Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes

RfC Statement and Options Notices will be/have been placed on WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject History, the Neutral POV Noticeboard, and Jimbo's talkpage (for the watchers - there are a lot, and this would create a community consensus)


 * Should military units active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany-era use in their infoboxes for "Country";
 * undefined – says Germany, links to Nazi Germany
 * Nazi Germany – says and links to Nazi Germany
 * Nazi Germany – says Third Reich, links to Nazi Germany

This will affect articles in Category:Military units and formations of the Luftwaffe, Category:Military units and formations of the Kriegsmarine, Category:Military units and formations of the German Army in World War II, Category:Military units and formations of the Waffen-SS and other related articles that may not be listed in these categories.


 * There was an earlier 'local consensus' on Wikiproject: Military History to use (1); discussion found here, under thread "Germany or Nazi Germany". However, this is an old and very localised consensus that has mostly faded into obscurity.


 * This RfC seeks to create a broader and more consolidated consensus for reasons of consistency across articles. Please !vote by bolding the preferred number, or word, choice as your !vote with your reasoning for such a selection. E.g.

!Voting
Remember to be civil and focus on the content, not other editors


 * Germany (Option 1) is neutral and obvious. Not sure what the evidence is that the existing consensus has "faded into obscurity", rather lack of volatility might make it simply a "settled" consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It took one of the MilHist 'Veterans',, to remember it being in a discussion archived in page 49/143 (2007). The few others that responded had not seen it, nor heard of the consensus for it with a remark that it should have been added to the MilHist MOS. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm no military historian but a moment of searching turns up this related RfC from 2013 which was closed with the decision "The expression 'Nazi German' will not be used in Military History Project articles". In the light of this I don't think the exposition of this RfC is entirely accurate about the state of consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Option 1 There was no such country or entity as "Nazi Germany": it was Germany. Historians make it clear that the German state continued across into, and out of, the Nazi period of government, and the current German Government accepts responsibility for the actions of the government of the time. Using "Nazi Germany" implies that this was some other country/entity, which isn't the case and it's not widely used by serious historians. "Third Reich" is Nazi propaganda and also rarely used in serious works of history. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 is clearly the most apt. 'Nazi Germany' is not the correct term, and only fills a function when used in contrast to other Germanies (such as Weimar Germany, West Germany, East Germany, etc..). In infoboxes, the name of the country should be simply 'Germany'. --Soman (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 It's clear what it means, and will be understood by the widest selection of readers, also it doesn't obfuscate the link being used. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is the case why do all the battle/campaign articles, in their infoboxes, use undefined almost exclusively as opposed to  Nazi Germany? Surely those articles are viewed far more frequently by the "widest selection of readers" than those of individual Wehrmacht units, yet all of those articles (I've checked exhaustively) use "Germany" rather than "Nazi Germany". Usage should be consistent. Italia2006 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if *all* articles don't currently use the method I prefer, the reason I'd prefer it doesn't change. The point of the RFC is to solicit opinion, not to blindly follow the status quo. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor was the above comment expecting you to "blindly follow the status quo." The point is that there is clearly a silent consensus to use "Germany" on the articles which are far and away given more attention than individual Wehrmacht unit articles. There's no reason to have "Nazi" as a differentiating adjective when all of these units only existed for the duration of a single regime. Italia2006 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Silent consensus" is meaningless, this RFC is for gathering actual consensus. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Option 1 per Alexbrn and Nick-D; we should reflect good historical writing, not invent alternatives. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2, the historically correct name of Germany of that period is Deutsches Reich (German Reich) or Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich), the German Wiki maps this period to the article de:Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945. The English equivalent article is Nazi Germany. I think the mapping should be Nazi Germany, as it is least confusing in context of military history articles of the World War II period. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Alexbrn and Nick-D, we really shouldn't invent terms. Manxruler (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2; Alexbrn, Nick-D and Buckshot06 are inventing generic alternatives without any merit, almost grazing to the OR realm. Wiki reader may even not know that these units, and the Wehrmacht, belong unequivocally to Nazi Germany era. In historical pages, and especially in their infoboxes, although we may not use the official denomination, we have to be precise and pertinent nevertheless. There must be a reason why, in English tradition, we are talking about German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West Germany and East Germany, and, finally, and only then, Germany. It's true that Nazis didn't disrupt the continuity of the state and its institutions. They simply emptied it putting on top their alternative organizations. From decentralized Länder to the omnipotence of Führer's power the transformation was total and unmitigated. The entire German population, whether belonging to the party or not, became Nazified trough Gleichschaltung and the personal oath of loyalty to the Führer by military personnel. That's why Nazi Germany went into common parlance. Why on heart do you want to substitute an unequivocal set with an ambiguous binomial, that mixes Nazi flag with current German state denomination, is above my head. Carlotm (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 The closest English translation of German Reich would be German Empire or German Realm. Also, the Reich lasted from the unification of Germany through to the fall of the Nazi government.  Nazi Germany doesn't work, because that wasn't the name of the nation, it was a description of the government.  It would be like referring to a unit serving Victorian England.  Third Reich doesn't really sit well with me, since even during the Weimar Republic, the nation was officially known as the German Reich.  Following the example of the Old Guard, which list their nation as France rather than the First French Empire, I think Germany is the best fit of the options provided. Torven (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2, the most WP:COMMONNAME in English for Germany during the Nazi era and the name most likely to be understood by English readers. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Do you having anything to support that assertion? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. About 350,000 sources. See below. Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Option 2 seems to me this is a very common name for Germany between 1933 and 1945, as evidenced by the large number of Google Books hits for it, including in the titles of academic texts. I also believe that readers will find it useful and informative to have Nazi Germany rather than just Germany as the text and link. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - If you google "WWII Germany" most sites seems to call it "Germany" rather than "Nazi Germany". I'm sure calling it "Nazi Germany" is common, but I don't think it's most common. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - of course they will because once you've clarified which Germany you're talking about in a book, article, etc. it doesn't need to be repeated. But "Germany" is the WP:COMMONNAME today for the post-WW2 Federal Republic of Germany, hence the importance of qualifying it with "Nazi" when referring to the Hitler-era state. BTW Google Books has about as many hits for "Nazi Germany" as Germany + World War II, which considering my first point, really undermines the case for "Germany". Bermicourt (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * re "once you've clarified which Germany you're talking about in a book" - Is that an assumption, or have you actually tested? Search engine testing WWII germany -"Nazi Germany" versus WWII germany yields 20M hits versus 28M. I take that mean only about 1/4 of sites talking about WWII Germany actually use the phrase "Nazi Germany".
