Talk:Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

wow
This article is very well-written. I've often heard the the anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany used as a straw person argument against all anti-smoking campaigns. I'm glad to see that Wikipedia was able to produce a neutral and highly informative article about a subject which is too often only a talking point. Savidan 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have studied the subject well before creating this article. Actually it is Robert N. Proctor, he did extensive research on this topic and in his book Nazi War on Cancer detailed the Nazi anti-tobacco measures very well. As you can see from the article, Nazi Germany was the first nation to identity the link between lung cancer and tobacco and Nazi sponsored anti-smoking movement was the strongest in the 1930s and 1940s until the collapse of the Nazi government. And what you have heard is right that pro-tobacco advocates try to depict the present day anti-tobacco movement as being borrowed from Nazis, thus they label any anti-smoking movement as a Nazi method. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/250407antismoking.htm Here is an article] which says " Today's Anti-Smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis". But it is misrepresentation of historical facts. By that definition, any ballistic missile will be "Nazi missile" because the V-2 rocket was world's first ballistic missile. There is no relation between modern anti-smoking movement and Nazi anti-smoking campaign. The tobacco industry try to misrepresent historical facts and apply several logical fallacy to weaken the anti-tobacco movement.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

however, today's anti-smoking advocates actually use some of the same odious techniques utilized by the nazis, depicting smokers as lesser individuals and hopeless addicts. now, today they don't actually say 'subhuman', etc. but the implication is clear. single-minded, bureaucratic, one-issue individuals such as today's rabid anti-smoking advocates are cut from the same cloth as the people that 'just went along' with the nazis. that is why the anti-tobacco people often use that particular argument. big business capitalism (pro-tobacco) vs. big government socialism (anti-tobacco)... neither one is more evil than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange, well if we are talking in terms of "evil" then cigarettes are certainly a lot more evil than other addictions/habits. I really don't see how people trying to get others to quit smoking for health benefits are as evil as a billion dollar comapnies getting people addicted (at an early an age as possible) to cigarettes, still if it helps you feel better as you inhale toxic chemicals then feel free.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that tobacco increases the chances of contracting cancer, bronchitis, heart disease and so on, and there is certainly nothing wrong with helping people to give up if they wish to, nor is there anything wrong with advising on the dangers. It is the whole "ideological" part of the debate that irritates me; the way that smokers are villified and treated as second class citizens even if they confine their habits to their own homes. That is where the similarity lies between the Nazis and the current anti smoking "fashion", and its not the only similarity either. By the way, I think you'll find you're inhaling toxic chemicals too, unless you live somewhere where nobody uses a petrol or diesel angine, so you can wipe the smug grin off your face too. (And yes, I did give up. 2006, and it was EASY). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Smokers are not subhuman; they are merely polluters, violators of others' rights to clean environment. Their faults are comparable to those using internal-combustion engines in populated areas. Besides, we humans have civic obligations to look after these people when they get ill. So, all these polluters should be fined, until the marginal social cost equals their marginal utility of smoking (or polluting the atmosphere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FetteK (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You basically just said "Smokers aren't subhuman, But they are subhuman"--BLaafg (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee FetteK, I certainly don't want to be a Jew if you become Supreme Leader 24.108.11.228 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummmmm... they ARE fined. Tobacco taxes are huge in many regions (for example, in British Columbia, $40 CAD is paid to the province in tax. Furthermore, the anti-tobacco movement has tried to claim that smokers do not cover their health care cost, but numerous studies discount this fact (Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, published in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal). 'Healthy' people actually end up costing the system more because they live longer and require expensive palliative care and pharmaceuticals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Trouble in free health care paradise?--BLaafg (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know it. Now and always... ;) 24.108.11.228 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Automobiles or streetcars?
The Anti-tobacco measures section contains the two sentences "In 1941, tobacco smoking in automobiles was outlawed in Germany's sixty large urban settlements.[25] Smoking on trams was also banned in many cities.[11]" However, this online reference by Proctor says that "Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941." Was smoking really banned in automobiles, or was this just a misunderstanding of the meaning of "street car" (tram)? --DAJF (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is tram. Fixed.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco decline during WWII
Looking at the data, the success of the antismoking policy appears to be confined to the war years. An obvious alternative explanation is that Germany had limited access to imports of tobacco under conditions of wartime blockade. Is there any info on this?JQ (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because the "alternative explanation" is not supported by any reference. I have added the information exactly what the reference is saying. What Proctor described is that the decline in tobacco consumption in the later years in the military is due to the policies implemented in the military.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I fully concur with John's comment. By the middle of the war Germans were being supplied with ersatz cigarettes, which clearly demonstrates that they had insufficient access to tobacco to make real ones. Also, the source is clearly contradictory as it says that of its study group of 1000, 100 soldiers took up smoking during the war as opposed to only seven who quit. The obvious conclusion is that the overall decline in smoking was due primarily to lack of access to the product, not to the alleged effectiveness of the anti-smoking campaign. Gatoclass (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May be lack of access to cigarettes was a catalytic factor behind decline in tobacco smoking. But per this reference, The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to lower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years. It is necessary to add information according to WP:V which is done here.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that according to WP:V this data should be included however I am unsure of the wording. A few times in the article it mentions the decline as specifically the result of the anti-smoking legislation and policies. Given that there is the clear potential that this isn't the case it should be said perhaps that "such and such" said that the policies were the cause. Of course until there is a source saying otherwise it shouldn't be said that "such and such" said that the poor quality and lack of tobacco was the cause ... but making a definitive statement based on 1 reference is an a mistake based on the neutrality guidelines.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article really looks weird without any references at all to the geo-political situation regarding tobacco import. Maybe it is because I'm European, and remember my grandparents talking about all the imported stuff they didn't have access to during the occupation. I'm sure coffee consumption was down too.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have to understand that the topic of the article is researched by very few people, this is why there are very few references. As I have repeatedly said, I will be glad to add it if I can find reliable source.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ., , ,  I have found some more sources and added them. More generally, I sourced the statement that, in the late-to-early-post war years, the number of addicts was going up at the same time as the number of cigarettes sold went down for economic reasons. I agree with everyone here that the economic factors and their effects on smoking rates are important. The sources are in German except one, which was published only shortly before the last comment in this thread. The others I found when researching another topic; I recommend sources on the Reemtsma cigarette company's history as sources for tobacco in the Nazi era. There is now a book out on tobacco and coffee in the "Third Reich"; it is in German (by Petrick-Felber, in the further-reading section). I do not have access but there is an online interview with the author. HLHJ (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant
This article is like my new favourite article lol, im a smoker of rolleys and i find this at once informative, easy to read and understand and (subtly) funny all in one glorious artcile, Top Marks, especially for the propaganda pic! xD :D ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good read, but for the record: beware Godwin's law. It just needed to be mentioned. --Bobak (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Prelude" section
On June 24, 2008, added this reference in the article to support the claim The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proved in Germany before the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s by Prof. Fritz Lickint in this edit. But there is no mention in the reference that Lickint was the person who first proved the link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking nor there is any mention that the paper "Tobacco and tobacco smoke as aetiological factors for carcinoma" by Lickint was the first to prove this link. The reference is only saying: Bereits 1930 veröffentlichte Lickint einen Beitrag zum "Tabak und Tabakrauch als ätiologische Faktoren des Carcinoms" in Form eines Übersichtsbeitrages mit 167 Literaturzitaten (Lickint 1930). Aus den Ergebnissen des damaligen Schrifttums und nach seinen Daten kam er zu einer Geschlechterhäufigkeit von 5 : 1 zwischen Männern und Frauen. Er machte den Tabakrauch für diese Veränderungen verantwortlich und wies bereits damals auf seine Gefahren hin. As early as 1930 Lickint published a contribution to the "Tobacco and tobacco smoke as etiological factors for Carcinoms" in the form of an overview with 167 literature citations (Lickint 1930). From the results of the then Literature and according to his data, he came to a Gender frequency of 5: 1 between men and Women. He made the tobacco smoke for these changes responsible and dismissed were already on its dangers.

