Talk:Consequences of Nazism

Untitled
This page is a daughter article of the main Adolf Hitler article. WhisperToMe 18:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article
" In that sense, Hitler's Final Solution destabilized the already volatile Middle East for the long term.

The only positive outcome of the war was the destruction of Nazism and fascism as political and ideological forces, although modified forms of fascism lingered in Spain and Portugal under Franco and Salazar. The horrors of Nazism, when fully revealed by the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, also produced a radical re-assessment of the anti-Semitic attitudes which had been so prevalent in Europe. The process known as denazification meant that German society, in particular, was radically changed for the better in the postwar years. Other forms of pseudo-scientific racism, such as eugenics, were also discredited by the uses to which the Nazis put these doctrines. The founding of the United Nations on October 24 1945, and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, were signs that at least some of the lessons of Hitler's career had been learned. "

"The Jewish people consider Hitler's regime the greatest calamity in their history since the fall of the Temple in AD 70. "

"The Polish were compensated by lying in ruins former German cities, that required a lot of effort to bring to the life Recovered Territories. For the first time in history, Poland ceased to be multiethnic and pluralistsc country. For the first time in history, the share of Catholic and the share of Polish speaking exceeded 2/3 of Polish population.

Poland was put under thyranny of totalitarian regime. Loses of Poland were immense, and poportionally the highest in Europe."

" This confirmed the Soviet Union's already paranoid fear of the West, which led to the setting up of the Communist governments in eastern Europe; the Soviets hoped to use the satellite states there as a buffer zone against new invasions from the West, and to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again.

Another outcome was the destruction of Nazism and fascism as political and ideological forces. While modified forms of fascism continued in Spain and Portugal under Francisco Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar, it never regained popular appeal. As Germany radically reworked their society in a process known as denazification, the credibility of anything associated with Nazism was damaged or destroyed. Militarism, long a feature of German society, was abandoned. The horrors of the Holocaust, revealed by the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, prompted a reassessment of old anti-semitic beliefs, resulting in an increasingly tolerant atmosphere toward Judaism in the West. Eugenics, which had been popular in the scientific and government communities since the late 19th century, lost appeal after the brutal excesses committed by the Nazi regime in its name. " (no cited source, sounds POV, impossible to verify).

This stuff is clearly very POV. In a way, the whole article is, but I kinda like it. The quality of what you've written is high, but the anti-fascist, anti-eugenics, pro-jewish POV comes thru too clearly at times. JackLynch 05:26, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- Actually, I didn't write any of it. I said in the talk page, I split the text as a daughter article. WhisperToMe

who wrote it then?
and is it really neccessary to have it seperate from the Hitler article itself? You mentioned that there was a concern of an overly large hitler article on some browsers. Can you explain this more, or give a link to somewhere it is gone into in greater detail? Jack

I wrote the text in question, but I didn't split it off from the main article, which I presume was done on the grounds that article was too long. I apologise for being anti-fascist, anti-eugenics and pro-Jewish. Feel free to write some pro-fascist, pro-eugenics and anti-Jewish text to balance mine. Adam 02:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, rodger, will do. Jack 03:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't really like this title. A consequence is "a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon".  I don't think Hitler is a phenomenon.  I don't have anything better, but hopefully somebody else will. Tuf-Kat 03:22, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * one definition of a phenomenon is "A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon." Seems pretty accurate to me. Jack 03:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I guess, but it still just sounds wrong. To my ears (or eyes...) it seems incomplete without something after Hitler.  Tuf-Kat 03:54, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