 * On another note I think there's also a WP:CONCISE argument here. Unless we have a really good and clear reason to use the longer option, we should probably stick to the shorter. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - Consistency with the battle/campaign infoboxes for World War II articles, which use "Germany" rather than "Nazi Germany". These units only existed during the period 1935–45, there's no need to differentiate by using "Nazi Germany". Italia2006 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2, as MisterBee states: the historically correct name of Germany of that period is Deutsches Reich (German Reich) or Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich); also, we must remember that we are writing/editing, overall, for the general reader who is not going to know all the nuances that we do and so we should want to convey the meaning in easy to understand terms. Kierzek (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) The contemporary name in German has no relevance here. (2) This is the point of hyperlinks, no? So the general reader can click on them for further information if necessary? (3) The meaning is very easily conveyed by undefined, and there shouldn't be confusion because the units in question only existed under one regime. Italia2006 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Imagine if they didn't even have to click on the link for the context to be clear. General readers don't already know the nuances of when certain units existed. Those that do know are likely reading more detailed, advanced sources than wikipedia anyway. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No imagination is required. undefined is perfectly clear, and the link is there for a reason. There's no need to have "Nazi" in front of Germany. It's not a nuance. Italia2006 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your whole argument in favor of "Nazi Germany" seems to be predicated on the assumption that Wikipedia's potential readers are completely ignorant. So where exactly does that end, then? Do articles have to dumb down their language also in order to appeal to the "widest selection of readers?" Does this mean everything should be written in simple English? I could understand this completely if there weren't a link involved, but there is. Not to mention that, let's be honest here, "general readers" aren't looking for these articles. The ones that most pertain to "general readers", the battles, the article World War II itself, etc., use "Germany" extremely consistently rather than Nazi Germany. Italia2006 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman and I'm not engaging with you any further. ( Hohum  @ ) 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) You replied to the above comment, and I responded. (2) It's not my problem that you can't give a good reason for your position. (3) As you said, the point of this RFC is discussion, so an unwillingness to respond doesn't help anything. You've given your vote, if you don't want to discuss then leave the page. Italia2006 (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrary to Italia2006 assertion, World War II infobox uses Nazi Germany designation. Carlotm (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's wrong. The infobox for World War II simply links to Axis powers rather than list all of them individually in the infobox. However, the Axis powers page has undefined, so my point stands. Italia2006 (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are wrong. In Infobox I can read "Collapse of Nazi Germany", and undefined is nowhere to be found. Axis powers is another page. Carlotm (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're looking at the wrong parameter my friend. You're a bit confused I think. Italia2006 (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Option 1 There is no reason to insert the name of the ruling political party into the name.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - "Nazi Germany" isn't a country and it was more or less a government thing anyway, As others have said we shouldn't just invent terms and shove 'em in the article.... – Davey 2010 Talk 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 -- in the context of the infoboxes, the flag provides the necessary context, and therefore spelling out "Nazi Germany" is not needed. In the body of the articles, my preference is to go with "Nazi Germany" to indicate the allegiance of the unit or personnel. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 – Unless you want to insinuate that Germany today is the same country. BTW the proper flag would be the Reichskriegsflagge War_Ensign_of_Germany_1938-1945.svg. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 For consistency with the rest of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - the WP:COMMONNAME of the country was Germany, but we need to link to the article covering the country at the time (Nazi Germany), and not the article on the different country that exists today (Germany). Note that this proposal potentially impacts on the various lists of shipwrecks covering 1933-45, where ( undefined) and are in use throughout where appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 "There is no reason to insert the name of the ruling political party into the name." (as above) Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 -- a slight preference for two reasons: (1) It is what I am used used to seeing both with Wikipedia and long before Wikipedia's existence (2) It uses one less word, and the flag makes it 100% clear what is being referenced.  However, I reviewed other battles, and there is strong argument for Option 2:   I will note that WWII battles with Empire of Japan Japan is used only some of the time (Attack on Pearl Harbor, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but more often Empire of Japan is used (Bombing of Tokyo, Battle of Midway, Guadalcanal Campaign, Military_history_of_the_Philippines_during_World_War_II).  For WWII Fascist Italy we mostly have the belligerent labelled Italy (Operation Compass,Tunisia Campaign, Siege of Tobruk), but in other cases it is labelled Kingdom of Italy (Italian Campaign (World War II)).  It seems we have a bit of a consistency problem.  And just to make things  a little more complicated consider civil wars:  Cambodian Civil War where calling any belligerent "Cambodia" makes little sense.  Similar with Viet Nam:  Battle of Saigon (1968).  And then there are cases in WWII, such as this Battle of Beirut (1941), where on one side we have Free France and on the other Vichy France.  For Battle of Waterloo, one side is First French Empire, not France.  And for a case of Native Americans, they are not identified as part of any nationalist state and most entities have no flag: Battle of Fallen Timbers, French and Indian War.  If we don't have one, we need a more consistent naming policy.  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Per Alex and others. Why should it be an era-specific label if the link is already to Nazi Germany? Fdssdf (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 We can reasonably suppose readers know that the government was Nazi-run at the time, but hitting them over the head with "Nazi Germany" is weird. As for "Third Reich" - that would be meaningless to most readers for sure.  Collect (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion/General Comments
Remember to be civil and focus on the content, not other editors