On the other hand both Proctor (pp. 173) and Johan P. Mackenbach clearly mentions that the link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking was first proved by Nazi scientists in Nazi Germany. Since the claim added is not supported by his reference, I am removing the unsourced claim and his reference and mentioning what the two reliable sources, Proctor and Mackenbach, are saying.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a bit off-topic, but the English Fritz Lickint article is really in need of a copyedit. On-topic again, a more recent 2001 paper also by Proctor says "Fritz Lickint of Dresden published the first good statistical evidence of a lung cancer tobacco link in 1929... Adam Syrek in 1932 at the University of Cracau argued similarly that it was hard to reconcile a non-tobacco aetiology with the mortality patterns he was finding in rural Poland." Should this be mentioned in the article?
 * I'd also give that translation as something more like:

As early as 1930, Lickint published a article titled "Tobacco and tobacco smoke as etiological factors in carcinomas", a review citing 167 other studies (Lickint 1930). Using these published results and his own data, he calculated a ratio of smoking [carcinoma] rates for men:women of 5:1. He concluded that tobacco was responsible for these changes[?] these effects and, even at this early date, warned that it was dangerous.
 * The colons could be replaced by the word "to", in both cases. Dismissing a danger means that you think that it is unimportant or undangerous. HLHJ (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Proctor 2001 says "Fritz Lickint of Dresden published the first good statistical evidence of a lung cancer tobacco link in 1929". The distinction between establishing a link and establishing causality needs to be emphasized; it's correlation or causation again. Doll (who, as a researcher in the field, is more reliable for some things, but cannot read German) in his 1998 paper, cites studies observing correllations between smoking and cancer going back to the 1700s (mostly 1800s and 1920s). There is a sketchy outline at the linked Health effects of tobacco. I think I'm uneasy about the accuracy of the first sentence, I am going to modify it with better sourcing. HLHJ (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Table in "Effectiveness" section
I see that Otolemur Crassicaudatus has reverted my adjustment of the table in the effectiveness section (with the addition of a brief title). In my opinion, the table should stand alone as useful data, without requiring qualification from the main text.

Here is the current version of the table:-

Here is my proposal:-

Problems with the current table:-
 * 1) When reading the top row: Country | 1935  | 1940 | 1944
 * It is not immediately obvious why "Country" is followed by a series of numbers. Only when I look down the the left hand column does the purpose of "Country" become clear. Indeed when I see that the column consists of Germany and United States, the label "Country" becomes redundant. All readers of this article know what "Germany" and "United States" are.
 * 1) Every column has an in-line citation, but these citations are all the same. Rather than listing the citation separately for each column, I used a single citation with the table's title, indicating that all the data derives from that source.
 * 2) It is not immediately obvious what "1930", "1935", "1940" and "1944" refer to. Given the sequence and similarity to the Nazi era, a reader might infer that they are years.
 * 3) It is not obvious what the numbers "490", "510", etc. refer to. It is necessary to read the text preceding the table to find out. With my version, the preceding text becomes superfluous. Axl (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for discussing. I have no strong opinion here. The table at first had no table caption and since it started with the sentence "Below is a comparison of per capita cigarette consumption rate per year in Germany and the United States from 1930 to 1944", I though it will be unnecessary to give a table caption. You have a good point here about the reference and column issue, so I am reverting it back to your version.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) Axl (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg
There is a disagreement over the inclusion of the Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg in Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. So it will be better to seek a consensus if the image should be included or not. I have informed the involved users. The arguments for the inclusion of the image are:


 * The image gives the reader a picture of a Nazi anti-tobacco magazine
 * Reine Luft was the main Nazi anti-tobacco magazine.

Arguments against the inclusion of the image is it does not mention the fair use rationale clearly and the image is unnecessary to describe Nazi anti-tobacco movement.

Lets seek a consensus to solve this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

People for inclusion of the image

 * I am for the inclusion of this image, as long as the fair use rationale is strengthened. To do this, the "main points" phrase needs to be specified. What main points does the image convey to the reader? Why is this image necessary? Why won't words suffice? This needs to be explained in the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Awadewit. The rationale needs to be clearer, but fair use is justifiable. For what it's worth, the main image on that page is public domain anyway, although I realise that doesn't help. Is there actually a copyright holder for Nazi stuff? jimfbleak (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Include The image directly depicts what the article is about and shows Nazi attittudes towards smoking, and you don't have to read German to tell this. This is precisely what FU is for. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see an image of a lobster, an image of a joker (possibly malevolent), and (I think) an image of a medieval knight. I can guess that the caption next to the lobster says "Tobacco and crabs". Axl (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

People against inclusion of the image

 * Remove. I can't read German. Hence the picture doesn't add to my understanding of the article's topic. However I expect that this picture might be helpful in the analogous article in German Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. I agree with Axl. I can read German somewhat, but the picture does not enhance my understanding, unlike the lead one. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A translation in the caption could solve this problem. Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Note: I have given the detailed rationale in Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to discuss the imagery in more detail (if only in the image summary). The crustacean  representing cancer (Krebs means both crustacean and cancer in German) and the devil singing "so appetitlich frisch (ca. so deliciously fresh) as "Propaganda" (this is a reference to a Bergmann cigarette slogan/jingle/advertisement, btw).  I'm forced to wonder, also, if reading the German is unnecessary, why we are using such a high resolution (742x1,080)?  I'm able to read and see everything in the right column (the meaningful one) at my 200px thumbnail preference; see WP:NFCC#3B.  Also, if we're dotting Is and crossing Ts for FAC, the copyright holder should be attributed (NFCC#10A).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolution is unrelated to German language. The purpose of the image is that readers can understand how a Nazi anti-tobacco journal looked like.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However I will say I do not have any strong opinion here, and if other editors think the image is inappropriate, I will remove it after a consensus is achieved.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the consensus seems to be for keeping the image. Hence I am closing the discussion.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus"?
I accept that the "Keep" !voters present good arguments. However three good quality "keeps" vs. two good quality "opposes" does not represent "consensus". Rather this discussion should have closed as "no consensus". Axl (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Last lead sentence
"The world's first public anti-smoking campaign was more powerful and serious than the anti-tobacco movement in Germany at the end of the 20th century."


