Talk:Kristallnacht/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

query

Would it be possible to link to other competitors to encourage users to do their own fact-checking and research?


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.21.218 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Jews pay reparations for Kristallnacht?

Did the Jewish community have to pay 1 billion Mark to the state for the economic damage that the Kristallnacht had caused? Goering and Hitler said that the Jews were responsible for the Kristallnacht. I read that somewhere. Andries 04:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"...they were subjected, collectively, to a fine of one billion marks as punishment, as Goering put it, "for their abominable crimes, etc."". Shimgray 02:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pogrom?

Is pogrom the proper word since pogrom etymologically postdates the event? Smkatz 01:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

see pogrom; Russian word in use from at least 1880 67.118.119.175 20:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By coincidence, I just watched a documentary on the History channel which covered Kristallnacht. The documentary played contemporary newsreels from English language services, and showed headlines from English language newspapers, and they were at that time using the word "pogrom", so in that sense it it is justified. I agree, though, to my American ear, "pogrom" sounds like russians and cossacks, not Nazis.

Contemporary newsreels may have used the term "pogrom" because that was the only thing that they could compare it to, that their viewers, in 1938, would relate to. 130.13.15.134 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.15.134 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The Wikipedia article on Herschel Grynszpan says 200 synagogues were burned. This one say 2000. Quite a difference. So who is right. I suspect 200 as I can't see every synagogue in Germany being burned in one night and I doubt there were many more than 2000 given a Jewish population of half a million. Clarifications welcome. WM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.226.174 (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


I just noticed that in the article Racial policy of Nazi Germany it states that, after the Kristallnacht, "Approximately 100 Jews were killed, and another 20,000 sent to the newly formed concentration camps." whereas Kristallnacht says "More than 30,000 Jews were arrested and taken to concentration camps;..." So does anyone know the actual figure of Jews sent to the concentration camps after the Kristallnacht?


  • The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (chapter 13) quotes a Nov.11 SS report as saying "20,000 Jews were arrested. 36 [Jewish] deaths were reported, and those seriously injured were also numbered at 36." Shirer then notes that the ultimate number of deaths "is believed to have been several times the preliminary figures", but does not cite another number. Shimgray 02:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Walter Pehle in "Die Judenpogrom 1938, Klee 1990" says that 30,000 Jews were taken - arrested is surely the wrong word - and sent to the concentration camps. He wrote that it was not possible for him to say how many of them actually survived. Lost in space 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the same inconsistency regarding the number of Jewish men taken to concentration camps, in the article, History of the Jews in Germany. In these matters, it is necessary to be as accurate as possible. Failure to be accurate plays into the hands of the "holocaust deniers," who may claim that the figures are just made up out of thin air. So, this inconsistency needs to be resolved.

130.13.15.134 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.15.134 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Name

...The actual name was "Reichskristallnacht". Now it is also called 'Pogrom' or "Reichskristallnacht" but if you say the last you sign "" with your fingers, as it was the nazi-propaganda name.

Don't really know how to start a discussion about the name about this article, but I will try. The real name is 'Pogromnacht'. The term 'Reichskristallnacht' is nazi-propaganda, because this name suggests something beautiful or romantic. I will try to translate it: the empire's night of the crystals. As you can see, they said 'crystal' instead of 'glass'. I am a German pupil and we talked about this article at school. We came to the conclusion that it is false to use this name. I do not know if this is an argument you can use, but I think the name of this article should be changed to 'Pogrom' or 'Pogromnacht'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.250.149 (talk • contribs)

I have added a note that "Reichskristallnacht" is a Nazi term. I don't think the name of the article should be changed, because "Kristallnacht" is the most widely used term for the event. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I have joined the English Wikipedia now. The 'Terminology' is correct now.
Sorry, it's not. The above statement by user 81.173.250.149 is completely false. 'Kristallnacht:' was the term originally coined by the population and it was and to some degree is still the term used in scientific literature. 'Reichskristallnacht' came in use later after the war as a mockery for the Nazi's propensity to add 'Reich' to everything. It was named 'Kristallnacht' because of the broken shop windows that were made of 'Kristallglas' (crystal glass), i. e. very expensive high quality glass used for shop windows, not for windows in residential homes. So 'Kristallnacht' implies nothing romantic and was no invention of the Nazis. Pogromnacht was coined even later because the connection between Kristall(glas) and the broken shop windows was somehow lost. 141.13.8.14 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the German Wikipedia article, it was exactly the other way round. The term Reichskristallnacht was coined in Berlin as a sarcasm (it was only sarcastic because of the Reichs- prefix), but later adopted by the Nazis. The term Kristallnacht (without the Reichs-) is a post-1945 term. Personally, I never encountered it at all before I read it in Wikipedia, I had only known Reichskristallnacht. -- 213.47.127.75 14:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" name. For me (German, born 1971, leftish leaning parents), it has certainly always been known as "Kristallnacht". As you see from the GDR stamp, this was even the official term in East Germany at some point (and you can be sure that the East Germans have thought long and hard about all terminology refering to the Nazis). In the last 20 years or so, the term has become "unfashionable", mainly due it seems to the possible positive/romantic association with the word "crystal night". These days all official sources will use "Pogromnacht". Although, I dare say to the man on the street the event is still known as "Kristallnacht" (or at least was in 1994, when I left the country). 195.128.251.4 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we change the name to "Pogromnacht" and let "Kristallnacht" redirect there? Romantic or not, "Kristallnacht" was a propaganda term from the Nazis, and because of this it should not be used. Even though most people in Germany may refer to it as "Kristallnacht" (Like the guy above me pointed out) it's highly inappropiate. A lot of German people still use the term "Neger" and that doesn't justify using the word either. Just because a lot of people say it one way, doesn't mean it's right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.129.199 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

i don't know what you want to do to history, because it is liable to change, but in netherlands that is neighbouring germany, we learned in school about 'kristalnacht'. so all the dutch that lived through the war, and were raised after, know that word. progrom night means nothing. it cud have been in gaza, shab al shatilla or warshaw for that matter. these days things get more obscure, since the relevant history is not anymore applicable to young people that have a medicin induced lack of learning capacity. however change it into anything if you so like. i could care more.24.132.171.225 (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reevaluation of vom Rath

I have read that vom Rath has not died on November 7. but two days later, (9. November) in hospital. If this is truth, then sentence On Monday, November 7, Grynszpan shot and killed vom Rath. needs to be corrected.

