Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 7

Motto ?
What is your source that "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führe" was a Motto? Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a rallying cry and political slogan more than a motto. I will remove it from the info box. -- Dianna (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes for a national motto? I think this one does qualify. Bendersky (2007) says: "The slogan "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" left an indelible mark on the minds of most Germans who lived through the Nazi years. It appeared on countless posters and in publications; it was heard constantly in radio broadcasts and speeches."  See his insightful discussion of its central role in shaping popular thought at . Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add this as a source for the claim that this was a national motto. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't actually support the claim it was a national motto, it just says it was a slogan extensively used in propaganda. --Nug (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am taking it out then. -- Dianna (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My removal has just been reverted by User:Rjensen. Dr Jensen, perhaps you have not yet read this material at the dispute resolution page, in which Transporterman states, in part, that the template documentation . I hope you will self-revert this, Dr Jensen. -- Dianna (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Casualties (2)
Why is there no mention of Poles, Jews and Czechs who lived in the General Government and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (autonomous Nazi-administered territories)?

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason the article doesn't contain extensive material about casualties is because I was trying to keep the article focused on events in Germany and their impact on the German people, its culture, and its economy, as recommended in the Peer Review. But if you think we need additional material about ethnic Poles, Jews and Czechs who lived (and died) in the General Government and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (autonomous Nazi-administered territories) perhaps you could post a proposed addition and your sources here on the talk page? -- Dianna (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dianna. My point is that the General Government (Poland) and the Protectorate (Czech lands) were incorporated into the Greater German Reich, in effect annexed to Germany (1939–1945).
 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I am confused, because this information already appears in the article, in the section "Occupied territories". -- Dianna (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unlike the rest of the occupied countries, Poland and Czech lands can be considered as de facto parts of Germany, although it is true that only ethnic Germans were granted citizenship of the German Reich, whereas the Czechs, Poles and Jews become second-class (or third-class) noncitizens. German and Jewish victims are already covered. Perhaps we could briefly mention the Polish victims (2 mil.) of the Nazi regime..? -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should do that. I will add it where I added the content about the Russian dead -- Dianna (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * US Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Documentation remains fragmentary, but today scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war. This approximate total includes Poles killed in executions or who died in prisons, forced labor, and concentration camps. It also includes an estimated 225,000 civilian victims of the 1944 Warsaw uprising, more than 50,000 civilians who died during the 1939 invasion and siege of Warsaw, and a relatively small but unknown number of civilians killed during the Allies' military campaign of 1944—45 to liberate Poland."--89.204.137.88 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch -- Dianna (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

let's remove or drastically alter the paragraph "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a democracy into a dictatorship"
Under Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed from a democracy into a dictatorship THAT IS A LIE !!! now how is that even theoretically possible? when germany already was a De facto authoritarian state ruled by emergency decree under president of the weimar republic Paul von Hindenburg so hitler did not turn germany to a dicatorship, germany was already a dictatorship! Peterzor (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * no it's not a lie. that what the RS say. perhaps the most famous expert on democracy is Robert Dahl--he says the transition to dictatorship was 1933 in . Bracher is his german counterpart--see .  Also of value see  Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Peterzor could we get you to propose the changes here first - lots of reverting going on with you reverting yourself and people reverting aand or correcting your edits. Would be easier if we just agreed on a text here on this talk instead of editwaring.Moxy (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So? it still does not change the fact that germany wasn't a democracy! yes there was a transformation in 1933-1933 but the country was alredy run by emergency decree Peterzor (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the section immediately below, where and editor has proposed completely removing this sentence from the lead. -- Dianna (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * my rhetorical question retorical question "So?" refers to my answer to Rjensen not moxy Peterzor (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:peterzor has been blocked as he has been identified as a sockpuppet. Now perhaps we can improve this page without it going off on unnecessary and irrelevant tangents and edit-wars.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Motto
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer is Nazi Germany's Motto Peterzor (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Peterzor. The material I looked at says this was a slogan and rallying cry of the NSDAP, not a national motto of Nazi Germany. The material was removed as unsourced, as you can see in the other thread on this topic. Talk:Nazi Germany -- Dianna (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes for a national motto? I think this one does qualify. Bendersky (2007) says: "The slogan "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" left an indelible mark on the minds of most Germans who lived through the Nazi years. It appeared on countless posters and in publications; it was heard constantly in radio broadcasts and speeches."  See his insightful discussion of its central role in shaping popular thought at . Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support for inclusion of the motto.
 * Given the nature of the regime, it may not always be clear what is a party slogan and what is a national motto.
 * The slogan itself implies the unity of party and state and suggests that it was also intended as a national motto.
 * I think there should be some lattitude in populating infoboxes, since they should present salient information in summary form.
 * I think the exact nature of the slogan should be further explained in the body of the article and/or in a footnote, so that the reader is aware of the discretion used in classifying it as the motto of the Third Reich.
 * --Boson (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: This is only weak support because I don't think it is a clear-cut national (as opposed to party) motto, and I do not support its inclusion as the national motto without qualification (as mentioned above). I would exclude other possible candidates because they applied only to individual Nazi organizations or movements (e.g. the SS motto Meine Ehre heißt Treue and the DAF motto/organization Kraft durch Freude).--Boson (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The book National Slogans from Around the World by Henry Conserv lists "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" (One Nation, one People, one Leader) as just one of many mottos used, such as "Deutschland Erwache" (Germany Awake), "Führer befiel, wire folgen!" (The leader commands, we follow!), "Alle sagen Ja!" (All say Yes!) and "Heute gehort uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze welt" (Today we have Germany, tomorrow the whole world), etc. These all are just slogans used for propaganda purposes. --Nug (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there were lots of Nazi mottos, for example "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), "Kraft durch Freude" (Strength through joy), "Meine Ehre heisst Treue" (My loyalty is my Honour), etc, etc. --Nug (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of the motto. This was a political slogan and rallying cry of the NSDAP, not to my knowledge adopted as an official motto of the country, which its inclusion in the info box in the "national motto" field implies. -- Dianna (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it was and is one of the best known mottos but not the only one used, as noted; further, agree not clear cut as an "official" one for the nation. Better argument for the NSDAP in the 1930s, pre-war. Kierzek (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * there is a false assumption here that "motto" means something official. It is merely a tag invented by a wikipedia editor and is perfectly flexible. It does not say anything about "unique" or "official" motto. The record dfoes show that this one was omnipresent in Germany at the time and highly influential. Let's keep thinking on this issue Rjensen (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was one slogan that could be characterised as a "national motto" it would be "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), not only is this slogan reflected in the colours of the national flag, it forms the essence of Nazi ideology were the land is bound to German blood (and hence the exterminationist policies of "purifying" that land) and the foundation of the concept of Lebensraum that drove Nazi attempts to conquer Europe. --Nug (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My removal of the motto has just been reverted by User:Rjensen. Dr Jensen, perhaps you have not yet read this material at the dispute resolution page, in which Transporterman states, in part, that the template documentation . The sourcing provided does not back up the claim that this was the national motto, so I removed it. It was an NSDAP motto, one of many that they used. If you wish to argue over the implementation of the "national motto" field, I guess I can't stop you, but I can't get the article promoted to GA either as I am unable to proceed with the nomination while there's ongoing edit wars and disputes that need to be resolved. And if the content is sketchily sourced, a GA reviewer will ask for its removal regardless. -- Dianna (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa that there should be no motto in the infobox. Instead, the various mottoes should be explained in the article body, as appropriate to weight. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be disruptive here--but a couple points: a) the "motto" business is a Wikipedia device to appeal to popular readers; most countries do not have official mottos in the first place. b) discussion should be based on RS -- I have provided a good RS that says the motto in question was ubiquitous, veryh eavily used in all media, and central to the ideology Nazi Germany. That qualifies it as "the" national motto. Other editors have not provided any RS to say that the various other slogans meet the criterion or were of comparable importance. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your source does not say it was central to the ideology of Nazi Germany. --Nug (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The source does not say that. The source says the concept of Volksgemeinschaft was central to Nazi ideology, not the slogan. It says the slogan was ubiquitous, not that it was a national motto. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research. Also, I am not seeing anything in the template documentation to back up your statement that we display national mottos as a device to appeal to popular readers; perhaps this statement is original research as well. -- Dianna (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a matter of editorial judgement, and in this case I would be quite happy to delegate the final judgement to you, since you are doing most of the work here. However, I do not accept your above argument, which I think may help to set an unfortunate legalistic precedent regarding information in such infoboxes. The name of the template parameter and any documentation are internal Wikimedia matters written by Wikipedia editors and they are not constrained by policies related to "reader-facing" content (such as WP:OR).  The purpose of infoboxes, as I understand it, is to present similar information in similar articles in a consistent fashion. So we are not talking about a statement like "The national motto of the Third Reich  was . . ."; we are talking about the presentation of a motto, preferably for all countries, in a consistent fashion. If we add a (sourced) note explaining what this motto is, we are in no way violating WP:OR, since it is a motto, it is related to Nazi Germany, and the information is correct and sourced, without any synthesis. The raison d'être of infobox templates is consistency  between articles. The editorial judgement is about whether the reader will be misled (for instance, into inferring that this is the single, official motto of the former state, even if we provide a prominent note stating otherwise). The problem is that a heading in a table cannot make a detailled statement. I believe there have been similar debates regarding other articles. In my opinion, there is no problem with what amounts to statements like
 * This is the place for the country's coat of arms. Italy does not have a true coat of arms, but it has an emblem that is used like other countries' coats of arms, so it is listed here. If it helps, read "coat of arms" as "coat of arms or other emblem used in a similar way".
 * This is the place for the country's motto. England does not have an official motto but Dieu et mon droit is the motto on the coat of arms heraldic achievement of the English monarch and is therefore listed here. If it helps, read "motto" as "motto of the country or its ruling monarch, etc.".
 * This is the place for the country's motto. The Federal Republic of Germany does not have a true motto but Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit is used like a national motto, so it is listed here". If it helps, read "motto" as "unofficial motto associated with the country".
 * This is the place for the country's motto. Nazi Germany did not have a single official motto but it was a one-party state and a ubiquitous motto used by the party was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, so it is listed here. If it helps, read "motto" as "common slogan associated with the regime".
 * I don't have a problem with "We could include the motto, but it's iffy; it's a judgement call and and the consensus is that it is better to leave it out."
 * --Boson (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This source, The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, makes an explicit claim for "the common slogan":
 * "German society was theoretically reconstructed as a Volksgemeinschaft, a 'people's community' of equal racial status but differentiated functions, under the common slogan Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (the common need before individual needs)."
 * --Nug (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If we wanted, I suppose we could find adequate sources to include a note stating that Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz was a motto that is usually associated with Montesquieu and was used on coins during the Nazi period, whereas Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer is nowadays much more commonly associated with Nazi Germany. Within the limits of policy, it is a matter of editorial judgement which verifiable facts we regard as relevant and weighty enough (based, for instance, on their treatment in reliable sources)  to include and whether to include them in the infobox, the body of the text, or a footnote. --Boson (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason we call it NAZI Germany is that the Nazis tried, with considerable but not total success in 12 years, to unify One People around One leader. The slogan exemplifies the main goal and that's why it was used so much more than any other slogan. See the chapter on the slogan at . Friedman says the Fuhrer principle was imprinted on the Germans' minds by the slogan [] Historians use in in book titles [Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer: the Nazi annexation of Austria,: 1938 by Dieter Wagner]; Sven Hacker (2005) says "The slogan 'One people, one empire, one leader' became the dogma of German nationality policy."  My point is that major RS devote far more attention to the "Ein" slogan than to any other slogan, which demonstrates its priority for the RS and hence for Wikipedia. To say there are many other slogans is true for Germany and every country, but besides the point, unless one of them is shown by RS to equal "Ein Volk..."  in importance. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I must still agree with Dianna, Nug and Binksternet, for the reasons I stated earlier above on 25 May. It is a motto, but it is not the only motto, nor is it an official national one. It should not be included in the info. box as it will be given WP:Undue weight. Kierzek (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Evans, Richard J.
While using Evans is ok so far, his views aren't universally shared by all historians. Certainly the degree of participation and support for genocide among German citizens is matter of debate and we should present other than Evans views on the matter. Also the claim that there weren't mass suicides or public displays of grief in 1945 is a bold one and standing in opposition to known other historic research.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take out the bit about public displays of grief, as he is quoting one observer in Hamburg, and this may not have been true in all areas. Hopefully this addresses your concern. -- Dianna (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The passage you marked as "needs quotation" I think I was reading too much into the material on pg 560-561 when I said they were afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals from the SS. Hopefully you will be able to see the pages on Google preview here. I am going to remove part of the passage. -- Dianna (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Malobo's observation that While using Evans is ok so far, his views aren't universally shared by all historians


 * German men serving in the Wehrmacht were responsible for war crimes being committed, shooting of POWs and hostages, deportation of civilians and the confiscation of food from civilians. Millions of German men served on the eastern front and were well aware of the crimes being committed. German veterans I spoke forty years ago to were frank to admit the brutal nature of the war, it was no secret.


 * Mass suicides in 1945 Germany are well documented

The article for the most part based on English language sources which tend to downplay or ignore the huge losses of the civilian population in the USSR and Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please remeber the Hitler's ordinary men described y Browning and Hitler's willing executioner, including (also female) clerks supervising the Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Woogie. It's not my intention to downplay those losses or to give the article a particular slant. This article is not supposed to be about the USSR or Poland or about the war dead in those countries. It's supposed to be about Nazi Germany, its people, its economy, and its culture. Therefore we should be giving a general overview of the events of the war without going into too much detail. In fact, this was specifically requested at the peer review. There's not room for a lot of further additions on any topic as the article is currently at 12774 words and the recommended maximum length is 10000 words. This is not an arbitrary style guideline but a way to ensure that our readers can load and view the article when attempting to do so from a slow internet connection, cell phone, or other mobile device. My intention was to nominate the article for GA, so any article improvements, corrections of errors, or suggestions for better/different sources are welcome. The article gets around a quarter of a million views every month so it's important that we get it right. There's already content about the Wehrmacht in war crimes; it's in the section "Wehrmacht". And there's a mention that off-duty soldiers revealed what they saw and did, in the section "The Holocaust". Soldiers looting (and widespread theft of art treasures etc) is mentioned at the bottom of the section "conquest of Europe." The huge loss of life in the USSR is covered in the section "Persecution of other groups". I will amend the section that talks about suicides after I read the sources you have posted. -- Dianna (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The main goal of Nazi Germany was conquering the Lebensraum in the East and constructing slave work system there. Its economy was based on robbery and slave work, its culture was abominable, its people were racist or at least opportunistic.