 * Perhaps I'm simply not fully awake, but this is hard to read. I understand it to mean the Nazi anti-smoking campaign was better than the modern anti-smoking movement in Germany. This should be said another way, such as "The current anti-smoking movement in Germany is not as forceful/powerful/effective/visible as the Nazi anti-tobacco movement." - RoyBoy 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the sentence "The anti-smoking movement in Germany even at the end of the 20th century was not as powerful as the Nazi anti-smoking campaign".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Image
Is is reasonable to discuss replacing the image of Hitler, or removing it altogether? Do we really need an image of AH in this article, first of all, and, if we decide we do, does it have to be so, -well- iconic? Isn't there a photo of him picking his nose or something somewhere on the web? I would suggest that the image adds nothing to the article. And, as this is a neutral article, with regards to the Party itself, it may be less than fully appropriate to have an image of the Party leader that is clearly complimentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.81.205 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the image is to illustrate the article. It is added in a relevant section Hitler's attitude towards smoking.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, accepted as valid that there should be an image of AH. My final point was: does it have to be such a complimentary one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.81.205 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does there have to be an uncomplimentary? That would be POV-pushing.... SGGH speak! 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Proctor's book (to mention him again) there is an image of Hitler (also iconic) with a text in it praising the Führer as a non-smoker. This would be a more apt image, however somebody would have to scan it and the question of copyright would have to be solved. --Alex1011 (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably talking about this image. It is a fair use image. The article already has two fair use images and we cannot include fair use image any more.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the image. --Alex1011 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Still no mention of supply
I find it disappointing that this article still has no mention whatever of the fact that Germany was unable to access tobacco through the war years because of the naval war, and consequently had to substitute the atrocious ersatz-tobacco instead. That, along with the difficulty in actually supplying troops with even their basic needs, let alone luxuries like cigarettes, could surely account for the drop in consumption, but this article stills naively asserts it was all due to the Nazi propaganda campaign. Gatoclass (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are asking this question for the second time. I have answered to your question, see this thread.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, but you only have one reference which says that, and that reference itself admits that little research has been done into the Nazi program. People do make mistakes you know. I note that article also says French consumption declined even more sharply during the years of occupation than in Nazi Germany. Was the Nazi anti-tobacco campaign also extended to France? Or is the more likely explanation, as for the decline in Germany, lack of access?


 * I accept that you have a reference to support the statement in the article, but I do think this article is incomplete without at least some discussion of the shortage of tobacco and the difficulties in supplying troops. I mean, German soldiers on the Eastern Front were literally starving at times. The war led to all kinds of shortages. Gatoclass (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand your argument, you have raised a good point and a thought provoking question. But right now I have nothing to do because almost all the reliable sources available on this topic are included within the article and none of them discusses this fact. Very few people have researched this topic, this is why there are very few references on it. The only reference on this particular issue (i.e. effectiveness) I have is Proctor. If I can find any reliable source which discusses the issue of effectiveness and its relation with war-time lack of supply, I will add it. Otherwise it will be original research.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

its not the first
Murad IV, sultan of the Ottoman Empire 1623-40 was among the first to attempt a smoking ban by claiming it was a threat to public moral and health. see the Smoking page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the qualifier "in modern history" makes this still fine. There were other bans historically, but this was the first serious attempt in the past few hundred years. --Delirium (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not up to you to decide, when modern history started. The introduction is simply POV. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article Modern history, there is a definition of Modern history. Modern history refers to the history of the Modern Times, the era after the Middle Ages. I completely failed to understand on what basis you are saying "The introduction is simply POV". The fact is supported by a reliable source Science in the Third Reich by Margit Szöllösi-Janze, professor of history at the University of Salzburg.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently there were quite a few tobacco prohibitions during this period of the seventeenth century - China, Russia, New York, Bhutan among others. I could scarcely imagine that such an unpleasant and addictive drug could have gained such popularity without them. Mike Serfas (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The online source you cited is a personal website of an independent anti-tobacco activist, blogger and Internet writer named Gene Borio and in no sense is more reliable than a scholarly book written by a professor of history at the University of Salzburg. The online source also does not site any reference for most of the information with only a few exceptions like the information on Nazi Germany where it cites Proctor. Another point, "movement" and "prohibition" are not same. Movement not only means law enforcement, but includes mobilization of the public, use of the mass media, publication of relevant literature and education for the masses.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First Two Sentences Contradictory
As noted in the second sentence of the article, there were public anti-tobacco movements from the start of the 20th C, for example in Illinois in 1907. The first sentence claims that Nazi Germany led the first campaign. Nazi Germany, under any history I have seen, did not exist then. Possibly this should be ammended to 'first successful public' or similar? Mharward (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is not saying it was the first anti-smoking campaign, the first sentence is saying it was the first public anti-smoking campaign. The campaign by Nazi Germany was characterized by attempt to influence the public (through the use of almost all government-public interaction means), not only by implementing laws.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a shortage of information about who was actually running parts of the campaign. A lot of it seems to have been done by local and private actors, as in other countries at the time (there's a 2008 source, Bachinger et al., showing the propaganda minister clamping down on them). For instance, the lead image seems to have been from a publication which the same source shows being singled out for government criticism. The newer sources also show the Nazi leadership squabbling over tobacco control issues. Gleichschaltung was a Nazi ideal, but, from the historical research, it seems that taking the propaganda at face value would be a mistake. I'm not saying that civil society was in any way free under the Nazis, but total central control of everything was obviously logistically impossible, and social and economic pressures remained a factor.


