Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Quite a few articles, categories, templates etc. across Wikipedia contains inconcistency in terms of designating things "Nazi German" and "German", in cases when both pertain to

No.

Third French Republic" which although accurate is stilted prose. -- PBS (talk

) 20:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The army of Nazi Germany has its own article: German Army (1935–1945). Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Why should the use be different from that of Soviet Union instead of Russia for appropriate time period? PPEMES (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was the

debellation in 1945—This is sort of explained in the lead paragraph of the article Weimar Republic. Hitler combined the head of state with the chancellorship into a post he called führer (leader) and did not bother with parliaments, but, as I understand it there was no new constitution. For example in 1945 in his last will and testament he appointed Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz to the posts of head of state and Dr. Joseph Goebbels to the office of chancellor, indicating that the title of führer was not part of a constitutional change. -- PBS (talk

) 16:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Diff of Nazi Germany: I've twice removed this addition: Jackson J. Spielvogel states that, " Nazism was only one, although the most important, of a number of similar-looking fascist movements in Europe between World War I and World War II.""Nazism was only one, although the most important, of a number of similar-looking fascist movements in Europe between World War I and World War II."^[1][2][3][4] because I don't think this is a very enlightening addition, and we're still quite a bit over the 10,000 word limit in this article. What do other editors think? Comments welcome. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's astonishing to me that the word "fascism" does not appear in the article. Yet my addition of one 25-word sentence with multiple citations to leading scholars gets immediately rejected. If you go to Google scholar, you'll find 17,000+ references to scholarly books and articles] published since 2010 that link to [fascism "Nazi Germany"]. The word "Fascist" appears only once in our article (" Fascist Italy") but does appear in the categories. Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have re-added my full post, which you altered. Please do not alter other peoples' talk page posts.

fascist political party which arose during the social and financial upheavals that occurred following the end of World War I." I've gone ahead and done that, using for the citation the first of your cites, which when properly formatted and with all of its data looks like this: {{cite book | last = Spielvogel | first = Jackson J. | authorlink = Jackson J. Spielvogel | title = Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History | year = 2016 | orig-year = 2005 | publisher = Taylor & Francis | location = Abingdon; New York | isbn = 978-0-205-84678-8 | ref = harv}} — Diannaa 🍁 (talk

) 02:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What does it tell us about NAzi Germany?Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany" is not the common English term for Germany 1933-45. Constantly repeating something does not make it true. It is the common Left-wing and therefore non-neutral term. trying to rewrite history is Stalinistic. An examination of "Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939" - being a complete four series publication of every possible diplomatic document in this period - finds not a single mention of "Nazi Germany". Only "Germany" and "German".2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:919B:8642:DD49:D1B5 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And by its nature that cannot be an exhaustive list up till 1945.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are both correct and incorrect with your statement that Nazi Germany is not the correct statement. At the time of the war it was referred to as "Germany" or "The Third Reich" or "Hitlers Germany" This is portrayed in many memoirs by German Officers especially those such as Oberst (Colonel) Klaus Von Stauffenberg in which he referenced "Hitlers Germany" multiple times. Tyler Derderian (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Tyler Derderian

Relying entirely on diplomatic correspondence or the memoirs of German officers does not satisfy

WP:COMMONNAME. "Nazi Germany" does. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 15:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

By no means authoritative but "Nazi Germany" gives 10,600,000 results "The Third Reich" 8,830,000 results "Hitler's Germany" 629,000 results ("Hitlers Germany" 444,000 results), based on this it seems that yes Nazi Germany is the most commonly used name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@

CCP." The title disobeys one of the core principles of Wikipedia and that is a neutral point of view. LucasA04 (talk

) 04:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that we need to be considerate of Nazis and not offend them, I'd suggest you read

WP:COMMONNAME would be worthwhile as well. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 06:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No as "By no means authoritative " should have indicated. neutrality does not mean we have to be neutral, it means we reflect what most RS say. Now I have never read every book or magazine article on Germany 1933 and 1945, so it hard to judge. So we have to use our best guess, and every source I can think of of the top of my head trends to use Nazi Germany (and for your information I think it is whitewashing, but enough of soapboxing), so we must reflect COMMON usage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This matter has been exhaustively discussed in the past and there are loads of scholarly works with the title Nazi Germany. Either is permissible, which is why The Third Reich redirects to Nazi Germany, so you can rant and rave all you want but the academic literature on the term Nazi Germany abounds. It's not about Google hits at all, although that just adds more substantiation.--Obenritter (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Overmanns figures are said by many too high while German government figures which are 4,4 million military dead (All nationalities) and 3,6 million dead from the 1937 borders. These figures are based on graves registrations, casualty lists and demographic studies made in 1960 and updated in the early 2000s and are most likely to be the most accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaladaHart78 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The name section needs to be improved as it doesn't explain a thing about where the term Nazi actually came from. I do not want to hear "yeah, but that information is located in section X!" I shouldn't have to go digging for information which should easily be found in an etymology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.60.250 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If you've got some reliable sources that discuss the etymology of the term please list them below.— Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It is easily findable in the etymology section. The etymology section of the article

