Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 6

Poll on "Reich" vs. "realm"
Kindly express your preference on translating "Reich" as "Reich" or as "realm."


 * And I'll be the first to vote in favor of "Reich". Bytwerk (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reich" Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * both - although, the term "Reich" is generally used, of course "Reich" literally translated means "realm".  who would seriously doubt that? And of course we will also give notice to this on the WP. please also see Reich. --IIIraute (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reich, although a footnote could be added (with cites). Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wasn't sure of the exact procedure.


 * As to "who would doubt that," well, do a Google search for "Greater German Realm" and limit it to .edu sites. You will not find a single academic site that uses the phrase.  If not a single academic site on the planet uses it, and only a tiny minority of books,  there is good reason to doubt its appropriateness. I can only say that if I submitted an article to an academic journal that used the phrase, I'd be laughed at. Bytwerk (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * this is why "Reich" is generally used - but it still literally translates as "realm". & Reich. I have been teaching at university, both in the UK and Germany - not a single German would doubt that Reich translates as realm. There is a very clear etymology to the word, and we will also mention this. What a nonsense discussion, as the term obviously refers to the third Reich. So just orientate yourself on the two other ones. --IIIraute (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that the citation in the "Reich" article is to Harper's Magazine of about 1883? That's pretty poor support. Bytwerk (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Every dictionary will translate "Reich" as realm or Empire and not as "Reich", as Reich cannot be the translation - it is not an English word. etymology: --IIIraute (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That I find incomprehensible. Of course a dictionary won't define Reich as Reich. It won't define dog as dog, either.  That would be rather circular. English has absorbed all sorts of foreign words.  Reich is one of them. It is as much an English word as czar, bratwurst, or guru.  As previous posters have noted, you can find it in English dictionaries.  And do you really want to depend on a 125-year-old magazine article to support Reich as realm? Bytwerk (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * there are lots of sources of what "Reich" means in this context: Drittes Reich - Reich (Territorium) - Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung). Do you want to rewrite the whole WP - just to prove your point?--IIIraute (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Langenscheidt's Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the English and German Languages ("Der Große Muret-Sanders"), edited by Dr. Otto Springer, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literaures, University of Pennsylvania, 6. Auflage, 1992 ISBN 3-468-01124-5), German-English, Vol 2: P. 1252: " das (Deutsche) Reich hist. the German Reich (od. Empire) . . . das Dritte Reich hist. the Third Reich . . ." --Boson (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support "Reich" as the English version. We do not need to discuss how the word should theoretically be translated in isolation. We just need to use the (conventional long) name etc. by which it is called in English. --Boson (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this so difficult to understand - within its historical context "Drittes Reich" translates as "Third Reich" - fact - however to understand the word "Reich" in the context of its German meaning and etymology, it does translate as "realm" - therefore it will also be mentioned - there are enough sources to support it.--IIIraute (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

please read : Drittes Reich - Reich (Territorium) - Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung). If you can not read it - you should not take part in this discussion.--IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not at all difficult to understand. I have no objection to a short footnote explaining the etymology; however, this article is a historical article about the Third Reich, not about the etymology of the word "Reich", or the use and abuse of the word in Germany. So in this context, the translation is "Reich". In an article on the word "Reich" or "das Reich Gottes" we might need different translations. We must avoid slipping into the error of thinking that all words, in isolation, have a "literal meaning" (i.e. a single equivalent in another language). One cannot say that the English word "brush" is (always) literally translated as "Bürste" in German, or the German word "Linse" is (always) literally translated as "lense" in English. The translation of a word depends on context, and in the context of an article about the Third Reich, "Reich" is translated as "Reich", which is not to say that the English word "Reich" means exactly the same as the German word "Reich".   --Boson (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I support that - however nothing speaks against explaining the etymology of Reich/realm in the Name sectionas well as having a link to Reich. Why withhold useful information from the reader? Especially since the German meaning is of importance in an historical context with the period of Nazi Germany.--IIIraute (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My main concerns are that
 * we should remove "realm" from the infobox (since "realm" was never part of the conventional English long name of the state);
 * we should avoid any implication, in the name section, that the word "realm" was ever commonly used in English as part of the name of the German state (since that would be misleading).
 * any discussion of translation issues be largely restricted to a footnote (because it is largely off-topic).
 * I have no objection to a link to Reich.
 * I would prefer the name section to discuss the use and/or non-use of the term (Drittes) Reich by the NSDAP, which is a historical, not just a linguistic, issue. If that also manages to convey to the reader the real meaning of Reich, so much the better, but at the moment, the tail seems to be wagging the dog. --Boson (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I support your suggestions, however the term "(Drittes) Reich" must be dealt with in the "name section", as it bears an essential clue to understand the social, cultural, historical and linguistic meaning the term "Reich" (as realm) has to Germany.--IIIraute (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Having taught at a German university, written three books on the Third Reich, and translated thousands of pages of Nazi-era material into English, I would be most interested in knowing what the "essential clue" that "realm" helps me see in the German concept of "Reich" is. I've missed it. I can't think of a significant book on the Third Reich that devotes time to explicating the matter. Could you either give a reference to said clue or explain?   Bytwerk (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * obviously you did not read History at the University of London, Cambridge or Berlin, as otherwise you would understand - please see: Drittes Reich - Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung).--IIIraute (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since few readers of the page will have studied at London, Cambridge, or Berlin, I will not be the only one unable to understand. Rather than dodge the question (which suggests you cannot back the claim), could you please make clear what that "essential clue" might be? I do not think is unreasonable to ask you to justify your rather curious argument. Bytwerk (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The term will be dealt with in the article. For further comprehension and sources please see: Drittes Reich - Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung).--IIIraute (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done so, and since I did not attend the three fine universities you mention I apparently remain too dense to understand even after reading them. Why not start another heading and give your best shot at explaining that "essential clue"?  If it really is that important, surely it can't be that hard for you to answer the question. Bytwerk (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not responsible for your personal education, and since you have "taught at a German university, written three books on the Third Reich, and translated thousands of pages of Nazi-era material into English", I am sure you will find a way to comprehend. If not - try to figure it out - otherwise you'll have to wait - so please stop being a WP:DICK.--IIIraute (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only conclusion I can draw is that you are either unable or unwilling to respond to a reasonable request to support your argument. Can't argue with someone who isn't willing to supply evidence for his case, so enough is enough.  Bytwerk (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...yeah, whatever. We'll see about that.--IIIraute (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Both - I support the use of the term "realm" as the translation of "reich" in the translation section in the infobox - it is the accurate translation as per evidence by a linguist's description in this source: Henning Andersen. Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. Pp. 26. - this source says: "Gm. Reich 'realm'". The translation section is supposed to give a translation. I support the use of the term "reich" for the rest of the article as it is the common reference term.. Reich is not a common English word because it is not universally-applicable to what it is defined as in its German root - reich is used in English as a cultural reference to refer to Germany (1871-1945) - that is not a term and translation is about translating the term - there is no "commonwealth reich" or use of reich in place of realm in English - i.e. no one in English talks about the "reich of science" or the "reich of fiction". In general I support IIIraute's statements, with the conditions that I have just mentioned here.--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the translation section in the infobox. Do you mean the parameter "conventional_long_name"? --Boson (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And that is the English translation of the native long name in the infobox.--R-41 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the template documentation, it is the "full name in English". To me that would mean the full "official" name used by diplomats, e.g. as used by the British Foreign Office - or the German Foreign Office when writing in English.--Boson (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Following one of Illraute's points where he claims that Germans would accept the definition as "realm", I suggest that this be followed up a request could be sent to ask for assistance from German Wikipedians who also can speak English be consulted on this topic and to ask if they can provide sources on German-to-English translation that can what reich means in English - particularly in the context of its use in the German phrase Deutsches Reich during the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany.--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. --Boson (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the problem is really understanding the German term, but understanding the meaning of the word "realm" to a native English speaker, which is a state with a hereditary monarch (usually a king or queen, but sometimes with a lesser title) as head of state. It is not used as part of a name. It derives from the Old French reaume (cf Royaume-Uni). In the non-figurative, non-rhetorical sense - at least in British English -  "realm" is now largely a term of (constitutional) law, designating any one of the domains of a monarch, especially the person of the current British monarch. Thus, the United Kingdom, Canada, Belize, and Tuvalu are all (separate) realms (of Queen Elizabeth II). Its connotations include the territorial integrity and constitutional order of the state and the relationship between the monarch and the territory. The word "realm" may sometimes be used in an attempt to explain that, in relation to Germany, Reich does not necessarily mean "empire", but it is misleading (which is, no doubt, why the word Reich is commonly used in English).--Boson (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Realm is a broad sense means a territory governed by a sovereign - essentially a sovereign state, or in a general sense realm is commonly used as another word for "domain". Also, English books about Germany during the Weimar Republic period translated the republic's official name "Deutsches Reich" in English as "German Realm".--R-41 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This gives a rough idea of how many books used the term "German Realm".--Boson (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Look for the horizontal line at 0.0000000%. --Boson (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I searched the same engine just to check its scope - the word "Hitler" registers extremely low at 0.000001 percent at its highest. Even the common word "cat"  also registers extremely low at its highest level at only 0.002 percent . Also the word "politics" at its highest level is at only 0.008 percent  something is really wrong with that search device because I'd assume that the word "cat" would have a significant body of books for veternary and pet owner's purposes on Google Books, and that "politics" shows up as so unpopular at less than a hundredth of a percent is insane.  The infobox translation of the long form native name is not about common name - we do not put "Nazi Germany" for the official name of the state merely because it is the common name. As I said I support the use of the common reference of "reich" in the main body of the article. But the translation of the native name in the infobox should present a full translation of "reich" into "realm". I may change my position upon what the invited German Wikipedians will say. Let's wait until some German Wikipedians arrive to state their view on the translation.--R-41 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "really wrong" with the Ngram viewer. All the percentages may seem low to you because they show occurrences as percentages of the whole corpus. So 0.008% is a high number. But 0.0000000% is still a low number. Look at the curves.


 * I do not understand why you seem to be insisting that the "conventional long name" is supposed to be what you regard as the best ("literal") translation of the components of the German official long name. The conventional full name of a country in different languages is usually decided in diplomatic circles. For existing countries, the foreign office of the appropriate countries and UN bodies have lists (eg here). For former German countries we can use the archives of the German or British foreign office.


 * The official English term for "Deutsches Reich" used by the German Foreign Office is "German Reich". See here, for instance
 * http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/AAmt/PolitischesArchiv/Uebersicht_node.html:
 * ". . . international treaties of the German Customs Union, the North German Confederation, the German Reich, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany from 1831 . . ."
 * http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Finnland_node.html
 * "In 1917, the German Reich was instrumental in Finland’s breaking away from Russia"
 * http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/KoreaRepublik_node.html
 * ". . . commemorating the signing of the trade, friendship and shipping agreement between the German Reich and the Kingdom of Choson . . ."
 * http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/InternatRecht/Entschaedigung_node.html
 * ". . . the 1957 Federal Act for the Settlement of the Monetary Restitution Liabilities of the German Reich . . ."


 * The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses the same official English name, as here:
 * http://ukinromania.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-romania/005-diplomatic-relations/020-chronology-bilateral-relations
 * "On 27 February, the first Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister of the German Reich to Bucharest, count Von Wesdehlen presented his accreditation letters to ruler Carol I."
 * --Boson (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support "Realm" or "Empire" as most dictionaries would do (in Spanish we translate "Reich" as imperio). But I'll also appreciate an opinion from German Wikipedians.--Jabotito48 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "Reich" I know of no opne who calls it the third empore or third realm, its allways the third reich.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are examples of drittes reich being referred to as "Third Realm"  by the notable American conservative author William F. Buckley        . I am only supporting a full translation of "reich" into "realm" in the infobox section that is the translation of the native long form name because a section that is supposed to translate should translate. I support the rest of the article using the common term "reich".--R-41 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support "Reich" in the context of the Nazi Third Reich as that is the most common name used in the literature. Never heard it called the Third Realm or its organisations called the Realm Minister, Realm Railway, etc... --Bermicourt (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not use the common name in the long-form name in the infobox because its official name was not Nazi Germany. (The following is as written for two comments above): Here are examples of drittes reich being referred to as "Third Realm"  by the notable American conservative author William F. Buckley        . I am only supporting a full translation of "reich" into "realm" in the infobox section that is the translation of the native long form name because a section that is supposed to translate should translate. I support the rest of the article using the common term "reich".--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Request that the question be rephrased and clarified, and request the users who already have voted here be contacted and asked if they would agree or disagree with the revised question. The question of this vote of choosing only the word realm or only the word reich As I brought forward the issue in the first place, I note that I specifically said that it is not a realm "versus" reich issue for the entire article, and I specifically advocated that the term "realm" should only be used for the full translation of the long-form native name in the infobox and similarly in the main body where the term "Deutsches Reich" is being translated into English; and that outside of direct translation sections, the term reich should be used throughout the article as it is the common term.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good clarification. I vote for Greater German Reich on the infobox with the German term underneath as now. "Reich" is a proper English loanword, especially when referring to Nazi Germany, that translating it into Realm creates a confusing distinction without a meaningful difference. The vast majority of English literature uses Third Reich or derivatives (even tho Germans rarely called it Drittes Reich, that use is more common now because of English usage). If Reich really needs clarification perhaps it can be defined parenthetically in the first sentence of the intro paragraph like the page Reich (disambiguation). In addition, other languages (i.e. French, Dutch and Italian) also just use "Reich" in this case (rather than their own words for Realm or Kingdom or Empire), so common is the word globally and so specific is its meaning -- Ultracobalt (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As the person who started the whole mess, I concur with the suggestion by Ultracobalt. It should not be in the infobox, but one mention (possibly in a footnote) would be reasonable. Consider, as the discussion has shown, that diplomats of major countries (who are very fussy about terminology) translate it as "German Reich."   Consider that no significant historian I have seen has used the term in recent years. Consider the information on our infrequent "realm" is used in comparison to "Reich".  Consider that one of the major sources cited for "realm" is an obscure article in Harper's written before Hitler was born. R-41  has worked assiduously to chase cites, and what he ends up highlighting is William F. Buckley, Jr., a fine writer, but his use is idiosyncratic, a style he rather liked.  It is peculiar to have a comparatively rare, non-standard translation highlighted in the info-box.


 * Since I've not tried anything like this before, I'm not sure how best to proceed. Advice from the  more experienced?  A multiple-choice revised poll? For example three choices: A) Put it in a footnote; B) make a single reference in the text; C) Keep in the Infobox.  Bytwerk (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I vote for "Reich", with a footnote added to it as to "realm", with cites. So, choice A. Kierzek (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a multi-choiced poll that clearly describes those options would be acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of File:Warning Jews.jpg
I do not think this to be an appropriate image for this article (or in general?) → File:Warning Jews.jpg. Where does it come from? (author unknown); the spelling of "Neurenberg" (Nuremberg); where was it photographed? (Kurfürstendamm or Dachau concentration camp); source = scan (from what, by whom?). --IIIraute (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Though it is labelled as public domain, the source is given as "scan", which suggests that it may have been scanned from a derivative work, which may well be copyright. --Boson (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is quite clearly given as http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/13245.html Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * someone changed that - the original file used in this article said the source was a "scan" and that it was from around 1935! → please see: (comment). --IIIraute (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Which means it is copyright? I think yes, as it says so at the bottom Copyright 2011...  but first someone needs to confirm if Yad Vashem gave their collection away to Wikipedia in the same way the Bundesarchiv did. If they did not, then a deletion process in Wikicommons needs to be started. Anything from Germany that was NOT public domain in 1996 is NOT public domain in the US, the latest acceptable date for such works would be 1923. Ultracobalt (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * it's not a good image for this encyclopedia. we do not know when or where or why it was made, so it's hard to see what useful info it conveys. Rjensen (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Content
I would like to draw attention to the article as a whole, which (IMHO) more and more resembles the articles on Nazism, The Holocaust, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, and Nazism and race. Although all of these topics were an integral part of the Third Reich, the article should not be reduced to them to such a degree - especially since they are extensively dealt with at appropriate level in their own articles. Maybe this also supports the view to have the heading changed to "Third Reich", instead of "Nazi Germany", as it seems to reduce "Germany (1933-1945)" to the Nazi government and its policies only, while other topics, such as (the constituent states/gaus, Infrastructure, Transport, Energy, Science and technology, Architecture ,Popular culture, Music, Demographics, Religion,  Literature and philosophy, Leisure, etc.)  are neglected. Also all other topics (Economy, Culture, Cinema and media, Sports, etc.) are dealt with from the perspective of Nazism only. Many sections, such as: "the lead; Persecution and extermination campaigns; Capitulation of German forces; State ideology; and Racial policy" reiterate their content, while such topics as (for example): German resistance, German casualties in World War II, Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union, and Flight and expulsion of Germans are hardly, if mentioned at all. I know I am touching a sensitive nerve here, but especially because of that, the article should be consistently more balanced and versatile, and deal with Germany from 1933-1945, and not just "Nazi" Germany.--IIIraute (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This article is suffering from both the best and worst of Wikipedia. Naturally it attracts many ardent contributors, but taken as a whole it's haphazardly written, thoroughly redundant with itself and the articles you mentioned, yet lacks key topics proper country summaries should have (i.e. Demographics, Infrastructure, Administration, Transport). Including them would not detract from Nazi horrors, but you're right to worry that suggesting "balance" might touch a nerve (maybe balance is the wrong word). It maybe more palatable to request (or just do) expansions to include the missing topics and then afterward copyedit to remove all the duplication. I also agree Nazi Germany is a bad title. It's perfectly OK as a #REDIRECT, but as jargon it differs from all other country titles, current or historic (i.e. there is no "Fascist Italy" page either). Even the article on the Nazi puppet state of Slovakia is entitled Slovak Republic (1939–1945), not "Nazi Slovakia". I would also suggest Third Reich (iffy, but the Russian and French pages call it that and they care a lot about this) or Germany (1933-1945)-- Ultracobalt (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree. I also agree with the two possibilities for the article title. From the point of view of neutrality and historical correctness, I would choose the descriptive name Germany (1933–1945) but, on balance I would go for Third Reich, which is supported by WP:COMMONNAME and is less prosaic (more "engaging", as WP:Featured article criteria would put it). --Boson (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with replacing the word Nazi Germany on claims that it labels Germans as "Nazis" and does not represent all Germans at the time is the following. The article on the Soviet Union does not represent the views of all the peoples of the Soviet Union - there were many who opposed the Soviet Union who lived within its borders.--R-41 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any argument that the article title "Nazi Germany" labels Germans as Nazis. The problem is that it is not an appropriate title for this particular article which is supposed to be about all aspects of that period, and that it is not the most common name for that period in the literature - unless you want to go back to the period before 1970, when it may have been more common in English literature (possibly because of anti-German feeling during and after the War).--Boson (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article reorganization concept
To the great point IIIraute (talk) made, and in the spirit of not just criticizing but offering solutions, I mocked up the following to at least get stuff in the article into the right spot before it is further edited. Much fits already, but for instance there are now 3 major sections on NS Foreign policy. To create this I just compared with other good national articles. It's imperfect (esp. sub bullets) but topic order is pretty standard. I left the Social Policy section standalone, since the Nazi's were obsessed with this, but it could also be divided between Politics and Demographics. Also note: the HISTORY OF NAZI GERMANY points to this article, so if it is agreed that a general summary of Third Reich History has a home here, care needs to be taken on structure. Obviously SEE ALSO pointers to the MANY special articles is implied in all sections:


 * 1 Etymology <- essentially the current NAME section, + the talk above re: REICH
 * 2 History
 * 2.1 Beginnings
 * 2.2 Machtergreifung - Seizure of power
 * 2.3 Gleichschaltung - Consolidation of power
 * 2.4 Remilitarization of the Rhineland
 * 2.5 Anschluss with Austria
 * 2.6 Munich Agreement Occupation of Czechoslovakia
 * 2.7 World War II
 * 2.7.1 War breaks out Outbreak of war
 * 2.7.2 The conquest of Europe
 * 2.7.3 Turning point
 * 2.7.4 Collapse
 * 2.8 Aftermath
 * 2.8.1 Casualties and war crimes
 * 2.8.2 Concentration camps and slave labor
 * 2.8.3 Home front and war production
 * 2.8.4 Allied occupation
 * 2.9 The Holocaust
 * 3 Geography
 * 3.1 Pre-war Territorial changes
 * 3.2 Administrative divisions of Nazi Germany
 * 3.2 Occupied territories
 * 3.3 Post-war changes
 * 4 Politics
 * 4.0 The Nazi Party
 * 4.1 State ideology
 * 4.2 Government structure
 * 4.3 Law
 * 4.4 Foreign policy
 * 4.4.X Munich Agreement
 * 4.4.X Molotov-Ribbentrop
 * 4.5 Military
 * 5 Economy
 * 5.1 Reich Economics
 * 5.2 Science and technology
 * 5.3 Transportation
 * 5.4 Wartime
 * 6 Demographics
 * 6.1 Ethnic groups
 * 6.2 Languages
 * 6.3 Religions
 * 6.4 Education
 * 6.6 Health
 * 7 Society
 * 7.1 Social welfare
 * 7.2 Racial policy and Eugenics
 * 7.3 Eugenics
 * 7.4 Environmentalism
 * 7.5 Women's rights
 * 7.6 Animal protection policy
 * 8 Culture
 * 8.1 Architecture
 * 8.2 Art
 * 8.3 Leisure
 * 8.3 Literature and philosophy
 * 8.4 Media and propaganda
 * 8.5 Music
 * 8.6 Sports
 * 8.7 Symbolism
 * 9 Legacy
 * 10 See also
 * 11 Footnotes
 * 12 Bibliography
 * 13 Further Reading
 * 14 External links

--Ultracobalt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me, overall. I don't like the heading "Etymology" since that implies "Etymology of Nazi Germany", and it is words or expressions that have an etymology, not historical topics - and etymologies generally belong in Wiktionary. Even if the article title is changed to "Third Reich", it is the words that have an etymology, not the topic. The section also - rightly - includes various names, and the etymologies of the various names are not discussed. I think I would prefer "Outbreak of war" for 2.7.1. I think the separate section on the Holocaust is a good idea, though I'm not quite sure how it will work. --Boson (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Ah yes I see what you mean - I did intend "Etymology of Nazi Germany", not of the History. See France. If that's confusing maybe another title is better I just didn't like "Name". The 'Reich' 'Realm' 'Third Reich' 'Großdeutsches Reich' definitions would be here, plus a link to Glossary of Nazi Germany and Name of Germany to cover words/abbrevs and avoid too much re-explaining in the rest of the article. Holocaust would have be summarized with links back to important main articles to cover it but avoid redundancy. How it will work is ya hmm me thinking... -- Ultracobalt (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * we do not really need an own Holocaust section, as it will be covered by other topics, such as Concentration camps and slave work, Occupation, Casualties and war crimes and Racial policy, (with the appropriate links), for example. We should avoid to reiterate the same content over several sections of the article.--IIIraute (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) ...or, let's say we have a Holocaust section, we should really try to keep the other sections more straight forward on-topic - and not reiterate the same content all over again.--IIIraute (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks generally good to me. Thanks for the work. Several suggestions. After 2.2., consider a section on the absorption of the rest of Czech territory and the Memmel District in spring 1939.  Also a mention of the treaty with the USSR?  That will come up under 4.4., but the gap between 2.6 and 2.7 is a very significant year. Those had little to do with the Munich Agreement.  Under 4 (Politics) it might make sense to have a section on the role of the Party. It can be brief with a link to the article on the party, but since the party had a significant role in the political system, some mention is appropriate.  Eugenics (7.3) might be a sub-point of Racial Policy. Bytwerk (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good points thanks. I'll take a little license to edit my own list with these suggestions vs. reposting the long thing. Then I'll wait a few days to implement. My plan will NOT be to edit all the text, rather to move existing paragraphs into this structure so the redundancies will become obvious and they can be copyedited by experts on each aspect. In cases where one para covers multiple topics, I'll do my best to split it. One thing this article is begging for is a better 1st paragraph with accurate dates, I'll do that now in prep for this. Ultracobalt (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Although for children? the website gives a god overview of topics that should be covered (among others) → .--IIIraute (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The current intro is long, dragged out and makes statements that are not common knowledge but fails to provide any references. Controversial statements are made in the intro, such as the claim that Hitler was almost completely unopposed after the German economy recovered in the 1930s, again with no source to verify this.--R-41 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree 1000%, I only changed the 1st paragraph. The rest of the intro para's need be rewritten or removed, I just kept them for now before changing the article to the above format. Ultracobalt (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think all controversial statements need citations in the lead, provided that they are summarizing what is stated and cited elsewhere in the article. I think the main problem is that the lead does not properly summarize the article in a concise manner and with appropriate weight accorded to the different sub-topics, given that this is supposed to be an article on a particular period in German history, not an article on the rise and fall of Nazism. It might be better to leave the lead until the rest of the article has been sorted, but I would tentatively suggest that the lead should have 4 paragraphs of 2-4 sentences:
 * Define topic, establish context
 * History: rise and fall of the Nazi party, holocaust, WWII, aftermath
 * Geography: territorial changes
 * Politics etc.: foreign policy, Nazi ideology, economy, culture
 * I would suggest that the following are too specific for the lead:
 * Assessments of the degree of cohesion in the regime, the popularity of Hitler, idolization of Hitler
 * Details of racial policy
 * Membership of the Hitlerjugend etc. (just have one sentence on Gleichschaltung)
 * Details of educational policy, number of women enrolled in secondary education, etc.
 * --Boson (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Historians are pretty well agreed that the themes of Hitler's power & its sources & and racism are central to Germany 1933-45. They should be in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kressel and Herb, etc. really do not belong in the lead.--IIIraute (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The perfect article... starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail. → WP:LEAD, WP:BETTER, WP:MOSINTRO. --IIIraute (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that things like Hitler's power and racism should be mentioned, but we need to get the whole of the Third Reich into about four brief paragraphs; details and explanations do not belong in the lead. --Boson (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring completed
I implemented the above structure, moving paragraphs without altering them (except for minor fixes). I didn't implement everything: i.e. "extermination campaigns" are inside WWII because the existing text fit best there and in this new org it stands out well. The many redundancies, overly long writing, and other problems should be easier to find and fix now. Some other sections didn't make sense to add until copyedit is done. Particular problem areas I saw (among others): Things missing:
 * LEDE (as discussed above)
 * Politics LEDE + subsections (sections overlap)
 * Racial policy subsection (long, convoluted)
 * Economics (good, but longish and choppy)
 * A summary paragraph on Axis agreement of 1936 (Foreign policy section)
 * A summary paragraph on paramilitary organizations (SA/SS)
 * Demographic #'s any country article should have (pop, ethnic dist, etc)
 * Cultural subsections on Architecture, Nazi art, etc.

I'm willing to rewrite the 1st section ("NAME") to include the Realm talk and historic meanings of REICH and German translation of it all in a single paragraph to help out. Ultracobalt (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose to merge "Seizure of power" and "Consolidation of power", since the former is very short and the Machtergreifung is really the period 1933/34 rather than a single event, as portrayed in the first section. I would also suggest using the term Machtergreifung. If not, the header should include "by the Nazis", since the article topic is a country, meaning that "by the Nazis" is not implied (though it is if we use the German word).--Boson (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed and done - also changed "Beginnings" to "Background" Ultracobalt (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Revised Poll on "Reich" and "Realm"
Here is a more clearly stated question on the matter. In using "Realm" as a translation for "Reich," should the mention or mention(s) be:
 * A. Only in a footnote from an early mention of "Reich" in the body of the article.
 * B. The discussion should be in the body of the article.
 * C. The discussion should be in the body of the article and the Infobox should use the translation "Greater German Realm." This is the current situation.

To avoid making it difficult to track, could you kindly vote only for your choice here, and put discussion under another heading. Bytwerk (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support A. Strongly oppose C. For main reasons see discussion above. The content of any translation discussion anywhere on the article page (including endorsement of a particular translation) is a separate issue, to be discussed later. --Boson (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A. oppose C..Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A. Bytwerk (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A or B. Strongly oppose C. Ultracobalt (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A. Kierzek (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A. Oppose B or C. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A. Oppose B or C. Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A or B, → (change heading to "Third Reich").--IIIraute (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support C.--R-41 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like everyone interested has had a say. "A" is the clear choice.  Shall I make the appropriate changes, or give it a while longer? Bytwerk (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that was long enough - as you said - "A" is the clear choice. The next vote should address the heading → (Nazi Germany vs. Third Reich).--IIIraute (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Put it up and I will support it. Bytwerk (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I made the relevant changes. Someone might want to improve the new footnote by expanding the explanation and finding, perhaps, a better source than the outdated Harper's citation. Bytwerk (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—71.137.244.225 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌. You haven't described what correction you think needs to be made to the coordinates. The ones in the article look OK to me. Deor (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The intro is too long
The intro is over the recommended four paragraph limit, and the paragraphs are too long for an intro. Detailed investigation into specific topics should not be discussed in the intro but in the main body of the article. I advocate that the intro be reduced to four small paragraphs at most.--R-41 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and am working on it :) the first paragraph is finished, someone may come up with a better 3 remaining paras before i finish, but yes they are a bit redundant and need wordflow improvement... --  Ultracobalt   &#32;(talk) 05:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not too long for one of the most complicated and controversial and studied episodes in world history. Keep in mind that most people ONLY read the lede--the average user spends 5 to 7 minutes on Wikipedia and is unlikely to casually read the entire rather difficult article. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the lede especially dropping difficult German words that are not needed in the lede and are covered in the text. eg Großdeutsches Reich, Führerprinzip, Schutzstaffe -- words very rarely used in English. Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Führerprinzip has no business in the LEDE, it's a more detailed concept for the body.--   Ultracobalt   &#32;(talk) 06:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not our business to cram everything into the intro merely because we assume that the reader is too disinterested in reading the rest of the article - that is up to the reader to take the initiative to read the article. Intros are supposed to should a concise and short summary of the key topics addressed. Such topics should include: (1) that it was a totalitarian state led by Hitler and the Nazi Party, where no opposition movements were allowed and opponents were persecuted; (2) that it persecuted and committed genocide against Jews and other people deemed "life unworthy of life"; (3) that it pursued an aggressive foreign policy that led to World War II, its brief conquest of much of Europe, and its collapse. These three aspects are what Nazi Germany is the most remembered for. Mentioning that Hitler "hypnotized" Germans may be interesting but does not belong in the intro, it should be in the main body - he had a totalitarian state to put people to work to his aims regardless of what people wanted. Also, mentioning Hitler's direct influence in what was done in the state is a controversial topic for historians - some historians that he had strong influence, others claim that he was very lazy and delegated much of his duties to others - again the intro is not the place to have that debate, the main body of the article is where that should be. And considering the magnitude of the Holocaust and World War II, I do not see how mentioning the autobahns in the intro is significant in comparison.--R-41 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points above, R-41. I trimmed the lede as to the "hypnotic eyes" part. The lede could still use a little more work. Kierzek (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see this part was re-inserted by another. It really is not a necessary point in the lede and could be moved to the body; I don't feel that strongly about it so I didn't remove it all again. With that said, it should be trimmed for redundancy, which I have done. Kierzek (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Material in the intro on the autobahns, and the 1936 Olympics is not significant in comparison with the magnitude of the Holocaust and World War II. Construction of major highways happens in all countries and multiple countries have had the Olympics, those should be removed from the intro and mentioned in the main body. Info on youth and women mentioned in the intro should be moved to the main body of the article. The intro should focus on key major themes.--R-41 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany invented the autobahn which was later copied in the US interstates. That is important. The Berlin Olympics were a very famous world showcase that used sports for Nazi propaganda--it is still much talked about. The argument "every country has xx" is irrelevant (every country has leaders and wars so we perhaps should not include them???) Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that building a highway and holding an Olympic games is on the same level of importance with the mass murder of millions of people in the Holocaust, or the massive changes in Europe caused by World War II?--R-41 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No they are not on the same level. But they are important and we have space enough for them. The Autobahn brings in themes of technology, economic recovery, and an innovation that changed the world.  Propaganda is a big theme for the topic and the Olympics were the biggest propaganda story. The article does not attempt to cover the massive changes that took place in 15 or 20 other countries--they each have their own articles where that material belongs. Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the Olympics and the autobahns are sub-themes as you seem to indicate, then it is the main theme theme that should be briefly mentioned in the intro rather than the subthemes. If the Olympics were used for propaganda - what propaganda were they used for? The answer is the Nazi totalitarian state - so Nazi totalitarianism is the them, propaganda itself whether we like it or not is used by all governments - it was the totalitarian agenda of the Nazi propaganda that is the issue. If the sub-theme of the autobahns is an example of themes of technology, economic recovery, etc., then the themes of the economics and scientific development should be briefly mentioned the intro.--R-41 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor changes
in the Nazi seizure of power part, in the forth paragraph "Weimar Republic" should be a link g.rocket (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Weimar Republic" is already linked; per WP:OVERLINK, more links would be too many. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Change of the article's name
As a serious encyclopedia Wikipedia should avoid informal talk unless it comes from a quotation. It's more appropriate to use the phrase "National Socialist Germany" than "Nazi Germany". I'm fully aware that the attribute "Nazi" is prevalent in the English vernacular, but contractions such as these should be avoided in formal texts. Zlatno Pile (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * the major publishers, journals, editors and writers strongly prefer "Nazi Germany" to "National Socialist Germany." Scholar.google.com gives a ratio of about 50 to one. The term "National Socialist" is rarely used in titles. Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term "Nazi" is widespread, but so is "Commy". Should the article on the Soviet Union be properly be titled "Commy Russia"? Zlatno Pile (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Commy" is slang. "Nazi" is not. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terms_used_for_Germans#Nazi_.28derogatory_and_highly_offensive.29
 * If it isn't slang, how come National Socialists never used it when referring to themselves, even in informal settings? Zlatno Pile (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting find. I'd agree that "Nazi" can be rude. "Grammar Nazi" is meant to be a little derogatory, but is usually said in fun. I really doubt that the word "Nazi" is used in a truly offensive way these days, at least where I come from. I reckon that article has it wrong. The paragraph on "Nazi" has only one source, which is completely useless. (The links don't mention "Nazi".) "Nazi" is meant to be neither rude nor offensive in "Nazi Germany". HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and I've now opened a discussion about it on that Talk page. Feel free to contribute there too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Zlatno Pile, I reckon that WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we should use what you call informal talk in cases like this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct term would be: Deutsches Reich 1933 to 1945 → see: Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945.--IIIraute (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. As was stated "Nazi Germany" is a term that the Western Allies used and since this is English language Wikipedia, it should be retained for the article title (with an explanation in the article of the term and the German terms they used, which has been done; See: Name section). And as Hohum stated in the past discussion: "WP:COMMONNAME makes it very clear that articles do not need to use formally correct names, but the most recognisable, most used one, which is the case here." I agree with his statement. Kierzek (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Deutsches Reich" and "National Socialist Germany" would be terms completely unfamiliar to most English readers. "Nazi Germany" is the most commonly used name. Let's stick with that. Ground Zero | t 10:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what if it's unfamiliar. Encyclopedias are read with the intention to familiarize oneself with something new. It's not even that unfamiliar. "Nationalism" and "Socialism" are familiar words. That "Nazi" is common is irrelevant. The word "Commy" is also common by the criteria of quantity, but this doesn't make it correct to use.


