Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 2

Archives
Archive 1, May 2001 – April 2006

Link to WWW Virtual Library Contemporary History

I registered the deleted Virtual LIBRARY contemporary history again. The VL Zeitgeschichte is the main source for WW II in Germany: "The Virtual Library Contemporary History is part of the History Network at the European University Institute in Florenz. The contents of the catalogue are concentrated on the history of Germany (1890-1949). The Virtual Library History is the oldest catalog in the Internet, founded in March 1993 by Lynn Nelson at the University of Kansas, USA. Since September 1993 this catalog is part of the WWW Virtual Library. The VL Contemparary History is maintained by Ralf Blank at the Historisches Centrum Hagen, Germany." http://www.vl-zeitgeschichte.de

Even if the linking a little professionally took place should the VL contemporary history under Web on the left of remain. The publishers can do finally nothing for it if people her here left. If private LV archives are linked, then one can not exclude a non-profit scientific Internet offer.

Third Reich

this article does not say who coined the term Third Reich. was it Hitler? was it an English speaking historian? please give details. Kingturtle 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am almost certain it was the Nazis themselves. The spiritual value of three was part of Nazi mysticism, drawn from the movement's occult influences. One can see this manifested in many areas, such as the Nazi mantra "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer", quite similar to the Christian Trinity. --68.81.242.37 06:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1923 the author Arthur Moeller van den Bruck wrote the influential book Das Dritte Reich in which he fantasised about some Deutscher Sozialismus. He belonged to an obscure and heterogenous movement of elitist-bohème right wing intellectuals called the Conservative Revolution and founded the infamous Juniklub in 1919. He heavily infleunced people like Otto Strasser or Ernst Niekisch. Moeller was an early mentor of the Nazi movement, but he dismissed Hitler whom he thought primitive. Goebbels forbade the book in 1939. Teodorico 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The first Reich was that of Friedrich der Grosse. The second Reich was that of Bismark. The Nazis coined the phrase "third Reich" on this basis.--Anthony.bradbury 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "first Reich" was the the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the second was German Empire 1871–1918 under Wilhelm I and II as Emperors (and indeed Bismarck as Chancellor). Friedrich der Grosse was King of Prussia and actually fought wars against Habsburg, the House of the last "Holy Roman" Emperors.--84.155.53.234 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See:Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 1#Term "Third Reich" for some references over early/first use --Philip Baird Shearer 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the First Reich wasn't Frederick the Great, it was the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. The Second Reich was the German Empire of 1871-1918. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Full size of German state during WW2

This is a map of German state in 1941.Could it be translated: [1] Another map with certain areas incorporated after German agression against Soviet Union: [2] --Molobo 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Are very strange. I never knew Warsaw was part of Greater Germany...I also never knew that Poles and Lebensraum played no role in Nazi thought during WW2 and Nazi's only wanted to reunite German people...Judging from that Poznań or Warsaw were inhabited by Germans... Or that the Nazi's were anticommunists and not racist anti-semites(since that information was deleted) --Molobo 10:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Here is what Nazi's identified with "anti-communism": http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/ssnur1.htm We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans

--Molobo 10:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you are speaking of the deletions of your recent additions. Anyway, if you read the article, you would find that the abovementioned concerns are all already addressed within, but I have worked your positive contributions into it as well. I question your knowledge on the subject when you dispute the fact that uniting the German people through a single government was something the Nazis endorsed, but I understand your qualms with the map. It attempts to illustrate the administrative borders of Nazi Germany (Reichsgau), and although it depicts parts of undisputably Polish territory also under its jurisdiction, it also largely depicts an extension of the Grossdeutschland idea (incorporation of Austria and other German speaking regions) sans Lebensraum. For the sake of avoiding confusion, I have resorted to a more simplistic description anyway.

I also never knew that Poles and Lebensraum played no role in Nazi thought during WW2 and Nazi's only wanted to reunite German people

This line of thought is not conveyed within the article.

Also, the broad category of Slavs has been restored instead of listing the nationality of persecuted peoples, as some living within the regions fought alongside the Nazis (ie Ukraine), but I think we can all agree that the Slavs were singled out by their racial composition and subject to brutality. --Hohns3 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Map suggestion

May I suggest replacing the current, cartoon-looking map with one, say, made from the blank world map? Also, one that details Germany's zenith of power (eg. 1942-3) after Barbarossa would greatly benefit the article. Please, someone create one, if you are willing. Эйрон Кинни (t) 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

HOLOCAUST PLEASE!

I think its awful, just awful that there is nothing on the holocaust, oh, those poor poor innocent jewish victims

Did you see the link to the article called Holocaust? This one is already big as it is. (The Lake Effect 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

• No one says any bad thing about the "poor poor innocent" Jewish people and also no one claims that the Holocaust is unimportant but the Holocaust article is maybe larger than the Third Reich article. This article is about the order and the ideology of the Nazi Germany. With respect, Deliogul 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll! --80.186.100.180 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust is mentioned and linked, and the article does mention the murder of millions of Jews and other people. However, since concentration camps and the holocaust werr one of the most important features of Nazi Germany, it should probably get a separate section, and the "Social policy" caption should have more about other aspects of Nazi social policy. Zocky | picture popups 05:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Error in map caption text

