Jump to content

Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Archive
Archives
Archive 1, May 2001 – April 2006
Archive 2, April 2006 – December 2006
Archive 3, December 2006 – October 2009


von Papen

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)

Tone

I think several people have commented on this in various ways. Those people have been too specific. The tone of this article is ridiculous. It sounds like it was written by an enthusiastic fourteen year-old or a narrator on the history channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.229.59 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the Maps Show South Tyrol incorporation

South Tyrol was incorporated into DR in 1943, so both posted "1943" maps are obviously from an earlier time in 1943. The third map (the middle map), "German and Axis allies' conquests (in blue) in Europe during World War II" is of course more generalized.

Neither of the Maps Show South Tyrol incorporation

South Tyrol was incorporated into DR in 1943, so both posted "1943" maps are obviously from an earlier time in 1943. The third map (the middle map), "German and Axis allies' conquests (in blue) in Europe during World War II" is of course more generalized. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANRC (talk • contribs) 22:36, 31 July 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)

I actually had this topic today in my German lesson (im a German). People just didn't think what comes after the Third Reich because they would never experience the end. But he meant what he said. There are a lot of Nazi Speach examples i could give you but I don't have time atm. As a matter of fact they always used the superlative, "1000-jähriges Reich" is just one example. ;) --5ink4r (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (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 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 citation: ""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)

The original ideals of Nazism was not a Republic but a socialist society (read the translation) --Drag-the-waters (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's really tough to take the claim at the end of the first paragraph that Germany "ceased to exist". Maybe it would be better to say that Nazi Germany or the Greater German Empire or Reich ceased to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.93.188 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2009 (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

Hell they even made the first UFO --Drag-the-waters (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

Health

I tried to add more balance on the anti-smoking campaign issue but somebody removed my entry. The anti-smoking entry is fairly accurate but extremely one-sided. Just about every World War II photo of Nazi soldiers shows them smoking, and every combat memoir mentions the importance of stealing away time to have one more cigarette. This, however, would be considered original research, which nobody has done. Proctor's book just talks about the peace-time anti-smoking campaign, which was a sham anyway because people did not actually stop buying or smoking cigarettes. 141.155.156.126 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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).

Nah, it's totally not important. You didn't think of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.93.188 (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2009 (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)
Yeah, the motto definitely needs better translation. I think we need to concentrate on capturing its meaning rather than on closest, most correct word for word translation. How about:
"Country" still doesn't do it. Currently, it links to the article on "Reich," which is probably the best way to deal with it. Bytwerk (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reich means Empire. But in most cases it's not even translated. Does it even nead a translation? I think English speaking people understand each of these words or do at least know what it could be. I don't know why this would be THE nazi motto, there were certainly several... I'd suggest to delete this--MacX85 (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Said there were three real "Reichs", or empires: 1-the Roman Empire; 2-the Nationalist Empire under Otto von Bismarck; 3- His Nazi Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drag-the-waters (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 February 2009 (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)

This really ought to go without saying, but could we please leave the translation of this German word to people who ACTUALLY SPEAK GERMAN? Reich means "Empire". Period. Case closed. Not country (German "Land"). Not kingdom (German "Königreich"). Not nation (German "Nation"). Not realm (German "Bereich", "Gebiet"). Not state (German "Staat"). These words are NOT interchangeable (in English OR in German). In virtually every single historical context, "Reich" is used in German where "empire" is used in English and has been for centuries: the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the German Empire (the one founded in 1871), the Holy Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, etcetera, etcetera. The meaning and correct translation of cognates in other Germanic languages such as Swedish or Dutch are irrelevant, since these words do not necessarily have the same meaning. An empire most certainly does not have to be led by an emperor (in those cases where an emperor is in fact the leader of an empire, the German word "Kaiserreich" is often -- though by no means always -- used as an alternative). As far as this page is concerned, if there is a general consensus that "Empire" might be misleading to English readers in reference to Nazi Germany, then simply leave it as "Reich" in English. There are established precedents for doing so. (I'm a professor of German language and literature and teach a course in German-English translation at a university.) Mardiste (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I basically agree with Mardiste, I don't think the equation Reich = Empire is quite that simple. For example, the official name of Germany during the Weimar era remained "Deutsches Reich," although I don't think many would think that "empire" would be the appropriate translation under those circumstances. As Mardiste suggests, "Reich" has pretty much been incorporated into English, and can safely be left untranslated. Bytwerk (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Hitler meant Empire as he himself said that his would be the third Reich after the Holy Roman Empire (which was seen as the first Reich) and the second Reich of the two Kaiser Wilhelm's which was the German Empire. ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (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)

Reich does not derrive from latin. It's a Germanic or Old High German word. It basically means any greater governed region. The term Deutsches Reich derrived from the Holy Roman Empire (Heiliges Römisches Reich (Deutscher Nation)). It does not necessarily mean Kingdom or Empire. To translate Reich with Nation is just plain wrong. Nation is also Nation in German.--MacX85 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 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.

72.82.182.216 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)And at one time the Russians were allied with Nazi Germany and complicit in starting the war vis-a-vis the invasion of Poland by those two states. But, more to the point, having a common enemy need not make two states allies. Further, although Finland fought against USSR, it also did so because of USSR's illegal and unwarranted attack on Finland. To further muddy up the waters, Finland later fought Germany in Northern Finland. So there is really no way to make this war "simple" or into a simple 2-sided conflict.

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)


You have a point in that latter part, where you quote, verbatim, the part that used to be in the article. Yes, this part that used to be in the article is certainly not NPOV. On the other hand, your point about "humiliated" is completely invalid.
Humiliated describes its affect on the German population, it does not say that this is what the goal of the Versailles Treaty was supposed to be, regardless as to whether it was or not. To say that the Germans were humiliated, my friend, IS neutrality. What is not neutral, ironically, is what you use to defend your argument: that it was not Germany's territory for as long as it was x's or y's, that Germany had just taken this or that, that the Germans had caused war damages, etc. You are trying to justify the Versailles Treaty, which sends up a BIG red flag that your edits are not NPOV at all. I know the above section no longer exists how it appears here, but I thought I would write this anyway, perhaps in the hopes that you would one day read it.--Npovshark (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (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:

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.

It is quite easy to understand if you understand a little of German history. Literally Reich is translated as empire which also implicates that it is -or used to be led- by an emperor. The "Holy Roman Empire" or "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation" was originally considered a direct successor to the Roman Empire, beginning with the coronation of the Carolingian kings as emperors by the pope (i.e. Charlemagne, etc.). It consisted of big parts of France, Germany and Northern Italy until the 9th century when for dynastical reasons France was split off. In medieval times the succession to the Roman empire was taken quite literally, especially since the German emperor was the only emperor in Europe appointed directly by the pope. So it is correct to presume that "Reich" meant in fact an empire led by an emperor ("Kaiser"). As you know the Holy Roman Empire fell into massive decline through the thirty years war and was abolished by Napoleon in 1806. With the founding of the German nation state in 1871 and the appointment of Wilhelm I. as emperor the name "Deutsches Reich" was officially adapted with a clear view to a succession to the Holy Roman Empire. In contrast to "Deutschland" the name "Deutsches Reich" also encompassed regions which were not predominantly populated by German(as in Deutschland)like Silesia, Alsace-Lorraine, etc. The "Deutsches Reich" finished officially in 1918 with the abdication of the Kaiser and was succeded by the Weimar Republic. In 1933 Hitler changed the name again back to "Deutsches Reich" and reintroduced the German Reichsflagge which had been the national colours till 1918 and loads of other symbolry from these times (e.g. death-head signature, etc.). By doing this Hitler wanted to revive the traditions of the time between 1871-1918 and at the same time make a clear cut with the unloved Weimar Republic which he and the Nazis disdained. Therefore he referred to the German state between 1933-1945 as "Third Reich" after the Holy German Empire and the Kaiserreich. Insofar it has to be said that the historical meaning of the German term "Reich" had changed considerably over the centuries even in the German language, so it is better left untranslated or it must be explained. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.43.197 (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)
For correctness I would also recommend changing the name of the article to "Deutsches Reich" or something like that because that was the actual name of the country. Although the rule of the NSDAP brought many changes with itself they didn't change the name until 1943 when they started using the term "Grossdeutsches Reich". Regardless of that I can see why the title "Nazi-Germany" makes sense. If you would change the title to "Deutsches Reich" you basically would have to create another entry for "Grossdeutsches Reich" for reasons of accuracy. So using the colloquial term of "Nazi Germany" is fine with me in the end afterall. The most important thing is that it's explained in the article which it obviously is. So in my opinion everything is fine!