 * "Nazi" is also misleading and obfuscating. It gives the false impression that it was the word with which National Socialists described themselves, when it's actually a contraction that was used solely by native political opponents of National Socialists.


 * And you can't title an article with a contraction or slang. You must give the full name of the concept. Zlatno Pile (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "National Socialist" was not the full name of the party either. TFD (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But it seems like the most common used name is Third Reich → WP:COMMONNAME. --IIIraute (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As first, my english will not be perfect because I am German.
 * I just wanted to say that out of my view the articles Name feels like theres only brown uniforms for every person that lived in Germany. I have seen the name "third Reich" very often in english books and every person of every english speaking country should know this name. I felt the need, posting here, because where ever people begin talking about the Hitler time with the word NAZI there is no chance talking factual about the theme anymore. I hope you will understand what I tried to tell. 79.221.33.221 (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I think you worry too much. "Nazi Germany" is the common name in English for Germany during the time of Nazi rule, whether you like it or not. It doesn't mean that we all think that everyone in Germany at that time was a Nazi. We speak of Victorian England (and yes, I know it's a redirect), but we certainly don't think that everyone there looked like Queen Victoria. I've known many people who lived in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. (Yes, I'm old.) I don't think any of them were Nazis. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this answer. It helps me reading english forums with this theme a bit easier. I think as a german I just take it a bit to serius (ernest? don`t know whats right here). 79.221.27.245 (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Phantom footnotes
For some reason the footnote numbers in the text are always 2 digits higher than the footnote listing in "References". #5 in the text is #3 in the "references" listing. etc through all of them. #1 and #2 disappeared?? Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be to do with the use of a nested and named reference using in the infobox. Which is either a wiki issue, or syntax, but I can't figure out how to fix it. ( Hohum   @ ) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012
The seventh sentence in, the one pertaining to reference 5, has the word "curry" in it, "The government was not a coordinated, cooperating body, but rather a collection of factions struggling to amass power and curry favor with the Führer"

A much more correct word would be "gain" --Brockc (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Brockc (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done thanks for making your request clear and easy to understand :) - I've made the change here. Cheers, &mdash; Deontalk 05:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously curry would have been not in line with the high racial principles. d&r Agathoclea (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi occupation - only in Europe?
Were there any Nazi-occupied territories outside Europe? In other words, should German-occupied Europe article be moved to Territories occupied by the Nazi Germany, or is it fine where it is? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No need, because there wasn't. There was German action in North Africa and Iraq, but never any occupation outside of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Cole (talk • contribs) 05:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues with the Introduction
Germany made increasingly aggressive demands...

This is cited, but: to go from making ultimatums that Czech leaders break up the country they dominated, Czecho-Slovakia, and throwing it into the dustbin of history to pressing Poland to allow for Germany's incorporation of the Free City of Danzig, a city Poland did not even control (and a city that, since 1920, even the Weimar government had pushed to reincorporate) is hardly an example of "increasingly aggressive demands". That is perhaps the irony of the war and the circumstances around which it began. It probably began because Poland did not want to end up like Czecho-Slovakia! It's a shame Wikipedia doesn't care to respect that. Does this site exist to educate or not? What's the deal here? Why aren't we telling the truth. and what's the point of this site if the truth is not being told??

...and the Sudetenland was taken via the Munich Agreement in 1938, with the rest of Czechoslovakia taken over in 1939.

No, the "rest" of Czechoslovakia was not taken over. The Hungarians took their part, the Poles took Zaolzie. Bohemia and Moravia became German protectorates, Slovakia became a German client state.

Hitler made a pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II.

Again, not true. World War II only began in Europe after this date. And we can say that because the Polish-German conflict was a part of World War II. But why oversimplify here? Just because it sounds nicer? Why compromise facts with oversimplified fictions? --92.229.38.216 (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the text is in full accord with the major Reliable Sources. What sources is ............. using to detect his "oversimplified fictions"? The RS all say the war started with the invasion of Poland, and they all say Hitler made increasingly aggressive demands (Rhineland, Austria, Czech., Poland = escalation). Rjensen (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh it is? Are you going to stand by that bold claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.38.216 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If the war began with the invasion of Poland in 1939, then please explain at what point after that it trickled over into Asia. Or are you suggesting that the conflict over there was not part of the Second World War? Good to know that Wikipedia considers Eurocentric - read: ignorant - sources reliable. That, my friend, is what I refer to as an oversimplified fiction. At least the page on Wikipedia about World War II understands this. Have you read the intro?


 * Hitler did not demand Poland, he demanded a semi-independent city and a referendum. If he had demanded Poland, Poland is bigger than Austria and the Czech Republic, so you would have a case for increasingly larger demands. But you don't, because he didn't. I don't see how the reality of the situation is "increasingly aggressive". This is just the mantra used to oversimplify the situation and it has no place in honest scholarship.


 * I've paged back a few years. I like the intros which were less about what historians think of Hitler's eyes, mentioned repeatedly in the intro. There are other points that are repeated. I propose mixing some of the past points into what we currently have and slimming down the intro. I note that it currently gives no explanation as to why this state is called the Third Reich. I'm also comparing this article to the Soviet Union article. Thoughts?


 * Here's a proposal:


 * Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common terms for Germany when it was ruled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) from 1933 to 1945. On 30 January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, quickly eliminating all opposition to rule as sole leader. The state nation idolized Hitler as its Führer ("leader"), centralizing all power in his hands. The rest of the government was not a coordinated, cooperating body, but a collection of factions subordinate to Hitler's word which was above all laws. Top officials reported to Hitler and followed his policies, but had autonomy. The Nazi government brought prosperity to Germany and ended mass unemployment using military spending and a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices. Extensive public works were undertaken, including Autobahn construction. Thus, the regime gained enormous popularity and, with the suppression of opponents, Hitler's rule went unchallenged.


 * The Gestapo (secret police) and SS under Heinrich Himmler destroyed the liberal, socialist, and communist opposition, and persecuted and murdered Jews and other "undesirables". The Nazis claimed the Germanic peoples were the purest representation of the Aryan race, and therefore the master race. Education focused on racial biology, population policy, and physical fitness. Membership in the Hitler Youth organization became compulsory and women faded from of post-secondary education. Calling women's rights a "product of the Jewish intellect," the Nazis practiced what they called "emancipation from emancipation."[7] Entertainment and tourism were organized via the Strength Through Joy program. The government promoted specific art forms, discouraging and banning others, portrayed as Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art).[8] Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels used film, mass rallies, and Hitler's oratory to control public opinion.[9] The 1936 Summer Olympics showcased the Third Reich on the international stage.


 * Until 1936, the state's borders were those given to Germany after World War I; they extended to Lithuania in the east, but the state was split in two, with Poland and the Free City of Danzig in between; to the south, the state's main borders were Austria and Czechoslovakia; to the west, the Rhineland, the Saarland and Low Countries like France. Hitler advocated the creation of a Greater German ethno-state, which led to the reclamation of the Rhineland, Saarland and the Memelland and the annexation of Austria, as well as the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. The rest of Czechoslovakia not partitioned by others came under the state's influence. Additional expansion occurred in the Second World War, which began in Europe after the state, in cooperation with the Soviet Union, invaded Poland and declarations of war followed. Poland fell and the Nazi-controlled part became the General Gouvernment, where brutal policies were implemented.


 * Germany defeated France in 1940, but the conflict with the United Kingdom expanded when, for example, Hitler's ally, Mussolini of Italy, pursued failed gambits in Africa. Hitler’s state nevertheless invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Major military defeats, including the Battle of Stalingrad, ruined the effort. Meanwhile, concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold political prisoners and opponents. The number of camps quadrupled between 1939 and 1942, as slave-laborers from across Europe, Jews, political prisoners, criminals, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally ill and others were imprisoned. The system that began as an instrument of political oppression culminated in the mass genocide of Jews and other minorities in The Holocaust.


 * By 1944, the United Kingdom and its ally, the United States, had introduced the large-scale systematic bombing of all major German cities, rail lines and oil plants, which left the state in ruins. The state was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the Western Allies from the west. A policy of denazification began and so did a trial for Nazi war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials.


 * current version:


 * Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is the common name for Germany when it was a totalitarian state ruled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). On 30 January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, quickly eliminating all opposition to rule as sole leader. The state idolized Hitler as its Führer ("leader"), centralizing all power in his hands. Historians have emphasized the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups. Kessel writes, "Overwhelmingly...Germans speak with mystification of Hitler's 'hypnotic' appeal..."[4] Under the "leader principle", the Führer's word was above all other laws. Top officials reported to Hitler and followed his policies, but they had considerable autonomy. The government was not a coordinated, cooperating body, but rather a collection of factions struggling to amass power and gain favor with the Führer.[5] In the midst of the Great Depression, the Nazi government restored prosperity and ended mass unemployment using heavy military spending and a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices.[6] Extensive public works were undertaken, including the construction of the Autobahns. The return to prosperity gave the regime enormous popularity; the suppression of all opposition made Hitler's rule mostly unchallenged.


 * Racism, especially antisemitism, was a main tenet of society in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo (secret state police) and SS under Heinrich Himmler destroyed the liberal, socialist, and communist opposition, and persecuted and murdered Jews and other "undesirables". It was believed that the Germanic peoples—who were also referred to as the Nordic race—were the purest representation of the Aryan race, and were therefore the master race. Education focused on racial biology, population policy, and physical fitness. Membership in the Hitler Youth organization became compulsory. The number of women enrolled in post-secondary education plummeted, and career opportunities were curtailed. Calling women's rights a "product of the Jewish intellect," the Nazis practiced what they called "emancipation from emancipation."[7] Entertainment and tourism were organized via the Strength Through Joy program. The government controlled artistic expression, promoting specific forms of art and discouraging or banning others. The Nazis mounted the infamous Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) exhibition in 1937.[8] Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels made effective use of film, mass rallies, and Hitler's hypnotizing oratory to control public opinion.[9] The 1936 Summer Olympics showcased the Third Reich on the international stage.


 * Germany made increasingly aggressive demands, threatening war if they were not met. Britain and France responded with appeasement, hoping Hitler would finally be satisfied.[10] Austria was annexed in 1938, and the Sudetenland was taken via the Munich Agreement in 1938, with the rest of Czechoslovakia taken over in 1939. Hitler made a pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II. In alliance with Benito Mussolini's Italy, Germany conquered France and most of Europe by 1940, and threatened its remaining major foe: Great Britain. Reich Commissariats took brutal control of conquered areas, and a German administration termed the General Government was established in Poland. Concentration camps, established as early as 1933, were used to hold political prisoners and opponents of the regime. The number of camps quadrupled between 1939 and 1942 to 300+, as slave-laborers from across Europe, Jews, political prisoners, criminals, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally ill and others were imprisoned. The system that began as an instrument of political oppression culminated in the mass genocide of Jews and other minorities in The Holocaust.


 * Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich in the major military defeats of the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk in 1943. The Soviet counter-attacks became the largest land battles in history. Large-scale systematic bombing of all major German cities, rail lines and oil plants escalated in 1944, shutting down the Luftwaffe (German Air Force). Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the Allies from the west. The victorious Allies initiated a policy of denazification and put the surviving Nazi leadership on trial for war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials.'


 * Around twenty seventy words shorter, fixes historical inaccuracies and the "name" section underneath can be eliminated and integrated into the text, so that will make it even shorter. Thoughts?

Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?
Should redirect for "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?


 * (See also the 독일의-Wikipedia's Drittes Reich (Frege) -
 * ''"In dem Aufsatz Der Gedanke des deutschen Philosophen und Mathematikers Gottlob Frege (1918) bezeichnet der Ausdruck Drittes Reich einen Bereich der Realität, in dem die nach seiner Auffassung objektiven Gedanken angesiedelt sind:
 * ''Die Gedanken sind weder Dinge der Außenwelt noch Vorstellungen. Ein drittes Reich muß anerkannt werden. Was zu diesem gehört, stimmt mit den Vorstellungen darin überein, daß es nicht mit den Sinnen wahrgenommen werden kann, mit den Dingen aber darin, daß es keines Trägers bedarf, zu dessen Bewußtseinsinhalte es gehört. So ist z. B. der Gedanke, den wir im pythagoreischen Lehrsatz aussprachen, zeitlos wahr, unabhängig davon, ob irgendjemand ihn für wahr hält. Er bedarf keines Trägers. Er ist wahr nicht erst, seitdem er entdeckt worden ist, wie ein Planet, schon bevor jemand ihn gesehen hat, mit andern Planeten in Wechselwirkung gewesen ist.[1]
 * Mit dem Argument, dass es andernfalls keine Intersubjektivität geben könne, postuliert Frege neben dem Reich der subjektiven Vorstellungen und dem der "objektiv-wirklichen" physischen Gegenstände noch ein "drittes Reich": das der "objektiv-nichtwirklichen" Gedanken. Sie werden vom Bewusstsein erfasst, aber nicht hervorgebracht."


 * I don't speak German, but "Third Realm" and "Drittes Reich" both redirect to Nazi Germany.
 * There is often a problem when Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., are translated by lighter weight thinkers (i.e., by anyone).
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is WP:RS.
 * According to reliable secondary source Gideon Rosen in the "Abstract Objects" article at SEP, "Frege concludes that numbers are neither external ‘concrete’ things nor mental entities of any sort. ... He says that they (thoughts - by which Gideon Rosen means the senses of declarative sentences, apparently with Rosen using Frege's highly technical meaning of "sense") belong to a ‘third realm’ distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness... As this new ‘realism’ was absorbed into English speaking philosophy, the traditional term ‘abstract’ was enlisted to apply to the denizens of this ‘third realm’."
 * Note: Rosen does not provide citations in support of this particular SEP:OR "encyclopedia" article statement, re what he calls "absorption" and "enlistment", likely because of a lack of historical scholarly works to rely on re the etymology of "abstract object". But we at Wikipedia have higher standards than SEP when it comes to OR.

I propose a disabiguation page. But having inadvertently stepped from writing WP:BLPs into trying to edit the Alternative medicine article, I assume per User:IRWolfie's comments at alt med, that it is best to first propose things in a small way at talk pages, before editing on any articles involving religion, racist groups, evolution, alt meds, and articles about topics involving groups of irrational people that are still in existence.

Discussion is here ParkSehJik (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction Request
The 5th sentence of the 3rd paragraph ends, "Germany conquered France and most of Europe by 1940, and threatened its remaining major foe: Great Britain"

This is incorrect."Great Britain" should be changed to "the United Kingdom".

I understand that this terminology can be confusing for non-British people, so here's the explanation: the term 'Great Britain' refers to the island consisting of mainland England, Scotland and Wales. 'The United Kingdom' is the name of our country which consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Confusing the matter further, the term 'Britain' often refers to the United Kingdom and this usage is correct. Also, the UK competes in the Olympics as 'Team GB', I can only imagine that this is because the Ukraine got first dibs on UK! But nevertheless, the use of the term 'Great Britain' in this sentence is incorrect.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.248.235 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Map issue: Sources claiming that Germany did not officially annexed Alsace-Lorraine or Luxembourg, however German maps show it annexed
I am confused as to how to address the issue I have mentioned. This image of a map that appears to have been produced in Germany in 1942, shows Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine as annexed. and this map from 1944. However there are written sources that say that neither were annexed.

According to Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (2005), Germany never officially annexed Alsace-Lorraine, it informally incorporated it and controlled it through a military commander. The book Nazi war aims: the plans for the thousand year Reich (1962) says that "The story of what happened in Luxembourg is practically identical with that of Alsace-Lorraine. Luxembourg was never officially annexed by law but was annexed in fact." This source Hitler and Nazi Germany: a history (2009) by Jackson J. Spielvogel and David Redles, says that "Although not officially annexed, Luxembourg was attached to a Nazi Party administrative district" and goes on to say "In western Europe, direct annexation was at first limited to three small territories—Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet—that had been awarded to Belgium after World War I." Now the last source indicates that annexations were "at first limited".