 * Given that "modern" is a bit ambiguous in context, as is "public", I'd support re-introducing this sentence if it could be made sufficiently specific about both what was happening and when it was the first for, but overqualification might make the whole thing too unwieldy. The current sentence "The German movement was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world during the 1930s and early 1940s" might give the same sort of impression without the ambiguity. HLHJ (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Did it help lose the war?
Can't seem to find the source that said this. Anyone seen it?Peas &amp; Luv (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought attacking the Soviet Union and declaring war on the USA would have lost them the war, any source that says the anti-tobacco movement lost the Nazis the war isn't worth referencing.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

repulse
i must say, looking at a picture of Adolph Hitler on the main page of wikipedia... is of such great repulse at this times of history... In an article, where the inhumanity of Nazi facts is not at first hand mentioned. I am deeply sorry some people condemn cigarette or any other kind of drug or even petty vice abuse. But, im afraid every nation and human rights defender person has a right on this matter. We cannot allow any issues defended under the nazi flag. Any, for that matter. It's inmoral, it's repulsive. This will be taken to the higher levels of Wikipedia, i so hope. Maybe tomorrow we will feature an article on the dissapearing of Roma, Iranian or whichever race or habit by nazi standars. Im enraged at this, and this, should be answered by ethical standars of Holocaust denial. I might have missed the whole point of the article, yet it doesnt look so clear, nor does Adolph Hitler's picture in the main page (Abestrobi (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Sorry, what is your objection? This is an article on the 'Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany', anything repulsive the Nazis did isn't particularly relevant to the article, even so you will notice their anti-semitism is mentioned in the article as the Nazis used Jews in this propaganda piece as was their custom.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Abestrobi, I think, as you yourself say, that you "might have missed the whole point of the article"! This article is not the place to condemn the terrible things done by the Nazis. There are plenty of relevant pages in wikipedia for that. I'm sure it must be hard to accept by some people that evil/totalitarian regimes actually managed to do some good/useful things (even if for the wrong reasons and even if vastly outweighed by the bad things they did) but facts are facts. So if the Nazis were the first to do a major anti-smoking campaign, it has to be recognized, no? (They were also the first to build modern motorways were they not?) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When a member of the Yehudim faith opens wikipedia this is how they are to be greeted?!?!?! A picture of the evil aryan races number 1 :@:@:@:@ THIS IS DISGUSTING!!! Anyone who advocates an article which PRAISES ANY FORM OF NAZISM/ARYAN PRIDE IS A NAZI AND MUST BE SOUGHT OUT AND NAMED AND SHAMED!!! :@:@:@:@ We cannot allow any issues defended under the nazi flag!!! I will be taking this further, anyone who supports or supported this pathetic excuse for an article will get theirs!!!58.107.179.146 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to forget that Wikipedia is NPOV, and thus does not advocate or support anything. This article does not approve of either the Nazis or their anti-tobacco campaign. Brutannica (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Before you react in such an enraged way, you should maybe give some things a second philosophical thought. What should somebody think who sees today's featured picture about work on an "A-31 Vengeance dive bomber" and whose siblings and mother burned to death because of the allied attacks. Thousands of children were deliberately burned to death in the allied bombing raids against civilians. So what it ends up to today is the following – mankind is divided in absolutely good on the one side and absolutely evil on the other – therefore ALL actions are looked upon not according to the nature of the action but who was the actor. What do Americans know about the hundreds of thousands of girls and women – mothers, sisters, and daughters who were raped after "the good side" won? Who knows about the millions of Germans and East Europeans who were butchered after "the good side" won? If it ever enters articles it's downplayed because of the modern commandment not to relativize the guilt of "the evil side". It's not in the media and you're not close to personally told stories. Sadly the world stays the same – just count the murdered and the wars since 1945 or before 1900. Greetings, 217.236.224.46 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NPOV, saying that Hitler is "disgusting and evil" is POV, not to mention one-dimensional. SGGH speak! 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and incidentally, I echo the sentiments from further up the page, this article is an excellent job :) SGGH speak! 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Enjoy your time, many nazis did until THEY WERE HUNG!!! :@58.107.172.142 (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You sure have humane feelings, gallows in your backyard and have to be an enjoyable person.217.236.218.226 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, I still have the nasty memory and feel the same rejection when i look at that Wikipedia front page with an image of Hitler and an article that talks about Nazi life protection policy. It's so ironic, isnt it? seems almost a joke. For my (IP only) friend up here... that links Nazism with the Aryan race... you are SO mistaken!! Nazis killed aryans as well, starved many to death. The aryan race as all races, but not just one, is to be praised. Yet it's sad you consider this party... that only benefited itself with its policies (under puny racial claims) the savior of aryan races.
 * I saw below, someone also claimed the nazi's had welfare programs for german citizens. Yes they did, but to THEIR definition of german citizens (defenders of the regime). Germans that were political opponents were not considered or treated as citizens, no matter their race.
 * And yes, i can indulge to say Hitler is a disgusting an evil political figure, that is completely POV. "Discussion" page is exactly for that, expose and share personal POV concerns.(Abestrobi (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
 * From the banner at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany article.... This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Axl. The person who started this thread is using the talk page as a forum.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on rationing
Just thought I'd mention, since it's on the Main Page, that:


 * The Nazis also imposed restrictions on tobacco advertising, tobacco rationing for women, and smoking in public spaces, and they regulated restaurants and coffeehouses.

...isn't a featured-quality sentence. Does someone want to fix? [I'm not watching this page]. AndyJones (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your alternative suggestion?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno. How about:


 * The Nazis also imposed restrictions on tobacco advertising and smoking in public spaces, introduced tobacco rationing for women, and regulated restaurants and coffeehouses.


 * ...? I think the problem with the original is pretty obvious. AndyJones (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, the Nazis actually prohibited tobacco rationing for women, not "introduced tobacco rationing for women". The structure of your alternative suggestion, which is not so different from the previous structure, is ok except the tobacco rationing for women part, I will add this removing that particular part.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Another point: "Pregnant women and women below the age of 25 and over the age of 55 were not given tobacco ration cards during World War II." Shouldn't that be over 25 and under 55? I don't think there would have been many pregnant women over 55. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The Nazis targeted two groups:


 * Pregnant women
 * Non-Pregnant women


 * Actually the sentence means pregnant women were not given tobacco ration cards during World War II; women who were not pregnant were also not given tobacco ration cards during World War II. In case of women who were not pregnant, the age structure was below the age of 25 and over the age of 55. The age structure only applies for women who were not pregnant, not for pregnant women. All pregnant women, regardless of their age, were not given tobacco ration cards.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I get it now! My misreading. Thanks! Harry the Dog WOOF  12:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

