This is an archive of past discussions about Nazi Germany. 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.
Actually, it could be intepreted both ways. The part NATI in the word National in German is pronounced Nazi. However, some could take it as NAtional soZialismus.ItsJodo (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the last 4 words of this sentence that was found in the overview.
Despite an alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, that together formed the Axis powers, by 1945, Germany had lost the war and ceased to exist.
If you look at it you see that the statement that Germany ceased to exist is challenged, and thus needs a more nuanced presentation, and also if you look closelly at the sources used to support it you get a feeling of WP:Synthesis, since none of them is a source that focuses on the issue of the legal status of germany after the military surrender, rather they are snippets from documents focusing on other issues.--Stor stark7Speak 14:51, 25th November 2009 (UTC)
map
the site would do well with a series of maps showing the ter. growth of the nazi state and its final status at sur. in 1945 much larger than in 1943 which is already shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.177.235 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Methinks you misread the map ... with the exception of South Tyrol the full expansion of Nazi Germany (in its expansion years of 1938-1943/44) is shown via ALL the various colours on the posted map. By January 1945 the Nazi state was being invaded on both sides by Allied armies . . . the Allied governments had no intention of recognizing ANY of the land expansions of Nazi Germany since 1938 (e.g., Austria, Memelland, Sudetenland, Poland, Luxembourg, parts of France & Belgium, northern Yugoslavia).
3,000,000 Germans Imprisoned 1933-1945?
I'm reverting this recently addition: "Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons. "Tens of thousands of Germans were killed for one or another form of resistance. Between 1933 and 1945, Special Courts killed 12,000 Germans, courts martial killed 25,000 German soldiers, and 'regular' justice killed 40,000 Germans. Many of these Germans were part of the government civil or military service, a circumstance which enabled them to engage in subversion and conspiracy while involved, marginally or significantly, in the government's policies." Its source cites a 1946 source for the 3,000,000 statistic, which is not credible. The rest of the information is at least plausible, but the source is a book review in a non-scholarly publication, so we need better evidence. When I have time, I'll look into the matter. Bytwerk (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well if no one objects, the numbers grow each day. Tomorrow morning maybe we come here and see lots of FACTS from RELIABLE sources that there were 40,000,000 Germans, 90,000,000 Jews, 120,000,000 Gays, 1 Billion Soviets etc... in the German concentration camps and who ever objects is a holocaust denier, a murderer, a terrorist, a fascist and lots of other things. lol --Professional Assassin (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Nikolaus Wachsmann, "HItler's Prisons: Legal Terror in Nazi Germany," provides imprisonment statistics for the period (p. 393). The total imprisoned for all causes was highest in 1944 (196,700). Looking at his graph makes it clear that the 3,000,000 figure is grossly inflated. Bytwerk (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is not a recent addition, it has been there for a long time and just was just recently removed.
Anyway that is a very narrow analysis you are making. Are you assuming that once you were imprisoned you never got out? Based on the Book of Wachsman, what was the total number of Germans who had been temporarily imprisoned for political reasons at one time or another, as for example Konrad Adenauer was?. Only if you can answer that will you be able to do a "semi" reliable OR comparison of the sources.
Obviously a much larger number of people have been in prison the last 15 years in for example the US than the current number of actual prison inmates in the US. In either case, you are basing the deletion on OR.
Some comparative OR of my own, see the end of this page[1] for example, although you see no numbers it should give you an inkling of Nazi tactics, scare the general population by putting representative samples of them in the camps for a while, after that they, and their friends, will stay productive, docile and obedient. I've now reinserted the information and cited it to additional sources.--Stor stark7Speak14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No, my point is that if, at the high point of Nazi imprisonment there were 196,000 prisoners for all reasons, it is highly unlikely that 3,000,000 were imprisoned for political reasons alone between 1933 and 1945. But I'll have to dig up the sources rather than squabble about this at the moment. Bytwerk (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, for example, are statistics from Michael Balfour, "Withstanding Hitler in Germany, 1933-45": "6284 persons were found guilty on 'political grounds'; in 1940, the figure was 10,963, in 1941, 17,333" (p. 255). Now, he does cite the figure of 3,000,000 as the number that "saw the inside of a camp or prison during the twelve years of Nazi rule" — but that is exactly my point. The 3,000,000 figure is everyone, for whatever reason, not just people arrested for political reasons. Bytwerk (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess the key word here is imprisoned "for political reasons", as used by David Clay, "Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich", p.122. where he also uses 3 million held for political reasons. You did not need to have been "found guilty on political grounds" to be imprisoned for political reasons. Again, look at the Konrad Adenauer article, he was imprisoned twice, but both times released after a while, and never found guilty of anything apparently.
If you are able to (I don't have access), please check the 1946 source initially used, Gabriel Almond, "The German Resistance Movement", Current History 10 (1946), pp409–527 and see if the original "socialist review" cite miss-cites him, and what the breakdown is between political and other prisoners there. Another book that directly cites Almond on the 3 million is Otis C. Mitchell, "Hitler's Nazi state: the years of dictatorial rule, 1934-1945" (1988), p.217 so at least another secondary source has evaluated him and found him good.--Stor stark7Speak09:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I just did that. I don't find the 3,000,000 figure there. On p. 410, he does say that "30,000 to 40,000 'subversive' Germans" were arrested in 1944. That was a year in which lots of people were arrested, which makes the 3,000,000 figure implausible. I also checked the other sources I could find that cite the claim — several do assert the figure is for political cases, but none so far provides a reference to a source that actually documents that. I suspect that this is one of those statements that gets printed once, then copied without anyone ever tracking down the original, but I'll do a little more looking around. Bytwerk (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality
The sources which have been used in this article are mostly from allied countries which is obvious that are not neutral. The current form of article looks like a war time anti-German propaganda!--Professional Assassin (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Not neutral maybe but whether you like it or not it is the truth. What do you want next? "Hitler was possibly a decent guy?" Perhaps wartime anti-German propaganda was in essence correct - at least as noted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.46.81 (talk) 21:56, 22nd January 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure about the truth thing? If Hitler was not a good guy, he was not worst than Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. All three were blood-thirsty, power-hungry guys. Does this NOT neutral point of view at the moment, apply to their articles too? I don't think so.--Professional Assassin (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, here is a very very simple sample of allied propaganda even before the war to corrupt the face of National Socialist Germany. I guess you already know Jesse Owens. Here are some of his statements:
"It took a lot of courage for him to befriend me in front of Hitler. You can melt down all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the 24-karat friendship I felt for Luz Long at that moment. Hitler must have gone crazy watching us embrace. The sad part of the story is I never saw Long again. He was killed in World War II."[1]
"When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany"[2]
"Hitler didn’t snub me — it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram" – Jesse Owens: The Jesse Owens Story, 1970
This is the place to discuss the article, not your opinion of wartime or even pre-wartime propoganda. The sources in the article are either reliable secondary sources or you may challenge and eventually remove them. If you have reliable secondary sources that support a different perspective than what the article currently portrays then you should discuss those sources and how to best include the information. If you cannot provide reliable sources to advocate a change of the article then the neutrality tag will be removed. If you believe the article is factually biased it is up to you to show why, if you cannot then your assertion of a lack of neutrality has no basis. Weakopedia (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
daily mail
It has been susgested that this source [[2]] supports the text
"Within six years from 1933 to 1939, Germany under the National Socialist government has changed from a total corrupt and poor country to a world's super power."
I am having trouble finding a passage in the source that supports this, could the persono including this please provide the quotes?Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"Empire"?
Since when did Nazi Germany become an empire? Hitler might be a dictator, but he was not an emperor. I've removed "Empire" from the infobox. BlodancetheSeeker08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
From the lead: "Third Reich (Drittes Reich) denotes the Nazi State as the historical successor to the mediæval Holy Roman Empire (962–1806) and to the modern German Empire". I believe Reich in German can translate directly to Empire in English. Hohum (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Reich - No, Reich does NOT translate into "Empire" in English. the equivalent of "Empire" should be "Kaiserreich" in German (see the article "Deutsches Heer(Kaiserreich)" on de.wp) and "Kingdom" should be "Königreich". The direct equivalent of "Reich", would be "Nation". And being a successor state of an empire does not neccessary imply that it is an empire itself - see Soviet Union. Even if they are labeled as an empire (like "American Empire" and so on), its incorrect to describe it as a "governmental structure". One might also want to notice that the official name of Weimar Republic is also "Deutsches Reich", yet no one argued that Weimar Republic is an empire. BlodancetheSeeker05:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
So, I read the article Blodance linked to; Reich and it said The Nazis sought to legitimize their power historiographically by portraying their rule as a continuation of a Germanic past. They coined the term Das Dritte Reich ("The Third Empire" – usually rendered in English in the partial-translation "The Third Reich")...