More important, I’ve read, or heard (alas, I can’t remember where) that Grynszpan’s target wasn’t vom Rath, but some other German official – he missed, and accidentally shot vom Rath.

To make things even more ironic, vom Rath was accused of being a friend of Jews, and he was on the black list of Gestapo. Gestapo actually planed to execute him, but they found his assassination most convenient (another evidence that pogrom was orchestrated). I’m not sure, but I think that he did used to help Jews. -- Obradović Goran (talk 15:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To further this line of inquiry into the vom Rath assassination, I watched a documentary on the History channel (I watched a few, I think this one was specifically about Nazi physicians), and it suggested that vom Rath had been listed in stable condition in the Paris hospital, and that he did not die till he was under transport back to Germany. That the people transporting him were top ranked Nazis including Hitler's personal physician, led to the documentary strongly suggesting that his death was actually more convenient for the Nazis, and they left dangling the possiblity that it had been at the Nazis hands. Anybody know if this can be verified?

Michael Burleigh in "The Third Reich: a new history" writes "By all accounts the victim....was lukewarm about Nazism" (p 323) "Rath was not a Nazi" (p324). The author also writes "...Grynszpan sought an audience with the German ambassador, but was referred to the more lowly Ernst vom Rath..." (p 234)

Taff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.71.199 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

please make this section more clear

"The persecution and economic damage done to German Jews did not stop with the pogrom, even as their places of businesses were ransacked. They were also forced to pay a collective fine of 1 billion marks to the Nazi government. This was a bit of irony--as even the New York Times had photographic proof at around the same time that the Nazis were at least partially responsible, although now we know that it was approved by Hitler, and that Hitler was involved in the planning of it. This was arguably a form of collective punishment, later denounced in the Geneva Conventions."

Were at least partially responsible for what? I understand that you it most likely means the kristallnacht, but considering the article for the past paragraphs has no mention whatsoever of them Blaming this event on the Jewish people In fact the rest of the article makes it seem more like it was the Germans fault. Thus it makes everything a bit confusing and there needs to be clarification as to the initial reaction of who was to blame for the event.

Odd, I don't see that language in the article. Can you tell me what section it is in? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wording

What is meant by the phrase "the common people"? It sounds rather elitist. Does it mean the common Jews, or the common Germans? Who is a common person? Are you? It implies that somebody else, some other group, was better than "the common people". Admittedly this should not be the case, but through usage over decades "common" has become a denigration. Proskauer 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Precious Buildings? There is a lot of POV in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Drastic rewrite

The article was almost entirely rewritten by 139.168.112.176 (talk · contribs) today. Much of the prose, refs and images that editors worked on for months and years is now gone. Now it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. Is it possible to integrate both old and new text without loss of much content? I think so. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I chose to completely rewrite this article to simply increase the volume of information available within the article. I used the Wikipedia article as a source of information, but I found it occasionally contradicted by accounts published by historians, which made it difficult for me to integrate the two. I do not have the time nor the computer skills to integrate my response with the response given, so I chose to replace it almost entirely with the article that I had written, except for parts not covered. I do not believe that any vital information present in the previous article has been lost. You are correct in saying it reads like an essay; that is exactly what it is. My aim was to make a far greater amount of information available than was previously, and I hope that other users will edit my essay to improve readability, cross-linkage and so on.

Yours Sincerely, 139.168.112.176

Thank you for your contributions. I found that it's not bad. I made an attempt at integration and make it into an enclyclopedic article. Please doublecheck and consider joining the project. Yours. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT a collection of essays. See WP:NOT. It is an encyclopedia.--Mcattell 23:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology section

Does anyone have sources for the terminology section; and would it be okay if I were to move it closer to the end? The terminology aspect is not important compared to the rest and shouldn't lead the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the terminology section appears to mix up, or possibly use interchangeably, the words 'Kristallnacht' and 'Reichskristallnacht'. It should be clarified; I have placed the {{cleanup}} tag above this paragraph. Digwuren 08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Economic Boycott

I'm surprised this article doesn't mention anything about the Jewish Economic Boycott of 1933. I know that in Germany at the time, this boycott of 'worldwide Jewrey' was cited as a reason for the Kristallnacht. I'm not saying that this was caused because of the boycott, but I think some mention should be made of it in the article. Some people on Wikipedia have accused me of being a white-nationalists so I do not feel comfortable making the edits myself (I'm afraid that people who hold a grudge on me will revert my edits) but I think the information should be included here. I did a quick google search and found this: http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html thanks :) Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the boycott deserves its own article, but I fail to see a relation to Kristallnacht. And the article you gave is tendentious and outlandish to say the least (I am trying to be polite). The world Jewry declared war on Germany and the Germans merely resisted, yeah right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens: Actually, worldwide jewry declared an economic war on Germany long before the Kristallnacht. There is a relation. If you start a war, the other side is bound to shoot back, sooner or later. Note: I am neutral on both Nazism and Zionism. I classify both political movements as harmful. Cheers!