most influential vs. not effective
I think it is contradictory to claim, that the campaign was the most influential of 20th century, and on the other side to claim, that it was not effective. That smoking declined during war time has probably something to do with the war. Proctor himself writes, if I remember correctly, that the NS government stopped or interrupted the campaign during the war in order to enhance public morale. --Alex1011 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Powerful movement does not mean it have to be completely effective. According to Proctor, it was the most powerful movement during the 1930s and early 1940s, but it was not as effective as expected. It is wrong to claim the movement was completely ineffective, it had some degree of effect. The Nazi anti-tobacco campaign was also more powerful than the present day anti-smoking movement in Germany. This means there is an anti-tobacco movement in Germany, but the campaign the Nazis started was more expensive and larger (in terms of government expense, use of the mass media, legislation effort, propaganda etc.) than the present day movement; the Nazi campaign involved the mass media and almost all government machineries, see the measures section. It was not so effective does not mean it was not larger in size than other contemporary movements and the present day movement in Germany.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gee, the way you guys talk, we should all worship The Proctor. When did he die? I want to stop referring to the year as 2008 and start referring to it as 46 AP or something because HE IS GOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Youth Division
I'd have to find the reference, but I believe the 12th SS "HitlerJugend" Division - made up largely of underage teenagers from the Hitler Youth movement - were denied tobacco rations and were actually given additional hard candy rations in lieu, a fact often mentioned in their divisional histories. In the context of this article (great article, by the way - this is why we have Featured Articles, I think, for I had no idea this existed) - it makes even more sense, now.139.48.25.60 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a good information. I have added the reference properly.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the information on 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, The 12th SS: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division by Hubert Meyer, 2005, ISBN 9780811731980, published by Stackpole Books, states: Efforts by departments at home to provide additional rations were unsuccessful. The troops were supplied with the regular provisions by the supply offices of the Heer. However, the recruits were not issued with tobacco products but received candy instead.

I have reworded the information properly as per the reference.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation?
By way of comment: odd that such an excellent article does not have a counterpart on the German Wikipedia. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I have time, I shall do it. By the way, Proctor's book itself is not yet translated into German. There were some reviews of this English book in German newspapers, which were, however, not very enthusiastic. At a time, when Europe-wide and in Germany there are strong efforts to regulate smoking, mainstream media are not amused to get reminded, that there had already been a mutatis mutandis similar effort in NS times. Another possible point for controversy is Proctor's claim that experiments with living people in concentration camps did provide medical results. That the Nazis passed a law very early to prohibit experiments with animals in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry might be another taboo. That this policy measure was derided in a cartoon - against Goering - in a left wing news paper, although Hitler was already in power, still another. Finally, Proctor was so impolite to bring world attention to "the world's biggest swastika", a wood near Berlin planted in the form of a huge swastika, which had survived unnoticed in GDR territory, till it was found by aeroplane passengers after the fall of the wall. That wood was then, reluctantly, cut down by the authorities. There are still other taboo themes in Proctor's book. --Alex1011 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph: "associated with antisemitism and racism"?
From the intro: "...and this campaign was associated with both antisemitism and racism." Does this seem extremely vague and weaselwordy to anyone else? Isn't everything in nazi Germany "associated with antisemitism and racism"? Is there a better way to phrase this statement? Thoughts? AdRem (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an important fact and should be mentioned in the lead to summarize the entire article and for the purpose of NPOV.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My fist association is with the Körperkultur, the association between tobacco and anti-semitism/racism isn't an obvious one and might need a few words to help the reader "see it". Dugodugo (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not association between tobacco and antisemitism/racism, it is association between Nazi anti-tobacco movement and antisemitism/racism.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-smoking movement
I've added a link to anti-smoking movement to the top of the article: it's remarkable that we have an article about the Nazi anti-tobacco movement, but not to the wider topics of the (entirely non-Nazi) anti-tobacco movement in general. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but at present please remove this link since the article does not exist. It will be ok to link when the article is created.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how Wikipedia works: relevant red-links are not only permitted, but actively encouraged. See Red link and Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- The Anome (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then try to improve the article Anti-smoking movement.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Related traits
It might be well to mention that in addition to being a nonsmoker, Hiter was a teetoaler and a vegetarian. It's one of the weird ironies of history that the most infamous mass murderer of all time was, if one may use the phrase, a "clean liver." According to some of his biographers, he may have been obsessed with personal cleanliness and hygiene, and was a fastidious dresser.

Stalin, by contrast, was a heavy smoker and drinker.

I never knew that Hitler had once been a heavy smoker. Very nicely crafted article. Sca (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is possibly more relevant at his own article, and I'm sure it is included there. While it is ironic we wouldn't ideally want the article to comment on such irony off its own bat. SGGH speak! 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was only commenting on the irony for this talk page. I just think it would be relevant and interesting to note in passing. Hitler, also a teetotaler and vegetarian, blahblahblah.... Sca (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The information on Hitler's vegetarianism will be better suited in the article Adolf Hitler. We have an article titled Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler. This article only mentions the information which is relevant to the anti-smoking movement. The fact here is that Hitler was a heavy smoker in his early life, but later gave up the habit and encouraged others to do the same. In his later life, he had a hostile attitude towards smoking and it was a catalytic factor behind the Nazi anti-tobacco campaign.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify: His abstinence from alcohol and meat is relevant to his parallel abstinence from tobacco and abhorrence of same. Sca (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article???
How did this piece of trash ever make it as an FA? A feeble attempt to link the Nazis with measures intended to improve people's health. Well done smokers! I'm sure when you're breathing your last through that hole in your neck you'll be able to think (you'll certainly not be able to vocalise) "We really showed it to those non-smokers!" Absolutely pathetic. Halmyre (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)




 * Never feed the troll. -- Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Irony
Some people are outraged at this article because it seems to praise the Nazis (since of course smoking is bad). And then some people are outraged because it seems to defend smoking (since of course the Nazis are bad). Wherever we discuss a historical irony like this (where two evils are in temporary conflict), we will naturally get such complaints. Meanwhile Wikipedia marches onward with neutrality of point of view.

