preferable, just for the simple fact that the term Nazi (most deservedly) has become so pejorative that its use combined with the common name of the present nation of the German people casts casts a shadow over the living today in Germany, who had nothing to do with the actions of their great-grandparents. This isn't P.C.--it's just to say that guilt dies with the guilty, even as memory of what the guilty did survives. A different title, like the term "Third Reich", which also has nearly the same reach of understanding in the Anglosphere as the term "Nazi Germany" does, assuming a consensus could be reached, IMHO, would be more appropriate. A redirect from "Nazi Germany" to "Third Reich" could be added. Being respectful of the innocent is not revisionism, and does not excuse, or diminish, the acts of the guilty. Katana0182 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While I actually agree with you with the regard for modern day Germans, this is a colloquial term and should remain. it is what is is usually known by. Anyway consensus has been reached recently to keep this title and it's a little early to start the debate again.

The memory should remain and be indelibly burnt into everyone's brains-not just the Germans. TINYMARK 12:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

The current map in the title section shows the lands annexed into the "Reich" before the invasion of Russia. I feel the map should show all "Grossdeutschland" AND its conquests at its peak, in November 1942, like the maps in the First French Empire and Roman Empire articles. .LCpl

The only one I can find is Image:Grossdeutsches Reich.jpg, but it is a little hard to follow if you only want to know where the German borders are. - 52 Pickup 06:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I ment something more like this Image:Second world war europe 1941-1942 map en.png LCpl 12:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That map includes many non-annexed territories, so it's not just Grossdeutschland.--Caranorn 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation Trouble, Part Zwei - Q: Great or Greater? A: Greater

With all of the translating problems with "Reich" above, it seems that there is still something left unsettled: should it be "Great German Reich" or "Greater..."? This is an easy one - it is, without doubt, "Greater".

Looking through the edit history of this article, these changes have been made back and forth over and over. Today someone reverted it back to Great, bemoaning the stupidity of English speakers, presumably for our inability to see that "Groß" is German for "Great" and not "Greater". After undoing this change it was then reverted again with a request to look at the talk page. On this talk page there is a lot about "Reich", which has now been resolved (see Talk:German Reich), but nothing about "Great(er)".

All of these translation problems have come from the desire to translate everything 1-to-1 to English, without looking to see what the correct English name might be. Direct translations do not always work. We English speakers don't eat mirror eggs. Many of the people making judgements on what the right names here should be are either non-native English speakers or do not look around for documents that prove their case. So now it's time to put that matter to bed.

I have NEVER seen the word "Great" in this context, but always "Greater". Various encyclopaedias, official translations of German documents and speeches and atlases refer to Germany after the Anschluss as either "Greater German Reich", "Greater Germany" or of course simply "Germany". For example, this Britannica article and have a look through The Avalon Project.

The usage of "Greater" (and not "Great") in the context of describing a somehow larger geographical entity is standard in English. Take, for example, de:Große Antillen in the Caribbean. The English name for this is Greater Antilles, not "Great Antilles". Groß-Berlin is known in English as "Greater Berlin", etc.

Honestly, this is not a point for discussion, it is so clear. The word "Greater" was always used, not "Great". So now I'll change the article back. Please do not revert it to "Great". Time to put this translation trouble aside and concentrate on the article itself. - 52 Pickup 19:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright I've gone through the debate over whether reich means empire or realm now there's another argument over whether Große means "greater" or "great". IT MEANS "GREAT", i.e. German translation of Great Britain is Großbritannien. As a literal translation it is "Great", "greater" in German is "Größer" or "Grösser". The literal name of "Greater Germany" does not exist, it is an interpretation especially by English speaking historians. What is obvious is that the Germans translate Great Britain into Großbritannien, so in this case wikipedia should reverse it, and translate Großdeutschland and Großdeutsches Reich into Great Germany and Great German Reich. If this argument goes on too much longer, I warn you that the wikipedia staff will have none of it, and may have no translation, or just have the "official name" as Drittes Reich (Third Reich) or something so it doesn't upset anyone. They did that for the translation of reich when there was a debate about. The second thing I must warn you, is that wikipedia is getting a lot of complaints for bias especially on the English site for its western, North-American oriented articles (I'm a Canadian, I've seen the complaints, I've got some, but I've learned to look outside North American and English sources). Please think outside of English sources before making judgements! - R-41 17:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is excactly what we are not supposed to do here. English sources are the prime source for naming and translation. Everything else is WP:OR Agathoclea 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support Greater German (and guess what, I'm ESL;-)). It seems to be the more appropriate and certainly more commonly used term, and we definitely need not make fresh literal translations of every term.--Caranorn 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh forget it! Someone just switched it back again to "greater". I use the Great Britain example, but if there is such a translation of gross for "Greater Berlin", well I'm not going to bother looking up to see if it could mean "great Berlin", I wasted a lot of time on the "reich" translation debate and while I wouldn't of minded it being translated as empire (though in many cases it means realm, which I pointed out, though now I think it can be translated as empire or realm), it is now left as an untranslated term which looks pathetic. But nevermind, just forget it, German is a confusing language with multiple translations for things and I don't want to start another edit war, its up to the linguists to sort the mess out of how to translate German to English, I don't think any progress will be made here. - R-41 18:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain is simply the name of the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. There is no Little Britain (apart from the TV show) and smaller parts of Great Britain are not called just "Britain". The country normally known as "Großbritannien" is in fact the Vereinigtes Königreich Großbritannien und Nordirland. So the Great Britain example doesn't work here.