The title of this article was originally a subheading in Adolf Hitler, and is not a very good title for a free-standing article. Since, however, whoever has attempted to rewrite the text has produced a badly-written and morally bankrupt piece of nonsense, full of a whole lot of new opinionated statements under the guise of "NPOV, the article might as well now be abolished. Adam 04:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps I felt a little too free?
I'm sorry to have vexed you so severely. Would you perhaps like to point out a few of my numerous mistakes, so that I might reflect? I am sure that in time, and with cool heads, we can sort this article out nicely. Jack 05:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is this stricktly about Hitler?
It seems to be more generally about the Nazi party and the wartime German state. While he was responsible, he didn't, for example, actually kill all those Russian soldiers himself. Also, was Hitler a dictator? He was elected wasn't he?209.102.125.76 10:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * He was elected, was he? Care to give me the election results of 1937, 1941 and 1945? Generally, I don't think this is the right place to discuss Hitler himself. --KF 10:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * He was elected as the leader of the biggest party in 1932. Besides, he was one of the most popular leaders. Unlike Lenin, he doesn't have to kill milions of citizens to be followed. Cautious
 * A dictator is an absolute ruler - elected or not. And hitler made himself to the absolute ruler of germany after the burning of the reichstag.  Absolute ruler, dictator.  The word is more than justified.  And Lenin didn't kill millions of citizens - stalin did. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right that after having been elected first time he didn't bother again, but he was elected to office, and commanded significant public support for his program. He wasn't a dictator in the sense that it's often used of governing without consent.209.102.125.76 10:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * To Cautious: This is so one-sided I'm not going to reply any further. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to justify Hitler's cruel regime. If you, for whatever reason, you feel that is what you have to do, find some other place. However, I would encourage you to reconsider what you have written first.
 * One the features of democracy is that the majority can decide to murder, expell a minority. Hitler was somehow democratic dictator, that doesn't mean that he was good. This only means, that the society democratically elected the monster. Why don't you want to discuss? I understand, that in the German-speaking lands the myth is taught that describes him as dictator. This is to defend the society. Cautious


 * To 209.102.125.76: I'm sorry, but "not bothering again" boils down to governing without consent. There is something called term of office, usually laid down in the Constitution of a country. All the best, --KF 10:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * If you read German memoires, you would find, that most of people supported Hitler untill Sep 3 1939. He was applauded for the anti-Jews policies, for economy recovery, for the external policy, for the Nazi-Soviet pact, for the aggression against Poland. Germans were disturbed only by the England and France declaration of war and later by invasion on Soviet union.

Cautious

Hitler came to power because of the negative consequences for Germans after the peace treaties at the end of World War 1. Economic problems, high reparation costs, no self-determination of Volksdeutsche, a big loss of German territory and declaring Germany as the only initiator of World War 1. The discrimination of the Jews began later and the Holocaust started in World War 2.--92.224.205.58 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PS I'm sorry, I can't continue now, I have an appointment. KF


