Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 8

Locator map
Submitting a proposal to fellow editors for the introduction of a proper, standard SVG locator map for Nazi Germany: as previewed here.

I like the old PNG map of occupied Europe: its informative, its detailed - in fact I am in good part responsible for its current state, having been editing it for a long time. But its fundamentally unsuitable for infobox use, or as a locator map. Its ancient: its just one of many PNG maps from a series on the course of WWII (like these, etc.) that we have sort of transformed into a map that's supposed to depict Nazi Germany, however - it still doesn't. Its still a map on WWII first and foremost, depicting all sorts of things like Nazi allies, co-belligerents, Western Allies, the Soviet Union etc. etc..

For the infobox, we need a simple, standard-issue vector map, that works in the scale that an infobox mandates. Its not for no reason that we use the same kind of image all over Wikipedia, practically in every single country or former country article, for example Empire of Japan, Fascist Italy, the United States, Soviet Union, etc.. The map to the left essentially tells the reader what "Nazi Germany" was in the territorial sense, and what areas it controlled as occupation zones. -- Director  ( talk )  15:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the current map for easy comparison. Thanks so much for your work on File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg. If consensus is to replace the infobox map, I would like to see it used elsewhere in the article, perhaps replacing the map currently in the Geography section. My reasons for preferring the current map are as follows: None of the countries are labelled on the new map. 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) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The new map is more in style of a locator map, but to be honest, given that this article is about the (Groß)Deutsches Reich, showing occupied areas here is not necessary because we have German-occupied Europe with the relevant map. We don't generally show adjacent occupied areas in locator maps for countries, for example you will not see the Occupied Palestinian territories shown on the locator map of Israel. The USA has militarily occupied Iraq and Afghanistan two to threes time longer than Germany has occupied parts of Europe, we don't go adding Iraq and Afghanistan to the locator map of the USA. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dianna. Thank you for your input. As far as I understand it, the idea of a locator map in your typical country infobox is precisely to avoid other countries and emphasize the one we're describing in said infobox? There's no question that the current PNG map contains oodles more information, but that's exactly why I'd prefer the new one: an infobox is imo no place to go describing the entire layout of occupied Europe, it should focus on the country. That said - by all means lets keep the current map in the article. In fact I'm looking into putting together an SVG version for that exact purpose, but its not for the infobox imho.


 * @Nug. I understand your position, the thought has occurred to me as well. I myself would be perfectly fine with either version (tomorrow I'll upload a file with Germany alone).. but frankly I think it would be too much of a leap from what we have now. Also, if you think about it more carefully, I think the analogy with the US falls apart rather quickly: firstly, Its a fact that many areas under German occupation (most really) were intended for eventual incorporation into Germany; so there's that. Secondly, Iraq and Afghanistan (or arguably just Afghanistan today) would be "puppet states" so to speak, not actual occupied territories, and hence wouldn't be highlighted by the criteria of the SVG locator map. There is no United States civil or military body that is formally the governing authority of either country.
 * So again, I think areas under actual German occupation can very much be legitimately included here (see Empire of Japan), and I'm leaning in that direction, but if the consensus is in favor of Germany alone, I'm ok with that too. My goal is to have the infobox locate Nazi Germany.


 * P.s. A small caveat: "Greater Germany" or "Greater German Reich" is the official name adopted by Nazi Germany in 1943 (hitherto the 'German Reich'). As this map represents the state of affairs in 1942, it can't be said to be depicting "Greater Germany". "Greater Germany" is not a term used to refer to anything at that time, in fact, Nazi propaganda (clever as ever) specifically avoided and forbade it, building up for a grand renaming of the country next year. The current label in the infobox is quite wrong (its pretty recent I think). -- Director  ( talk )  21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Director, can you expand on why you chose green for the map, rather than (say) red or black? I know some people with vision issues have problems with contrast on the grey-scale, but the last thing we want is for the article to look jolly. Needs to be sombre and low-key, imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I..uh, didn't consider the mood green would convey, to be honest. I just went with it because its used in practically every locator map I've ever seen. I really don't think there would be any point in trying to gauge subjective impressions from the colour scheme, if any. As regards serious color vision deficiency, let me assure you the proposed map would be a pretty significant improvement from what we have now (given the current map's usage of both green and red). But if green is unacceptable for that reason, I'm afraid we've got a lot of recolouring to do over at commons: green and grey is by far the most common scheme . In fact, pick any country at random - I guarantee it has a grey and green locator map on enWiki... -- Director  ( talk )  23:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * German Reich 1942 (no occupations).svg I wouldn't point to locator map for Empire of Japan as a glowing example because it is inaccurate. It includes Thailand, which wasn't a puppet state but an ally of Japan, similar to the relationship between Finland and Germany, yet we don't see Finland (or Italy) in your map. There certainly was a formal US body governing Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I get your point about the lack of US plans for incorporating that territory. But as you say, this map represents the state of affairs in 1942, so I don't think we should speculate on what Nazi Germany might have looked like had it won the war, I don't think the Nazis themselves had a solid idea. We already have Greater Germanic Reich that has a locator map spanning those occupied areas anyway, so my preference is to just confine the locator map for this article to Nazi Germany to that of it's greatest extent as represented to the right. --Nug (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sure the Thailand bit was just an oversight, people probably don't really know that much about WWII Thailand. Either way I've fixed it (thank you for bringing it up, please do so in future for any other errors you uncover). Bear in mind that the map seems to be mislabeled at the Empire of Japan article, its different colours reflect period of "acquisition", not status.
 * But while the map may have contained a technical inaccuracy, its a good example of the general layout and appearance of your typical locator map, and the fact of its being used for years now for countries very similar in situation to Nazi Germany.


 * Well yes of course there was the CPA immediately after the invasion, and if we were to make a map of the United States for the year 2003 - we may well be justified in including Iraq (in light green). There was never such a situation in Afghanistan, though, and today neither country would appear on the map, as they constitute "puppet states" at the very most (though I should think many would contest that assessment).
 * In short, occupied territories, governed by the country, imo warrant highlighting on a locator map of that country (ping: what's your opinion on this Diannaa?). I am leaning in that direction, but, as I said, I'm essentially fine if its decided that they shouldn't be, as it depends on arbitrary rules we decide upon as editors (I've uploaded the version). The thing I am concerned with is having the infobox objectively function better, by having a map that suits its format. -- Director  ( talk )  11:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the occupied territories should be included, as they were governed by Nazi Germany and it was their intention to permanently incorporate all of it into their country. The map for China shows Tibet and Taiwan in light green, though both of these are "claimed territories" only. Why the Israel map does not show occupied territories is open for debate and something we don't need to get into here. We should leave allies out, as that would mean introducing a fourth color, and that info is included in File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg, which we should include further down in the article. I did investigate your point about map color Director, and most country locator maps are indeed green (Most of the African ones are blue), so I would agree to green for consistency's sake, though next to the red flag of Nazi Germany the green looks kinda Christmas-y which is why it struck me as inappropriate. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying ), but going with black (or rather, shades of grey as it would turn out), wouldn't look good on a background of grey. I'm the guy who originally introduced greyscale in the PNG map (replacing the old blue), and I've had second thoughts about it later, given that neutral countries are depicted white there, but as the map highlights many other countries besides Nazi Germany (German allies, the Soviet Union, the UK) and uses different colours, I figured it wouldn't be a problem. Red, on the other hand, is probably the most ideologically-charged colour, and I think we'd do well to steer clear of the issue of the "socialisticness" of Nazi Germany. The primary colour of Nazism is, technically - brown, so I guess we could go with that to avoid ruining Christmas :), but I think the best thing would be to simply stick with the standard and not give any special treatment whatsoever.