I didn't realy look over the article, it was just the first one google returned. I know the claims of the Germans at the time seem silly now, but even if it was only used inside of Germany as an excuse, shouldn't it still be mentioned? I can't find anything on wikipedia about the boycott either :( I can understand how a little thing like that could get over looked, but in most of my history books it is mentioned. Thanks for the fast comment :)Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have found the following links that may prove useful to this subject; http://www.ajhs.org/publications/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=230 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Black.html

Hope this helps :)Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image of Eberswalde synagogue on fire

Can someone authenticate this: [1]. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason

I see all the crowds out near College Avenue, happy that Rutgers University has pulled off a Battle of Tsushima against Louisville, and see them tearing up newspapers, hurling fireworks, shaking signs, and tp'ing the place, and I suddenly think of Kristallnacht (ok, "November Mischief Night", but the date is a bit TOO eerie a coincidence.) I have a dirty mind, don't I? 204.52.215.107 06:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep Talk pages for what they are supposed to be used: improve articles. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

jewish

im a jewish citizen in new jersy and my school is curently studing about the rein of hitler. i was assigned to do a report on kristallnacht. my school has also been watching this movie callled paper clips. great movie to watch when studying about hitler. my grandma and grandpa are holicost survivour from a concentration camp and no people who survived too. this is a subject not to be taken lightly. nor is the rien of hitler. i am gald he was stoped for if he wasn't i would be here writting this email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.0.181 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

concentration camp?

Was there really a Polish concentration camp for Jews in Zbaszyn, as mentioned in the text? Isn't it offensive? http://www.history-of-the-holocaust.org/LIBARC/LEXICON/LexEntry/Zbaszyn.html describe the situation quite differently; cf also Grynszpan and Ringelblum in Wikipedia. Accidental visitor 89.76.167.110 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

minor point

"He attempted and missed three additional shots." from the vom Roth assassination attempt section doesn't make any grammatical sense...I'm not very sure about the context so could somebody with more knowledge clean this up? ie, he attempted to do what? missed three additional shots against whom? huhLittlekorean 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Section called "Terminology"

This section, as it stands today, August 4, 2007:

  • Reads like a first draft: that is, somebody just sat down and typed it out of the top of their head.
  • Is conversational in style, and therefore un-encyclopedic.
  • Has no citations at all, so the reader doesn't know if any of it is true or not.
  • Uses present-day terms, such as "politically correct"

The article as a whole should have perhaps one or two sentences explaining the origin of the term. See the opening section for Night of the Long Knives. Most books that deal with Kristallnacht do not spend four or five paragraphs just discussing the term Kristallnacht and how it is or isn't now politically correct.

Also, all of what the original author of this section says might be true, but maybe it's just not. You can't really tell, can you, because it is not verifiable. "Verifiable" means:

  • Any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
  • Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

The section on terminology should be edited with an eye towards succinctness and relevance.--Mcattell 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

important citation

Re the extremely important sentence in the entry, 

...Hermann Göring said: "The Jewish problem will reach its solution if,
in any time soon, we will be drawn into war beyond our border—than it
is obvious that we will have to manage a final account with the Jews."

Is that cited, as given in the reference previous, in Gilbert, Kristallnacht 2006?

If so, I think that citation should be moved, or repeated and given an ibid and page number if possible.

Shlishke (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

This page is being collaborated upon by the Wikipedia spotlight, and will be until Friday 23rd May. The article will change on Saturday. If you want to help, join us in our IRC channel to collaborate. Next week's article is Thirty Years' War...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation from German

I can translate from the German article that is featured. But as usual inline citations are rare in German, what would lead to a loss of B class status if none provides cites. So I would like to know if I should do this(or perhaps only translate specific section or topics)? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to translate it, I'm sure we can easily find sources. A google search for kristallnacht -site:en.wikipedia.org gives 570,000 results...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So, how's the translation going? I'm glad we've got somebody that can read German...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't just a Wiki issue but I have always wondered why Kristallnacht always gets translated into Night of Broken Glass instead of the literal Crystal Night. I'm just curious why a speaker of German or any other language that ordinarily gets a literal translation is allowed to make the connection between crystal and shards of broken glass on their own while English speakers have to been spoon fed. Just a thought.75.3.118.214 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

GA-Passed

Congratulations-You have passed the GA review. Only things that I see could be revised as are follows.

Lead section could be expanded.
The large space under Global Response should be fixed, possibly by adding more text.

Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 02:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight early closing

It is our unwritten guideline that any GA or FA cannot be a spotlight article, unless it faces delisting imminently. Therefore, when this got promoted we moved on. I just thought I'd explain so you didn't just think we got bored...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The current wording of this articles is grossly incorrect. "The incident was originally referred to as die Kristallnacht". No, it was not, the Nazi troopers were using drastic names like Mordwoche (murder week), or even the (deleted from article) "night of the long knives". Other than in English wikipedia the term "night of the long knives" is far more generic (compare Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation)) and what the English wikipedia lists as being a specific Nazi event is commonly referred to as Röhm-Putsch in German for a reason. - The term "Kristallnacht" is known to be a pun from the start invented by the population at large - there were many such mouth-to-mouth names (i.e. words not rephrasing Nazi propaganda) with "Kristallnacht" to eventually come out on top. There is a quote leading to June 1939 where a Nazi quotes a supposedly popular "Kristallnacht" with an ironic tone such that we can assume "Kristallnacht" was known widely already - but it was not used in official Nazi propaganda at the time. The contemporary usage of Kristallnacht (including scientific media) is a post-war phenomenon which is still debated in Germany (the interwiki will lead to "Novemberprogrome"). Guidod (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The events

I was going through the article to try to find support for the figure detailed in the lede of 2000 synagogues destroyed. I was surprised to see that the article, in the whole, completely skips over the events of Kristallnacht itself, i.e. what exactly happened during the pogrom. There was an extensive Events section in older versions of the article (like this one) but it appears to have been completely removed.