Praise to all who wrote this fine and interesting article! —Toby Bartels (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It neither praise the Nazis, nor defend smoking. There is nothing POV to mention a historical fact, if the Nazis implemented anti-tobacco measures, there is nothing POV to mention it. And if Nazis opposed X, then X will be good, it is a logical fallacy. Nazis were bad and they opposed smoking does not mean smoking is good, those who claim this, they apply a logical fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum. I have created another article Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. The Nazis implemented strict restrictions on animal experimentation. See the measures the Nazis implemented for their animal welfare campaign. Does this mean those who support animal rights are like Nazis? Does this mean those who support unnecessary testing of animals are good? The Nazis also focused on insuring a minimal living standard for German citizens. So by using Reductio ad Hitlerum one can say any government which provides its citizens with minimal standard of living is evil government. The Nazis did both good and bad, but their bad overwhelms their good. That does not mean the good they did will also be bad, it is Reductio ad Hitlerum.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be claimed as well that investing in the development and promotion of featured articles related to something of great social approval that links to the nazi party is vindication of crime or historical rehabilitation of such party and government. It seems interesting there was so much legislation and policy about the protection of life in nazi Germany, isnt it? Some say they enforced restrictions on animal experimentation... yet history well recalls they performed the most horrid experiments in humans. How can we talk about life-protection policy when the magnitude of the atrocities is such? Some also say nazi social welfare campaigns focused on "insuring a minimal living standard for German citizens"... that i must also criticize since that notion of "citizen" is the one of the nazis. The welfare programs didnt apply to the enemies of the reich, though they were indeed german citizens (socialists, comunists, jews, gays, pro-anglo, etc.) In summary... we cannot say the sun is dark because it has small blackish spots, many in fact, but not enough. This is the logic of my thought here not a reductionism, but a claim and doubt that seeking rehabilitation is a possible objective of this article. (Abestrobi (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
 * If you believe there is any problem with this article, you can always AfD it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet we have an article on sunspots. How far does your analogy carry? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes we do. Oh, lets feature it Stephan! Maybe in time and with enough promotion... we can make people think the sun is actually a dark planet... that oh, well happens to emight some light. (Abestrobi (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
 * The talk page banner says This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Claim" was correct
This article states that a Nazi official "claimed" that a tobacco smoker's breast milk contains nicotine. I pointed out that this claim was in fact correct, but was reverted 14 hours later by someone claiming WP:SYN (although my sources "explicitly reach the same conclusion"). I believe that "claim" is a word discouraged by WP:WTA, and that it is within our purview to mention whether past scientific beliefs were upheld by further research. Mike Serfas (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for discussing it. The article is about the Nazi viewpoint. The sources you provided are modern research. No one is denying the fact that tobacco smoker's breast milk contains nicotine. I am agree with you on the issue of wording. I will change the word "claim" to "said". Again, the article describes what the Nazis did and what the Nazis said, not what people in modern times are saying. So even what the Nazis said is proved to be correct in modern research, we cannot include the modern research in this article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have used the structure "Werner Huttig of the Nazi Party's Rassenpolitisches Amt (Office of Racial Politics) said that a smoking mother's breast milk contained nicotine, a claim that is proved to be correct in modern research."  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that works. Mike Serfas (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just come across this article. You who contribute will need to be wary of anti-tobacco contributors. In general the anti-tobacco movement does not like attention being drawn to the Nazi Germany campaign against tobacco, partly because (in the UK at least) those who campaign for smoking bans are often termed "Health Nazis". I think the referencing of four articles to show that nicotine is present in breast milk is unnecessary. I'm sure this wasn't a very difficult chemical analysis. Why not find the earliest reference? I suspect that the inclusion of the reference to a 2008 paper about the effect on heart beats is an attempt to get the author's views on smoking onto the page. Unless the Nazis performed similar tests, I don't see its relevance. If you want to know who the anti-tobacco wikipedia contributors are, go to the Passive Smoking page.Otis66 (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi > National Socialist
I changed the word "Nazi" to "National Socialist" in two sentences in the lead to avoid repetitive use of the same word.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for translation of the word "Genussgifte"
There is a problem on translation of the German word "Genussgifte" in the sentence "Articles advocating nonsmoking were published in the magazines Die Genussgifte..." in the Anti-tobacco measures section. suggested "Poisons" is a better translation, while suggested "drugs for enjoyment" is better translation. Actually previously the word "Genussgifte" was translated as "The Benefit Poisons", during the FA nom, Future Perfect suggested the translation "drugs for enjoyment" in place of "The Benefit Poisons" and I believe Future Perfect's suggestion was better. But now there are two possible translated wordings:


 * 1) The Drugs for Enjoyment
 * 2) The Poisons for Enjoyment

A consensus is necessary to determine which is the better translation. I do not have any strong opinion here. I have temporarily removed the word "Drugs" from the translation because it resulted in a first bracket within a first bracket i.e. Die Genussgifte (The Poisons (Drugs) for Enjoyment), which I changed to Die Genussgifte (The Poisons for Enjoyment). I am seeking opinion which translation is better: "The Drugs for Enjoyment" or "The Poisons for Enjoyment".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I now find that Collins German Dictionary translates the term as "social drug". Never heard of that term, so I can't really judge. This online dictionary has "stimulant, excitant, substance which excites" Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Google translate and this translator translates the term as "Enjoyment poisons" and "Pleasure poisons" respectively. But after seeing the dictionaries you cited, "drug" will be a better translation, IMO.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly prefer "drug" over "poison". The German term is meant to refer to things like caffeine, tobacco and alcohol, after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Genussgift redirects to Genussmittel and claims that this is a specific German concept (akin to "Schadenfreude" and "Weltschmerz", neither of which has a good translation). "Social drugs" captures only some of the aspects, as coffee and tea are only drugs in a very limited interpretation. "Recreational substances"? "Recreational stimulants"? "Pleasure poisons" is a literal translation and has a nice alliteration, but is not really encyclopedic. "Social stimulants" might work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Recreational stimulants" sounds good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "The Stimulants for Enjoyment"? Keep the present structure, just replace "drug" with "stimulant".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually "The Stimulants for Enjoyment" and "The Recreational Stimulants" will mean the same. The later suggests the same meaning in a shorter form, thus better.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is not good, it has a very different connotations. If you like the structure, the best I can come up with is "Stimulants for Enjoyment" (note plural and no article - the English definite article is more definite than the German), but I still like either "Social stimulants" or "Recreational stimulants" better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To Otolemur: we shouldn't be trying to be too literal with that translation, including the definite article and all that (which sounds decidedly unidiomatic in English, and rather old-fashioned in German.) The translation is only meant to give an idea of what that journal title was about. Just "Recreational stimulants" fits the bill. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, agree. I think we have found the solution. I am changing it per Stephan Schulz's suggestion.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a latecomer to the discussion, but "recreational drugs" is a more common phrase in English. For something like this, a sort of "guilty pleasure," it seems more apt than "stimulants." Sca (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Recreational drugs" typically includes all drugs not taken for medical reasons, i.e. Marihuana, eXtasy, cocaine. Those are not included in the German term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Literally "pleasure poisons". --Alex1011 (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe Stephan Schulz's suggestion is the best. As he pointed out, Genussgift is redirecting to Genussmittel in German Wikipedia. And Genussmittel means stimulant. The word "drug" will not apply for coffee and tea. Per this dictionary definition provided by Future perfect, Genussgift  is stimulant, excitant, substance which excites. Thus "Recreational Stimulant" is the best translation.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But "Gift" is poison, and the people who use that word, mean it. Otherwise they would say Genussreizmittel or something like that. Maybe you cannot translate that word, if there was no political movement in the anglophone world to describe stimulants, drugs etc. as "poison". The word Genussgift is polemical. Is "recreational stimulant" polemical? --Alex1011 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a point. The word is "Genussgifte". "Genuss" means enjoyment and "gifte" means toxin. Your argument that the word "Genussgifte" is polemical has a point, not sure if the present English translation polemical or not. I know very little German, and have almost no opinion on this translation issue. Waiting for input from Stephan Schulz and Future perfect, and others who know good German.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, this is something that likely does not have a proper translation, since it has a number of connotation specific to the time and society that simply do not work in English. If we want to capture most of it, what about a parenthesized, or footnoted version? Die Genussgifte ("Recreational Stimulants", lit. "pleasure poisons")? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the footnote is a good idea. The current translation "Recreational stimulants" is fine, so keep it as it is. A footnote can be added detailing the various translations.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "pleasurable poisons." Hope I am not too late. This is one of the best-written articles I have seen on Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Section title
I am waiting for a consensus for the title of this section. This section was previously titled "Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign" when the article was promoted to featured status and appeared in main page. in this edit changed the section title to "Prelude". Which is better title, "Prelude" or "Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign"? A consensus is necessary.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Prelude" is better. From the manual of style, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article." Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about background? ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 15:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a brilliant article!
It should required reading for all the current Anti Fun Crew who want to ban all sources of pleasure and who are currently in the ascendant at the moment.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  19:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The greatest source of pleasure is ignorance, which is hard to either ban or suppress. Enjoy. And yes, this article is excellent, but I don't see it how it can be discouraging to the so-called "Anti Fun Crew". --69.121.51.151 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Chronological inconsistency
Hello,