If we're trying to establish if a certain place had an established English name, of course we're going to look at English sources! And the untranslated "Reich" was used - it was generally only translated to "Empire" to describe the 1871-1918 period.

Using "Greater" to describe the extended area of a city is standard English. For example, see de:Greater London. And it doesn't take long to see that "Greater Berlin" is also true - See Berlin's own website.

As said above, Wikipedia is not the place for us to come up with new names for everything when established names already exist. That is WP:OR. It doesn't matter how silly "Greater German Reich" may look to you, it was the correct English name at the time. Ende. - 52 Pickup 06:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Off topic but I couldn't resist. Of course there is a Little Britain, namely Britanny.--Caranorn 11:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The "preceded by" and "succeeded by" flags in the introduction template. What do they mean?

I'm slightly confused by the flags showing which flags that preceded 3R and which succeeded the 3R.

Shouldnt also the Soviet Union flag be included in the "suceeded the 3R" section, since the SU de-facto annexed the German area around Königsberg, now known as the Kaliningrad enklave stuck between Poland and Lithuania. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the states displayed in this article change a lot, different people have different ideas and so it is hard to keep things in order. There are guidelines for what states to list here. In the case of this article, there are probably 3 ways of looking at it:

1. List only the predecessor states prior to Sep 1 1939 (Weimar Republic, 1st Austrian Republic, Saar, 1st Republic of Czechoslovakia) and what became of only these states after the war (Allied-administered Germany and Austria, 3rd Republic of Czechoslovakia, USSR)
2. List all annexed (not simply occupied) territories during the war (above plus: Free City of Danzig, 2nd Polish Republic, Luxembourg) and what became of them (above plus: People's Republic of Poland, Luxembourg again)
3. The "major" predecessor/successor states (only the Germany and Austria states - or simply the Germany ones if you want to be really extreme)

For most people, the second way is perhaps the way to go. I like to keep the infoboxes lean so I would tend towards the 1st or 3rd option, but I'm sure that I'm in the minority.- 52 Pickup 07:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to actually make a choice whatever the choice, and then stick with it. Whatever the choice we should maybe insert "invisible" text in the template and template talk page stating exactly the rationale chosen for which flags are used.

If we go with option two, then I think the flag of the Soviet Union should also be included as successor to the 3R, the rationale being what I wrote above.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-armament is insufficiently represented

Nazi Germany's policy was massive re-armament. I admit that this aspect is already in the article, but I think it needs much more elaboration e.g. in the section "Economic policy". Source Richard Evans' book. Andries 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

An important issue: Not only the rearmament under the Nazis but also the extent to which it was going on under the Weimar regime. Germany did not move from a sitting start to a war footing in the mere 5 years before September 1939. Immense military research and development had been clandestinely going on throughout the 1920s. Richard David Ramsey 06:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of slavs

To User:AryeitskiySaldat.

From Bracher's 'The German Dictatorship', ISBN 0140600140, p 509-10: "Hans Frank repeatedly said from 1939 on that the 'epoch of the East' ... had begun for Germany. Poland ... had to be made to realise the 'difference between the standards of living of the master race and the subject people': no Pole should attain higher rank than that of foreman (werkmeister). In November 1940, he summed up thus: 'What we have here is nothing but a gigantic labour camp in which everything that signifies power and independence rests in the hands of the Germans.' ... [Himmler] used his brutal apparatus to put Czechs and Poles into 'the steel pincers of German nationdom' and systematically to work toward their 'nordification' or their enslavement and annihilation. ... These measures were as real and terrible for the victims as they were unrealistic in view of ... a war which in 1942 had already been lost."

Or from Canaris' diary, quoted in Shirer, 'The rise and fall of the third reich', ISBN 0780749306977, p 661: "I pointed out to General Keitel that I knew extensive executions were planned in Poland and that particularly the nobility and clergy were to be exterminated."