However, the entire article is unreferenced, so it's as useful as a chocolate teapot.
German Reich is better referenced. Reich can mean empire... along with several other meanings, mostly relying on context (see [3]]). Although the Nazis self identified their regime as the Dritte Reich, succeeding the previous two reichs which would be described in English as empires; The Third Reich's structure, I agree, was not an Empire, much as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a Democracy. Hohum (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
See also the wiktionary entry of Reich. Yes, it can mean empire, but one cannot claim that it is an empire simply because the word can mean empire. Like I've said, the Weimar Republic's official name is also "Deutsches Reich" - Nazi Germany aside, how is Weimar Republic an empire? Also, they do have specific terms meaning "Empire"("Kaiserreich", see de:Deutsches Heer (Kaiserreich), "Imperial German Army") and "Kingdom"("Königreich", see de:Vereinigtes Königreich, "United Kingdom"). I agree that the meaning of "Reich" depends on context, and Nazi Germany did identify itself as the successor of Holy Roman Empire and German Empire (thus Third Reich). However being a successor state does not neccessarily mean that the successor retains the govermental structure of its predecessor - it's entirely different. Under most circumstances, it merely means that the successor intend to inherit its predecessor's territories and other properties (tons of examples - e.g. Republic of China succeeds Qing Dynasty). And as you can see, the Nazis seek to regain their "lost" territories and form the "Grossdeutschland"(Greater Germany). As such, I would even agree to translate "Drittes Reich" into "Third Empire" - but like "American Empire", its a label, not "governmental structure". Placing "Empire" under "Government" is utterly misleading. BlodancetheSeeker01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have read my last sentence before replying ;) "The Third Reich's structure, I agree, was not an Empire". Hohum19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
In the lead:
"Despite an alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, that together formed the Axis powers, Germany had by 1945 been defeated and subsequently was occupied by the victorious Allied powers, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and France."
This strongly implies that Germany was at an advantage in this alliance when in fact it was outnumbered by massive ratios in terms of population, industrial capacity and resources distributed over multiple fronts with or without its regional allies. Moreover, the alliance with Japan proved to be an actual disadvantage in the end. It should probably be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.235.144 (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't read it as a loaded statement. They formed an alliance with other nations and despite that lost the war, that's all it says. Fences&Windows20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Error
"At this time Germany's borders were still determined by the Treaty of Versailles, the peace treaty between Germany and the allied powers of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, "
Why have Croatia singled out in blue for the map in the article infobox? Wasn't it a Nazi ally/puppet, which are otherwise shown in orange? (Hohum@) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I'll rephrase: Singling out Croatia doesn't seem relevant to the purpose of the image, and its use in this article. I suggest that it would be a good idea to revert the change. (Hohum@) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole image is just plane bad for a infobox map. I suggest a map that only shows territory that was actually a part of germany, all occupied states, enemies and allies sould be gray. --SelfQ (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
So why do you complain about it here? Why not on the talk page for that map? And why don't you just revert the change of the image? Lars T. (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Because, when clicking on the talk page for the image I get the following:
"There are many things this page is NOT for: ... requesting corrections to the image (try the talk page of an article that the image is used in..."
It makes sense to come here because this is the only article where this image is used, and this talk page is far more frequented than the image talk page. "Complaining" and "politely asking for the input of fellow editors before taking action when in doubt" are also too very different things. --78.34.249.140 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deceptive map
Nazi Germany map? Its deceptive that Finland is in its influence or occupation sphere which was certainly not the case. Its simply erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.22.72.9 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
During the Continuation War, Finland (at least technically) fought on the side of the Germans and was at war with not only Russia (who had attacked them in 1939) but also Great Britain, even if they staid fully independent. Lars T. (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
UK declared war with Finland because of the pressure from Moscow. It still does not explain why Finland is portrayed as if being in the influence sphere of Nazi Germany. Finland was a co-belligerent with Germany not an ally.
________________________________
I was going to make a similar criticism. The caption to the map, "Nazi Germany at its height in 1942," is very misleading.
What the map shows are Germany itself with its protectorates (General Gouvernement and Bohemia and Moravia) in red, Italy and its territories in green, and then the large orange region which is a combination of regions occupied militarily by Germany and states that may not have been occupied at all but were friendly to Germany.
The caption pretends that all of that area was annexed to Germany, which is a very ignorant assumption.
Even without the caption, however, there is still a problem with the map insofar as it blurs distinctions about the relationship to Germany of the various countries colored in orange. For example, France during most of 1942 was a neutral country, with German troops occupying the north by agreement. It was the Allied invasion of French territory that brought Vichy France into the war on Germany's side. The way this map is made represents a simplistic Allied propagandist view of the war.
-Hadding
Typo on Libya
I noticed in reading this article that Libya was misspelled:
"Nazi" - Germany although used very often isn't a scientific term. It's use is kind of derogative. Think of the term "Kike" being used for Jews, which isn't scientific either. --41.18.91.173 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not it's 'scientific' isn't really relevant. WP:EN suggests that the common English term should be used as the article title. 'Nazi Germany' fits the bill and is used in a descriptive (not derogatory) manner; similar to the descriptions of Weimar Republic, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, etc. DrFrench (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
This is one of those places where we run into the conflict of popular opinion versus educated opinion. Popular opinion is shaped by mass-media, and where a war is concerned, there is always a residue of war-propaganda. That's why the "common English term" is Nazi Germany, instead of National-Socialist Germany.
It seems to me that the origin of the term Nazi among enemies of National-Socialism ought to carry some weight in assessing whether it is an objective term or a term that is colored by a POV.
That seems like common sense to me, but Oh well, this is Wikipedia. -Hadding
WP:COMMONNAME makes it very clear that articles do not need to use formally correct names, but the most recognisable, most used one, which is the case here. (Hohum@) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
All this discussion aside: (1) The formal term for the regime would be Deutsches Reich or German Reich (causing confusion with the Weimar Republic and the German Empire) or Großdeutsches Reich/"Greater German Reich" (which isn't entirely accurate, as that was only the name for less than half of its existence). (2) How many people today, even within the academy, call it "National Socialism?" It's not terribly many (except on first reference or when being ironic). List off all the educated people you know who call the Nazis the "National Socialists" on a regular basis. Go on. I'm waiting. Lockesdonkey (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Lockesdonkey.
The term Nazi Germany was invented by English-Speaking peoples after World War II. It is simply a "catch-all" term (for Hitler's Germany, A.D. 1933-1945). The formal Names of the countries would be,
(i). North German Union (i.e., Norddeutscher Bund), A.D. 1867-1871,
(ii). German Empire (i.e., Deutsches Kaiserreich), A.D. 1871-1918,
(iii). German Reich (i.e., Deutsches Reich), A.D. 1919-1943,
(iv). Greater German Reich (i.e., Großdeutsches Reich), A.D. 1943-1945,
I believe Germany expanded its territory into northern Italy and further into Slovenia (Yugoslavia) by 1944. Why not show a 1944 version of the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.81.128.121 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Holocaust reference in 3rd paragraph
"The Nazis persecuted and murdered millions of Jews and other minorities in the Holocaust Final Solution" is out of place in this paragraph. Should be removed.
Chrisklinger (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
New Map
I'm wondering why the new map included in the infobox is being used over the previous one. The old one focused exclusively on German territory by law: that is, areas that were part of the Weimar Republic and which were subsequently annexed or protected by the German Reich. The new map shows that, Italy, and all German occupations: it seems a bit excessive for an article which is supposed to be about Germany itself. 75.154.72.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC).
Another concern about the map is the legend. In addition to Germany it identifies two categories: "Italian Territory" and "Allies and Conquests." Until late in the war, Italy was Germany's ally; at the same time none of those marked "Allies and Conquests" were allies except perhaps for puppet states set up after conquest. It seems to me that the legend should identify Italian territory as "allied" to Germany and the other areas only as "conquests." TheCormac (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were not "puppet states set up after conquest". It's also quite strange that (Vichy) France is represented in the German allies and conquests category on the map. The best map to probably use is File:GDR.png, however it's in German. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the lead map to file:Großdeutschen Reiches.png, which is derived from GDR.png. I have tried to make the core area more prominent and the surrounding areas less distracting. I can try and find the time to change the text to English, or language neutral. (Hohum@) 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
unbiased mentality- type of state
Once again we clearly see the BIAS in Wikipedia. I can introduce Hitler as an egomaniacal mass murdering totalitarian despot dictator in the first sentence and nobody would say a word, nobody! Yet when it comes to Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao I have to use titles such as: “President of the People’s committee, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, etc… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.174.36 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I had changed the government type before to "Republic, Single-party state" (as it actually was per the constitution of the Reich and it's laws). But people keep edit warring and adding on all the other junk which which looks completely out of place ("Totalitarian autocratic national socialist dictatorship"). Indeed, its completely not NPOV to list all the other out of place things, while articles like the Soviet Union, and others are listed (as they should be) as Single-party state Republic's. - I changed it back to how it was before. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The article should include both the self-description of the type of government (whether it is accurate or not - properly sourced, and making it clear it is a self-description) as well as the actual government type - also properly sourced. (Hohum@) 09:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
2nd paragraph: the use of et alii is just gratuitous and incorrectly punctuated, it is not an abbreviation and therefore should involve use of the full stop. Please either "fix" it up by using et al. or hotlink it to its definition in wiktionary.