 * Please don't misunderstand, this isn't a call for Hitler or Nazi apologetics, but the term dictator does carry the implication that there was not broad agreement for his platform. He was certainly terrible, and latterly undemocratic, and no-one is trying to excuse that, but I'm just a little worried that prehaps it is not very careful use of the word 'dictator'.209.102.125.76 10:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put this here again, because you guys are abusing the word dictator. A dictator is an absolute ruler. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, on the other note - this page does not seem to really be about Hitler - does anyone object to changing it to something like Cons. of Nazi Germany or something like that?209.102.125.76 10:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi POV
The anti-Nazi POV of this page, and certainly of many of those in the talk is clear. I think that this POV is probably shared by the vast majority of the west (I am far less certain that it is the majority world view). What I am wondering is what is the wiki policy on popular POV? Should an article take a side on stuff, ever? Should it describe the holocaust as horrible? Are words that have a good or bad connentation ever acceptable to use? Obviously many think so, but I don't. Opinions have no place in an encyclopedia, and those who insist on placing them here should "find some other place" IMO ;). Jack 18:51, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Although POV is obviously something to be avoided, it's unavoidable that editors will share a common human point of view, and therefore be biased against the political ideology that headed the nation whose aggressive style of warfare and twisted racial agenda resulted in the systematic murder of millions of innocent people. That said, these atrocities should speak for themselves to any human reader, so POV comments are not necessary.68.163.249.192 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, we ignore the reality of victors writing the history and don't dare to examine the other side of the story. And this is supposed to be productive? Causing more resentment and hatred with what some would call "atrocity propaganda," and therefore increasing the possibility of future conflicts. To justify such bias is intellectually dishonest. Had Germany won the war the page would be demonizing the allies, which would be just as counter productive. Good, bad, virtuous, evil...all BS from a scientific stand point based on observation of the reality of this world which has shown time and time again to be predator/prey, and nothing more. Hitler had his own approach, but how did the allies get so strong? How much blood did Americans spill to found a nation from "sea to shining sea?" How much blood did the UK spill, and how many people did they enslave...and let's not even get into what the USSR did before the outbreak of ww2. It's a joke. Before things got nasty, Hitler had quite a favorable view of the UK and did everything in his power to get them on his side, but it was rejected because Britain wanted to maintain it's dominance as a world power and of all of Europe. Not to mention that as soon as that war ended, the US went on it's own rampage under the guise of "policing the world." Korea, Vietnam, the wars in the middle East..I think it's time to look at this war in a much more unbiased fashion. To do otherwise is hypocritical. This idea that it was good guys vs. bad guys is a farce, at best it was bad guys vs. bad guys or bad guys vs,. worse guys, and who's who would be subjective. Yet another reason to ignore the site's donation requests. 65.129.180.93 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Move?
Move to Consequences of Adolf Hitler's rule? --Jiang 03:09, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) I second that. Vacuum 03:14, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't like that name. I think it should be merged w the Hitler page, or left here, unless you can come up w a better name. Jack 03:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about Consequences of German Nazism? It wouldn't have been possible for Hitler to do everything alone. --Jiang 23:15, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thats better, but can't we just merge it into the Nazism article? This article has ALOT of issues, (see above) and IMO doesn't do a very good job of justifying itself as a stand alone article. Should I list it on VfD, or what? Jack 23:57, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No need to list on vfd since we're not deleting content. Merge if no one objects soon and the Nazism article has room. --Jia ng 22:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't really understand this concept of "room". How big is too big? To be perfectly honest, I don't know how to merge an article, nor how to determine if the size is a concern. But if others agree that merging with Nazism is a good idea, I certainly do as well. If space is a concern for some reason (and please explain why, or give me a link to where it is explained) I think your latest idea for a name change "Consequences of German Nazism" is acceptable, if not prefereable over a merge. Jack 00:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * See Browser page size limits. --Jia ng 06:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems sensible to integrate it into one of the articles about German Nazism, the WWII and its aftermath etc, I tried to raise the issue of whether this page is really about AH, but seemed to be painted into being a Nazi apologist for it - this just seems to atribute a whole load of broad historical themes to one, albiet influential, man. 209.102.127.70 07:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why don't change name and move the document as Consequences of German Third Reich after World War Two? I think that would explain this document more better and exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.251.20.149 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Whats the deal?
I admit I failed to register the whole discussion that has been going on about this article. Right now I think it's not that bad and could give an uninformed person looking for knowledge a good introduction to the post-WWII situation. I wonder if Adam still thinks it is "a badly-written and morally bankrupt piece of nonsense, full of a whole lot of new opinionated statements under the guise of NPOV" and that it "might as well now be abolished". >KF< 21:31, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * hahahahaha..... I understand its a bit hard to follow, but he made that in statement in context, responding to some rather extreme edits I made in response to his "I apologise for being anti-fascist, anti-eugenics and pro-Jewish. Feel free to write some pro-fascist, pro-eugenics and anti-Jewish text to balance mine.". I clearly did too good a job, and he was in no way amused, lol. Anyways, it has been edited mercilessly since them, and continues to be. Jack 01:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have a term paper to write and i need to know: thanks alot!!! please email me the answers at OomojoOo@hvc.rr.com
 * Can some one please tell me***
 * Copyright
 * author
 * Publishing *if any*

What's with the usage of the word "Jewry" ?
Jewry is, as far as i'm aware, an antequated if not outright derrogatory term - i think Judaism would be much better. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've definitely seen talk of "the attack on world jewry". Certainly "world judaism" doesn't make much sense. john 02:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

"Jewry" is ordinarily an antiquated term to describe Jewish communities within largely-gentile communities. Where Jews endure no legal disabilities due to Jewish identity the word "Jewry" is ordinarily obsolete.

