Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 1
focus
This article should focus more on the 1930’s and Nazi domestic policy during the WWII. --GeneralPatton 21:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly agree Sam [Spade] 22:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I suggest starting with the chapters on the end of the Weinmar Republic and Gleichschaltung. The previous form of the article was plainly wrong, it focused 80% on world war II military history, and the rest where just links, but the links ought to be integrated with the text and chapters expanded with “see alsos” linking to articles that further elaborate on the topics. --GeneralPatton 23:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This article should primarily deal with the political history of the Nazi regime, the German military history of WWII being dealt on a page of its own. Most of the Gleichschaltung article should also be moved here.--GeneralPatton 08:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I suggest starting with the chapters on the end of the Weinmar Republic and Gleichschaltung. The previous form of the article was plainly wrong, it focused 80% on world war II military history, and the rest where just links, but the links ought to be integrated with the text and chapters expanded with “see alsos” linking to articles that further elaborate on the topics. --GeneralPatton 23:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And here's something for understanding the economy, another important chapter left out.
[1] [2] --GeneralPatton 12:00, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
civilian deaths
2004-01-09: "This persecution reached a peak in the last years of the regime, in which some 6 million Jews, *10 million Slavs*, and sundry others, were systematically killed. This genocide is referred to as the Holocaust..."
The article about the holocaust talks about "3.5–6 million Slavic civilians". Quite a difference. Someone with more expertise should try to clarify this...
There where far more than 10 million civilian casualties in the former Soviet Union (Slavs), the number is actually around 20 million, that died from starvation, disease, and maltreatment.
Combine that with about 10 million deaths in the Red Army, and you get to the staggering number of about 30 million dead, the reason why the WW2 is still quite remembered there.
--GeneralPatton 05:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
linguistics
Notes by LA2: While holocaust as a phenomenon is certainly associated with Nazi Germany, this particular term is not a German word. On the other hand, there are other German non-Nazi words that are used in English language, and it could be worth while to explain them. Should this be done from a separate page? I'm thinking of angst (anxiety, feeling of despair) and schadenfreude (the joy over the failure of others). Then we have classes of loan words from other languages like ombudsman (a proxy official, from Swedish), and smorgasbord (an all-you-can-eat buffet of mostly cold dishes, also from Swedish).
By SoniC: I don't know if it makes sense to try and tell where all those different words came from. I mean, half of all English words are derived from Latin, French, even from Chinese (ketchup, for example) or Indian (shampoo, AFAIK). This is a science in and by itself. Maybe someone with far to much time on their hands can do such a page in the Linguistics section, but if you start something like that, you will end up having a complete dictionnary.
I propose to use this particular page for terms that are really related to Nazi Germany, i.e. terms you will find when reading reports, literature or whatever about the Third Reich. These can be German terms now also used in English or other terms used in the Nazi context.
But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It isn't a style guide, it isn't a collection of foreign borrowings, etc., etc. It is an encyclopedia. Of course, very many words borrowed from foreign languages are also names of topics about which enyclopedias might well want to have articles--e.g., schadenfreude might include not just a definition of the term but what some psychologists have to say about it (I don't know what psychologists do have to say about it, if anything, though). --LMS
2002-04-29: For the record, that page exists: List of German expressions in common English. I have added a link. I have also taken out
- U-Boot -- (Unterseeboot) the infamous German submarines (Note that this word has been used since before World War I to the present day to refer to all submarines -- it has no unique connection to the Nazis. It is also unclear why German submarines are more "infamous" than the American submarines that were far more successful -- ie, deadly)
-- djmutex
england declared war? eastern armies?
Note two things: In the East there are mentioned Red army and Polish army, which, because i am Pole, suits me well, but there wer also other armies in the east, although much much smaller. Second, i thought that it was England who declared war on Germany, not the opposite? szopen
english spelling
Note to whomever corrected the spelling of "organisation" to "organization", both British and American spellings are acceptable on Wikipedia. Gratutitous edits to change from one to the other are unnecessary, unless the spelling changes in an annoying manner within the one article --Robert Merkel
wwII history
This should be an important article, but it has ended up being a brief history of World War 2, much of it not even about German involvement (e.g. North Africa). Shouldn't the pre-war years get at least as much space? DJ Clayworth 14:16, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Sure why not write it up? I just saw Germany declared war on the United Kingdom and thought I must correct it aspart of a consise history of the War without missing anything important. It ended up being longer than I expected and I know it unbalances the article. With regard to North Africa, I thought it important to explain what the Germans were doing there in the first place. It is important because North Africa and Greece ended up taking resources and time from the invasion of the USSR and also allowed for the Invasion of Sicily and Italy. BTW I think there should be a merge between this article and Third Reich Mintguy 14:26, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Love to, but it will have to wait behind the dozens of other things I'd like to do. Maybe sometime. DJ Clayworth 14:31, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Panzer tanks
Panzer is just the German work for tank (armour) and is still used today. I don't think it is particularly associated with Nazis. DJ Clayworth 14:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Book of Odin
Removed Book of Odin reference and Norway Adam and Eve. Did Google search on "Book of Odin" AND "Nazi" and got nothing. Need references.Ark30inf 04:53, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Pre-WWII history
Dear ohh dear. This article needs some serious work on pre-WWII. I've just remove a couple of recently contributed paragraphs that contained some classic ill-informed nonsense that Duffy would have blown his top at. I'm going to put this in Bad Jokes etc.. e.g.