Republican France or "Communist" is to Communist China. --Khajidha (talk

) 16:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're hardly the first to notice: a contingent of ideologue editors are uncomfortable when the word "socialism" appears on any article dealing with this period of German history—and typically remove it in a blaze of sophistry. The truth will out, but it may take a little while. Lexlex (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense.

WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear, and "Nazi Germany" fulfills it. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The socialist element of the party was removed in the Night of Long Knives.— Diannaa (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Rohm & the Strasser brothers were the primary proponents of the socialist elements of the party platform, but Hitler never paid much attention to those parts of the

25 Points once they had been promulgated, and had no interest at all in Rohm's "Second Revolution" once he had obtained power. Even earlier, his addition of "Socialist" to the party name was as much a device to make it easier for left-leaning people to join as anything real. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 00:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That argument is

WP:POV. Lexlex (talk

) 10:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd I thought it was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you are correct as to the full formal name without "The", in the title/name. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And I have never met anyone or seen anything that calls it that. On the other hand Nazi I have seen countless times.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You were commenting on the name of the NSDAP, which certainly one does not come across the use of the formal name as often as the common name in English of Nazi Party; the same would be true as to the use of Nazi Germany; so, I am not sure what we disagree on here. I was only pointing out that "The" is not part of the name. Kierzek (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"consistently used by them throughout their tenure and is still the primary term used today here in Germany" As German language usage, all of that is quite irrelevant here on the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Why is this so hard to understand? Different languages are different. In English, this party is virtually always referred to as the Nazi Party. And this period of the country's history is called either Nazi Germany or the Third Reich. --Khajidha (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, there has to be a certain amount of English language bias, because this is the English language wiki, and the people we want to make sure understand the information in the easiest way possible are those who speak English. If you were from the UK, where the dialect is the standard for a large portion of worldwide English speakers, the chancellor is not the head of government. It is the head of budget and it is a very familiar role. For the person not familiar with the workings of German government, the word chancellor is not the head of government. Therefore, not to state clearly in the lead section, what the role of the German chancellor is, yet to mention that role several times, is confusing. After the word fuhrer, it says (leader) in brackets, because it is important to inform people what exactly the article is referring to, rather than simply throw terms around. ~ R.T.G 07:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is far from clear what change(s) you are suggesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And, actually, I believe you are incorrect. The Chancellor in Weimer Germany and at the beginning of the Nazi regime was the head of the government, but not the head of state, which was the President (Hindenberg). I believe you may be confusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK with the German Chancellor - they are not equivalet posts. See the article Chancellor of Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Read

head of State.Slatersteven (talk

) 10:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and Slatersteven:What I am suggesting is that although you both immediately saw my confusion, that a chancellor in the German government and a chancellor in the UK government are not the same thing, the article does not exhibit the same awareness. We should not expect the English language speaker to be immediately aware of the official titles of heads of state or heads of government, in countries around the world. Instead, we should say, "head of state" and "head of government" where it may not immediately be clear, otherwise the casual reader will read the lead section of this article and believe that Hitler merged the budget with the prime ministers office, i.e., pretty much what goes on in the UK, which is misleading and, kind of funny, but it's better if it is clear... ~ R.T.G 14:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We wiki link to Chancellor of German which was his title. I suppose there might be an argument for "Chancellor of Germany (the german head of government)", but I think we also do have to give our readers some credit for being able to click a link.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not on such a significant part of the story, Steven. It should be quite clear especially given it is so simple. ~ R.T.G 14:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a key point to the topic. The significant thing about the merger, we are supposed to be led to believe, is what those offices are, rather than what their titles are. I understand, the article has been worded this way for over seven years, I checked before I tried to make the change, but that is not evidence that it cannot be improved. The only thing which can be certain if it does not state "head of government" is that it does not state "head of government". ~ R.T.G 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My take on this is that I very much doubt that many citizens of the UK are going to confuse the "Chancellor of the Exchequer" with the "Chancellor of Germany", any more than they are going to confuse the Home Secretary with a secretary working from home, but I see no harm in linking the first instance of "Chancellor" in the article to Chancellor of Germany. I don;t think any additional changes are necessitated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is an internationalised Latin term for a non-specific position in government. According to Wikipedia, "Chancellor (Latin: cancellarius) is a title of various official positions in the governments of many nations." According to Wikipedia, there is a chancellor of the high courts and there is a Lord Chancellor, both of which I believe I have heard of... but are the sort of roles you may or may not hear about in ten years... whereas the usual chancellor is drilled into the culture, night after night at this time of year. It's a simple and obvious change. If the operative element is "head of government", it should be introduced as head of government, like any other abbreviation. It's not a big deal. To be concise we remove words, not information. It is a key element to the story. A reader should not be expected to go fish. ~ R.T.G 01:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added "head of government" and "head of state" to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede, that should be enough to put this complaint to bed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, thank you. ~ R.T.G 02:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