This content is essential to the article, especially one listed as a good article. However, I don't want to just cut and paste the old content in, as the structure of the surrounding article has changed. As well, there seems to have been quite a bit of good work done on the other sections of the article and I don't want to risk mucking that up.

So before I start trying to reintegrate that content, I thought I would ask if anyone know what happened to the old Events section, why it was removed, etc.? - EronTalk 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I changed the phrase "an orgy of coordinated destruction broke out in cities" to read "coordinated destruction broke out in cities." I don't think that the word "orgy" is an appropriate adjective given the subject matter. Notecardforfree (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither is it an appropriate noun. ;) 89.242.96.251 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When and why the Kristallnacht ended?

Please provide info.--79.111.177.105 (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

Is the IPA rendering supposed to show the German pronunciation or does it render how Anglophones commonly mispronounce it? The latter probably given that the stress is on the wrong syllAAble? 71.77.26.136 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Jcwf (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actual death toll

According to de, the number of 91 deaths is based on contemporary official Nazi statistics, which kept on being quoted for decades. The German article argues modern historians assume between 400 and 1,500 have been killed or driven to suicide. The reference given is [2]. Any objections against incorporating this? --dealerofsalvation 22:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of old content

I've just finished some extensive changes to the article, primarily to restore information regarding the actual events of November 9, 1938, from previous versions. I relied primarily on this version of the article. There is now much more detailed information in th body of the article on what actually happened on Kristallnacht. Along with this I have adjusted some of the headings to try and improve the article's organization, and adjusted (and in some cases removed) pictures. I did not do an extensive proofread or copyedit of the older content; I expect that it will may some cleaning up and possibly some referencing. I'm happy to discuss any of these changes here if anyone has concerns about them. - EronTalk 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Article revisions

I've taken a deeper look into this article after restoring the information regarding the events of Kristallnacht. I think it is quite a good article, but it could be further improved. Ideally, I'd like to see it brought to Featured status. I've started to take a run at improving it. I have begun by revising the lede to remove some redundancies and try to provide a better capsule overview. I have also merged the old "Background" and "Context" sections and tried to tighten them up as well. I will move on to the rest of the article soon, but before I do so I'd like to get some idea of whether or not my changes to date are well-received and appropriate. Please let me know what you think. - EronTalk 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

should the David Irving "blame the Holocaust on Goebbels" theory (and judicial rejection of same) be mentioned in this article, as much was mentioned about the various interpretations of Goebbels' role Kristallnacht in the Irving vs. Lipstadt case? Mtsmallwood (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the details of that theory but it may be worth a mention. One of the later sections (which I haven't got to yet) deals with the repercussions and modern reactions - we could put something in there. Do you have a reference Ican look at? - EronTalk 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

-The only suggestion I would give for improving the page is to clarify details on how many buildings were burned and shops that were destroyed. Also, I think that it would be good idea to make the article longer so that it can give more background information on the beginning of anti-Semitism from Hitler’s point of view and the German Jews themselves. I think it would greatly help to show how the Jews were being hated upon and why it came about, according to other articles i found they stated in 1890 Hitler started his opinions against the Jews. More background information would probably help clarify some things and more personal stories from the victims themselves would be good too! (Elmckenz (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).

Insurance companies

This is relevant:

[3]

If that is a good enough source, or if there are reliable sources linked from it, would someone with more time and abilities than me care to add some info about it to this article, please? 86.136.88.109 (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation of nazi pop group

I have deleted this citation twice now. It seems to be an attempt to give crdence to a group who espouse nazi ideology. Peterlewis (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Modern Response

The section "Modern Response" is really just a "Kristallnacht in popular culture" section and does not belong in this article. The fact that a "German metal band" (or any modern band, for that matter) dedicated a song about Kristallnacht is outside the scope of the event.--Mcattell 00:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted these sentences from "Modern Response" as even less relevant and more poorly sourced than the song references:

In the alternative history novel 1635: The Dreeson Incident by Eric Flint and Virginia DeMarce, the Stearns government, using the Committees of Correspondence, initiate a violent repression of anti-Semitic groups in the United States of Europe after the assassination of Grantville mayor Henry Dreeson and an attack on the Grantville synagogue by French Huguenot radicals. Stearns refers to the pogrom as "Operation Kristallnacht".

Deleting the whole section is not a bad idea. -- Meheller (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of Terms

First of all two variations of the spelling anti-semitic/antisemitic are used.

Worse still under the Kristallnacht section the "Night of the Long Knives" is referred to as an act of anti-semitism. Last I checked Ernst Rohm wasn't Jewish nor was the SA. As the NOTLK was, in fact, an action against the SA it is borderline stupidity to call the Night of the Long Knives an act of anti-semitism. To do so simply ignores the very real and complex social conditions, DETAILED BY THIS VERY ARTICLE, that led to the downfall of the SA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it customary in Germany during this period to refer to any such action as a "night of the long knives" or was that term used in Germany in the '30s only regarding the purge of the socialist wing of the Nazi Party in June 1934? I'm not taking sides here. Maybe someone who is a specialist in German pop idioms of the '30s can answer this question on way or another. Thanks. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Civilian participation not clear

Many historians agree in the fact that Germany civil participation was minimal, that the fact that SA and SS agents were dressed like civilians confused all the population, and that is the reason of the confusion whether or not civilian participated in that event.