Much thanks.
24.7.100.134 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for a small modification
Hi! Below the map File:Gro%C3%9Fdeutschen_Reiches.png, it should say "Großdeutsches Reich 1943", not "Großdeutschen Reiches 1943". That would be the correct form in German; it is called like this at the top of the containing table too. Bye, another user of the IP 129.13.186.1 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (I hope the previous bad edits made by this IP don't interfer with my constructive proposal.)
Can somebody re-edit the Third Reich-era maps that are displayed on this page? Don't know how to do so myself, but they need to be corrected in a lot of places.
- The USSR did NOT exist on the territory adjacent to East Prussia and the General Government after Operation Barbarossa. From 1941 to 1943/44 this area was divided between the Reichskommissariats Ukraine and Ostland, which were essentially Nazi colonies. Because the German government considered the Soviet Union to be a criminal institution they didn't even officially regard these lands as "occupied" territory for all intents and purposes.
- The borders are pretty weird in some places, especially in the General Government's East Galician parts, Hungarian-annexed Backa and Baranja (seems to extend too far south), and Bialystok's northeastern protrusion.
- The Reichsgau Wartheland was only called Warthegau for a very short time after the Invasion of Poland, after first being called the Reichsgau Posen.
- The General Government may not have been a direct component of Germany, but it was universally considered part of the "Greater German Reich" by Nazi officials, so this border should be extended to include it.
- The Kleinwalser valley of pre-Anschluss Voralberg was transferred to the Gau Swabia in 1938.
- Hultschiner Ländchen (in north-eastern Moravia) was given to Upper Silesia after the Sudetenland crisis.
- The Eupen-Malmedy and Moresnet territory was much larger, extending further east into the Rhineland.
- The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was administratively divided between the surrounding Gaus in addition to having its own internal organization.
- Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, the German-annexed parts of Slovenia, and the Bezirk Bialystok should be displayed differently, since they were never officially incorporated into Germany.
- It would also help if the first-level subdivisions of the General Government (divided into five distrikten in 1943) and Bohemia-Moravia (divided into two länder) were shown.
- If the Reichsgau Westmark is portrayed, then so should the Reichsgau Oberrhein (Upper Rhine) be. Composed of Alsace and Baden, this was another planned entity.
Just a quick comment- the phrase 'Jews and other minorities' describing the victims of the Nazi regime is perhaps misleading. It is important to understand that the racial or ethnic criteria people most often associate with Nazi oppression is only a part of it; political or social 'crimes' such as promoting other political ideologies or being homosexual were just as persecuted. Overall, Jews made up less than half of the population of the camps (though they were the largest single group) - and its a distinction very worth getting right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.155.195 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Definition of republic: A type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country.
I don't think the all-powerful Führer has ever accepted to subordinate his permanency in the government to any kind of voting. Stalin and Hitler were the two main representatives of a totalitarian state, the opposing thing to a democratic republic.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
unhelpful entry refactored
My Neutral POV :
Isn't USSR a republic ? (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic ).
Did people under communist regime had more equality than in the Germans in the Nazi Regime ?.
Wikipedia does not have to justify whether it is truly republic or not.Its main purpose is to chronicle and give picture of how things were during that time.In that context, I dont think its not wrong to call Nazi Germany as Republic.
All the government documents, post stamps etc during Nazi Germany carried the title "republic" so it is one.
Coming to my own view :
Christian Germans were bloodthirsty ppl who massacred innocent Jewish (regardless child,woman etc) by the millions.
Atleast Soviets did not do so.
When these CHRISTIAN GERMANS lost the war, they changed colors and innocently proclaimed "We were against the atrocities commited to the Jews from the start.We are goody goodies"..lol.
Germans today were the progeny of the yesteryear Nazis (who were absolute psychotic and mass murderers).
Have you seen a wolf beget a lamb ?
The above author , I presume is from Germany and is ashamed of his lineage.
But you cannot escape from the sin of your forefathers dude.
Remember the saying "Old Sins Have Long Shadows".
He wants to dissociate himself from his forefathers but unfortunately he cannot :)
His gappy, gammy, pappy, mommy all are inherited from Nazi criminals.
Cosmos 10:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
German documents and postage stamps announced that they were issued by the "Deutsches Reich," not "Republik." The Constitution of the Weimar Republic does indeed begin by saying that Germany is a republic. However, the Nazis speedily eliminated all republican elements of the Weimar Constitution in practice, so it is most peculiar to refer to it as a republic. As for the USSR, reminds me of the old East German (German Democratic Republic) joke that there were only three things wrong with the name: the GDR was neither German, nor democratic, nor a republic. Bytwerk (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, why don't we say that North Korea is a democratic state?? After all, its real name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As you can see, this argument is baseless and ridiculous.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
North Korea is called "socialist republic".Check the article if you wanna see it for yourself.
Wiki does not have to make a judgement call, whether the Third Reich lived upto the standards of the republic.
If Germany was known as a republic during 1933-45, then the Wiki is obligated to chronicle it as "Republic".
Dont change the article without reaching a resolution first.
Cosmos 05:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is obviously sometimes a difference between the self description of a government, and what it truly was. In cases like this, it would probably be sensible to give both, and be clear about the difference. In an infobox, something like
AFAIK, Nazis never called the Third Reich a "republic" themselves, considering this word rather insulting. (Hitler also declared that democracy was a wrong "to be overcome"). But officially, Germany was a "republic" called "Deutsches Reich" (sic!) since 1918. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It is true that the "Weimar Republic" never officially called themselves a republic either, the name of Germany - from the founding of the Empire in 1871 until 1943 - was "Deutsches Reich", in 1943 it was changed to "Großdeutsches Reich". Regarding the definition of a republic - A type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country - there were still elections in the Third Reich, for the Reichstag and all other legislative bodies. What simply happened was that deputies of the Reichstag (elected deputies) passed the Enabling Act, which granted the Chancellor (Hitler) and his government plenary powers. To which Hitler used to create the office of "Führer und Reichskanzler", thereby eliminating the office of President, and becoming both Head of State and Chancellor, a measure which a plebiscite was held on as to whether the German people approved of Hitler merging the offices of President and Chancellor into one, the "Yes" vote amounted to over 90%. After this Hitler, with the approval and consent of the Reichstag, used his powers to ban the creation of new political parties, and all other parties were pressured into disbanding themselves or merging with the NSDAP. Hence where the Single-party state aspect comes into play. After these events, elections in Germany still took place as they had always been, however the only electable candidates for the Reichstag and all other offices were NSDAP members, as it was the only legal political party. The initial Enabling Act expired in 1937 when it was renewed by the elected deputies of the Reichstag, which it would continue to renew. The Reich was a Republic by its constitution, laws, and elections. It should be referred to as such, especially when other articles (such as the Soviet Union's) are listed as a Republic. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Totalitarian state
There are widely consensus about what is "totalitarianism" (which is a different thing from authoritarianism, because totalitarianism necessarily invade the private life of the citizens, not just the public aspect as the authoritarianism does). There are many authoritarian regimes in the world (like the former "military junta" in Argentina), but modern totalitarian states, there were, surely, at least two: USSR under Stalin and Nazi Germany (some academics support the idea that theocraticIslamism under Sharia law, like the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia, is another kind of totalitarianism, but that's another discussion). Indeed, many prestigious sources say that an absolutist totalitarian state was put into practice in all its extension during the national socialist regime in Germany. In fact, we can see this in the wikipedia's article of totalitarianism. In summary, a totalitarian system is a type of government where a person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life in the country wherever feasible.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Did Germans suffer like Russians under Stalin ?.No they were pretty exhuberant and gleeful when Nazis wrecked absolute havoc on all of Europe.Only after Allies defeated them, all these Germans protested that they were innocent and did not like the Hitler in the first place.
Did Germans live in a totalitarian and oppressed state where they had no say in the matters of the government ?.
Definitely Not.
Did Germans enjoyed their "Republic" till it lasted ?
Absolutely!!!
Unless the "prestigious" sources are listed out with references that explicitly state that Third Reich was "totalitarian" per Wiki's norm.I oppose your revert.