 * I agree the article is way to long to load onto an Android telephone, IMO its best to trim it down, why not start with the Russian file of the Horst Wessel Lied.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How big would it have to be to load on an Android phone, do you think? I suppose it would vary depepnding on the individual phone being used -- Dianna (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Android phones will hold most or all of Wikipedia. Mine has 16 gig of memory and a slot to add another 16 gig. Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear, because plenty of people have ideas for more stuff to add, but virtually no one has suggestions as to what should be taken out :/ -- Dianna (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Except for Woogie, hee hee -- Dianna (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are articles over 300,000 characters, why this one should be shortened?Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two reasons. First, Article size calls for articles to be no more than 10,000 words maximum, and as of this moment we are sitting at 12,868 words. 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. I am going to be nominating the article for Good Article and to pass GA we need to follow as closely as we can the mandates of the manual of style. Second, to pass GA is that the article needs to stay focused and on topic. It's a GA requirement. We therefore can't include a lot of peripheral material or the article won't pass GA, especially if it is already way over the size guideline, as this one is. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

German casualties
The subsecion doesn't explain responsibility - Nazi euthanasia victims and Allied rapes victims are listed in one paragraph.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is about German victims and casualties, so I am not sure what you are driving at or how to address your concerns. Obviously various people were responsible for these casualties -- Dianna (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Some people (...) others attempted to get word to the outside world as to what was happening.
Who exactly "attempted to get word to the outside world as to what was happening"? Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The source says it was mainly efforts by the Polish underground, who got word to the Polish government in exile in London. I have added more details. -- Dianna (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Horst Wessel Lied
The Horst Wessel Lied drags this article into the gutter, the song is at the top of the hit list for neo-Nazis. In Germany it is banned. Get rid of this eyesore.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I see it was removed, it is amazing that it got pluged on the page in the first place. I must assume that editors acted in good faith and were not aware of the fact that it is offensive to victims of the Nazis.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, I took it out before I went to work. It was added to the article a few weeks ago and I did not realise at the time that it should come out. Sorry, -- Dianna (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to feel sorry, we all work together as a team on Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some might find Horst-Wessel-Lied "offensive" is not sufficient grounds for removing the Deutschlandlied and Horst-Wessel-Lied OGG files. The fact that the piece is illegal in Germany is also of no relevance, given that we're discussing the English article. It is offensive to some - yes - but it is in no way obscene, graphic or in breach of Wikipedia's rules. A /ton/ of content on Wikipedia will prove offensive to certain groups. This is supposed to be an objective article; Horst-Wessel-Lied was at the centre of Nazi Germany. I'm sure there are plenty who find "The Internationale" OGG file on the Soviet Union article "offensive", too. If you disagree with me, then fine - but you'd surely disagree with the presence of "The Internationale" at the same time - given that it too would prove offensive to, say, the victims of Stalinism? Surlyduff50 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the sound files of the Horst-Wessel-Lied and the Lied der Deutschen
Even if policy permits us to include a song here, that does not mean that we are obliged to do so. We should not conflate the issue of editorial judgement with what policy requires. There is a reason for the prohibition applying to the distribution of the Horst-Wessel-Lied, and there is nothing to stop us, as responsible editors, sharing the views of the German and Austrian legislatures on the inappropriateness of its publication without accompanying commentary. In my view, it is sufficient to provide a link to the article on the song, where such detailled commentary is possible; the few people reading this article who need to know more about the Horst-Wessel-Lied can click on the link. So I
 * support  removal of the sound files.--Boson (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing to stop us sharing the views of German and Austrian legislators on the publication of Horst-Wessel-Lied; there's also nothing to stop us from disregarding non-ubiquitous laws that have no place in countries without a history of Nazism or Nazi occupation. It is true that Horst-Wessel-Lied will be a "top hit" for neo-Nazis, but I fail to see how this is of any relevance here. It's an historical piece of music - it's not something that portrays the Third Reich in an overly or unnecessarily positive light (except in the eyes of a German-fluent neo-Nazi) - and, dare I say it - it's less offensive than some of the photographs on this article. I myself find the photo of starving prisoners 'offensive' - but it's history, and it shouldn't be watered down for anyone. I agree with what Boson has said in that it's likely that only a small number of people will have any interest in Horst-Wessel-Lied, and I agree that a link to the song on the article for Horst-Wessel-Lied would be equally appropriate, but I stand against deletion of the OGG partly out of principle (let's not water down history), and partly because the argument for removal just isn't strong enough; articles on countries (and 'periods' within countries - even the evil ones) have sound files in their infoboxes. Surlyduff50 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Further discussion of removal of the ogg files has taken place on the GA review page: Talk:Nazi Germany/GA1. The current consensus is that the ogg files should be removed. I will be doing this in the next few days if there's no further comments on this issue. -- Dianna (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Another example of Wikipedian high school history
From the lede:
 * " All opposition to Hitler's rule was ruthlessly suppressed by the Gestapo (secret state police) and SS under Heinrich Himmler. "

All? Was the Gestapo responsible for all that?? The assertion regarding the Gestapo should be replaced with the link to the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office); because the Gestapo was just one agency of several that had almost similar roles rooting out dissent within Nazi Germany, and later occupied Europe. Furthermore this sentence suggests the Gestapo took precedence for such activity (being backed up by the SS) as with inclusion of the conjunction "and". BUT they were not separate, because the Gestapo was just one agency (the others being the Sicherheitsdienst, Sicherheitspolizei, Kriminalpolizei) of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt that was part of the Allgemeine SS.

This statement is so ambiguous it is frankly meaningless. Pure Pop history 101. I pity the fools who copied that one for their school essays!86.160.188.62 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The second half of the statement could be omitted: "All opposition to Hitler's rule was ruthlessly suppressed" -- Dianna (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously not all, the wives of Jews weren't punished.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wehrmacht also supressed all opposition inside, eg. 15,000 deserters were executed and wounded soldiers ("Simulanten") forced to return to the front.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have taken out the word "All" because obviously that is an overstatement. -- Dianna (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "All" is pretty accurate. Historians have not found any opposition that was not suppressed, and very harshly indeed. people knew that if they said the wrong thing they would get arrested--that is suppression. Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is cowardice.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * yes that's how history works. Rjensen (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor living conditions led to high rates of sickness, injury, and death, as well as sabotage and criminal activity.
You reduce the workers to almost animals. Some of them belonged to anti-Nazi organizations, collected intelligence data, see Olimp (organization).Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Powszechna PWN
It's Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC
There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppression of Christians
It is a gross understatement -if not a travesty - to sum up the oppression of the Catholic Church and other Christians as merely some were "disciplined, arrested and put in jail." This is far from the truth, nor anywhere remotely correct. Thousands upon thousands were murdered, spent years in concentration camps -not "jail"- and suffered greatly under this nightmare simply for holding to their faith and/or defending the Jewish people. This current summary is woefully short of the reality.

And, the "handy work" of the Nazis to harass the Catholic Church began in the late winter early spring of 1933 - not 1935. Of the 20 odd books I have read on this topic from mainstream historians notes this. So. . . . what is the concern bringing this to light with RS citation? (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Integrityandhonesty (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The source used for this section (Evans 2005) does not mention any Christian deaths at all, which I found kind of surprising. Shirer covers the same material on pages 234 to 240 and he does not mention any deaths of Christians either. If you have sources that talk about thousands upon thousands of Christians being killed, please present them here on the talk page for discussion. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa- Good to hear from you. Well, in this very Article the Section, "The Outbreak of War", cites (Evans 2006) stating that by the end of 1939 - less than four full months after the invasion of Poland, 65,000 were targeted prior to the invasion, then killed within the intelligentsia - among them-clergy. Poland, then and now, is predominately - Catholic Christians.

In the wiki Article covering the concentration camp of Dachau it discusses the "priests barracks" where 1034 Catholic clergy and some 30 Protestant pastors met their deaths, citing Ian Kershaw "The Nazi Dictatorship, Problems and Perspectives . . . . " 4th edition and others. Further, in Robert P. Ericksen's, "Complicity in the Holocaust", p. 109, he writes, "perhaps as many as 1,000 Polish priests were murdered for fear they might be potential leaders of a future rebellion." Therefore, the 'testimony' of just these three sources alone places the number over 2034+ at a minimum. And, we can go on and on. It is in the aggregate - rather than a single source - that the picture comes into focus.

Last, in Robert A. Krieg's, "Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany", states that the powers given to Hitler as Chancellor - due to the Reichstag Fire Decree of Feb. 28, 1933 - were used/abused to require civil servants to members of the Nazi Party in the states where they had control. Clearly, harassment to all. Then on p. 7 he states, "During June 1933, Nazis waged a strong anti-Catholic campaign ....", clearly long before 1935, or the signing and ratification of the Concordat. So, I ask again. Why is this not reflected in this summary? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not convincing. The Nazis harassed the Catholic Church in Germany but did not suppress it or kill its leaders. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Deaths of the Polish priests is already covered in the section on Poland. There's figures for deaths of priests in Dachau concentration camp and Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp, but the numbers are totally without sources. Kershaw is used as a source in that article, but not for that particular point. Obviously, priests were placed in KZs as well as jails, and I can source that with materials on hand, so I will add that right now. If you can find a source for these deaths, of course we can add the information. Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not well enough informed on what Hitler did to Christians to comment on the content, but what I do know is that Christianity is not a race. The content is in the wrong place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, Hi-Lo. I think i will move it to "Society" -- Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the placement is better for the section, now. The concordat with the Nazis was for international PR opinion, as well to protect the power of the church and the practice of Catholicism in Nazi Germany; which included Catholic youth groups and schools. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors- thank you for your input. Whether this topic is under "Society", or otherwise, seems of modest concern. Our focus s/b historical accuracy. In reverse order? The Concordat was a goal of the Catholic Church since the start of the Weimar Republic in 1919 - not simply an ad hoc response to Nazism. Was it PR? Well, that may have been so for Hitler - but not the Catholic Church. Was it to protect its "power"? If by "power" you mean maintaining control over its institutions? Yes, that's on the mark. As for the youth groups and lay organizations? That was never fully resolved-it was a constant bone of contention between Berlin and Rome post the treaty being ratified and until the end of the war. It's unfortunate as well, Kierzek, that your link to "Catholicism" is a discussion of the concept/notion of the word catholic in Christianity - not the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany. Annoying -I know, but. . . . it is what it is. The Article that covers this topic in depth is the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany.

In response to Rjensen? You're entitled to your POV. All that was pointed out above is founded in RS citations of respected scholars. What are you offering other than a vague, "I'm not convinced" based on "leaders" not being murdered? If by leaders you mean: bishops, or the pope? Yes, that's correct. But, to have done so would have caused rebellion in the German military. The Nazis were ruthless-not stupid. Yet, many Christian leaders were murdered for resisting founded upon their faith, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or the religious philosopher, Edith Stein And, many others like the priests mentioned. As well, being sent to a Nazi concentration camp goes a touch beyond mere "harassment".

Lastly, how do we define: confiscation of land, property, printing presses, publications, radio stations, the shuttering of seminaries, monasteries, convents and schools, which the Nazis had done, other than suppression? Thank you Integrityandhonesty (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are reading too much in my link Integrityandhonesty; I was linking (here only) the "practice" of that faith which is part of what the church in Germany wanted to protect at that time. BTW-Dianna has recently made some good tweaks along the lines of this discussion to which I appreciate her time and effort. Kierzek (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood- this subject is highly complex and full of subtle nuance, which require sorting through to "get it right". This much I've learned over the years. Until next time. All the best.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that a European perspective is useful. Nazi Germany played a major role in protecting the Catholic Church in Spain (1936-39), where priests were indeed murdered by the thousands (over 6000). How many German Catholics were killed because of their religion? "thousands and thousands" is not supported by the RS. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- Once more, you're entitled. Do not wish to be appear to be "combative". The Nazis involved themselves in the Civil War in Spain for a host of reasons. Priming their military, and fighting their arch rival - the Communists among several. The Communists were a major force in Central Europe since the 1920's and were seeking further expansion via Spain. Not that complicated when you get to the fundamentals. Was Communism synonymous in the Nazi mind to the Jewish people? Yes. And,yes, many priests and religious were murdered in cold bold by the Communists there.

To say the Nazis were there to "protect the Catholic Church" as its primary motive, or even truly a viable point ? I'm sorry, but that's a 'straw-man' debate. A connecting of dots that do not stand up to the hard facts. Was the Catholic Church encouraging opposition of the Communists? Yes, without a doubt. But, for the same motivation as the Nazis? Categorically - no. The Catholic Church has been denouncing Communism sine 1891 with the publication of Rerum Novarum when Hitler was an infant and Franco was a one year old. This is like stating the Ocean is wet because the water is blue.

Robert Krieg, Robert Ericksen and Ian Kershaw are not RS's? Okay. Have any of you been to Dachau? If you have not. In the museum there? What I just put forward? Is in the displays and education kiosks. And, in the Article on Dachau? The numbers are sourced regarding the # priests who died there: 1034. Ericksen tells us around 1000 priests were murdered during invasion of Poland. So. . . . a touched confused on that point. Is not Dachau in Germany? Was not Poland a Nazi territory? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Integ seems to have a great "insight" into what the Nazis "really" intended to do when they seemed to be helping the Catholic Church, but he gives no sources and does not mention the Vatican role. Then again he can't tell the difference between Poland and Germany, or between harassment (which happened in Germany) and systematic destruction (which did not happen in Germany). He needs to look at German history (Bismarck was much rougher on German Catholics) as well as the Catholic response--see the articles on Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XI and Germany and Pope Pius XIIfor leads to the major scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning - Just to wrap up this whole issue. Rjensen? It's okay. But, there is not a requirement for any of us to write a virtual treatise to make a point;willing to work with you - not do your homework for you. Read more.

Yes, the Vatican had a vested interest in Spain during the Civil War there. Just as they did when the Russian Empire fell - for the very same reason. An atheistic power was brutally enforcing its will. And, it is clear that the Nazis walked more cautiously in their own homeland for a litany of reasons. Yet, they showed their contempt when the risks were low i.e., Poland and Eastern Europe.

Just what part of Evans (this Articles' own reference) statement that 65,000 were killed/executed soon after the invasion of Poland in cold blood, pre-meditated murder - and among them clergy confuses you? And, there is no mystery that- overwhelmingly- Poland was - Roman Catholic. This apparent denial of history, or innocent ignorance, is no excuse to belittle the memory of the thousands of Christians that were targeted and murdered by the Nazis because of their faith based resistance. I'll leave it to your conscience to work that out.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Integrityandhonesty" is an unfortunate username for an editor who refuses to read the many monographs and scholarly studies on how Germany treated Catholics and Protestants. None of them say that thousands and thousands of Catholics were murdered by the Nazis because of their faith (that happened in Spain and Russia). The idea of suppressing the Catholic Church in Germany and arresting the bishops was Bismarck's (1870s). Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- If we're speaking of Germany "proper" (as in, pre-1936 borders) what you state is correct. We agree. Inside Germany "proper" the verifiable figures are less than 1100 +-. Outside the borders of Germany 'proper' (as in, the Nazi Empire )-particularly at its peak ? Then, the figures soar dramatically, leaving Spain aside altogether.