So that counts as persecution, right? Please stop removing accurate information that no-one but a few Russian neo-Nazis disputes. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. Firstly it speaks of removing the clergy and nobility but the Nazis were opposed to those elements in any country or society. Hitler himself called Christianity weak and stopped going to church after 1920. In the first paragraph it speaks of either their Nordification or annihilation meaning that they would have to adapt or they would be an obstacle that would need to be destroyed. No such options existed for Jews or Gypsies or blacks who were persecuted unrelentlessly. When Germans arrived in warsaw for example they wanted a list of Jews in the city and Poles collaborated to help them with this. Jews were systematically rounded up and brought to slave labor camps while Czechs were brought into Germany as guests and were paid quite well. Croatia, Bosnia and Slovakia were also German allies, there was General Vlasov's army which was a militia that sided with Hitler against Stalin and there were Slavs in the Waffen SS where you had to prove your Aryan lineage going back 5 generations. Seems to me that saying that Slavs were persecuted is a bit of an exaggeration. Also, many Germans were targeted by the Nazis, Germans who were Communists, Homo-Sexuals, mentally or physically inept or just those that had a dissident stance were persecuted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AryeitskiySaldat (talk • contribs)

Would some quotes from Hitler contradicting this rather common neo-Nazi position be of use here?[8] Rklawton 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Rklawton, I didn't know where to begin as there is so much evidence that the Nazis regarded slavs as inferior and intended to use them only as a slave-race. Anyway, I've reverted again and will do so while you, AS, fail to provide reliable sources that say the Nazis did not persecute slavs. Lotsa luck looking. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The first senetence on this reference is -We publish here as a radical nationalist contribution to the struggle against neo-nazi ideology-. I'm sorry but that is not a reliable reference because it is too biased. I have provided facts that you haven't bothered to counter so unless you can provide an unbiased reference or can atleast make a decent argument you don't have a sufficient basis to claim that Slavs were persecuted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AryeitskiySaldat (talk • contribs)

The quotes themselves are real enough - whatever the intent of the publisher. References to "Untermensch" abound in Mein Kampf. Ethnic cleansing, dehumanizing, and discrimination are all forms of persecution. Rklawton 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A biased source isn't reliable. If I took a reference from the IHR and implemented it in the Holocaust article you wouldn't accept it. If it is true then find an unbiased source and I will have no problem but until then you have no basis and any edits I do to your uncited claim will be in prvention of YOUR vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AryeitskiySaldat (talk • contribs)

Bracher and Shirer are not biased sources. You, AS, have provided no sources. Your wittering about Vlasov etc is irrelevant to the question of whether slavs were persecuted. It is a sign that the Nazis were willing to use them, but they used Jewish labour in ghettos too, so that proves nothing. You have also broken the three revert rule. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked now; though for some odd reason, he removed the block notice from his talk page. Rklawton 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reich

For what it's worth, "Greater German Reich" beats out "Greater German Empire" in g-hits with a ratio of 4:1. See also German Reich. Rklawton 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:) To prevent this discussion going round and round again, please see the German Reich article. Despite how funny it may look, Reich actually is correct English for post-1918 Germany. Instead of simple translation (which would be nice), the evidence must be followed. - 52 Pickup 19:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of War against U.S.

Was Hitler's declaration of war against the U.S. really that much of a blunder? I mean in hindsight it probably was, but at the time Japan was the country that had hit the U.S. directly and it's not unreasonable to assume America would've gone after them first. Besides, giving the U-boats unrestricted clearance to attack without political consequences could conceivably have been worth it to try taking out Britain first 69.226.253.203 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Tojo's blunder, not Hitler's. These dictators——Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo——grew so skilled at lying to their enemies that they forgot how to tell the truth to each other. But Hitler never grasped the potential strength of the United States; he was prone to overestimate his own side and to underestimate the other. The immediate beneficiary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor was Winston Churchill, who pronto declared war on Japan, thus locking the U.S. with the U.K. against a common foe. Hitler inevitably had little choice. Birds of a feather / Flock together. Richard David Ramsey 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to "National Socialist Germany".

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion was to not move to National Socialist Germany --Lox (t,c)

Shouldn't the article be called "National Socialist Germany" (or "NSDAP Germany")? The name "Nazi Germany" is not encyclopedic, is it? I realize this is probably the more commonly used name but this is an encyclopedia, after all. An NPOV must be present in the article, and the term "Nazi", has a diminutive and insulting meaning (not that they don't deserve it, mind you :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Nazi" is hardly slang in English and is encyclopedic (e.g. Britannica). Although "Nazi" is a diminutive in German and is replaced by the more formal NSDAP or Nationalsozialismus, this is usually not the case in English. — AjaxSmack 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Agathoclea (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as above. This seems to get proposed every few months or so, but there is never a consensus to move. Snocrates 07:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Nazism" is used formally by the mass media. It is not slang. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But isn't "Nazi" really a slang, and as such unfit for an encyclopedia? In my expereinece, one of the main problems with Wiki is that it is often described as "unprofessional". While the name "Nazi" is indeed more popular than "National Socialist", this is also the case with many slangs that are not really fitting to be introduced in a "serious" encyclopedia. Britannica may use the same name, but that does not make it any less of a slang, Britannica is hardly the "supreme autohrity" on all Wiki problems. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Briefly: no; it isn't really slang; it is, auf Englisch, the standard, unmarked, adjective. Attempting to be more formal than the Britannica, which is a fairly large sample of moderately formal English, is a well-paved road to bad, pretentious, writing. (And please look up slang in a good dictionary before you expend more of our time on matters of tone: there is no such thing as "a slang" in the sense in which you are attempting to use it; it's a adjective, and a collective noun.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the common name is Nazi Germany. Yahel Guhan 06:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose If the move was to Third Reich, I would have supported it. Indeed, Nazi Germany is not encyclopaedic. However, the accurate name for this 'empire' is the Third Reich, not National Socialist Germany (or Nazi Germany). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 06:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Third Reich" is more like a nick :), the official name is "German Reich", or "Greater German Reich", same as Weimar Germany. Changing the name to National Socialist Germany would hardly be "pretentious writing", but I see I'm attacking a Wiki "institution" so I'm gonna back away before someone calls me a fascist or something ;). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be named after its official name (whatever it was). WP:COMMONNAME doesn't trump official names. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per WP:NC(CN). See also:
  1. "Nazi Germany" 3,240,000 hits
  2. "National Socialist Germany" 25,400 hits
  --Poeticbent talk 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protecting this page.