Cosmos 09:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverting the edit.
Cosmoskramer, please link to your user page or talk page in your signature. Also, please provide reliable sources that indicate that Germans in general enjoyed the Nazi regime and had a say in matters of government, and specifically addressing the issue of whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian or not. In the absence of sources, this debate is not worth having. Fences&Windows20:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
To Fences and windows
"Happy with Nazi prosperity, most Germans remained silently obedient, while political opponents, especially the Communists, Marxists, and international socialists were imprisoned".This is a direct quote from the article itself.
Let me know if you need any clarification or a better source that you trust than the Wiki.
This reiterate my stand that these Germans were content with Hitler's antics and only changed their colors like chameleon after the Germany's defeat.
Cosmos 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I remember a story of 1943: a German woman, working in a factory, told her friends an innocent little joke about Hitler and Göring... minutes later, she was shot dead by SS officers. Answering your question, of course that German citizens suffered a totalitarian and intolerant regime... nearly 300,000 "Aryan" Germans were killed by the Nazi regime, due to their political views (democrats, socialists, intellectuals, pacifists, artists, etc), sexual orientation or other motives. So, if the Nazi regime did those things against its own citizens, imagine what could have done with all people who were not considered part of their "chosen race". I'm not comparing the suffering of Russians, Jews or direct victims of Nazism with the suffering of common Germans who opposed the government, but there is no doubt that the Nazi Germany was a brutal, totalitarian, genocidal and criminal regime for its own people too. There is a reason to explain why Angela Merkel was in the Moscow Victory Parade few days ago: she wanted to show the entire human kind that allied victory over Hitler wasn't the defeat of her country, but its liberation.
PD - By the way, answering some user who accused me of being "a German penitent for my past" (or something like that, which caused me a laugh attack), let me tell you the truth: I'm a Jewish, Zionist and RepublicanArgentinian (with Soviet ancestry). And I do not hate German people. I hope for the next time less accusations and more argumentation in this talk page. Greetings.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you both please start presenting sources? I don't care what our own article says - I don't trust it as it's not a reliable source! That statement you quote is unsourced, and I've tagged it appropriately as potentially being original research (remember that Germans may have begun happy with the Nazis, then changed their minds when they saw events like the Night of the Long Knives, e.g. army general Hans Oster[5]). Both of your arguments —however erudite— are irrelevant in the face of what sources say. Wikipedia is based on the balance of what reliable sources state about a subject. So go and find what sources say about whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian and then this will be a useful debate (and they do say an awful lot on the matter, but I'd like you to do some of the hard work on this rather than acting as a parent). Without reference to sources, this is just so many bytes on a talk page.
By the way, we have a start class article on the Nazis gaining control over German society at Gleichschaltung. Working on that article using sources to outline the process of "Nazification" of Germany and whether this resulted in a totalitarian regime —and then summarising that article here— would be a good approach. Fences&Windows13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion, and I think the best sources to resolve it are democratic election results (where available). So note that the Nazis did not gain a majority at any election conducted while other parties were still allowed: The two democratic elections in 1932 saw them at around 38 37 resp. 33% of votes, and even the March 1933 elections conducted under Hitler's chancellorship, at which left parties were already strongly suppressed, did not lead to a majority for the NSDAP. So most Germans were apparently not happy with a Nazi government in 1932 or 1933. (The claim of Nazi "prosperity" is also POV, by the way.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: A source for the WP figures in the articles is given in the corresponding German article: http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/RT7.html. (Note that the July 1932 figures in the WP article linked seem to be slightly wrong, the German source gives a vote percentage of only 37.4 percent for the Nazis. I initially made the same mistake as Cosmos, considering WP a reliable source - sorry.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Roentgenium, but your approach would be interpreting primary sources (i.e. election results) to tell us whether Germans were happy living under the Nazis. That's not a good approach; approval ratings would give you a better idea, but I have no idea if such polls existed (though see [6] ;-P ). Also note that there are two things being conflated here: whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian is separate from whether Germans were supportive of the Nazi regime or content to live under it. Can we please all stick to the interpretations given by reliable, secondary sources rather than bringing our own ideas into the mix? (tedious, I know) Fences&Windows19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that its standard policy for the official lawful type of government to be listed for the government type in articles, as is the case with the Soviet Union, North Korea, People's Republic of China, People's Republic of Hungary, Socialist Republic of Romania, etc., the list is almost endless. Therefore, it would not be NPOV to list "Totalitarian state" in the government section. As for some kind of some kind of "approval rating" of Hitler, there was a plebiscite which was held on August 19, 1934, as whether the German people approved of Hitler merging the offices of President and Chancellor into one. "About 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million "Ja" votes (90 percent of the vote). Thus Hitler could now claim he was Führer of the German nation with the overwhelming approval of the people." (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-fuehrer.htm) Lt.Specht (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, now we're getting somewhere. This from Der Spiegel looks like a good source for the rise and popularity of Hitler:[7]Fences&Windows01:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
First but least of all, there never was a "voter registration" in Germany like in the USA. Second, millions were refused the right to vote. Third: Hitler didn't need to be "elected", he already was declared Reichspresident beforehand, the vote was just a confirmation. People were told the (not even) three weeks from Hindenburgs death to the plebiscite how exactly they were supposed to vote in all papers and radio stations. And on the election day, the polling places were staffed with party members, while SA, SS and Hitler Youth were roaming the street looking for people who didn't have the voting receipt yet and draged them to the poll. There are various documented reports of intimidation, manipulation and fraud. But sure, since the Nazis held this plebiscite with the intention to show the world how united the Germans stood behind Hitler, lets follow their lead. Lars T. (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
@Fences: I doubt there were any (let alone reliable) "approval ratings" in Germany at that time. @Lt.Specht and Fences: Your sources contradict each other, with historyplace claiming 90% of votes for Hitler, but Spiegel claiming that more than a sixth of voters did not vote "Yes" (i.e. less than 83.3% for Hitler). To me, the historyplace source looks less reliable. And I agree with what Lars T. says, the plebiscite was certainly far from representative, which was why I cited the last (more or less) free election results. As regards to the original question, Nazi Germany was (IMO) clearly a totalitarian state, though the Nazis would not have called it thus. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Too much centred on Adolf Hitler
The text seems to place all focus on Hitler, there is a lack of background information on how and why the situation evolved and the public opinion managed, etc.
A bit about the history of the Nazi party is also missing as links to other nations extreme right parties/movements like Spain, Italy, England and how Germany had a influence on the Russian revolution could also be productive as it relates to the Bolshevik revolution. --79.168.10.241 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Foreign Relations
I think this article needs a couple of paragraphs on Nazi German relations with neutral nations. Let's hear from an expert! Dynzmoar (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Longevity
I heard a rumour recently that Nazi Germany would eventually have collapsed on its own within ten years even if the Second World War hadn't happened. Are there any political or economic factors that lend credence to this view? 91.108.169.175 (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Prof.feather, 10 August 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
I suggest the last line of the third paragraph: "Despite its Axis alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, by 1945, Germany had been defeated and occupied by four of the Allied powers (France, Soviet Union, UK and US)." be changed to "Despite its Axis alliance with other nations, mainly Italy and Japan, by 1945, Germany had been defeated and occupied by four of the Allied powers." Allied powers" directly linked to the "Allies of World War II" Wikipedia article, without further specification.
Reason: to specify the Allied Forces in this context, starting with France, does little justice to the reality of Vichy France, nor to France's modest contribution to German Defeat. In fact, it could be argued that France, for the better part of WW II, had an alliance with Nazi Germany.
Source: Pétain's radio declaration of October 30, 1940: "J'entre aujourd'hui dans la voie de la collaboration...." ("I enter today on the path of collaboration....").
Not done: Welcome. Sorry, but that change does not seem appropriate. The curent text is factually accurate since those were the four countries which occupied Germany after the war. Celestra (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. The text states: "Germany had been defeated and occupied by...." The current text is factual only as far as the post-war occupation goes. The defeat of Nazi Germany had little to do with the war effort of the French. Therefore this text is not factually accurate.
Prof.feather (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been talking to some of my students today and was told of some extraordinary numbers:
"Parallel to the Holocaust, the Nazis executed the Generalplan Ost (General Plan East) for the conquest, ethnic cleansing, and exploitation of the populaces of the captured Soviet and Polish territories; some 20 million Soviet civilians, 3 million Poles, and 7 million Red Army soldiers were killed."
Who is responsible for such historical revisionism? "some 20 million civilians"?, why "Parallel to the Holocaust"?? (as you cannot count them twice) and why are 7 million Red Army soldiers that were killed listed at "Persecution and extermination campaigns"? that is absolutey ridiculous!
The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands, including Jews (the Holocaust), totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR. This included 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory.