With that, it's an injustice - in my view- to summarize the fate of Christians inside Germany who resisted, and assisted the Jewish people based on their faith, as merely harassed, disciplined, arrested and jailed. This language places their fate no worse than a fraternity party gone bad. They were beaten, murdered, dispossessed and placed in concentration camps left to die. This was the fate of at least 1100 between 1934-1945 that can be reasonably verified inside Germany. Again, the Dachua priests barracks being the obvious example. This is what I'm stating. Hope you see the merit of this position. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * you're making assumptions not supported by any RS: a) occupied Poland should be treated as integral to Germany; b) the priests were often arrested for defending Jews. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- These are verified historical facts. If you visit the, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Article you will see the data on the Dachua priests barracks. Perhaps, I was seeing an illusion at the Dachua museum with the list of over 1000 priests that perished there. More broadly - if you visit the Article Holocaust victims and read the Section, religious persecution you'll read the following: 2,000 Jehovah Witnesses were placed in concentration camps in Germany; thousands of clergy were killed. 3000 of the Polish clergy murdered - 1992 in concentration camps. 2600 Catholic priests from 24 different countries killed in concentration camps in Germany, 1034 from Dachau alone.

Is this body count sufficient to count as an RS? Or, do we need more? Here is a sampling of German Christians in Germany who where murdered in Germany for their faith: Josef Wirmer - hung. Willi Graf-head of Catholic Youth Groups and member of the White Rose-beheaded. Maria Restituta - beheaded for placing a crucifix in a classroom and writing a poem denouncing Hitler. This is not to mention the other more infamous individual cases such as, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Does this look anything like simply being "disciplined" - "arrested" and "jailed"? We can go on and on. And, these are the cases we know about. I'm not interested - just as are you- in empty debate. Again, I hope you see the merits of the position.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * no the body counts do not meet Wikipedia's criteria of a "reliable secondary source." The raw numbers do not provide the motives. You have found no evidence that the people were killed for religious reasons. Real persecution is what the Nazis did to the Jews (or racial grounds) and Jehovah Witnesses (on religious grounds), not what they did to people who happened to be Catholics. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- This is, well, pointless. No matter what objective evidence is placed before you it's as if it does not exist. I offered respected RS's such as Krieg, and Ericksen and several links within Wikipedia that already provide further RS citations. Yet, you have provided not a single RS that denies or refutes any of what has been put forward. Can you produce a single citation that states no German Christians (including Catholics) were murdered by the Nazis in Germany for their faith based resistance, or placing themselves at great risk to assist the Jewish people motivated by that faith? If not? Then, what does that tell us? We need to move on now - if you can not produce this. Of the 11 or so concentration camps in Germany on any given day from 1936/7-45 you will have found thousands of Christians there because of their faith based resistance. I challenge you to produce one historian of credit that refutes this historical reality. And, I will let what has been put forward speak for itself. As for Catholics? An incredible statement on your part. So, if we're to take what you're implying, then Roman Catholics were - what-exactly? Not that I have put forward Catholics exclusively here. You have singled out Catholics. Please feel free to elaborate, however. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen- Not much coming forward. Or, can we look forward to more vague repeated circular language of denial of history void of a single quote of an RS? I think there is a phrase that is useful in circumstances such as this. It goes like this Rjensen. You say, "You're right - I'm wrong. Let's move on." Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  Yet, you have provided not a single RS that denies or refutes any of what has been put forward. No--that is not the way Wikipedia works. If an editor believes A,B,C are true, he has the burden of providing us with reliable secondary sources that state A,B,C Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Editors- First, thank you Diannaa for adding "concentration camps" to the list of horrors that Christians in Germany who resisted based on faith to the Section under discussion. And, Kierzek for pointing to the edit. Yet, this is a start - not fully complete. They were dispossessed, families torn apart and thousands murdered in the most brutal inhumane/ unjust fashion conceivable. This is not to take away - at all- from the fate of others. But, what is the "message sent" to omit one concise sentence? Are not readers entitled to know? Are not future generations to hear the full truth?

Rjensen- I'm not at loss;your position lacks merit thus far. Your complaint that I have not provided RS's is just - well- not true. I provided several, one of them existing in the Article from Evans. And-once again- several Wikipedia links with numerous RS's that support what is being offered. While you have yet to produce a single RS quote to refute. Not a very solid argument. Not only this, I offered links to individual cases of those - yes, murdered by the Nazis in Germany for resisting based on their faith; each Article providing an abundance of RS citations in their own right.

This all started with the point about Christians - not only Catholics. Every historian of this period knows 2000+ Jevovah's Witnesses (from Germany in Germany) were murdered in cold blood for refusing to compromise their faith. Are they not Christians? Every historian knows that well over 1000 catholic priests died in the Dachua concentration camp - in Germany. They even have a memorial plaque on the grounds for Pete's sakes! With their names on it. Were they all there for resisting based on faith alone? No, but most were.

And, this notion of proving the motivation of the executioner is -again- off the mark that is, whether its political, or religious persecution. The real question is what motivated the victim to resist in the first instance. Yes? Politics, or their faith? The motivation of the executioner is secondary. In the eyes of the victim resisting based on faith? You can be sure they understood what was really happening. They literally staked their lives on it.

My motivation is not ideological, political, theological, or an agenda of some sort. My motivation is -justice and impartial objectivity. And, no more. To deny this fact based history is a grave injustice wether you have a bone to pick with any particular religion, or faith tradition, is not relevant to the objective reality of what actually- happened. With that, yet more victims of the Nazi nightmare who were killed, no, murdered or died in a concentration camp because of their faith based resistance to Nazism - in Germany- from Wikipedia with an overabundance of RS citations in each:

Paul Schneider (pastor) Protestant pastor, Maria Skobtsova Russian Orthodox nun, poet and French Resistance member, took the place of a Jewish woman about to taken to the gas chambers in a concentration camp- in Germany. Wladyslaw Goral - bishop murdered in a concentration camp - in Germany, Titus Brandsma catholic priest and renowned scholar of philosophy murdered in Dachua by lethal injection in a "medical experiment",  and there is plenty more where this came from -sadly. Now, I place the rest on the conscience of the good editors of this Article. And, have said my piece. Thank you all.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How Catholic Church was being destroyed on Polish territories annexed by Germany during the war can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany#Religion --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC) MyMoloboaccount - Thank you! Very much on the mark. There were some Christians (using that label loosely) -nor singling out Catholics, or the "Catholic Church"- who adapted: the Racial policy of Nazi Germany - the source of this hateful "subhuman" concept of the Slavic people and others. And, there was a movement called Positive Christianity among the Nazis who explicitly and formally incorporated this racism into their "faith tradition"; composed mostly of lax Protestants of northern Germany and some former Catholics. It is also true and correct that nationalism played a part.
 * Ethnic German Catholics were treated differently from non-German ones. Also some in German Catholic Church supported extermination of Poles and invasion of Poland.The Nazis who viewed Poles as subhumans planned to exterminate all Polish Catholics after their long planned war would come, and engaged in mass executions of clergy and destruction of churches.

As for the Catholic Church? The leadership (meaning the bishops as a body) formally denounced this racism. And, among the Protestants-most notably - the Confessing Church had done the same. The Orthodox Churches also published similar documents and positions. Like most history- we prefer simple answers to complex issues, but if we're seeking truth we have to contend with the complexity of the human experience. No escaping it.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To give you a second opinion, it seems to me that you, Integrityandhonesty are wrong on this issue, at least as far as THIS article is concerned. Lets take one of your statements as an example: --lucid 178.6.103.153 (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * it's certainly true, that many catholics in poland were killed; however that was only incidally; they were not beeing killed because they were catholics; they were killed for reasons like being not german or for resisting or impeding german plans. It may be true, that some resisters were resisting because they were catholic; but that's a mere guess; no one knows that for sure. In my opinion that's very unlikely; I think most people who resistet were resisting because - whatever their religion: it was just the most ethically sound thing to do. I would call that human behaviour; not catholic behaviour.
 * Furthermore; even if you could somehow prove the motives of long dead people; it does not matter; because the germans weren't killing them for their catholic religion but for other reasons. Historic knowledge about polish motivations for resisting may fit into another article; but it's just not relevant for this article because their is no reason to believe that nazi germany wanted to hurt catholics; that would be rather suicadal; given that about half of them were catholics themselves!
 * If you are not convinced by now; imagine tommorow comes a plumber who has convincing statistics, that the germans did indeed kill many hundreds of polish plumbers; many of them active in the resistance. That's almost certainly true; just because a) many poles - esp skilled - were killed and b) many poles were plumbers; and c) many were resisting. So; is that a reason to grant his wish to mention the polish plumbers in this article? Would you comclude the germans seem to have had a special hate for plumbers? If so, you have no reason to refuse mentioning the other thousands of sub-groupings within the polish population that suffered life losses.
 * And you can be very certain: if you include catholics; in no time you will have atheists, protestants, buddhists, homosexuals, and so on claiming that they resistet too and were also cruelly killed for their beliefs. But how could this be important for understanding the history of nazi germany? It isn't, because it's just a statistical fluke: if you kill many people in christian nation; you are almost certain to kill many christians just by chance.
 * Note: you would have a point if you could prove that catholics were e.g. much more resisting or much more jew-saving than people of other religions.  (Do you really believe this is true? Ok, but please understand that such overbearing claims need exceptionally good RS) That would have a place in another wikipedia article. To include it here you would furthermore need to prove german intent. Against that, you argued, the victims did care more about their own reasons than about german intent. Even if, what follows? That every victims reason be listed here? No, just your petty reason? Why? Does not every victim care more about his own personal reason than about your fav? That kind of thinking leads nowhere. Invoking the pain of victims does not make you right.

Hello Anonymous 178.6.103.153

The topic and subject is/was the section already existent in the Article titled:Oppression of Christians.

The exclusion of non-christian faith traditions, (i.e, Muslims - or others) and so on is because it is not the topic. Whereas, you make an indirect valid point. Why stop at Christians as to faith based (motivated) resistance and their oppression by the Nazis?

In the case of Poland, it was and still is, a people who - in the main - profess to be Catholic. As stated, this is not to saying this is the only Christian faith tradition then, or now, that resisted in Poland, or elsewhere. Or, that Catholics were the only people to resisted based on their belief in the existence of God, Christian, Jewish or otherwise. Never stated that. My input was to address the topic at hand- which was - and is, the dilution of the reality that thousands of Christians were murdered by the Nazis precisely because they were motivated by their Christian faith. More to the point? The point in its entirety is to state it's unjust to reduce this history to a mere foot note that Christians were merely arrested, or harassed, but indeed, were murdered in pre-mediated cold bold, precisely because of their Christian faith inspired resistance. And, I offered multiple RS sources in my submission.

In point in fact, I specifically stated this and offered examples of non-Catholics who resisted as well who resisted to the point of being murdered. So, not certain where you're taking us. Nor, did I state atheists, or agnostics were/are less inclined to resist for ethical, or moral reasons, objective crimes against humanity regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, or vocation as in your analogy of your beloved plumber. So, I struggle to see your point in response to what was actually stated in this regard.

Further, there are many well documented examples of many people of faith who were murdered precisely because of their faith based (motivation) resistance to the Nazis. Their own surviving writings, the Nazis own surviving documents and first account witnesses are in the thousands, such as Maximilian Kolbe. Nor, was there an attempt in any form or fashion to "prove" Catholics vs others ('religious' or not) were more "Jew saving"- as you put it - than any others. Where do you see that in what was submitted? With all this, there are literally hundreds of scholarly works and books on this topic. I suggest you read a few and learn for yourself that thousands upon thousands of Jews were spared the fate of the Holocaust by people of faith precisely because of their faith. And, many were oppressed and paid with their lives in the process of their faith based resistance.

As for diminishing, or dismissing, the pain of others? Once more - the topic was explicit and exclusively about Christians as the section is titled Oppression of Christians. And, it was stated very clearly that this was not in any manner to take from the suffering of others - period. But, the injustice of grossly understating that Christians suffered explicitly because of their faith. If you visit the Article Catholic Church and Nazi Germany or Religion in Nazi Germany you'll discover an abundance of 'exceptionally good' RS's' to the point raised, that indeed there were powerful forces within Nazism motivated and desired to dismantle Christianity. Thank you for your comments - while I challenge now a legitimate refutation (with 'exceptionally good' RS's) that Christians did not suffer persecution under Nazi rule and thousands murdered because of their faith based resistance. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Integrityandhonesty,

"The topic and subject is/was the section already existent in the Article titled:Oppression of Christians."


 * Yes. And this section is quite good as it is now, because it describes the situation in germany rather well as a continuation of an ongoing struggle between the state and the churches about influences on society. Note that this is nothing specific to germany, but happened in all european states to some degree. The state government does not want the churches to work against its policies; the creation of national states in europe almost always constrained the churches power to religious issues which was used to much broader powers in the past. The idea of the nation state and democracy is just incompatible with major political decisions being made in rome. Thus, there was much fighting until stable demarcations of legitimate spheres of influence were agreed on. During that struggle states often tried to reduce religousness and further identification with the state, sometimes using questionable means. BUT this was in no way meant to be anti-christian or anti-catholic; the state couldn't care less about religion as long as it did not interfere with its aims. Actually in many european states politicians rather wanted to promote religion; to maintain the morale order and of course because they were religious themselves. In the soviet state or in most cummunist states the church fared FAR WORSE; christians being converted to atheists using force. Overall there was less anti-christian sentiment in germany than in many other european countries (eg france). It's true that there were some nazis wanting to reintroduce germanic gods, etc.; but this had neither wide support, nor was it realized to any degree.
 * So, while the existing conflicts between state and church continued after the nazis rose to power; there is just no evidence that they wanted to harrass christians or the church. Also, that would have been stupid, because that would have provoked widespread opposition. Moderate anti church measures just happnened to be neccessary for aims like consolidation of power. I oppose changing the article the way you suggest, because it would imply anti-religous sentiments and persecution that simply didn't exist in germany. Germany was a christian nation with a christian population (although doing some not so christian things).

"The exclusion of non-christian faith traditions, (i.e, Muslims - or others) and so on is because it is not the topic."


 * This article is called "Nazi germany". If you get in your favourite victim group for no other reason that nazis killed some of that group; dozens of other groups would be justified to also mention broadly their favorite victim group. That would make the article worse because it would give false impressions. While it is indeed justified to write about christian situation at that time, that's already done in a nice balanced way; your changes would unbalance thatand create false impressions. Thus we have to stop this now: NO SPECIAL VICTIM GROUPS at all without good justification.
 * About your insistance on the section topic: this obviously does not justify writing about all there is to know about the literal section topic; but only that which is relevant to the article subject at the same time and balanced and proven. Yours is neither in my view.

"In the case of Poland, ..."


 * As i said, I don't see any RS that proves anti-catholic intent; it was coincidental; almost the same would have happened if poland had been 99% protestant or buddhist. Furthermore, this article is not about poland but about germany.


