Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 13

legacy
I have added a section from Justin Collins, on the FCC's judgment of the legal status of the Nazi civil state of 1953. In my view this is an important issue that needs to be addressed in this article - specifically that, in the appreciation of the current Federal Republic, Nazi Germany had never been a legitimate German state at all; and all its actions (in the civil sphere) were legally null. No doubt other sources can be added, and the wording improved TomHennell (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have reverted your addition because this is not what your source says, at least at the pages that you have cited. Collins speaks about the legal situation of Nazi-era civil servants and the constitutionality of the law about their statuts in post-war Germany. I don't see anything about the legal existence of the German State as a whole. A cmd-F in the source doesn't bring up the Hitler oath either. In addition, the opinion itself is a WP:PRIMARY source and, since it was a historical decision, we can certainly find a reliable source that mentions all of this without having to rely on the decision itself?  JBchrch   talk  16:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

50.238.209.218 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Enslavement
I humbly request that the line in the intro "Genocide and mass murder became hallmarks of the regime." be changed to "Genocide, mass murder, and mass ensalvement became hallmarks of the regime." The enslavement of more than ten million people was one of the NSDAP state's principal crimes against humanity, right up there with the Holocaust, the crimes against the Poles, Aktion T4, and the murder of Soviet POWs, and should receive more mention in the opening section of this article.

50.238.209.218 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems valid, any objections?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems ok, if we change "mass ensalvement" to "forced labour". Slavery entails ownership, while forced labourers are forced to work but are not owned. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa as to wording change. Kierzek (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ambivilant about it as it has been referred to as slavery.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although it would seem to be a little hair-splitting, as the power to work a person to death is pretty much tantamount to ownership, I guess it would be more encyclopedic to use "large-scale forced labour", especially as working people to death is part of "mass murder". I've been Bold and made that change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Predecessor and Successor
Hello, I would only suggest adding the Weimar Republic and East / West Germany to the predecessors and successors. Nazi Germany had the same constitution as the Weimar Republic and I don't think that annexed areas can be called predecessors and successors. Adrianolusius (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest the allied occupation of Germany and Austria, rather than East/West Germany (only from 1949) as the successor. Because in 1945, Germany and Austria was occupied by the US, UK, France and the Soviet Union, following the end of WWII in Europe. --49.150.110.214 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

But Austria was only a (forced) annexed territory. Therefore, Austria cannot actually be listed among the predecessors and successors of Nazi Germany.In addition, other areas were also annexed and occupied. Adrianolusius (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are Poland, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg etc. not specified in the areas as in all other wikipedias? I don't really understand the reason for this. Adrianolusius (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We had a big discussion about that recently. See Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 12.— Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Anthem/audio problem
Hello I’m Rakeem Abdiel Gunawan may I suggest that the audio for the anthem it’s just like a video I would like to make the audio/anthem to be multitask not just like a square coming out and playing the audio I would like it to be multitaskeble so please fix the audio problem Rakeem Abdiel Gunawan (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Government type
Currently the government type is listed as a “Unitary Nazi one-party fascist state under a totalitarian dictatorship“

However, the “fascist state” part should be removed because the word “Nazi”, which is a variety of fascism, is already used. So that is merely restating the point.

So I suggest changing it to “Unitary Nazi one-party state under a totalitarian dictatorship“ BakedGoods357 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We are writing for people who may have an incomplete understanding of the terms, I don't see that removal is an improvement, particularly when it ends up as a circular reference to the topic.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't explains about anything, it's a questionable term. There's no such term as "Fascist state", there are no wikipedia articles to explain about it. I suggest the government type should be "Unitary Fascist one-party state under a totalitarian Nazi dictatorship" as the government was ruled and dominated by the Nazi party cabinet. Mhatopzz (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2022
In the first sentence of the third paragraph, there is an erroneous comma after the word "antisemitism." Could someone please remove it?  GrendelNightmares  (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I'm no commaologist, but I'm fairly sure a comma goes after a phrase with an adverb. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2022
Dayvian reyes (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of state.                 Flag of Germany.svg