"Jewry", a commonplace translation of the German Judentum which applies not only to religious Jews and Judaism but also to persons of Jewish origin irrespective of religious practice and culture, is a necessary term because of the nature of Nazi hatred of Jews on grounds of 'race'. Old bigotry toward Jews was based upon religion, as demonstrated as late as in Tsarist Russia; a convert from Judaism to the Russian Orthodox Church could quickly become a full citizen enduring no discrimination or other hardships. Nazi racial doctrine held that a person of Jewish origin was still a 'racial Jew' as objectionable and ultimately doomed as religious Jew. In accordance with Nazi racial attitudes toward "Jewry". Judaism could only be be a perverse expression of religion, and had to find ways of denying the Jewish origin of Christianity. Nazi ideology furthermore attributed Bolshevism and monopoly capitalism alike to "Jewishness" if not to Jewish religion. To the Nazis someone so vile as Leon Trotsky who thoroughly rejected Jewish religion was still a Jew by 'race' and 'spirit'.

If we are to discuss such moral pathology as Nazism without perverting neutral terminology we must use Nazi words or their translations, if in disgust and even if such words are awkward. As words exist to describe follies and even crimes one must not deny the use of words to describe even the nastiest of human conduct and the most sordid expressions of thought. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Additions and removals
Two (fairly) recent changes seem in need of review here. First, I'm not sure I agree with Sam Spade that the "Impact on race relations" section was hopelessly POV and needed to be removed. Seems to me that when the most notorious regime in recent history is connected in most people's minds with racism, that has to have a major impact on how people think about race. At the very least the section should have been discussed here before deleting it.

Second, the new section "Twisted impact on the post-war democracy" needs lots of NPOV work. Isomorphic 21:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right that something can be said about the impact of nazism on contemporary race relations, but what was there was unfixable, so I deleted it. If you have something completely new to say, lets take a look. Sam Spade 03:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

Removed from the article:


 * Twisted impact on the post-war democracy


 * The winners of the WW II have put the Nazism into one end of the dichotomy Evil - Good. The consequence is that most of the Nazis' descendents are mute about their history sixty years after the war. See Nazi children. Historically the Nazi parties were as legitime as any other party. The post-war European democracies are defective as long as millions of citizens are afraid of their history and of themselves. The consequences of making the German Nazism to a stigmatizing project are demoralizing and can only find a solution through a European reconciliation.

I had several tries at reworking this into something that didn't appear to be an apologia for Nazism, but this appears to be hopelessly POV, so I removed it. -- The Anome 07:08, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

8.7 million dead not 11: Not conclusive
The Soviet Union lost 8.7 million soldiers in ww2 not 11

Russia's War by Prof. Richard Overy tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

Deng 08-02-06 13.20 CET

Overy's figures are not conclusive. There are estimates of up to 13 million Soviet soldiers killed in World War II. Total Soviet war deaths range from 20 to 27 million. The real figure will never be conclusively known. However it is obvious that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war against Nazi Germany and without Soviet participation on the side of the Allies, Allied victory over Germany would have been exceedingly problematic. Britain fighting alone was not militarily strong enough to defeat Germany and the United States may not have involved herself in another general European war.