 * Agree re occupied territories. Because they were actually, formally controlled by German institutions, I don't think we can avoid highlighting them.
 * (Caveat: not all occupied territories were to be incorporated by all accounts: most of occupied France would probably have been left to Pétain's state upon the end of the war, areas in the Balkans would have been dealt out later in some way or another, and arguably Norway would have been granted independence under Quisling as a form of puppet state; the rest was indeed most likely slated for eventual annexation). -- Director  ( talk )  15:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if you want to base your locator map on territory the Germans were intending to claim, then you need to add New Swabia and the African colonies lost after WW1, the Nazis having established the Reichskolonialbund with the purpose of reclaiming those territories. --Nug (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, I never said that... kind of a straw man. We don't even really know for certain what territories the Germans intended to annex, that would be a most arbitrary criterion. Quite simply: if a territory is administered by Germany, it warrants highlighting on a locator map of Germany. The same goes (re your analogy) for Iraq and the US in 2003. -- Director  ( talk )  21:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then the whole of France fell under German military administration after Case Anton in November 1942, Northern Italy came under German administration in September 1943 after the surrender of the Italian government to the Allies, so that will have to be added. Also the area east of Finland was under Finnish military rule, so that should be taken out. Have to check with Hungary and Romania, I recall they also fell under German military rule at some point. --Nug (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? Obviously both maps up there are snapshots taken at the (arguable) zenith of comparative German success. The blank 1942 map (on which I built the locator map) depicts the period at the height of Nazi expansion, which is the period immediately before Operation Uranus and the unexpected collapse of the German front in the East. Not only is that the "standard", but we can not depict all periods even if we wanted to - it would be an unconscionable mess: we're not just talking changes in the extent of German occupation zones, but also changes in territory all over Europe, as in Italy and North Africa, or the Balkans. Anachronistic maps are usually a bad idea on this scale, but as a useful infobox locator map?? I would say that's just out of the realm of reasonable possibility.


 * Re Karelia... do you have a source on the military commander of that area? I was investigating that myself but could not find definitive info. At first I thought it must have been under Finnish control (hence the current state of the PNG), but later I remembered there were German troops up there as well, in no small number, and that their commanders often took operational control.. then it dawned on me the area is pretty much devoid of population, and that there may well not have been any real military occupation structure in place..?
 * Hungary fell under the control of its local Nazis (rather than the ultraconservatives), it never actually became occupied. Romania.. if it was ever under German military control it was a very short period, probably not formalized at all.


 * Either way, an anachronistic map - very bad idea imo. Especially for an infobox locator. Literally the only useful format I can think of would be some kind of animated gif, but I don't think I have the time to sit down and put together something like that for the entirety of WWII. -- Director  ( talk )  21:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If your map depicts the period at the height of Nazi expansion in the period immediately before Operation Uranus, then you definitely need to include all of France, since Case Anton was fairly well completed two weeks before Operation Uranus commenced. With regard to Finland, German troops were located in the Arctic north of Finland and did not make much headway beyond the Finnish border, Karelia was occupied by the Finns, as the map shows, the Germans being the black symbols and the Finns the blue. --Nug (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re Case Anton. The idea is to depict Nazi Germany "in 1942" in a general sense (please see the source file for the locator map), not a ten-day period. That would be a most unrepresentative snapshot to take. Please, lets not make this overly-pedantic..


 * Re Karelia. Yes I saw that map from the Continuation War article. I see Finnish troops in the south, and German troops in the north, and not much more. We can't very well highlight only the north of the area and not the south, unless the two areas were administered by different commands (if indeed any). Frankly, given German overall command on the Eastern Front, I'm not inclined to unhlighlight Karelia (or especially just south Karelia), unless we have sources explicitly confirming that the area was under a Finnish occupation authority. Recall, for example, that Hungarian and Romanian troops occupied large stretches of the front at that time, but we wouldn't declare those areas to not have been under German control. -- Director  ( talk )  07:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not really being consistent, first you argue that maps represent the "zenith of comparative German success", so when it is pointed out then that the whole of France should be included you move the goal posts with "The idea is to depict Nazi Germany "in 1942" in a general sense". Facepalm. With respect to Finland, are you kidding? See Finnish military administration in Eastern Karelia. --Nug (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * German Reich 1942 (11–19 November).svg Re Case Anton. You're right. I'm not being 100% consistent. I did say "immediately" before Uranus, and the 8 days in November between Anton and Uranus do in fact represent the highpoint of German territorial expansion in terms of occupied territory. However, I think actually using that tiny period as the basis for the locator map is being too pedantic about the point. It is imo much more instructive to go with the state of affairs pre-Anton, as that lasted for more than a negligible period. That's why it was chosen as representative of the 1942 blank map of Europe we are basically using to locate Germany.
 * Again, though, I'm perfectly happy to completely defer to the community on that point (I've uploaded a file for the period in question ): do we go with the 8-day period where the Germans had the most territory? Or the immediately-preceding period where they didn't have quite as much territory, but that lasted for months?


 * Re Karelia. Well thank you for bringing that to my attention, I'll modify the map accordingly. I've been looking for definitive info on that for a while now, and I did ask for assistance on that point. I'm puzzled, though.. why didn't you point to the article in the first place..? And why, I must ask, are you being abrasive about that now? ("are you kidding?") -- Director  ( talk )  21:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I seemed abrasive then it's probably because I hadn't had my coffee yet. Note that Germany did occupy the whole of France from Anton in November 1942 until Overlord in June 1944, similar to the duration they held the eastern occupied territories, so I think it reasonable to include the whole of France. --Nug (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a common misconception: it actually took the Allies until August 1944 to break out of Normandy... and Italy also occupied a pretty big chuck of France until September 1943, so its not technically "the whole" of the country - but I get your point. However, as I said, the map would only be accurate for 8 days, and that just seems kind of silly to me.


 * Also, consider looking at the issue from the perspective of overall fortunes in the war: by late October 1942 they were already turning against the Nazis. The Second Battle of El Alamein, the Torch landings... Hitler didn't really want to occupy the Free Zone in Vichy France, he was forced to do it by Allied efforts... so arguably that's kind of a bad thing for him, and the "highpoint" of Nazi Germany was just before torch and El Alamein, before he was forced to take defensive action in the southern front. And speaking in terms of territory, while German-occupied territory did technically increase on 11 November 1942, overall Axis-held territory had significantly diminished.. Vichy France lost all the colonies, etc.


 * That, in addition to the "its only 8 days" point, is why we should really go with late October 1942, pre-El-Alamein. -- Director  ( talk )  08:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hitler didn't really "want" to invade France neither, except that the French and British rejected Hitler's peace offer, the Germans where "forced" to occupy Norway to pre-empt the British, who were planning their own occupation. The Second Battle of El Alamein and the Torch landings in a different theatre, apart from the question of should North African territory occupied by the Germans be also included in the map, so what? Re this "its only 8 days" point, peaks or zeniths by their nature are narrow, you climb the slope, reach the top then descend down, why pick some arbitrary point on the ascent below the peak as representative? The war lasted six years, the peak occurred half way through in 1942, the decline was as long and the rise, so I think it reasonable to represent the peak of Nazi Germany that occurred in the middle of its existence. Certainly much easier to define than argue over some arbitrary point below that peak. --Nug (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a very arguable point whether Hitler wanted to invade France... maybe not just then, but eventually? All I can do is repeat my points:
 * The summer and early autumn of 1942 are the height of German military success, whereas by November 11 they have been driven back in North Africa and lost proxy control over vast areas of that continent. November 11 is a technical highpoint solely in terms of territorial extent (when strictly looking at Germany as such), not in terms of actual wartime success. (The comment re theatres is kind of pointless: we're not really talking about "theatres of operation" at all here.. France and Russia are different "theatres" too; whereas North Africa is very much part of the general German war effort.)
 * There is such a thing as too narrow. Would you still hold that position if the map were accurate for, say 17 hours? 8 days is far too narrow a period for me to agree that it can be representative of a country in a locator map, particularly as it represents only a technical territorial highgpoint, not a highpoint of military success in the war.
 * I want the map to be able to say "Nazi Germany in 1942", and have it be a roughly accurate statement. I don't want to have to qualify in the caption "Nazi Germany 11-19 November 1942". I think we shouldn't have to use a period so narrow we need to qualify so strictly, and I think that qualification would make the map less relevant (plus frankly kind of silly). -- Director  ( talk )  00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this, Director. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've introduced the pre-Alamein locator again, now that its been corrected in Karelia and Thrace. Hopefully it will be satisfactory.


