Talk:Racial policy of Nazi Germany/Archive 2

Merger?
We have two articles, this one and Nazism and race, which seem to cover exactly the same ground, so I'm not seeing the need to have both of them and suggest they be merged (I reallyhave no preference which title they be merged under). If the two articles are supposed to have different focuses, then I'd like to hear what those focuses are, and each article would need to be sharpened to adhere to their particular focus -- but really, I think they're largely duplicative. What do folks think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In their current state, the two articles might just as well be merged. But it might be desirable to have two articles:
 * on Nazi beliefs about race (i.e. what they thought and said)
 * on Nazi policy concerning race (i.e. what they attempted to do - laws passed and government programmes)
 * Currently both articles are a mishmash of both.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of that as as split point - one on the ideology, and one on the legal mechanisms, but (1) that's probably harder to put into affect then a straight merge and (2) it might be difficult to stop them from growing into each other again. I don't feel strongly about merge vs. focusing, but I do think that we should do one or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to implement a split would be the same as a straight merge - the difference would be that the policy bits would go in a different article, rather than different sections. An area of stickiness would be the so-called policy towards people like Egyptians and Japanese - the German government wanted the help of these people, so they said nice things.  They were nice towards the USSR between 23 August 1939 and 21 June 1941.  I prefer that policy be restricted to Germany and occupied territories.
 * A hat-note explaining the difference between the articles would help.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merging: I think that Nazi beliefs and practices would be easier to discuss together than separately. Catrìona (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure: for example, Nazi racial policies did not extend to Japan, as Germany was an ally, not an occupier. However, there were some Nazi beliefs related to Asians. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merging of the two articles into one. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Racial policies of Nazi German are describing it's actions, Nazis and Race should describe their ideology.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Merge Both the ideology and actions of the Nazis regarding race are generally consistent and overlap sufficiently to amalgamate these two articles. Otherwise it represents a duplication of effort and occupies unnecessary space on Wikipedia servers. Bringing them together will require a careful eye to eliminate redundancy, but it makes sense to do so. By the way folks, the use of other races for temporary advantage does not change the fact that they wanted to create an all "Germanic/Aryan" world in the end.--Obenritter (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Opposed What MyMoloboaccount said is correct and under his understanding I would oppose a merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQueensSalsburyStrak (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)  Brand new account, only edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while dealing with similar things, they are different subjects. As already stated, the two articles are beliefs vs practices, and they don't always correspond. Also the combined article would be greater than 50kB and 8000 words, so (as per WP:TOOBIG) the size alone of the new article might warrant it being split up: or in this case keeping them as separate articles. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  13:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How did Hitler infringe on the rights of minorities by implementing his racial policy in Germany
Hi 41.115.102.251 (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your question is very vague. There's six million ways I could answer it. Also, article talk pages are not the place to discuss the topic; it's the place to discuss improvements to the article.— Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

History
How did Hitler infringe on the right of minorities by implementing his racial policy in Germany 41.246.26.99 (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

History
What was the outcome of these policies 2C0F:ED28:1038:8A0:30E2:9E1C:F9C:8E1F (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An insignificant little event we call The Holocaust. You know, the one where 6 million Jews were murdered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jewish response
I added the Jewish response to the laws. It is my goal add some NPV to the essay. DarkCorners 11/28/04 10.41pm I would like to have a source about the Jewish reaction of the Laws. .. whilst i accept that this topic is highly emotive, i am a little concerned about the the author's editorialisations. As a highly-cited information source i dont think it is professional to be describing the laws as 'outrageous' and 'ridiculous'. The final paragraph "in conclusion..." seems particularly prone to this.
 * I will delete them on the base of the information being none representative for "jewish" or even some closer investigation of what organisation these were. http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch12.htm


 * I do agree with this assessment. Further, very, very little actual information regarding the laws themselves is found in this essay (it is certainly not an article).  Most is a general discussion of Third Reich policy which is already located in that article. Why are the laws themselves not explicitly detailed?
 * The Nuremberg laws are very essential to the topic. You can find the original German law text at . Some important points are summarized at . ben 13:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the article should begin with Hitler's ideology as of Mein Kampf at the beginning. ben 13:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the Laws merit a separate article (they're an important antecedent to be never repeated again). User: Horzer 13:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

About "Who did it"
I personally agree with this paragraph: "In conclusion, we find that Nazi-German racial policy grew increasingly violent and aggressive through the years 1933 and 1939. This, in many ways, was Hitler's aim; he wanted the German populace to accept and support his outrageous theories and, in order for this to happen, he had to implement the regime of terror gradually. It worked fantastically, and the vast majority of Germans essentially agreed with his policies or kept silent. Those who disagreed were prevented from occupying prominent positions in politics and industry through laws and decrees passed during these years. Possibly the most important action that Hitler undertook was the Reich Citizenship Law, in which Jews were stripped of all Citizens' rights and officially segregated from German society. It also paved the way for other laws to come in the near future." ...but there are some problems and it should be changed. Because, it is very controversial, who committed the crimes. The paragraph states basically it was Hitler who seduced the people. This view is generally adopted in America. But this is only one of several hypotheses. Many people assume a collective guilt of all Germans. That's why Germans speak of the "Gnade der späten Geburt" (lit. "mercy of later birth"), when talking about that issue, stating that only those who were too young or born after the Third Reich can be sure to have nothing to do with it. The paragraph ought to balance or at least mention that. It would be a good idea to have even a separate article about that. see e.g. the German wikipedia:. ben 12:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to set the scene a bit more: for example that the intitial law enacted in 1933 ie. Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, was based on a voluntary sterilization law drafted by Prussian health officials in 1932 (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007057), that eugenics was mainstream science across the world, and oddly that some eugenisists still admired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes). I know that the article takes more of a politcal approach, but i think that adding some science would be illuminating. Tim 12:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Excessive photos
I've removed several photos and replaced with the three photos that were in the section at the beginning of June. Six photos in this section is excessive. Placing them both left and right does not work at all on a tablet or laptop - the prose gets squished in between. I can only imagine what it does to a reader's experience if they are trying to read the article on their phone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding: as of May 15, 2019, the section had not photos at all. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's reverts
Could you please kindly stop undoing my edits not related to the references in question, which you want to keep – instead of just reverting everything? I don't have the time (and nerve) to do the whole thing over and over again. Your behaviour does not really appear very cooperative to me …--Hildeoc (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

History
The impact of false ideas of race on the Jewish nation by the Nazi Germany during the period 1933 to 1946 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.0.231.182 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Added Turks/Turkics policy
"although Nazi Germany considered Turkics to be inferior people this changed in 1941..." This has no source citation and goes against the earliest official NSDAP racial policies, in which Turks were considered racially related to Hungarians, Finns, and all URAL-Altaic people/Turkics were considered “aryan” for the purposes of German law. This meant a Buryat could marry a German woman in 1938 if he wanted. Ungitow (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding: I amended the section to include a Turk/Turkic policy overview. Ungitow (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)