in the politics>ideology section it says "The Nazis was a far-right fascist political party..."

This sentence would flow better if it said "The Nazis were a far-right fascist political party...".

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwedodah (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add a

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove Merge from tag under Architecture and art. The discussion is closed. Nightvour (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Anybody have a map of Nazi Germany's territory overlaid atop present-day borders? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to change

The regime ended after the Allies defeated Germany in May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.

To be

The Third Reich ended after the Allies defeated Germany in May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.

I feel this will add clarity to the sentence since the previous sentences are talking about the first and second regimes/reichs. Sloot (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've made some tweaks to that sentence and the one before it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The file is a "red link", which means it is not found either here on Engloish Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons, Only files from these two places can be put into articles. Maybe a typo in the name? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ok, link fixed--Mullerkingdom (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that might be what you were referring to. Two problems:

(1) I don't see how this particular article benefits from a topographhical map. It's not like Germany and the surrounding area changed its topography from the Weimar Republic to the Nazi "siezure of power". Yes, the extent of the country expanded with the Anschluss, the taking of the Sudatenland and then the rest of the Czech portion of Czechoslovakia, etc., but that's better indicated on a political map, not a topographic map.

(2) You uploaded this at Commons as your "own work", but I sincerely doubt that you made the map, which is what the "Source" field is asking for. In fact, you call it the "Harris Map German Reich 1942", indicating that some person or organization called "Harris" published in in 1942. That you took the picture of or scanned the map does not make you the source. For these reasons, I have nominated the map for deletion at Commons.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand the sourcing issue should be solved, though I think the map would be useful for inclusion, fits to the topic, anyway the article does not have so many maps.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC))

The map is not a good fit with this article, as it tells us little or nothing about the article subject, which is the political entity Nazi Germany. Topography had nothing to do with what happened there. If the map had been present at the time of the Good Article nomination, I would likely have been asked to remove it. — Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Should not be included. It does not add to a general readers understanding of the subject matter of the article. Kierzek (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) I think the caption "Chart showing the pseudo-scientific racial divisions used in the racial policies of Nazi Germany" needs expansion. The chart clearly shows more than simply what the divisions are, perhaps things like who are allowed to have children together.

(2) When I read the words "Most Germans were relieved", it made me think of First they came ...; and I suggest that the phrase might be made a link to that article.

Please post any responses here, not on this IP address's talk page. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Havsjö, this is POV-ish, showing maps of Nazi Germany during the war in the info box is not the correct approach. Instead of showing the internationally recognized boundaries of Nazi Germany shortly before the outbreak of WWII, you are opting to show the boundaries that no one accepted and considered the claims as nothing more than occupation of other sovereign states. There is an article for that Greater Germanic Reich, which highlights Nazi megalomania and land claims. --E-960 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Two minds, I can see both arguments. So I will have to fall back on

Info box normally should have the most commonly accepted facts, while details and grey areas are covered in the article text. --E-960 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I am in two minds. I can see arguments for both inclusion and exclusion. But its its the norm not to do this we should not do this here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR I would NOT try to stylize Nazi Germany in the same was as First French Empire (see info box there) — in the case of this article it actually comes across a pompous, because why stress the "greatest extent" of Nazi Germany especially that the proposed map shows Nazi Germany from 1933-1939, while the the current only from 1941-1944. --E-960 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Such maps should be in the 4.1 Territorial changes and 4.2 Occupied territories sections of the article not the info box. --E-960 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Comparisons with other articles are marginal, infobox pictures are based by consensus. Only you feel stress in that, although that map also depicts the administrative divisions in the most complete way. It would be totally arbitrary ot cherrypick from 1938-1939, why not from 1933-1937? Why not all? Since the territories grown at the time, it is adequate the depict the full extent. The worse approach is to accuse other editors of favoritism or to involve the question of recognition, since then we could remove all maps not just about the