 * P.s. That was me editing the article. I log in to Commons as "DIREKTOR", and when next I open Wiki I'm "DIREKTOR" here as well. I just returned from a rather long break - does anyone know what the devil happened? -- Director  ( talk )  12:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: the old PNG map is currently being upgraded to an SVG format, whereupon I'd like to introduce it (per Diannaa's suggestion) into the main body of the article. @Dannis243, please accept that aesthetic concerns are generally not a priority on our project, and that your perceptions of what is more or less "aesthetic" may not be shared by others. Don't edit-war: talk. -- Director  ( talk )  13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Map
the original map is also more useful it shows how europe was under german domination why do we have to replace with a low quality version? the new map is incorrect and people opposed it, if we dont show the full extent of nazi german influence whats the point to have 2 maps? Dannis243 (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a country article, not an article about occupied Europe as a whole, or World War II. The Nazi Germany infobox really shouldn't be cluttered with information not directly related to Nazi Germany as such - and that's the format used practically universally across Wikipedia: a green-on-grey locator map for the infobox. Furthermore, the old improvised PNG map isn't intended for infobox use, and thus contains a lot of information not legible from the infobox. As regards quality - its SVG (as opposed to PNG), its a superior format by Wikipedia guidelines.


 * That said, a new SVG version of the old map is in the works over at Commons. When that's done, I hope to introduce it into the main body of the article, per Diannaa's original suggestion. So in a while, the map that "aesthetically pleases" you will be back in the article. I responded above in that regard: aesthetic concerns are quite secondary on our project to instructive effectiveness, and your own personal perceptions need not be shared by others. (But, since I had a lot to do with how the old map looks, I'll take that as a compliment. :))


 * Most importantly: the map was discussed at length, introduced, and is in the article for quite a while now. Do not remove it without a consensus on the talkpage. -- Director  ( talk )  22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We discussed this at length six weeks ago, see Talk:Nazi Germany. While in my opinion the old map is aesthetically preferable, the new map is more in line with what we see on other articles about countries and former countries. Consensus is that the new map should be used. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship?
Hitler was Democratically elected. That is NOT a "dictatorship"!184.155.138.213 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read Nazi_Germany. --Neil N  talk to me 20:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Map
i propose we either use the new SVG VERSION of the orginal map IN THE INFOBOX or just use the map below (File:Grossdeutsches_Reich_NS_Administration_1944.png) Dannis243 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As Director said "This is a country article, not an article about occupied Europe as a whole, or World War II." then it would not make much sense to include occupied countries like denmark or northern france if we do that then we will have to include the other occupied europe countries Dannis243 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read the above discussion on this topic.


 * The standard locator map you oppose does not "include occupied countries", it includes German military and civilian occupation entities, controlled by German state institutions. I support including them (because that's how its generally done in locators), but I'm not married to this version: we can easily use this one, or even a pre-war locator (as in German Empire).


 * However, I do strongly oppose re-introducing the old map, in PNG or SVG format. I worked on it for a long time, and its a good map - for WWII and occupied Europe in general. For the purposes of an infobox locator map - its cluttered, it carries too much information, and it generally just doesn't do the job as well as a standard locator. That's because the standard locator is an old and perfected format for illustrating the location of a country, whereas the map of occupied Europe is a (partially) re-purposed image from a series on the course of WWII. It includes and points out places like Algiers, Russia, Britain, all sorts of unnecessary stuff...


 * All that said (again) - I myself requested an updated SVG version of the old thing because, as I mentioned, I think its a good map. Goran is working on it (and doing and excellent job) as we speak. It certainly should have a place in the article (when its done), just not the infobox. -- Director  ( talk )  18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Repeating my remarks from above: We discussed this at length six weeks ago, see Talk:Nazi Germany. While in my opinion the old map is aesthetically preferable, the new map is more in line with what we see on other articles about countries and former countries. My opinion is that the new map should be used, and the old map added elsewhere in the article once the new version is ready. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa's assessment herein. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do as well. We don't need a cluttered map, just a simple locator. It's fine if it shows the extent of nearby occupied territory, as an afterthought, but this article is about German, during the Nazi era, not about the Nazi military apparatus and its full extent. I.e., we should not be showing German-occupied Africa, etc., here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015
There is a mistake in this article, specificaly: Czechoslovakia was a part of Nazi Germany, later Czechoslovakia divided to two countries - Czech republic and Slovakia. Slovakia is missing. And in "parts of nazi germany" there's also Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is today a part of: Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, Bosna and Herzegovina and Slovenia. Also, Soviet Union derives from more countries.

Skyblik (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to come to some kind of consensus as to what to include in this field, as countries have been added/removed several times over the years. see for example . I think the list should only include those territories officially incorporated into the Reich. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree as to including those territories officially incorporated into the Reich for a selected specific timeframe. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The version of the article that passed GA did not include this "now a part of" business in the infobox at all. It was removed during the peer review. If we're going to include it at all, I think we need to be specific about what the criterion for inclusion is, and arrive at a consensus that we can point to in the future. I think a simple way to do it is to include all the territory shown in the darkest green in our infobox locator map. This includes (if I am understanding it correctly) Germany, Bohemia & Moravia (present-day Czech Republic), The General Govt (now part of Poland), and Austria. This means we would include in the "Succeeded by" section these four: Occupied Germany, Occupied Austria, part of Poland, and part of Czechoslovakia. In the "Now part of" section these four: Germany, Austria, part of Poland, and Czech Republic. Hopefully a few more people will add an opinion so we can build a strong consensus, whether we follow this suggestion or decide upon something else. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good article star or not, any article can be a better article. So the first step should be to define what consisted part of Nazi Germany and what not (should be in the article anyhow). Then it is obvious what countries succeeded in 1945 and what country they are part of now. BTW Talking of which: I don't see how Russia is controversial. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * None of Russia was ever officially incorporated into the Reich. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. But part of Germany was. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of Germany was incorporated into Russia; yes, that is correct. So I amend by suggestion to this: "Succeeded by": Occupied Germany, Occupied Austria, part of Poland, part of Czechoslovakia, part of USSR. In the "Now part of": Austria, part of Poland, Czech Republic, Russia. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So, where are we now?
 * Austria
 * Czech Republic
 * Poland
 * Russia
 * But how about:
 * Memelgebiet (today LT)
 * Bezirk Bialystok/Gebiet Grodno (today BY)
 * Distrikt Galizien (today UKR)
 * Untersteiermark/Oberkrain (today SLO)
 * Operationszone Adriatisches Küstenland (today HR)
 * Operationszone Alpenvorland (today I)
 * Elsass-Lothringen (today F)
 * Luxemburg (today LUX)
 * Eupen-Malmedy (today B)
 * Reichsgau Flandern/Reichsgau Wallonien/Distrikt Brüssel (dito)
 * Duivelsberg (NL)
 * Petržalka, Devin (SK)?


 * ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that we should not include these, but just paint the broad strokes. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All these territories were part of the Grossdeutsches Reich. How are you judging the borders Diannaa? I think it's factually correct to include all the territories that were officially part of the Grossdeutsches Reich. If you decided to include Kaliningrad, why not Alsace? -- Lokisis (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2015 (CET)
 * I've been trying to get a discussion going for the last week, and few people have shown up to comment. What I'm trying to avoid here is a situation like, where every place where German troops ever set foot is included in the info box. What I would like to see happen is enough people comment to make a firm consensus that we can point to in the future, to lend stability to the article and avoid edit wars over these lists. That's my main concern, as this is a Good Article and an important one. I've already stated my opinion above, and now you've stated yours. Further comments welcome -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the list is getting longer and longer, why not put an anchor and say "see Territorial changes"? That way all the relevant changes can be listed and explained, while the infobox does not overflow with flag icons. All the territories listed above are relevant, but are often rather minute in physical terms. So, list - say five, weight by extent, in the infobox, and deal with the rest somewhere more appropriate. This might avoid debates about relevance and 'de facto' vs 'de jure' in the future and keep everyone happy - sort of. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add that Evans 2008 page 373 says that Alsace-Lorraine was never officially incorporated into the Reich but was placed (like Luxembourg and Bialystok) under the authority of the closest Gau. I think ÄDA - DÄP is understanding my primary concerns quite well, which are that we need the article to be stable and the infobox to be of a reasonable size, not flooded with excessive detail. I like ÄDA - DÄP's idea of offering guidance (perhaps in the infobox footnote) as to where to go for additional info. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I agree with your suggested guideline for inclusion as stated above and agree with ÄDA - DÄP's suggestion for a footnote as to other territories. Although in further thought, if we are including the "occupied Soviet Union", that makes it harder not to include some others "areas", such as, Norway and France (not including Vichy France). Although turning my hat around, one can argue that the area of the Reichskommissarit Ostland and Reichskommissarit Ukraine, were seen as foundations of the new Grossdeutsches (Greater Germany). Kierzek (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not including "occupied Soviet Union", but rather that part of East Prussia (including the city of Königsberg) which became part of the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification; I was going by the discussion above; but given the clarification, then the German Reich proper should be in the map with the territories in footnote. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm understanding your concerns, but my concern is this; The list only includes territories that were part of Germany before the war, not the ones that were added later. Of course we shouldn't include territories that were only occupied, like Tunisia that also appeared on the list, but I think that we should include all the territories that were part of the Großdeutsches Reich.
 * I created a collapsible list of territories that were part of Germany in 1943. I specified some of the territories that don't include all or most of the country and I used modern names for the territories, because some of them were incorporated into already existing German regions, like Eupen-Malmédy or Petržalka. Please, let me know what you think about it. I think it solves all your concerns. Lokisis (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2015 (CET)
 * Also, let me know what you think about including Białystok, Galicia, Northern Italy and Istria. Not all sources show it as part of the Reich Lokisis (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2015 (CET)
 * I'm not very happy that you have already inserted your preferred version into the article, in spite of the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Part of what's happening here is an attempt to create a consensus as to what should be included in the info box, so that we can point to it in the future, and thus help with stability issues. That is not going to happen if one person unilaterally decides. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, do you want the changes reverted? The impression I got from this discussion is that it's used to debate the changes. I understand it needs to be stable, but it also needs to be factually correct Lokisis (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2015 (CET)
 * Obviously both correctness and stability are desirable. I just wish more people would post an opinion on what-all should be included. Flipping your addition in and out of the encyclopedia is not high on my list of things to do. If no one objects to your addition, let's leave it alone and see what happens. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Terminology
The term "Nazi-Germany" is unencyclopedic. It's basically a polemical term from the era. But it is scientifically incorrect. Correct name would be National Socialist Germany --165.165.64.91 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An interesting point. I'm not sure where science come into this, but you might want to have a look at WP:COMMONNAME which I think probably supports the current title. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick search in 'worldcat' produced 1,800 titles including "Nazi Germany" and 120 including "National Socialist Germany". I doubt that many of the former are polemical, though. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out several times in the past, WP:POVNAME specifically discourages titles like this:


 * Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious


 * Regardless of its widespread use, the word "Nazi" is a texbook colloquialism. I fear, however, that politics and ideology come into play here: "National Socialism" includes the word "socialism" which seems to add weight to certain lines of US right-wing libertarian thought, wherein Nazism is claimed to have been "socialist". In their eagerness to suppress this silly notion, many Wikipedians (presumably of left-wing leaning) tend to favor the word "Nazi" over the actual name of the ideology ("National Socialism") at every turn. For the longest time even the Nazism article neglected to mention that the word is just an abbreviation of the full name. As an outsider to the North American political scene (from Southeastern Europe), I find this understandable, but rather disturbing. -- Director  ( talk )  18:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have been through all this before, see archive for consensus; it really should be a WP:deadhorse at this point. Kierzek (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It really isn't deadhorse if its been months or years since its been discussed... that said, I certainly won't pursue the matter myself: I don't feel like banging my head against a brick wall in a political issue. But that doesn't mean I won't point out there's a perfectly valid WP:TITLE argument against using the abbreviation: its not a cut-and-dried WP:COMMONNAME issue. -- Director  ( talk )  20:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in my view, until "Nazi-Germany" becomes commonly referred to as "National Socialist Germany" in the English-speaking-world the former should stand.--Aspro (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And I am interested, but unconvinced, by the argument that we're saying Nazi because we daren't say Socialist. Is there any evidence for this belief? Somewhat unscientifically I can assure you that in a single-person poll of, er, me, it has no truth at all, though clearly the other people on the planet may have a different feel for it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I merely wanted to present, plainly and frankly (cuz that's how I roll :)), the ideological divide in this issue.. its nothing new. Ever since 1941(!), the right has been emphasizing the alleged socialistic aspects of Nazism, whereas the left has been downplaying them (both quite logically so). I obviously can not and did not presume to claim anything on behalf of everyone out there, or anyone specifically. The reason I lean towards the actual, full name is that, when in doubt, I prefer to just post the basic term, rather than any derivations thereof that may or may not be POV. It makes sense to me.