I an tending towards option 2, but what is the argument for 1? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) Consistency with the wide (perhaps complete) usage of undefined rather than  Nazi Germany in the battle, campaign, and theater articles relating to World War II. (2) The lack of need to have "Nazi" as a distinguishing adjective. All of the units in question only existed in the period 1935–45. (3) The fact that there is an actual link right there that could immediately connect the reader to the article Nazi Germany and therefore dispel any doubt as to which Germany the reader is dealing with. (4) In short, consistency with far more prominent articles, i.e. World War II, Eastern Front (World War II), Battle of Berlin, etc. (By prominent I mean those which undoubtedly receive more attention from both editors and potential readers who are just visiting Wikipedia), and the complete lack of need to have "Nazi" as a distinguishing adjective. Italia2006 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems a good argument to me. I have in the past been quite active on the Battle of Britain page and note that 'Germany' was used there.  Consistency in WP seems a good thing to me.


 * What is the reason that some want 'Nazi Germany'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Specificity. Showing Nazi Germany and the Nazi Germany flag puts the unit clearly in line with the Adolf Hitler time frame, leaving no doubt about whose loyalty the unit was sworn to uphold. Its a legitimate point, though if looked at by history as opposed to political science I could see why that would be subject to question by the community. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) Specificity is not required, once again, because the units we are discussing only existed under one regime. If a division had existed under the German Empire and also the German state from 1933–45, then I would support having Nazi in front of Germany. We have the Nazi flagicon (an extremely well-known symbol) and a link to the main article Nazi Germany. We don't need a tertiary line of specification. Italia2006 (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The line item we are discussing is the unit's country, not the period in the nation's history during which it served. As I said above, it would be like listing a British unit as having allegiance to Victorian England. Torven (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Independently of the outcome of this RFC, the editors should express how we should handle the situation when a particular subject spans multiple German-eras. Example Friedrich Ruge, he served in the navies of the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany and West Germany. In this particular instance, mapping the Nazi Germany period to just Germany is misleading. In case of ambiguous situations like this, I recommend that explicit disambiguation "German Empire", "Weimar Republic", " Nazi Germany" and "West Germany", be allowed. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For individuals who served across multiple regimes, 100% agree. In fact I believe that is the status quo with biographical pages atm anyway. Italia2006 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In that particular context Mr. Bee I highly doubt anyone would disagree whatsoever. Italia2006 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I now tend to agree more with Italia2006. Having simple basic principles and sticking to them is a good way of avoiding this kind of argument.