 * Also, you didn't respond to the problem of proving that resistance was faith based. That's just unlikely, knowing from psychology that all humans would feel compelled to resist. This is just a biased interpretation from people that like thinking that way. All this 'wanting to see victimization and discrimination of special groups' seems to be a disease of our times. As a christian, think about homosexuals complaining about being discriminated against by the church and state today. You seem to be doing the same ... structurally.


 * Regarding that powerful forces in germany; sorry no, being anti-christian was not even a minority view in germany; just some lunatic theorists; most likely LESS in number than e.g. in france.


 * Regarding things you did or did not say or imply: Yes, it is indeed very strange that you use arguments which speak against your view as if they were supporting your view. E.g. you concede that poland was almost 100% catholic, but you dont seem to notice that this undermindes your claims. Imagine poland was only 10% catholic but the nazis still managed to kill almost all of them while leaving almost all non-catholics alive: THAT would be rather good evidence for a special nazi hatred against catholics. But when almost all are catholic, even if you kill randomly you will kill mostly catholics; thus that does not mean anything in that case.

--lucid 188.109.163.86 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 Hello Anonymous 188.109.163.86?

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. There is no attempt to suggest this Article is "Anti-Catholic/Christian" but rather pointing out that it was an injustice to characterize the fate of many Christians (including in Nazi Germany) who suffered being murdered for their faith based resistance. Once more, if you visit the Articles referenced you will discover this, which within themselves provide a cornucopia of RS's. This has been addressed by the way. Weeks ago just to let you know. Nor, am I (or others) concerned about 'winning arguments' but getting to objective history.

Indeed, there was a response to 'proving' faith based resistance. Did I not express that we have surviving documents of the victims themselves? Were not several Article references offered for you to visit? Not sure where you're going here either. What manner of evidence does one need beyond the words of the victims themselves, testimony of eyewitnesses and the Nazis as to why and what events led to their murder? Beyond this, it becomes circular. When a conversation becomes circular there is usually an ideology to blame. Not interested in that either - but seeking and supporting the truth.

To suggest thousands were not murdered by the Nazis in Germany and throughout the Nazi Empire because of their faith inspired resistance is to deny reality and a great injustice to objective history. It's that plain and simple. Like the noses on our faces Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Nazis murdered priests along with other intellectuals because they were intellectuals, not because of their notional faith-based resistance. Plenty of priests were not resisting. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Binksternet- Yes, this is indeed correct also, but we assume all these priest's were simply victims with no faith behind their offering their lives for their faith for all to see and remember. As priests - this is part and parcel of their vocation. Yet, this was not the point I was making from the start; nor was I singling out Catholics - clergy or lay - but, again, all Christians regardless of faith tradition, as the Article section was titled: Oppression of Christians. And that, prior to this, it (the Article section) simply stated they (Christians) were merely arrested and harassed for their resistance. A gross understatement to put it mildly. This is far from the reality of it.

Thousands were, yes, arrested, and harassed in Germany. But, also, dispossessed, tortured and murdered. Thousands of them - not simply a rare exceptional 'saint'. And, it was their faith that motivated them in most cases. As an example Erich Klausener and others I have already pointed out above. The most clear case is the Jehovah Witnesses who resolutely refused to recognize Hitler as the Nazis required. In Germany - it is estimated 2,500 to 5000 were killed for this alone.

Of course - we can all agree- most 'Christians' (including some/many priests) did not resist as they were called to. Otherwise, none of this would have - perhaps -happened in the first instance. This only tells us few had the courage - or sincerely believed what they professed - to live out their faith in the face of a brute thug, and when much is on the line to 'push back'. So, it begs the question. We're they truly following the example of Christ? The answer is clearly - no. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. You Christians are so not like your Christ." But then, he was murdered by a Hindu extremist. Yet, we should be slow to judge. In the face of raw murderous industrialized thuggery reason goes out the window.

This being objectively true - in no manner should this fact take a single ounce or iota away from those who had, and clearly those that had paid handsomely - in the thousands - in Germany. And, history should preserve and honor their memory. Enough said.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in Territorial changes
In part Territorial changes is written: "The Saarland was made part of Czechoslovakia" Shouldn't be there France instead of Czechoslovakia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helldix (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Thank you for spotting this mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Saarland prior to being incorporated into the Federal Republic of Germany was a French Protectorate, but it was never annexed by France.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Motto
@Binksternet. Should we then remove "E pluribus unum" from the USA article? Or the "(popular)" and "(unofficial)" anthems from German Empire? etc. -- Director  ( talk )  19:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not want an unofficial motto in the infobox, but I have no problem with prose in the article body telling the reader about various mottoes, including "Volksgemeinschaft" (The People's Communiity), "Wach auf, du deutsches Land!" (Germany awake!), "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), "Bread and work", "All wheels must roll for victory", "The common good before the individual good", "through death to a millennium", "He who possesses the youth, possesses the future", and of course, "The Fiihrer is always right". Trying to choose one of these for the infobox is too thorny a task. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was extensive discussion about this point in May, and the decision was taken that this was more a party slogan than a national motto. We couldn't find any sources to back up the assertion that this (or any other) motto was the official national motto, and as far as I know all content in a GA-level article must have sources, so we took it out. There's more information at Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we already discussed this (per the link above) and the consensus was removal. Kierzek (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I read somewhere that was the most popular "motto", I'll see if I can find the publication. -- Director  ( talk )  04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that "ein rich" was A motto, but putting it into the inforbox implies it was The motto, which I think is unsupported, even with the current ref. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Large addition about religion
I have removed a large addition by Ozhistory about religion. My opinion is that a thousand-word addition on this topic gives it undue weight (increasing the article size from 12,400 words to 13,400 words). It makes the section on persecution of the Christian Churches more than triple the size (1510 words versus 439 words) of the section on persecution of the Jews, which was the core thing the Nazis did. An off-topic addition this size could possibly even jeopardise its status as a Good Article, as this article should be a summary of key points without going into too much detail. Perhaps the material could be added to Religion in Nazi Germany instead? I would be interested to see opinions of other editors. Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The section should retain its brief summary style layout. It should not be expanded to cover more details. The details belong in the main article on the subtopic of religion in Nazi Germany. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you; this article covers a lot of ground as it is; only an overview should be included with links to sub-articles, as it is now. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Diannaa - you make a good point on relative size to Jewish section. Still, the existing section on the churches is inadequate, and in need of improvement. This can be achieved with the insertion of a few basic wikilinks - eg to kirchenkampf, Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp, perhaps Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland (insofar as it relates to areas annexed to Germany) etc, and just some basic stats, and key players. Additionally there are some inaccuracies (or incomplete thoughts) in the existing text - such as the implication that Mit brennender Sorge was issued by Pius XII (it wasn't, it was an encyclical by his predecessor Pius XI); the suggestion that oppression of Catholics started around 1935 (rather than 1933) and; and the statement that 700 Confessing Pastors were arrested (the regime seems to have done this 700 man round up at least twice in response to specific actions by that Church). Overall the length and breadth of the Church Struggle is not yet summarised. I propose to work on a minimalist "brief summary style layout", which improves accuracy and detail, without significantly expanding length. Ozhistory (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need to present the length and breadth of the struggle here; this is supposed to be an overview article. The addition of a few wikilinks is a good idea, as is correcting any inaccuracies. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , none of your citations conform to the existing citation style (Harvard citations using {sfn} templates). Please fix this problem if you know how. If you don't know how, please say so. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC) No comment for now on the quality of the material; I am too tired to review it right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa - no sorry, I don't know how to conform to the citation style. I will pay attention to how this is done for future reference. Please do check for any of my own errors or omissions in new content. I have stuck to three paragraph structure and note that the combined section on "Persecution of Jews" and "Holocaust" amounts to 8 paragraphs (rightly given much weight); while sum total of "Oppression of Christian religions" section is comparable to length of "Education" and "Role of Women & Family" sections in the Society section.Ozhistory (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I will check your work, as it took me some 200 hours to bring the article to Good Article status, and I don't want anything to jeopardise that. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the links already appear elsewhere in the article, and there's some obvious errors in grammar. I will start with the citations. The pagination matches on Shirer, so I will go ahead and convert to cite to the edition that's already in the bibliography. For Kershaw 2008, the copy I use is over at the library, so I will check and see when I get to work whether or not the pagination agrees. I think you have access to Kershaw's Problems and Perspectives? If so, could you please check out the material in this addition and see if the page numbers agree? That way we won't have to add another edition of this book to the bibliography. Thanks.
 * Please provide ISBN numbers:
 * Rising '44: the Battle for Warsaw
 * Plotting Hitler's Death: The German Resistance to Hitler 1933-1945 - this one is also missing the year of publication
 * An Honourable Defeat: A History of the German Resistance to Hitler
 * Encyclopædia Britannica: Dachau, by Michael Berenbaum - also needs a volume number, page number, edition number, publisher name, and location. resolved - it's a web page.
 * That's all I have time to do for now; I have to go to work. I hope this content is so much better that you think absorbing four or five hours of my editing time is worthwhile – time that in my opinion would be better spent improving a krappy article rather than on an article that has already achieved Good Article status and is in far better shape than most. I know you mean well and want to help, but still, I am angry. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Was asked to get theses books ISBN's .... as for Encyclopædia Britannica...my guess is that its this page -- Moxy (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Thanks Moxy. But it would be better if Ozhistory provided the ISBNs from the volumes he actually used to source the content. That way we can be sure the page numbers given in the article will match up with the source text. For example, the copy of Davies you give was published by Pan Macmillan in 2008, but Ozhistory is citing a 2003 edition published by Viking. Is the pagination the same in the two editions? -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Identifiers as follows:


 * * Rising '44: the Battle for Warsaw - ISBN 0-670-03284-0
 * * Plotting Hitler's Death: The German Resistance to Hitler 1933-1945 - published 1996 - I will confirm ISBN shortly.
 * * An Honourable Defeat: A History of the German Resistance to Hitler - I will confirm ISBN shortly.
 * * I have deleted the Britannica citation, as it is not necessary to the text.


 * As for whether these additions are worth your time, Diannaa, I can't say - but I certainly have put more than 4 of 5 hours into them myself, and believe that the end result will be a worthwhile improvement. If the overall article is "good status", this particular section wasn't (sourced to only one text, containing inaccuracies and ambiguities, and failing to make use of existing material by wikilinking). Through linking to wikipedia articles on the Kirchenkampf, Ludwig Müller,  Martin Niemöller, Hanns Kerrl,  Erich Klausener, the Priest barracks of Dachau, and the Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland etc, the visiting reader is now far better placed to read further on the topic, and my citations for the additional texts are the product of several months study, now shared for the benefit of wikipedia. Thank you for your work on formatting of citations. Two more ISBNs to follow (I need to view these at library) Ozhistory (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the addition could still use trimming; Sorry, Dianna but I don't have Ian Kershaw's book, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation; btw- I am glad you removed Encyclopædia Britannica; it should not be used as an RS cite source here, anyway. Kierzek (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes Kierzek, I'll do another trim review. Ozhistory (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Ozhistory: Sorry to be so grouchy. You are right, the whole section was sourced to Evans, so this was worth doing. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've haven't yet mastered the sfn citation system, sorry, but have added another couple of names to list of assassinated leaders.Ozhistory (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany's war in the east was based..
''Germany's war in the East was based on Hitler's long-standing view that Jews were the great enemy of the German people and that Lebensraum was needed for Germany's expansion. He focused on Eastern Europe, aiming to defeat Poland and the Soviet Union and remove or kill the resident Jews and Slavs''


 * Either this is worded incorrectly, or it is a ridiculous assertion as to why Germany invaded "the East" in the first place.


 * as for Poland, Germany didn't invade because of "Hitler's long-standing view that Jews were the great enemy of the German people and Lebensraum was needed" Germany invaded Poland because Poland failed to allow Germany unrestricted passage to its exclave East Prussia and allow for a revision of the status of a city that was 95% German - Danzig. You can argue that this has something to do with Lebensraum, but then at least give a quote for Lebensraum vis-a-vis the invasion of Poland.


 * As for the Soviet Union, where is the source stating that Germany invaded because of "Hitler's long-standing view that Jews were the great enemy of the German people and Lebensraum was needed"? What about Hitler's belief that a victory there would force the UK to negotiate a peace with Germany and end the war - a conclusion based on the misconception, as evidenced through the "all we have to do is kick in the door" remark, that the Soviet Union was still the largely-unindustrialized, poorly organized country that had attacked Germany in 1914? What about the fact that, as long as the war with the UK was still on, Germany was dependant upon oil from Rumania, and it was only through trade with the Soviet Union that Hitler could get what the UK was sitting atop in the Middle East?