Please recheck it, cause in the beginning you stated that mainly all the problems were started by SA & SS agents, and later on you talk about massive civilian participation

American Rifleman

Can someone explain when and why American Rifleman, the magazine of the National Rifle Association is becomed an acceptable source of objective and trustable information ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.245.2 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't; see below. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Disarmament of the Jews

I've moved the following paragraph/section to Talk: for discussion:

One of the significant purposes of Kristallnacht was the explicit disarmament of the German Jews. The SA were under orders to confiscate all Jewish-owned firearms. The order was issued "[a]ll Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."<ref name="Halbrook, Stephen P. 52">{{cite news |author= Halbrook, Stephen P.|title=Registration: The Nazi Paradigm|url=http://stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html|work=American Rifleman, Vol 149 No. 6|page=52 |date=June 2001 |accessdate=7 April 2009}}</ref>

The claim that this is "one of the significant purposes of Kristallnacht" is sourced to an article in American Rifleman, by Stephen P. Halbrook, hosted on Halbrook's website. It seems to me that this is a classic WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE claim made by a partisan non-specialist. While the Nazis did (among many other things) disarm German Jews, I haven't seen World War II or Holocaust historians make the claim that this was a "purpose" of Kristallnacht, much less a "significant" one. Rather, in this case, the claim is made by a lawyer, writing in a gun-enthusiast magazine. The article itself goes on to laud the National Rifle Association for helping "defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes [and] end the Holocaust", and explain (in effect) that is only uninhibited gun ownership that protects Americans from being ruled by "terrorist governments". In short, this is just another artifact of the interminable Second Amendment debates, and has little relevance to Kristallnacht. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've moved a related sentence here, that the Nazis managed to achieve in Kristallnacht all the theoretical targets they set for themselves, including "wholesale disarmament of the Jews through the confiscation of Jewish-owned firearms". It has the same source, and I think is a similar distortion. On top of the other issues raised above, it's unclear that German Jews owned many firearms to begin with, and it's highly unlikely that the Nazis feared they would use them. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This all sounds about right to me. I had previously removed a couple of paragraphs that an editor had rather lazily inserted here from Gun politics in Germany without any change, and which rang loud alarm bells for me because of its very OR-ish "it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion"-type wording. I had not studied the refs carefully enough, though, so thank you - as you say it sounds like a bit of a single-issue-specialist essay, possibly not the most reliable source for German history, and probably not here to serve the purposes of the article as its first priority. You might want to look at the other article for the same kind of issues. Update: In fact I've now deleted what seemed to be the same piece of OR-ish association in the hope of either getting a good ref or leaving it out. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It turns out they were the contributions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dansnare , an editor with very few edits and a singular focus on gun ownership. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

book in English that should be added to references

hey everyone I ask that someone who has editing privileges here add this book to the References section under Books in English: Steinweis, Alan E. (2009. Kristallnacht 1938. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-03623-9. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphnis9 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kristallnacht

"Kristallnacht" is what the Nazi called the night, so that it sound "nicer". So the articel should be renamend into "reichsprogromnacht" or "novemberprogrom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.61.188 (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the name commonly used in English, which is Kristallnacht. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
That is in my view a big/bad mistake. Who can change that? And if not changed: Please make clear in the first sentenc, that "Kristallnacht" is a Göbbels-/Nazi-word, that leads away of all the death and hurt men.--Güwy (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, in Germany the term "Kristallnacht" is only used by neo-nazis, since it is a flagrant euphemism and not politically correct. In media, books, schools and so on it is known as the Reichspogromnacht or Novemberpogrome. If a term affiliated with nazism is used as the headline it should be explained somewhere.--93.203.57.159 (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear sirs and mesdames,

I found, what I would consider an error, one headline says: Responses to Kristallnacht, and beneath it it writes: Responses from Germans. Shouldn't it be Germans and Austrians? Or Reichgermans?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dominik Armellini — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.209.135 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

New Synagogue burnt or not?

The text speaks of a police officer Wilhelm Krützfeld who barred SA troopers from setting the New Synagogue on fire, but the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Synagogue_%28Berlin%29 says it was set ablaze, and the plaque from that page reads "Diese Synagoge ist 100 Jahre alt um wurde am 9.November 1938 von der Nazis im Brand gesteckt." My translation of this is: "This synagogue is 100 years old and, on 9 November 1938, was set alight/ablaze by the Nazis." Can someone please clarify what happened? Kmasters0 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's explained in the article you linked, in the History section, next to the image of the plaque. Some Nazis started a fire inside, but some policemen stopped them and ordered fire fighters to put out the fire before it could spread. So, the building survived relatively unscathed, but many things inside were destroyed or damaged. --87.157.79.18 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

ss troopers

the troopers during this attack were not SA the were SS. Hitler got rid of the SA in 1934 because they seemed to the people of germany as "thugs" and hitler did not want the people of germany to feel unsafe which is why he got rid of the SA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.37.5 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The SA were much diminished in importance after the "Röhm-Putsch", but they were still in existence. They were very active in the pogroms in Nov 38, it was right up their alley. The nazi bosses calculated that all the violence might not be supported by the general public, so they ordered the SA (which were thought of as thugs, as you said correctly) to do the "dirty work". The SS were supposed to stay back at least visibly (i.e. don't put on uniforms) to protect their image. In reality, it seems like a mixed bunch of mainly SA, some SS, HJ, and regular people took part in the atrocities. --87.157.79.18 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of Homosexuality against vom Rath by his assassin, Grynszpan

Much earlier rumors existed concerning the accusations of homosexuality against vom Rath, implying he had a homosexual relationship with Grynszpan. [1] German and Polish Zionists came to Grynszpan's aid, providing funding and their own barrister's for his defense. The initial defense consisted of this accusation of homosexuality against vom Rath, dreamed up by Zionist agitators. This was in and of itself, a premeditated slap-in-the-face to the NSDAP, their principles and laws. It was a tailor-made insult meant to antagonize and provoke the NSDAP and the pride of the German people. [2]

Later, when dealing with the trial of Grynszpan, the accusation again became of concern for NSDAP leadership, according to the following excerpt of J. Goebbels Diary, dated 5 April, 1942, written during Grynszpan's trial:

"I am having lots of work preparing the Grynzpan trial. The Ministry of Justice has deemed it proper to furnish the defendant, the Jew Grynszpan, the argument of Article 175 (German laws against homosexuality). Grynspan until now has always claimed, and rightly so, that he had not even known the Counselor of the Legation whom he shot. Now there is in existence some sort of anonymous letter by a Jewish refugee, which leaves open the likelihood of homosexual intercourse between Grysnpan and vom Rath. It is an absurd, typically Jewish claim. The Ministry of Justice, however, did not hesitate to incorporate this claim in the indictment and to send the indictment to the defendant. This shows again how foolishly our legal experts have acted in this case, and how shortsighted it is to entrust any political matter whatever to the jurists."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgandoty (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Kristallnacht/Grynszpan.html
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herschel_Grynszpan

Please discuss page move

This page was just moved to Novemberpogrome 1938 and I just moved it back to Kristallnacht. I feel that this is far too drastic a change to make without discussion, and I do not accept that it is a better name for the article - rather worse, in fact. Can we please discuss it (see WP:BRD) and reach a consensus before any move is made? Thank you DBaK (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Kristallnacht" is an euphemism and should not be used any more. "Novemberpogrome" is the modern term for it. --Trustable (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you, and you might want to read WP:COMMONNAME. I do not agree that Novemberpogrome is the modern term for it in English. But if you are right I am sure you will have no trouble building consensus for the change. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of this new name before. To the best of my knowledge "Kristallnacht" is the term that is almost universally associated with this event. Absent substantial evidence to the contrary and consensus among editors we should refrain from unilateral moves. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree it should stay as "Kristallnacht".

Zezen (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Mommsen quote

I want to remove the lenghty quote from Mommsen. Inter alia, Mommsen says there: "The Polish government threatened to extradite all Jews who were Polish citizens, but would stay in Germany," It is nonsense. You cannot extradite somebody who does not live on your territory. Instead, what the Polish government did was to require all its citizens to come back (to "intradite", the opposite of extraditing) by a certain date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I also find the quote confusing, and an interview is not normally the best source for coherent reliable accounts of historical events. There may also be an issue with translation, either from German or Hebrew. That may explain the incorrect use of "extradite."
I cannot make any sense out of this passage: The Polish government threatened to extradite all Jews who were Polish citizens, but would stay in Germany, thus creating a burden of responsibility on the German side. The immediate reaction by the Gestapo was to push the Polish Jews—16,000 persons—over the borderline, but this measure failed due to the stubbornness of the Polish customs officers. I also find the phrasing rather formal and complex for an interview transcript. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 13:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Kristall in Kristallnacht

Saying that the term "Kristall" is sardonic might insufficiently reflect the euphmism of finding crystall objects (of high value) in any Jewish household which were plundered and thrown on the street. Zgh (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad grammar in quotation

I haven't changed it since it seems to be a quotation (or a translation?), but for grammaticality, "The German people are anti-Semitic. It has no desire..." should be either "the people is" or ""they have no desire". Equinox (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Until this edit it said "the German people is" and then someone sort of half-fixed it, leaving the mess you now mention. I don't have the book, or the energy to go on a massive hunt, but it seems likely to me that the earlier version was right. In German it quite possibly read "Das Deutsche Volk" which is indeed singular. I've changed it back now. Hope this is OK: I think it's better and more likely to be correct. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Modern response

Do we really need this bit: "On its 40th anniversary in 1978, members of two fraternities at the University of Florida gathered in front of the fraternity house of Tau Epsilon Phi and "shouted expressions like 'F___ the Jews,' and 'Your mother was bright but she was a lampshade.'"[64]"? The other Modern Response items are artistic endeavours which at least may have some significance and some kind of value as a response; a bunch of drunk kids shouting insults is, it seems to me, highly unnotable. I'd like to remove it. Please note that I am not endorsing their pathetic behaviour, nearest saying that it does not need to be dignified with being recorded here! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As the person who made that entry I assure you it ever occurred to me that being on a page in Wikipedia would be seen as dignifying the event. Dinnerstein, the author in whose book that quote appears, goes on to write that there was no institutional memory of the event at UF, that people he spoke to there in 1990 knew nothing about it. Yes, it is true that the other responses in this section are of a different nature, but it was surely not coincidence that the two offending fraternities chose that night to taunt the TEP house. It is a modern response, although a shameful one; it used Kristallnacht as the occasion for antisemitism. To my knowledge the event is not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Frank Lynch (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As nasty as this event clearly was, I don't think it belongs here. We'd be giving undue weight to it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Disclosure - it's me DBaK again, failing to do cold turkey very effectively on an enforced wikibreak. I understand Frankenab's point, thank you, but I think Dbrodbeck is right - there are plenty of examples of people shouting rude things at other people, and if one could be bothered to research it there may well even be plenty of examples of people using Kristallnacht as an opportunity to shout rude things at Jews. I just don't think we need to document them, or at any rate not in this article. It might be of appropriate weight if there was an article that talked about racism at that particular univerity, or students' attitudes to religious minorities ... I just don't think, with the best will in the world, that it is right here. Thanks and best wishes, DBak 77.96.249.228 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Not that it's the burden of the editors and people who view this page, but where would this be better placed? My review of the University of Florida Wikipedia page does not reveal any discussions of controversy or scandal. I admit to emotional involvement (being a student there at the time, and repulsed) and kind of flummoxed over its low radar status on the Internet.Frank Lynch (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
My first reaction was to leave it as this type of behavior should not go unremarked. But I see it was almost forty years ago with little other information. Is there any information identifying the fraternities involved (maybe it could go on their pages) or if there was any response by the University? Mannanan51 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it should not be in this article. It's just one nasty little event of no lasting significance. I'm not sure that there is a place for it in Wikipedia at all but if there is it is not here; it's in an article about fraternities or antisemitism in the US in the 1970s or awful jokes about lampshades; but it's just too small and irrelevant for here, I sincerely believe. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Addition of the New section to the article