The caption states it's after annexation of Austria and Che..., but that's wrong, because most of Che... is shown as a seperate country. It's post annexation of the westernmost portion of Che. Jon 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. Thank you for bringing that error to my attention, many thanks. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Further the map doesn't actually show the annexation of portions of Lithuania as the distinctive sliver of Memeland is clearly missing. Plus wasn't the rump Slovakia a protectorate aswell? In any case, I second some earlier comments to PLEASE remove the ridiculous cartoon map and replace it with one that follows the proper template for national maps. Seek100 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia was a protectorate. And I wish I could replace the map but I don't have the appropriate skills necessary, I wish some more graphically-experienced editors could introduce me to that, as I am very curious. Second, Memel if I'm correct, wasn't annexed from Lithuania until the early-1940s, if not 1940 itself, so the map caption, etc., is correct on that tenet. But the map needs to show Nazi Germany at its extent (around 1941) instead of in the preliminary stages of the war. Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've adapted the basic Germany map to add some consistency to the main map (plus I really dislike that cartoony one there now) and made 2 versions, one showing Europe on the eve of Barbarossa (with all the other countries redrawn, Fascist Italy, ICS, puppet Serbia and Slovakia, enlarged Hungary, shrunken Romania etc.) The other shows the maximum extent of the territory of Germany, with Galicia annexed to the Generalgouvernement, plus Chernivtsi, Bessarabia and Transnistra annexed to Romania. Which would be more appropriate for the page? And since I've never uploaded an image to Wikipedia before, how exactly do I go about doing so? Seek100 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of the war.

Someone needs to check their history a little deeper, and use sources outside of the ones available to americans, as american textbooks are as close to progaganda as anything handed out by the National Socialists.

The Second World War may have began when poland was invaded, but this article makes it appear one-sided...

Yes, the germans invaded Poland...but what did they find when they had taken over about half of Poland? The Soviets...

The USSR invaded Poland at roughly the same time, with roughly the same intent to take it over, that little tidbit is left out of a majority of history books because here in the USA we like to make Germany look like the absolute source of all things evil...

Just something that may wish to be considered in the next update to this.

I'm a young American and I know that the Soviet Union invaded Poland. It's not very difficult to use the Internet as a very good source in determining that, and there are some fantastic, if not definitive English-language resources available in print and on the 'net. While I don't think it's American "propaganda" as you put it, I haven't looked at this article particularly well and I'm not sure what it says about the invasion of Poland but I'll look into it, if I can. Thanks for your concerns, they are much appreciated. Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is in serious need of repair...

This article is in need of stylistic, content, and organizational changes. For instance:

    "Nazi Germany signed a treaty (Tripartite Pact) with Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy during World War II and one of the most powerful one of them."

This is really poor writing. The pacts had been made well before the war began, and Germany was plainly the strongest member thereof. Also, the parenthetic clause "(Tripartite Pact)" is irrelevant as there were only the three countries mentioned, and furthermore the phrase used in the time was the "Rome-Berlin Axis," later to be the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis," from which derived the "Allied" term "Axis."

    Also let us note that as is mentioned previously in the discussion page, the information about the Holocaust (and more broadly the general eugenics and ethnic cleansing policies)is rather scant, particularly for an article on a culture which considered such activity a vital part of creating and maintaining the desired social order.
    So who wrote this thing anyhow?

Where the heck's the science section?

It's well known Nazi Germany gave a hefty percentage of its funding toward science, moreso than other nations, i'm appaled there's squat diddly about it in the article.

You are welcome to add a science section if you have enough to write about it. Also, it would be nice if you signed your comments. BigBen212 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany article or Hitler bio?

Hitler is mentioned far too much in this article. I'm taking a number of references out, and there will still be plenty. The article on the UK doesn't mention the Queen over and over. With the removals I am making, there are still many, many Hitler references, but now in the more appropriate places. If Hitler had died in 1942, I don't think history would have changed all that much. This article seems to accept some Nazi principles in its Hitler obsession, the "Fuehrerprinzip" more precisely. Ruy Lopez 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that Hitler's importance to Nazi Germany is comparable to the Queen's importance to the present-day UK? That's ridiculous. And if Hitler had died in 1942, it seems highly unlikely to me that Himmler would have succeeded him. More likely he'd have been purged, which probably means significantly less Jew-murdering. It seems likely that a non-Hitler Germany would have surrendered considerably earlier, as well. john k 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. Look what happened to the Nazi Party (the successors thereof) after Hitler's imprisonment in Landsberg in 1924-it fell into competing fragments, full of mutual hostilities and petty resentments. I do not normally subscribe to the 'Great Man' school of history; but in this case I am prepared to say that the Nazi state was Hitler and Hitler was the Nazi State. When Martin Bormann's young son asked what exactly National Socialism was he replied 'The will of the Fuhrer.' I do not believe that it can be put any simpler than that. The conspirators of 1944 selected the right target. On the question of a possible successor I think that Goering would have been a more likely candidate than the uncharismatic Himmler, and I am convinced that he would have sent out early peace proposals. Rcpaterson 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree on Goering as most likely successor. He was reasonably popular within the party, and not hated by the army in the way that Himmler and some of the other main Nazis were. A Goering-led regime would have been considerably more pluralistic than Hitler's regime was, more comparable to Fascist Italy, or even to Vichy France, with various distinct right wing groups vying for power. But this is all speculation. Basic point is, it's absurd to say that we are talking too much about Hitler in an article about Nazi Germany. john k 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Rcpaterson 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Map Error

The caption suggests that the map should depict "Germany at its fullest extent prior to World War II.". Surely then Austria and Czechoslovakia should also be red as they had been annexed by Germany? 203.114.140.222 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It does show Germany as controlling Austria and the Czech half of Czechoslovakia... john k 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right; though the map does not appear to show the acqusition of the strip of land around the city of Memel from Lithuania, the last 'bloodless' conquest. With reference to Czechoslovakia only the Sudetenland was annexed, Bohemia and Moravia, the central part of the Czech lands becoming a German 'protectorate' in March 1939. The rest, of course, became the nominally independent state of Slovakia, under the premiership of Jozef Tiso. Rcpaterson 07:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia seems fair to show as more or less part of Germany on a simple map. john k 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)