I would like to see any source that states that 20 million Soviet civilians were killed! and especially through Nazi Germany's "percecution and extermination campaigns". --85.179.151.66 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Figures for Civilian deaths due to Allied Bombing
Re Air Raid deaths in Nazi Germany here is a brief summary of the two official German sources:
The 1956 West German government figures published in Wirtschaft und Statistik 1956, 498, are as follows
Within German borders of 1937- Total dead 593,000( including 410.000 civilians killed in Allied Strategic Bombing and 128,000 refugees killed in the flight from the Russians in 1945. The remaining balance of
55,000 dead were military, police, POWs and foreign workers. There were an additional 42,000 dead in the annexed territories(including 24,000 in Austria).
This study now estimates the total deaths of civilians due to Allied Strategic Bombing in the 1937 borders at between 360,000 and 370,000. They believe that based on research published in 1990 the earlier 1956 estimate of 410,000 civilians killed in Allied Strategic Bombing was overstated.
The earlier volumes of the Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg have been translated into English and published by Oxford University Press
You really should not have changed the information given at "World War II casualties", as the source is only one of many given ones, and it was cited in the right way. The cited information is still available at the "Bildungsportal des Landes Niedersachsen" http://nibis.de/ what is part of the Federal Government of Germany. The PDF-File even bears its name http://www.nibis.de/~rsgarrel/deutschlandstundenull.pdf
The source given by you might be right, however I would rather trust an official government source, rather than a quite suspicious website quoting figures from 1956.
The figure is the same! 600,000 is the rounded up figure of 593,000 in Wirtschaft und Statistik . We need to check the details and understand our numbers--Woogie10w (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The text is full of quotes regarding the systematic bombardements of German cities. The figure of 500.000 - 600.000 civilian dead from Allied bombing is in the last paragraph. "Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/wk2/kriegsverlauf/staedte/index.html ...the website of the permanent official exhibition by the Federal Republic of Germany. (last paragraph)
Bildungsportal des Landes NiedersachsenBildungsportal des Landes Niedersachsen Is citing the figure of Die Welt -They are not the source!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This official source of the German Government also verifies the following:
1/5 of all private property in Germany being destroyed,
P.S. Let me again put emphasis on the fact, ...that this is only ONE of many sources provided at the "World War II casualties" section.--IIIraute (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you want? It would be fantastic if you could leave your comments below the ones I have left and not in the middle of the text!
The "Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" provides us with the following sentence: "Zwischen 500.000 und 600.000 Deutsche starben bei den Luftangriffen und 3,37 Millionen Wohnungen wurden zerstört." .... between 500.000 and 600.000 Germans were killed during air raids and 3,7 million flats were destroyed.
I will not discuss this matter any further. I will report your changes (that were also not done in the manner they are supposed to, as it is almost impossible to see what you've really edited) - The German Historical Museuam (a) was contracted by the German Government, (b) has its own research departments with dozens of historians working for them. To Translate Allied "Luftangriffe" and "systematische Bombardierungen" with Air War is revisionist and wrong. --IIIraute (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Reversion of recent edits by IIIraute
Please do not place information in sentences already supported by a citation, as it gives the impression that the source supports what you've added. Also, the six million figure in reference to the Holocaust is the estimate for Jews that were killed, not all victims, which ranges in the 11-12 million area. Lastly, I have no idea what you mean when you say that the source doesn't support the 30-45 range, as it clearly does. And I quote: "usually estimated at 30-45 million Slavs who would have been ruthlessly annihilated". Please read a little more carefully next time. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about; (1) the source "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct"very clearly talks about the "destruction of more than 160 cities, as well as 600.000 civilian victims." I guess you should be reading a bit more carefully. (2) The source "http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143 The Holocaust" speaks of the Holocaust as "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." Again, maybe you should be reading the cited sources, before reversing my edits. (3) The source "The Russian Academy of Science Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN5-86789-023-6" speaks of 2,5 not 3 million ethnic Poles that died.--IIIraute (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I corrected my previously wrong edit about the 30-45 million.
Here also some sources about the Holocaust:
"The Holocaust (HaShoah, in Hebrew) is the term that describes the murder of six million Jews in Europe during World War II that was orchestrated by the National Socialist ('Nazi') Party in Germany." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holo.html
"... ist die zentrale Holocaust-Gedenkstätte Deutschlands, ein Ort der Erinnerung und des Gedenkens an die bis zu sechs Millionen Opfer." http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/
The Guardian article is a very bad reference, as it is about the controversy around Friedrich's book and not German civilian casualties. Note how the article underlines the controversy and is very careful to attribute his statements to him. Also see The Holocaust on the definition discussion.
This platform manifested itself in the displacement, internment, and systematic extermination of several million people in the midst of World War II, most of them being Jews targeted in what is historically remembered as the Holocaust (Shoah), 2,5 million ethnic Poles that died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine. The previous sentence taken from the same source states that some 13,7 million Soviet civilians (including Jews) and 2,5 million Poles died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine. So, even the "roughly half" from the previous version is doubtful, and your reduction of this to "most" makes it worse. --Illythr (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess then we just take the reference from Friedrich's book? and yes, the other refernce speaks of "13,7 million Soviet civilians (including Jews) and 2,5 million Poles died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine." but one cannot just set this information equal with the term "Holocaust".--IIIraute (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Another source to Friedrich's claims, supporting the citation:
This might be a better (and much less controversial) source for that. It only mentions 60 cities, though.
The second part doesn't focus on Holocaust either - it mentions Poles, Roma, gays etc. It just ignores the Soviets from the count. --Illythr (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the source; I guess it depends on how one defines a "destroyed city" as well as on what counts as a "city" in general.
The other problem is, that the "Nazi Germany" article (1) constantly repeats itself on numbers of victims in differnt ways, (2) constantly changes the perimeter on the definition of certain terms, as for example "Holocaust". --IIIraute (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The way in which the victims should be mentioned is shown best in the section "Persecution and extermination campaigns". When one speaks of the Holocaust, the latest historical research usually speaks of 6 million victims (as cited in lots of sources). Parallel to the Holocaust, some 13,7 million Soviet civilians (including Jews) and 2,5 million Poles died as a result of warfare, genocide, reprisals, forced labor or famine. The numbers of Soviet and Polish civilians are taken from "The Russian Academy of Science Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN5-86789-023-6"
Of this 13,7 million, a large number of Soviet civilians were jewish (Holocaust), and many jewish and non-jewish civilians as well polish civilians died as a result of warfare (collateral damage), forced labor or famine what one cannot set equal with the Holocaust or genocide.--IIIraute (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the problem stems from the fact that the multitude of sources tends to focus on some part of them (e.g. Jewish - on the Holocaust, Soviet/Russian on Soviets in general and so on). The ideal solution would be to find a source that deals with all the victims and make this article consistent throughout. --Illythr (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I do agree. Another problem is the repetitive way in which facts are dealt with. For example...
Introduction: "The Nazis persecuted and killed millions of Jews, Gypsys and other minorities in the Final Solution (Holocaust)."
The information is getting further explained in "Persecution and extermination campaigns". (what makes sense)
Then, the Holocaust, Soviet victims, etc. are listed again in "Capitulation of German forces", what I do not really understand, as it does not really seem to relate to the heading.
Another detailed listing in the section "State ideology", as well as "Racial policy". Please have a look at the mentioned paragraphs. Instead of explaining the necessary facts once (referring to the specific, more detailed wikipedia artices), the article gets very confusing, losing itself by constantly repeating the same information in different ways, with different numbers and sources--IIIraute (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Hans Adler, ...instead of following your own political agenda: why do you not first have a look at the sources cited. Many of the current numbers given in the article do NOT match their source. (see talk) Quotations, ie. cited data has to match its source.--IIIraute (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
True, the numbers in the article and the sources must match. On the other hand replacing "murdered" by ""killed" in the context of the Holocaust is certainly not necessary, and the justification "to be objective" is ludicrous. [9] There is nothing wrong with using precise language to make it clear that these victims were targets of deliberate, systematic murder rather than accidental war deaths.
This is what attracted my attention, and I apologise if I was a bit slow providing proper sources.