Now, the only thing I could presume is that these regions were not officially annexed until 1942 when the Grossdeutsches Reich was officially proclaimed.--R-41 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The situation is discussed in the article de:Chef der Zivilverwaltung ("chief of civil administration") on the German Wikipedia. The coloured areas on the map in that article were quickly annexed de facto but never de lege. They had a special administrative status, each under the administration of the Reichsstatthalter of a neighbouring area in Germany (+ Austria) proper. The idea was to prepare these areas for annexation, which from the Nazi point of view meant considering them a normal part of Germany just like Austria had become. Hans Adler 08:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Hitler orientated part of introduction
I fully accept that you cannot discuss Nazi Germany without discussing Adolf Hitler but

This part of the introduction Historians have emphasized the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups. Kessel writes, "Overwhelmingly...Germans speak with mystification of Hitler's 'hypnotic' appeal..."[4]

is reproduced in the Adolf Hitler article @ [ref]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Entry_into_politics[/ref]

and I think is better suited to its single inclusion in wiki there rather than in the introduction of the nazi state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molby61 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree - especially since this article is actually about a period of German history that happens to have been given the article title Nazi Germany rather than a more neutral title, such as Third Reich or Germany from 1935 to 1945.--Boson (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dating of Nazi Germany & Hitler's dictatorship
Ladies and gentleman - as a matter of historical clarity - it would benefit many to be more precise when dating the period of "Nazi Germany". The language currently in place is beneficial in that the process by which the Nazi Party, precisely, Adolf Hitler, began to achieve his dictatorship indeed became more real with his appointment as Chancellor by the President of the struggling Weimar Republic, Paul Von Hindenburg, 01/30/33. And, was indeed accelerated by the passing of the Enabling Act of March 1933. He was of this period, however, still facing serious challenges to his ultimate goal: Full and real dictatorship.

Once the Enabling Act became law, after the Federal elections held 03/05/33, 56% of the seats of the Reichstag were still controlled by opposing parties. President Hinderburg controlled the German military as Commander and Chief as stipulated by the Constitution which was not taken from him by the Enabling act. Read Article 2 of the Enabling Act. Though Hitler had established an impressive paramilitary force, he had no power to direct or command the military forces of the Weimar Republic as Chancellor under the Enabling Act. Nor, was Hindendurg a sympathetic supporter of Hitler or was the Vice- Chancellor, Franz von Papen of the nationalist monarchist party to which Hindenburg was. This is a far cry from being a bona fide dictator with "dictatorial powers". Though Hitler abused his power under the Enabling Act - this was not the goal - far from it.

Rather, he achieved his objective with the death of President 08/02/34, the passing of legislation that same day stipulating he was the sole ruler [Fuhrer] of Germany, the dissolution of the remaining parties in the Reichstag soon after and an national referendum vote - yes or no - held August 19, 1934 with the Nazi Party legislation being the only selection on the ballot. This is when he achieved his goal as dictator and Nazi Germany came to full bloom. Thank you for your consideration. All this is properly cited on Wikipedia concerning these specific points. I encourage you to research this point. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hitler reached his ultimate goal through events of 1934; however, the start date for Hitler and the Nazi Party as far as the beginning of national power in Germany is seen as Jan. 1933 by mainstream historians/authors. Now, it is true that national power was gained, in the end, by Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, like the others before him (during that timeframe); so after it was handed to him, Hitler started on the path of consolidation of power into a dictatorship (which was not completed until 1934). The process known as Gleichschaltung (coordination) of social and political control into NSDAP control. Kershaw, Hitler: A Biography, pp. 260-261; McNab, The Third Reich, p. 14 and Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, p. 154. Kierzek (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kierzek Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

These are good points, Kierzek. It comes to how the phrase, "Nazi Germany", is defined. And, the image that creates in the mind of a reader. It implies the Nazi Party had full absolute control of Germany in 1933. Does it not?

If we define "Nazi Germany" as full and complete control then this period start date of, 1933, is vaguely correct, but woefully, imprecise. The Nazi Party of 1933 still faced serious obstacles: In March of 1933 - post the Enabling Act -, 56% of the Reichstag seats were controlled by opposing parties, the President of the Weimar Republic, Paul von Hindenburg, was still Commander and Chief of the military and remained so through 1933, and until his death, 08/02/34. His cohort [Hindenburg's], Franz von Papen, and the vast majority of his constituents: the aristocracy, the Weimar military and the industrialists class were not sympathetic of the Nazi Party in 1933. Most of Franz von Papen's constituents/adherents [Hindenburg among them] were supporting a bicameral monarchy modeled after Great Britain, or the Weimar Republic, throughout 1933. And, in fact, this carried into and throughout the war period. A major thorn in the side of the Nazi Party - and the source of many inside plots against Hitler.

Even though Hitler abused the "Enabling Act" to ban his rivals starting in July of 1933 and other such abuses? They, namely, the Socialists and Communists, took to "the streets" and underground causing serious resistance in 1933. Some of this was financed by the Soviet Union. It may be helpful to point this out - and - introduce an intermediate period, say 01/33 - 8/34, that offers much more clarity that reflects history as it happened. All that is referenced here is cited on Wikipedia - in part to your good work. Thank you again.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk --67.167.210.70 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)• contribs) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As we reflect and discern the insightful theory of - Gliechshaltung - contributed by, Sir Richard J. Evans? It is a sociological study of transformation covering the period 1933-37: how the Nazi Party implemented, achieved and maintained its absolute authoritarian rule over Germany. It does not, nor attempts to, define: "Nazi Germany".

As was rightfully pointed out, this process of transformation began, in real terms: in 1933. Its achievement was not fully realized - politically and/or in terms of governance - until 08/19/34 with the Referendum vote, which we seem to have reached a consensus. This achievement [the results of the August 1934 Referendum] was then cemented/reinforced by a series of programs of indoctrination on a national scale, such as, mandated participation in Youth groups, and so on, which were in full stride by 1937.

Are we stating then that "Nazi Germany" ended in 1937 in line with Sir Evans theory just as we are with the start date? Of course, we're not, however, to state "Nazi Germany" was truly "Nazi Germany" in 1933? Is akin to stating WW II in Europe ended 06-06-44, the Allied invasion of Normandy. It was the beginning of the end, to be sure. But, the Allied Forces had a long road ahead to the end. Thank you all again. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)67.167.210.70 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It was profoundly encouraging to see progress made on this matter without it slipping into an "edit war" followed by a painful journey into that time eating machine known as DNR and/or unwarranted accusations of intentional, or willful "vandalism". As stated, this is a good faith effort seeking genuine clarity of history as it happened vs a vaguely correct "glossing over" leaving much to be desired that creates more questions than answers. Or worse, becomes the source of wholly preventable disputes in the future. So, thank you, Kierzek - and others - who guided me well through this process, thereby, avoiding common lethal pitfalls of earnest good faith editing and offered patient input.

Where this article is now seems a sound compromise. It now reveals the truth of history as it happened more clearly. A further suggestion. Can we agree the definition of "Nazi Germany" can legitimately be stated to have begun in 1933, wherein, the introduction sentence reads this way, or similar language: "Nazi Germany". . . . common name for Germany during an Era of transformation from a democratic Republic to a totalitarian state under Adolf Hitler and its destruction in by Allied forces in 1945? My sincere, thanks for your consideration. --Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above was added. However, since then there seems to be a slow edit war brewing over this matter. I don't want that; I only want the article to be correct. The lead sentences did need a little work more work to be clear and Malljaja did a nice job as to ce on them. I then added cites to the points conveyed. The problem seems to be that one or more ip address wants to start the article at the totalitarian state of 1934; however, the problem is that Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 and that is when the Nazis came to national government power or as the Nazis liked to call it, the Machtergreifung, "seizure of power"; the country then transformed from the death-knell of a republic to the totalitarian state under Hitler in 1934. It is important that general readers understand the transition or Gleichschaltung process of what then became known as the Third Reich from then on until 1945. Kierzek (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavs section needs to be made more clear!
The Nazis did not view Slavs as non-Aryan because they were not racially Aryan but rather because of the movements the vast majority of Slavs at that time belonged to (at least in the eyes of the Nazis), the emphasis should be added about the racial theorists in Nazi Germany did still view Slavs as Aryans, including Rosenberg - one of the most prominent ones - who also hated the way many were treated although he did have some negative thoughts about certain Slav groups mostly the Poles the Czechs.

The Ahnenpass which was to said to actually prove that one was Aryan and everybody in the Reich had to have one included the Slavs in its description, but like I said many anti-Slavic propaganda was still used by the Nazis.

For example, Danzig was actually originally Polish although the present-day area it is in now was settled by Celtic, Germanic and Baltic tribes as these groups are older than the Slavic tribes) and was founded under Poland yet the Nazis still said that Danzig is German because the Free City Of Danzig was over 90% ethnically German and Hitler and the Nazis wanted this back because it was taken away from Germany after WW1, the Nazis couldn't give a monkeys if it was originally Polish and belonged to Poland. Many borders have changed, the same as Silesia was originally German.

Also, the Nazis had the idea that Bolshevism was what Slavs belonged to and that Slavs were "born slaves" and the Germanic peoples were above all other Europeans (and non-Europeans) including Slavic peoples, Celtic people, Romance people, Baltic people and so on.

But there is nowhere that the Nazis said that the Slavs were not racially Aryans, quite the opposite - they acknowledged the Slavs as racially Aryans.

I find the way the information on the "Attitude towards Slavs" is somewhat not informative enough, all the stuff I put in is cited by credible sources and I see no reason why it was removed. It is important that the idea the Nazis had that Slavs were an inferior race was not racially but politically, the struggle against Jewish Bolshevism which the Slavs belonged to and that the Nazis needed Eastern Europe for living space for the German people it wasn't because Slavs are a different race to Germanics or anything like that, in fact there is just as many or possible even more Slavs with the "ideal Aryan traits" than what is found among Germanics.

I'm not going to say that the Nazis viewed Slavs as on the same level as Germanics but they did still view them as racially Aryans and many were still considered Aryans by the Nazis and there was also several attempts by the Nazis to Germanize the Slavs they found suitable, which included ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and so on. Also, there was many Slavs who had ranks within the Nazis, including Hitler's own chauffeur Erich Kempka who was an ethnic Pole. Goebbels also had a relationship (rather an affair) with an ethnic Czech, Lída Baarová. There was also many army divisions that was purely Slavic including Polish, Russian and Ukrainian who was on the Nazi side not the Soviets. Also not to be forgotten is the kidnapping of Polish children to be raised as Germanized Germans in Germany.

To say that the Nazis thought that all Slavs were subhuman is inaccurate and not correct. There is no doubt anti-Slavic propaganda was used for the invasion of Poland, the invasion of the USSR, the superiority of Germanics, the justification for living space in Eastern Europe but there is nowhere that they say that Slavs are not racially Aryans, I consider this section to be either a) be reverted to how I put it with the pictures that are currently on it or b) at least altered to make it more clear that the definition of an "Aryan" was not always racially motivated, there was many Germans (and Germanics) who were also deemed non-Aryan.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your assertion that the Nazis viewed the Slavs as Aryan. The sources quoted to not back up that claim. None of the sources I have checked so far back up that claim. -- Dianna (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The National Socialist Ahnenpaß understands Aryans expressly following persons, regardless of where they live in the world, "as an Englishman or Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian." Source here Clearly shows that the Nazis DID acknowledge the Slavs as racially Aryans. The source I provided shows that they were anti-Slavic because of the Bolshevik in the East/Eastern Europe which the Slavs belonged to.

The Ahnenpass I just showed you proves they considered Slavs as racially Aryans and there is no evidence that there did NOT consider them as racially Aryan.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A newspaper article by one unknown editorialist cannot take precedence over serious researchers such as Richard J. Evans and Peter Longerich. In The Holocaust (2010), Longerich says on page 30 that the Nazis conceived of a racial hierarchy with the people at the top being those with the purest Aryan blood. In his biography of Himmler (2012 - page 575), Longerich says that the Nazis defined the Aryan race as those of the Nordic race who spoke Germanic languages - the Teutons. Poles and Slavs were not included in the Aryan race, though they were considered racially superior to Jews and Gypsies. Himmler's policy was to eliminate all the Slavic people in Russia and Poland and replace them with Teutonic Germans (Longerich, 2012, page 579). -- Dianna (talk)

You are confusing the word "Aryan" with "master race" the same as Aryan is often confused with Nordic, Germanic and German.

Stefan Scheil is not an unknown historian to the Germans, the two historians you cited won't exactly be very popular in Germany (or German-speaking countries) will they? No.

Can you even refute the article I sent you instead of just deflecting it by saying he is an "unknown editorialist"? Show me anywhere that the Nazis actually say they are "not racially Aryan". The conception of 'Aryan' by Indo-European definition does include the Slavs.

The Nazis did not consider them racially inferior but rather politically inferior, they did view them lower than Germanics but so was the Celts and so as well. They considered many people 'racially inferior' to the Germanics than just the Slavs, like the Celts and Romantics and so on... below in the master race hierarchy.

Alfred Rosenberg The Myth of the Twentieth Century also considered Slavs to be Aryan, but lesser than Germans. He was pro-Nordic and believed the Germans were superior to everyone else (including other Germanics).

Himmler's own views regarding the Slavs does not necessarily mean the whole of Nazism considered Slavs to be racially inferior. Himmler also considered some Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and other Slavs to have Aryan "traits" (i.e Nordic) and were seen fit to be Germanised.

Also read this:

He [Himmler] then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. 'To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time' [Himmler said]. 'This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space (...) After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family (...) has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate (...) I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans (...) This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race (...) it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race (...) At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness (...) I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer. ''Silgailis, Artur: Latvian Legion. James Bender Publishing, 1986. p. 348 – 349''

Also, I've found a Holocaust book that also says "The Nazis viewed Slavic peoples as Aryans".

You need to remember this whole notion of Slavs being "inferior" was because the Nazis believed that the Germanics had a right to conquer Eastern Europe and enslave, expel or even exterminate the population there, they did view the Germanics as higher than any other Europeans, nobody doubts that but the idea of them being subhuman because of their racial origins is bonkers mad.

I have provided two sources which the first you just deflect and don't even bother to refute, it is also used and cited on other Wikipedia pages, it is a perfectly cited and fine source to use according to the rules.

Also another one when 'reverting' my edit says that it is about Nazi Germany not Slavs but the article regarding Nazi Germany's policy on Slavs needs to be more clear!

I'm not even Slavic but the way it is now is completely biased. Unless you can actually refute what I said then I see no reason to refute it.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What other accounts have you used in the past to edit Wikipedia? -- Dianna (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on behavioural evidence, I'd say it's likely that YS is the new account of a user who was blocked repeatedly under various names most recently as English Patriot Man. 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The user has been blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. I am glad I only wasted a minimal amount of time on this person's complaint. -- Dianna (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
I'm starting a new talk page section where we can try to settle the wording of the opening paragraph of the lead. I have just put in a new amendment to say "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into a totalitarian state using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination)" and am posting here for discussion of this wording. -- Dianna (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay to me. As I stated in an earlier discussion section "Dating of Nazi Germany & Hitler's dictatorship", it is important that general readers understand the transition or Gleichschaltung process which took place under the Nazis who then turned Germany into a totalitarian state (which became known as the Third Reich until 1945). Kierzek (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time yet to read all the old talk page discussions but will get to that soon. -- Dianna (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it is important to state that nazi germany acually was a totalitarian state in the lede after Gleichschaltung, the one you proposed just mentions a transformation INTO a totalitarian state not that it was one Peterzor (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit; the sentence as written clearly states that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state after Gleichschaltung under Hitler's rule. Your alternative suggestion was grammatically confusing because of an incorrect use of tense. Malljaja (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * i have corrected my edits now and am mentioning the Gleichschaltung process Peterzor (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The version present in the article when I got home from work was poorly worded and did not impart the necessary information, so I reverted it. "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was a totalitarian state after the Gleichschaltung (coordination) process" -- this wording is not grammatically correct English and is difficult to understand for that reason. Also, it does not tell the reader that the nation changed from a republic to a totalitarian state. -- Dianna (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we not work on a compromise then? i think this is the olny and correct thing to do istead of going to war Peterzor (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to remove the information that Germany changed from a republic to a totalitarian state? -- Dianna (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the lede is set at "into a totalitarian state" and does not actually state nazi germany as a totalitarian state as in my version "Germany WAS a totalitarian state" Peterzor (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not a totalitarian state until after the process of Gleichschaltung. The process changed it from a republic to a totalitarian state. -- Dianna (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I am reporting you for edit warring. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How about, "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into the totalitarian state known as the Third Reich using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination)". Just a thought. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it might go into the opening sentence: "Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state". It would mean re-working the whole opening paragraph, but it might be worth doing, as we want to use the plainest easy-to-understand language. How about this for a starting point:


 * -- Dianna (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it was not a totalitarian state until Aug. 1934; Hitler was in power since Jan. 1933; then the Nazi Gleichschaltung on a national basis began at full bore. So, one cannot say "during the period from 1933 to 1945". See the discussion above at "Dating of Nazi Germany & Hitler's dictatorship" for more detail. I am open to a re-write but the above must be kept in mind. Kierzek (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are right and I am wrong. This is why saying "Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state" does not work—it's not true; it was only true for the period from August 1934 until the end of the war. Let's try again; how about this:

-- Dianna (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds good, but I would take out the word, "gradually". Otherwise, I believe it covers the facts well. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the interested parties has been blocked for edit warring, so it might be best to wait. -- Dianna (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

-Just to point out: being a totalitarian state (of whatever ideological persuasion) and being a republic are not mutually exclusive: China, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam, Myanmar, and many, many other states are both republics and totalitarian dictatorships. As the Weimar constitution was never repealed and indeed was still technically in effect throughout the existence of Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany was formally (and, in the sense it did not have a monarch, actually) a republic. Perhaps the words 'transformed from a democracy to a totalitarian state' would be better.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

empire
Why is the Motto not fully translated?