Balance
The article focuses on Germany and its treatment, seems unbalanced-the fate of Jews and countries  ruined by Germany has only few lines. --Granet 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of the citation given
These edits should be checked thoroughly for the relevance of the citation given, the accuracy of the data and any copyright violations. For example take this paragraph:
 * Sixty percent of Soviet POWs died during the war. Millions of Soviet POWs and forced laborers transported to Germany were on their return to the USSR (in many cases forcefully repatriated by the Western Allies) treated as traitors and deserters and were executed or deported to the Soviet prison camps. Over 1.5 million Red Army soldiers imprisoned by the Germans were sent to the Gulag in Siberia and the far north (25 years was the usual term).

The source given is http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html but the second half of the paragraph is very similar to one which appears in http://www.belarusguide.com/history1/WWII_partisan_resistance_in_Belarus.htm
 * Millions of Soviet POWs and Belarusian...

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted "10 to 20 years was the usual term". This number is controversial. According to some data, in 1951, for 53% of all prisoners (1362709 men) the term was in between 5 and 10 years, and only for ~17% it was longer.

I took these data from: http://www.hrono.ru/statii/2001/zemskov.html. The paper (in Russian) was published in 1991 in the jourtal Sociologicheskiye Issledovania (Social studies) and is being widely cited.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated sentence...
I have seen in the Effect on Austria section a sentence about West Germany and East Germany (i.e. about the Stalin Note). Can I remove it??? It's not fit to a paragraph about Austria. -Pika ten10 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

10,651,000 dead Soviet solders, not 8.7 millinos
I changed the number of 8.7 millions to 10,651,000 to make it consistent with the article Eastern Front (World War II) and made appropriate reference. I did that because Wikipedia must be self-consistent. In addition to that, the number of 8.7 millions is the official number. Some researchers argue that the real number was much higher, up to 25 millions and even more (although not all their arguments look convincing). To verify the official number I checked the Memorial database (OBD Memorial the official database of killed and missing in action soviet soldiers). They claim that this database contains names of all of them. I tried to find my grandfather (was missing in action during the Battle of Stalingrad), but there was no his name there. The name of my friend's grandfather was also absent. I made a short poll among my friends asking them to search their dead relatives in this database, and only part of them could find anybody there. I conclude, therefore, that the number of 8.7 millions is a lower estimate only, so in situation when Wikipedia gives two different numbers the larger number is more trustworthy.

Someone may argue that I present my own research. It is not the case. I simply linked two Wikipedia articles together. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul you are right. This is not original research. Vadim Erlikman an independent Russian journalist has published a handbook of statistics that covers humnan losses in 20th century conflicts. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1 His breakdown of Soviet WW2 losses is 7.6 million killed in battle or . missing in action, 2.6 million POW dead and 400,000 partisan & militia deaths, for a total of 10.6 million. The official figures published in English translation appear inG. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7. The official total of confirmed battle deaths & deaths from non combat causes is 6.9 million, not counting those missing in action. The total missing in action and POW dead is only 1.8 million which adds to the official total of 8.7 million. Western historians agree that the Soviet POW death toll was around 3 million. When one adds the estimated 3 million POW to the 6.9 million confirmed deaths, plus at least 500,000 killed in battle but missing, one can see that the estimate of 10.6 million is indeed reasonable. The argument used by Krivosheev is that many men were taken prisoner by the German's were not officially in the ranks even though they may have been in the reserves. On the civilian side of the ledger the Russians today count 1.8 million dead in German camps or in forced labour. My hunch is that these 1.8 million civilians were in fact reservists caught in the German dragnet. In 1965 Marshal Konev claimed 10 million Soviet military deaths, I believe he was correct. If you take a look at Krivosheev's reconciliation of the total number of men drafted to the number on the rolls in 1945, the figures do not tie out to the  official figure of 8.7 million, they add down to 10.1 million. The Soviet Union was well known for fuzzy math --Woogie10w (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Britain as a superpower?
The article claims that Britain never recovered its position as a superpower. 'Superpower' is a post WWII term, Britain was never a superpower, it was however a great power. i feel that this section requires alteration because of the inappropriate use of the term 'superpower'. Perhaps the article could state that 'Britain never recovered the influence it had prior to World War Two', or something like that. Does anyone else feel the same way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.125.228 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation
If a user makes a post and quotes the source, another user can jump in and change the data without changing the source cited. Tonight I fixed the section that quoted Vadim Erlikmans figures on Soviet casualties in WW2. Erlikman clearly states total Soviet losses were 10.6 million, including 2.6 million POW. If one makes a post on Wikipedia, it is necessary to watch it like a hawk in order to prevent anyone on the planet from adding unsourced material.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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