 * Both of you cite COMMONNAME as your backing in policy. To that I can only repeat: WP:TITLE outright recommends that, regardless of whether they're COMMONNAME(!), words like "Nazi" should be avoided in the title for the sake of NPOV. Of course, since Wikipedia basically functions as a democracy in most cases, whether that applies here depends exclusively on the position of the majority of involved users.. on whether they think it should apply :) --  Director  ( talk )  10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But again this is only your opinion, as mine is only mine. You say "WP:TITLE outright recommends that ... words like "Nazi" should be avoided" but I don't see that; the policy recommends that some types of words should be avoided but it does not mention "Nazi" as an example, which makes your "outright" dubious. Your point then revolves around whether "Nazi" fits into the exceptions given at WP:POVNAME - you clearly feel that it does, but I don't. Since we seem unlikely to agree, you could perhaps make a move request? That should at least shake some other opinions out of the tree a bit! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we can debate whether "Nazi" is indeed a colloquialism.. that's one point where personal opinion seems to come in. But, even were everyone to agree that it is, we could find a dozen other such points ("POVNAME only says we 'often' avoid such terms, not always", "all policies are just suggestions", etc.). As you correctly point out, the only way to resolve the disagreement is to essentially call a definitely-not-vote.. Like I said, though, I certainly don't feel like pursuing this matter. Even if I did, the article to do that first and foremost would be Nazism. -- Director  ( talk )  11:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in here if more voices are needed. Anybody who has a good faith argument that the article should be renamed is entitled to propose it. So long as it isn't the same people vexatiously proposing it over and over again, that is allowed. It is also completely pointless. The article is not going to be renamed as it already has the title that almost all English language sources use for it. This dead horse has already been flogged to a fine paste and made into microwave lasagnes. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know! I'm not going to! :D People randomly come in and point out that the title appears unencyclopedic, whereupon they're swiftly bludgeoned usually bludgeoned over the head with COMMONNAME. I'm just pointing out that its not nearly as cut-and-dried as that: there are exceptions to COMMONNAME, and colloquialisms are one. And that is it. I'm not posting an RM, I'm not that bored or silly :). --  Director  ( talk )  11:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Horsemeat then bludgeoning? Blimey. Not me guv. :) DBaK (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we last went through this in April 2014 and I believe our time can be better spent elsewhere. There is still plenty of work to be done. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The FAQ at the top of Talk:Nazi Party shows that Direktor is probably right. 216.8.170.184 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's just your POV/opinion, anon. 98.67.186.154 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Map, area of control
if the first map per talkpage should not of occupied europe as the editors of this talkpage said then we could look at first french empire article they have a svg map of france on its own and then a map of their most controll Dannis243 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going to beat this dead horse again, Dannis243. Pleae refer to the above thread. -- Director  ( talk )  12:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus from previous discussions was that we should change the map to the version currently in use. Previous discussions: Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4 (January 2015), plus several more discussions above. Dannis243, consensus appears to be against you this time. Please consider dropping this issue and finding something more productive to do with your editing time. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * but its diffrent this time and i explained the diffrence Dannis243 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Invalid RfC. This is not a request, but an ungrammatical sentence outlying in difficult-to-follow form something that the nominator wants to happen, but which has already been addressed above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, dead horse, compost at this point - move on. 98.67.186.154 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Map, Denmark
The map on the location of Germany that shows Germany during Axis supremacy has a missing element. Denmark is not colored in to indicate that it was occupied or a civilian-controlled region. (Crazy soviet (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
 * That's because it wasn't. In 1942. Its status was at that time similar to that of Vichy France: a legally independent state that, due to being militarily defeated by Germany, was firmly in the German sphere. It wasn't actually occupied, that's a common misconception, probably because it tends to be lumped together with Norway (rather ironically). -- Director  ( talk )  01:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The German occupation of Denmark is described by many as a model for Nazi rule after the war, i.e. a nominally independent government under German control.
 * Mentioning Vichy, the map is dated 1942, the Free Zone was occupied in November that year, so was Tunisia BTW.
 * A third curiosity involves the Protection Zone in West-Slovakia. It is colour-coded as "military-administrated occupied territory". The treaty only granted basing rights and control of military-relevant industries. That made it much more like Denmark, than e.g. Norway.
 * And lastly, since the operational zone on the Eastern Front is marked, so should the Petsamo area, and more importantly the bridgeheads on Soviet territory west of Murmansk. These were under German military administration, rather than Finnish authority.
 * ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The model used by the US today? :) I kid.
 * Yup, Case Anton, November 1942. The map depicts the highpoint of German wartime success, rather than "1942" in its entire extent. But (with the exception of the relatively fluid Eastern Front) its accurate for most of that year, like the map before it. We can always be more exact in the description..
 * I did not know that. Its always been highlighted as occupied in the maps, so it just kind of remained. Can you back that up?
 * I'm not personally familiar with the exact situation in Karelia. We had a discussion on the topic above, and the article Finnish military administration in Eastern Karelia was brought up as evidence that the area was under Finnish, rather than German, military administration.
 * -- Director  ( talk )  13:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indirect rule has been popular among emipre builders since ancient times, I guess.
 * Description should be more precise as to the date - something like "before 7 November 1942" or so.
 * ADAP, Ser. D, Bd. VII, S. 41 "Schutzzonenvertrag"
 * This shows the extend of German occupation. And according to Hermann Teske, p.138, the 68th Parallel north marked the beginning of Korück 525's responsibility.
 * ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P.s. Thanks to Goran, we now have an alternative locator depicting the situation in 1939, before World War II (as with the German Empire article). Here it is. -- Director  ( talk )  13:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Well done. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If we're going to use a precise dating, we need to know when the map starts, as well as stops, being accurate. It appears to depict roughly the maximum extent of German advances in the Caucasus region, so I would extrapolate that its probably at least September or October? We need to know when Kleist's Army Group A reached that approximate line.


 * Ok. That will be fixed.


 * I can't make much out, I'm afraid. If you could draw or find a better map, I'd be happy to fix the locator? I would suggest just drawing the line on a map of Europe? -- Director  ( talk )  17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the Caucasus the winter offensive did not start until 13 December 1942 (see map here).


 * This map of Petsamo should be more detailed. The frontline (blue-red line on the right) was pretty much static until October 1944. The Finnish border is marked, and there is a scale.
 * ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but I'm not sure when exactly Kleist reached the line in the first place. The line we're depicting in the Caucasus with the locator.


 * What I'm seeing is a map of a Soviet offensive in the region. I'm not seeing the demarcation line between Finnish and German military administration. -- Director  ( talk )  14:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Could the current map perhaps be modified to include a fourth shade for the "nominally unoccupied" areas, such as Denmark and Vichy France? The previous map did this. 58.107.184.66 (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthem
The infobox shows both "Lied der Deutschen" and the "Horst Wessel Lied". So far so good. The "Lied der Deutschen" however uses subtitles from the third stanza (the one used in modern Germany). During the Nazi era only the first stanza was used. 81.146.50.141 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015
In the infobox at the top, please change | flag_p1 =Flag of Germany (3-2 aspect ratio).svg to a 3-to-2-aspect-ratio version of File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg because the latter was used more often as the Nazi German flag than the former.

GommehGaming101 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done; the flag in   is the flag of the predecessor state, the Weimar Republic. Note (and click on; it's a wikilink!) the tiny arrow above the flag. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox -- pre-WWII Italian territory annexed by the Third Reich
Due to the formal annexation of parts of post-1918 Italy (most obviously the former Austro-Hungarian territories annexed by Italy after WWI (South Tirol or Alto Adige, Trieste, and Istria) and Yugoslav territories now in Slovenia and Croatia, predecessors of Nazi territory should include Italy (as the fascist Repubblica Sociale); an immediate successor of Nazi Germany should include the Kingdom of Italy; territorial successors today should include the Republic of Italy and Croatia as well as Slovenia, no matter what slight acceptance the world had of such annexations. Mussolini acquiesced, which is enough. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Motto of Nazi Germany
The motto in the info box is misleading. "God with us" is the motto of the Prussian Hohenzollern, and therefore the traditional motto of the German military of the first half of the 20th century. It is by no means the motto of Nazi Germany. No need to say that it contradicts several other articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_mottos#G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns#Usage If one insist on quoting a motto, "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" would be more fitting. However the best solution would be to specify no motto at all, because there are just no appropriate sources to prove any of these mottoes.