This page seems to be vandalized a lot, but it is an important historical topic. Is there any way we can get this page protected from these random edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondhi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

• Nazi Germany → Third Reich — More common — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and Google hits:

1. "Third Reich" 3,560,000 hits

2. "Nazi Germany" 3,310,000 hits — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, because: For me "3. R." is less common (even though google.se seems to prove different) and less English and even more POVish and less comprehensible (why 3.? must have to do with some nazi-think...), while "N. G." is more plain and easier to understand. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per WP:NC(CN). The inclusion of a toponym is a lot more comprehensive, besides, what's this rush for a rename all about? --Poeticbent talk 16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, current title describes subject better that proposed title. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 16:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Third Reich" is a sobriquet. We don't call the Holy Roman Empire the First Reich and the German Empire the Second Reich. Keep consistency. Parable1991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Nazi Germany" is the most common English name for it. The Google hit-comparison is 1) inconclusive and 2) not reflective of general usage. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm doubtful about "Third Reich" as it doesn't even mention the name of the country involved. On the other hand, "Nazi Germany" makes both the time period and the country clear. Rklawton (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - google hits test was too close to be conclusive and per Parable1991 and Rklawton. Snocrates 04:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - In line with Nazism and Nazi Party, the word "Nazi" is acceptable when dealing with all three circumstances making a move unnecessary. Reginmund (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The Germans themselves, who presumably have put some thought into it, have several articles:

• de:Deutsches Reich (German Reich, overview article deals with the German nation 1871 - 1945, borders, government etc. very short, very dry)
• de:Deutsches_Reich_1933_bis_1945. (German Reich, 1933 - 1945, deals with borders, government, etc during the National Socialist dictatorship)
• de:Großdeutsches Reich. (Greater German Reich, just deals with the fact that the nazis in 1943 felt it was time for a name change)
• de:Drittes Reich (Third Reich, what the nazis called their country daily, not an official name, sort of a Nazi propaganda term with very old roots. Not very big article)
• de:Zeit des Nationalsozialismus (The National-Socialist Period) Large article detailing the history of Germany under the NSDAP.

To sum it up, where english Wiki has just one humungus article, the Germans have organized it into four specialized articles.

From this I would say that "Third Reich" sounds like a bad idea, perpetuating a propaganda term that was never official. However, to me "Nazi Germany" feels wrong too. We don't use Communist Poland, Communist Russia for example, or Fascist Italy. Whatever articles you are redirected to when typing that use other names. I would propose we simply call it German Reich (1933 - 1945), with a redirect from Nazi Germany which to me smells very stale.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent arguments. I've changed my mind now. The article should be called something with German Reich. Nazi Germany just isn't encyclopaedic, no matter how common it is. From this I would say that "Third Reich" sounds like a bad idea, perpetuating a propaganda term that was never official. — Indeed, "Nazi Germany" was never official either (and let's not forget, that Nazi is a propaganda term mostly used by the allies; we have to be NPOV here). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you think that over three million three hundred thousand Google references to "Nazi Germany" isn’t convincing enough? How about encyclopaedias such as Encarta which, by itself, has 3,250 references to "Nazi Germany"?[9] You're beating around the bushes from one WP:RM to another. --Poeticbent talk 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you think that over three million three hundred thousand Google references to "Nazi Germany" isn’t convincing enough? — No, not really. Considering that you voted oppose despite that Third Reich is more common on Google, you shouldn't even bring up the Google argument; I would say this vote for discussion has pretty much shown that what's common on Google doesn't really matter, it's what the editors prefer. Also, what do you name an encyclopaedic article of a former country? By the official name of the state, or what is a common term? And I've only made one WP:RM on this page, I actually opposed the previous WP:RM. By the way, 2,840 hits — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm doubtful about "Third Reich" as it doesn't even mention the name of the country involved. On the other hand, "Nazi Germany" makes both the time period and the country clear. Rklawton (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support a move to German Reich (1933 - 1945), which would be an encyclopediatic correct term, and let NG and 3rd Reich redirect there. Google hits are interesting, but we should also understand that wikipedia has a normative function. --Soman (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment... No, Wikipedia explicitly avoids having a normative function. That's fundamental to the official policy at Wikipedia:naming conventions. See also what Wikipedia is not. Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively well aware of the wikipedia policies. However, I don't agree with the assumption that wikipedia would not have a normative function at all. Wikipedia is one of the most read websites in the world, and the namings of the English version tend to replicate in smaller wikipedias. Thus the choices we make do have an impact, albeit small or big, on the usage of political terminology. This function exists, independently of the self-identity of the wikipedian community.