- Hitler "reannexxed" Austria in ?1938? in a military action he called "Liberstruam"(Living Room in german).Although it was essentially without any fatalities, it was in clear violation of the Versialle Treaty and Austrian right to self determination. England and the U.S.A. decided to negotiate with and finally appease Hitler through a English diplomat named Neville Chamberland.
- Unfortunately I don't have time to sort this out myself right now.Mintguy 09:16, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wilhelm Grimm must be a mistake of some sort, as he died well before the NSDAP even existed. Kent Wang 11:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OLD TALK From Third Reich
"Third empire"?? Shouldn't we delete this? Führer, dictator, Reichskanzler yes, but Emperor? --KF 23:40 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
"Third Reich" is the usual way of referring to it in English, and yes, Reich does mean empire in one sense, but the article isn't referring to Hitler as an emperor. The word has some implications about referring to "the state", anyway -- even the communists called the East German Railways the Deutsche Reichsbahn. -- Arwel 23:47 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at. Empire is Kaiserreich, not just any Reich. --KF 23:56 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
- In German, Reich has more connotations than a territory being ruled by an Emperor. It has a strong mythological background and is really not translatable to English; the Reich page therefore correctly mentions that the term is used in the German Lord's prayer (and throughout the Bible also) in a very transcendental meaning. See my new entry on Holy Roman Empire also. It is exactly this fuzzy warm feeling that the Nazis exploited with the creation of the expression Drittes Reich. -- djmutex 2003-04-30
- What are you both talking about here? I've never doubted any of it (except maybe the statement that it was the Nazis who created the term Third Reich). All I'm wondering about is why anyone would want to translate Third Reich with "third empire". I'd just delete the latter -- ersatzlos. --KF 00:12 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
- Done. :-) I wasn't quite aware that we agreed. djmutex 2003-05-01
Is the German Eagle useful ? Ericd 18:32, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful with a caption indicating that it was an attempt to symbolize unification of Germany and Nazi Party. Just sitting there by itself it looks a little propaganda-ish. Ark30inf 18:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- This is propaganda-ish. Have a look at Wolfram's contributions. Ericd 18:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Yuk. I see what you mean. I think the image can be saved if it is put in the proper context of a propagandistic image by associated text. Its an attempt to merge traditional German concepts together with Nazi Party concepts and to associate the two, which is a concept touched on briefly in the article. It might also be moved farther down in the text to de-emphasize it if this is done.Ark30inf 18:52, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- This is propaganda-ish. Have a look at Wolfram's contributions. Ericd 18:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sources made available after the collapse of the Soviet Union reveals the Kremlin strategy to provoke Europe's capitalist powers into war against each other to facilitate Communist revolutions by their war-ravaged proletarians.
- I'd like to see sources for this statement and exactly how the Soviet Union provoked (or planned to provoke) the western powers into going into war. If nothing is forthcoming I'll remove it. Mintguy (T) 10:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Term "Third Reich"
There was no "Third Reich" de jure, the Weimar Republic's constitution from 1919 was valid until end of war 1945 (Well, mostly.) But the official name of the state was always "Deutsches Reich". "Third Reich" was invented by author Arthur Moeller van der Bruck in his book "Das Dritte Reich" in 1923. However, the term was officially banned since 1939.
Third paragraph should make clear "Third Reich" was just a nickname.
- Some references:
- Name of Reich: Wilhelm I of Germany: ...the North German Confederation (1867-1871) was transformed into the German Empire ("Deutsches Reich", 1871-1945)...
- Reich: ...Later, Deutsches Reich was the official name of Germany from 1871 to 1945...
- Term "Das Dritte Reich" was banned "Im Juli1939 verbot das Propagandaministerium die weitere Verwendung des Begriffes "Drittes Reich" [6] also [7]
- Mikko Paananen 17:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Socialist in name only
This is POV. The reader can decide for themselves what they want to define as socialism, its a subjective term with a flexable definition. The Nazi's called themselves socialist, and thats a counter opinion, enough to give it a neutral stance in this article. Please keep your opinions in thye talk pages, and out of the article name space. Sam [Spade] 02:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, no, the Nazi most definitely didn't call themselves Socialists but National Socialists, which they considered to be quite something else than Communism and Social Democracy (which is what generally is understood by the term Socialism). The idea that the Nazis were or are somehow Socialist is a misunderstanding. There must be limits to Wikipedia's reluctance to differentiate truths and facts from misconceptions and propaganda. --Johan Magnus 10:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Your 1/2 right (almost exactly ;)
- No, no, the Nazi most definitely didn't call themselves Socialists but National Socialists, which they considered to be quite something else than Communism and Social Democracy
- That is correct.
- (which is what generally is understood by the term Socialism). The idea that the Nazis were or are somehow Socialist is a misunderstanding. There must be limits to Wikipedia's reluctance to differentiate truths and facts from misconceptions and propaganda.
- That is not correct. The limits are based on facts, cite's, and verifiable expert sources, not editorial POV. Sam [Spade] 15:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There has been rather extensive debates on other talk pages on this issue. I wonder if maybe Sam Spade was a participant also of this debates, and if he could sumarize those?
--Ruhrjung 18:58, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
- There has been rather extensive debates on other talk pages on this issue. I wonder if maybe Sam Spade was a participant also of this debates, and if he could sumarize those?