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpddg  (talk)  16:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2022
84.216.112.142 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Germany hade a civil war that made them a military state
 * Do you have any sources for this?Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2022
2001:1C04:3E0B:8300:6863:8A5:36EB:4246 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The list of successor states includes West Germany, East Germany and Austria. West Germany did not become official until 1949. So there is a four-year gap between Nazi Germany and West Germany, East Germany and Austria. Further, territories that de facto belonged to Nazi Germany have also been absorbed into Poland (East Pomerania and Silesia), Czechoslovakia (Sudentenland), Yugoslavia (Carniola) and the Soviet Union (Köningsbergen/Kaliningrad), also these should be included in list I would suggest.
 * We just had an RFC about the predecessor/successor states in March 2021. Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 12. So if you think consensus will have changed since then, please open a new RFC.— Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Total size
In the empire of Japan we have put the total size of all conquered or occupied territories during the height of 1942 around 7.2 m sq km which means we should also add all territories during the height of German aggression around 1942 which occupied all of Eastern Europe and a third of Russia. Any suggestions guys? Nlivataye (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor
I addressed it some time ago: Why is Austria listed in the "predecessors" and "successors"? It was annexed by force. It would be very nice if someone could explain that to me. Adrianolusius (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Nazi Germany also included at its peak far more countries than just Austria Adrianolusius (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Austria existed as a nation prior to the annexation but was absorbed and then was reformulated/reconstituted once the Nazi Reich was dissolved. It's given special attention because of the number of high-ranking Nazis from there and the willingness with which its citizen embraced the Nazis. I get your point, nonetheless.--Obenritter (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

treatment of freemasons
in the Nazi_Germany#Ideology section, it says that "Freemasons were heavily monitored and persecuted"; however, author Donald Lett in his book "Phoenix Rising: The Rise and Fall of the American Republic" claims that those anti-masonic actions were a "cover" to conceal the occult nature of the nazis' policies:

''Some historians have surmised that Hitler was extremely anti-occult because after his rise to power he persecuted many of these societies. In fact in 1942 he passed a law banning secret societies and confiscating their assets. So at the surface it would appear he was anti-occult, except as we have seen, this complex man could rarely be superficially evaluated from the surface. If as I have stated Hitler held extremely occult beliefs then why did he persecute their adherents? Newman offers two plausible explanations. One is that Hitler desired to hide his occult connections from the public. Many of the members of these societies knew of these associations and in fact Hitler was embarrassed by a book called "Before Hitler Came" written by a fellow Thule society member that dis-cussed his involvement into the occult. This book sold well but was later confiscated by the Nazis. Secondly, believing in the power of the occult, it becomes necessary to eliminate the competition from the field. However Hitler exempted from this law "old Prussian" Freemason lodges, other-wise known as the Bavarian Illuminati.''

are the contents of this paragraph notable to be included in the "Ideology" section (even in the "Notes" section here, or in another article)? thank you Grandia01 (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We do conclude mention of the Freemasons. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

History
Pseudoscientific ideas of race on the Jewish Nation by the Nazi Germany during the period 1933 to 1946 41.113.242.124 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are asking what? Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

History
Nazi German 41.115.93.102 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are asking what? Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably that guy is just high bro...Grandia01 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

"Nazist state" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nazist state and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Reichsmark currency template
I would like to add the currency template for the Reichsmark to the article, writing out the word Reichsmark in full each and every time looks a bit cumbersome.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Population of Nazi Germany and occupied territories
I would like to see a population development table in this article. An example could be