 * Where is the statement that these military actions were carried out purely because of racial ideology and not due to circumstance or military assessment? --91.105.17.150 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These points are already addressed in the article, as far as I can see. for example, in the section about the conquest of Europe, it says that "the Nazis seized from the French thousands of locomotives and rolling stock, stockpiles of weapons, and raw materials such as copper, tin, oil, and nickel.[74] Financial demands were levied on the governments of the occupied countries as well; payments for occupation costs were received from France, Belgium, and Norway" and "Barbarossa was intended to destroy the Soviet Union and seize its natural resources for subsequent aggression against the Western powers" and at the top of "Turning point and collapse" it says "Germany, and Europe as a whole, was almost totally dependent on foreign oil imports. In an attempt to resolve the persistent shortage, Germany launched Fall Blau (Case Blue), an offensive against the Caucasian oilfields, in June 1942." And as far as why Germany invaded Poland, you might be confusing the reasons for the invasion given in their own propaganda with the actual reason, and the reason that's backed up by the sources used to prepare this article.   -- Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewording needed.
"Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state." That in the first paragraph, to avoid redundancy and to get more to the point, should be written as: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the Nazi Party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.126.27 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but then we've got three sentences in a row that use the word "Nazi". Not sure which is better., -- Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When read in context, the first and second sentences are clear enough that the country was under the control of Hitler and the Nazi Party; which formed the Nazi state, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether to portray the era as one of statism or one-party dictatorship. The ideology of the party is probably more the issue than the statism, since statism was common among the great powers of Europe anyway. All of the Fascists and Communists were statists, and the Nazis likewise. Furthermore, it must be stressed that party loyalty resulted in treason to the Weimar state--Reichstag Fire et al, so statism was not exactly the point of Nazi Germany, nor a point of difference from Weimar, or from Prussian Germany before, etc. Political affiliation defined Germany at this time, regardless of official state identification with Nazi party. It is strange, however, that the article is not called the Greater German Reich, when that is the official name, otherwise we would be reading the title of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or Soviet Union article as Communist Russia or Red Russia as opposed to White Russia. Nazi Germany is a political description for the article that does stress the partisan identity of Germany at the time, no less than Communist Russia would, had it been chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.126.27 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the name of the article, "Greater German Reich" gets 640,000 Google hits and "Nazi Germany" gets over 58 million hits. And here on Wikipedia, "Greater German Reich" gets about 500 hits per month, and "Nazi Germany" gets over 100,000. Therefore the article is titled "Nazi Germany" because, as the most common name, that's where people are expecting to find the information. Regarding the differences between "statism" and "one-party dictatorship": We are using the word "state" to mean state (polity) or sovereign state, not meaning to imply that the Nazis were proponents of statism. That sort of distinction is probably beyond the scope of this article, even assuming that such material could be found in the sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Reread the quote. It clearly makes the case for statist control of the population. Because statism was hardly unique to Nazi Germany, it begs the case for a rewording. The description should read more like the Great Purge by Stalin, for political supremacy over the people, rather than that the state in and of itself simply bossed people around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.126.27 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that the passage needs to be re-worded, so sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

did nazi germany have a national motto?
Did nazi germany have a national motto and if so which one? 83.180.210.160 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

we can resolve the issue here instead of edit warring 83.180.210.160 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

they may have, but we need sourcing to determine if so and which one, which we do not have. For example, here are other phrases which are refereed to in reliable sources as "the nazi motto" (Used in the sense of "The phrase X" (none of which are the "official motto"
 * "The jews are our Misfortune" []
 * "Deuchland uber alles" (also the national anthem)
 * Kraft durch Freude (Joy through Strength) []
 * Arbeit macht frei []
 * Blut und Boden [] []
 * Blut und Ehren []
 * Gott mit uns
 * Loyal and Firm behind the fuhrur []
 * The german everyday shall be beautiful []
 * Deutschland, erwache []

And I could find many more quite easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ok can some one find the correct one, because it is very important to the infobox of the article 83.180.210.160 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The one that seems to be the "most official" is actually Gott mit uns, which was on the coat of arms of the empire, etc, but I don't think there is sufficient sourcing to declare it the winner by any means. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is "important to the infobox". The infobox is there to serve the reader—period. If there is no particular slogan or motto that can be described as the official one then we leave that infobox parameter empty. The existence of an infobox parameter does not mean we require an entry in it. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Gott mit uns" is not nazi germany it is the german empire 83.180.210.160 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Like many things, the 3rd reich attempted to provide continuity with the 1st and 2nd reichs. They used the motto extensively (Although I still would say none are sufficiently sourced to be "official", and there may in fact not have been an "official" motto, which would have required some sort of deceleration or law being passed saying it was the official motto. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the laws about the the other historic german entities, on wikipedia they all have one motto 83.180.191.31 (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue of a national motto has been repeatedly discussed since May 2013. I have checked and found no reliable sources that name any one motto as the national motto of Nazi Germany. The IP who opened this RFC is very likely user  User:Chaosname, as the IP geolocates to his known location. He most recently socked under username Peterzor. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Either there was one or there was not. Unless a reliable source states a motto is the "official" one, it is irrelevant. If there isn't one, we don't put one in the article. Easy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or it would be if a slew of other former country infoboxes weren't crammed full of "unofficial" mottoes, anthems, flags, symbols etc. People have a tendency to get hung up on these kind of issues here. Imo pick the most common one if possible and use that, making clear its " (unofficial) ". To my knowledge that's the "Ein... etc" stuff. -- Director  ( talk )  13:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peacemaker67: If there's no evidence for an official motto then no motto should be listed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't grounds for picking some unofficial motto. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I concur with the 'naut on this: if none, then omit. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As Dianna states above, we have been all through this before; there was no official motto. Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be any clear official motto. In that case, I favor just skipping it...  unless someone can conclusively show that there was an official motto.  My research show virtually no results for "official nazi motto". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason that we do not include a motto in the infobox is that there is no agreement that there was a (single) established motto. Though a motto needs to be established, there is no obvious requirement that it has to be official. This may be important because infoboxes are intended to provide consistency. Some countries may have both a conventional motto and an official motto. In other cases, the "officialness" (or even legality) of an actual motto may be unclear. It is, of course, important that the reader is not misled. --Boson (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be a winner among this list: however, the phrase on the crest could be put in the infobox as "Gott mi uns" (on the crest). Perhaps the others could be added to a new section about mottos? the  one  sean  14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy to leave the infobox here without a motto, but as a general rule I think we should remember that the primary method of establishing a motto is to use it on a heraldic achievement (particularly on the motto scroll below or above the coat of arms). I suppose this is best discussed somewhere else such as Infobox country.--Boson (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the motto of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Germany. It was however the motto of the German army (which was a semi-autonomous institution) under both regimes and the Weimar Republic (the SS, who were of course all Nazis, used the rather different 'Mein Ehre heisst Treue' (roughly 'my honour is my faithfulness'). 'Gott Mit Uns' was still used by the paramilitary West German police until the 1960s. I have never heard that Nazi Germany had any 'official' motto, although I think (can't be sure off-hand) the one most widely used 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer' (one people, one land, one leader). Hope that helps.31.54.9.127 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Many slogans were used by the Nazis but the main was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer literally translated into One People (Aryans) One State (Greater German Reich) One Leader (Hitler).--Sphere1994 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rassenschande
I've edited text into the article "At the same time Nazi propaganda created the concept of "race defilement" (Rassenschande) to justify the need for a restrictive law." The reason I've added it is rather simple, after the laws came intact this was the official law against it and it is worth mentioning, it is found on almost anything to do with Nazi Germany articles since it was a prominent key of Nazism ideology.

@ My apologies Diannaa the information is not from the cited Evans book (I have put a full stop in between that and the other sentence that is cited for Evan's work).--Windows66 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything in a GA level article and above needs sources (except for the most common knowledge), and especially once it's been challenged. In fact we are past the stage on this wiki where we are accepting unsourced content in any of our articles. Referring to other Wikipedia articles is not adequate, as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. I have found relevant material in Evans 2005 on page 539 so I have added a citation. Note this article puts the German terminology first and then gives the translation in brackets, so I have changed that, and tweeked the wording a bit as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's no problem, I seen the source myself via Google books and it does in fact mention this which I was unaware of, thanks for adding this bit in.

Should this not be re-worded:

"These laws initially prohibited sexual relations and marriages between Aryans and Jews and were later extended to "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring"."

to:

These laws initially prohibited sexual relations and marriages at first between Aryans and Jews but was later extended to "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring".

Would this not make more sense?--Windows66 (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the first version is better, because it uses a simpler sentence structure and is more direct. But it should say "later extended to include "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring"." -- Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Google books will only take you so far, as they will only allow about ten views and then you won't be able to view that book any more from that IP (so as to encourage you to buy the book). I bought the Evans series and a few other books and have access to more at my local library. I often get stuff in on inter-library loan as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That's better, thanks for the minor edit. I did not actually know that about Google books ten times from your IP to encourage you to buy the book, I guess you learn something new everyday. :D!--Windows66 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't bank on getting ten looks - That's just an estimate. I've had occasions where I've gotten a lot fewer looks than that. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

lead
someone changed the intro of nazi germany from the original which is better:
 * Nazi Germany and the 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. Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state.

to this:


 * Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party, with Adolf Hitler as Führer. Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state through hierarchical institutions.

the first is better and is more good and simple Ionchari (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The two versions also have different meanings. The original version says that Hitler was in control, and Michaelwuzthere's version says the country was controlled by the Nazi Party. I think the original version is better and more accurately relfects the decision making process in Nazi Germany - Hitler was in control. Once the material has been challenged, per the B-R-D cycle it needs to stay out, unless a consensus is reached to change it. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa, overall. Hitler was the center of the Nazi wheel around which all revolved. The second part I would probably tweak to read: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the state." This gives a little more detail as to what type of totalitarian state. But with that said, I can live with the original version, if need be. Kierzek (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kierzek, your suggestion is essentially to add the word "Fascist"; I think that's a good idea. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my suggestion, as it was a type of "Fascism". Kierzek (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. I would also change National Socialist German Workers' Party (this English version is seldom used) to NSDAP (the much better known version of the German initials) Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead with these two small amendments. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

German citizens classified according to their appearance
"Not only were the Jews racially categorised, but German citizens were also classified according to how Nordic/Aryan they were."

This bit of text has no source and from all my reading and studying of this era it appears that this is not true. If you look at the racial Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany there is no mention of anything to do with physical appearance of the citizen but rather their ancestry and that is all that mattered. Only Europeans "Aryans" were able to be citizens of the Reich but again there is no mention of the physical look of one, the Nazis were well aware of the different sub-races within Europe and if you look at the top Nazi leaders there is hardly much resemblance between say Hitler and Goebbels (Hitler had blue eyes, Goebbels had brown eyes) but neither of them were viewed any higher or less than each other. Racial Nazi theorists also recognized all the different sub-races and categorized Germans into different sub-races such as Nordic and Alpine but they were not viewed higher than the other. While Himmler was certainly pro-Nordic (despite his own appearance) again there is no mention of "Nordics only". In fact there were many people who identified themselves as Jewish or were of Jewish descent with "Nordic looks" but this was not taken into account, physical appearance was not relevant in Nazi Germany. I will put a citation needed for this text as it seems to be incorrect.--Windows66 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This content was added in mid-December by User:Obenritter - everything from the phrase "Upon seizing power, the Nazis took repressive measures" to the end of the section was added at that time. In my opinion all of it is redundant as it is a summary of the following material, and apparently some of it is not backed up by the quoted sources. We don't normally summarise / repeat content in our articles, so therefore I think all of it can be removed without damaging the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing for retention of the material, as I think it is already adequately covered, but will point out Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany which has several items backing the "looks" particularly " although efforts were made under the order of Himmler to identify people who were seen by the Nazis as descendants of German settlers, particularly the Nordics, in eastern Europe. The people then underwent a "racial selection" process to determine whether or not they were "racially valuable", if the individual passed they would be re-Germanised and were then forcefully taken from their families in order to be raised as Germans" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The new material is a little different, though: It says that people in Germany proper (not the conquered territories) were also "classified according to how Nordic/Aryan they were". Do we have a citation for that specific fact? -- Diannaa (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, it just seems as though nowhere can confirm that German citizens (whether Germans themselves or "related blood") were judged on their appearance of being Nordic. Heydrich had a Nordic appearance but certainly was not viewed more highly than say Hitler. Most certainly there existed a stereotype "Jewish look" by Nazi propaganda but nothing suggest that Germans who were non-Nordic were viewed as not the same as Nordic Germans. It also says "Not only were the Jews racially categorised" which is also incorrect as either one was an Aryan, Jew or Mischlinge - there were no bits in between, apart from what is irrelevant in what we are discussing is that some Jews and Mischlinges were declared "honorary Aryans".

@Gaijin42 - that is not about German citizens though and them being categorized by their appearance of how "Nordic" one was. As you are aware, the Nazis wanted to reclaim all the people belonging to the "German race" and the people who looked Nordic were viewed as more than likely of Germanic descent, not all people who were Nordic and were tested for their "racial examination" got the so-called pass of being racially valuable by the Nazis. Many Germans were reclaimed that were not Nordic too.--Windows66 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I say remove it. Racial classification was a part of the concept of Lebensraum, through a reclaiming of territories lost per the Versailles Treaty, making and expanding/seizing territory to the east for the German people. Racial classifications were also part of the major anti-Semitic laws which started in April 1933 and subsequent laws which went on to include ethnic people considered of non-Aryan descent both inside and then outside Germany proper. But, although, physical features of Aryan/Nordic considered Germans was championed as ideal, the citizens of the Reich had to prove their Aryan/Nordic racial background. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've put a citation template on the text but if someone wants to remove it then go for it as that is what I also propose. Citizens of the Reich were never determined by their physical appearance.

@Kierzek - But the citizens of the Reich only had to prove their Aryan background, Nordic was irrelevant. Although the Aryan master race ideal stereotyped image was Nordic but not standard or essential.--Windows66 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote it that way because there are several historians who use the terms together or interchangeable in a general sense, whether you (or even I) agree or not is not relevant. What is relevant is we agree it was a racial not physical classification for citizens of the Reich, per WP:RS. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the one sentence. Since my idea of removing the entire paragraph is not gaining any support, I am stopping there for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Kierzek, Windows66 and Diannaa - The statement did not claim that German citizens were judged by their physical appearance. It said they had to prove how German/Nordic/Aryan they were. This is an irrefutable fact. Not sure if you are aware of this or not but Germanic ancestry and Nordic/Aryan are related according to the Nazi understanding of the world. (See for instance: George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. New York: Howard Fertig, 1999.) So what you are contending is essentially semantics. The reason Nordic and not merely Germanic heritage applies is that it was suitable for a German to marry an Englishman or somebody with roots in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Holland as they were considered racial cousins (Nordic/Aryan) despite that they were not German. For more on the particular topic of racial categorization, see: Eric Ehrenreich: The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-253-34945-3 or Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann. The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991 (ISBN 0-521-39114-8), especially pp. 23-43 where Burleigh relates how in the context of Nazi Germany, nearly everything was about the "Volk" which in the community of the Third Reich meant race. (You could actually re-insert the sentence and refer to those pages in Burleigh and Wippermann's book). As you know, Hilter was obsessed with racial purity and avoiding ethnic pollution, hence the measure to identify Germans and distinguish them from Jews. Think for a moment of the number of instances where the Germans use racial delineations and the profound number of linguistic expressions in German in this regard: Rassengenossen (racial comrade), Volksgenossen (ethnic comrades), Volksgemeinschaft (ethnic community) Volksseele (soul of the people), Volkskörper (ethnic body politic), Rassenstaat (racial state), Rassenstolz (racial pride), Rassenpolitik (racial politics), Rassenschutz (racial protection) and of course, Rassenschande (despoliation or defilement of the race). To think that German citizens were not likewise categorized is defied by the mere existence of these words in the LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii)- Language of the Third Reich (borrowing from Victor Klemperer here).

Another thing for you take a look at the Nazi use of the Ahnenpass to establish legitimate Germanic/Nordic/Aryan bloodlines. For those "wishing to join the SS - this went even further as they had to submit a detailed "Sippentafel" to prove purity but I will forego an explication hereby for the sake of brevity. Just suffice it to say that it went deeper into the historical genealogy than even the Ahnenpass. So for you to say that the Reich did not racially categorize its own people, is incorrect. Otherwise, why would it be necessary for pairs to be married to have to prove their ancestral purity - see: Der Ahnenpaß des Ehepaares. Verlag für Standesamtswesen, Berlin 1939. Both the Ahnenpass and the Familienstammbuch (another important component in establishing suitable racial identity for those in the Volksgemeinschaft) were about establishing racial purity for German citizens. Once you have reviewed these, you can also look at the work of Dr. Volkmar Wiess in his article: Weiss, Volkmar: Die Vorgeschichte des arischen Ahnenpasses. Teil I: Das sogenannte Blutsbekenntnis. Genealogie 50. Jg. (2001) S. 417-436; Teil II: Historische oder völkische Genealogie?, S. 497-507; Teil III: Die Machtergreifung der Viehzüchter. Heft 7/8. You may also want to peruse the two Wikipedia sites Nazism and Race and/or Racial Policy of Nazi Germany again for a better understanding over the connection between Nordic/Germanic/Aryan. Nowhere however, did the sentence mention the attempt to gauge human beings by appearance - although it did happen in varying degrees in and out of Germany.

