Talk:Gleichschaltung/Archive 1

Utmost Importance
Thankyou DJmutex- your work is of utmost importance. I there gain the required clinchers on two fronts. One, the WP constant refrain that the Communists were banned at the Acts deed (and in the 5 march elections ) and the other that indeed the reichskonkordat was with the Nazis  on behalf of the german State. The first is part of the overall WP error I recognise and deeply suspect. The second relates to revision which I have had to discuss  on that specific point.

And no to all re+ _B opinion :the Act must stay there on its own page forever. Thanks Famekeeper 07:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Immediately I come back Dj- the Act in 2 states no interfernce with the Reichstag. Surely therefore it was illegal to arrest the Communist deputies, and illegal to detain them  on 23. That was an interference with the Reichstag. I really in good faith see a problem here and I hope it is only the problem of ignorance or blindness, I refer to the repetition of banning the Communists made everywhere -at least that I can say I have seen on WP. This is a very mucky stable, and we need a big shovel for unblocking this particular drain of history. Thanks again, I leave you to correct this article in accordance with Act part2. ( Perhaps you would also help me squash, but where was it? Yes... suggestion that there was a further decree , date unspecified, was it  German History .... yes -was there a further decree before the 23 ,  that banned Communist Deputies and thereby interfered with the Reichstag ? I see no such decree and assume the  rest of the banning was  the general political party ban of  shortly after the seizure . Even now the long arm of Hitler is adjusting the view-it is incredible  but true that either this is blindness or HE succeeds still in perverting our minds . No?

Please help me with the Reichskonkordat question I have. Would you say given Act4 :that the Concordat was with the Government or with the State, or both ? Or just the state ? I have had to argue this, bitterly. I think Act4 is pretty clear in assuming the business of contracts unto solely the Government for the State passing no people's legislature. What do you think ?Famekeeper 07:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone find  and  translate the  under-lying   'Dormancy' in the classification  of the jan/feb arrested Deputies ? Does it over-ride part 2 of the EAct ? Famekeeper 10:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Locking Clutch
A locking clutch; manual clutches on cars usually do not press the plates one against each other, so they lose about three percent of power; some race cars use locking clutches in which the driven plate travels at the same speed as that connected to the engine; hence it wears out faster.

..... comment starts

Can anyone understand the paragraph above? Manual clutches DO function by pressing plates together, and when not opened, the driven plate of a manual clutch travels at the same speed as the driving one, assuming a reasonably low level of power throughput. A locking clutch may be used to avoid clutch slipping when very high levels of power are passed through, but if it is locked there will be NO increase in wear. May I suggest:

A locking clutch; if a traditional manual clutch which works by pressing plates together is used to transmit large amounts of power it will tend to slip. This loses power and causes the clutch plates to wear out. For high power applications such as racing cars the clutch may be designed to lock the plates together when not being operated - this ensures 100% power transmission even at high torque.

..... comment ends

User:193.133.92.239 07:01, 20 February 2006 - moved here by User:144.132.88.170 07:37, 20 February 2006


 * Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion of automechanics. The operative metaphor here is one of interdigitation or the interlocking of gears. --1010011010 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A complaint
I have to question the impartiality of Brodo for linking to the Patriot Act article in the Reichstag Fire Decree article. By linking the two, he is making a politcal statement, comparing the US law to Nazi activities. He is not providing any truly historically related information.

I did not remove the link, but I believe it should be removed. 3 August 2005


 * I do not believe a political interpretation is necessary or that the link is POV. The two came about under similar political pressures to ensure public safety after recent violent attacks.  The two also acted to remove various legal safeguards.  The interpretation is clearly up to the reader, the article does not make a case one way or the other; see-also links simply show similar articles.


 * Another, more compelling, argument to keep it is that the USA PATRIOT Act is extremely controversial, drawing direct comparisons by some sides to the decree. The Act's article links to the Fire Decree article at USA PATRIOT Act.  A reciprocal link, so that people can easily notice where else the Decree is relevant, seems very acceptable.  I believe a compromise, if necessary, would be to mention why it's listed in the see-also section. &mdash; 131.230.133.185 15:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that though the Patriot Act restricts certain liberties it does not suspend the complete bill of rights. If it did, the parallel would be all right (though not the fact). Whatever one's view on the Patriot Act might be, it should be clear that it is not the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Magna Charta of the Third Reich. Hence it cannot be just included without a disclaimer pointing out the difference I just described. However, the link given above (Analysis of comparisons ...) seems allright to me. Str1977 16:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Reichstag decree was not the Magna Carta of the Third Reich. Emergency powers were an integral part of the Weimar constitution, which was never formally suspended. Certainly aberrant, the Third Reich was nevertheless a 13-year official state of emergency. In this respect, there is great parallelism with the Patriot Act--even better, the authorization to use force--and the Bush administration's claim that the constitution's "commander in chief" clause allows the exectutive to freely act with the force of law in the suspension of the actual law as promulgated by Congress, e.g. warrentless wiretapping, detainment of citizens as "enemy combatants". I would say the comparison is historically apt. --1010011010 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I quite agree with your analysis and arguments - Carl Schmitt certainly is a key link between our current leaders and Nazi jurisprudence. Including a Patriot Act link might just be too POV, though.  I dunno. Deleuze 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My questioning Brodo's impartiality has mostly to do with the contents of his personal page, which clearly shows his partisan views. His personal page leads me to believe he meant it as POV. I don't have any problem with the link, as long as it has the above listed disclaimer.