Xc!te (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Other implications of title

There is a problem with the title that may not be apparant to everyone right off the bat: it is used as rationale for promulgating the term Nazi Germany in place of Germany for all references to Germany during 1933-1945. For example, many feel compelled to replace the flag icon  Germany with  Nazi Germany, while I have in the past been even attacked for 'forgetting' to put Nazi before Germany when writing on WWII topics. Now I could care less about the whole POV argument above. Personnally I think you could claim it POV either way...on one hand it is a visceral term applied to a country despite that country not calling itself that...on the other, by calling it such, it can be claimed to be a crutch for 'national amnesia', permitting modern Germans to see that period of their history as if it were really a completely different nation. Either way, I could really care less. I'm just concerned with how to address it in the myriad other articles and categories that refer to the country. The problem I have with Nazi Germany is that it is neither the official name of the country, nor a conventional short form name adopted by it. It was a name applied to it by its enemies to amplify the point that it was a nazi regime. Is the appropriate name for the USA in Russian "Capitalist Pig America", even if such a term had become more or less the common way for Russians to refer to the US during the Cold War? I don't think so. However, to pose more down-to-earth practical questions:

  1. Should all links to this article be written as Nazi Germany, or is it okay to just use Germany?
  2. Should all flag icons ( Germany) be replaced with Nazi flag icons ( Nazi Germany)?
  3. Should all references to Germany 1933-1945 be changed from saying Germany to Nazi Germany?
  4. Do categories need to be renamed? For example, does Category:World War II artillery of Germany need to be renamed to Category:World War II artillery of Nazi Germany?
  5. Should there be a seperate category tree for 'Nazi Germany' topics (under topics categorized by country) distinct from the normal existing tree for 'Germany', as 'People's Republic of China' is distinct from 'China', and 'Soviet Union' is distinct from 'Russia'?

I don't necessarily want to challenge the naming of this article, but I do seek to better understand how much work this should cause for the rest of us so we can be consistent. Thank you for the advice. Josh (talk) 07:04, 18 October 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)
GD was at "border" peak sometime in 1943 when it annexed large parts of Northern Italy. Maybe the status was "semi-annexed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2009 (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)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it Great Britain because it is all of Britain meaning the British isles as a whole? It's the same with Germany: Großdeutschland means all of Germany (all German speaking states of the former HRE). I don't get the comparative degree on this matter.--MacX85 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2008 (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)

Here's another way to think of such matters: There were many contradictions in the human construct, "Nazi Germany, its Culture & its Philosophy". They succeeded in creating a bureaucratic miasma in which many parts worked at cross purposes with many other parts (& very few authoritarians to attempt to sort things out -- all seemed interested in protecting their specific vested interests). There were many war time expediencies in culture & philosophy. Their resolution was likely envisioned for some distant future pie-in-the-sky time that was generally accepted as being beyond the normal life expectancy of the movers and shakers involved. So, for many matters (not all of course), the resolution of many issues was philosophically kicked down the road for maybe the "second generation to come" to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 06:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Slavs were in the Waffen SS in considerable numbers, but of course the argument could be made that they too were just being "used". Other slavs in other places were persecuted by the Nazis, subject to wholsesale killings, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2008 (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)

"I fancy a nice glass of scotch." - Will Farrell, Anchorman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.237.242 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2009 (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)

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)
"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)
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)

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.
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 - 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)

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)
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)
Well, a few more voters would be nice, but given both the 4-1 here and the other discussions in the archives, it's clear that "Reich" has the strong support of those interested. I'll make the changes. Bytwerk (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reich. I agree that the word Reich has a unique resonance, and is the clearest way to refer to it. I do agree that 'Empire' is probably the best English equivalent, if one was to pick one word to fit, and it is fair to explain such in the text. However, I would think that Reich is well-known and understood enough that it need not be substituted with 'empire'. Josh (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reich. Reich is untranslatable in English, simple as that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

infobox POV??

The infobox lists the government as "dictatorship".

Is this POV? Wasn't the government elected? An elected government is not necessarily a good government and can commit war crimes. So "democracy". This doesn't seem right because our own POV equates democracy with good. Perhaps, some democratically elected governments are bad?

What if a democratically elected government suspends elections. Then is it a dictatorship? The elections in New York were suspended after September 11th, so is New York a dictatorship? (I don't think it is).

How about a military government? Hitler wore uniforms a lot and directed the military.

In conclusion, I lean toward changing "dictatorship" to "military government" or "elected military government", "military government, elected status in dispute", "democracy/dictatorship", or "republic transformed into dictatorship". JerryVanF (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe a one party sate might be good. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a one-party state for certain, that is why it is commonly called Nazi Germany, so "one-party-state" should definately be in the infobox. But it can be said that it was a dictatorship after Hitler had himself proclaimed Fuhrer in 1934 after President Paul von Hindenburg died. You can't compare a temprorary delay of elections in the United States to a 12 year un-elected reign of a government which banned opposition parties and demanded complete obedience to its leader, the Fuhrer. The Nazis were never officially elected as the government, they held a plurality of seats in the Reichstag in 1933, but not a majority, they required a coalition in order to govern. They initially did with the German National People's Party and another party. However after the Reichstag Fire, Hitler convinced President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers, with those powers he banned all other parties except the Nazis. It was not a military government because the armed forces were not in official control of the government, Hitler used his personal security force, the SS, to protect him from a coup, especially from the army which had shown dissatisfaction with his government in 1933 as the army despised the other Nazi paramilitary group, the SA. Hitler did execute leaders of the SA that the army opposed, but the SS insured that no takeover by the army would happen. Elements of the army tried to overthrow Hitler in 1944 to establish such a military government, but this failed and army leaders found to be responsible or suspected were executed by the Gestapo and SS. Initially the government was led by a coalition, Hindenburg and nationalist leaders like von Papen were influential. After 1934, Hitler made himself Fuhrer, giving him supreme executive power and ability to influence all aspects of government, loyalty to him was required. It was a dictatorship in that Hitler could override all decisions by other government officials. This is different than any executive veto power, in comparison, the U.S. President has veto powers, but the President can be forced to change a policy or action by a congressional subpoena. The Fuhrer had no legislative oversight of any means, the Reichstag ceased to exist early in his rule. In 1945, Hermann Goering attempted to succeed Hitler as the Fuhrer when outward communications from Berlin were cut off. Goering claimed that he would take over as Fuhrer if a response was not given within a certain period of time. Hitler did not accept this and took this as an act of treason against him and ordered Goering's arrest. In summary, it was for certain a one-party-state, a dictatorship after 1934, but it was not a military government even though Hitler and other Nazis wore uniforms, as the military had to serve the interests of the regime which were Nazi party objectives, rather than the other way around.--R-41 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

P/S

Any reason why the preceding/succeeding flags aren't showing up in the template? They seem to be coded correctly. --Kevin W. 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? --Kevin W. 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Promiscuity and Jewish laborers

Promiscuity increased greatly as the war progressed, with unmarried soldiers often involved intimately with several women simultaneously.[1] Married women were often involved in multiple affairs simultaneously, with soldiers, civilians or slave labourers, provided that they were not Jewish.[1]

The paragraph above is cited to Perry Biddiscombe. However, I have checked in the source, and it makes no mention of exempting Jews.

This is what Biddiscombe writes:

The wives of married troops were also commonly involved with other soldiers, civilians or slave labourers.7 Some farm wives in Wurttemberg had already begun using sex as a commodity, employing carnal favours as a means of getting a full day's work from foreign labourers.8 German and Austrian soldiers occasionally came home in 1945/46 to find their wives living with other men.9

The Jewish part must therefore be something that someone later has snuck into the article by falsely attributing it to Biddiscombe. I've removed it. --Stor stark7 Speak 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexual relations between Germans and people classified as subhumans by German state were punishable by law. I am surprised you didn't hear about this--Molobo (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While Jews are definitely subhuman under the Nazi Germany regime, that doesn't mean that we can attribute that to random authors. We should find a source for a claim like that before we endorse it or put it in print where someone can find it. Buubuub (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hindenburg in the info box as president