The reason for the inclusion (the summary if you will) was to bring together the disparate subject matter about the Nazi seizure of power since it was not really coherently aggregated. It is akin to the closing of a book chapter and is of value to the reader. Historians would not do this unless it had merit. There are several other places where I find the Wikipage on Nazi Germany lacking in this respect but the section on the Nazi seizure of power was most overt due to the fact that so much material was glossed over at breakneck speed.

Once you come to the realization that the original sentence was NOT in error, please consider revising it back to its original form. Nevertheless, as I am not the originator of the page nor do I possess administrative authority for its content, I will defer to those of you who do. I will refrain from adding substantive content to this page in the future despite my corresponding expertise. (talk)


 * I think the sentence is still wrong in all categories no matter which way you look at it, the source you use The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution does not mention anything of a Nordic Aryan being viewed any higher than a non-Nordic Aryan. Jews were racially categorized differently to Germans and in the Nazis eyes were not even German and became known as "subject of the state" with loss of German citizenship and forbid from having sexual relations and marriages with Germans and other Aryans. The term "Aryan" given by your source according to official Nazi definition were all non-Jewish white Europeans, this includes more than just Germanic or Nordic people. The original sentence is in error because it is stating that German citizens were judged by how Nordic/Aryan their looked but this utterly false, a German was a German to Hitler and the Nazis, it did not matter whether one was Nordic, Alpine or any other sub-race they were still "German". The also view that Jews were racially categorized is not true, people altogether were categorized as either Aryan, Jewish or Mischlinge "mixed" - that is all. The Ahnenpaass was just one form of attaining an Aryan certificate which became compulsory under the Third Reich it was nothing to do with one's physical appearance. The whole "blonde hair and blue eyes Nordic look" is blown totally out of proportion, it was certainly seen as ideal but was not standard. Nowhere in Nazi "proof of one's Aryan ancestry" whether it be for the SS or to be a citizen mentions anything regarding physical appearance. Race was key to the Nazi ideology and Nazi beliefs but the whole Aryan = Nordic is incorrect and nowhere in official documents from the Nazis says anything of the kind that Germans or "related blood" were viewed more highly if one was Nordic.--Windows66 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason we don't add summary paragraphs is because Wikipedia articles are already a summary, an overview of the main material about a topic. Nai Germany is a big topic, so each subtopic gets a smallish section. Wikipedia guidelines call for our articles to be no more than 50 kB of readable prose, with a maximum size of about 10,000 words. This article is presently 80 kB for the prose alone, and clocks in at 12,920 words. That's why you get the impression that the article is moving along at a a fast pace, and that's why we don't actually have room for duplicate material or summary paragraphs. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I did not mean by my comments that only that sentence should be removed. I am always for redundancy removal. I agree with Windows66 as to the notion of Nordic appearance/physique; it was not the standard and certainly many Nazi leaders, such as Himmler and Goebbels did not come close to meeting the so-called "ideal". Aryanism was a racial ideology; and race/bloodline was the standard. Much of the Nazi policies in the 1930s was focused on separating and removing "undesirable racial stock". Kierzek (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa and Windows66. Your prompt reply on this subject and the authoritative manner in which it was made would indicate that you have read in their entirety, the books and academic sources I cited since yesterday. I have a hard time believing that. By the way, nowhere did the sentence state that German citizens were judged by their appearance. Proving how German/Nordic/Aryan they were had as much to do with genealogy as it did with anything else. Likewise - in no place did I state that Nordic was superior to German or Aryan in any context. What is being construed from this discussion leads me to believe that I am actually wasting my time proving my points. The original sentence merely stated that they (German citizens) were categorized to the extent that they had to prove how "German" they were. Submitting the Familienstammbuch and the Ahnenpass was evidence of that alone as I noted before. Removing the term Nordic was acceptable to me but not the entire sentence. Nonetheless, Nordic comprised an important ideological component to the Nazi understanding of race. See also besides the works I mentioned before, the relatively recent work: Christopher M. Hutton. Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Dialectic of Volk. New York: Polity, 2005, pp. 101-138.


 * In fact, Nordic purity provided the archetype for the SS. See: Geoffrey G. Field, "Nordic Racism", Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977, p. 523. Historian Jill Stephenson when discussing the Nazi ideology of Alfred Rosenberg (the official Nazi policy over race matters apart from Hitler), Walther Darre, and Hans F. K. Gunther commented that, Germans were considered pure blood, when that heritage derived "from Nordic ancestors," people whom the Nazis "portrayed as culturally the most highly developed people, indeed the supreme people." (See: Jill Stephenson, "Inclusion: Building the National Community in Propaganda and Practice," in Jane Caplan, ed. Nazi Germany (Short Oxford History of Germany). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, 99-100. By the same token, the very highest policymaker of Nazi racial ideals (Alfred Rosenberg) promoted the image of Nordic/Aryan/German as one in the same. Rosenberg wrote: "No people of Europe is racially homogeneous, also Germany is not. According to the latest research, we accept five races all of which reveal perceptibly different types. But it is beyond question that the true culture bearer for Europe has been in the first place the Nordic race. Great heroes, artists and founders of states have grown from this blood." ("The Myth of the Twentieth Century") - Pages 576, 1930. Let me reiterate - this is the official most responsible for Nazi Germany's racial policy. Coincidentally, you should also look at these two Wikipages since you seem to think that Nordicism was inconsequential: Nordic Race and Master Race.


 * To say that Germans were not gauged by their appearance is also incorrect - despite the fact that the original sentence in dispute said nothing of the sort. This is directly from the USHMM, "Nazi teachers in school classrooms began to apply the "principles" of racial science. They measured skull size and nose length, and recorded the color of their pupils' hair and eyes to determine whether students belonged to the true "Aryan race." (see: Nazi Racism). Whether or not the government sponsored this teaching, it tacitly approved them by propaganda. Further substantiation of this fact can be found here: Heredity and Racial Science for Elementary and Secondary Schools by Karl Bareth and Alfred Vogel Look closely at the bullet in the elementary school teaching material, "The Nordic Race is the Blood Foundation of the German People." The original German title of the work from Bareth and Vogel is: "Erblehre und Rassenkunde für die Grund-und Hauptschule". If the Nazi party took opposition to this belief, the teachers throughout Germany espousing such ideals would have been scrutinized, which they were not.


 * While I have more than once substantiated my contribution with multiple academic sources, you've only rebutted with comments based on your limited reading. Moreover, the sentence which was added has been misinterpreted and removed without sufficient justification. You can do what you wish on the page, as I stated before - I will decline from putting anything else on the Nazi Germany page as it appears amateurism will prevail.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from getting personal WP:PA in trying to say what I and another have read. I have read a lot of books on Hitler, Nazism and Nazi Germany thank you very much. Anyways, the sentence that was removed was giving the indication that "German citizens" were judged on how Aryan/Nordic the individual was. This is incorrect, you could not be a German citizen without being Aryan under Nazi Germany, the Ahnenpass was just one method of gaining an Aryan certificate to show prove you was an Aryan. Of course there were elements of Nazism and some Nazis who were overwhelmingly pro-Nordic but the whole Aryan = Nordic (hence the Aryan/Nordic insert) is nonsense, Nordic was ideal but not standard. A German was a German in the eyes of the Nazis just like an Aryan was an Aryan in the eyes of the Nazis, do you really think many of the linguistic groups or ethnic groups that were officially "Aryan" were majority Nordic? As long as you could provide proof of your Aryan ancestry that was all there was to it. Yes, education quite often talked about the Nordic race but this was just ideal stuff not standard or compulsory. You can show evidence that the Nazis were pro-Nordic (this is undisputed) but the original sentence that got removed was saying that all German citizens got judged on how "Aryan/Nordic" one was which was not true... even Nazi racial theorists were aware that the majority of Germans were not Nordic.--Windows66 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I stated before - the sentence was misunderstood and maybe the way it was worded was slightly misleading. Still, Germans had to prove that they were German if they wanted full rights within the Reich, to include being married. A German citizen could lose their civil service position if they could not prove that they were sufficiently German, which means if you had a single Jewish grandparent etc., you would become ineligible to keep that position. See the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentum, also called Berufsbeamtengesetz. That means if you were 75% German - you were not German enough - that 25% Jewish disqualified you.


 * In fact, the Enabling Act of 1933 conveniently allowed the Nazis to enforce these laws, known in English as the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. German citizens who could not prove their German heritage at sufficient depth could lose not only their jobs under this rule, but the pension they had worked for all their life. See: Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service If that is not about proving your German-ness (or how German you were), then please explain this otherwise. Robert Proctor talks about the extensive time taken in the Third Reich training doctors in genetic pathology and in the analysis of racial traits, skills they would employ as expert witnesses in German courts in cases of questionable parentage. Moreover, scientists and doctors developed anthropological criteria to establish ethnic/racial affiliation. Mandates like the aforementioned Civil Service laws were used to "determine German citizenship on racial grounds". Steps like these were being taken to separate Jew from German which also had the negative consequence of making Aryans prove that they were indeed Aryans. Section 4 of the Civil Service Law "required that Volk comrades be "of German blood, independent of religion". (See: Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988, 110, verbatim citation from p. 134). They did all of this because many Jews had converted to Protestantism and they wanted to single them out and exclude them from the Volksgemeinschaft. On 17-18 February 1935, the Völkischer Beobachter "announced the introduction of ancestral health books to be carried by everyone in the Reich." (Proctor, pg. 135). Germans did indeed have to prove their German-ness, which is about classifying human beings, Jews and Germans alike. Racial sanitation/racial differentiation would be otherwise impossible. Gauging human beings based on their Germanic/Nordic/Aryan heritage against others allowed the pseudo-science of the Nazis to determine who could work, where they could work, if they could marry, breed, etc.


 * Calling the lack of effort to provide academic substantiation amateur was not meant as a personal attack but an attempt to elicit an academically substantiated response. My apologies to anyone who took it that way. By the way, this is not a contest about who has read the most but it is about the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia content. Perhaps the sentence could be revised to say: "Not only were the Jews racially categorised, but German citizens of the Reich also had to be prepared to unequivocally prove their German ancestry on demand to retain their full rights" [Referencing Proctor's book - pages 134-135. Nonetheless, I maintain that Germans were indeed classified by the regime's insistence on additional documentation to remain a Civil Servant, to get married, and for anyone wishing join the SS. There was a racial hierarchy as Alfred Rosenberg stated and they did apply it in numerous places to their own German comrades. The general practices of the Reich support this fact despite your misgivings to the contrary. Just FYI - I am a professional historian by trade and education with over 20 years on this subject. Tis' been fun - hopefully you will concur with the suggested revision. Based on what you inferred from the original sentence, it establishes to me that it was awkwardly worded. Suddenly I am reminded of Merleau Ponty and his work on language and the phenomenology of perception. Way to stick to your guns Windows66. I think you understand now what the sentence was meant to imply. The poor structure of the sentence and maybe even the word-choice made it something that it was never intended to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is not about who has read more but you was getting personal towards me and another user because you have the belief we have not read the books you cited. The thing is though Jews were not racially categorized, neither were Aryans and neither were mixed people, a Jew was a Jew, a Aryan was a Aryan, a Mischling was a Mischling. People were categorized into one of these three categories and in order to be a citizen of the Reich one had to be Aryan. In 1920 the Nazi party made it so that only people of "pure Aryan descent" could be party members and in 1935 with the Nuremberg racial laws coming intact all German citizens had to be Aryans. Also whilst one Jewish grandparent made you non-Aryan and thus not a German citizen he/she was not classified as a Jew but Mischling (part Aryan, part Jewish). That is the problem, the sentence was mis-leading as how I took it was that German citizens (after proving their Aryan ancestry) were judged on how Nordic their looked, which was not the case. You can cite as many sources as you want showing pro-Nordic elements of Nazi Germany and Nazism but the fact remains that citizens of the Reich who were Nordic were not viewed anymore "better" than non-Nordic Aryans. You should also be aware that a Mischlinge of second degree could marry a spouse classified as Aryan without permission required because the offspring would not interfere with the racial laws as the Jewishness would be past 1/4 ancestry.--Windows66 (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jews were indeed racially categorized, which is why it was necessary to discuss how they were to be classified at the Wannsee Conference, which is where they determined who they were going to let live. There were quarter Mischlings, half-Mischlings, etc. And as you stated Mischlings of second degree could marry an Aryan. Of course, they would be subject to verification in that, they would have to prove that they were no more Jewish than that. That is racial categorization by definition. Why this is escaping you is beyond me. Why do you keep returning to the issue of how Nordic Germans appeared? That is not what the sentence stated. It was about proving your heritage as I made clear to you - despite the fact that they valued and idealized "Nordic" over other racial categories. In the annexed territories, the Germans even had 4 categories on the Deutsche Volksliste (German Ethnic Registry). See: Peter Fritsche, Life and Death in the Third Reich (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), 169. In this case, merely removing the word "citizens" from the original sentence and just having it say "Germans" makes it 100% correct. Where are you getting Germans citizens "after they had proven they were Aryan" from the original sentence. You keep adding things to the sentence that were never stated.