As a general comment on this article, there are at least two places in which victim numbers are listed. The numbers are consistent with each other, but may superficially appear otherwise. I think it would be better to have a single section that deals with the precise numbers, to avoid the appearance of bias, e.g. when one section stresses the Soviet victims (because the Soviet soldiers murdered as war prisoners were such a large, uniform group), and another stresses the ethnic Polish victims (because they were the largest group of murdered civilians after the Jews). HansAdler21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes find it's better to give a range of figures, especially where estimates vary wildly. Further sources: in Rulers and Victims (Geoffrey A. Hosking, 2006, Harvard University Press, ISBN0-674-02178-9, p. 242), Hosking gives a total figure of around 27 million Soviet dead including 8.7 million combat deaths and those killed by their own government. The Holocaust seems to range from around six million if one defines it as the systematic genocide of the European Jews only, to 11-12 million if one includes other ethnic and minority groups, to 17 million if one includes all civilian deaths caused by the Nazis (Niewyk, Donald L. and Nicosia, Francis R. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, pp. 45-52). EyeSerenetalk22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't give a range just because different sources use different definitions. That should be restricted to when they disagree, but since this topic is rather well researched the actual uncertainties are so low that so long as we stick to a single digit (perfectly acceptable in this article, IMO) we won't need ranges, except perhaps in one or two special cases. If we deal with this in a central location I am sure we can find good formulations in which all the different numbers appear so that readers understand which distinctions are crucial. E.g.: "Roughly 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Some authors also include the roughly 3 million mostly Polish other civilians murdered by the Nazis, and in some cases the 3 million Soviet prisoners of war who died in German hands. This raises the number to about 9 million or 12 million, respectively." HansAdler22:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Two more thoughts:
This should not be the primary article for developing a treatment of these numbers. I am sure this has already been done in detail elsewhere. All we need here is a section that summarises that treatment. This will probably make this article a lot more stable.
I think it's a good idea to to clearly divide the discussion into several aspects: 1) Victim numbers by country, then in some cases further subdivision into the most common causes of death. 2) Victim numbers by cause of death (Nazi crime against civilians/soldiers, civilian/armed war victims), then further subdivided into the most notable countries of origin. Separation of numbers by ethnic groups should probably be done following the Nazis' own logic, i.e. under causes of death, because this was so closely related. HansAdler22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did NOT replace "murdered" by ""killed"... and @ Hans Adler: as an individual living in Germany you should know that the term Holocaust usually refers to the murdered Jews. http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/. The original point I brought up was that the article constantly jumps between definitions towards the term "Holocaust" and therefore ignores the generally accepted scholarly consent--IIIraute (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course the term primarily refers to the murdered Jews. But people sometimes come across different numbers, and it's probably a good idea to explain where these come from. The language I proposed would certainly need tweaking such as "Holocaust in a wider sense" or some way of avoiding association of the larger number with the term Holocaust at all. It wasn't a finished proposal offered for voting but a contribution to a talk page discussion on improving the article. HansAdler23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
...and I cannot understand any reason why approx. 600.000 German civilian victims that died from Allied bombing should not been mentioned at the appropriate part of the article? ...and I quote from the German Government: Bildungsportal des Landes Niedersachsen, http://nibis.de/ ...that between 500.000 and 600.000 civilians lost their lives from Allied bombing; 250.000 civilians lost their lives in the period from autumn 1944 to may 1945 during the Allied invasion of Germany; 750.000 to 1.7 million civilians died when being forced to leave the East; approx. 5,3 million soldiers being dead, with an additional 1 million German soldiers still missing, with 27,6 percent of all soldiers being killed. An avarage of 40% of every German city being destroyed (worst cases: Düren 99,2% destruction; Paderborn 95,6%; Bocholt 89%; Hanau 88,6%; Cologne 70% etc.) http://www.nibis.de/~rsgarrel/deutschlandstundenull.pdf
I think the original concern was that you used the highly contentious Friedrich's book to back it up. If you use neutral sources along with their estimates, that should be perfectly fine. The current "killing thousands of civilians" when the actual number is over half a million is grossly incorrect anyway. --Illythr (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm, now that I re-read it, the passage is placed into the time frame of early 1942, whereas the information apparently refers to the whole period of bombing (Dresden is 1945). --Illythr (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I find myself deeply troubled by the apparent equation of bombing with Holocaust. This appears to fall in line with the recent Neo-Nazi garbage, & IMO is indefensible. As for the numbers, omitting the "others" (beyond the Jews) IMO is wrong. (It's a mistake to include the war casualties too, BTW.) The systematic execution of the Holocaust totalled at least 12 million: 6 million Jews, at least a million each Russians & Poles & half a million each Czechs, ethnic Germans, Roma, political opponents, homosexuals, & about half a million others. (Admittedly, the source is weak, The Odessa File, but Forsythe has a rep for getting it right, & the total is close.) TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nobody here is setting anything equal; but we are still discussing an article about Nazi Germany, are we? Well, so the collapse of Nazi Germany and its victims are part of it! This is not a Holocaust article.
And no, I did NOT introduce Friedrich as source, but only did add some information from it. The article is speaking about 1942 onwards; towards the Allied victory. Anyway I don't get your point; so here are the facts..... they come from the German Government; are you doubting their relevance? So we do not need Friedrich anymore... let us use the facts provided by the German Government.
What is wrong about showing what evil, suffering and death the Nazi Dictatorship did bring to its own people? For decades the Soviets played down their WWII civilian and military deaths, because they did not want to seem so vulnerable. This biased double standard has to stop, bargaining for death. Don't you see that many of your figures do not match up? Not every person in occupied Poland was murdered by the Nazis... what's about the Soviets? So,civilians killed during the bombing of Warshaw were killed by genocide, but civilians that died in Hamburg by gentlemen's agreement?
Let me give you some sources and figures:
In August 2009 the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) researchers put the figure of Poland's dead at between 5,620,000 and 5,820,000; including an estimated 150,000 Polish citizens who died due to Soviet repression. The IPN's figures include 3 million Polish Jews who died in Nazi Germany's Holocaust, as well as ethnic Poles and other ethnic groups (Ukrainians and Belarussians) Source: Wojciech Materski and Tomasz Szarota. Polska 1939–1945. Straty osobowe i ofiary represji pod dwiema okupacjami.Institute of National Remembrance(IPN) Warszawa 2009 ISBN978-83-7629-067-6
Czesław Łuczak estimated in 1994 the actual total of war dead to be 5.9 to 6.0 million, including 2.9 to 3.0 million Jews. He estimated the number of ethnic Poles who died at 2.0 million, including 1.5 million, due to the German occupation of the territory of modern day Poland and the balance of 500,000 in the former eastern Polish regions under both Soviet and German occupation. Łuczak also included in his figures an estimated 1,000,000 war dead of Polish citizens from the ethnic Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnic groups who comprised 20% of Poland's pre-war population. Source: Czesław Łuczak, Szanse i trudnosci bilansu demograficznego Polski w latach 1939–1945. Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI- 1994
Dr. Tadeusz Piotrowski estimated in 2005 Poland's losses in World War Two to be 5.6 million; including 5,150,000 victims of Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles and the Holocaust, 350,000deaths during the Soviet occupation in 1940–41 and about 100,000 Poles killed in 1943–44 during the massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Losses by ethnic group were 3,100,000 Jews; 2,000,000 ethnic Poles; 500,000 Ukrainians and Belarusians . Source: http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/european_WWII_casualties.htm
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has reported that in addition to 3 million Polish Jews killed in the Holocaust. "Documentation remains fragmentary, but today scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war". Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Poles as Victims of the Nazi Era.
Polish Losses during the Soviet Occupation (1939–1941)
In August 2009 the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) researchers estimated 150,000 Polish citizens were killed due to Soviet repression. Since the collapse of the USSR, Polish scholars have been able to do research in the Soviet archives on Polish losses during the Soviet occupation.Source: Krystyna Kersten, Szacunek strat osobowych w Polsce Wschodniej. Dzieje Najnowsze Rocznik XXI- 1994. Andrzej Paczkowski puts the number of Polish deaths at 90–100,000 of the 1.0 million persons deported and 30,000 executed by the Soviets. 72,372 In 2005 Tadeusz Piotrowski estimated the death toll in Soviet hands at 350,00047 An earlier estimate made in 1987 by Franciszek Proch of the Polish Association of Former Political Prisoners of Nazi and Soviet Concentration Camps estimated the total dead due to the Soviet occupation at 1,050,000. Source: Franciszek Proch, Poland's Way of the Cross, New York 1987
--IIIraute (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
...anybody not interested in the sources and figures I have presented here; is just ignoring current historical research and does not seem to be interested in an unbiased article of some quality and value, but more in historical revisionism that seems to serve some personal political agenda ...that's so unprogressive, ignorant and really belongs into the past--IIIraute (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh, calm down, flipping out like that will only assure your opponents that you're pushing some kind of Neo-Nazi POV here, whereas this seems to be just a failure to communicate. I'll try to explain again: The previous date in that section is "Beginning in 1942", the next one is ""November 1942" Someone then had stuffed the total German war casualties there. Then you added the total civilian casualties from the bombings, which seems logical, but actually throws the text flow from 1942 to the whole period then back to 1942. I would suggest to move the total German casualties into the section "Capitulation of German forces", specifically, into the paragraph beginning with "The war was the largest and most destructive in human history...". This paragraph summarizes the total loss of human life suffered in the war, and total German losses (both war and civilian) would fit much better there, than where they are now. And I certainly don't object to using the number used by the German govt, I merely tried to explain the reason for the opposition you're facing here. --Illythr (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Trekphiler, I am not really getting the point you are raising here? So because the Nazis (all the Germans?) commited horrible crimes, it is not worth mentioning their dead civilians anymore?