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer means One People, one Empire, one Leader

I feel the scare, to compare the english empire and some other to the Nazi Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias2Shalom (talk • contribs) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Translating Reich is problematic. The word designates a state (or group of states under one rule). If ruled by an emperor (Kaiser), it is an empire (Kaiserreich), if ruled by a king (König), it is a kingdom (Königreich). Reich cannot easily be translated when it refers to a territory that is ruled by neither an emperor nor a king; so the word has been adopted in English as a loan word. Cf. The Chambers Dictionary: "Reich: the German state; Germany as an empire (the First Reich) . . . and Third Reich as a dictatorship under the Nazi regime . . .. If we wanted to avoid the loan word and avoid mistranslation, we could translate the slogan as "One people, one state, one leader".--Boson (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like "state" better than "realm", which implies a kingdom governed by a sovereign. -- Dianna (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it's a commonly used loanword we could simply keep it as Reich and wikilink it (although that article could do with improving). ( Hohum  @ ) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reich has become a commonly used loanword; however, I don't feel strongly about it; state is better than realm. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "State" would be an unusual translation for "Reich." And Reich is used enough in English such that it does not need to be translated.  And this has been discussed at length before. Bytwerk (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bytwerk, could you please explain why you think "reich" needs to be capitalised in the motto? Unlike German, we don't capitalise nouns in English unless they are proper nouns. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

'Nazi Germany' corroboration?
The first sentence of this article starts off "Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is the common name for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945..." Aside from debate about the exact period this article covers, what evidence is given for the *common* use of this phrase, as opposed to 'Wartime Germany', 'Hitler's Germany', 'Third Reich Germany'? Can it be shown to be a universal term used equally by all nations and academic disciplines? I would suggest that it is not an accurate description, a viewpoint shared by Richard Overy in the web page

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-overy/goodbye-nazis

Would it be accurate to refer to 'Communist Russia' or would 'Soviet Union' be more accurate?

Robata (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd as Richard Overy seems to be saying the opposite, that the term is over used but not really valid. Thus the sentence in the lead would be correct, it is the common name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence makes the claim that the term is in common use but no source is provided to back up this claim. You seem to suggest that Mr Overy supports that assumption so perhaps he should be listed as a source? If academics state that use of a term should be restricted and it is not generally applicable, should it be used?

86.14.229.147 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not academics who say the use of the term "Nazi" is overused. It's one historian – Richard Overy - in one editorial. The editorial actually could be used as a source for the claim that this is the most common term for the era. Google hits on the various phrases used above are as follows: "Nazi Germany" gets 10.1 million hits; "Hitler's Germany": 554,000 hits; "wartime Germany": 41,500 hits "Third Reich Germany": 36,100 hits. -- Dianna (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the Google ngrams viewer, based on Google Books, it looks as if "Third Reich" is slightly more common in British English, and "Nazi Germany" is slightly more common in US English, but there's not much in it: "Nazi Germany" seems to have been used more frequently during the War and the post-War period (1943-1968); that was probably the period with more anti-German sentiment.--Boson (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Nazi+Germany%2CThird+Reich&year_start=1928&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=4&share=
 * http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Nazi+Germany%2CThird+Reich&year_start=1928&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=4&share=

The Core Contest, Peer Review, Good Article nomination
As my entry in WP:The Core Contest, I undertook improvements to this article during the period from 15 April to 12 May. The article was completely re-written, and is almost ready for a GA nomination, which will happen at the end of the month, once some real-life tasks are completed. As part of the Core Contest, a Peer Review was done, which can be found at Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1. One of the people who responded to the Peer Review noted that the lead was too long and detailed, and a lot of effort was put into trimming it down to its present size. Incorrect and overly-detailed information was removed from the lead by me just now with Further discussion is welcome -- Dianna (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also have been following the Peer Review in the edits I have made recently to improve the article. The lede is only to be a summary of the main article. Further it is important to keep the byte size of the article down, as well. Therefore, I agree with Dianna's edits herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Peterzor's removal of the phrase "which brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control", as the addition of this explanation was specifically requested in the peer review. Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1. Please feel free to discuss this edit here on the talk page. Thanks, -- Dianna (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * now i have correted my edit as SPECIFICALLY requested wording at the Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1 it does not support "which brought all civilian organisatins except the church under party control"THIS wording is the one really requested "he NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung (coordination) to rapidly centralize their power and control over Germany" Peterzor (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you've got it backwards, Peterzor. The previous wording, which you have just re-added, was found to not adequately explain and define the term Gleichschaltung. That's what is needed here, is a definition of the foreign word, not an explanation of what the process of Gleichschaltung was trying to achieve. At least that's the way I am reading Boson's comment. -- Dianna (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my comment is a bit poorly worded so I am going to add something. What Boson wants to see (in my opinion) is not just a translation of the German word, and not just an explanation of what the end result of the process would be, but rather an explanation of what the process itself entailed. So I changed the wording in the lead from "to rapidly centralize their power and control over Germany" to read "which brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control" and added more explanation of the process to the body of the article. Perhaps if we add the phrase "brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control" to the sentence? the sentence would then read "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into a dictatorship using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination) to rapidly centralise their power and control over Germany by bringing all civilian organisations except the church under party control." Or here's an even better wording: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a republic into a dictatorship using the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination). This process brought all civilian organisations except the church under party control and rapidly centralised their power and control over Germany." The source for this information is Evans (2005) page 14 of the paperback edition.-- Dianna (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dianna, the second one suggested by you above is the one we should use. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Casualties
The section on casualties needs to be improved. For starters, R. J. Rummel's estimates are not generally accepted by historians, we need to cite others besides Rummel. Timothy Snyder put the victims of the Nazis killed only as result of deliberate policies of mass murder such as executions, deliberate famine and in death camps at 10.4 million persons including 5.4 million Jews. The German scholar Hellmuth Auerbach puts the death toll in the Hitler era at 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust and 7 million other victims of the Nazis.Dieter Pohl puts the total number of victims of the Nazi era at between 12 and 14 million persons, including 5.6–5.7 million Jews. According to the College of Education of the University of South Florida Approximately 11 million people were killed because of Nazi genocidal policy--Woogie10w (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We went through all this for the Hitler article, all that needs to be done is copy edit it over with cites. Kierzek (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Woogie10w. There's extensive discussion on this topic at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66. Note that Snyder's figures only include the killings that took place within the geographic area covered by his book, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. -- Dianna (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW Snyder cites Dieter Pohl for many of his figures. Pohl's book Verfolgung und Massenmord in der NS-Zeit 1933–1945,is a concise guide to the crimes of the Hitler period. I hope it is translated into English. The younger generation of historians in Germany has confronted the issue of the Nazi crimes, 40 years ago it was a taboo subject for too many Germans--Woogie10w (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case Diannaa, the casualty section needs a cleanup ASAP

Re casualties Article reads- and millions of German civilians The sources cited here do not support this statement and should be removed:

German Armed Forces Military History Research Office (1979–2008). Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Bd. 9/1. Beiträge zur Militär- und Kriegsgeschichte (in German). Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. ISBN 3-421-06236-6. "Gesetz über das Staatsoberhaupt des Deutschen Reichs. § 1" [Law Regarding the Head of State of the German Empire. § 1] (in German). documentArchiv.de. 1 August 1934.

This source deals with a 1934 law on the head of state not casualties.

Spieler, Silke, ed. (1989). Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen, 1945–1948 :

Covers only expulsions and puts total losses at 600,00--Woogie10w (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have something different. That's your document → . However, the cited source, page 460! is "Band 9/1: Ralf Blank u.a.: Die deutsche Kriegsgesellschaft 1939 bis 1945 – Erster Halbband: Politisierung, Vernichtung, Überleben, Im Auftrag des MGFA hrsg. von Jörg Echternkamp, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 2004, XIV, 993 S. ISBN 978-3-421-06236-9", page 460.--IIIraute (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, someone added this in the last 24 hr and I assumed it was OK. I will revert to the previous version right now. -- Dianna (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it rather irritating to see that an article about Germany (1939-1945) that is up for GA review does not include any German casualties (military and civilian). Woogie10w, you know the numbers published by the German government.--IIIraute (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Flight and expulsion of Germans: In 2006 the German government reaffirmed its belief that 2,2 million civilians perished. They maintain that the figure is correct because it includes additional post war deaths from malnutrition and disease of those civilians subject to the expulsions. --IIIraute (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * IIIraute that statement of 2.0 million by Bergner is pure politics for a German audience: The German government does not want to reopen the issue and investigate the number of deaths. Bergner: Also ich habe die damit befassten Referate konsultiert und die Antwort, die ich erhalten habe, gibt jedenfalls für mich keinen Anlass, jetzt, im viel größeren zeitlichen Abstand, hier noch einmal Ermittlungen und zusätzliche Erhebungen zu beginnen. Aber ich bin sehr dafür, dass wir den Prozess der Aussöhnung mit Polen fortsetzen und ernst nehmen. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Questioned on whether the government figures are accurate: "I have consulted the relevant departments, and the answer I did receive, does not give occasion - now, or in the near future - to reopen further investigations and inquiries." But that's quite a clear statement, or not? --IIIraute (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel makes this article look real foolish, the man is generally accepted as an authority on casualties. Outside of Wikipedia one finds few places that cite Rummel. If you add all of his figures over 75 million people were killed in Europe in WW2 1939-45. The war itself 29 million, famine 7.0 million, Stalin 18 million and Hitler 21 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestions on how to word this and what sources should be used are welcome. These figures by Auerbach and Pohl look useful. Could you please provide citation details on these sources? -- Dianna (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Give me a few minuets to do a quick and dirty piece for you guys to review.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Awesome, we can probably update several articles with improved figures and citations. Thanks so much. -- Dianna (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The military casualties of Nazi Germany included men conscripted in Germany within 1937 borders, Austria and the ethnic Germans of east-central Europe. A recent study by the German historian de:Rüdiger Overmans put military dead and missing at 5.3 million. According to the German government civilian deaths due to allied strategic bombing were 410,000 in Germany within 1937 borders and 24,000 in Austria. Civilian deaths also include 300,000 Germans (including Jews) who were victims of Nazi political, racial and religious persecution and that 200,000 were murdered in the Nazi euthanasia program. Civilian deaths due to the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) and the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union are sometimes included with World War II casualties, during the Cold War the West German government estimated the death toll at 2.2 million. This figure was to remain unchallenged until the 1990s when some German historians put the actual death toll in the expulsions at 500,000 confirmed deaths. The German Red Cross still maintains that death toll in the expulsions is 2.2 million.

I have the sources to back up these figures--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't you post the sources here on the talk page so I can help you format them? We are using Harvard citations with sfn templates, which not everyone has seen before. Your paragraph can be used to replace the first paragraph of "casualties", and it's actually better, because it's Germany-specific. I have copy-edited your paragraph and removed some material about deaths in the Soviet Union, which while interesting, is not really relevant to this article. Here's what I have got so far (spots are marked where cites are needed):

Proposed Draft--Woogie10w (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

-- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Must I put source in bibliography before I use this cite ref system? I really should know this after seven yrs of editing on Wikipedia, sorry --Woogie10w (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The movement of Germans involved a total of at least 12 million people, with some sources putting the figure at 14 million. What about the 1945 military land campaign (non-strategic bombing) civilian- and 22,000 Battle for Berlin casualties?--IIIraute (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We should not get hung up on petty details in this short section on casualties. This is only a summary. The article German casualties in World War II covers all these fine points. I hope this excercise does not turn into a laundry list of war dead and a place to plug the number of victims of each and every ethnic group.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Petty details?? All civilian deaths during the 1945 land campaign and the Battle of Berlin, are "petty details"? The topic of this article is "Germany". Also, this needs a change: "The German Red Cross still maintains that the death toll in the expulsions is 2.2 million." - so does the German government.--IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @IIIraute: We can add that too, if you have got sources. I think Woogie is right when he says the article needs to stay focused on German casualties, not for the whole European theatre or the whole war. @Woogie, I will put some general instructions for using the sfn templates on your talk page. The system is fairly new, but it's ideal for articles that are sourced mostly to books and journal articles. -- Dianna (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am talking about German civilian casualties during the 1945 Allied land campaign, and the Battle of Berlin. They are not included yet.--IIIraute (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is present some sourced content, and then we can try to work it into the revised section. Word count is a problem on articles like this one. Wikipedia guidelines for size call for articles to be no more than 10,000 words maximum, and as of this moment we are sitting at 12,625 words. Article size. People on slow connections or trying to view the page on their cell phone or other mobile device are likely having trouble loading the page. That's why we have to be choosy about what we include, and how much detail we go into. If you have sources that give total German civilian deaths from all causes, that would be ideal, as so far I have not found any such summaries. -- Dianna (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dianna I agree but I have no doubt that in the future ethnic warriors will show up and plug in inflated figures for their country--Woogie10w (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On the 12-14 million "Flight and expulsion of Germans: Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II, preface, xii. → fourteen million expelled, 2 million dead.
 * For the 2,25 million Red Cross and government figure sources are available here Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) and this 2006 government reaffirmation, for example.--IIIraute (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Re Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II, I remember it being deleted as spam, in any case there were 11.9 million expellees in 1950, including 300,000 born 1946-50.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * please support your claim.--IIIraute (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 22,000 Battle of Berlin civilian casualties: Antill, Peter (2006), Berlin 1945, Osprey, page 85. ISBN 978-1-84176-915-8 --IIIraute (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Civilians Killed in 1945 Land Battles: 20,000 → German casualties in World War II--IIIraute (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you can't use Wikipedia itself for a source. External sources will have to be found: Books, journal articles, reliable newspapers, etc. I will look at your other sources later, Illraute. I am moving a copy of the draft to my sandbox to work on the citations. -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not - the sources are right there at the article → Sources for figures: Wirtschaft und Statistik October 1956, Journal published by Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (German government Statistical Office).--IIIraute (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you personally looked at the source? We cannot add it unless the source has been checked out. -- Dianna (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Durch Endkämpfe umgekommene Zivilpersonen": 20,000"Source: Wirtschaft und Statistik October 1956, pp. 493-500, as well as → --IIIraute (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Air Raids: Why only within 1937 borders - dead German civilians within the 1943 borders are still German casualties → --IIIraute (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Expulsion of Germans, ca. 2,2 million --IIIraute (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Civilian populatian losses --IIIraute (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute I suggest that we use the Statistisches Bundesamt figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IIIraute that Red Cross figure of 2.252 million stands alone without any support. You are told by the government it is true and you must accept it on faith. If you disagree, well they will tell you where to go. Rüdiger Overmans maintains that their are 872,051 cases with no information provided are “Karteileichen”( “card corpses)of persons who could not be traced because insufficient information was provided and therefore of doubtful validity. He considers this to be the most important consideration in the analysis of expulsion losses--Woogie10w (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec):But you also mention other sources. Please also add the 2006 German government reaffirmation to the "Red Cross" sentence. That's what Bergner said → Questioned on whether the government figures are accurate: "I have consulted the relevant departments, and the answer I did receive, does not give occasion - now, or in the near future - to reopen further investigations and inquiries."--IIIraute (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Schieder commission, Red Cross, German 1958 report; reaffirmed in 2006.--IIIraute (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Expellees as defined by German Law

Source: Gerhard Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, part 1, Bonn: 1995, pp. 44–59

--Woogie10w (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Merten number includes people like Erika Steinbach who were resettled in Poland during the war and children born in post war Germany. Merten's figure is inflated propaganda. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But they had still settled and were moved. On the casualties: Schieder commission, Red Cross, German 1958 report; reaffirmed in 2006. The government maintains that the figure is correct because it includes additional post war deaths from malnutrition and disease of those civilians subject to the expulsions --IIIraute (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You wrote But they had still settled and were moved Go tell that to the 1.0 million Polish people who were evicted by Hitlers goons back in 1940 to amke room for the resettlers--Woogie10w (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * what has this to do with the fact that they had settled and were moved?--IIIraute (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The resettlers were what we in America call Carpetbaggers, the Poles sent them back to Germany where they came from, they were not expelled from their 800 year old house because it was Polish house in the first place--Woogie10w (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the children were born there; ergo, they were expelled from their place of birth - I also find your "death certificate" (Karteileichen) confirmed deaths argumentation rather distasteful. Just imagine! you'd do the same for Soviet POWs and Polish or Jewish casualties. The source does explain very well on what the numbers are based (including people whose fate is unknown/went missing and their death never got confirmed). They have still perished!--IIIraute (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case we need to see the details of the figures of the Search Service, and understand what they mean.