Google hit counts are valuable, but it does only become really usefull until you have two (or more) more or less equally factually correct options to choose from. If the vast majority of Americans can't distinguish Iraq and Iran does mean that we should merge those two articles. The crucial question for me is, what was the formal name of Germany at the time. The way I understand it, German Reich (1939-1945) is the best factually correct and npov wording. --Soman (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact of the matter remains: there has never been a state throughout history that has been officially called Nazi Germany. Wikipedia must reflect this, or else it isn't NPOV. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany" makes both the time period and the country clear. — The same can be said of German Reich (1933 - 1945). The question is: why are you obsessed about having an adjacent Nazi in front of the name? In fact, German Reich (1933 - 1945) is even more clear on the time period, and let's not forget, that was the name of the country. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that anybody is "obsessed" with saying anything. "Nazi Germany" is the shortest way of saying "Germany at the time of Nazi rule", which is exactly what the article is about. "Third Reich" is a propaganda term, and "German Reich" is a simple translation of a German phrase. The word "reich" by itself is vague, seeing as it was applied to the Holy Roman Empire, a loose association of states, and the German Empire, a more traditional monarchy-style government. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry EliasAlucard, but your point is flawed. There has never been a state called Great Bretagne either. Note the French spelling of Britain, similar to the uniquely German word Reich in your proposed new English title, which is a loanword from "Deutsches Reich". Meanwhile, Nazism does equate with German Reich in the English language, hence the popular phrase Nazi Germany.--Poeticbent talk 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to EliasAlucard, Please stop this idiosyncratic and aggressive POV pushing on multiple pages and wait for our mediation to begin on Neo-Nazism. I am sure this is a related issue. Patience, please.--Cberlet (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr. Berlet, but "agressive POV pushing"? What are you insinuating? If you have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion, then stay out of the discussion. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I really cannot see the problem, the name of the country was "German Reich". As this is an encyclopedia, why should the article name be historically incorrect?! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, the most common name and the best known name in English is "Nazi Germany." In other languages this is not the case.--Cberlet (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have no problem, with for instance, the Nazi eugenics article being called that. But this is an article about a former country. It should be called after the official name of the country, not a political term of an ideology. It just doesn't seem right to call countries after their ideology. North Korea isn't called Communist Korea on Wikipedia. Why the double standard? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Other languages? Apparently the google test makes Third Reich the "most common name and the best known name in English". Are you arguing for a change to Third Reich without even realizing? I don't see why this time-period should be special. We should be consistent across historical country articles, we don't use Communist Poland or Communist Russia, even though that seems to be a better known term than the official term used by those articles. However, I tried to collect a number of policies that may be applicable. Read them and battle it out amongst yourselves regarding what policy to follow. Could be fun to change "People's Republic of Poland" into "Communist Poland" and see the blow-up that causes.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germany/Conventions#Contemporary_placenames#Historic placenames
• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Countries of Europe
• Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns

Luckily, the issue is not how many jackasses with keyboards populate the Internet with drivel for Google to find, but how many reputable published scholars use the phrase "Nazi Germany".--Cberlet (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... No, that issue is only marginally relevant in terms of the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. This is a common misconception. Andrewa (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps I should say the most common usage in a newspaper archive search like Nexus. Would that help actually determine common usage? I don't think Google searches are useful, is all.

Excuse me, 'jackasses with keyboards'? And you have the insolence to accuse me of aggressive POV pushing? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out that Google searches only measure the volume of output from anyone with a computer keyboard and an Internet hookup. Online reality often reflects the idea of a phalanx of simians with typewriters writing a Shakespeare sonnet by chance. Google helps determine fad usage by people with Internet hookups--a problematic demographic at best. According to Google, Britney Spears is a more important historic figure than George Eliot. Google searches are seldom useful in these matters, but Andrewa is correct, what matters is what term is most recognizable to the general population. Perhaps a Nexus search would be a better gauge. But even in the Google search the two phrases have little significant difference in tallies.--Cberlet (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And our guidelines say that www.google.com is not to be trusted; see WP:GOOGLE and WP:NCGN. Scholar Google is distinctly more useful, but requires care. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevance of "Animal Rights Policy" Section