I am trying to remove him, but people all the time insist in undoing my changes. Here's my argument: Hindenburg wasn't the Head of State of Nazi Germany. Hitler was. Hindenburg merely happened to have a term that "invaded" Hitler's until 1934. When he appears in the info box, it seems as if he was a part of the creation of the Nazi state, and its first ruler, when he wasn't. When Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, Hindenburg wasn't Germany's DE FACTO ruler anymore. He was merely a figurehead, waiting to die. He belongs in the Weimar Republic info box, not in Nazi Germany's. Also, Hitler can't be called "president". "Führer" isn't just another title for "president". The "Führer" is a president with far greater dictatorial powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untouchable777 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you are right that Hitler's title was not President. From 1934 to 1945, the titles were "Führer and Reich Chancellor, later just Führer." I've tinkered with the info box a bit, with inelegant results. Perhaps someone has a better idea on how to make that clear.
But second, Hindenburg was President until his death. Furthermore, he was not a mere figurehead. It was he who called the March 1933 election, for example. And a motivation for the Night of the Long Knives was pressure from Hindenburg and the military to do something about the SA. Read the article on Paul von Hindenburg. Bytwerk (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.135.90 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, a blank unsigned comment... Again, if you want to argue that Hindenburg was NOT president of Germany from 1933-1934, you really have to provide a source that agrees with you. Bytwerk (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That unsigned comment was mine. I wrote a big one, but strangely it didn't appear. Anyway. Hindenburg was president of the Weimar Republic. If he had any sort of presidential powers, he would've kept Hitler form acquiring dictatorial ones. I repeat: "When he appears in the info box, it seems as if he was a part of the creation of the Nazi state, and its first ruler, when he wasn't." It's confusing. The box is for the leaders of Nazi Germany. Hindenburg wasn't a leader of the Nazi Germany. He still held the title of President, but wasn't the nation's leader. There's no need to find a source for this. It is a matter of interpreting history in the right way. Since many people read that Hindenburg was President until 1934, they assume he was the nation's leader, when that's not case. It's not as simple as "he was president until his death so he was Nazi Germany's leader". This is an article about the state founded by Hitler, not about the country Hindenburg led. The Weimar Republic ended em 1933. Hindenburg being President was merely a detail. Also, note that I'm not saying that Hindenburg wasn't President from 1933-34. I'm saying that he wasn't the nation's leader. He doesn't belong in the info box as "leader_name1". - Untouchable777

But it is necessary to find a source. Every source I know of (including other Wikipedia articles) has Hindenburg as president. Furthermore, you are simply wrong in saying he was not a leader of Nazi Germany. He appointed Hitler. He had the office. He exercised power. He was not "a detail."
And remember that it was Hindenburg who signed the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler those dictatorial powers. That hardly demonstrated a lack of power.
Also, note that the infobox, as it appears, does not say he is "leader_name1". That is in the coding. It simply announces that he was President of Germany until 1934, which he was. "Interpreting history the right way" won't do, I'm afraid. Bytwerk (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I can continue arguing my point, but it is pointless. So I'll step away. I still don't see Hindenburg as the leader of Germany at that time, though. He was a detail because he was forced by exterior powers to do things, like signing the Enabling Act. He didn't have true power. He was against the Nazi rising, after all, wasn't he? - Untouchable777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untouchable777 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

More the info box

R-41's changes definitely make things clearer. Thanks! The one point I'm dubious about is reverting the top to "Großdeutsches Reich." The problem was that, when Hitler took power in 1933, the official name was "Deutsches Reich." "Großdeutsches Reich" came into use after the incorporation of Austria in 1938, and didn't really become the standard term until 1943. It seems to me that, if there is to be one term used, it ought to be "Deutsches Reich." Bytwerk (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Regions

I don't have time to straighten this out at the moment, but R-41's change suggesting that the Gaue replaced the states is wrong. The Gaue were Nazi Party administrative districts. See the article on Reichsstatthalter. Some, but not all, Gauleiter were also Reichsstatthalter. Bytwerk (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gaue appear to have replaced the states in 1935 as they were designed by the Nazis to do that. Information shows that the states were well in the process of being dismantled in 1934 and then finally dismantled in 1935, when the Nazis transferred their powers to the gaus and ordered a ban on all previous state symbolism. The gaue did not follow the states' boundaries, and in fact often went across state boundaries as of 1933. I.e. the gaue of Magdeberg-Anhalt in the state of Anhalt, the gau of Thuringia in the state of the same name, and gau Wesser-Ems in the state of Oldenburg all crossed into what was Prussian state territory in 1933. The position of Reichsstatthalter is confusing as are other positions in Nazi Germany, as its political system was poorly designed and at times contradictory. Furthermore in Austria the Reichstatthalter were the heads of the gaus set up there, not a unified "Ostmark" as the Nazis commonly called Austria.--R-41 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia and Yugoslavia

Oops, I was wrong in my comment that Slovenia and Yugoslavia had not been part of Germany-- parts were incorporated into Germany during WWII. However, I'm not sure if they should still be included. Otherwise, France should be listed (Alsace-Lorraine was made part of Germany), and a sliver of Belgium was annexed as well. Adding them all clutters the infobox, and probably doesn't provide much useful information. What say others? Bytwerk (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia and Yugoslavia were one country... so really, i don't see how if parts of what is now slovenia were in the Greater German Reich, then Yugoslavia wasn't.--Jakezing (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Nazi Germany solely responsible for causing World War II?

There appears to be a dispute as to whether Nazi Germany was solely responsible for starting World War II. I think this is a generalization. Germany had a major role in escalating tensions with its expansionist territorial aims, it was the reaction by the United Kingdom and France in 1939 to stop this expansion which resulted in a major European conflict. Then the question arises of whether World War II was inevitable with the rise of the Nazis. For me, that could be the case in the long-term reaction to the Nazis' expansionist agenda, but what do others think?--R-41 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, war in Europe was inevitable. Think about Stalin and his military reforms, by 1942 he would have had an army far beyond anything the western powers had. The Western Allies were not appeasing Hitler because of their "niceness", but because their armies were almost completely unprepared for war. Had the Nazis somehow not gained power in Germany, World War II would probably be altered in form, but not avoided. Germany was simply the first to get geared up because of the incredibly militant nature of the Nazi Party, so everybody was "appeasing" the country: they needed more time. Stalin needed more time to reform the officer cadre and get the T-34 rolling, and the Allies needed more time to actually build up the equipment for modern mobile warfare (though their tactics were getting modernized equally slowly). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

World War II was inevitable based on Germany's struggle for identity, and the threat of international Communism movements. Germany felt that it had to quickly regain its power in order to hold back what it termed the "Asiatic hordes", meaning the Bolsheviks. Britain, under Churchill, ignored the Soviet threat and concerned itself with containing Germany, which suddenly became very powerful under Germany's new economic policy of self-sufficiency. The U.S. meanwhile, was put on a long march to war, with intense pro-war propaganda in the media. Critics of the war, such as Charles Lindburgh who founded the America First Party, were attacked, threatened, blackmailed, etc. in efforst to try to silence them. Lindburgh's baby was kidnapped and killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.206.51 (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are so many ways to attempt to answer such a generalization. For example, one simplex analysis would mention matters such as the immaturity of the world's economic systems in the early 20th Century, plus the political hold-overs from the 19th Century of "Empires", such as Russian, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, British, etc. If there had been no such empires, and a European Union such as now in existance & a United Nations in, for example, the year 1910, would World War 1 have occurred? Any question of WW2 should be set against the backdrop of such issues as mentioned above, which preceded the 1920s & 1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:EwigerJudeFilm.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

stupid nazi propaganda ???

poland and czechoslovakia never was a part of third reich. map to 1943... hehehe, why isn't it to 1935 or 1945 map? it looks suspiciously... Succeeded by Third Republic of Czechoslovakia, People's Republic of Poland??????? bull... if so. succeeded also by france and by soviet union (eastern part of 1939 poland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.4.47 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

letsw ignore the fool who dosn't know anything about history--Jakezing (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map captioned "Nazi Germany to 1943" is incorrect in that it shows the Oder-Neisse Line, which came about only in 1945, after the defeat and dissolution of Nazi Germany. Sca (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thqats because the blue line is "Present day border" learn to read boy, that shows territorial growth up to 1943--Jakezing (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems to have removed the map in question. Sca (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Action by User:Sunshineofyourlove12 to move article Nazi Germany to Third Reich done with NO support of Wikipedia users

Sunshineofyourlove12 decided on her or his own accord to move the entire article "Nazi Germany" to "Third Reich" with no permission of Wikipedia users and no vote was held. This should be reverted immediately and User:Sunshineofyourlove12 should be advised to not to make such drastic decisions without consulting Wikipedians on the discussion page.--R-41 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox national anthem

It says only the first stanza of the Deutschlandlied was the national anthem plus the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Actually, all of the Deutschlandlied was national anthem and the Horst-Wessel-Lied was not. It was only a common practice to sing the first stanza followed by the Horst-Wessel-Lied.--MacX85 (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate article for Culture of Nazi Germany?