There were 473,013 confirmed deaths and 1,905,991 Unsolved Cases -Details of the 1,905,991 Unsolved Cases - Deported 68,416; Interned 17,704; Missing 768,010; Deaths 179,810; No Information provided(ohne jeden Hinweis) 872,051. Rüdiger Overmans maintains that the 872,051 cases with no information provided are “Karteileichen”( “card corpses)of persons who could not be traced because insufficient information was provided and therefore of doubtful validity. He considers this to be the most important consideration in the analysis of the 1.9 million unsolved cases

You wrote-I also find your "death certificate" (Karteileichen) confirmed deaths argumentation rather distasteful. Overmans used the term Karteileichen not I.

Also re the resettlers in Poland the Statistisches Bundesamt did not include them in the 1958 study, they are not inincluded in the figures released by Bonn. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Woogie10w: I am ready to add what we have got prepared so far, but I need page numbers for the second citation to Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, 1939/50, where it says there were death toll of 2.2 million civilians due to the flight and expulsion of Germans and through forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. Also, page numbers for Haar 2009 and Kammerer and Kammerer 2005 please. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have hard copies of these sources, I can send PDF files via E mail if needed for verification:

Re Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste, 1939/50, Pages 38 and 46

Re Haar 2009 Pages 363 to 381- On page 378 Harr writes " "Die zahl der konkert bezeugten Opfer belauft sich jedoch nicht mehr als auf 0.5 bis 0.6 Mio Personnen ingesamt"--Woogie10w (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Kammerer and Kammerer page 12--Woogie10w (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia I try bore down to get the details of a number posted so readers can judge for themselves. Some authors and politicians become ethnic warriors and take the high number or the low number in order to push a POV--Woogie10w (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not want to ascribe bias to anyone - however I would like to have an answer on why a "Germany (1933-1945)" article on GA-review, did not have "any" figures on German casualties in the casualties section. I will provide more sources.--IIIraute (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Illraute, I spent four to five hours a day, every day from April 15 to May 12, doing a complete re-write of this article as my entry for WP:The Core Contest. The reason the article did not have these statistics is because the sources I used to do the re-write did not contain them, so sorry. I did as much as I could possibly do in the time available using the sources I have available locally (Alberta, Canada). Obviously any article on this wiki can and should be improved when additional sources can be found. Note that though it likely will be nominated for GA at the end of the month, the article is not presently on GA review. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dianna, What about the 1st paragraph with the 40 million?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we really need it? We don't want the article to be about WWII in general, and that info is available elsewhere. -- Dianna (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to be concerned about length, and Nick-D remarked in the Peer Review that the article needs to focus on Nazi Germany, its people, and its economy etc. So I am inclined to leave it out. -- Dianna (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work Dianna--Woogie10w (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am logging off now, ttyl. -- Dianna (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gleichschaltung
why did someone remove my new improved compromise Peterzor (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is conveying in better grammar, the same information. Kierzek (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * if you consider it to be the same thing why do you bother then? and it is better grammar "rapidly centralised their power and control over Germany and all organisations except the church" what EXACTLY is wrong with grammar there? Peterzor (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase at the end, "and all organisations except the church", just kind of dangles there without a verb. It's not grammatically correct English. I suspect that English is not your first language, Peterzor, so you might have to take my word for it that it's grammatically incorrect. I am posting another wording. -- Dianna (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Large addition about slavs
Editor Yamaha Spirit has added a very large section on Slavs to the article, which I removed as giving this topic undue weight. Jews were the main victims of the Nazi regime, not Slavs. I have reverted the addition twice now, and have brought the matter here for the discussion and opinions of other editors. -- Dianna (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, wow, wow! What about using numbers? The number of dead Slavs was much higher than the number of dead Jews.
 * Many German Jews were expelled before the war and survived, the French ones were preserved, the Ostjuden were the main victims. Nothing is obvious.

Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Xx236. I don't think you have read the peer review: Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1. One of the reviewers specifically suggested the removal of peripheral material to leave room for more details on the impact the regime had on Germany, its people, and its economy. Detailed information on the various victims of the regime are better covered in articles about those topics, not here. -- Dianna (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If it was only "tweaking" of detail (and text) to a small degree, that would be okay; as long as it was cited properly. But otherwise, I would have to agree with Diannaa, per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay maybe not as much as what I put it does need to be emphasized maybe in an additional paragraph that the Nazis still did consider them as racially Aryans but the notion of Slavs being a "racially inferior" peoples was for the political ideologies of Nazi Germany's expansion into Eastern Europe and the fact that the Jewish Bolshevism was said what Slavs belonged to and thus a threat to the Aryan race.

Read below for what I put, I feel that the Slav section is somewhat mis-leading and needs to be made more clearer, for example the Ahnenpass document stated:

"wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian". Source here, of course like I said it should also mention that there still was anti-Slavic propaganda used for many reasons, the expansion, the invasion of Poland and the USSR, etc etc.

The section on Slavs needs to be made more clear, many "pure Slavs" not just Slavs that were deemed to have Germanic blood in them were also fit to be accepted as Aryans.--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing is that the Nazis also considered Slavs to be barbarians and would lead to collapse of the Western civilization and that the Jews were running the power in Russia - which again is in accordance to the invasion of the USSR.Source here--Yamaha Spirit (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Länder were not abolished.
The organisational reforms undertaken from 1934 did not abolish the various lander of Germany, as is claimed in the article.

'Atlas of Nazi Germany', page 44 states:

'The Länder still existed on paper and were used for some government departments such as health care', and rather helpfully gives us a map of the Third Reich in 1942 showing the Länder and Reichsgau.

'Governing Germany' by William E. Patterson and David Southern, edited by Gillian Pale (1991), states on page 144: (note: bold text is mine)

"The Nazis suppressed but did not destroy regional and municipal autonomy. The Reich Reconstruction Law of 30 January 1934 transferred to the Reich all sovereign powers still held by the Länder. All Prussian ministries were merged with their Reich counterparts. Otherwise the state cabinets remained in existence but they became the agents and appointees of the Reich government. Both the state legislatures and elected local authorities were dissolved permanently. A Reich Governor (Reichstadthalter) was appointed to supervise each state government, who in almost all cases was a Gauleiter...All Prussian civil servants were transferred to Reich authorities. All the seventeen states existing in 1933 were retained as administrative units, apart from Lübeck, which was deprived of its Länd status in 1937, reputably because it was the only Länd in which Hitler had never been allowed to speak in the Weimar period. Quite distinct from the federal states, the Nazis established thirty-two party districts (Gaue), each headed by a Gauleiter. The Reichsrat was abolished."

-yes, they lost most of their former autonomy, yes, they were largely replaced by the Gaue, but they were not abolished. The Nazis even bothered to abolish Lubeck as a separate Länd and merge the two Länder of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Mecklenburg-Schwerin. This was why the allies during the occupation could abolish Prussia in 1947 (because it had still existed throughout this period), why they could reorganise the Länder (because they had never been abolished), and why people like Goering could for example still be appointed minister-president of a specific Länder.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Evans (2005) page 47 says that on 30 January 1934 a new law "abolished all the federated states, from Prussia downwards, along with their governments and parliaments. ... Characteristically, however, some elements of federalism remained, so the process of dissolution was incomplete." Shirer (page 275) says a series of laws passed from 1933 to 1935 "deprived the municipalities of their local autonomy and brought them  under dircet control of the Reich Minister of the Interior". The article already says that the process was incomplete, and gives Goering's situation in Prussia as an example. So I am unclear what edit you are proposing. -- Dianna (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. If Prussia and the other Länder has been abolished, (as Evans puts it) then why:


 * did the Greater Hamburg Act (fulll text here: http://www.verfassungen.de/de/hh/hamburg37.htm). transfer territory between the Länder of Prussia, Hamburg and Oldenburg, whilst at the same time disbanding the Länder, if these Länder had been supposedly disbanded four years previously in 1934?


 * did the Nazis reorganise the provinces of Prussia, creating new Provinces such as the Province of Kurhessen, the Province of Magdeburg, the Province of Halle-Merseburg and the Province of Nassau as late as 1944 if Prussia had ceased to exist ten years previously?


 * were minister-presidents appointed for the each Länder right up to 1945?


 * were Reichstadthalter appointed to oversee the governments of each Länder, if these Länder had supposedly been abolished?


 * did official Acts and Laws continue to mention them? (Prussia, Oldenburg, Hamburg and Lubeck are all mentioned in the text of the Greater Hamburg Act, http://www.verfassungen.de/de/hh/hamburg37.htm, even though they had all supposedly been abolished.)


 * do government publications continue to mention them?


 * do official maps continue to show them?


 * did the Allied Control Council need to abolish Prussia in 1947 if it had already been abolished in 1934?


 * did the maps the allies used to show how Germany was to be occupied after the war, made in 1945, show the Länder? This official US Army map: Source	http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_map3.htm shows the Allied occupation zones superimposed over the Lander and the Prussian Provinces, all with the adjustments made by the Nazis after 1934-including the merging of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Mecklenburg-Schwerin in 1934 to form the single land of Mecklenburg in 1934, the abolition of Lubeck and other territorial adjustments made in 1937, and the New Prussian Provinces created in 1944.

-Evans is just incorrect in this instance. The Länder were largely reduced to an irrelevance, but they most certainly were not abolished, whereas it states in the article that they were abolished.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason the names continued to be used is because the process was incomplete. "Largely reduced to an irrelevance", sure, but they were officially dissolved. Your demonstrations that the names were still in use and therefore Evans is wrong, is another case of original research on your part. -- Dianna (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I've provided sources, so how the hell is that original research?!?

Nope, it wasn't merely the names that were kept, the Lander officially still existed.Prussia was not abolished by the Nazis in January 1933, it was abolished by the Allied Control Council Order No. 46. on February 25th, 1947.

See here, cited in 'Germany 1947-1949, a Story In Documents', by the United States Department of State:

http://www.questia.com/read/16323703/germany-1947-1949-the-story-in-documents

Here is the order in full:

''"ABOLITION OF THE STATE OF PRUSSIA Control Council Law No. 46 and Excerpt from Report of Military Governor [ February 25, 1947]

The Prussian State which from early days has been a bearer of militarism and reaction in Germany has de facto ceased to exist.

Guided by the interests of preservation of peace and security of peoples and with the desire to assure further reconstruction of the political life of Germany on a democratic basis, the Control Council enacts as follows:

Article I The Prussian State together with its central government and all its agencies is abolished.

Article II Territories which were a part of the Prussian State and which are at present under the supreme authority of the Control Council will receive the status of Laender or will be absorbed into Laender.

The provisions of this Article are subject to such revision and other provisions as may be agreed upon by the Allied Control Authority, or as may be laid down in the future Constitution of Germany.

Article III The State and administrative functions as well as the assets and liabilities of the former Prussian State will be transferred to appropriate Laender, subject to such agreements as may be necessary and made by the Allied Control Authority.

Article IV This law becomes effective on the day of its signature.

Done at Berlin on 25 February 1947.

P. KOENIG, Général d'Armée

V. SOKOLOVSKY, Marshal of the Soviet Union

LUCIUS D. CLAY for JOSEPH T. MCNARNEY, General

B. H. ROBERTSON for Sir SHOLTO DOUGLAS Marshal of the Royal Air Force

[ February 1947]

Control Council Law No. 46, signed on 25 February, liquidates the State of Prussia, its central government, and all its agencies. This law is in the nature of a confirming action; the eleven provinces and administrative districts of prewar Prussia have since the beginning of the occupation been split up among the Soviet, British, and U.S. Zones and Poland."''

-Now, how is that possible if Prussia had been abolished in 1934?

As Patterson and Southern showed, the Prussian government and cabinet was not abolished, but it was 'bought in line' with the Reich government.

The standard history of Prussia, 'Iron Kingdom: Rise and Fall of Prussia 1600-1947' by Christopher Clark (2007) (oh look; 1947-funny that, thought it had been abolished in 1934) here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eEOLV_TtNfQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=christopher+clark+prussia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YYubUYvlApHQ4QT_0IGoAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

agrees with everything that Patterson and Southern said as regards Prussia. It states:

"The Law on the Reorganisation of the Reich of January 1934 placed regional governments and the new imperial commissars under the direct authority of the Reich ministry of the interior. The Prussian ministries were gradually merged with their Reich counterparts (with the exception for technical reasons of finance) and plans were drawn up (though they remained unrealized in 1945) to partition the state into its constituent provinces. Prussia was still an official designation and remained a name on the map."

The Atlas of Nazi Germany, as I stated earlier, shows a map of Greater Germany in 1942, showing the Lander, the Prussian Provinces, and the Reichsgau formed from the conquered territories. It also states that, though the Gau largely had took over the role that the Lander had prior to 1934, they were retained for purposes of (and I quote), health and education. This map is on page 59:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=2I-bUf76KqGN7QbfnoHQDQ&id=0JUnAQAAMAAJ&dq=atlas+of+nazi+germany&q=lander+health it also shows how the Nazis created, the example they give is Thuringia on page 57, showing how the Gau Thuringia (the local party region), the Land Thuringia, and other local agencies, for the Army (Kreis IX), Railways, and others, were given boundaries that deliberately did not match so Hitler could foster competition and dissent in the lower ranks of the Nazi hierachy

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=2I-bUf76KqGN7QbfnoHQDQ&id=0JUnAQAAMAAJ&dq=atlas+of+nazi+germany&q=the+lander

on page 60 it states in relation to this:

"...more often intensified its structual and jurisdictional chaos, was pluralism in the holding of offices. This found most widespread expression in relation to the Party. The offices of Reich Governor (reichstatthalter) for the lander were largely filled by existing Gauleiter. Thus there was a fusion of personnel authority even if the territorial boundaries of the respective domains did not match."

The Theory and Practice of Modern Government, by Herman Finer (Prager, 1971) states on pages 213-214, in the sections 'Federalism, Germany 1918-39' and 'Nazi Federalism':

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uiYOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA213&dq=mecklenburg+1934+merged&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-ZSbUYu_NKO70QWk2oG4BA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mecklenburg%201934%20merged&f=false

"The particularist sentiment even defeated the avowed intention of Hitler's government to resubdivide the Reich into entirely new administrative areas. The nazis talked much, in the early years, for plans for the establishment of economic-physiographic regions in place of the historic dynastic state boundaries, together with some return to ancient tribal regions (Gaue) as parts of the Reich. On November 15, 1934, Dr. Frick, Reich Minister of the Interior, stated that in the near future the Reich would be reorganised into twenty regions (Reichsgau), with three to four million inhabitants each. "These new regions," he declared, "and their governors will be instruments through which the Reich'' government will impose its authority on the humblest hamlet." These regions "will rest on considerations of an economic and geographic nature dictated by national interests." Earlier, Goebbels had enunciated a plan to set up thirteen tribal provinces, and other nazi leaders had propogated similar ideas. The matter was lost to view; it was probably never anything but romantic talk; military-economic tasks were far more important. Little terriorial reform was actually accomplished. On January 1, 1934, the two states of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz were unified into one state of Mecklenburg, and in 1937 the free city of Lübeck was incorporated into Prussia. Otherwise only minor boundary corrections were made between Bavaria and Wurttemberg and between Prussia and her neighbors, Oldenburg, Hamburg, Mecklenburg, Anhalt, Hesse, and Schaumberg-Lippe; these were made in 1934 and 1935, following a trend already apparent during the last years of the Weimar Republic. Exchanges of territory of somewhat greater importance occured between Prussia on the one hand and Hamburg (1937), Oldenburg (1937), Bremen (1939), Brunswick (1941), and Anhalt (1942) on the other. The opposition to territorial reform came largely from two sources: (1) the Prussian aristocracy objected to any division of Prussia, which any through reform would involve; and (2) many nazi jobholders, headed by Goering as Prussian Premier, feared that their positions would be abolished by territorial change. Prussia was incorporated in the Reich, but not fully. The führer became the governor of Prussia; but on April 11, 1933, he appointed Goering Minister-President and entrusted him with his powers. Goering was responsible, therefore, only to Hitler. By a law of July 20, 1933, the twelve provincial councils were changed from elective legislatures to honorary advisory bodies appointed by the Minister-President. The provincial chief presidents (Oberpraesidenten) were thus given all executive, legislative and administrative power. By the decree of November 27, 1934, they were made nationally appointive and were given increased powers, so that they then occupied a status similar to that of national governors, that is, agents-general of the Reich, while as an inheritance of the older régimes they had detailed local administrative powers beyond those of the governors. Yet they were responsible to both the Reich and Prussia. All Prussian ministries, except the prime ministership and the Ministry of Finances, were amalgamated with the corresponding Reich ministries, so that for many years, Prussian government, laws, and budget, still prevailed. In September, 1944, Prussian finances were also taken over by the Reich "in order to set free additional manpower for the conduct of the war." The status of Prussia in the Third Reich was the reverse of that in the Bismarck constitution. Prussia was intermerged with the Reich: the Reich dominated, but did not abolish, Prussia. Yet the personal relationship between Hermann Goering, the Prime Minister of Prussia, and Hitler, meant that Prussia was still a weighty, leading element in the Reich, with a power of independent leadership."''