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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Future conflicts
I have done a major rewrite upon the section referring to future conflicts to fit reality.

1. Ideological changes in warfare? No subsequent armed forces have adopted Nazi ideology.

2. It is worth noting that the Allies adopted the innovative techniques and practices of the German Army and the Luftwaffe at the first opportunity as needed for their victories as conditions allowed and in accordance with the nature of the war.

3. The Nazis did not introduce rocket warfare (the Soviet Army was using Katyusha rockets as short-range artillery weapons), and the V-1 and V-2 rockets did not decide the war.

4. The 'Wonder weapons' based upon technology introduced in the stages of design and testing (jet aircraft and long-distance missiles) appeared too late to have any influence upon the war, but they were developed by the victors. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

POV fork from Nazism and Nazi Germany.
This is an obscure POV fork that needlessly repeats material that can be said on the articles on Nazism and Nazi Germany.--R-41 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur, cannot see why this topic deserves a separate article. AadaamS (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Baltic states
As I recall all of the Baltic states were occupied by Nazi Germany yet neither Estonia, Latvia nor Lithuania is mentioned in this article. Surely those countries must have been affected by nazism and the occupation or nazi collaboration during WW2? AadaamS (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No sources provided for the following statement
"The mass destruction and mass murder was one of the reasons why the Soviet Union installed satellite states in Central Europe; as the government hoped to use the countries as a buffer zone against any new catastrophic invasions from the West."

Yugoslavia
The Yugoslavia section is generally fine, but there are a few issues with it. Firstly, the only referance, Carl Savich, is by no stretch of the imagination a reliable source. Secondly, the picture caption "Due to their strong opposition to Nazism, Serbs were considered enemies of Hitler's Germany. Alongside Jews, Serbs were expelled in certain countries." is unreferanced and sounds like self-serving nationalist fiction. The main reason for their treatment lay in the Ustasha's policies and nationalist views, not the Nazis, though the Nazis did encourage the Ustashe to take a hard line against them in their divide and rule policy. Ana Radic (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Austria
Was not Austria again separated from germany after WW2? The Consequences of Nazism? and is prohibited to join Germany? It should be also added.Ovsek (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

German males viewed as evil
I replaced the "german people seen as genocidal" passage with german males are thouhgt of as evil by most non-german people in the world. German women are not called evil by non-germans since they are women and therefore are useful to non-german males for sexual purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.140.192 (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Consequences of Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013152602/http://stsg.de:80/main/zeithain/geschichte/gedenken/index_en.php to http://www.stsg.de/main/zeithain/geschichte/gedenken/index_en.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Consequences of Nazism. 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/20120207142426/http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1988&month=12 to http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1988&month=12
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218232551/http://www.hoover.org:80/publications/digest/3063246.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3063246.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611064213/http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html to http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html

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) 13:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Consequences of Nazism. 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/20080330210330/http://www.historynet.com:80/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html? to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514021020/http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks49.pdf to http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks49.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116115443/http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm to http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm

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) 22:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Consequences of Nazism. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3063246.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130803144222/http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html to http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html

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) 14:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consequences of Nazism. 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/20070228035743/http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm

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) 02:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

History
Nazism 197.188.199.63 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2022 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Die Katze lasst das Mausen nicht!.jpg