Hello everyone. I want to add a new section, that you can see here into article? What do you think we should fix to add it? Thank you so much! --Axiomus (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I don't think it is needed. The article 2004 unrest in Kosovo makes the link in what I see as the correct direction; that is, it mentions Kristallnacht and gives a link to here so that readers can understand the reference. But I do not think it necessary or desirable to have the link going the other way, that is, linking this main article on a topic to a subsidiary use in which someone just happened to use it as a label. I think that this could represent the top of a slippery slope. Sorry and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
PS would you please consider giving this section a title more meaningful than "new section"? Thanks! DBaK (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think it belongs here either. For the reasons outlined above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kristallnacht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias

The article reads more like advocacy than paraphrase and gives the impression that other views don't exist. I suggest that it will be improved by reducing the teleological bias in the article, by adding alternative views, that the nazis had a cult of violence that had been unleashed on lots of other groups before Jews qua Jews were singled out, Christopher Browning's description of the evolution of the meaning of final solution from expulsion to massacre during 1941, determined by the failure of Barbarossa and the coincidence of antisemitism and utilitarianism and Tooze's description of the economic demands made on Hans Frank in late 1941. Views like this are incompatible with claims that Kristallnacht was the beginning of anything. As it stands the article is worth a C grade. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kristallnacht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Home movie from Vienna

Given the clothes being worn and the weather, it is unlikely that the majority of this footage was taken just after Kristallnacht Clivemacd (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal action

From what I understand, the actions were illegal according to German law at the moment, but the police did not act (with some exceptions, according to the article). Did some of the victims start legal action against perpetrators? Did it go somewhere? --Error (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Change Titel

Kristallnacht is not used anymore for the events on 9th November, 1938. Reichspogromnacht or Pogromnacht is used, as Kristallnacht is wording from the nazi regime — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtJack (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Carried out by...

"carried out by SA paramilitary forces and German civilians." That's SA was the most prominent force at the Kristallnacht but SS and NSDAP members functionaries were also involved. --KaterBegemot (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Kristallnacht equivalent to the BDS

As the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions has the same goal of persecution of Jews and it's founders have the same goals as the Nazis this should be added tot he main page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:F387:9B00:A1F1:B0F9:133A:3001 (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kristallnacht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristallnacht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Prospective changes

This article regarding Kristallnacht is incredibly dense and contains a great deal of information regarding the event. However, there is missing information and I intend to add information about the role of women during this time. The article speaks greatly about the background, the Pogrom, and the aftermath, although it leaves out a vital aspect of the event. Women played a significant role during this time, caring for their homes, rescuing their husbands, and regaining their possessions. The reference that I will be using is a chapter titled, “Women’s Roles and Reactions During the Pogrom,” from the book, “Between Dignity and Despair,” by Marion A Kaplan. This article could use some clarification on how women were affected by Kristallnacht, since the article rarely addresses them. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.EmmaRB1 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi EmmaRB1! This looks good - you may want to pull on more than one source though, as this may not cover all the available viewpoints or perspectives as it was published in 1996, just over 20 years ago. It's generally a good idea to use more than one source as a whole. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed)! For a very short contribution as EmmaRB1 plans to make, I think the one source is enough. Kaplan is still a leading authority on all things related to German women and the Holocaust. Thanks! Chapmansh (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, please see article where I note an Incorrect Date. Under Women in the Program you refer to 1933, but that can't be right since K'nacht occurred in 1938. Also, imho, this section feels very general and applicable to Jewish women as a whole in Nazi Germany vs. the highly specific events and their aftermath that pertain to this one momentous historical event. Cheers. Droffroad (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) droffroad.

Hitler's knowledge of Ernst Vom Rath's death

The article currently states:

"Word of his death reached Hitler that evening while he was with several key members of the Nazi party at a dinner commemorating the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. After intense discussions, Hitler left the assembly abruptly without giving his usual address."

Maybe I'm confusing incidents, but I don't think that this is correct. I've been listening to Kershaw's Nemesis, and I believe that Hilter was already aware of Ernst Vom Rath's death. His act of being shocked was just that, an act. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The size of a football field is not a unit of measurement

On the section that tells about the dumping site of the destroyed property, it reads: "The site, the size of four Association football fields". The size of a football field is not widely known and it's not a unit of measurement. Please use real measurement units for describing sizes! 84.0.44.172 (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

9-10 November

Why was this date format chosen? --131.107.160.203 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

wrong term(s)

1. "Kristallnacht" is the term witch first was used by the perpetrators

2. it is a very bad term - it`s an euphemism

2. only very few people still use this term

3. with the beginning of the 21. century research came to the conclusion that the pogrom took place from 7. to 13. November 1938 - it was not only one night !

4. on the 9. of November the pogrom was on the highist level, but to focus just on this one day ist wrong

5. the lemma in the german-language wikipedia therefore is since 11. Januar 2006 ! Novemberpogrome 1938 !