-So see? Not abolished. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Another step was taken on 30 January 1934 when, under pressure from the Reich Interior Ministry under the Nazi Wilhelm Frick, a new law abolished all the federated states, from Prussia downwards, along with their governments and parliaments, and merged their ministries into the corresponding Reich Ministries." The source you are quoting from says essentially the same thing on page 211-212. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet Finer states: "Prussia was intermerged with the Reich: the Reich dominated, but did not abolish, Prussia" as well as "The particularist sentiment even defeated the avowed intention of Hitler's government to resubdivide the Reich into entirely new administrative areas.".Patterson and Southern state the "state cabinets remained in existence but they became the agents and appointees of the Reich government", and the Allied Control Council Order No. 46 states "The Prussian State together with its central government and all its agencies is abolished. (i.e. both Prussia and its central government continued to exist prior to this date, which indeed they did.)

I get what Evans, and indeed everyone is saying, but it is incorrect to state that the Länder were abolished: they were reduced to an irrelevance by the existence of the Gau (which were by the way only theoretically regional divisions of the Nazi Party), and their governments were headed and controlled by the local Gauleiters (as stated in the above sources), but they were not formally abolished. The Nazis spoke about it in speechs and indeed drew up plans to do so, but it was never carried through. The present day German Länder are direct continuations of these Länder; Bavaria, Saxony, Bremen Hamburg being identical, the others being formed from the remainer which were merged with various Prussian Provinces after Prussia's abolition by the allies. They were not de jure abolished.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This map:



-which by the way is the same as the map in 'Atlas of Nazi Germany', shows Prussia (marked in sky blue, the other Lander and the Reichsgau of Greater Germany in 1944. This map:



shows the Nazi Gau, that is (theoretically) the Regional divisions of the NSDAP. Note that the boundaries of Germany itself are the same in both maps (though the first map doesn't show the general-government). Many of the Gauleiters (Head of the Gau) simultaneously held the posts of Minister-President (Head of the civilian government of the Länd of Thuringia) or Reichstadthalter (Representative of the Reich government in each Länder)of their local Länder, or in the case of areas within Prussia, they were appointed Oberprasident (Provincial Governor) or their local Province.

So, for example, Fritz Sauckel was at the same time Gauleiter of the Gau Thuringen-head of the party in Thuringia, whilst at the same time he was Minister-President of the Free State of Thuringia-head of the civilian government in Thuringia, whilst he was also Reichsstatthalter of the Free State of Thuringia, that is, the person responsible for keeping the government of the Free State of Thuringia in line with the wishes and dictates of the Nazi Reich government. This continued right up until 1945, despite the intentions of Frick, Goebbels and others to abolish the Länder.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * These huge walls of text are problematic for me. Can you instead please give a proposed new wording and list what citations you have that support the change? Please keep in mind that the article is already 2700 words over the recommended 10000-word limit, and thus we can't afford to add a lot more material here. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the word 'abolished' is inaccurate, as they were demonstratably not abolished.

Is the following too long?

"A law promulgated 30 January 1934 abolished the autonomy of the existing Länder (constituent states) of Germany and largely replaced them with the new administrative divisions of Nazi Germany, the Gaue, headed by the NSDAP leaders (Gauleiters), who effectively became the governor of their region. Officials known as Reichsstatthalter were appointed to oversee the governments of various Länder, in many instances, this position was given to the local party gauleiter. However, the Länder still existed on paper, and were used for some government departments, such as health and education, and prominent Nazi officials were made minister-presidents of certain Länder. For example, Göring remained the Reichsstatthalter (Reich state governor) and Minister President of Prussia until 1945."

Citations:


 * Finer, Hermann. The Theory and Practice of Modern Government,(Prager, 1971), pages 213-214
 * Freeman, Michael J. The Atlas of Nazi Germany (1985) pages 57, 59, 60.
 * Clark, Christopher. Iron Kingdom: Rise and Fall of Prussia 1600-1947(2007) Last chapter 'merged into Germany'
 * Allied Control Council Order No. 46, February, cited in the US Department of State publication 'Germany 1947-1949, the Story In Documents': http://www.questia.com/read/16323703/germany-1947-1949-the-story-in-documents
 * Greater Hamburg Act, 1937: http://www.verfassungen.de/de/hh/hamburg37.htm
 * Patterson William E. and Southern, David Governing Germany (1991) page 144. (edited by Gillian Pale)


 * It certainly does not need five citations, since the difference is only 25 words. Essentially you are recommending adding two sentences, one of which states the Lander still existed on paper, which directly contradicts the information in the opening sentence. That won't pass a GA nomination. So I propose this instead: "A law promulgated 30 January 1934 abolished the autonomy of the existing Länder (constituent states) of Germany and largely replaced them with the new administrative divisions of Nazi Germany, the Gaue, headed by the NSDAP leaders (Gauleiters), who effectively became the governor of their region. Reichsstatthalters (imperial deputies) were also appointed to oversee the government of each region. In many instances this position was given to the local party Gauleiter. The change was never fully implemented, as the Länder were still used as administrative divisions for some government departments such as health and education." We need a citation to cover the new information that there were Reichsstatthalters appointed as overseers, and a citation to cover the new information that some ministries continued to use Länder for administrative purposes. The revised edit doesn't add any words to the article, as I omitted the part about Goering. -- Dianna (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay Diannaa, that's fine,

as regards the ministries that continued to be divided by Lander, the Atlas of Nazi Germany on page 6:

"Then there were still the remnants of the Länder which, although emasculated of separate political power in the Gleichschaltung of spring 1933, remained as bases for the administration of education and other social services", which is also mentioned on page 59. See here for page 6:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=FyqcUYaLHcSu4ATI_YDACg&id=0JUnAQAAMAAJ&dq=atlas+of+nazi+germany&q=lander+education

-I'm not sure if 'imperial deputy' really is an accurate translation of 'Reichsstatthalter' however. (as 'Imperial' implies that an Emperor is involved, just as 'Royal' suggests a King or Queen) 'Reich' has no real translation in English, and 'statthalter' etymologically is equivalent to the 'Stadtholder' position held by the House of Orange in the pre-1795 Dutch Republic. Perhaps 'Reich governor' would be more accurate?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany never annexed any part of Denmark.
At the bottom of the info box, it states that part of Nazi Germany is now part if modern-day Denmark, but no part of Denmark was ever annexed by Germany at any point in the war, even during the occupation from 1940-1945, despite Denmark having taken away the northern part of Schleswig-Holstein after World War One. Thus, this is inaccurate.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On 29 August 1943, the German military effectively replaced the Danish government with a military government: the imposition of martial law. Page 232 of "The 'Final Solution' and the war in 1943', a chapter within Germany, Hitler, and World War II: Essays in Modern German and World History. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, but they didn't annex a single square foot of itinto the Reich though. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC) In other words, occupying a territory is not the same as annexing it-the USA for example militarily occupied Iraq in 2003 but that did not mean that the USA annexed Iraq.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume you are commenting on the presence of Denmark in the info box? I removed all those flags on the recommendation of Brian Boulton in the Peer Review, but people just keep adding them back. By the way the flag is currently not in the info box; someone took it out. -- Dianna (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dianna, go ahead and take the flags out per the peer review. That should free up some bytes, as well. Kierzek (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will try, -- Dianna (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am, Dianna. At one point the article included in that part all the countries occupied by German forces, such as France, regardless of whether they were actually annexed as part of Germany or they were just occupied by Germany. Denmark for some reason somehow crept back in.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the same with the photos. At one point there were more images of Russia and Poland than there were of Germany, quelle merde. -- Dianna (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

All organizations "except the church"
Protestant Reich Church was pro-Nazi, wasn't it?Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Nazis were unsuccessful in their attempts to form a single unified Nazi church. They made efforts to disband or nazify the 28 existing Protestant churches and created the Protestant Reich Church. Opposition groups and a rival church called the Confessing Church were formed by 1934. The Confessing Church became very popular, especially in rural areas, and Hitler was worried that the move to disband the churches would lose him too much support, so he decided to abandon the amalgamation plan. The Catholic churches were not disbanded at all, but they were not allowed to operate any lay organisations or publish a newspaper. Religion in the Reich is covered in and  -- Dianna (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

new grammatically correct revision
new grammatically correct revision; i corrected my mistake, see discuss here on this talkpage before reverting Peterzor (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty good edit in my opinion, as it conveys essentially the same information using fewer words. The grammar has no errors. -- Dianna (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Republic
User:peterzor keeps reverting the words 'from a democracy to a dictatorship' to 'from a republic to a dictatorship' in the opening text, stating that the 'weimar constitutional law was subverted' and that 'nazi germany was never a republic!'

Not only was the former text reached via prior discussion on this talk page, but there are several problems with this, namely:

i. A republic and a dictatorship are not mutually exclusive: modern day North Korea, Syria and Belarus are all examples of present-day states that are both republics and dictatorships; all 'republic' means in constitutional theory is 'a sovereign state that is not headed by a monarch', which was certainly true of Nazi Germany: Hitler never restored the pre-1918 German monarchy.The user is clearly confusing 'republic' with 'democracy', which are NOT synonyms: the UK, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands for example are all democracies but none of them are republics.

ii. More or less everything Hitler and the Nazis did was perfectly legal under the 1933 Enabling Act which gave the German government extraordinary emergency powers to deal with political enemies, restrict free speech, etc. This was renewed every few years by the Reichstag. There was thus no constitutional difference between what we now call 'the Weimar Republic' and what we now call 'Nazi Germany'. No-one sat down in 1933 and signed a law saying 'the republic is abolished in 1933, or 1934, or any year during the Nazi period for that matter.

iii.Furthermore the Weimar constitution was never abolished by the Nazis and thus remained technically in force from 1933 to 1945, a fact that was remarked upon at the Nuremburg Trials and by foreign newspapers during this period.

'Sources?' I hear you say:

"The old Constitution adopted at Weimar in 1919, when the German Republic was founded, has never been repealed.":

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,755790,00.html TIME Magazine, Feb. 10, 1936

"As Arendt points out, the Nazis never bothered to abolish the old Weimar constitution. They even left the civil services more or less intact (374). When Stalin inaugurated the Soviet constitution in 1936, he declared it ‘provisional’ (394-95). The constitution thus, according to Arendt, was ‘dated’ from the moment of its issuance. It was never repealed.":

http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/04/01/thestate.html Footnote #3. Numbers in parentheses are page numbers in The Origins of Totalitarianism.

"The Weimar Constitution was never abrogated or replaced. it remained in force until 1949 - throughout the 12 years of the Third Reich.":

http://samvak.tripod.com/factoiduvw.html

"Q. Was the Weimar Constitution ever formally repealed?" "A. No, the Weimar Constitution has never been repealed." -- Nuremberg trials:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-117-10.shtml

Article 1 of the Weimar Constitution states very clearly 'the German Reich is a republic', which only re-enforces my first point.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure whats being argued here ... Technically everything you say is true - however - most histories (books) would say the  Weimar Republic was overthrown in 1933 and replaced by the Third Reich and finalized with the Gleichschaltung policy  in 1935 - as outlined in a text book kids have to read in school  . Have any real books by historians  we can link to over the self published websites above that say "the German Reich was a republic" during Hitlers time? Just because it was not abolished formally does not mean it was still in uses.Moxy (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well; for a start:

i.if the Weimar Constitution is still in force when the Nazis are in power and it says in article 1: "The German Reich is a Republic" then surely that means...it's a republic?

http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php -Here is the text of the Weimar Constitution, pretty easy to find anywhere.

More to the point, 'Weimar Republic' was not the actual name of the state, it is just a term we use to describe Germany during this period. Likewise 'Nazi Germany' and even 'the Third Reich' are just terms used by historians to describe a state that throughout this period from 1918 to 1943 was just called officially 'Deutsches Reich' or in english 'German Reich' (changed for a short while 1943-1945 to 'Grossdeutsches Reich' or 'Greater German Reich'), the constitution stating that it was a republic, in much the same way the actual name of the Republic of Ireland is officially called 'Eire' or 'Ireland', but the 1949 Republic Act describes it as a republic. If historians descibe the weimar republic as being 'overthrown' in 1933, then they don't mean literally, that overnight the constitution was abolished and replaced, the name of the state changed, and the Head of State replaced. The Nazi seizure of power was more gradual than that. The constitution was not abolished, it was just used to further their own ends after the anti-communist hysteria following from the Reichstag fire, President Hindenburg stayed in power until his death, and the name of the state was not changed, nor were any of the other lander nor any of the other key institutions (with some exceptions such as the Landtag and the Lander assemblies) abolished, they just mean that the democratic period (the Weimar Republic) was replaced with a dictatorship (Nazi Germany), though through perfectally legal, constitutional means. Similarly, historians today may speak of 'Soviet Russia' to describe the period 1924-1991 in Russia, even though it was actually called the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'.

ii.The TIME magazine article is not self-published.

iii.Lastly, in what way, shape or form was Nazi Germany not a republic? It did not have a monarch, and indeed during several parts of its history (1933-1934 and towards its end in 1945) it had a president. If Nazi Germany was not a republic, then neither is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)the Republic of Belarus, the People's Republic of China, or the Republic of Syria today.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Lots of linking many things to get to a single conclusion above.  Technically your right however the wording is simply misleading to the average reader and how the period is interpreted  now. By 1956 scholarly sources like   are saying "The Nazis did not formally abrogate the Weimar Constitution, but they made it obsolete by a number of laws." All that  said   are there any  scholarly sources  that implicitly say it was a working republic during Hitler's time in power. The TIME magazine article is from 1936 way early in history for us to draw a conclusion from that  - we need to know how  historians describe this  after reflection and research - not what it technically may be. Searching the terms the republic of  Nazi Germany or Third Reich republic gets us NO hits. So i ask why would we use this non conventional term to describe the governing/political  style of the period. Moxy (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question; how was Nazi germany not a republic?

The fact it was a totalitarian dictatorship does not mean it was not a republic simultaneously.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In Jan. 1919 the Weimar Republic was established. It was a constituent assembly. Bruning was appointed Chancellor in 1930. He was forced to resign in 1932. Franz von Papen replaced him. Papen agreed to dissolve the Reichstag and new elections were held that year. In early Dec. Papen is forced to resign and Schleicher was appointed Chancellor. Papen then aligned with Hitler to return to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in Jan. 1933 (and Papen, Vice-Chancellor). Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, like the others before him, was handed to him. Hitler started on the path of consolidation of power into a dictatorship (which was not completed until 1934). As I said above, the country then transformed from the death-knell of a republic to the totalitarian state under Hitler in 1934. "The Enabling Act" was passed in 1933, giving Hitler dictatorial power over legislation of the country. On 14 July, the "Law against the Establishment of Parties" was passed. By then, the unions were also under Nazi control. Then in Aug. 1934, Hitler merged to offices of the President and the Chancellor. The action was approved by legislation (rubber stamped by the Nazi controlled Reichstag) and an national referendum vote, as well. Further, the armed forces were made to swear their oath to him. Also in 1934, the regional governments were brought under Nazi control by the "Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich". The start date for Hitler and the Nazi Party as far as the beginning of national power in Germany is seen as Jan. 1933 by mainstream historians/authors. That is seen as the start date of "Nazi Germany". The totalitarian dictatorship was complete by Aug. 1934. By then it was no longer a "republic". Kershaw, "Hitler: A Biography", pp. 260-261; McNab, "The Third Reich", pp. 13-14 and "Encyclopedia of the Third Reich", p. 154. Kierzek (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Merriman-Webster's dictionary defines 'republic' as: 'a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president' and this is the same definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as others. The 'Enabling Act' was perfectly legal within the confines of the Weimar Constitution, which itself was never abolished. There was no law passed between January 1933 and August 1934 declaring that Germany had ceased to be a republic, as was specified in the Weimar Constitution, which is why for example Doenitz used the title 'Reichspresident' after Hitler's death, as that was the title of the Weimar Head of State.

Is that a direct quote from the two above sources, or are you just yet again confusing the words 'republic' and 'democracy'? There is nothing stopping a totalitarian dictatorship from also being a republic. North Korea is certainly a totalitarian dictatorship and it is also most definitely a republic.

So again, in what way was Nazi Germany not a republic? The only type of state that is not a republic is a monarchy, and Nazi Germany certainly was not a monarchy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "Republic" as . They define "Democracy" as . My Webster's New World Collegiate defines "Republic" as . So according to these definitions, the Weimar Republic was both a democracy and a republic. And according to these definitions, Germany was no longer a republic during the Nazi era, as power was held by the Führer and his cronies (not the people and their representatives), and North Korea is not a republic either (though it self-identifies as such). -- Dianna (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As regards North Korea, not quite. The North Korean constitution (http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/061st_issue/98091708.htm) (Article 4) states that:

'The sovereignty of the DPRK resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs -- the Supreme People’s Assembly and local people’s assemblies at all levels.'