Just a suggestion. What do you think? --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.153.6 (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What happen to French and Dutch colonies during occupation?

If they were attached to France and the Netherlands respectively, doesn't that mean during the occupation they would have become the first Nazi controlled lands in the Americas? If so, that would mean that the Nazis did reach the Americas and a few other areas that France still controlled at the time. CaribDigita (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Not sure about the Caribbean, but many French colonies came under rule of the Vichy regime during the war. --Soman (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
From the Vichy France article: "While the colonies in French Equatorial Africa, namely Chad, French Congo, and eventually Gabon went over to the Free French almost immediately, many remained loyal to Vichy France. In time, the majority of the colonies tended to switch to the Allied side peacefully in response to persuasion and to changing events. But this took time. Guadeloupe and Martinique in the West Indies, as well as French Guiana on the northern coast of South America, did not join the Free French until 1943." --Soman (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Which doesn't mean that these colonies necessarily became 'Nazi controlled'. I think the local French governments were pretty much in control of day-to-day affairs, notably some chose to be loyal to the Free French and others to Vichy. --Soman (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Use term, as used in historical science

The word "Nazi" is slang and part of WW II-propaganda. I suggest to move the article. In de:WP the term is Deutsches Reich (1933-1945) = German Reich 1933-1945. The equivalent to Nazi Germany, Nazi-Deutschland is not of encyclopaedic use, neither in English, nor in German. Presenting colloquial phrases violates the wikipedia-policies. --Cretino (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The term nazi Germany is broadly used by many authors. I furthermore notice this is not your first attempt to force that change without having an agreement on it. --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
So? The point is: that's a shady way of doing encyclopedic work. And nobody is responding to my concerns. It's just been ignored, cause there is no argument to bring up against it. Common and vulgar use is not decisive for an encyclopedia. --Cretino (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess that changes like that show how accurate yand to the point our perception of nazism actually is. --Lebob-BE (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why using the term Third Reich?

This Wikipedia article states the following: "The name Third Reich (Drittes Reich, ‘Third Empire’) invoked a historical reference to the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages and the German Empire, 1871–1918." Without any endnotes. Yet what evidence is there that the National Socialists themselves used the term Third Reich? The term was introduced by such writers like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, but from what I know not by the National Socialists. They even called upon the German media twice to stop using this term. While I fully understand the use of term Third Reich in popular historical writing (due to its common use), I do think Wikipedia should at least give some more background on the accurateness of the term. I hope someone can comment on these thoughts. Thanks, Averroes (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler himself officially proclaimed on September ,1, 1933: „…dass der von ihm geführte Staat ein „Drittes Reich“ sei, das „tausend Jahre“ dauern werde. „(the state, leaded by himself, is a “Third Reich”, that will last “thousand years”). Source: Wolfgang Wippermann: Drittes Reich. In: Wolfgang Benz u.a. (Hrsg.): Enzyklopädie des Nationalsozialismus. 5., aktualisierte und erweiterte Aufl., dtv, Stuttgart 2007, S. 479 f., ISBN 978-3-423-34408-1.--Gomeira (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
One of numerous other examples. The official party art magazine was titled "Kunst im Dritten Reich," until the title later changed to "Kunst im Deutschen Reich." Bytwerk (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
So... it's an interesting question of usage. Official name is "Deutschen Reich" although there is some evidence to support official use of "Dritten Reich" (official party art magazine). The government desired that the German media stop using the term (did they?). It's clear that "Third Reich" is the preferred English usage since "Deutschen Reich" translates to "German Kingdom" or "German Empire". I would leave it as Third Reich but document these points in a footnote. --Richard (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
My thanks for these comments. From what I know, there have been two decrees in 1939 calling upon the media to stop using "Dritten Reich": one on June 13 and one on July 10 (see Schmitz-Berning and Bollmus). Also noting the interesting shift in the name of the official party art magazine Bytwerk mentioned (which changed its name in August 1939), it appears to me that the National Socialists stopped using the term altogether in 1939. Of course, to reply to Richard, the use of "Third Reich" in this article is quite understandable, simply because people have acclimatized to the term. My suggestion is therefore the following. 1. A footnote is added to the text "The name Third Reich (Drittes Reich, ‘Third Empire’) invoked a historical reference to the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages and the German Empire, 1871–1918.", referring to the source Gomeira mentioned (regarding Hitlers words in 1933). 2. A sentence is added ("In 1939 the National Socialist government stopped using the term in its official publications, and called upon the German media to stop using the term as well."), referring to Schmitz-Berning and Bollmus.
See: “Cornelia Schmitz-Berning: Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1998, S. 156-159.” and “Reinhard Bollmus: Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner. Studien zum Machtkampf im nationalsozialistischen Herrschaftssystem. Stuttgart 1970, S. 236.” The first source can be found on Google Books, by the way. Greets, Averroes (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaborators with the Nazis

The article needs a prominent link to this article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Collaboration_during_World_War_II 65.32.128.178 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II too the See also section. Lars T. (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrative Regions: The name "Eupen-et-Malmédy" is wrong on three counts

One: The name Malmedy is without "é", which is important for the correct pronunciation. Two: The colloquial French name for the area is "Eupen-Malmedy" Three: This area calls itself "Ostbelgien" (Eastern Belgium), as it is German-speaking, not francophone.

I suggest the name "Eupen-et-Malmédy" be changed to "Ostbelgien", "Eastern Belgium" or even "Eupen and Malmedy". Calling it by a French name is as strange as calling Moscow or Wales by their German names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.244.164 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


totalitarianism and dictatorship: only in Nazi Germany? and other NPOV, lets-stay-focused-on-the-topic issues

Here is what the article about totalitarianism tells us:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. The term has been applied to many states, including: the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Shōwa Japan, German Democratic Republic (East Germany), People's Republic of Hungary, Socialist Republic of Romania, People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Ethiopia, People's Republic of China, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) [2] and Communist Czechoslovakia. Political opposition has also applied this term to the Saudi regime.

So why is "Nazi Germany" the only modern state article (aside from the North Korea article) where the term "totalitarian dictatorship" is applied? And note how, in this article, it appears in the first sentence, which even the North Korea article fails to do. Also, note how the North Korea article says that North Korea "is widely considered by the outside world to be totalitarian". Thus, opinion is recognized as opinion - and also sourced. Browsing through through the North Korea talk page, one finds that calling the DPRK a "totalitarian dictatorship" is also a point of controversy between editors. Personally, I think "totalitarian dictatorship" is not encyclopedic, which is obviously the conclusion they came to on the North Korea page. Also, compare the DPRK to Nazi Ger: Hitler was appointed by a centrist figure within the democratic system, the public had voted increasingly more and more representatives from the NSDAP into parliament (making it the strongest party), and the public also voted directly for Hitler, too; Kim Jong Il was appointed - there was no vote, and there has not been a vote since. Hitler consolidated power under emergency of the state, feigned or not, wheras in the DPRK, the "Dear Leader"/full control system is just...the system.

So why the disparity? Is it simply because Nazi Germany is one of the most-commonly hated states in Western history from the conventional, system-approved Western point of view in the English-speaking world?

<pov>

The GOP beats the war drum, says to left "we have to invade Iraq, we can't appease them, look at what happened with the Nazis." Example 2: Bush & co. pass the Patriot Act, the left says why did you do that? "Look at what happened with the Nazis." It goes on and on...the latest is Fitna (film): Wilders compares the Muslims to the Nazis...and Wilders is compared to the Nazis for doing what the Nazis did in respect to the Jews with the Nazi movie The Eternal Jew (1940 film). Pick "Jews" or "Muslims", fill in the blanks:

The movie shows that the ___ are conspiring for supremacy, complains that the ____ are a threat to Western civ., focuses on how different the ____ are from others by taking select passages from the _____' holy book and stereotypes the _____ by analyzing the actions of a few _______.

</pov>


So then, the question becomes...is Wikipedia supposed to reflect this "OMG OMG NAZI GERMANY!!!!!!!1" attitude, or is Wikipedia supposed to neutralize the standard opinion for the sake of the NPOV rule? What I mean is, there are two ways of thinking about NPOV; NPOV can be applied in the way the site handles its subjects (trying to look at them from a distant, apolitical perspective), or NPOV can be making sure the article reflects the way "the powers that be" think about said topic, thus ignoring our own concern that the article ignores both the counter-pov as well as the neutral, distant, apolitical pov because the popular view is biased. So, which is it?