 * Anyway - this issue is closed as I still do not think you have understood things in their entirety. I can provide more sources where it explicitly states that Jews were racially categorized/classified and you will contend otherwise. Proctor's book goes into this subject at length in places and Claudia Koonz of Duke University has likewise stated as much in her book The Nazi Conscience (See pages 105-117 and then read 133-162). There were lots of difficulties for the regime in identifying Germans from Jews and the lengths that the State went to in trying to standardize and establish clear standards about racial categorization were exhaustive. It was not just as simple as German and Jew. It was about how German or how Jewish one was in the collective. That actually could be the difference between life and death in the Third Reich. Therefore, the original sentence was not clear because you have added (by inference) the issue of appearance to it when Nordic/Aryan was merely meant to be equated with German-ness. That was just as much about the information in one's Familienstammbuch as it was about anything else. You are missing the forest for the tree of "appearance" which was only made more difficult by your interpretation of the sentence. Reread the sentence and replace Nordic/Aryan with German and maybe it will make it clear for you. Once you see that - maybe you will understand that the sentence really is not in error. It just needs to be more clear due to the risk of it being misconstrued as something else. Dismissing the mounds of evidence off the cuff as you have done is a bit disconcerting by the way. The subject of that sentence has been clarified with academic substantiation par excellence, but there is argument against the evidence. Nowhere did the sentence say the Nordic was better than German and nowhere did it say that Germans were judged based on their appearance. Again, wording solutions/proposals have even been made and you have not even acknowledged any of this. This is my last post about this subject. Hopefully, somebody else who has taken the time to cross-reference material and carefully examine the evidence can 'intervene' and make a call as we clearly do not see eye to eye on this subject. THE END. --Obenritter (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

People were racially classified into the three categories I have mentioned Jewish, Mischlinge, Aryan; A Jew was a Jew there was no "Ashkenazi Jews" or "Sephardic Jews" just "Jew" which were liable for several sorts of persecution such as loss of citizenship, forbidden to engage in sexual relations or marriage with Aryans, etc etc. Mischlinge were not viewed as Jews but people of both Aryan and Jewish ancestry and it depended on which degree what sort of persecution one suffered. Aryans were Aryans and were able to be citizens of the Reich, whether German or not as long as Aryan (European). You see the sentence is not correct and you seem to still not be forgetting this and are having a go at me for mentioning "Nordic Germans" but this is what the sentence mentioned that it somehow mattered whether you were Nordic or not and that Nordic equaled Aryan when neither of this is true. German citizens had to prove their Aryan ancestry in order to be German citizens not whether or not their had Nordic heritage or Nordic appearance, completely irrelevant. THE END.--Windows66 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well – I thought it was the end but then I coincidentally reread something of significance from Detlev Peukert. He explicitly writes, “Nazi eugenics – that is, the classification and selection of people on the basis of supposed genetic ‘value’ – was not confined only to sterilization and euthanasia for the ‘valueless’ and the encouragement of fertility for the ‘valuable’; it laid down criteria of assessment, categories of classification and norms of efficiency that were applicable to the population as a whole. The goals were people of German blood and Nordic race.” See Detlev Peukert, Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in Everyday Life. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1989, pg. 208. From Richard Evans, "the racial hygiene movement introduced an ominously rational and scientific categorisation into people who were 'valuable' to the nation those who were not." In order to accomplish this, Jews and German would both have to be categorised (synonym of categorise - class, classify, group, grade, rate, designate, label, tag, brand; order, arrange, sort, rank, type, break down; file, catalogue, list, tabulate, index, assign - from Oxford's Thesaurus). Hence, the aforementioned Ahnenpass etc. Evans goes on to say, "by labeling people in this way, the race hygienists opened the way towards the control, the abuse and finally the extermination of the valueless." (see Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich. New York: Penguin, 2005 pg. 38.


 * That means racial classification/categorization was for everyone – part control mechanism, part racial police policy. If there were only Aryans, Mischlinge, and Jews, how does one account for the following observation from Detlev Garbe, who says that Aryan homosexuals were "categorised as being of 'lesser racial value'...they shared this classification with those Aryan men and women who were compulsorily sterilised in order to inhibit their capacity to reproduce." (See: Detlev Garbe, "The Healthy Instincts of the Nation": 'The Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany' in Michael Burleigh, ed. Confronting the Nazi Past: New Debates on Modern German History, pgs. 162-164.) Again – further and irrefutable substantiation of the original points which were nonetheless corroborated in the multitude of works already cited. It has already been stated by this author that removing Nordic from the original sentence to make it clear and remove any unintended inferences was acceptable. All that has been offered as contrarian argument is mere opinion and nothing more.--Obenritter (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What Richard J. Evans states is correct, the Nazis did want to get away with the valueless people Aryan or not, but this is not what "German citizens" were required to be categorised into but only to prove Aryan ancestry, it did not matter if they were Nordic or not (this is what was originally said Aryan/Nordic, a Nordic Aryan was not viewed higher than a non-Nordic Aryan. And all them categorising of what Evans talk about is not racially categorisation. This is now going off topic from racial categorisation to every day life categorisation, this is not what the original sentence stated.--Windows66 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC) You're now what it appears to seem be confusing Nazis view on the Aryan master race and the actual requirements of the German citizen. In order to be a citizen of the Reich all one had to do was prove Aryan ancestry, please see Nuremberg Laws. The homosexuals were categorised as being of lesser value because they could not reproduce but they were still seen as part of the Aryan master race. Please provide proof from a quote from a speech or document by the Nazis saying they were of "lesser racial value" that is just one historians word. For example, one source states "While the Nazis did generally regard everyone with sexual preferences outside the petit-bourgeois norms as “community pests,” they did not necessarily see it as imperative to physically eliminate them, especially if they belonged to the “master race.”" and "Gay artists were generally not persecuted in occupied Paris as long as they were of Aryan origin.". What Evans states is correct, but that is every day life categorising not racial categorising, if you see the racial laws of Nazi Germany people were identified as Aryan, Mischling or non-Aryan (Jewish, Gypsy, Negro) and that is it. Whether one was Nordic or not did not matter.--Windows66 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course Evans is right. So is George L. Mosse, Eric Ehrenreich, Michael Burleigh, Wolfgang Wippermann, Volkmar Weiss, Claudia Koonz, Alfred Rosenberg, Christopher M. Hutton, Jill Stephenson, Geoffrey G. Field, Walther Darre, Hans F. K. Gunther, Jane Caplan, Peter Fritsche, and Detlev Peukert among the other sources where it was clearly shown how classification of human beings, Germans and Jews alike figured into the Nazi ideology. Again - the original sentence has been misconstrued which is why changes were suggested. It has been unequivocally shown that as far as German anthropologists and Nazi racial theorists were concerned - Nordic / Aryan / German were for all intents and purposes of the same fold. See several paragraphs worth of proof from the earlier discussion. If Jews and Mischlinge were that and nothing more, why the need for the following classification chart: Nuremberg laws Racial Chart.jpg


 * On the chart, you should clearly see that there were varying categories for Jews and Mischlinge. One could be mostly German but a little Jewish, or half-German, half-Jewish, mostly Jewish but a little German, in varying degrees. That is racial categorization/classification by definition. If it cannot be understood from this visual image that simply using the term Jew and/or Mischling is reductionism, particularly in the context of this entire discussion, then nothing will make it clear. BTW - Please see the proposed change to the sentence made long ago: "Not only were the Jews racially categorised, but German citizens of the Reich also had to be prepared to unequivocally prove their German ancestry on demand to retain their full rights." Citing Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988, pgs. 134-135. Jews were categorized as Mischlinge of varying degrees which is classifying/categorizing them beyond just the simple term Jew or Mischling. Germans had to prove their German ancestry (which included as acceptable lines Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, British, etc.) up to a certain number of generations to remain Civil Servants - which is classifying them in the collective as Detlev Peukert remarked and as the other cited academic sources have demonstrated. Please see the multitude of sources being ignored as well as the proposed restructuring of the sentence being ignored.--Obenritter (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you now say the sentence was wrongly worded which indeed it was, so what do you suggest? The reason for the racial classifications is exactly what I have said all along, people were racially categorised of course. The reason for the charts was to distinguish between Aryans, Jews and Mischling people. Non-Aryans could not be citizens of the reich, the racial enemies of the state were Jews and gypsies. Germans to prove their Aryan ancestry which were all white Europeans so Dutch people, Polish people, Italian people, Irish people or whatever could be citizens of the Reich. But you going on about other categorising is irrelevant to what is being discussed as the every day life categorisation is not even doubted but we are on about the original sentence which said German citizens were judged on how Aryan/Nordic one was.--Windows66 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
The whole entry has several bad mistakes. First of all, the Soviet Union was not Nazist. Subtitling under one photograph says something about occupied areas suggesting the Nazist SU occupied Germany. Which is wrong either way. Neither was the SU Nazist nor was it totally occupied.

Further it is wrong to say Church was suppressed during the rule of Adolf Hitler. This was not the case. It was certain Christian individuals like the brothers and sisters Scholl, Christian, who actively fought this new rule. More likely the German Church lost attention it had before. But I still think most of the Nazis had a baptism and a communion and were churchgoers as everybody else, more or less believers. The worse of the matter is not investigated nor published, not at all clarified, that is strong connections between parties and politicians of the time and the German Church. Himmler is said to have been a Jesuite or even had a Jesuite education. After the end of World War II, the German Church did not undertake any of the procedures of cleaning herself from the recent past. It went on doing as before. Denazification was stronger in the Eastern part of Germany, about the Western one the results are better known. Nothing is known - because it did not exist - about opposition against deportations and support of the Jews - whatever classification applied - undertaken by the German Church. One of the more recent failures in this respect was one or the other acitivity of the Pope Benedict, former Kardinal Ratzinger seated in Bavaria, who showed a certain unwillingness towards the problem. He even considered the holy status of the Pope of then. His generation still experienced the war and the rule of Hitler, nothing is known about personal opposition of him then, nor did anything become known afterwards which was related to denazification in a positive way.

Is there anything known precisely on the intelligence service of the Third Reich? Does it link to this expression Der Schwarze Ganter (lit. The Black Male Goose). I came across it once, nothing there to be found yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.45.250 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

subtitling again
The subtitles as well as the photographs are misleading.

Indoctrination was done using words (and violence).

The row of photographs touches certain issues prevalent in the GDR, for example women working in factories.

It looks as if there is a hidden subtext. Federal Republican German propaganda has a similar equation which is wrong: GDR = Third Reich. Further short comments are impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.45.250 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Change of the article's name (continuation)
There have been several attempts to change the name of this article. Here is a list of related archived discussions: May 2013; April 2012; April 2012; August 2010; March 2010; July 2007. Those who suggest changing it claim that the word Nazi is a slang derogative, propagandistic and biased term. Those who argue that the article's name should remain argue that Nazi Germany is the common name in English for the designated period in German history. The Polish, French, Spanish & Russian WP articles as well as Britannica (1973) use the title Third Reich. The German WP article uses the official name used by the then territorial government and specifies the period Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945. I agree that the term Nazi is not an appropriate encyclopedic designation for a country and suggest the less biased and also widely used in English Third Reich. Axelode (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the move. The majority of our readers will be high school students studying the topic for the first time. I think the article needs to be at the most common English language name, "Nazi Germany". -- Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa's arguments. Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most common English language name → --IIIraute (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong agreement with Diannaa. WP:COMMONNAME by a ridiculous long shot. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...what "ridiculous long shot"? → --IIIraute (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the intricate knowledge about the subject and active editing of this article by the above users but I also believe that they are mainly expressing an English speaking North American point of view when it comes to its title. English Wikipedia is the beacon of open source knowledge around the world and its articles shine across all platforms. Restricting the naming of an article to a historically politically motivated propagandistic expressions might not be the best way to enlighten future generations. I will extend invitations to participate to this discussions to a wider pool of users and I encourage all to do the same so that this ongoing debate stops popping out still born. Axelode (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Axelode. Is there an Encyclopædia Britannica "Nazi Germany" article - no, there is not.
 * Encyclopædia Britannica: The Third Reich → --IIIraute (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An encylopedia written in english, primarily for english speaking users, uses the most common wording in english? Astonishing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...why do you insist on "most common wording" → ? Btw. quantity ≠ quality. --IIIraute (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on anything. Its an established wikipedia consensus. WP:COMMONNAME. Those looking for an exception to the consensus need to justify it, not the other way around. NAzi may be propaganda in some contexts, but not when you are talking about the actual Nazis. (And hey, isn't "The Third Reich" actual propaganda,used by the Nazis? Should we switch our article name on "The Holocaust" to "The Final Solution" to match?) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do seem to insist. Regarding WP:COMMONNAME, please see → . Please also note, that according to "international law" even "Nazi Germany" had the right to designate the name of their own state - or am I wrong? --IIIraute (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Opponents of "Nazi Germany" "claim that the word 'Nazi' is a slang derogative, propagandistic and biased term." In my opinion that is not true for the reliable scholarly sources that use the term in the best scholarly venues. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It should kept with the name most commonly used and known in English works; therefore, I agree with Diannaa and Rjensen, etc. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the sharpest argument is that "Nazi Germany" requires much less historical knowledge to recognize (at this level everyone knows both 'Nazi' and 'Germany' and easily puts the two words together). The term "Third Reich" is not at all self explanatory -- no one who has not been told ahead of time could possible figure out that it means Germany in the 1933-45 era. Rjensen (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)It is not the "most commonly used and known name in English works". Please show me the Encyclopædia Britannica "Nazi Germany" article → Encyclopædia Britannica: The Third Reich → Do you know why - because there never was a state called "Nazi Germany".--IIIraute (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There is also no state called "The Third Reich". EB uses the phrase "Nazi Germany" repeatedly and exclusively however, whenever they are discussing the topic in related articles, not "Third Reich" btw. That they named their section title "Third Reich" in their massive 100+ page article entitled "Germany" has more to do with their structural organization imo, than any editorial decision. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Encyclopædia Britannica: "Third Reich, official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945, as the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire from 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich)." --IIIraute (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just using Google hits by itself: Nazi Germany has 52,400,000 hits; Third Reich has: 10,900,000; The Third Reich has: 18,100,000. BTW-citing an old Encyclopædia Britannica does not carry much weight. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What "old Encyclopædia Britannica" (updated 1-21-2014) →.
 * P.S. Your "google" search results do include every Nazi fansite, while Ngram reduces the results to published books. --IIIraute (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was Nazi Germany and forever must it remain so. Giano    (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to lalaland. I'm outty! --IIIraute (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some interesting points have been raised by both camps. Although I still believe that the title Nazi Germany is not appropriate, I agree that Third Reich could be unfit for opposite propagandist reasons. But that doesn't mean that we should keep propagating WWII propaganda into the 21st century by keeping the existing title as a lesser of two evils.
 * If we look at the graph presented by IIIraute, it shows that the two propositions have been nose to nose in published books since 1933 even though there is a slight favor towards Nazi Germany since 2003. On the other hand, the huge discrepancy from a straight Google search as presented by Kierzek does not carry much weight for if we were to search Fucking instead of Sexual intercourse in a similar way, the slang word would prevail...
 * I believe that we should keep the debate open so that more intelligent voices can express their views on the subject in the coming days Axelode (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Back in October 2008, Josh wrote a very interesting exposé opening the door to a much more complex reorganization around Germany's articles. Food for thoughts... Axelode (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe "Nazi Germany" provides instant recognition of the topic as it is self explanatory, while "Third Reich" does not. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The word Nazi is a commonly used historical word and is what people not familiar with the topic at all will call this. Would should however explain more about the name in the name section to avoid confusion. Lets explain that is an acronym that was used for Allied propaganda in the beginning but has since been used by historians in the west despite its undertone meaning . -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact is, Wikipedia is written for the general population, including the many students of different age groups which use it. I used numbers from the general hits as an easy, minor example to show that overall the word Nazi Germany provides greater recognition for the general population. I agree with Hohum, that Nazi Germany provides instant recognition of the topic without further explanation. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nazi" did not originate as a propaganda term. The OED dates the word to 1920 and gives this citation from the Times of London : 19 Sept. 10/1/1930  Herr Hitler, the leader of the victorious National-Socialists (Nazis), has very carefully refrained from saying anything....  That is it is not somehow "propagandistic" but rather the standard English term for the NSDAP party. It is used in print by all the leading scholars, editors, publishers and journals. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * | The Oxford English Dictionaries (OED) also has no article for Nazi Germany but rather has one for The Third Reich defining it for what it was, the era of The Nazi regime, 1933-45, a regime not a country. Likewise, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's | Holocaust Encyclopedia and | Encyclopædia Britannica both have articles for The Third Reich and none for Nazi Germany making WP the only serious reference tool using this denomination. Axelode (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "only serious reference tool " nonsense. OED and Ency Brit reflect editorial decisions made many decades ago. To understand 21st century standards we must look at look at new reference books: all these use "Nazi Germany" as an entry:  The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World (2008);  Encyclopedia of the Great Depression And The New Deal (2001); Encyclopedia of Europe (2008); Encyclopedia of Literature and Politics (2005);  Encyclopedia of Political Thought (2001); Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work (2006); Encyclopedia of Terrorism (2009); Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide (2009); Encyclopedia of genocide (1999); Historical Dictionary of American Propaganda (2004); Historical Dictionary of the 1940s (2006); The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations (2002); The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History (2008)  Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that we'll pause this conversation, for now, on these enlightening scriptures. Axelode (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC on the Gun control talk page which may be of interest to editors of this page: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?