-In other words, de jure, (in theory), sovereignty of North Korea resides in the people. Of course, we all know that de facto, supreme power resides in the Kim Jong Un, but he does not hold sovereignty, the people do. (in fact, constitutionally speaking, Kim Jong Un is not even offically the head of state of North Korea, he is just the head of the ruling party and head of the armed forces)

Don't forget that Hitler often used (faked) plebiscites to justify his rule (his did so on assuming the powers of the Presidency in 1934 and on the 1936 Anschluss with Austria), and elections were still held and the Reichstag was still held (regardless of whether it was just a rubber stamp.) so to say the Nazis did not make at least token gestures to what the people wanted is not true. In theory, supreme power still resided in the people because the constitution said i did and furthermore the Reichstag and elections still took place

power was held by the Führer and his cronies -So, the USSR was not a republic, even though its constitution clearly stated it was and the word was part of its official name? Is Syria? Is Belarus? Was the Commonwealth of England not a republic because it was dominated de facto by one man? Was the classical Roman Republic not a republic? Was the Athenian Republic? Were all the various Latin American 'banana republics'? (clues in the name there folks)-were the Dominican Republic in the 1940s and Argentina under Juan Peron not republics because they were ruled by dictators? Nope, because their constitutions still said they were.

The term 'republic' comes from the latin 'res publica', meaning 'common wealth' or 'public concern'; that is, sovereignty at least theoretically resides with the people. If the constitution of a country calls it a republic and declares sovereignty resides with the people, then it's a republic, regardless of what the de facto situation may be. This is in contrast with a monarchy, (derived from the ancient greek 'monos archos' or 'rule by one') where sovereignty resides with one person; that is, the monarch. Again, this is regardless of what the official situation may be. So, somewhere like the United Kingdom for example is in reality much more democratic and free than somewhere like North Korea, even though in theory ultimate power resides with the monarch, and not the people, which is true for other democratic constitutional monarchies like Canada, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and many others. So, yes; North Korea is a republic. Furthermore,

Oxforddictionaries.com defines a republic (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/republic) as:

'a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch'

thefreedictionary.com defines a republic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republic) as:

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. dictionary.com defines a republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic) as

a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

'Republic' is not simply a synonym for 'democracy'. If that were true, the United Kingdom would be a republic, which it demonstratably is not.

In other words, a republic is any state that does not have a monarch, not 'any state that is a democracy'-republics may be democratic, but they may also be dictatorships, and the same is true of monarchies as well.

By contrast with the present-day United Kingdom, as the Weimar Constitution was still in effect, Nazi Germany was still officially a republic. All the Enabling Act was in theory was extraordinary, emergency legislation designed to protect the state in the event of a national emergency, which is what the Nazis claimed was the case after the Reichstag Fire. It did not in theory replace or abolish the Weimar Constitution, but existed via some of its provisions. Hitler always tried to make at least a show of legality.

Also, if Nazi Germany was not constitutionally a republic, then why, after the death of Hitler, was Doenitz made Reichspresident(an office created under the Weimar Constitution)? The Nazi party was not abolished during this period, and neither was any of the other attributes of the Nazi state.

To wit: North Korea is a republic, but it is also a dictatorship. The United States of America is also a republic, but it is a democracy as well.

The United Kingdom is a monarchy, but it is also a democracy. Saudi Arabia is also a monarchy, but it is a dictatorship. No state with a monarch today is a republic. Any state without a monarch is a republic.

Also, how about the CIA World Factbook? – the definitions of "republic" and "monarchy" used there for listing countries by "government type" are mutually exclusive, in other words: none of the listed "republics" has a king or monarch as head of state, nor is any of the listed monarchies also indicated as "republic". Nazi Germany did not have a monarch and its still-in force constitution declared it to be a republic. Therefore it was technically a republic. What it was not was a democracy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that the words "democracy" and "republic" are interchangeable; it's obvious that they are not, since nations can be democracies without being republics. The UK and Canada (where I live) are both examples of democracies that are not republics. I think you are incorrect when you say that a country can simultaneously be a republic and a dictatorship. Countries such as the Soviet Union and North Korea may self-identify as republics and even use the word in their names, but that does not mean that they actually are republics. -- Dianna (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In pre-modern periods, the word 'republic' was often used to mean 'democracy', for example in Machiavelli's 'the Prince'. However, that is not the modern meaning. Countries like North Korea and China and other will explicitly declare in their constitutions that all power derives from the people(As I demonstrated with North Korea's constitution), just the same way as, for example, the Constitution of the United States does. Of course, in practice; it is very different, and human rights and freedom are very different in these countries as they are in western democracies. But that does not change the fact that in theory sovereignty comes from the people and not from a monarch or anyone else. That is why they are republics. It's not as simple as 'their official name is 'republic of _', (to give a good example. the USA is not officially called a republic but it most definitely is) they explicitly mention in their constitutions that sovereignty is vested in the people, and there will be assemblies (however rubber-stamp) that reflect this fact. All this was just as true of.

However, this will not be found in the constitutions of, for example, Australia Tonga, or New Zealand, where power is described as coming from the monarch. Thus, they are not republics for that very reason.

A nation-state is either a republic (whether it be democratic or authoritarian/dictatorship) or a monarchy (whether it be democratic or absolute/dictatorship).JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is disappointing to see that User:peterzor is unwilling to come to this talk. That said - No more synthesis of what you think it should be called because of what others may be called - Do you or anyone have a scholarly  source that say what you are saying besides one lonely  news article from 1936. So to be clear  a source  that calls Nazi Germany a republic? As for your question to me above - pls read the sources provided that disagree with your interpretation.  Moxy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a tick; what on earth was wrong with 'from a democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship' anyway? The Weimar Republic was indisputably a democracy, the Third Reich was indisputably a totalitarian dictatorship...so why change it to 'from a republic to...'JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with JWULTRABLIZZARD. Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjensen. At least somebody does.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think either wording would be fine; I have no real preference, as both things are true imo. It changed from a republic to a totalitarian state; it changed from a democracy to a totalitarian state. It was Peterzor who objected to the use of the word "democracy", and he hasn't participated in this thread for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also believe that either way is sufficient. If consensus is for the word "democracy", then that is fine with me. Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way anyone can say the Weimar Republic was not a democracy (indeed, the Weimar Constitution was one of the most democratic in the world for its time-it introduced full adult female suffurage a good decade before the UK for example), and there is absolutely no way in hell Nazi Germany can be described as anything other than a totalitarian dictatorship.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am gonna change it to say Democracy, as that is the current consensus. -- Dianna (talk)
 * this is not "current consensus" please read the editors opinion in this section. JWULTRABLIZZARD is the olny user who wants "republic" to be removed while Rjensen seems to agree on a remark without supporting neither and all other users talk about "I think either wording would be fine" (Diannaa), "I also believe that either way is sufficient" (Kierzek) and Moxy who disagrees with nazi germany to be described as a republic so most most users here are against calling Nazi Germany a republic Peterzor (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are more who either want the change or have NO objection to the change to democracy. Kierzek (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of "democracy" (since it better expresses the contrast between 'rule' by the people and rule by a dictator). --Boson (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boson. "democracy" conveys important correct info and "republic", while technically correct in a very narrow way (not-a-kingdom), gives no info and falsely suggests "republicanism." Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Other groups persecuted and killed included Jehovah's Witnesses, Poles and other Slavs, homosexuals, social misfits, and members of the political and religious opposition
The list needs to be rewritten according to some logic - numbers of dead victims, numbers of imprisoned. 1200 Jehovah's Witnesses and millions of Slavs died. Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have not yet read the peer review, where one reviewer specifically requested that this article contain less about events of World War II and focus instead on the impact of the war on the German population and economy. Information about victims of the regime is summarised without giving a lot of statistics that are readily available in other articles and need not be repeated here. -- Dianna (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In another words - German POV is more important than the one of the victims. Now I understand the article and I'm going to change it according to Wikipedia rules. Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

28 million of non-German refugees
Europe had more than 40 million refugees, which means that 26-28 million were non-German, in another words 33% German and 66% - non-German. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't really have space in this article for this peripheral information. -- Dianna (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The information about German refugees is more peripheral (33%) than about non-German ones (66%).Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Poland and France
The subsecion "Poland" doesn't inform about Polish-French relations. GB didn't have any common border with Germany and any army.Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Content about Polish-French relations is beyond the scope of this article, which needs to have a tight focus on Nazi Germany and its citizens, economy and culture. Article size calls for Wikipedia articles to be no more than 10,000 words, so that people on slow internet conections and those tryng to access the article using their cell phone or other mobile device will be able to load and view the article. This article is presently at around 12,700 words, so we don't have space for additional peripheral material. -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we don't have place, why do we mention here GB?Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

German administration was established in Poland - unprecize
There was no unified G. administration of occupied Poland. Parts of Poland were annexed to different parts of Germany and GG was created. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is more detail than we need in this article, which is about Nazi Germany, not Poland. France was also split into occupied and unoccupied zones, and we don't have space to talk about that either. -- Dianna (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "We" ?
 * Nazi Germany committed genocides outside Germany so the subject of Nazi administration in the East belongs here.
 * Germany didn't committ any genocide in France, so yes, we don't have space to talk about France here.Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Two POVs
Götz Aly: Hitlers Volksstaat. Raub, Rassenkrieg und nationaler Sozialismus. 5. Auflage, S. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-10-000420-5. Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article describes Nazi Germany as seen by the Germans. What about the POV of the victims?
 * The subject of German borders and occupied lands is poorly described, eg. the General Government isn't mentioned in Occupied territories section but only in the Holocaust one.
 * Germany was fed and finnaced by the occupied nations. This article mentions only "forced labour". The Holocaust section is about the extermination but not about robbery.


 * Snyder about Evans' POV:

"Germany ... was a complex society, defined by Christian morality, in which the majority was opposed to the persecution of Jews."
 * Now I understand better this article. What about reading a second book?Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added some material on the General Government to the "Occupied territories" section. Thank you for the suggestion. Your multiple posts in various threads all have a common theme: you believe that this article needs to have more information on the Slavic victims of the regime. Sorry, I do not agree with you. This does not mean that I am pushing a pro-German POV or any other POV. Nor does it mean that I have only read one book on this topic. The reason the article doesn't contain extensive material about Slavs is because it is not about Slavs. There's quite a bit about the Nazi treatment of the Jews, but it for the most part focuses on events in Germany, and the fate of the Jewish population of Germany. It's more appropriate to add material about victims of the regime to articles such as Generalplan Ost, Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, or The Holocaust in Russia, so that this article can focus its attention on the impact of the regime on the German people, economy, and culture, as recommended in the Peer Review. -- Dianna (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of first paragraph
The first paragraph is getting to look a bit like a camel (a horse designed by a committee). I propose rewriting it as follows:

"Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party or, in German, NSDAP. Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all public life was controlled by the Nazis. Nazi Germany ceased to exist after the Allied Forces defeated the Wehrmacht in May 1945, thus ending World War II in Europe."

The changes are intended to address the following issues: --Boson (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoid unnecessary controversy over "republic", "democracy", etc.
 * Lede could do with condensing a little.
 * Details do not belong in the introduction.
 * Difficulty of stating exactly which organizations were not controlled by the Nazi Party - best left to body of article, where more details are possible.
 * Exact year it became a totalitarian state is a detail not needed in the introduction.
 * Nazi Germany and Third Reich are both common names (roughly equally common in Google books).
 * Remove unnecessary introduction of foreign word Gleichschaltung in the introduction (it is best introduced and explained later).
 * Sounds okay to me, however, I would state: Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party or NSDAP. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Using little-known foreign words in the lead must be off-putting to many of our readers. I think this is a good edit. Slightly different wording: "Nazi Germany and Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), commonly known as the Nazi Party." For the second sentence, spheres that are part of private life were also controlled by the Nazis, such as marriage and recreational activities, so that should be re-worded perhaps to say "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state. Nazi Germany ceased to exist after the Allied Forces defeated the Wehrmacht in May 1945, thus ending World War II in Europe." -- Dianna (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.The only problem I see is that people might wonder why "National Socialist German Workers' Party" abbreviates to "NSDAP". Perhaps a footnote with the German name? --Boson (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An explanatory note using efn could be added. -- Dianna (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dianna version but i also agree with Boson regarding the "NSDAP" it does not belong in lede just as "Gleichscaltung" Peterzor (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also i would be completly satisfied if we somehow changed "into a totalitarian state" to "was a totalitarian state" Peterzor (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" as a motto should be restored 95.195.204.117 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nazi germany was an empire! 95.195.204.117 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dianna, I agree with your version and agree it should remain with the wording: "transformed into a totalitarian state"; for the reasons, I have stated above in other sections when this was discussed. Kierzek (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the IP is very likely Peterzor, editing while logged out. (I have removed the "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" as it was not an official state motto; it was a rallying cry and political slogan of the NSDAP. This matter is discussed elsewhere on this page.) We don't need to introduce the abbreviation in the lead. I am going to go ahead and put in the edit. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of other groups
Are Slavs still Untermenschen? as if the Soviet victims of Nazi Germany were somehow not as important. The USSR took the vast majority of the casualties and the economic losses, the infrastructural damage, etc. Heinrich Himmler stated openly before the German invasion of the Soviet Union: "It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply."


 * Timothy D. Snyder: "Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union."


 * Jack Fischel, The Holocaust, Introduction: "Jews were not the only targets of the Germans. They also killed an estimated 10,547,000 Slavs, which included millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Soviet prisoners of war. Others whom the Nazis marked for death included the gypsies, and about 5,000 homosexuals of an estimated million Himmler believed resided in Germany. These numbers suggest that the Nazi genocide was far-reaching in its preoccupation with the creation of a master race and that although the Jews composed the primary category of people designated by the Nazis for extermination, there were many such categories." -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added this: "The Soviet Union lost 27 million people during the war; less than nine million of these were combat deaths.(Hosking, 2006. p.242) One in four Soviets were killed or wounded."(Smith, 1994. p.204) It's in the section "Persecution of other groups" -- Dianna (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans
The movement of Germans involved a total of at least 12 million people, with some sources putting the figure at 14 million.--IIIraute (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since, "Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II", preface, xii. → fourteen million expelled, 2 million dead, is just "SPAM" - here, some other sources:


 * "In all 14 million ethnic Germans were expelled and it has been asserted that as many as two million might have perished in the process." David P. Forsythe, Encyclopedia of human rights - Volume 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, page 164,


 * "In all, 12 to 14 million ethnic Germans fled or were expelled or transferred." Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses, The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010


 * "Altogether, the expulsion operation permanently displaced at least 12 million people, and perhaps as many as 14 million." R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War, Yale University Press, Yale, 2012, page 1

I will provide some information & sources regarding the German government reaffirming the 2,2 million casualties figure at a later date. --IIIraute (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The German government puts the number at 12 million by 1950. The higher numbers include people who emmigrated after 1950 and children born after the war.

Flight,Expulsion and Accounting for Expellees up to 1950

Source:Hans Henning Hahn and Eva Hahnova, ''Die Vertreibung im deutschen Erinnern. Legenden, Mythos, Geschichte'', Paderborn: Schöningh, 2010, Page 659

Expellees as defined by German Law

Source: Gerhard Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, part 1, Bonn: 1995, pp. 44–59

I get the impression you are trying to push the higher figure of 14 million without showing the details--Woogie10w (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I need to show the details? I have presented three WP:RS by the current state of scientific/historiographic knowledge, published by the Universties of Yale and Oxford, within the last three years. Why not let experts with professional competence take care of the details. --IIIraute (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider this material very important but it relates primarily to the post-Nazi era, where it had a major impact. It belong in another article. Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not. The article currently states: "By 1950 over eleven million ethnic Germans fled or were expelled from east-central Europe to Germany."--IIIraute (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (P.S. Very cheap shot. If necessary, I will take this to WikiProject History/WikiProject Germany.)--IIIraute (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We should change the wording to read "By 1950 between eleven and fourteen million ethnic Germans fled or were expelled from east-central Europe to Germany." and quote one of the above sources. I am working on putting this in right now, using the Douglas citation, as it is a recent book, and I can look at it on Google preview. -- Dianna (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting to this matter, IIIraute. I have been working on another article today. -- Dianna (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I just added the sentence about the German government reaffirming its stance, in 2006. Here some information & sources:
 * On 29 November 2006 State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, Christoph Bergner, outlined the stance of the respective governmental institutions in Deutschlandfunk saying that the numbers presented by the German government and others are not contradictory to the numbers cited by Haar, and that the below 600,000 estimate comprises the deaths directly caused by atrocities during the expulsion measures and thus only includes people who on the spot were raped, beaten, or else brought to death, while the above two millions estimate also includes people who on their way to post-war Germany have died of epidemics, hunger, cold, air raids and the like. →


 * Horst Köhler, President of Germany, from 2004 to 2010, at "Tag der Heimat des Bundes der Vertriebenen", 2. September 2006, in Berlin →


 * Federal Agency for Civic Education: "Die Vertreibung der Deutschen aus den Gebieten jenseits von Oder und Neiße" → --IIIraute (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)