21:04, 3 August 2005 User:155.104.239.16

The question isn't about whether or not it can be compared, but should an encyclopedia go out of its way to compare two different acts from different times, even if it is just trying to be clear to the reader or show an example? Readers can find their own examples and make their own comparisons, we just give the facts. --Banime (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

SA
The SA is mentioned half dozen times, but never defined. --Djfeldman 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You could just have added one yourself or created one of the SAs to link to wikipedia's article on the Sturmabteilung. --Banime (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huge police force?
In the introduction it says that the Nazi state controlled the population through a huge police force (ie. the Gestapo). However, according to The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton (page 136) the German people were kept under control by a relativly small force of secret police men, relying on citizens denouncing each other instead. So the question is if that is a true statement.--Sus scrofa 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This can be debatable and needs sources for clarification. --Banime (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

legal or not?
this article does not give enough consideration to the discussion whether the gleichschaltung was legal in the end or not. I have just written my exams about this topic. First of all the Ermächtigungsgesetzt was in breach to the constitution of the weimar republic as it did not accord to it, it only fullfilled the constitution in a "rechtspositivistische" way (sry, dunno word in eng). The Gesetz gegen die Neubildung von Parteien and The Gesetz über den Neuaufbau des Reiches were definately not legal becos a) they abrogated the reichstag and the reichsrat, which abrogated the constitution and b) it was even in Breach to the Ermächtigungsgesetz itself. i just came across this article, do not just want to complain, but would be glad if someone could somehow edit the article, as it uses the expression 'legal' to self-conceptive. keep up the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.71.77 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2006


 * I'd agree that many of the aspects were illegal based on the former Weimar government. I'll take a look at it more in depth and see.  --Banime (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're referring to the 'legal methods' that they used. In this way, it means the way of doing things not the legality.  They used the government to make certain changes, whether or not it was technically 'legal' based on the old government.  I don't know if I can explain it correctly but I think you just misunderstood the use of the word.  --Banime (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So...
"Gleichschaltung" is German for "PC," amirite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a better, if more disturbing translation is synergy. PC is a weasel word that means almost nothing. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Untitled subheading
Why exactly, was this in here ? please cite your sources.


 * US Patriot Act

"to control as many aspects of life as possible"?
I suppose that this expression, assuming that it is even correct, calls forth the question of how much control was possible.

There was more deviation allowed in the Third Reich than most people imagine. For example, contrary to common assumption, swing-jazz was not totally banned in Germany even though ideologues like Alfred Rosenberg considered it entartete Musik. There were still movies being made featuring such music all through the 1930s and even during the war.

Hitler's government had to make a lot of concessions to public opinion. For example, the euthanasia program had to be stopped after Cardinal Galen found out and made an issue of it. HaddingtheGreat (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can reliably source this information, feel free to add it. I'm also dissatisfied with the phrase you highlighted. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong translation

 * schaltung means something like step. The word has three uses in German for physical, rather than political, meanings.


 * I.) A lock-step march, as some armies train their troops to perform.

Nonsense - "schalten" = "to switch" or "to trigger". The author seems to confuse Gleichschaltung with Gleichschritt ("Schritt" = "step", "Gleichschritt" = "lock step"). The other two given meanings could be affected as well.

I think it is not really a good idea to try to translate the word literally. I think "to make equal" "or to make similar" would be a good translation. The meaning in German today (and it's purpose in the past) is/was rather "to force to be similar", "to wipe out differences" or "to remove anything and anybody that/who doesn't fit your way of thinking". ThomasKathmann 5 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)