Δικαστής (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ You are correct as to this recent edit (I know I had missed the addition). There was no official national motto and we went through all this in a past discussion. I removed it, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence
I don't have the nerve to edit the lead sentence of an important article, but it really needs to be rewritten. There's just no way that anyone ever uses the phrase "Nazi Germany" to refer to a period of time. It means the country of Germany during a particular period of time. Ishboyfay (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the opening sentence says "Nazi Germany and the Third Reich (German: Drittes Reich) are common English names for the period of history in Germany from 1933 to 1945" I do not see any problem--how can it be misread?? Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any ambiguity. Kierzek (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What if we change it to read "Nazi Germany and the Third Reich (German: Drittes Reich) are common English names for Germany from 1933 to 1945" -- Diannaa (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that misses the reason for the term. The term is unusual because of its emphasis on the regime in power that took control of practically all aspects of culture. Rjensen (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "Nazi Germany and the Third Reich (German: Drittes Reich) are common English names for Germany while it was under National Socialist control, from 1933 to 1945" This seems to cover all bases. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I support Hohum's suggestion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "control" seems a little vague; how about "under the National Socialist government" or ""under the National Socialist regime. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "Nazi Germany and the Third Reich (German: Drittes Reich) are common English names for Germany while it was led by Adolf Hitler's National Socialist government, from 1933 to 1945" -- Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, I can agree to that wording. Kierzek (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree. this article tries to cover German society & economics & indeed all aspects of national history. Likewise the RS range far beyond the government.  As the very title says the nazi PARTY -- not the govt) is central. Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015
Please remove the flag and any other symbols with the nazi logo as it offends me as I am Jewish

72.73.112.104 (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:NOTCENSORED Cannolis (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015
Denmark should be added to the map of areas controlled by Nazi Germany in 1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_in_World_War_II

186.64.179.94 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ per Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4 -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

^Request: Removal/Alteration of inappropriate material
The fact that the Nazi anthem is included - indeed featured - so prominently in this article is a concern. There are plenty of instances of countries, no longer extant, whos anthem is NOT featured at all. So why is this anthem featured? If it must be in the article it should not feature so prominently. As to the Horst Wessel, why is that there at all? It wasn't the anthem. It certainly has no place in the info box nor, really, in the article itself. I'd like to request the removal and/or less prominent featuring of these (to many) offensive items from the article. Failing that they should be featured less prominently. 213.114.9.93 (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both were declared to be national anthem's of the regime. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of "positive" legacy?
First, I must make this clear: I in no way seek to endorse or act as an apologist for Nazi Germany, and I absolutely know that the vast proportion of its legacy is wholly negative, or is only positive in the respect of its frequent use as a historical warning or for the changes to international law which resulted as a consequence of its atrocities. However, as an objective encyclopedia, we shouldn't ignore the fact that there were some noteworthy positive achievements by the state which still remain - which are currently not included in the "legacy" subheading. I honestly don't know if there is much more than this, but the two most significant that I can think of are the autobahns and Volkswagen. I am personally quite pleased at the generally factual nature of this article (it mentions bad things and good things - suprising considering the subject matter) and I believe that this should also apply to the legacy section. Please, feel free to consider and/or comment on my suggestion; I'm all open for questions and criticism. I just feel like getting the ball rolling here. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In order to do this we would need sources that discuss Nazi contributions as positive. We can't make that judgement ourselves – that would be original research. — Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I don't necessarily mean to explicitly state such legacies as "positive" - I was using this term to contrast with the content already included in the legacy section. The section could very well be altered without including such phrases, for instance by including a mention of "surviving physical legacy", which may include anything from surviving buildings to companies. However, I do accept that if a distinction between "positive" and "negative" is to be included in this case, citations would certainly be necessary - Aardwolf A380 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless there's some kind of positive-legacy-implying commentary from reliable sources regarding Autobahnen or Volkswagen, there's no point mentioning them again in the Legacy section. Both things are already mentioned higher up in the article. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Diannaa, I'll see what I'll do Aardwolf A380 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, if we can get the sources. Nazi Germany has some decent legacy in the field of technology.
 * Its Heinkel He 176 (1939) was the world's first aircraft to be propelled solely by a liquid-fuelled rocket, and though commercially unsuccessful was a breakthrough in aviation.
 * Heinkel He 178 (1939) was the first practical jet aircraft and led to further developments.
 * The Messerschmitt Me 262 (1944) was the world's first operational jet-powered fighter aircraft, and the template for later aircraft such as the North American F-86 Sabre and the Boeing B-47 Stratojet.
 * The V-1 flying bomb (1944) was the first production aircraft of any type to use a pulsejet for power, and proved an influential (and copied) design for cruise missiles. Previous attempts for cruise missiles were mostly failures.
 * The V-2 rocket (1944) was the first long-range guided ballistic missile. It was also the first artificial object to cross the boundary of space. It served as a template for later rockets, both military and space rockets. It is considered a key influence on manned space exploration.
 * The Z1 computer (1938) was the first freely programmable computer in the world which used Boolean logic and binary floating point numbers. Partly the template for later developments, though not particularly reliable itself.
 * The Z3 computer (1941) was an early electromechanical computer. It was the first working programmable, fully automatic digital computer.

While very dated today, its technological creations have had a great effect on 20th century technology. Dimadick (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This has come up before..


 * Lots here about ... "The Legacy of Nazi Medicine" - "Rockets" etc......
 * Germany was the first nation on earth to ban vivisection and cruel animal - lots of sources at Animal welfare in Nazi Germany.
 * Nazi Germany huge public welfare system are still influencing the world today.
 * Freeway systems were studied and then implemented in north America...then the world.
 * -- Moxy (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

POW section
I do not fully understand the relevance of the two statements below to the section "Mistreatment of Soviet POWs":


 * The Soviet Union lost 27 million people during the war; less than nine million of these were combat deaths. One in four of the population were killed or wounded.

I think this section should contain more information on the fate of the POWs, rather than general statements as above. I could provide a few sentences, or other editors could as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Request edit?
Under the background sub-title, there's an error. " After the federal election of 1932, the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag, holding 230 seats with 37.4 per cent of the popular vote.[13] " Shouldn't it be percent, not per cent. Please fix this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathalieomg (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not really an error but it is unusual. If you look at Percentage you will see that it says that "per cent" is sometimes used in British English. I am British and I can confirm that this is not normally done these days. When writing it would never occur to me to add the extra space but, if I was to read text with the extra space already in it, I doubt that I would notice it as an oddity unless I was intentionally proofreading. Anyway, I agree that it should be changed. Anything that distracts some readers from what the text actually says is not desirable and it is nice to see an edit request that isn't going to turn into some big argument about ideology or history. There are 25 occurrences of "per cent" in the article. None seem to be used in direct quotation of another source so I'll change them all. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Was it Nazi Germany of Fascist Germany?
I don't really understand how can a country be nazi and fascist at the same time? It's very different theories, but still some people say "Nazi Germany", others say "Fascist Germany". I found this picture and it shows that those ideologies are indeed very different. How can something or someone be fascist and nazi at the same time? Spvms (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * observers then and scholars today group them together. See Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: The 'Fascist' Style of Rule (1995) by Alexander J. De Grand. Wiki follows these relaible secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does it say in the article that "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state which controlled nearly all aspects of life. " I'm pretty sure it was national-socialist totalitarian state, not fascist, even the name of the article is "Nazi Germany" Spvms (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The consensus is that Nazism is a special type of Fascism. So it is correct (although not optimally specific) to call Nazis "Fascist" but not to call all Fascists "Nazi" because some Fascists were not Nazis (See Fascist Italy for example). So Nazi Germany was Nazi and hence Fascist. We prefer to use "Nazi" in the title as that conforms with the academic consensus and also because it is the more specific of the two correct words. There is nothing wrong with using "Fascist" elsewhere in the article though. It is like referring to a German Shepherd merely as "a dog". It is not incorrect, just less specific. It may be that using the less specific term makes more sense in the particular example you give. In that example, it is saying "Nazi Germany was fascist and totalitarian", which might be helpful information for anybody who did not already know that, whereas effectively saying "Nazi Germany was Nazi" would be tautological and unhelpful to anybody who did not already know what Nazi meant. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016
Please change the Greater German Reich in the Names section to Great German Reich as it is a more accurate translation from German - greater would be größeres and not groß

81.218.52.202 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Grossdeutsches Reich is in English sources called Greater German Reich. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016
Please delete this article and ban the word Nazi as it can offend jews and germans

198.52.13.15 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Third Reich
I corrected the text of the article with the following phrase: The state kept the official name of the Weimar Republic Deutsches Reich ("German Reich", "German Empire" or "German Realm") from 1933 to 1943 and changed to Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich) from 1943 to 1945. This correction was deleted without any justification.