Also, note the immediate mention of those killed under the regime, in the first section. Why do none of the other articles on states do this? There have been many genocidal and brutal states, past and present. Still, maybe it is "obvious" what one should expect in the opening of this article, given the post-1950 weight and focus, at least in Western scholarship, on the Holocaust. This takes us back to the first question, where we must ask ourselves what does NPOV mean.

Since the article is locked, let me show you what I would change to create parity between the Nazi Germany article and others:

Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are the colloquial English names for Germany under the regime of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), which established a totalitarian dictatorship that existed from 1933 to 1945. Officially, the state was, as in the preceding Weimar Republic era, still called Deutsches Reich (German Reich). In 1943, Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich) became the official name.

-"totalitarian dictatorship"...the Nazi Germany article is the only state article, aside from the North Korea article, that mentions a 20 or 21st century state as totalitarian or a dictatorship. See my first point. But in summary: Mao has a "people's republic of china, the soviet union is a socialist republic, mussolini's fascist italy is only authoritarian nationalist, and so on.

-"Officially, the state was"..."still" (I take it "still" is meant to mean "in spite of this")... That is really heavy on POV.

- The part about the Third Reich, which comes last in the intro, should be moved up to the beginning, where it is still relevant to the previous sentence.

So, I would change the opening to this.

Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are the colloquial English names for Germany between 1933 and 1945, while it was led by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). The name Third Reich (Drittes Reich, ‘Third Empire’) invokes a historical reference to the state as a third entity following the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages and the German Empire of 1871–1918. In German, the state was known as the Deutsches Reich (German Reich) until 1943, when its official name became Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich).



Moving on...

The state was a major European power from the 1930s to the mid-1940s. Its historical significance lies...

The first part could be included, but it is fairly obvious when it was a major European power, given that this was its only period of existence...

the second part, however, "its historical significance lies" is atrocious. Regardless what follows after "its historical significance lies", it is a blatant pov statement. Who is anyone to decide its "historical significance"?

...mainly in its responsibility for escalating political tensions in Europe with its expansionist foreign policy

This is tunnel vision pov. To say its expansionist policy was responsible for escalating political tensions overlooks other factors that contributed. For example, the spread and expansion of communism, the Great Depression...and what about the thing that contributed to expansionist foreign policy in the first place, anyway - the Treaty of Versailles? These are things that created "political tensions", too, it was not just expansionist foreign policy.

...which resulted in World War II,

Maybe in Europe, but not in the world. Conflict associated with World War II began before 1939. Italy was in Algeria and Ethiopia before the conflict broke out between Germany and Poland. In Asia, Japan hat already invaded Manchuria and China. Even if we are talking about hostilities in Europe, hostilities between Northern/Eastern/Central European Powers, the war cannot be proven to be a "result" of Germany's expansion policy, that is only one point of view. I suggest a completely neutral sentence: World War II began in 1939, after Germany invaded Poland and the UK and France declared war on Germany. I would put this after the next paragraph, which is in italics:

In 1935, Germany was bounded on the north by the North Sea, Denmark, and the Baltic Sea; to the east by Lithuania, The Free City of Danzig, Poland and Czechoslovakia; to the south by Austria and Switzerland; and to the west by France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Saarland, which joined in 1935. These borders changed after the state annexed Austria, the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia and Memel, and after subsequent expansion during World War II.

-Of all things, is it not important to mention Germany's unusual geo-political status, as a state divided in two? Also, that the borders were determined by the Treaty of Versailles? "Undoing Versailles" was more or less the mantra of the Nazi party and its foreign policy goal...why is this not mentioned here in the quasi-"intro"?

- "bounded on the north by"..is it just me, or does this sound awkward?

- "...Saarland, which joined in 1935" this makes this information-heavy paragraph more confusing. Simply keep the "what Germany was surrounded by" and "what Germany expanded to" parts separate, as this makes the reader's life easier. How to do this and stay factual? Simply change the date in the beginning (In 1935, Germany...) to 1934. Easily done. Why was 1935 used, anyway?

- The Rhineland was not mentioned in the paragraph as "what Germany was surrounded by" or "what Germany expanded to". By the way, the Rhineland became a part of Germany in 1936.

So, with my suggestions:

In 1934, Germany's borders were still determined by the Treaty of Versailles. To the north, Germany was bounded by the North Sea, Denmark, and the Baltic Sea; to the east, Germany was divided into two and bordered Lithuania, The Free City of Danzig, Poland and Czechoslovakia; to the south, Germany bordered Austria and Switzerland; to the west, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Rhineland and Saarland. These borders changed after Germany regained control of the Rhineland, Saarland and the Memelland and annexed Austria, the Sudetenland and Bohemia and Moravia. Germany also expanded during World War II, which began in Europe in 1939, after Germany invaded Poland and the UK and France declared war on Germany.

The last section...

its commission of large-scale crimes against humanity, such as the persecution and mass-murder of millions of Jews (the genocide known as the Holocaust) , Poles, and others. The state came to an end in 1945, after the Allied Powers succeeded in seizing German-occupied territories in Europe and in occupying Germany itself.[5]

-commission...were they ALL government-sponsored activities or are some the responsibility of individual leaders and members of the SS? If I commit a crime in Iraq (or more appropriately, at Gitmo "detention camp") under the United States, the supposed beacon of democracy and rights, does the government become a commissioner of crimes? Even if we say the mass murder of Jews was a state-sponsored event, the way the sentence is constructed still lumps large-scale crimes against the "Poles and others" under government-commissioned acts, and makes no distinction between those that were and were not. The point is, many people suffered, but it wasn't just under government-commissioned orders. Not everything the SS did, for example, was government commissioned, nor were the independent acts of Wehrmacht soldiers in Eastern Europe. Thus, this part of the sentence is problematic...

-...as is the subtle, pov-pushing suggestion that Jews were the only victims of the Holocaust. While it is important to mention the Jews...

-...it is important to avoid "me too-ism" and create a laundry list of victims that bogs down the article. I bet this "laundry list" problem is one of the reasons why the page is locked, no? Anyway, long lists belong on the Holocaust page, not here.

-"the state came to an end" - yes, but only temporarily, so "end" is much too final. This part needs to be reworked. I think it is a bad idea to use the phrase "Nazi state", because, as the article makes it clear right off (which is good) the terms "Nazi Germany/Nazi state" etc. are English colloqialisms, not accurate titles. On the other hand, to say "Greater Germany" came to an end sounds silly, considering it did not revert back to "pre-war/non-Greater Germany", either.

-"Allied Powers" is perhaps too specific for the article. It might be best to just describe them as victors, which makes it clear who took control after the war - and why.

Under the Nazi regime, millions of Jews (and others) were persecuted and murdered, particularly during the war, amidst the Holocaust. By 1945, Germany had lost the war and ceased to exist. It was occupied by the victors.

- note how this sentence makes a broad sweep of everyone involved, while still drawing attention to the Jews: every nationality that was persecuted or murdered, every person who was persecuted or killed for their beliefs or nature, every person that was killed simply as a pow, etc. The first version does not accomplish this...

So, my proposal, in full:

Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are the colloquial English names for Germany between 1933 and 1945, while it was led by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). The name Third Reich (Drittes Reich, ‘Third Empire’) invokes a historical reference to the state as a third entity following the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages and the German Empire of 1871–1918. In German, the state was known as the Deutsches Reich (German Reich) until 1943, when its official name became Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich).

In 1934, Germany's borders were still determined by the Treaty of Versailles. To the north, Germany was bounded by the North Sea, Denmark, and the Baltic Sea; to the east, Germany was divided into two and bordered Lithuania, The Free City of Danzig, Poland and Czechoslovakia; to the south, Germany bordered Austria and Switzerland; to the west, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Rhineland and Saarland. These borders changed after Germany regained control of the Rhineland, Saarland and the Memelland and annexed Austria, the Sudetenland and Bohemia and Moravia. Germany also expanded during World War II, which began in Europe in 1939, after Germany invaded Poland and the UK and France declared war on Germany.

Under the Nazi regime, millions of Jews (and others) were persecuted and murdered, particularly during the war, amidst the Holocaust. By 1945, Germany had lost the war and ceased to exist. It was occupied by the victors.

Ok, I just got a handle.

--Npovshark (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Judicial review?

This passage (of mine) got me thinking. Weimar_Republic#Aftermath

The constitution was never formally repealed, but the Enabling Act meant that all its other provisions were a dead letter. The Enabling Act itself was breached by Hitler on three occasions in 1934: Article 2 of the act stated that

'Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.'