6. For me an antifaschist german it is very annoying that rightwing euphemism like Kristallnacht, Vergangenheitsbewältigung, Wiedergutmachung, Blitzkrieg got international used terms

7. rightwing framing leads to wrong view of history and presence

--Über-Blick (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

I am not sure if or how this has reflected on the English speaking world, but in German, there have been huge discussions going on for years or decades about the term "Reichskristallnacht" as being euphemistic or playing down the impact of this pogrom. There is no universal agreement about how to handle it correctly, but in general, either Reichspogromnacht or Novemberpogrome is preferred nowadays. Maybe this information should be included in some way. --Anna (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.158.94.130 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There should indeed be a 'Terminology' section to explain this. "Kristallnacht" doesn't sound euphemistic to an English speaker, and "broken glass" actually has pretty negative connotations, so the issue doesn't much come up.--Pharos (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
In English the word has taken on meanings far beyond its original meaning, as its usage often implies that much worse is going to come.--Calthinus (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears the original colloquial naming may have been more mocking than euphemistic, but the historical record is unclear. de:Novemberpogrome 1938#Bezeichnungen is the section covering this on German Wikipedia. Anyway, the common English translation "broken glass" is much more negative than the more literal "crystal", which is probably why this is less of an issue in the English-speaking world.--Pharos (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree! Being German, I am actually shocked that this article, as well as the French, Italian and Spanish article have variations of "Kristallnacht" as titles. Besides a terminology paragraph, I would suggest to change the title of the article accrodingly (cf. the German article). While "broken glass" may have a negative conotation, I think it is still a eupemithm in the context of the central role it played in the biggest genozide in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7088:FC00:C184:760F:40B4:2187 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"Women in the Pogrom" section

Not sure about the policy about this, but the first paragraph of the "Women in the Pogrom" section at the bottom seems to be entirely redundant (yes, there were women there, and bad things happened to them) and both paragraphs repeat themselves (women working to release men is mentioned twice in the latter) and also contradict each other (the first describes women as terrified; the second makes the universal statement that "Testimonies during this time claim that women maintained tranquility and command, even in the course of upheaval," which if nothing else is too universal a statement).

Barring someone stepping in in the next while (as in, next couple of days maybe), I'm nuking the section and posting the edit link to this if it ends up needing reverting. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the section justifies its existence. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding a "tone" tag. This section is i.m.o. not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Having a section describing issues specific to women is fine, in so far as these issues are specific and relevant; but the text reads like a letter of complaint, a panegyric, and a school assignment combined, with many grammatical issues as well. Cerberus™ (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: the section was added a year ago, mostly by a single user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristallnacht&diff=812509364&oldid=812487935
Cerberus™ (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
For better or worse, after some edit-warring it has now been removed. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The pogrom proved especially destructive in Berlin and Vienna

Source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/kristallnacht

Vienna isn't mentioned in the text.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Where do you think it should be mentioned? Can you propose a specific sentence change? Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the point is we need a source for the pogrom being especially destructive in Vienna as well as Berlin. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Suicides

I see suicides mentioned in the lede, but I wasn't able to find any discussion of it in the body. Haaretz ran an article on this yesterday [4] - should we add more about this to the article? Seraphim System (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added a little more to the lede about the suicides (cited it), but i feel like it does need discussion elsewhere, as does the disputes by historians of the death/building toll. india.OHC(talk) 03:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Populism

The civilians involved were radicalized by NAZI populism, lets not deny the primary role of Populism. At this point the majority of Germany willingly gave power to the NAZI party. If you have time read German politicians remember nazi kristallnacht pogrom [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddGrande (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ToddGrande is adding "Category:Populism" to articles to which it is not relevant. He needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BDS

There should be a section how the BDS movement target Jews in the same way the Nazis did, because the BDS movement founders have the same extermination goals.96.81.123.61 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your contention that the founders of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel have as their goal the "extermination" of Jews, as opposed to, say, provoking changes in Israel's policies towards Palestinians. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

”Kristallnacht“ is an Euphemism

In Germany, we avoid the expression “Kristallnacht“ (= crystal night) as it is an euphemism used by the NSDAP, that belittles their actions. Instead, the politically correct word would be “Reichspogromnacht“ (= pogrom night), wich is the prevalent word in modern German media and politics. [1]

I don‘t know much about the use of this word in English, however, I would propose renaming the article.

Tomom Tomom (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Warum ist der Begriff „Kristallnacht" verschwunden?".
"Kristallnacht" is the standard word in the English language to describe those events, so per WP:COMMONNAME, it should remain the title of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger statement

@Beyond My Ken:,

recently WP is overbombed with the political shoapboxing regarding many-many articles regarding the recent U.S. events, and as I see some IP's or other fresh user heavily putting shoapboxing info in articles, in a promotional/propaganda matter, with less neutrality. Does not belong here, neither similar content in other articles, when the waters cool down, those should discuss first who wish to include such material.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

I agree that this is generally a problem since the insurrection at the Capitol, but it is an undisputed fact that Schwarzenegger said what he said, and it's been widely reported. We can't simply ignore it. The statement that I restored is a neutral and non-propagandistic statement of fact. It so happens that I think his analogy was inapt, but that's my opinion, which is not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't quite realized that the statement hadn't been properly referenced, so I've added the,. As sourced information relevant tot he article, it should stay there unitil there's a consensus to remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:,
I honestly don't care much further in this issue, however concerning on your statement in the edit log, the opposite is valid by our policies, if a bold edit is reverted, it should not be included until talk is ongoing.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC))
Well, it's certainly a new edit, but I don;t see it as BOLD, considering that it can be referenced out the wazoo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Still counts like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmmaRB1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BDS is based on the Kristallnacht

We should think about adding a section on how the BDS model their action against Israel on the Nazis who the TransJordanians did allie with in WW@. that should also put in the lead on the BDS page.18:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.220.42 (talk)

In the very unlikely case that you find a reliable source making this assertion, we can then consider how much weight to give it and how to include it in the articles. In the absence of any such source, this may not be added to these articles.RolandR (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Not up to you Roland.204.9.220.42 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

So it's up to whom? You, Mister Anonymous? jae (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Certainly not up to some nobody called Jae.

Agree that BDS analogy should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.29.6 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kristallnacht/Archive_1&oldid=1184372889"