Seconded. But with the following caveat: your emphasis on negative connotations "removal", "force", "wipe out" is not necessary. "Integration" or "coordination" would also be appropriate positive connotations. --1010011010 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. Let's get rid of the "literal translation"; it's worse than useless. I suggest starting off with: "Gleichschaltung, a German nonce word meaning something like "synchronization", is a Nazi term ..." --Wegesrand 08:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As a speaker of (Swiss)German mother tongue, I would suggest the term "enforced conformity" which is fairly close both to the original German term and the meaning behind it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.89.202 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An old German-English dictionary translated Gleichschaltung as streamlining (in the sense of process optimization). The definition was picked up by a lazy publisher of a digital translation dictionary, ca. 2005 — probably because the original work was out of copyright, so it could be copied free of charge. It would be interesting to verify that streamlining was really a contemporary English (metaphorical, not literal) translation of Gleichschaltung. If I have a chance to consult a pre-WW2 translation dictionary, I'll look it up. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Maidens"
Is the translation of "Mädel" as "maiden" standard in any way? If not, I'd suggest changing it, since "Mädel" is really just a colloquial form of "Mädchen" ("girl") as far as I can tell. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While "maiden" seems a bit archaic in English, it is preferable to "girl" because it is a cognate. In addition, "Mädel" is more likely to be used for adolescent or adult females than "Mädchen". --1010011010 05:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Girls is better. Maiden carries a connotation of virginity that over-romanticises the picture. Mädel is more everyday (at least then) or even a bit racy. Cognates can be false friends! 146.115.145.237 (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What is " hurensohn coordination"? (line 3)
There is no more explanation on this.84.165.245.150 (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mündigkeit
But for the untranslatable title ("majority" is close) of this thread, the Lede of the german wiki could better replace the one here. My translation: "Gleichschaltung was a concept which originated from National Socialist terminology. The term appears in 1933, in the unification of the collective social and political life, both the public and private life, taking place in Germany between 1933 and 1934. The goal was to resolve the pluralism of the state and society. It is commonly considered to have marked the suppression or elimination of individual personality in as much as the independence, Mündigkeit and personal freedom of the individual were affected thru laws and regulations as well as the measures used for the Levelling and Unification of the Masses. This goal was methodically pursued through indoctrination which independent of any intellectual adequacy served the cleansing of critical thought." Suggest this or a better translation replace the currently tagged last sentence, retaining the existing first &para;. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The translation "Majority" for Mündigkeit is not incorrect, but in this context "self-determination" (or perhaps "freedom of expression") might convey the intention better. 91.176.156.184 (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Archiving
Any objection to setting up automatic archiving of the talk page (threads dormant for longer than 90 days)? --Boson (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Boson (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Move
Much closer than I was expecting but Nazification is still more common than Gleichshalahsfha in English sources. If it redirects here and this is Wikipedia's main treatment of the idea, the page should be moved to Nazification and the lead changed to something like
 * Nazification, described by the Nazis as Gleichschaltung (IPA) or coordination, was ...

— Llywelyn II   16:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Disagree entirely. This page is about defining and explaining a word explicitly used by the Nazis. The term Nazification is an English expression, but as you'll note Nazification redirects here accordingly. And of course an ngram applied within the context of the English language would point more frequently to an English term than a German word. If you looked up the English word "armed forces" or "army" instead of "Wehrmacht" or "Heer" you'd get more hits on an English ngram. Geesh. What say you:  --Obenritter (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Gleichschaltung is the term used in the scholarly literature to refer to how the Nazis took over German institutions, etc. I can't say I've ever even heard anyone refer to this as "Nazification."--Ermenrich (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gleichschaltung is a fixed term, even in the English language. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gleichschaltung is the specific term used for this historical process in both scholarly and serious popular literature. "Nazification" is a perfectly acceptable alternate term which can be used when extensive re-use of "Gleichschaltung" begins to be awkward to the reader, but the article should stay here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this article is about a very specific term used by many WP:RS sources as to the Nazi seizure of national power. The article title should remain the same. Kierzek (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"effective" & "Successful"
Effective and successful are propoganda expressions because in reality, the Nazis lost. Mind you they seem to effectively change German society, for a time being, but it could not be sustained. This "system" is not going to continue when fundamental aspects of life become more difficult to manage. First--gaining territory or influence over areas of the world could on the face of it be thought of as successful. But you are not going to be considered a freindly nation toward Germany if they invade you. That is not the way to find new friends. Even Czechoslovakia had a problem with the Nazis, supposedly the land of German speaking aquisition necessary for the German people. Where were they going to bury those that they wanted to eliminate? Those that were not immediately exterminated. In time food, shelter, transportation fuel, clothing, etc were difficult to find at economical costs in the open market. Effective and successful have an air of durability. And we now know that many of the people Germany preyed upon, their assets were used to prop up the regime. Is that effective and successful? This same model can be imposed on German. If the Nazis' had lasted long enough they would have started feeding on themselves to prove who was the most patriotic, prime example of being a Nazi, etc Oh, they did start doing that from the beginning. Did not Hitler have that guy who managed and trained his "army" have him arrested and executed for being gay? And the Nazi's were so perfect that they could not tolerate different people. They even had paid snitchers. Jobs and professions that Jews worked in were restricted from working so thoe out of work German's could if they fit a job recently vacated by a Jew. The intent of the system was to eliminate people, not to intigrate them. At some point there are no new jobs. So effective and successful are mere opinions and any academic that has written on the subject would probably find that so. Every single country tried to apply their "life model" into the rhealm of Nazi association all along the way creating more burden to Nazify or gas than before. I wonder if someone has applied the domino effect on Germany's actions and how did that lead to the fall of Germany?2603:8000:D300:D0F:CD09:69D4:A998:CC11 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Effective and successful do not imply permanency. You've somehow conflated those terms unnecessarily by reading too far into the text. For a short period, both of those words absolutely applied during the height of the Nazi Gleichschaltung. During the apex of their power, the Nazis—along with the Communist Chinese and the Soviets—were one of the most successfully totalitarian systems the world has ever seen. Nobody is implying that this was a good thing.--Obenritter (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)