With all due respect, I do not feel like this is relevant to the scope of the Nazi Germany article. This facet of Nazi politics was not at all relevant to anything concerning Nazi Germany and how it affected the world. For the most part, there were no animal rights policies in the world. And I wonder why a regime that cared nothing for human life could care about animals. The answer is, it didn't, and thus the section should be removed. Elakhna 05:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazism is an ideology based on Indo-European traditions. European peoples (and especially the Germanic ones) and Hindus have a looooot of respect for animals. Hell, here in Sweden, native Swedes care more about their dogs than their own children (I wish I were making this up). In any case, Nazism is a very animal friendly ideology. That is also why Hitler banned Kosher slaughter, since it was considered cruel to kill cows in that way. Personally, I think the section shouldn't be removed because it covers an important aspect of Nazi Germany. This section should be expanded. And I wonder why a regime that cared nothing for human life could care about animals. — Ironic, isn't it? It's because of Nazis' fundamentalist view on the theory of evolution. This facet of Nazi politics was not at all relevant to anything concerning Nazi Germany and how it affected the world. — Actually, if you know anything about Nazi ideology, you know that animal rights is a very important aspect of Nazi ideology, since Nazism is based on "nature" (as they usually call it). For the most part, there were no animal rights policies in the world. — Nazi Germany had the most modern animal rights laws in the world, ahead of its time. This is also why Nazis hate Christianity, by the way, because they think Christianity is a Judaic religion hostile to the Germanic nature of love for animals. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Animal policy section was basically political propaganda from anti animal rights groups. Its been edited back to a factual minimum. 70.234.243.147 (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::Rightly so! The statement was emotive and the weight was on what was done to the Poles and Jews, which does not belong in this section anyway. TINYMARK 07:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Without assumptions about the motives of whoever started that section, the fact is that the first bill to pass the Nazi Reichstag was a ban on kosher slaughter of animals. The Nazis harped on the topic and made it the last section of the 1940 anti-Jewish film Der ewige Jude. Yet the Nazi failure to treat human beings with at least the quality of respect accorded to animals is an argument for including this section. What a contrast! Richard David Ramsey 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talk • contribs)

Reich again

Reich is perhaps best approximated by empire in English, but rendering a concept from one language to another is not always easy, especially when the translation has to cross cultures and contexts. Yes, Swedish riket and German das Reich are related, and both have cognate roots with "rich" in English, but that obviously doesn't mean the words are equivalent. To some extent perhaps the word should not be translated, its meaning being inextricable with the unfortunate period in German history which this article concerns. Consider that "Das Reich" was inscribed on every SS dress uniform; you can imagine that "The Empire" would seem appropriate in that context, but "The Kingdom" certainly wouldn't.

I like "realm" as the translation because it preserves the first sound and the monosyllabic slam-dunk sound of the original German. Nonetheless, in retrospect, English The realm still doesn't match up to German Das Reich.

As for the entire phrase "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer," it runs somewhat along the line of Paul's "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). The quotation was familiar to both Catholic and Lutheran Germany. It was part of the Joseph Göbbels' propaganda to create a sense of Nazi mythology which ultimately would remove, cannibalize, and replace Christendom.