The powers of the Länder (states) were transferred to the Reich, obsolescing the Reichsrat. A month later, the Reichsrat itself was dissolved. In August, President von Hindenburg died, and Hitler appropriated the president's powers for himself. The Enabling Act did not specify any recourse that could be taken if the chancellor violated Article 2, and no judicial challenge ensued.

1) Under the Weimar constitution, was it possible to challenge government actions in the courts, a la United States, on the grounds that they were unconstitutional?

2) If so, did it ever happen?

3) I'm assuming no-one was foolhardy enough to bring such a suit against Hitler's third reich, but could it have legally happened?

4) If you couldn't bring a constitutional suit, did they just trust that the gov would uphold the constitution? Or was there some other safeguard?

5) Hitler was not someone who respected legal proceedure for its own sake. But in the Enabling Act it says that "Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date".

Did Hitler actually bother to announce his laws in the Gazette once everyone was out of the way? And if he wanted to do something, he probably wouldn't bother to pass a law authorising it first (Night of the Long Knives, for instance). Does this mean that he was constantly breaking the law while he was in office, notwithstanding that it was extremely generous to him in the definition of his power? BillMasen (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Note on use of "Third Reich" vis-a-vis first & second reichs.

I'm not going to touch any of the debates on here, which are pretty heavy. There's one issue I'd like to see addressed but don't know where it would belong or if it would be appropriate, and I don't want to rock the boat on a well-established article that has undergone considerable revision before my visit.

From discussions with various German professors and some reading (I believe Sebastian Haffner's Anmerkungen zu Hitler), I've been informed that it is correct and in good form to refer to the period of time under Nazi control as "The Third Reich".

When explaining the term "third Reich", it's all well and good to mention the other two empires, but it should be noted that the terms "first reich" and "second reich" were used exclusively by the Nazis and are (as such) to be avoided. The Nazis saw themselves as the successors to the "Holy Roman Empire/Heiliges Römisches Reich" and the "Deutsches Reich/German Reich", and renaming them according to the Nazis version of history (which generally plays fast and loose with the facts) only legitimizes their claim as historical successors of the other two empires, which is a mockery of actual historical fact.

Hope some of you people have an opinion on this. -Ich (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've come late to this article too. However, it seems to me that the first paragraph implies that there is something informal or wrong about referring to the Third Reich. The use of the word 'colloquial' and the sentence beginning "In German the state was known as...." suggests to me that the Germans or the Nazis never used the term 'Drittes Reich'. And yet, surely they did. It's hard to believe that a lot of 'colloquial' English speakers came up with the term on their own. The first paragraph should be re-written removing these insinuations. Myrvin (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
After some digging, I think perhaps there should be a reference to the book by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, 'Das Dritte Reich' of 1923. (Not 'Drittes Reich' by the way). Myrvin (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Other victims of Nazi persecution included . . .

individual German Roman Catholic priests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Submarines

"Unfortunately for Germany, the value of the submarine had been underestimated and not enough were produced to cripple Britain's merchant marine fleet" while it is accurate that not enough were produced to be succesfull, was not the primary reason naval agreements with Britain, of which the explicit breaking of them and building of a massive submarine fleet would have triggered an arms race leading to the British building more anti-submarines vessels and possibly seeking to stop the Germans early? It seems somewhat misleading as it is. Jamhaw (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)jamhaw

A decent point. However, the point is that even when the war began, submarine production was not a top priority, and Germany still had its mind set on building colossal "kings of the sea" like the Bismarck. There were voices protesting these decisions (Dönitz, for example) but they fell of deaf ears. The point about "anti-submarine vessels" is, although the British technically had the technology, it was not fully developed, and they did not know how to use it until late 1942. It wasn't just the convoy system that was flawed, it was also the inability to use sonar, depth charges and coordinate land and sea weaponry at the same time. The value of aircraft carriers was not yet fully realized, and to an extent, neither was the plane. A lot can happen in just three years of war ;) --Npovshark (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: "However, Germany failed to make submarine production a top priority early on and by the time it did, the British were developing the technology and strategies to neutralize it." Comment: It was both the British & the US that were developing anti-submarine warfare technology & strategies "by the time" German U-boat production became a higher priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A good point. Fixed.--Npovshark (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

4 comments

1. Re "Administrative regions" - Proposed addition: “(less the absorbed Sudetenland territories)” to: In addition, from 1939 to 1945, the Reich ruled Bohemia and Moravia (less the absorbed Sudetenland territories) as a protectorate, subjugated and annexed prior to the start of the world war. 2. Re "Conquest of Europe" - Proposed addition: “, among other reasons,” to: Then, the British bombed Berlin, which, among other reasons, led Hitler to send bombers to Britain.[20] The Battle of Britain began. 3. Question: does the 633786 sq. km. area include the transferred “Sudetenland” territories? | ref_area1 = in 1939, before Germany acquired control of the last two regions which had been in its control before the Versailles Treaty, Alsace-Lorraine, Danzig and the part of West Prussia colloquially known as the "Polish Corridor", it had an area was 633786 sq. km., Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office),Npovshark (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 4. Re: "After the Altmark Incident off the coast of Norway and the discovery of the United Kingdom's plans to encircle Germany" Comment: The UK's plans were to partially flank Germany -- "encircle" is incorrect in the usage.

1.Bohemia and Moravia is what the adminstrative region was called, Sudetenland [25] was its own entity within the Reich.

I don't believe that the far southern slice of Bohemia absorbed by Germany on 29 Sept 1938 (& which was across the 1937 border from Austria) was referred to as Sudetenland. Also, Bohemia and Moravia were re-established with their 1937 boundaries following May, 1945. I don't believe that Nazi defined Bohemia and Moravia should be used anywhere in the article without the full Nazi title, which is likely along the lines of (English usage): Reichs Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia. The obvious point is that Reichs Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia was/were significantly smaller than the Czechoslovakian provinces known in English as Bohemia and Moravia, and which existed as Austrian provinces, and then Czech provinces, for many decades prior to 29 September 1938. And, as stated above, Bohemia and Moravia were re-established with their 1937 boundaries following the end of the war in May, 1945.76.14.247.204 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

2.This was changed with the insert of more descriptive material. 3.It includes German Europe and pre-1914 Wilhelmine Germany. So that would be 'yes' 4.Flank, perhaps. But with Gibraltar North Africa, Egypt and the Med. on one side, France and the Low Countries on the another side, and Scandinavia to the north, the only outlet that would have been free would have been the Eastern one, towards the USSR, which highlights the monumentalism of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Perhaps partial encirclement is the better term, though.--Npovshark (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bohemia and Moravia

Apparently there are two term usages relating to the old Austrian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia: 1937 Czechoslovakia contained two provinces in the western & central part of the country, namely Bohemia and Moravia. After the 29 Sept 1938 Munich Agreement, slices of both Bohemia and Moravia were incorporated into Germany. So, when the Nazis invaded the rump Czech parts of Czechoslovakia in 1939 and formed (15 Mar 1939) the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, that Protectorate was not equivalent to the land areas of the old Austrian provinces named Bohemia and Moravia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If Germany was worried about the Bolsheviks...

If Germany was worried about the Bolsheviks why didn't they attack Russia instead of France?/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnagys (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Its called protecting the sides first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There's also the whole French–German hereditary enmity thing, that goes back to Charlemagne. Npovshark (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Because France was a bigger threat. France had the allies, france had the weaponry, it apparently isn't widely known that thwe S.U. was a pretty crappy place.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
France declared firstly war to Germany. DJ Sturm (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Britain and France had a treaty with Poland. Hitler knew they would declare war against Germany. Hitler wanted, in part, to avenge Versailles Treaty of WW1 (US Pres Wilson sought to have all ethnic groups treated fairly in the settlement, but Britain & France has "secret agreements" which led to some disregard of Wilson's Principals when it came to ethnic Germans: for example, German Austria was not allowed to join Germany, which they voted for after WW1; also, the largely ethnic German province of South Tyrol was given to the Italians rather than being allowed to stay with German Austria).76.14.247.204 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"By 1945, Germany had lost the war and ceased to exist. It was occupied by the victors."