 * This is Nazi propaganda. many of the claimed territory gains were against international law and have never been accepted by the international community. Hence not suitable for this article. At least not as neutral data. We could discuss something like "territorial wins as seen by the Nazis" Nillurcheier (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In total agreement with here and see no constructive purpose for this table -- other than Nazi glorification. Even presenting this as territorial wins and population increase as seen by the Nazis is suspect. Let's not. --Obenritter (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This information is not about legally gained territory or glorifying Nazi propaganda. I just wanted to list de facto territories and population size under Nazi rule. These people and territories had to provide resources for the German war effort. Ahead of invasion of France, the population of Nazi Germany was more than twice as big. Later, if one sums up the number of people under the rule of European Axis powers in sommer 1941 according to available reliable sources, one gets a bigger number than the population of Soviet Union at that time. Nazi Germany was something about over 150 millions and other Eurpean Axis powers over 80 millions in 1941. My intention is to list human and territorial resources of Nazi Germany.--Geysirhead (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can get this data published in an RS by a respected academic press or known scholarly expert who contextualizes it, then we can discuss it here before allowing its inclusion. Otherwise, we should not be listing Nazi territorial aggrandizement and "ethnic" German population increases from a Nazi source.--Obenritter (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this population table is a very good idea. And I personally don't see any problems. Adrianolusius (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Operation Paperclip
Why no mention of this atrocity? 2601:19A:4401:1250:298C:AB9C:160D:A9A2 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it’s covered elsewhere and not particularly relevant to Nazi Germany as a whole? Dronebogus (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2022
Remove mention of Korber Foundation poll as the source states "4 out of 10 German students don't know what it was" without specifying an age range and that "More than half of German secondary school students aged 14 to 16 years of age polled in a survey commissioned by Germany's Körber Foundation do not know that Auschwitz-Birkenau was a concentration camp". Alternatively one could change the statement to be more accurate if they had access to the study results. Originalcola (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alduin2000 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2022
Add allied occupied germany as an successor to nazi germany Partyfrittata (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Allied Occupied Germany Partyfrittata (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We need Deutschlandlied to be playable from the article
First of All Deutschlandlied was one of the two anthems Nazi Germany used ,also we could use the one from Wikipedia German. It sounds like the Nazi one (there are YT videos about the anthems). So in Summary Can we add deutschlandlied(1933-1945 version) AJDSTL (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask again
At the article of "Napoleonic France" is every territory listed as a successor which was occupied by France during the time of expansion. Why is then only Austria listed here in this article. Just because the "peaceful" acquisitions of the Sudetenland and Memelland are not whole countries? But that would be historical inaccurat. Adrianolusius (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Simple question, which Succeeded by's would you list In order to be comparable with First French Empire? Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions on this topic: Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 11; Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 12 (includes RFC; and a short discussion at Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 13. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I would list all countries which were either annexed or conquered by Nazi Germany before and during WW2. Why is only Austria listed? Adrianolusius (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Because that was the result of the Request for Comment. — Diannaa (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

But then wouldn't every wikipedia page have to be changed? Because in the first French empire, for example, every territory that was annexed or occupied is named. Adrianolusius (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * We make decisions article by article individually, based on the consensus for that individual article. Having all the articles alike is not a goal. — Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022 (2)
The saar protectorate and Allied Occupied Germany are the teritorries after Nazi Germany and before East and west germany Partyfrittata (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

History
How did the Nuremberg law in Nazi Germany impact on the lives of Jews? 41.246.29.28 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Read this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Persecution_of_Jews. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Surrender
Nazi Germany legally signed the surrender document on May 9, not May 8. Gim709 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The signature page of the German Instrument of Surrender can be viewed here, and clearly indicates 8 May 1945 as its date of signing on behalf of the German High Command in Berlin. See that article for more information; it makes no mention of a "legal" or effective date of 9 May 1945. Rather, it states: "Consequently, the physical signing was delayed until nearly 01:00 am on 9 May, Central European Time; and then back-dated to 8 May to be consistent with the Reims agreement and the public announcements of the surrender already made by Western leaders." That means that even though it was signed after midnight, the formal act of surrender was effective on 8 May 1945.  General Ization Talk  04:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it. Gim709 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just learned that the Soviet Union publicly said that Germany signed the surrender document at 22:43 CET on May 8, maybe it is true. Gim709 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stalin required a second surrender in Moscow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it. Gim709 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Why Germany turned into Germany Nazi
I would like to know 197.249.62.13 (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2022
In the spirit of improving syntactical clarity among the multiple unrelated uses of "and" in the sentence, please change x to y:

x

Jews and others deemed undesirable were imprisoned, and liberals, socialists, communists, and other political opponents were murdered, imprisoned, or exiled.

y

Jews and others deemed undesirable were imprisoned, while liberals, socialists, communists, and other political opponents were murdered, imprisoned, or exiled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.222.134 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I see why you asked for the change, but the entire sentence structure bothers me because it seems to imply that "Jews and other undesireables" were only i,prisoned and not exiled or murdered, while political opponent were -- which we know not to be the case. Therefore, I have changed it to:


 * "Jews, liberals, socialists, communists, and other political opponents and undesirables were imprisoned, exiled or murdered."