How the Nazis could start their anti-tobacco campaign "After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer" (very first sentence of the article) when the very first reference link points to a document dating back to 1940 only. The Nazi (or German) did not start their anti-tobacco campaign for this reason ("fighting" lung cancer) as it is chronologicaly impossible (the campaign started before 1940). The very first sentence in the article should be changed as it leads readers to think the anti-tobacco campaign in Germany was based upon lung cancer scientific materials, which can't be true from the first refence in the article.

Thank you. WangTzu (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think it is consistent: the cited source, from 1940, cites earlier sources - for example: "This is described in detail in the publication “The development of carcinoma in a smoking rabbit” (4) (1931)." Poor rabbit. Thereby the cited source does back the claim that they made the connection at the beginning of the 1930's already.
 * --Hugovdm (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The rest of the article demonstrates (among other sources) that the campaign started before 1930' too, so the "fighing lung cancer anti-tobacco campaign" idea as suggested by the very first sentence of the article is just wrong. The prelude contradicts the first sentence (hence Chronological inconsistency). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.250.65.104 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake or anachronistic cartoon? Filtered cigarettes not generally available until the 1950s
I would suggest that the cartoon is either a fake or was not from the Nazi Era. If you check Wikipedia's own article on Cigarette Filters you will find that although they were experimented with as early as 1927 there were very few of them available until the 1950s and even so the machine capable of producing them was in the UK, hardly a source of German Cigarettes - and definitely not during the Second World War. I feel that the cartoon is not authentic Nazi propaganda material, as it clearly depicts a filter cigarette. Thus there would be little point in centering the entire cartoon on an object which would be alien to the intended audience of the 1930s or early 1940s. A reliable source or citation should be provided. May I suggest that the cartoon could be from the 1950s - post Nazi - when austerity measures were still being encouraged in Germany? --MichaelGG (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably a cork tip, they came in in the 1920s. The image is sourced from an academic article citing the original publication (I've added that cite to the article). HLHJ (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How is this article necessary? Why is it ranking #2 under google search for "anti-tobacco campaign history"?
I find it highly offensive that this article attempts to link the anti-tobacco public health efforts to Nazi-ism and Hitler racism, anti-semitism, etc.

Why would there be such an effort to write something so pro-tobacco/smoking like this unless it's on behalf of big tobacco?

This does not reflect well on Wikipedia at all--especially since Wikipedia has deemed it as "one of its best articles."

I request that you either remove this article, or at least stop promoting it on Google as associated with the general anti-tobacco public health campaigns. Nikki 121212 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Shockingly, there are things (e.g. the Autobahn) which the Nazis did that were not crimes against humanity. The Nazi program, its hypocrisy, dubious motivation, and its failure, are a major part of the early history of anti-smoking campaigns, and it's a perfectly valid topic for an encyclopedia article, and scholarly research for that matter.  Honestly, the Nazis were pretty awful people, but an article about education in Nazi Germany wouldn't be seen as a polemic against education in general.  This article is no different.  SDY (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply because the anti-tobacco movement are Nazi's, trying to impose THEIR ideals on the population, if people want to smoke, by all means let them, let's stop inflicting our own personal beliefs on others. Trumpy (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Trumpy": "Simply because the anti-tobacco movement are Nazi's"... I couldn't have worded the bias agenda of this article any better. You are such an idiot and so is whoever wrote this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.38.90 (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cigarette rationing
Why the article does not mention at all influence of wartime cigarette rationing on tobacco consumption? Wasn't cigarette rationing used as a tool of limiting civilian tobacco consumption too? (And certainly potentially much powerful one than propaganda) I'm not German, but I remember family stories, how my grandfather (on territory under German occupation) had been given (in 1941) an official ration of 25 cigarettes per week, which makes stories about percentage of people smoking 30 cigarettes per day a complete pipe-dream. The article is sorely missing any background information on German tobacco consumption in general, but it would certainly be helpful to give some general info on effects of wartime cigarette rationing. 78.128.177.136 (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Suppression of the anti-smoking cause
No German was executed for opposition to tobacco use. Sure, some of the major Nazi figures executed for war crimes (slave-trafficker Fritz Sauckel was one of them) were in the anti-smoking movement, but attributing their silencing by hanging to their opposition to tobacco is like saying that many of the executed Nazis were fans of classical music.

It is more significant that two of the victorious powers, the UK and the USA, had lucrative tobacco industries and of course wanted Germany to be a market for their lucrative tobacco industries. The full hazard of tobacco use may have been better known in Nazi Germany than in Britain or America, but by the 1960s the American medical profession had surpassed Nazi knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking upon health.Pbrower2a (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It took them only 20 years? Whow, ´murrica! 89.204.135.52 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Present day tobacco industry context
A little context would be nice. This article should make some mention of how the events described are being used today by tobacco companies. "The use of Nazi and health fascism rhetoric can be regarded as part of an institutionalised practice of the tobacco industry and its front groups to discredit tobacco control activities and prevent the introduction of effective policies." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736555/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.131.83 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked briefly at the sources, but I don't really there is anything there beyond the term 'nazi' (and 'fascist') being used as synonyms for the overly controlling nanny state. (Cf. Seinfeld's "soup nazi"). As it stands, the sentence is just confusing, and not notable enough - certainly not to warrant a place in the introductory section.  I'll just remove it - if you disagree, I suggest you add something clearer about it in a more appropriate section further down. Ketil (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Translation of Reichsstelle für Rauschgiftbekämpfung
I think that the person that tried to translate this term misread Rausch for Rauch and thus translated Rauschgift to smoke poisoning instead of (narcotic) drug. Or is there an error in the German term? 85.233.28.60 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Better now. Would that be close enough?--TMCk (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Astelling The Truth
I'm incredibly impressed by this article, being both an English and German speaker and kudos to the editor(s) for managing to produce such a balanced article. It must be an incredibly difficult task, steering a rational, NPOV, historical fact driven course between the pseudo-scientific claims & vested interests of all sides of the argument both historical and modern etc.