If the text of the article uses the term of "Third Reich" (especially as the article states that this is an English language expression) it should be explained that the term Third Reich was not the name of the German state from 1933 to 1945. The term was used only after the end of WW2. As it is not the official name of the German state, it is necessary to explain this and to indicate who invented this term and when in was first used.

This explanation is required, because it is historically incorrect. The socalled first German empire was actually called the Roman Empire. The "second German Reich" which was created in 1870 was not abolished in 1918 or 1919 as the Weimar Republic was still officially called the German Reich, this being stipulated by the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. The German Reich was not transformed by the National Socialist into the third Reich.

I do not understand why a simple phrase trying to explain that officially there never was a Third Reich has to be censored. It is wrong not to explain however simply why this term is used.Afil (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the lead is for a summary of what is in the main article, not for isolated items of information, per WP:LEAD. There is section about naming. Second, you provide no sources for your assertion that the name remained "The Weimar Republic" in this period. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Move to Change Title
Nicknames are forbidden under Wiki Law. Move to change title to something academic. 2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a nickname. It's used as part of the main title in books by leading academic publishers, including Cambridge University Press, Manchester University Press, Princeton University Press, Oxford UP, U of Michigan Press, etc etc as well as WW Norton & Company, Random House, etc. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Nicknames are forbidden under Wiki Law". Not sure where you get this from. First, there is no "Wiki Law", and second, nicknames certainly are not even frowned upon on Wikipedia. Many articles have nicknames in their titles. And third, as Rjensen points out, it's not a nickname; it's an acronym. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl1/17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Censorship
There are censors monitoring this talk page. I suppose this post will be censored, too, because censors don't much like criticism.

Censorship is very befitting of an article on Nazi Germany, so I really can't expect anything less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No censorship; your prior post had nothing to do with improving this article and was removed under WP:Notaforum. Wikipedia is also not a "soapbox". Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

German, Nazi, other?

 * Nazis - That's the common name for all the German military forces during WW2 - sources please
 * Hungarian, Romanian, Italian troops participated. Finland fought its limited war.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed a couple of instances of "Nazis" to "Axis powers". Please let me know if you have spotted any other instances that require re-wording. — Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Partial truth
Jews and others deemed undesirable were imprisoned and murdered in Nazi concentration camps and extermination camps. :
 * Many Jews were shot (Bloodlands by Snyder, Ordinary Men by Browning)
 * Mentally ill weren't imprisoned, compare Action T4. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to "imprisoned, murdered in Nazi concentration camps and extermination camps, or shot. ". — Diannaa (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

General Government ?
The map shows the GG as a part of the Reich. Sources, please. Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Euthanasia
Gas was used in 1940 already Action T4. Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pure carbon monoxide gas was used in 1940, but not Zyklon B which was first used in 1941. And the killings of T4 in 1940 were not done in large-scale gas chambers (designed for mass killing used by Nazi Germany), which is what I assume the cited text refers to, but I don't have that book to check. ? Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I already edited the page before I went to work, and confirmed while I was there that page 138 of Longerich says gas vans (which used carbon monoxide gas) were introduced for Aktion T4 in early 1940. So I have just now made a further correction from gas chambers→gas vans. — Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think maybe gas chambers (using carbon monoxide) may have been used in Aktion T4 as well; I never thought to check Longerich for that and will do so on Monday (I am off work now for the long weekend). — Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Check this: Brandenburg Euthanasia Centre. I am interested in what Longerich further states. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/places/germany/brandenburg/brandenburg-001.html Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not use the Nizkor Project as a source if we can help it. Let's just leave it until Monday, when I will be going back to the library. — Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's something: Evans (2008) says on page 75-76 that Polish psych patients were killed using CO gas at Posen in late 1939. Adding now. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fort VII. It seems that Polish sources say that the beginning was 1939 but Herbert Lange says 1940 (Friedlander).Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2016
Please, change the date of German height of World War II success from "late 1942" to "19th November 1942" because that is more accurate date (Eve of the beggining Operation Uranus)." MarcusTraianus (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should give a specific date, especially without any sourcing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Source? All sources are in Wikipedia, but as far as I know, I can't give source from Wikipedia itself, so that (https://books.google.ru/books?id=RBlwCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT26&lpg=PT26&dq=19+november+1942+map&source=bl&ots=MQ08fNlpmx&sig=J6z4fwprED1Ar68FCUdTHKgx7cc&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKuMnsw5TPAhXqHpoKHSBdA604ChDoAQg3MAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) is a good source. See "The Soviet Counteroffensive" part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusTraianus (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Google won't let me view that content. I stand by my statement that citing a particular specific date as the peak of Nazi success is not appropriate here, as wartime is a lot more fluid than that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your fears. You think, that front line changed every day and there is really hard to find a day, when Nazi Germany was in its height. But in November 1942 front line changed only in Stalingrad (If we're talking about only Germany occupation territory), and in November 19th they gained the maximal territorial extent (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Battle_of_Stalingrad-en.svg). I think, we can give a special date here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusTraianus (talk • contribs) 17:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Map
So, Denmark was independent then? 49.200.119.10 (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4 — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 13:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppression of Churches
Some of the references in this section are quite outdated, i.e. Shirer, Berben. More up-to-date material can be found for example: Heschel, Susannah (2008). The Aryan Jesus : Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12531-2. Ericksen, Robert (2012). Complicity in the Holocaust : churches and universities in Nazi Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-01591-3. At the moment have not time to add, but perhaps I can do it later... Joel Mc (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Germany under the Nazi Party
Proposal for a new name. "Germany Under the Nazi Party". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjin6 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

title inaccurate
shouldnt this be called third Reich? because it wasn't officially called Nazi germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.207.86 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to this post and the one directly above: The policy on article titles as detailed at WP:COMMONNAME calls for article titles to be the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources. Therefore "Nazi Germany" is the title. You may wish to review previous talk page discussions at Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 4 (2012), Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 3 (2007), and Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 1 (2005). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

citation
Measuring Mennonitism: Racial Categorization in Nazi Germany and Beyond. This article is a great addition to the Wikipedia source because it derives from a scholarly source (Harvard University) which specifies on the racial categorization in Nazi Germany. The article covers the gaps found in the Wikipedia source; therefore reinforces the source to be far more credible.

Goossen, B. W. (2016). Measuring Mennonitism: Racial Categorization in Nazi Germany and Beyond. Journal Of Mennonite Studies, 34225-246.Jgallaga (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

- Actually the referenced article is a little "in the weeds" for a the general Nazi Germany article. A good place to include this material might be the Nazism and race Wiki-article instead.--Obenritter (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
A section of introduction paragraph originally read: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state which controlled nearly all aspects of life." I changed this section to remove the word "fascist" as Fascism and Nazism are not completely one and the same. However, the edits were reverted and the structure of the sentence has been altered to: "Under Hitler's rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist state. The Nazi Party took totalitarian control over nearly all aspects of life." In my attempts to restore the original sentence structure, I unintentionally re-removed the word "fascist", which caused my edit to be reverted again.