Between 8 May 1945 & the Potsdam Conference (July 16 to August 2, 1945) the 1937 area known as "Germany" existed in the sense that it was divided into 4 occupation zones, each under the rule of the military government of one of the four victors. At Potsdam the 4 zones were officially recognized, with the Soviet zone losing the occupied land BETWEEN, the Oder-Neisse boundary AND the demarcation line in northern East Prussia separating the Soviet temporarily administered area of Northern East Prussia from the Polish temporarily administered area of Southern East Prussia. The Oder-Neisse Line was the Western boundary of the areas from the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany transferred to Polish temporary administration by the Potsdam Conference. The four zones occupied by the victors, and officially recognized as such at the Potsdam Conference, became in effect "Occupation Zone Germany". Although the occupation of the 3 zones in West Germany came to an end in May, 1955, the West German Republic, which encompassed those 3 zones ("Trizonia"), was legitimized in 1949. Also recognized at Potsdam was the separation of Northern East Prussia from the Soviet Zone of Occupation of Germany; Northern East Prussia was designated at Potsdam as being temporarily "administered by Soviet Russia" (i.e., until the Peace Treaty for Germany). The truncated area of the new Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany (which later became in 1949 the DDR) was identified at Potsdam as being "occupied by Soviet Russia". Other matters not addressed here are Berlin and the Saarland, both of which were within the 1937 area known as "Germany". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perphaps rather than 'ceased to exist' it could say 'Germany had changed beyond all recognition' or something like that. Germany was still there but it had been split into four (with Berlin being split as well) and trimmed. It certainly wasnt the 'Greater Germany' that Hitler had wanted anyway!Willski72 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"It ceased to exist" does not that the territory evaporated or something... It means that Germany as a state did not exist during the period - which is most certainly true. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is much claim that the areas occupied by Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States after the Potsdam meeting still constituted some form of Germany, call it "Occupation Zone Germany". For some, "Occupation Zone Germany" "officially" existed between the time of the Potsdam Conference in the Summer of 1945, and 1949, when the nation-states of "West Germany" and "East Germany" were proclaimed. The common phrase is that Germany was "reunited" in 1990 -- the land area of that "reunification" is precisely the land area of the 4 zones of the 1945 to 1949 "Occupation Zone Germany". (The land area of 1937 Germany was much larger than the land area of the 1945-1949 "Occupation Zone Germany".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats essentially what i meant, it was still there but it had been split and trimmed. Personally i am not bothered what happens but 'ceased to exist' seems a bit extreme.... a bit like when the Romans destroyed Carthage (sowing salt into the soil so nothing could grow etc).Willski72 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one problem: "occupation zone" ≠ "state". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point... i wont press the issue!Willski72 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Physically, in order to have a "reunification", what is "reunified" must have been "unified" at some point prior. The only point at which the 1990 "reunified" Germany can claim a precise previous land area "unity" (i.e., that which previously existed, to be reunited to) was the 5 June 1945 created "Allied Control Council" (ACC) and its province over "Occupation Zone Germany", SPECIFICALLY the revised Occupation Zone Germany created by the 16 July to 2 August 1945 Potsdam Conference. Between 5 June 1945 and the Potsdam Conference (16 July to 2 August 1945), the ACC covered the 4 occupation zones of Germany, which included the originally larger Soviet Zone of Occupation, extending from all of East Prussia to a demarcation line WITHIN what would later (1949) become the DDR. Due to the Potsdam Agreement on the final zones of occupation of Germany, the Western Allies pulled back to a western boundary for the Soviet Zone of Occupation (that western boundary was pre-established by international agreement i.e., prior to the Potsdam Conference). That western boundary became the western boundary of the DDR in 1949. The eastern boundary of the new Soviet Occupation Zone established at Potsdam was the Oder-Neisse Line; that Line became the eastern boundary of the DDR in 1949. Following the Potsdam Conference, the ACC presided over the four zones of Occupation Zone Germany which became the precise land area of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See the Articles end of World War II in Europe and debellatio. Legal opinion seems to be split with the Allied powers assuming that a full debellation had taken place and there are various court cases that support that POV, while inside Germany there have been several court cases that suggest that there was not a full debellation and that the vestiges of a German state existed throughout the periods of occupation, so that the Government of the FRG resumed control over a state that never ceased to exist. You pay you money an the legal eagles will give an opinion either way that you their paymaster find expedient. --PBS (talk)
One other point 76.14.240.177 your logic would be a little stronger if it were not for the changes made to the Basic Law in Germany to accomplish re-unification particularly the changes to Article 23 (See German reunification#The process itself). As to whether it was a unification or a re-unification there is a detailed explanation of the use of the terms in Germany one section earlier (see German reunification#Naming). --PBS (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The following from the Article 23 reference in German reunification#The process itself goes to the heart of their indirect reference to 2 Aug 1945 to 1949 "Occupation Zone Germany" as being that which was "unified" (for some of course, the term "reunified" is used): "After the five "New Länder" of East Germany had joined, the constitution was amended again to indicate that all parts of Germany are now unified." . . . Comment: the only previous "unified" existence of "all parts of (1990) Germany" was the time between 2 AUG 1945 & 1949, when the Allied Control Council treated "all parts of [what would precisely become 1990] Germany" as a single entity, namely Occupation Zone Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
the "Occupation Zone Germany" was not what was defined as the unified territory of Germany under the Basic Law when reunification took place. That is why the Basic Law had to be changed after reunification to redefine Germany territory as complete (IE consisting only of those areas of Germany occupied by the Allies at the end of WWII). If that change had not been made the two parts of Germany would still have been reunified but, it would have left the prospect that more territory that had been German in the past could be added to the two parts that had already been reunified. The change in the Basic Law after the reunification of the two parts have made that impossible by a dejure alteration to the German constitution to define the current territory of Germany as all German territory. They could have changed the definition in the Basic law to anything for example "From the Meuse to the Neman, From the Adige to the Belt,"(Deutschlandlied) but that would have upset the applecart! --PBS (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. So, if the German-Polish Border is currently running through a house somewhere that has a German family on one side & a Polish family on the other, with a brick wall in between (at least it was there for most of the 1945-90 time frame), if the German family buys out the Polish family and petitions the German government to have "Germany" extended to the far end of the kitchen and an ajoining room, and if the German and Polish governments agree, then the German Basic Law has to be changed to acknowledge the re-integration of former German land (all 2 rooms' worth)?
Don't know and this is not a discussion forum. I joined this conversation because I thought that information contained in the articles end of World War II in Europe and debellatio might clear up and answer the question whether 'ceased to exist' is a correct expression for this article. I thought a brief discussion about the German Basic law might clear up a further point on that issue. But your last speculative question is IMHO not relevant to the development of this article. --PBS (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Understood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrative division of Nazi Germany

Please help expand this new article :) Comments and edits appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is already Reichsgau and List of Gaue of Nazi Germany, each corresponding to a German article. Why a new one? -- Matthead  Discuß   06:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Red House Report

This article ([26]) appeared on the Daily Mail website on 9 May 2009. Is this something that could be added to the article? I'll leave it to better qualified editors if it can be used in any way. magnius (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Such planning is typical of all countries as part of a "Worst case scenario" backup plan. It is old, it is meaningless, I don't see that many people campaigning as Nazi's, do you?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Swastika

In my opinion you can't call the symbol for nazi Germany "swastika", the Swastika has another meaning then the "Hakenkreuz" (hook-cross) like it was/is called in Germany, Hitler just used the shape,but with another meaning it's another symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.218.35 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be right but Wikipedia isnt going to be the first one to change the name of what its commonly called in the English language. To change it would only cause confusion im afraid.Willski72 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some accused the Nuremberg Trials

"Some accused the Nuremberg Trials to be a form of "victor's justice",[who?] in that no similar action was taken to punish the war crimes and crimes against humanity of the victors, i.e. those of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain and the United States during World War II.?"

You guys are kidding, the allies didn't do anything bad whoever wrote this is a Nazi defender who tries to defend, them. this has to be erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.204.215 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Define the relative term "bad" from the context of (paraphrasing) "the Allies [individually as countries, and as a group] didn't do anything bad". Also, define the binary World View which by definition leaves no grey between those who are claimed to be "Nazi defenders" and those who are Not claimed to be Nazi defenders (a similar World View has it that everyone will go to Heaven or Hell ... but when pursuing that theory it turns out that there are gradations within both places. So, for example, some are apparently happier than others in Heaven, and some are more miserable than others in Hell). Caveat: obviously, some Allied individual soldiers did some "bad" things, such as rape & murder, for which several were court martialed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes especially the soldiers of the USSR however the fact remains that there has never before been a war in which good and bad could be so clearly defined as there was in the second world war, any allied atrocity pales almost into insignificance when put up against many Nazi or Japanese ones.Willski72 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Katyn massacre anyone? Lars T. (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A terrible act by the Soviets, one of many. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler in my opinion, although you'll still find people on the internet who adore him. Nevertheless the allies were in the right, Stalin was always held in suspicion anyway, he never seemed sincere (because he never was).Willski72 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You've just made a good argument for "relative morality" . . . and that fits in really well with the concept of "Victor's Justice". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Here's another example of relative morality: The German population transfers were approved by the Allies in the 1943-45 time frame, yet the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal essentially declared population transfers as war crimes (but of course the question of the agreed upon German population transfers and loss of land was not part of the Nuremberg agenda, and therefore the Allies didn't have to answer to themselves -- more of the Victor's Justice).