So, the police hunts down a criminal who has killed 100 people; while doing this, 10 civilians are killed by the police, so it isn't worth mentioning them in the next days paper.
What have hundreds of thousands of civilian victims to do with the other crimes that were commited by the Nazis, that it is not worth mentioning them? Do they all share collective guilt or what? To me that more looks like revenge, rather than an unbiased article.
Is it so difficult for you to raise above your emotional and political agenda, to acknowledge that those dead are part of the story? Again, this is not an article about Nazi atrocities, but about Nazi Germany!
Do you think the sentence "with thousands being killed" sums up 500.000 to 600.000 dead?
When I spend "thousands" on my car, one usually does not think of more than of 1/2 million, does one?
What do you think mentioning those dead civilians is taking away from you; that they seem less guilty?..... because, of course they ALL were? And even if they were; they were still Nazi Germany civilians, killed by allied bombing, so they do belong in the article. So what's your point....?
@Illythr, I am not pushing anything; especially not towards any Nazi-POV. The world is not black and white, and it doesn't suit the Wikipedia to pretend it is. I have given figures regarding the Allied bombing campaigns and victims, as well as regarding to the Polish victims; i.e. regarding the Holocaust, the Soviets, etc. They just cannot be ignored. I do not understand why the article is full of other figures? Looks like historical cherry picking to me!--IIIraute (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
IIIraute, when you descend on an article and start accusing its editors of having an "emotional and political agenda", don't be surprised if your complaints aren't taken too seriously. In my experience, those who shout loudest about other peoples' agendas are generally upset because their own agenda has been rumbled. Although the source is a controversial one, no-one is disagreeing with the 600,000 figure (in fact, I've seen as high as 800,000 quoted). The original issue was that your edit pattern seemed to indicate that you were engaged in a process of minimising the numbers killed by the Germans while at the same time trying to imply some sort of equivalence with the numbers of Germans killed by the Allies. As Trekphiler says, this is a common tactic by editors of a far-right political persuasion. I can accept your assurance that you believed you were simply, in all innocence, balancing the article. However, you must realise that this is a sensitive and controversial area, and when editors show up complaining about bias and unilaterally changing figures in certain ways, we (usually accurately) tend to assume the worst.
I think the suggestions above that parts of the article should be reorganised and possible rewritten are very sensible. However, for proper neutrality (in a Wikipedia sense) we should use a good selection of sources rather than rely on a single preferred source. Our task as editors is to tell the full story - if estimates have changed, we show the changes and, sources permitting, explain why. It's sometimes also a good idea to attribute in the text: "According to X writing in 1946, N million died. However, in 1996 Y revised this figure to M million...". Having said that, I appreciate Hans Adler's point that this article is an overview and not really the place to go into great detail. EyeSerenetalk15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I do understand your (and other editors) concern that I could maybe have tried to edit the article in a revisionist manner. But if you, Hans Adler and especially Parsecboy, had looked into my edits properly, you would have seen that I already had changed other uncited claims at much earlier stage (and also have given reasons for doing so). I have to admitt that I did not justify some of my later edits very clearly; so that might have given reason for alert.
I know that maybe some of my edits at first glance do not seem that transparent and academically sourced, but when I found the article (at some parts) in such a mess, with very problematic and alarming statements given; I thought of it as very important, to get them changed. To my excuse I am rather new to the Wikipedia and not that experienced with editing.
Let me try to explain my edits and put some light on the whole issue:
I have been involved for many years into doing reserch for and with German and British institutions regarding this topic. During this time I have experienced not only revisionist interests by far-right political persuasion, but at least as much from the far-left.
When I came across this article (checking some of the sources), I very much got the impression that this article was strongly biased by the latter. Let me give you some examples of deeply suspicious, uncited or wrongly cited information I came across in the cronological order of my edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_Germany&diff=384410919&oldid=383411728 Line 195: This part of the paragraph originally stated the uncited claim that, parallel to the Holocaust "...some 20 million Soviet civilians, 3 million Poles, and 7 million Red Army soldiers were killed." By writing "parallel to the Holocaust" one very clearly separates the following information from the former. (reason for some of my later edits about setting the Holocaust equal to the 6 million figure; as done by most historians)
The uncited claim of 20 million Soviet civilians and 3 million Poles that were killed as a result of the Nazis executing their Generalplan Ost, is simply revisionist and wrong.
I did change this claim by giving information taken from The Russian Academy of Science and by exchanging the numbers with those given (and very well sourced) in the Wikipedia article "World War II casualties" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
However, the given data is providing us with "total dead" (including Soviet atrocities, etc.) Apart from that, I also wanted to put emphasis on the fact that the dead not only result from directely intendet genocide per se, but also as a result of warfare, forced labor and famine.
In my next edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_Germany&diff=387507560&oldid=387313930 the source given http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143 very clearly speaks of the Holocaust as "...the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." I do know that there is other interpretation of the term "Holocaust", but then one should decide for a differnet- and also cite a differnt source. Apart from that I already did put emphasis on the issue that the term, ie. defintion Holocaust and the murder of Soviet and Polish civilans etc. was already seperated previously in the paragraph of " Persecution and extermination campaigns". One should, kind of, follow a line through the whole article; not constantly changing the definition for terms used.
Then, on the other hand, I came across the numbers of dead from allied bombing. Just before the citation of total military dead (what implied that one is also talking about total dead from allied bombing), and see that although this information is cited (Friedrich; whom I did not introduce), the paragraph only speaks of thousands of German civilians being killed. I did find this part very alarming and problematic, as the shift of balance became very apparent. As I said, I was only checking the cited sources given, so I added some further information from that source http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_Germany&diff=387507975&oldid=387507560 to bring more balance into the whole article. I also introduced the "bombing of Hamburg" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_Germany&diff=387508447&oldid=387507975 to that sentence, as this event was one of the earliest and most severe of the allied campaigns.
I find it very problematic that a "balanced, neutral" article about, and let us be specific and put emphasis on this, "Nazi Germany" and not "Nazi Genocide", rightfully gives very detailed information on foreign (Soviet, Polish) civilians being killed as a result from Nazi genocide, warfare, forced labor and famine, but does not ONCE mention up to 3,228,700 million German, i.e. the "Nazi Germany" civilian dead (and total dead of up to 8,986,700 million), of which a large number results from allied bombing, reprisals, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Germany
I think of it as very important, to explain the effects that Nazi Germany did bring on itself; the previously mentioned government source http://www.nibis.de/~rsgarrel/deutschlandstundenull.pdf is a very good source explaining those effects.
My other edits were, that I asked for some further citations to be added, I reverted some vandalism and that's about it.
Thankfully, Hans Adler, did put some paragraphs into order, but what will and can we do to bring more balance into the rest of this article?--IIIraute (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you IIIraute for your reasoned explanation, and please accept my apologies for my part in misreading your intentions. I agree that, in focusing on the many evils the National Socialist regime perpetrated on others, there's perhaps a temptation to overlook the evils they inflicted on Germany itself.
Perhaps we could address the deficiencies with the current article by creating a new subsection at the end of the History section entitled "Aftermath" or "Legacy" or anything suitable? This might be an appropriate place to explore your points. Alternatively, perhaps we could expand the "Fall of the Third Reich" section? It may be that a more extensive reorganisation/rewrite is needed, but I'm afraid such sources as I have access to deal mostly with the Normandy campaign and the Eastern Front. Thoughts? EyeSerenetalk16:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The (suspicious) and uncited figures are now put into order (revised by HansAdler and -Woogie10w). I would suggest that we introduce an additional paragraph, right after the paragraph of "Capitulation of German forces", and that this text is kept rather informative and analytical, mentioning the consequences the war did bring on Germany herself, (similar to the figures published by the German Historical Museum; total civilian dead, POW's, total war dead, destroyed flats, etc.) We can introduce a wide range of sources, although I would recommend to take the casualties figures from the "WWII Casulaties" article and refer to its detailed listing. --IIIraute (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the website of the German Historical Museum is best for middle school students, we can do a lot better on Wikipedia and use only published reliable academic sources--Woogie10w (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
To phrase publications and the information of permanent exhibitions of a worldwide recognized research institute and museum, that was contracted by the German Government - "for middle school students" - is quite arrogant. I only gave the German Historical Museum as ONE example, suggesting a variety of sources. The same figures you can find within the following bibliography. For more research:
Benz, Wolfgang, Potsdam 1945. Besatzungsherrschaft und Neuaufbau im Vier-Zonen-Deutschland, München 1994.