Slovak state e.g., but a plenty of countries may be censored out, to say nothing of earlier the war as well there have been entities not fully recognized. Moreover, the Allies also menawhile the war dropped recognition of earlier recognized entities/boundaries, even the whole issue in war conditions as I reflected in the edit log is completely out of question (the Axis recognized, what Allies don't, and vica versa changing over times, no more international common thing, even there were issues where collaborating Axis Powers had conflicting recognition on some issues, etc.). I have no problem if you include more maps, but I don't support removal of the existing ones.(KIENGIR (talk

) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

Because (as was said) this was Nazi Germany at the greatest extent of its internationally recognised borders.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, you may add it, but does not mean agreement of deletion of another map (anyway the map is not unambigous as well how it has been titled, since the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was attached to Germany as a protectorate, but not incorporated to it regularly, while the territory of former Austria and the so-called Sudetenland was reguraly incorporated as standart part of the country).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

Why do we need to have a map of Nazi territory at its greatest extent?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read the title of the article, and let's not confuse Nazi territory with German territory, or similar, it is not necessarily one and the same (btw. your question seems poetrical, and if it is not misunderstood, have already been answered above...).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

Yes the title is Nazi Germany not Nazi conquests in ww2.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So, there is Nazi Germany with regular, incorporated territories. There is the wider meaning, with the Protectorate, or futhermore General government or Bezirk Byalistok. The widest extent would include the Reichskommissariats. Hence I said what I said. Me and Havsö did not argue to the ultimate Nazi conquested territories including everything, just the administrational map which is anyway not the widest extent in such interpretation.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

The map which E-960 added shows Germany + annexed Austria and Sudetenland (+ Bohemia Protectorate). The map which this replaced showed the administrative regions of Germany with its wartime (greatest extent) borders (and only Germany, not occupied territory (e.g. not Reichskommissariat Ostland), but only the reich "proper" (i.e. Germany)). These administrative regions, even if not recognized by the other side in the war (duh) was still administered as an part of Germany for several years. In fact they were administered in this way for longer than the period of only Germany + Austria/Sudeten that the "E-960 map" showed. Pretty cringe to accuse me of "accepting German aggression" and "justifying the Nazi territorial claims" (of this 75 year old war) because I argue to retain the map which shows the administrative reality people lived in for several years compared to a map which shows the status of the country for only a few months in the middle of its existence. It this argument used for any map of any unrecognized country or empire which includes territory conquered at some point? --Havsjö (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we have a standard info box in this article showing internationally recognized territory of Nazi Germany just before the outbreak of WWII, and have all the vaguely defined expansionist details in the

• I think we should just show the Deutschesreich map [1] in the infobox, and the Greater German Reich [2] in the Territorial changes section. --E-960 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

- I concur with Havsjö, but as an addendum, make it clear, the term unrecognized, as reflected above, does not really play at war conditions, moreover the Axis recognized it, etc.

- E-960, you edit log comment was quite clear, not really to be misundestood, since Havsjö did not made any "POV-pushing", is was a fact what was then Reich proper (thus it as well cannot be any "justification of any Nazi territorial claims"), regarding "no one accepted German aggression" is a quite sentimental statement, a bit far subject regarding the exact matter, which now you claim to the 1930', as a quite colloquial term. There was a point when at peace conditions many territorial changes have been acknowledged shall it be related to Germany or not, after the war generally Axis recognized what Allies did not and vica versa, again, war conditions cannot be compared to peacetime conditions. We won't censor out dozens of maps because it shows a blick of a historical time which is unfavored sensitively by nations, shall it be with Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Czech, Slovaks, Romanians or Serbs, etc, there are plenty of such happenings in history back in time. You have to also see generally of a given entitiy and timeline we likely use a map of an extent which includes all phases, shall it be achieved later or shorter, as it is more informative, it has nothing to do with "impressions". If you base your argumentation as well to the two other articles you have shown as an example, that would concur to have only the standard-form Greater German Reich and anything other in the specific places in the article, but your proposal wish to eliminate anything that is not the map your wish to add now, so you are not even consistent, but simply dislike anything else.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the infobox at first glance just does not look proper, having two maps is excessive. The overwhelming majority of "country" infoboxes will only have one map, unless there are some overseas territories involved. So, if we must use a 1942 territory, one map is better (I don't believe in tricking-out the infobox, a recent trend with many of the articles). However, I still think the 1939 perhaps even the 1937 map is better, because after WWI a new reality emerged, with formal recognition of statehood by the League of Nations and other states, before that you invaded a country it was yours, after WWI you invaded a country you were occupying it. Also, I don't agree with the Japan and Italy approach, in the info box there should be one map with the "home" territory and further down in the article a map of all the occupied lands under control, I think this makes a clear distinction of what is what. --E-960 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As noted more times above, recognition issues are irrelevant here (similarly, yours vs. occupying, under control may subject to POV, similarly outlined above, even if we don't enter into contemporary legal issues, etc.). I can offer that solution you now outlined as well, the standard-form map remains, and the 1944 administrative map goes to the core. But only if Havsjö as well agrees.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC))