Third Reich
Should the term "the Third Reich have it's own article? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What would the content be? Currently "Third Reich" redirects here. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It should not. The redirect makes the point and direction to this article of the common English used name/term. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As a scholar of the Third Reich and one who teaches this subject at the university level - it is more than sufficient that the Wikipedia search directs people who look for "Third Reich" to the English colloquial expression "Nazi Germany" as the two are synonymous for all intents and purposes. We are talking semantics here. Naming convention aside, the opening statement of the article Nazi Germany makes this very clear. My strongest case here would be for those of you who have heartburn with the naming convention to visit List of books about Nazi Germany and see how many times both titles are used by eminent scholars. Kierzek and I have worked exhaustively on getting the scholarly works deserving mention on Wikipedia to that page. Let me make the point here by mentioning a few of the more recognizable and important ones for you; all of the historians/authors listed hereby are considered foremost experts on this subject and use the titles interchangeably.


 * Bartov, Omer. Hitler's Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992. (Notice Bartov uses both terms Nazi and Third Reich in the title)
 * Benz, Wolfgang. A Concise History of the Third Reich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007.
 * Burleigh, Michael. The Third Reich: A New History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.
 * Caplan, Jane. Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
 * Dülffer, Jost. Nazi Germany 1933-1945: Faith and Annihilation. London: Bloomsbury, 2009.
 * Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich; The Third Reich in Power; The Third Reich at War.
 * Fischer, Klaus. Nazi Germany: A New History. New York: Continuum, 1995.
 * Fritzsche, Peter. Life and Death in the Third Reich. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008.
 * Gellately, Robert. Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford Paperbacks, 2001.
 * Hildebrand, Klaus. The Third Reich. London & New York: Routledge, 1986.
 * Kitchen, Martin. Nazi Germany at War. London & New York: Routledge, 1994.
 * Peukert, Detlev J.K. Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in Everyday Life. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1989.
 * Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988.
 * Spielvogel, Jackson J. Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 2004.


 * Ok - so without belaboring the point further by making an exhaustive A-Z list (which the aforementioned Wiki page shows), I think you catch the drift. If the two terms are acceptable to the foremost scholars in the field - it is silly to argue this point any further. A page titled Third Reich would equally have to include the term Nazi Germany right? My consensus is with that of Kierzek, Diannaa, and the others who feel that Nazi Germany (with a redirect for Third Reich) is perfectly acceptable as it stands. This is not a position taken from Wolkenkuckucksheim or "La La land" as one of the "Third Reich" proponents has implied. An objective evaluation of the scholarly literature available on the topic makes it clear that either term is more than acceptable. --Obenritter (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Third Reich is the proper name, as I see 'Nazi Germany' is a disgrace because the entire country was not nazist's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreshadowing111 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No one said that all Germans were Nazis. "Nazi Germany" is shorthand for "Nazi-ruled Germany". It no more implies that all Germans were Nazis than "Reagan's America" implies that all Americans in the 1980s supported Ronald Reagan's policies. --Khajidha (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Map
The current infobox map gets the point across and is very well put together. I believe it should be included somewhere in the article. However, it is a little too complicated and just all over the place to be honest. I feel this map I created is better for the infobox. It shows Greater Germany, areas under Nazi control and even puppet governments of the Nazis. I don't feel the need to include Germany's allies and the Western allies. You dont see the infobox map of the US highlighting its allies. My map is the map used by a majority of infoboxes so it would fit better with other articles. Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the new map is very useful, because none of the countries are labelled. Also, I find the hot colours garish and hard on the eyes. The map currently in use provides a lot more information, especially if you take the time to click through and make it full-size. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current map as it is much more detailed in the information that is given. It gives a better overview for the general reader. Kierzek (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The detail of the current map is good. Shades of grey are not so good for everyone. My ageing eyes prefer the brighter colours. And the OP's point about a map of the US not highlighting its allies is an interesting one. Obviously the US cannot be seen as a primary protagonist because of its late arrival in the war, but a map of Britain showing its allies (including the US) would be more equivalent, and would be interesting to see. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the arguments for the currently used map, which has more information. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Piling on, the new proposal is simply too over-simplified in both content and layout way. walk victor falktalk 22:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be constructive, text labels in occupied and allied countries should perhaps be white for higher contrast, like in Germany. No, just in occupied ones, that would provided a quick way to differentiate between territories under direct German rule and others. walk victor falktalk 22:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ walk victor falktalk 06:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinions: External Links
I recently suggested as an addition to "External Links" the following page at the Spartacus Educational website: http://spartacus-educational.com/GERnazigermany.htm. This struck me as a useful resource because it includes biographies of over 140 important figures in Nazi Germany. (In retrospect, perhaps it should have been in "Further Reading".) Editor Kierzek reverted the edit on the grounds that Spartacus Educational is not considered WP:RS source. I would be grateful for other opinions on this. (It is briefly discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kierzek)

I have been consulting the Spartacus website for some years and find it a useful resource. It IS the work of one man, and he appears to have an interest in the civil rights movement, women's suffrage etc, but I have never detected any bias in individual articles. I have always found the footnotes and references useful, and errors rare. Any thoughts...?Tartarusrussell (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * user:Kierzek makes the reasons for exclusion quite clear. The source has demonstrable, obvious errors and no indication of reliability (i.e. sourcing).  Why on earth should we treat it as a reliable source. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Spartacus is not a reliable source. It's one person's personal web page. On a highly sensitive Nazi topic we should instead use the hundreds of solid scholars who do publish RS. On the other hand he does publish excerpts from primary sources that are useful and can work as external links Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw Articles for deletion/Spartacus Educational earlier today and I also saw reference to this discussion on User:Kierzek's talk page. As it pertains to Spartacus Educational, I have very little knowledge of military history but I am more familiar with issues related to various conspiracy theories involving the assassination of JFK. I agree with the others who indicate that it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Simkin gives an inordinate amount of weight to primary source material, including people who simply make stuff up, then reports it as fact. A source that accepts unreliable or uncorroborated sources is not a reliable source. Likely fails WP:ELNO #2. Location (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Das Drittes Reich"
The article refers to Nazi Germany as "Das Drittes Reich"; that is a grammatical mistake. It should be "Das dritte Reich". "Dritte" is not capitalised in German as it is not a noun, even in a context where, in English, every word would be capitalised (eg. The Third Reich, or the title of a book or movie). And when using a definite article (in this case "das") the adjective ends with "e", regardless of whether it's masculine, feminine or neutral. "Dritt" (or any adjective) would only end with "-er" or "-es" when preceded by an indefinite article or none at all, eg. "Ein drittes Reich" or "drittes Reich". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.234.54.99 (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected to "das dritte Reich". Thank you -- Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is only partially correct. Drittes Reich / das Dritte Reich is treated like a proper noun (Eigenname) in German, so it is indeed capitalized, see also the German article on the phrase. Rgds -- Torana (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What an Article
The article's first para is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.232.93 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Form of government
Totalitarian dictatorship is not a form of government. Totalitarianism is a concept, and dictatorships are not forms of government. --TIAYN (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * check the dictionary: 1) Totalitarian = "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed."  American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  2) "dictatorship" ="a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator." Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Today part of" field
What exactly is the criteria for this list? Anywhere in Europe a German soldier stood? I'd think a list of countries that today comprise what was once Nazi Germany should be limited to, you know, areas that were actually Nazi Germany at one point. Bulgaria, for instance, was never incorporated into Grossdeutschland, nor were half of the other entries in the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The version of the article that passed GA in June 2013 did not incorporate the list at all. It got added at some point and has just grown from there. We should either remove it, or restrict it, like you say, to areas officially incorporated into the Reich (which included Austria, the Sudetenland, and part of Poland, if I recall correctly). -- Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, the list should be edited or removed. Kierzek (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there's been no further comments, I have removed the list, as that's the condition the info box was in when the article passed GA. Further discussion is still welcome if anyone is interested, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Today part of" should include only territories that actually made up Nazi Germany proper - territories which became provinces of Nazi Germany itself, and not wartime occupied external territories (such as Vichy France, Norway, Denmark, and the Reichskommissariats in Russia) which were never incorporated into Germany proper. In this case, this should only include Germany, Austria, Czech Republic (Bohemia-Moravia), Poland and Slovenia. Derkommander0916 (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The list was re-added in the past and substantially expanded today without any explanation. I've removed the whole thing. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. There was also a discussion on the same topic back in May 2013: Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4 Also, recommendation at the peer review was to not include these flags. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, good catch, NeilN. Kierzek (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Title
Does this title already ok? Nazi Germany? I mean you can write" old germany", or "national" But not "nazi" - its a swearword of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesseblue2006 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Common name
"National Socialist Germany" is not a common name for Nazi Germany, with only 74,600 Google hits compared to 9,190,000 for "Nazi Germany". I don't think it belongs in the opening sentence. Discussion welcome, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa. Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I further agree, per WP:COMMONNAME. Kierzek (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Director  ( talk )  00:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * i agree also with Dianaa! talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesseblue2006 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Flensburg government as a successor historical state
Is this really a good idea? How is it helpful to list a government of Nazi Germany as the successor to Nazi Germany? Has this been discussed? Am I missing something? We're talking about a government headed by Dönitz, a high-ranking member of the NSDAP, at Hitler's own appointment, and clearly representing the same German state ("Greater German Reich") that existed up to that point. It came about in what is, as far as I can tell, a perfectly legal transfer of power within the same context - that of Nazi Germany (since Hitler's orders were law). -- Director  ( talk )  11:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't the new map include Denmark being under civilian/military occupation?
I find this strange, yes, I understand countries/entities such as Vichy France or Slovakia or the state of Croatia were allies/puppets of Germany, but Denmark was under occupation. Guy355 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Denmark wasn't under a formal occupation in 1942. It was kind of a strange arrangement, comparable to that of Vichy France. The country remained legally sovereign, headed by its king and his government, and didn't have any German occupation authority (military or civilian) presiding over it. Of course, that changed later on... --  Director  ( talk )  09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. P.S It also changed later on for countries such as Vichy France, when in 1943 Germany occupied the rest of the free zone of mainland France. Guy355 (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. In November 1942, to be exact (the locator map depicts the state of affairs in summer and early autumn of that year, that being the height of Axis success). Not the whole of the Free Zone, though: the Italians took control of a part as well at that time; this was under Italian military administration until September 1943. -- Director  ( talk )  12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody forgot to tell the Danes they were not occupied. And the map doesn't represent "the height" of Axis success, as it doesn't include southern France occupied in early November 1942, so I've been bold and edited the caption to the map accordingly. --Nug (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok Nug. Who was the military commander of Denmark in 1942?


 * I fixed the caption. It now reads "height of WWII success", rather than "expansion" (which it was). I really think its time to stop talking about that week in November. It has been explained that the map would be unrepresentative due to the briefness of the time span, and that it would represent a period where the Axis already lost nearly all of Africa. -- Director  ( talk )  11:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Capital
The capital should be say Berlin (1933-1945) and then Flensburg (1945). --76.105.96.92 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. "capital" is not merely the desperate last-minute unready hideaway of a few leaders as Flensburg was, but rather the permanent center of decision-making, senior officials, support agencies, and large bureaucracies.  Furthermore the capital is always an official designation and receives general recognition, which Flensburg never had.  I have never read a historian who calls Flensburg the capital. Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True.. but unofficial capitals are often noted in the infobox nevertheless - with brackets, such as " (unofficial) " or " (de facto) "... I mean look at Vichy France: at no point was Vichy actually designated as the capital of that state, in any way. -- Director  ( talk )  13:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vichy held all the government agencies, top officials, and ambassadors over several years. Flensburg had a few officials for a few days and no diplomats, no agencies, no bureaucracy. Including it will just confuse readers and produce a negative impact on their learning. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rjensen; it should only state Berlin. Kierzek (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. -- Director  ( talk )  11:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Military-administered occupied territories
I can see there has been some discussion about the current map featured in the infobox, but I still wonder why Denmark, Yugoslavia and Greece is not shown as "military-administered occupied territories"? I'm aware Denmark was allowed to maintain partial sovereignty, but was nevertheless occupied by German forces until May 1945. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Denmark was not under military administration in 1942, legally it was fully sovereign. It was invaded, but wasn't subsequently occupied by the German military (until later). Its status was (at that time in the war) similar to Zone Libre Vichy France; that is: it was firmly within German control, but it certainly wasn't occupied.
 * Yugoslav territory was partitioned-off among its neighbors (Germany among them), included into puppet states (primarily the NDH), and the remaining part which was under direct German administration is indeed depicted as such.
 * Greece was an occupied country, but the vast majority was under Italian military administration in 1942. Again, those areas administered by Germany are depicted as such.
 * -- Director  ( talk )  16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Denmark was de facto occupied and under German civilian administration after April 1940, at least to historian Werner Röhr. There was a Marine-Befehlshaber Dänemark between April 1940 and 1945, so there was a military presence of sorts. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) BTW Duivelsberg is still part of the Netherlands, however they are missing on the "Today part of" list.
 * Yes but by those criteria most of Europe could arguably be designated as "de facto occupied". All of France (and her north African colonies), for starters. Legally, the Danish institutions remained sovereign. There was a German naval presence, but there was no military commander of the country, and certainly no "civilian administration" (as in Norway and the Netherlands).


 * Ultimately the criteria for inclusion into the locator are up to us editors. In the above thread it has been proposed that only Germany proper be included, which I opposed, advocating the position that areas under control by German institutions should be included. I dunno. I don't think we can include Denmark but not Vichy or, even more so, the actual puppet states such as Slovakia and Croatia. This is a locator map for Germany.. I think we should stick to those areas administered by Germany. Otherwise we enter into subjective ground defined by differing assessments of informal German "influence": its a slippery slope that we really don't need to go down, imo. -- Director  ( talk )  18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)