I can understand the desire to make the Nazi period a special case but this will only lead to more problems in the future as MisterBee1966 has noted. Let us continue to be consistent with the rest of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MisterBee is actually stating the opposite; "...just Germany is misleading". And the course he lays out is the one that should be continued to be followed for personnel who served in the armed forces at different periods of time. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Another aspect to consider, our articles are also written for the visually impaired. They will not benefit from the supporting visual icon, a screen reader will read to them Germany (Deutschland), they would not hear Nazi Germany (Deutsches Reich). Visually impaired would have to deduce from the context of the surrounding information that the article refers to this specific period of German history. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The visually impaired seem to have done just fine with the use of undefined in all of the articles – let's be honest here – they are more likely to visit as general readers. Italia2006 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I might also add that a screen reader would also read the parts of the article itself that give the years of existence as well as the article's introduction, which mentions World War II and Nazi Germany. I'm pretty sure that is more than enough to "deduce" the time period. Italia2006 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Rather than Third Reich, what if we used German Reich? As opposed to options 2 and 3, it is actually the name of a country.Torven (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's been three German Reichs. That's worse than any of the other options. Italia2006 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also goes against WP:COMMONNAME by some margin. Italia2006 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Third Reich was just a way of connecting the Nazi regime to the Kaiser's, without having to acknowledge the Wiemar Republic. In reality, all three government's ruled the same German Reich, which was the nation's official name from 1871 until 1943.  If you do not want to use a historical country's actual name, then I believe the proper form is to use the historical common name, rather than the modern one.  Based on contemporary news articles and diplomatic documents, I believe that is Germany.  However, if you can pull up some contemporary sources referring to it as "Nazi Germany", I would be willing to discuss it. Torven (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the history of Germany we refer to Germany as the German Reich in the timeframe from 1871 to 1943, and Großdeutsches Reich from 1943 to 1945. In the time spanning 1871 to 1945, Germany fought in two World Wars. Subsequently, in context of this RFC, it would be wise that the guideline established here would also apply for military articles of the World War I era. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, no, that would not be a "wise" idea. This RfC's scope has already been !Voted on, therefore making any changes to the scope would be disruptive and rightfully reverted no matter the reasoning behind the changes. A second RfC can be created - after this one has finished - to discuss and !Vote on the issue of using "Nazi Germany/Third Reich/Großdeutsches Reich" in articles covering the WWI and WWII eras. After all, we're in no rush to decide things. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You may have missed the core of my comment. The recommendations put forward here need to scale up to the timeframe 1871 to 1945, they need to stand up to the larger litmus test. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How do they need to be scaled up when this RFC is about units active exclusively from 1935 to 1945? I'm missing something here, clearly. Italia2006 (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, 1st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) gets Nazi Germany while 2nd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) gets  undefined, 3rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) gets  Nazi Germany and 4th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) gets  undefined, because there is a 1st Panzer Division (Bundeswehr), but no 2nd Panzer Division (Bundeswehr), a 3rd Panzer Division (Bundeswehr) but no 4th Panzer Division (Bundeswehr)? And this is supposed to be transparent to users and consistently used over all relevant articles? Good luck! ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This was already addressed above. Both the flag (an extremely well-known symbol) as well as the link to Nazi Germany are already present. There's no need for a tertiary line of specification. No luck required. Italia2006 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do feel that that's not enough, just explain the reason why we have flags or hyperlinks in the first place if the entire thing has to be spelled out in the "simplest" terms anyway. Italia2006 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am all for the KISS principle. Since you invoked consistency (twice) and argued 'Nazi' is not needed for disambiguation, the simple question is, why one WWII division is having a 'Nazi' and the other not. More so, users have argued against the use of a the name for a political party as unnecessary, but the use of that party's flag is not? Intuitionally, I would argue, that the same flag icon and the same country name should be used for all units and formations in the period, which would then be 'Nazi Germany'. Just because some units don't have an equivalent in past or present, should not disrupt the pattern of well-established custom and practice, me thinks. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany is not a country name. It wasn't even the common name for the nation at the time.  It is a period in the history of the nation, much like we would refer to Victorian England or Antebellum America.  On the other hand, the swastika flag was Germany's national flag during that period. 76.93.226.132 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by country name. It's the WP:COMMONNAME in English for Germany at that period. It's totally not the same as Victorian England or Antebellum America which are terms used in different ways. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Time has expired. I think the consensus is for Option 1 - Germany, and I think this RfC can be closed on that basis. Any disagreement on that conclusion? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be significant disagreement between options 1 and 2, more like a "no consensus" result imo. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked for an uninvolved close. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)