The 1944 administrative map could be put in the "Geography" section and leave only the 1942 map in the infobox then --Havsjö (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, agree, as suggested. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Vladol adolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.25.238 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to say what edit you wish made.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think the party's full official name should be stated somewhere, that's why I'm offering to change this:

Nazi Germany, officially known as the German Reich

Examples: German, Russian, Spanish, French, Portuguese.

Kineolody (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Kineolody (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the English wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is too much detail for the lead. These points are covered in the Background section.— Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The word "socialism" is regularly removed from the lead by a contingent of editors in blatant violation of

WP:POV. For those breathlessly responding—rather than sophistry, please cite any other Wikipedia entry which uses only an abbreviation in its lead while never defining the term. Lexlex (talk

) 09:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The current flag in use is the off centered version of the flag that was not the version of the flag that was in use in Nazi Germany, who in fact used the one with the swastika located in the center. The article on the Flag of Nazi Germany currently says:

References from Third Reich books that display the country's flags always show the centred-disk version as Germany's national flag. One book published by the Third Reich in 1937, Du bist Sofort im Bilde ("You Are Informed Immediately", a guide book to the organization of the Third Reich)[3] displays a centred-disk German flag as Germany's national flag. A book published one year earlier in 1936 in the Third Reich, Deutscher Beamten-Kalender 1936 (German Civil Servants Yearbook 1936) also displays the centred-disk flag as the national flag, beside it the off-centred disk flag is described for use on a "Kriegsschiff" (warship).[4] Also the centred-disk flag was commonly used by civilians and the German armed forces aside from the navy.(Fireandblood02 (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Everything can be found here: --Fornax (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The off-centered version was used from 1935 on.--Fornax (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification.Fireandblood02 (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Racial Policy and Eugenics, for subsection Racism and Antisemitism, instead the Nazis viewing Jews as a “mixed race” please add that they were viewed as an “inferior race” as the Nazis had a hierarchy.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:D536:4DC5:6FA2:8D18 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement is sourced to a well-regarded scholarly work as is and states: The Nazis postulated the existence of a racial conflict between the Aryan master race and inferior races, particularly Jews, so the supposed hierarchy of racial categorizations is made clear. The links to other articles explain these concepts more fully. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says:

After outmanoeuvring the Allies in Belgium and forcing the evacuation of many British and French troops at Dunkirk, France fell as well, surrendering to Germany on 22 June.

This is an egregious dangling modifier. It literally states it was France that outmanoeuvred the Allies in Belgium and forced the Dunkirk evacuation. Please reword. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Bbb23, Creator edition has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet on hu.wiki by a CheckUser there. According to KIENGIR, they are one of many socks created by Stubes99, so many that Hungarian editors have given up on reporting them. This information is not yet confirmed by a en.wiki CheckUser, but, given Creator Edition's behavior here, it seems to me to be sufficient to collapse both threads above -- after all, they can always be uncollapsed if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Creator Edition indeffed by User:Diannaa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1988-106-29, Leni Riefenstahl bei Dreharbeiten.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change this anthem file with an old recording, rather than modern U.S. Navy Band version, because the anthem of Nazi Germany has only one stanza from Deutschlandlied and Horst-Wessel-Lied. 2001:4452:4AE:8A00:3C95:88E4:3568:4F91 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) File:Deutschlandlied (first stanza).oga

Done. I absolutely agree, only the first stanza was used as the co-official anthem of the Reich, and it is the reason why it's censored in this modern day and age. PyroFloe (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this version is much more appropriate. My one complaint is that this file doesn't have the translated English subtitles pop up when playing. Is it possible to add those? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).