 * I believe this solves both of our concerns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BMK - I agree it’s better now. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Name German Reich or Nazi Germany or Deutsches Reich
We Germans say NEW York - not NEU York. Why do write GERMAN Reich - not Deutsches Reich. Makes no sense to me? And second: In Germany never - n e v e r ever anyone said Nazi Germany NOR Nazi Deutschland...so either we should the official term or at least call it how it was said: Grossdeutschland (like Great Britain) when it became great or Deutsches Reich? Greetings. 188.2.181.82 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:COMMONNAME  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Deutsch ist eine eigene Sprache, genauso wie Englisch. Namenskonventionen lassen sich nicht einfach in direkte Übersetzungen umwandeln. Wir hätten diese Seite "Das Dritte Reich" oder sein englisches Äquivalent, "The Third Reich", nennen können, aber die Redakteure erreichten den Konsens, dass "Nazi Germany" im Englischen am sinnvollsten ist. --Obenritter (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Box
I think the successor to Nazi Germany should be Germany and Austria occupied by the Allies. Gim709 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is in the infobox is the result of an extensive discussion on this page. You'll find it in the archives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I thought the East German flag was the same as the West German flag until 1959. Gim709 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Most Germans do not consider East Germany as a legitimate successor state, since its very existence was forced upon them by the Soviets. While the same might be argued of "West Germany," the German people did not tear down the Berlin Wall to rush Eastwards. --Obenritter (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Conceit
I deleted the word conceit because it expressed a POW, then someone reverted it. Come on, people, whether something is a conceit or not is a POW. I won't be back. Sardaka (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume that you mean "POV" (point of view) and not "POW" (prisoner of war") "Conceit" means either "excessive pride in oneself" or "a fanciful expression in writing or speech; an elaborate metaphor", so using it is indeed expressing a point of view. It is most definitely not a neitral word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Translation
Shouldn't the official name of the country in English be "German Empire" as that is what Reich means? StrawWord298944 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COMMONNAME. "German Empire" is vary rarely used in English language sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2022
I think "Forcing the evacuation of many British and French troops at Dunkirk." should be changed to "Forcing the evacuation of many British and some French troops at Dunkirk." Queazyeditor (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: In the end about 198,000 British troops were taken away, as well as 140,000 Allied troops, mainly French. ~140,000 seems like "many" to me Cannolis (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That the Dunkirk rescue saved a significant number of French soldiers is an under-reported fact to the extent that it's often seen as only involving the British. That's not the case, as the numbers point out: 58% British vs. 42% Allied, mostly French.  The sentence is fine as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2022
Please change the flag as that is the banner of the nazi party not nazi germany. nazi germany had this banner instead (/home/chronos/u-3cf6984f4492800654a6c6a996625bc40e1cdd04/MyFiles/Downloads/Screenshot%202022-12-19%2017.56.50.png) 2601:14F:80:F910:80B6:330C:B29E:A548 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Flag of Nazi Germany. The flag is correct as shown.  General Ization  Talk  00:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The flags are very similar. As far as I understand, the only difference is the offset of the swastika in one, while it is centered in the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * BMK, you are correct. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2023
I need fix something on page 46.104.41.93 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell us what it is and we will. 18:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2023
I think we should add an of Nazi Germany alongside the original map, to show the full boundaries of the German occupied Soviet Union, or “Reichskommissariat Moskowien” as the current projection is not large enough to show it, nor the Germans in Svalbard. Qbox673 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ––FormalDude  (talk)  08:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2023
Actually after Nazi Germany came Allied-occupied Germany from 1945-1949, and after that came East Germany and West Germany Hellonature (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So?  Acroterion   (talk)   03:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong
Nazi germany is a federated state not a unitary state. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:9446:99E9:3FE0:4A98 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It no longer exists, and source please? Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Add globe map
Qbox673 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)] I think we should add an to the main page, instead of replacing it. The current projection doesn't include any of the German occupations past Krasnodar, which means the map doesn't include Stalingrad. Qbox673 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff): Change the map from the existing one, to an orthographic projection.
 * Why it should be changed: The existing map did not show the full extent of the occupied territories in the Soviet Union, (e.g., the areas reaching Stalingrad,) and so I wanted to make it similar to the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Empire_(orthographic_projection).svg map of the Empire of Japan.