Richard David Ramsey 04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct translation for empire is Kaiserreich, which would be translated back literally as Emporer's Realm. The exact translation would depend of the usage of Reich, but I like realm as well (doesn't really suit this article though). TINYMARK 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reich" is the correct word here. No matter how funny it might look, this was the word officially used in English for 1919-1945 Germany so looking for a translation is both unnecessary and original research. See German Reich for further information. - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 52 Pickup concerning this point. The term "Reich" has, in my opinion, entered into common usage in the English language; witness the many mentions of "Third Reich", for example, in English-language books, movies, etc., without any attempt to translate "Reich". For the purpose of this and similar articles, I think it's best not to attempt to translate "Reich" into English; instead, leave it as it is and refer the reader to another article (for example, Reich) for a thorough discussion of its meaning in English. (See also talk:Deutsche Reichsbahn (East Germany).--Cvieg (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The word was used officially in English from 1919 to 1945 - even predating the term "Third Reich" - and the distinction between "Reich" and "Empire" was made perfectly clear during the Nuremberg trials - as discussed in the German Reich article. When dealing with translations of names, you must go with what was used at the time. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Consistency is important, the German Empire page describes "reich" as empire, German Wikipedia pages for other states which are called empires are called "reich". While in the past I thought that "realm" was the best and most universal term for reich, I have conceeded that in regard to states, it is usually meant to describe an empire, the Weimar Republic's use is the only exception. We should have "reich" translated. The term Third Reich can remain as they are common English phrases for the state but just look at the meaning of Drittes Reich for the Nazis, "Third Empire" is the accurate depiction of Hitler's view of his regime and predacessor empires, he viewed the first German empire as Germany under Frederick the Great, the second empire was under the Hohenzollern dynasty from 1871 to 1918, and Hitler viewed his regime as the third empire. Drittes Reich is meant to show that three German empires existed. Now some will ask why consistency is important, the answer is that in the past the English language has defined other names of states differently in the past, such as Serbia which for many years was called "Servia" by English sources, now no sources describe states like the "Kingdom of Serbia" as the "Kingdom of Servia". There are plenty of old sources calling Serbia "Servia", but they are outdated. The Nuremberg Trials used the word "reich" but they also used "Fuhrer" rather than translating it to "Leader". My point is that yes Reich was used by English to describe the state, just as they used "Fuhrer" to describe Hitler's position, but the matter is that we are showing a translation, not common use of terms. For example it is fine for Wikipedia to refer to Hitler as the Fuhrer in order to avoid confusion with the term "Leader" and "Third Reich" to avoid confusion with another "third empire", but when it comes down to translating a term, like Reich, common use of Reich over empire is not relevant, it's literal definition, taking into account its use in "Drittes Reich", is what is being asked for, and that definition is empire. The idea that we must follow old sources for the name is ridiculous, as I've mentioned, Wikipedia may have to call the Kingdom of Serbia in the 1800s the Kingdom of Servia. The issue of the translation of the word reich is an issue only for the Weimar Republic (which probably just didn't bother changing the name), but it is not an issue for Nazi Germany which used the word reich as empire, as demonstrated by my explanation of Drittes Reich.--R-41 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did suggest "National Socialist Germany" some time ago, to avoid using a pejorative slang in an encyclopedia article title. Especially when this one refers to a whole country (and its people, indirectly). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the issue at hand, the issue is the translation of reich in the infobox. As of now it is translated as empire, but I am aware that some people are uncertain, indeed I was uncertain in the past and believed that realm was the best translation, however reich's use to describe empires in German is common and the use of reich by the Nazi regime was meant to describe an empire. Drittes Reich demonstrates this use as referring to an empire.--R-41 (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand R-41's claim that literal translation is a necessity. Sometimes one translates literally, sometimes not. "Servia" is translated "Serbia" because that is the common English term. "Kindergarten" is "Kindergarten" in English, with no literal translation. Ditto for "Reich." It has been absorbed into English as the word for the Third Reich. If R-41 could find much usage to support his case (e.g., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Empire"), the case would be slightly stronger. As it is, we should stick to the common English form. Bytwerk (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have to explain every word, i.e. common terms are fine for refering to things on Wikipedia, but the translation section in the inbox is not asking for common usage, but for a literal translation. What is common knowledge in German is that reich is used in German to describe many states that are officially called empires in English. I.e. the Holy Roman Empire in German is Heiliges Romanische Reich I believe. It should be noted that Reich has a number of different meanings, but with the Nazis' use of Drittes Reich, it is refering to Nazi Germany being the "third empire", the 1st was the Holy Roman Empire under Frederick the Great, and the second was Germany under the Hohenzollern. Let me make myself absolutely clear, aside from translation sections of the infobox and other sections of articles asking for literal translations of words it is fine for Wikipedia to refer to the state the Third Reich, because constantly using terms like "third empire" can be confusing, while "Third Reich" refers directly to the Nazi Germany regime. In the case of the article "Kindergarten" as mentioned above, a literal translation is only needed if it is asked for, and aside from that, the common term should be used.--R-41 (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Section

A whole section was removed with the reason "Section unreferenced since August suffices for deletion." There are other sections in this article that have been unreferenced since August also, Nuremberg Trials and Organization of the Third Reich. Should we completely remove these sections also? Jons63 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well those sections should be removed as well. I don't have the time right now but it shouldn't be hard to find references for them. I'd have thought that the original contibutor would like to see his efforts remain and take the time to cite references. Actually five months is a long time to wait before deleting uncited information. It usually is done after about four weeks! TINYMARK 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statements

I'm referring to the following statement in the introduction: "After the annexation of Austria in 1938, Nazi Germany became the first united German state since the Holy Roman Empire to include Austria within its boundaries." From reading Holy Roman Empire I understand that this wasn't a purely German state, but included several, ethnically diverse territories. Furthermore, I doubt whether the Holy Roman Empire could be called a state in the modern sense of the term. It was more like a union of various states (see List of states in the Holy Roman Empire), sometimes even at war with each other (see Silesian Wars and War of the Austrian Succession). Basically, Austria wasn't in the boundaries of any other state, but was a sovereign state ruled by the Habsburgs, and belonging to the Holy Roman Empire (just like Austria is now part of the European Union).
Another statement I'd refer to as questionable is the following: "In 1938, an Austrian-led Nazi coup took place in Austria and Germany sent in its troops, annexing the country." This seems to me to somehow contort or at least heavily abridge what is said in Anschluss. There obviously was no coup but strong political and military pressure coming from Nazi Germany, Hermann Göring in particular, on the Austrian government of chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg in order to prevent them from holding a referendum. The pressure led to a change in government which now was manned with members of the Austrian Nazi party as well as political right-wingers, but with Austrian President Wilhelm Miklas still in power. Miklas stepped back only after German troops had already entered the country, handing his power over to chancellor Arthur Seyß-Inquart.
Any suggestions on what changes could be made to improve the aforementioned statements? --Catgut (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

unemployment and source

Unemployment rates didn't count women or non-citizens (including Jews) into their figures. I added that to the article in the economy section. I can't add the source though. Here is the source. Please add it for me. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazis_and_the_german_economy.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.175.200 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Preceeding and succeeding flags

User:Supertask has been removing preceding and succeeding flags in the template. I cant really comment on that since I dont know what the consensus is for criteria for such flags, in this article or in general.