Of course its victors justice, what do you expect. It was far more just than anything the Germans would have enforced thats for sure! Wars not nice, thats a fact of life, but when it comes to which side was nicer there is no argument, it was the Allies pure and simple. Even the Soviets (and this is saying something) were not as bad as the Nazis, and you can understand the Red Armies wish for revenge after seeing the horrors they had seen done by the German army to their people. As regards the initial question i believe it should be left as it was, war crimes did occurr. However to even place crimes by the British and Americans as anywhere near those committed by the Germans is an insult to the Allied soldiers who lost their lives to free Western Europe from German tyranny. The Russians are another matter, the horrors of the Eastern Front were terrible, but lets not forget who started it.Willski72 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis started the 1 SEP 1939 war in reactance to the "secret agreements" which led to, and were a part of, the WW1 ending Versailles Treaty, in particular, the detachment of East Prussia from Germany proper (and no type of internationally monitored "land bridge"). The Soviets had their own secret agreement with the Nazis because they wanted back the lands east of the Curzon Line which were lost to the Poles in the early 1920s (Polish ethnicity in that subject area was about 40%). So, the Nazis and the Soviets carved up Poland, both engaging in war crimes. Later, the Soviets attacked Finland (30 NOV 39), which was a war crime - the SU was expelled from the League of Nations as a consequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Very true but Greater Germany attacked the Soviet Union not the other way around. I will repeat that i believe the section should stay, mainly due to the Soviet Union letting the side down. Russia wasnt an ally when it had its non-aggression pact with Germany, only when Germany invaded it.Willski72 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And before you start moaning about the Treaty of Versailles i suggest you take a look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that the Germans forced on Russia in April 1918, which gives us something of an idea of the Treaty Germany would have fored on France and Britain had they won. The Russians had their own secret agreement with the Nazis because it suited them to take extra land and to give them time to build up their forces for the inevitable German attack (the two things Hitler hated most were Judaism and Communism and he had loudly proclaimed this right up to 1939).Willski72 (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight — as long as it isn't quite as bad as what the Nazi's did, everything is fair game? Lars T. (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey 24.7.204.215 started this argument not me. I think the paragraph should be left in because they did happen. Nevertheless i still believe that the good the Allies achieved far outweighed the bad and i personally much prefer the fact that it was the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg and not the Allies. Realistically speaking after a war you will never have both, its one or the other and the Nazis deserved to be hanged a lot more than the Allies, with the exception of the USSR of course.Willski72 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Key to below: It's not just Victor's Justice, it's deliberate violation of whatever legal standards you wish to defend: From Wikipedia, Subj: Nuremberg Trials (in partial):

[#1] One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. The Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, proposed the partition of Poland between the Germans and the Soviets (which was subsequently executed in September 1939); however, Soviet leaders were not tried for being part of the same conspiracy.[41] Instead, the Tribunal falsely proclaimed the Secret Protocols of the Non-Aggression Pact to be a forgery.

[#2] Footnote #43: BBC News 20 November 1945 (Nuremberg Trial begins): “ . . . The International Military Tribunal was finally set up on 8 August by which time the main parties had agreed a compromise on a set of internationally recognised offences. They had also accepted Soviet insistence that only Axis aggression was covered by the new court - otherwise the Soviet authorities would have been in the dock as well for carving up Poland in 1939 and attacking Finland three months later.”

[#3] The chief Soviet prosecutor submitted false documentation in an attempt to indict defendants for the murder of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. However, the other Allied prosecutors refused to support the indictment and German lawyers promised to mount an embarrassing defense. No one was charged nor found guilty at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest massacre.[44] In 1990, the Soviet government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.[45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly agree, which is why i exempted the USSR from my argument. Realistically there was nothing the other Allied nations could do to prosecute the USSR without starting a third world war straight after the second, otherwise the murderers at Katyn would probably have been hanged (considering Poland was the whole reason Britain went to war with Germany!)Willski72 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a lead-in to disputing 24.7.204.215's opening statement, namely that the Allies "didn't do anything bad": The Allies, rather than "not doing anything bad", when it was all said and done, participated at times in "lesser bads" within the context of international law per se. This is stated purposely due to the obvious fact that in regard to WW2, international law was not just the Geneva Conventions on Warfare. BTW, the deliberate WW2 wartime bombing of civilians did not violate the Geneva Conventions -- both sides did it, using various self-justifying caveats. One "lesser bad" from the Nuremberg Trials was that those found guilty, but not sentenced to death, were not given any form of appeal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 June 2009

I think a reading of the section "Victor's justice#Allegations of victor's justice" and the section that follows it might help the debate in this section. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 76.14.240.177Willski72 (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the refs containing Wikipedia URLs?

What's with all the refs containing Wikipedia URLs? Lars T. (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are some, they need to be removed. SGGH ping! 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

The grammar in this section is also pretty spotty. The following sentence should be changed:

"An example of the almost cynical Nazi difference between doctrine and practice is that, whilst sexual relationships among campers was explicitly forbidden, boys' and girls' camps of the Hitlerjugend associations were needlessly placed close together as if to make it happen."

The term "Nazi difference" appears to use a misplaced modifier. Perhaps it could be changed to "the almost cynical way in which Nazi doctrines differed from practice" or something, but it probably doesn't even belong at all since this is such a minor (somewhat salacious) point and because the cynicism is assumed by the author (POV). I would make these minor changes myself, but I'm not yet "established." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedlong (talk • contribs) 03:57, 24 August 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. I've made the change to the grammar which you suggested. Removing the sentence outright is tempting, but the claims (almost cynical difference, explicitly forbidden, needlessly close together, "as if") may be supported by the reference following this two sentence paragraph. If you can research this in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and find it unsupported, we could replace that sentence with some more appropriate prose. Simply removing it would result in a one sentence paragraph, which is frowned upon. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic Study/Research on "Nazi Bureacracy"

I've seen research analysis/es (somewhere) on the semi-chaos that existed in some/many aspects of the Nazi bureaucracy. Some of this addressed interpretation and application of "doctrine". I vaguely recall mention that there were competing interpretations, within the Nazi bureaucracy, of doctrinal application ... not exactly a monolith. Given a social scientific/ academic theory of the (level of) "efficiency" of "bureaucracy", maybe the Nazi application was more like worse-case bureaucracy in action (i.e., worse-case bureaucracy as/in an overarching "totalitarian" environment, to include applications to a wartime environment). Obviously, this assessment doesn't apply absolutely throughout, but likely does in ways that do not seem to be well known to non-researchers. These assesments go much deeper than, for example, classification systems for Germans of partial Jewish heritage and such matters as Himmler's exigent loosening of SS qualifications to allow induction of Slavs, Italians, etc., into Waffen SS units as the fortunes of war became gloomy. Then there's the Nazi bureaucracy applied to conquered territories outside the 1937 German borders -- the competing bureaucrats in Nazi occupied Poland is an example (e.g., variations on how to racially classify the inhabitants).ANNRC (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Reference sourec example: Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism by Chad Bryant Harvard University Press (September 30, 2009)ANNRC (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Consolidation of power

In the section Nazi Germany#Consolidation of power, a paragraph seems to have been mangled. I'm pasting it here in case someone knows what it should say. Right now, it looks like the collision of two sentences. I'll see if I can't find an earlier uncorrupted edit.

Wanting to preserve good relations with the army, certain politicians and the major industries (who were weary of more political violence erupting from the SA) on the night of 30 June 1934, Hitler initiated the violent "Night of the Long Knives." This was a purge of the leadership ranks of Röhm's SA as well as hard-left Nazis (Strasserists), and other political enemies, carried out by the SS and the Gestapo.

Lissajous (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Ok. No need for alarm. Just not enough coffee. On rereading a few times I now see that it's meant to be a single coherent sentence. Just not coherent enough for me to understand. Lissajous (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Notions "Nazi Germany" & "Third Reich"

Dear All, wouldn`t it be helpful to mention in the introduction that both titles, Nazi Germany (Nazi Deutschland) as well as Third Reich (Drittes Reich), are colloquial notions for Germany in the time period between 1933 to 1945 and that its official name was German Empire (Deutsches Reich)? Regards, (83.236.241.230 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bissiscombe-Fraternization was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_Germany/Archive_3&oldid=1137039956"