One thing does however need some attention I think: "at the University of Jena, headed by Karl Astel". I would suggest it be made clear that not only was KA 'rector' at Jena but also primarily a "Racial Scientist". Not mentioning that fact might lead any reader to assume that KA was a serious scientist, not the man who gave the Nazis the 'Scientific' justification for the Holocaust. Perhaps something like "headed by KA, the Reich's foremost Racial Scientist" (yeah I would personally put 'scientist' in speech marks too but that's POV I guess) ? Also I haven't checked but wasn't the Jena Uni the 'SS-Uni' by that time?31.48.13.249 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ai one place Astel's name is given as Kurt, not Karl. Seadowns (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Fixed. HLHJ (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014053354/http://www.environmentaloncology.org/files/file/secrethistorysupport/Chapt%203%20References/REF%207%20proctor.pdf to http://environmentaloncology.org/files/file/secrethistorysupport/Chapt%203%20References/REF%207%20proctor.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531052102/http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp to http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More focus on health effects research
This article should expand its Research section and perhaps mention actual scientific research that:


 * was released in Germany in the time period in question
 * is about the health effects of smoking tobacco and/or the effects of nicotine assumption on the brain

As it stands now, it seems to depict the anti-tobacco movement of 1930s Germany as:


 * a(nother) fixation of Adolf Hitler
 * something racial purity something

It is frankly ridiculous in its current form.

185.153.0.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've tried to add this. There is a shortage of sources, especially in English, but it's improving. HLHJ (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Did Hitler really ever smoke?
Kershaw's biography said he was never known to have smoked. (86.144.87.125 (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC))


 * Do you mean Hitler (Kershaw books) these books? Could you please provide a quote? The contrary statemetn seems well-cited in the article. HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Update, 2018
I've done a fairly extensive update with some new sources as the article will be on the front page, though not featured. There are some major new sources out, including a (German-language) book. I haven't seen anyone active on this page recently, but anyone reading this, please let me know about any issues with the changes. HLHJ (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be featured in this state. The article has declined in quality since it was promoted with poor prose (short, stubby, single-line paragraphs), weasel words (e.g. "some say") and editorializing (e.g. "in fact"). The Research section is self-contradictory. DrKay (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my ambiguity, DrKay. I agree that's it's not up to featured-article quality, but I was talking about the bolded link in a DYK hook, as opposed to the unbolded ones. A lot of the single-line paras are probably my fault, I'm afraid. I will try to fill them out. The "some say" and "in fact" are in the same para, describing two commonly-held beliefs and a rather technically complex actuallity. I'll try to rephrase it, unless you have an idea for how to phrase it. I think I've fixed the gross contradiction in the research description (which has been there since March), please let me know if you disagree. HLHJ (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed all single-line paragraphs. Any suggestions on the weasel-word paragraph are welcome. There are some ambiguity and citation problems, tagged inline. It would be great if someone with access to print sources would have a look at these tags. HLHJ (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The research section looks much clearer now, thank you. I would be inclined to break-up the "Some say..." paragraph, moving its parts elsewhere within the section. For example, placing "the first observational studies that linked smoking to lung cancer and other illnesses were done in Germany and eastern Europe before the Nazi takeover" as the third sentence in the first paragraph, and "longitudinal studies establishing causality were done in the UK and US in the 1950s" and "[leading to] a popular belief that American and British scientists first discovered [the link] in the 1950s" into the final paragraph. "Some [sources] say that the link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany" could be moved to be the first sentence in the section. DrKay (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done just that, apart from the some-say, which I somehow couldn't make fit, and so I moved it to a parenthesis in the first para. I'm not really happy with it there, feel free to change it. It seems that the mainstay of Nazi-era tobacco research was an active SDP member. This is not a topic which lends itself to generalizations. Thank you for your reviews; any other criticism is welcome. HLHJ (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

American cigarettes smuggled into Germany
, I think this information was cited to Proctor 1999. Do you have access to that source? HLHJ (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it didn't verify the text. It also seems like an odd claim (what did e.g. UK tobacco companies do? leave it to the Americans?) Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's my guess. Britain was under rationing until 1954. The Battle of Britain was basically a blockade action to starve out the islands, though destroying manufacturing and infrastructure were secondary goals. Every available scrap of land in Britain was turned over to food production. Most goods were rationed to a level where you could just get by if you were careful, but we are talking about cutting children's coats out of the middle of adult's worn-out coats (because a coat would cost a year's clothing ration coupons), sides-to-middling worn sheets (cutting them longitudinally and French- or fell-seaming the former sides together; then, when they got worn again, you'd cut them crosswise and top-to-middle them as well), and growing your own food in your garden or allotment. The very little food waste went into pig bins, to be picked up once a day by an old man on a milk float, which went slowly enough that he could grab the pig bins off the lamp posts, empty them, and return them without the truck speeding or slowing (acceleration wastes energy). The energy content of trash fell so low that you could not burn it. The domestic petrol ration fell to zero; no-one could drive except on official business. Baths were not to be more than four inches (~10cm) deep. Soap was rationed. Paper was rationed, and newspapers got shorter. New novels were rare, slim, printed on thin paper, and selected for their propaganda value. Pockets were rationed. You needed a permit to buy furniture. Manufacturing capacity was also turned over to the war effort; civilian cars weren't produced in Britain until well after the war, for instance. For some reason dramatic facts about socklessness, potato hoeing, walking places, and feeding garbage to pigs seem to be a bit overlooked in that Battle of Britain article.
 * The less than sunny UK climate has never been brilliant for growing tobacco, unlike the climate of the southern US. During the war tobacco was, like practically everything else, heavily rationed in Britain. My guess would be that come the end of the war the UK couldn't even supply its own heavily-rationed tobacco demand, let alone export tobacco while the population was clamouring for the rations to be increased because "We won the war, didn't we?". Countries that were left in ruins after the war had to leave a lot of markets to countries which had not had their infrastructure bombed flat, and go heavily into debt buying materials to rebuild. The UK paid off its war debt to the US in 2006. The destruction impoverished Europe, although the economy later improved, for reasons which are disputed. HLHJ (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SA Sturm Cigarette Company ad.jpg