However, It struck me that one, and possibly 2, flags are missing either way. Most definitively the Flag of the Saar (protectorate) which was nominally democratic and independent 1947 - 1957 (Although in reality politically controlled by a French High Commissioner, and economically integrated into France). A possibility is to add the Flag of the Kaliningrad Oblast, if people object to seing the Soviet Union flag as a successor to Germany just because the rest of the Allies agreed to allow their Russian Ally (contrary to the "Atlantic charter" and other bogus publications) annex part of East Prussia around the city of Königsberg. Okay, Kaliningrad only has a regional Flag, not a national Flag, but then its legal status is still not very clear[10][11]--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Change in the introduction template

Nazi Germany is not only existing during the interwar period, but also during the Second World War. -Pika ten10 (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a vote on Reich/Empire

R-41 is assuming that the "literal" translation of "Reich" is "Empire." It isn't. Richard J. Evans, in a recent book, discusses this very issue. He says that he translates all German terms, save three:

"The first is 'Reich,' which, as Chapter 1 explains, had particular, untranslatable resonances in German far beyond its English equivalent of 'empire'.... This is a word which ought be be familiar to every English-speaking reader, and it would be artificial to speak, for example of the 'Third Empire' instead of the 'Third Reich'.... (p. xxxi).

I challenge R-41 to find major scholars who agree with him that "Reich" should be translated "Empire" within the Nazi context.

If one of my students used the term "Third Empire," I'd immediately assume she had depended on Wikipedia, which I tell students is a good place to begin, but a bad source to cite (for exactly this kind of reason).

Well, since this discussion has gone on for some time, how about trying the traditional Wiki vote. Please vote whether you prefer "Reich" or Empire. Bytwerk (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To counter the points made above, I note that the Byzantine Empire article on German Wikipedia named Byzantinisches Reich uses reich to describe empire[12], the Roman Empire article on German Wikipedia is named Römisches Reich,[13] the Holy Roman Empire article on German Wikipedia is named Heiliges Römisches Reich,[14] the Russian Empire article on German Wikipedia is named Russisches Reich,[15] and the Ottoman Empire article on German Wikipedia is named Osmanisches Reich.[16] All of these examples use reich to describe empires.--R-41 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore as of the request of Bytwerk, I have found sources which use "empire" instead of reich" to describe the translation of the German name of the Nazi state, there are multiple authors who use "Greater German Empire". The translation of the book Das dritte Reich made by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (who coined the term Drittes Reich ) into its first English copy in 1934 was titled "Germany's third empire".[17] The memoirs in English of Karl Donitz, the commander of the German Navy in World War II say "Greater German Empire" rather than "Greater German Reich".[18], "Greater German Empire" is used in the book Economic Transformations in East and Central Europe: Legacies from the Past by an economist named David F. Good.[19]. "Greater German Empire" is used in Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship written by Brigitte Hamann and Thomas Thornton.[20] There are book titles which use the common phrase "Third Reich" but also use "Greater German Empire" such as in The Third Reich: The Essential Readings By Christian Leitz and Harold James;[21]. These show the point that Bytwerk contested, and that is that reich IS translated into empire by a number of sources when referring to the Nazi use of the German word reich.--R-41 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reich, per Bytwerk. "Empire" sounds wrong.
  • I'd like to add that I do not necessarily support the move to "Third Reich", I would ideally support the "National Socialist Germany" variant, or "Greater German Reich", as the last official name of the state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reich we have been here time and time again - Reich is what English sources call the structure of that period. Agathoclea (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Empire the Nazis use of reich (which does have many meanings) is used to describe an empire, such as the Nazis' use of Drittes Reich which is literally "third empire", the other two empires that preceded it were the Holy Roman Empire under Frederick the Great and the German Empire under the Hohenzollern dynasty. It is common knowledge that German wikipedia uses Reich to describe a number of empires, such as the Holy Roman Empire (Heiliges Römisches Reich) which is directly translated from the latin version, Sacrum Romanum Imperium, which in English is translated as Holy Roman Empire.[22]. The Ottoman Empire on German Wikipedia is translated as Osmanisches Reich [23]. The Byzantine Empire on German Wikipedia is translated as Byzantinisches Reich.[24]. These demonstrate that reich is commonly used to describe empires. It is fine to use reich outside the translation section of the infobox to refer to Germany under Hitler as the "Third Reich" as it is a common term to describe it, but the translation section of the infobox should not be left with an incomplete translation, the translation section is not asking for common terms, it is asking for a literal translation which should be applied.--R-41 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reich. I suppose I should vote myself. Bytwerk (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reich. There are many examples of words we don't translate because they have particular resonances, such as Führer, Einsatzgruppen, Stalag, Blitzkrieg or even Stasi (Ministry for State Security, anyone?), Soviet (Workers council, anyone?), Gulag (Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies!). Camillus 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)