 * What parts of the Soviet Union are missing from the current map? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I should say that I oppose this because the colored area in the orthographic projection is much smaller than in the existing one, making it harder for the reader to see, and I see no significant difference in the relevant regions shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The current map projection is too small to fit the German forces in the Caucausus, but I do agree with the fact that the colored areas do look smaller. I suggest we use a combination of maps, such as how the page for modern-day Germany uses both a globe map AND a flat map. Qbox673 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please re-request when the disagreement is resolved. casualdejekyll  18:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The page for the Russian Empire includes a globe map of Russia and a map of Europe with Russia---Nazi Germany should do the same. Even if it may be harder to see some territories, I don't think we should deliberately exclude any just to fit the usual convention. Qbox673 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, compromises overall visibility and information value just to include a minor detail. No such user (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with the above comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Add extended map
I've created an that shows the full territories of the German Reich, as the  doesn't show the full extent of the German occupations. I think this new map should be either added to the article, or (preferably) should replace the current map.

The current map does not show any German forces in the Caucuses past Krasnodar---meaning it doesn't include the forces around Stalingrad, which I believe to be an important part of the map. The current map also doesn't include the German forces in Svalbard.

If you think the extended map should be cropped more, please let me know. Qbox673 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2023
Add Poland and USSR to succeeded since East Prussia was part of the main German state Loganp23 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. That seems like it would be a contentious change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2023
Please add the anthem of Deutschlandlied. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:965:F698:416D:68F6 (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: File uploaded by User:BenCKP who is banned on EN Wikipedia as per SPI, declining as per WP:DENY. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Misleading omission
Why is the fact that the Nazi party won in the 1932 election omitted from the lede? Lede makes it seem as if Hitler's rise to power was by some coincidental appointment by the president, rather than the result of public support and an election win by the Nazi party. I propose the following:

"On 30 January 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany, the head of government, by the president of the Weimar Republic, Paul von Hindenburg, following the Nazi Party's win to become the largest party in the 1932 federal election." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not done, as inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * agree. This should be included in the lead.
 * Stephan rostie (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are abundant sources stating that hitler was democratically elected by german people, here are a few:
 * After Hitler was democratically elected chancellor in January 1933 
 * Hitler's thundering, furious speeches resonated with many Germans and when the forty three year old Austrian born Hitler was democratically elected as Germany's chancellor in January 1933
 * Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people 
 * Hitler was democratically elected 
 * Stephan rostie (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources are inaccurate, as Hitler never personally ran for any office and was never personally voted into power. There were two parliamentary elections in 1932: one in July after which nobody was chancellor and one in November after which Kurt von Schleicher was appointed chancellor. Neither resulted in the formation of a majority government. Paul von Hindenburg eventually appointed Hitler as chancellor on 30 January 1933. There were no German elections at all in January 1933, so your second citation is completely incorrect. So no. — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s what reliable sources say, we don’t write our opinions on wikipedia, we write what reliable sources say. Stephan rostie (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If a source says there was an election in Germany on 30 January 1933 and there was no such election, that's not a reliable source, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that
 * The Journal of Historical Review, Publisher:Institute for Historical Review Original from:the University of Wisconsin - Madison
 * Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? By Stephen J. Wayne,  Publisher:Taylor & Francis
 * Necessary War, By Tim Cook,  Publisher:Penguin Group (Canada)
 * Hitler's Girl The British Aristocracy and the Third Reich on the Eve of WWII  By Lauren Young,  Publisher:HarperCollins
 * non of them is reliable source ? Stephan rostie (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hitler was appointed chancellor, not elected to the post. So these sources are incorrect if they say he was elected chancellor. I did not speak to their overall reliability. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don’t criticize reliable and secondary sources or say this source is saying this wrong and that right. We just say what reliable and secondary sources say. That’s all what we do. If you have a reliable source saying otherwise or opposing what other reliable source say, then that would be another story. Otherwise you can’t challenge what reliable sources say.Stephan rostie (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dianaa knows what Wikipedia sourcing policy is. Please don't lecture experienced editors on policy. And yes, we challenge sources when appropriate. Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg, not elected. Refs 154, 155 and 156 in the article on Adolf Hitler. The Journal of Historical Review is a forum for Holocaust denial and isn't a reliable source for whether the sun came up in the morning, and even mentioning it brings discredit on your judgment. The other three are not historical treatises on the rise of Hitler.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes, we challenge sources when appropriate. then you are no longer a tertiary source, you are rather a scholar making your own source.
 * Please don't lecture experienced editors on policy. then experienced users should behave as experienced users, besides it’s not even about wikipedia policies, it’s about the fundamental knowledge of what types of sources are and just knowing that wikipedia is a tertiary source. Anyway who are you to tell me what to say to whom and what to not ?
 * Regarding the sources i mentioned, if you believe some are not specialized enough about history or this historical period then here is another one that certainly do The Holocaust: Lessons for Humanity, publisher: Cape Town Holocaust Centre. Stephan rostie (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So by your standards, you’re fine with the JHR as a reference, a publication that exists to deny the Holocaust?  Acroterion   (talk)   11:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * despite believing in academic and scholarship freedom, but since we are on a European (western) platform then No, just exclude it. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