The current sentence structure of two separate short sentences does not flow as well as the old structure and I propose returning to the original structure. I would also like to propose a vote on removing the word "facist" as it is apparent that certain people disagree with my perspective (even though the intro is the only time that the word "fascist" appears in the entire article). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I would certainly vote for leaving the word "fascist" in and would suggest that anyone should read Robert O. Paxton's "The Five Stages of Fascism" in The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23 before voting. Joel Mc (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC) For example: "What characteristics distinguished Germany and Italy, where fascism took power, from countries such as France and Britain where fascist movements were highly visible but remained marginal?" Paxton, p. 16--Joel Mc (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't really see a problem with the current grammar but if it can be improved further then that is fine. The substantive content should not be altered when doing so, and the mention of fascism should stay. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Today part of
Currently, there are mentions of Guernsey and Jersey (seemingly arbitrarily chosen occupied territories), and no mention of Ukraine (Western Ukraine/Eastern Galicia; in the General Government) and Belarus (eastern raions of the Bezirk Bialystok). Any ideas on how to treat them?--Adûnâi (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There already was a very contentious discussion on what to include. I agree that Białystok could have been included, but if I remember correctly it's been refused.Lokisis (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect flag
The German flag was slightly different then simply a swastika in a white circle on a red flag. There was a black outline around the circle with stipes reaching out to each side of the flag and an iron cross in the upper right corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:A920:397A:BC44:3B21:EF9B (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the War Ensign. See commons:File:War Ensign of Germany 1935-1938.svg. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There was still a black outline around the circle on the regular flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:A920:A016:C89F:3D1F:A0E1 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Waffen-SS as "de facto fourth branch of the Wehrmacht"
I removed the statement cited to Stein as controversial and not supported by more recent historiography: diff. If this statement is kept, I suggest attributing it to Stein and counter-balancing with other opinions, such as below:


 * HIAG asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"; these claims were even "more dubious", according to Large. As a Nazi organisation combining both military and police powers, the Waffen-SS was a military arm of the SS....


 * The historian James M. Diehl describes HIAG's claims of the Waffen-SS being the so-called fourth branch of the Wehrmacht as "false".

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The information was sourced to Weale 2012 Army of Evil: A History of the SS at the time the article passed GA. I don't have the book at home right now but can look this up on Monday when I go back to work (I work at the library). Your sources are dated 1987 and 1993, and are therefore not more recent than Weale (first published in 2010). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, "fourth branch of the Wehrmacht" brings up various uses, including from Tim Ripley who simply states: "Waffen-SS were to be the fourth branch of the Wehrmacht, alongside the army, navy, and air force" (not even de facto, as in Stein). Ripley's works have been described by historian Henning Pieper as part of a "huge array of non-scholarly works which can be summarised as belonging to genre of 'militaria literature'".




 * Weale's work is recent, but he appears to have written a popular history book, rather than a history one. Here's a review, that describes Weal as a "freelance writer and former officer in the British army". The review notes that he does not speak German and thus "misses out on a great deal of recently published research on the SS".


 * I suggest we give more weight to professional historians, which both Large and Diehl are. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A "popular history book" rather then a "history book"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, that is opinion only which I certainly do not agree. I will reply to this later when I have time.
 * Until then it should be noted that the same review by Richard Evans notes: "...on the other hand, he has made good use of documents in the National Archives at Kew, including interrogation records of former SS officers and files on British volunteers for the SS, the subject of a previous book by the same author. He gives a good summary of some of the central aspects of the organisation's history, and his book is remarkably free from error..."
 * As I have well learned in my day job, things are almost never one sided or one dimensional, and there is usually more to a story, so to speak. With that said, I remember in the back of my mind, I removed the Weale cite as I recall it was not directly on point in the end and I recall I added Stein as he was for the sentence; but I don't have time to review it all at the moment as that thing called work is in my way.
 * One more point Evans makes: "Astonishingly, the most detailed and reliable history (on the SS), by the German journalist Heinz Höhne, was published over 40 years ago..." And I know K.e. you have raised the "dated" argument as to Höhne in the past; I content that both Höhne and Stein are still valid today as RS sources and have not seen anything to suggest that Stein, who was removed it your edit, is not still considered a good RS (and academic source for that matter, which as we all know is not a required standard on Wikipedia). And it is noteworthy that Evans states that a 40 year old book by a "journalist", he considered still the best book on the SS. Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As an academic historian who has studied under both Peter Fritzsche and Jeffrey Herf (I've also met and chatted with several important German historians), I can attest that they consider George Stein and Heinz Höhne to be trustworthy sources. Numerous scholars like Ian Kershaw, Peter Longerich, Michael Geyer, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Raul Hilberg, Claudia Koonz, Ron Rosenbaum, Michael Fahlbusch, Mark Roseman, Detlef Muhlberger, Michael R. Marrus, Dan Stone, and others all consider Heinz Höhne a reliable source and cite him. Concerning George H. Stein, he is cited by the likes of David Stahel, Anson Rabinbach, Donald Detwiler, Robert Koehl, Raffael Scheck, Peter Scharff Smith, Bruno De Wever, among others. With the use of their work by such notable historians in mind, I find it in poor taste and inappropriate to disparage the academic quality of either of these authors' works.--Obenritter (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For all intents and purposes, they were a branch of the military although by technical legal interpretation of German law (of the time), they were a formation of the Nazi Party. The two key points to consider are 1)the Wafen-SS was routinely folded into the German armed forces order of battle with Waffen-SS members routinely placed under the command of Regular Army senior commanders (with some exceptions - the two SS armies for instance, but even they were part of an Army Group).  Paul Hausser was further made commander of a Regular Army Group, showing that in the German armed forces system, a Waffen-SS officer could be given command over regular military personnel.  Point 2)As far as I know, after much fighting about it, the West German government recognized Waffen-SS members as members of the military and granted them veteran pensions so long as they were not involved in war crimes.  That point I admit I don't know too much about, I've jut read the standard stuff about HAIG that everyone else has already mentioned. -O.R.Comms 18:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've pointed out that the opinion of the Waffen-SS being "the fourth branch of the Wehrmacht" is controversial and provided two RS that attest to such. What I'm objecting to is that a controvercial statement is being offered in Wikipedia voice as a statement of fact:


 * The Waffen-SS, the military branch of the SS, became a de facto fourth branch of the Wehrmacht.

Given that other opinions exist, I believe that they should be represented, or at least the statement above attributed to sources listed.

Re veterans' pensions, this is not what I see from sources I consulted. According to Large:
 * In 1961, the West German government partially restored pension rights to Waffen-SS personnel under the 131 legislation. Included were those former Waffen-SS members who had served for a minimum of 10 years strictly in the military capacity, thus amounting to a tiny number of eligible personnel. HIAG greeted this development as a partial victory, which they hoped would lead to a complete rehabilitation, but no further concessions from the West German authorities ever came.

Could you point to sources that discuss Waffen-SS as "a branch of the military, for all intents and purposes"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Countless journal articles, also the "Handbook on German Military Forces", published by the War Department during WWII, clearly states the Waffen-SS was an integrated part of the German military. The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich also speaks on the subject, again mainly to state that the Waffen-SS was routinely subordinated, in an operational role, to the regular German military.  But, to counter, it is completely accurate that they were a Nazi Party organization and not a legal branch of the German military.  That is why most articles always say things like "de facto", "for operational purposes", "for all intents and purposes", etc.  They were not part of the military, but everyone simply acted like they were. -O.R.Comms 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have that tome as well. Zentner & Bedurftig state on page 1011 as the Waffen-SS being "incorporated mainly into the field army and were tactically subordinate to the relevant army command authorities". They do point out that they were not legally a "fourth branch", p. 1012. And they state how there was more to the Waffen-SS; they were the military arm of the Nazi Party and state. They were indoctrinated in Nazi ideology and committed murder and war crimes (pp. 1011-1013); to which I think we all agree. And frankly the close conduct with the army does not clean up the Waffen-SS members or units, at all; their history is clear and if anything, the close field operations and overall command muddies up the "clean German Army (Wehrmacht)"; their false post-war reputation. Kierzek (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)