So you are not in fact convinced that Wikipedia is obligated to use any source that says what you wish it to say, no matter how wrong, mendacious, or sloppily researched, edited or written? And you are asserting that one version is acceptable in European languages, but another narrative from malicious hoaxing or genocide denialists is fine for non-European Wikipedias? Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free-speech forum or a forum for editors' "academic freedom" soapboxing.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * you are asserting that one version is acceptable in European languages, but another narrative from malicious hoaxing or genocide denialists is fine for non-European Wikipedias?. No, I didn’t mean that, I meant that the entire Wikimedia and wikipedia platform regardless of the language is a European platform. We are obligated to following the rules and views of what europeans believe is right and should be forced on it’s users. That’s what i meant. Am i wrong ?
 * remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free-speech forum or a forum for editors' "academic freedom" soapboxing. Yes, exactly, that’s what i said in my first reply. Stephan rostie (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is a soapbox by the way ?, this is the second time i see this term here Stephan rostie (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For the general concept: Soapbox. For our policy on use use of them: WP:SOAPBOX. DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, it appears that you're arguing that it's perfectly fine to feed non-Europeans anti-Semitic genocide denial nonsense and ahistorical untruths on non-European platforms by veiling it in anti-colonial and anti-imperialist resentment?  Acroterion   (talk)   23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did i ever say anything about supporting the spread of genocide or atrocities or even massacres denialism or denial of any historical incidents any where whether on european or non-european platforms ? Stephan rostie (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your words, Stephan, speak for themselves. But enough said. No reason to beat a dead horse. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2023
Okay so, I'd like to make an request because like the timeline did not include the Czechoslovak partition. I'd like to add that into the wikipedia article. Nothing special just that bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticommunistforces (talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't Adolf Hitler Linked Under Chancellor
The other people are linked but not Adolf Hitler, he is very widely known shouldn't he be linked? Ifyoufindanapparently (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this is the page about him, so it would link back to here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's because the article is already linked once in the infobox. — Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023
It was also known as the third reich Hellonature (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We already say that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Countrie Size
the Picture showes the German Occupation of 1942 but In the size row stands only 800km² but its 3,7-5km². Pls Correct it, and pls count the 1943 occupation to, they Occupied half of Italy and south Vichy france in this year. 91.65.114.137 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"[Barbarossa] was initially successful"
To me, the phrase in the lede makes it seem like the Germans reached the A-A line (the military goal of the operation) but they were later pushed back. The Germans never reached the A-A line, so I don't understand the characterization of Operation Barbarossa as "successful" in any capacity. I apologize if I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting the wording. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reaching the A-A line" was not the one and only metric of success. The Wehrmacht made tremendous inroads into the Soviet Union, occupying huge amounts of territory, before they were slowed down by "General Winter" and then eventually reversed by the Red Army. In addition, Hitler changed his mind as he went along, adjusting the orders for his various armies, and did not necessarily hold to the initial goals.  Think of his diverting troops to take Stalingrad, which had little military purpose, instead of taking Moscow. To not count the occupation of the majority of the European portion of the USSR as being an initial success flies in the face of reality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems a fair analysis. Its been suggested that had Hitler not inferred that Germany would have taken Moscow. So yes it was initially very successful. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken, Thank you for sharing a perceptive analysis. Hitler planned Operation Case Blau to secure the oil fields in the Caucasus and capture Stalingrad to protect the flanks. The fuel situation was becoming more serious for the German Army by 1942 since their only fuel supplies came from the Hungarian and Romanian oil fields. By 1941, Germany was running low on fuel reserves and had to resort to manufacturing synthetic oil supplies. Inlin (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust movie was broadcast in 1978, not 1979
The Holocaust movie was broadcast in 1978, not 1979.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(miniseries)

Thanks, Cnon20 (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Cnon20
 * Fixed. Thanks for the suggestion. — Diannaa (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome Cnon20 (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)