Benz, Wolfgang:, Die Gründung der Bundesrepublik. Von der Bizone zum souveränen Staat, München 1989
Broszat, Martin / Weber, Hermann (Hg.), SBZ-Handbuch. München 1990.
Buchheim, Christoph, Die Wiedereingliederung Westdeutschlands in die Weltwirtschaft 1945-1958, München 1990.
Steininger Rolf, Deutsche Geschichte seit 1945. Darstellung und Dokumente in vier Bänden. Frankfurt a. M. 1996.
Vaubel, Ludwig, Zusammenbruch und Wiederaufbau. Ein Tagebuch aus der Wirtschaft 1945-1949, München 1985.
Deutschland 1945-1949, Informationen zur politischen Bildung (Heft 259), Bonn, 2005
Wolfgang Benz, Infrastruktur und Gesellschaft im zerstörten Deutschland
Thomas Berger/Karl-Heinz Müller (Hg.), Lebenssituationen 1945-1948, Hannover 1983
Peter Graf von Kielmannsegg: Nach der Katastrophe. Eine Geschichte des geteilten Deutschland, Berlin 2000
Philipp Ther, Deutsche und polnische Vertriebene: Gesellschaft und Vertriebenenpolitik in der SBZ/DDR und in Polen 1945–1956, in: Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Band 127, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1998
Heinrich Siedler: Dokumentation zur Deutschlandfrage, Siegler & Co. KG – Verlag für Zeitarchive, Bonn 1961.
The AI and Council of Europe among others have declared that the designation Gypsy for the Roma is inaccurate, racist and pejorative. Please do not revert and waste editing time, please do google search for proof, see the holocaust museum site it uses the word Roma. [[10]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This is actually a tricky problem. We are under no obligation to use the Nazis' own terminology. As an extreme example, we would certainly not use (as opposed to mention) the designation "lebensunwert" (literally: unworthy to live). IMO we are free to use whatever is the best designation for this group of people. The problem is determining what that is.
At first I thought "Gypsy" is too vague, because it also includes other nomadic groups. On the other hand, maybe this vagueness is actually required:
As far as I know the largest group of "Gypsies" persecuted by the Nazis consists of the Romani people. But the dominant subgroup of these is the Sinti. It appears that, especially in Germany, the Romani insist on distinguishing the Sinti from the Romani in a narrower sense.
As far as I know the persecution did not distinguish between different types of nomadic ethnic groups. In particular, the term "gypsy" includes, and the Nazis persecuted, the Yeniche people. These are an ethnic group of heterogeneous origin that speaks the Yeniche language (related to German, Romani, Yiddish and Rotwelsch).
If any other group listed on the disambiguation page Gypsy had lived in Germany at the time, I have no doubt they would have been persecuted as well.
On balance I would say, if use of the term "gypsy" is politically correct in English, then we should use it here. The essentially equivalent German term "Zigeuner" is considered not politically correct and is usually replaced by "Sinti and Romani". But this gives somewhat special treatment to the subgroup of Sinti (justified by their large number) and completely suppresses the Yeniche (not justified in my opinion). In English "Romani and Yeniche" might work, but that may give too much weight to the Yeniche while perhaps suppressing yet another group I haven't heard of. HansAdler09:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you an analogy there is still a United Negro College Fund[[11]], would you justify that to use the word for Africans. The Holocaust museum uses the term Roma(Gypsies)[[12]], to start with why does this article not use that terminology? It should. I am sorry for going for the change before discussing it on the talk page. Please contemplate, discuss but implement the change. See we have a good verifiable source that uses this designation, I see no reason not to use it. There are about 10 to 20 million Roma in Europe who then have emigrated else where, they are Europe's largest ethnic minority. The term Roma is an umbrella term that also includes a small group, British Roma who sometimes use the self-designation Gypsy, but in Europe and esp. Eastern Europe, the word or its translation, Zigane etc. is considered as extremely racist by the Roma, see link above in my earlier comment. I strongly disagree with one editor, who says that as long as something is acceptable in UK, it should be considered acceptable in an English Wikipedia article, 40-50 million UK natives form only a small minority of English users the world over, the acceptability of any word should reflect this situation. The European Roma Rights Centre uses the word Roma. The ERRC has consultative status with the Council of Europe, as well as with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The Roma include many sub-groups, such as the Sinti. [[13]] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A map from Wikpedia with self designations, made by an editor, not a reliable source, used here nevertheless. Distribution of the Romani people in Europe based on self-designation.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Slatersteven according to a well sourced Wikipedia statement, Gypsy has several developing and overlapping meanings under English Law. Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, 'gipsies' are defined as "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such." This definition includes such groups as New Age Travellers, as well as Irish Travellers and Romany. Gypsies of Romany origins have been a recognised ethnic group for the purposes of Race Relations Act 1976 since Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton 1989 and Irish Travellers in England and Wales since O'Leary v Allied Domecq 2000 (having already gained recognition in Northern Ireland in 1997). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be making things easier than they are. A couple of points on which I would like to hear your opinion:
Gypsy is the standard English translation of words such as Zigeuner or zigane. That doesn't mean that all these words have the same level of offensiveness. In Central and Eastern Europe the term got much of its offensiveness through a systematic hate and physical extermination campaign by the Nazis. This campaign did not happen in any English-speaking country. I have looked for evidence that your first edit summary, "Using Gypsy for Roma is like using the word n****r for black", is true as a statement about the English word. I have found no such evidence, and it seems unlikely: I know for a fact that it's not even quite true for the German word Zigeuner; the word is offensive but was the standard term until recently; it is comparable to negro, not to nigger).
Your second edit summary says: "The AI and Council of Europe among others have declared that the designation Gypsy for the Roma is inaccurate, racist and pejorative." I have looked for evidence of this and could not find it. I interpreted AI as Amnesty International, but could find no statement of theirs on the word. The Council of Europe's 1993 Recommendation 1203 on Gypsies in Europe uses the word freely as an over-arching term that includes the Romani people and does not exclude other groups that are similarly marginalised. Did the declarations you mentioned refer to the English word gypsy, or were they in a different language and referred to a term in that language?
Do you think it is OK to exclude the Yeniche people, who are gypsies but most certainly not Romani?
Gypsies have always been the target of persecution, not because they are called gypsies, but because they are nomads. Conflicts between nomads and sedentary population exist practically everywhere in the world, and typically it's the nomads who are weaker and suffer from that. Under these circumstances every designation for local nomads will, after a while, become an invective. At that point it will be retired and replaced by a new one. This does not, however, solve any problems, and there is no advantage to be had from doing it prematurely. HansAdler08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
using the word Nazi
Hullo, a quick question.
What is WP's stance on using nicknames for political parties?
I ask because it seems a little unencyclopedic referring to the reich as Nazis.
I personally have no problem with it, but it isn't what they called themselves. On the wermacht page they're called the Nazi army, and the reich is constantly called nazi germany.
I have looked at the USSR page and they aren't called "commies", so how come the 3rd reich are called Nazis? Why not Nationalsocialists or NSDAP?
As I said I am not an irate "nazi" with an axe to grind I am just interested in the reason for allowing this nickname.
ta
Interesting question. However, most English language history books typically refer to Nazis rather than National Socialists. (Hohum@) 11:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The Nazis did use the term for themselves occasionally, but most of the time used "National Socialist.” I suppose common English usage is the best justification? Bytwerk (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it would sound a bit odd in a formal context in German, but in English it sounds perfectly natural to me in all contexts. HansAdler19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Please note that we are not obliged to follow random reliable sources in our usage, especially when other reliable sources (such as the Council of Europe) have different usage.
We could turn it into a link to nomad, because that's the technical meaning of gypsy that we need here.
This is not an article. It is a letter to the editor of a newspaper, i.e. practically unfiltered opinion of a single person. The writer is obviously a Rom and is speaking about a pure Romani context with no complications caused by the need to include the Sinti subgroup and the unrelated Yeniche (not Romani!) group. I would never refer to an individual Rom as a "gypsy", knowing that he is a Rom. That's just rude. But the main reason it's rude is because it avoids mentioning the actual ethnicity in favour of a typical characteristic – nomadicity.
This last point made me think: I don't know how many settled Romani there were before the Holocaust, but I doubt very strongly that they were spared. Moreover, I have read somewhere that persecution of the Yeniche people was in part because their language was confused with Yiddish, so the Nazis actually killed them because they thought they were Jews. These two things taken together are a good reason to actually use the term Romani and mention the Yeniche separately. HansAdler14:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hans what you have written here is against established and verifiable facts. Germany's issue with the Roma was not about their itenerant life-style, or their belief which could be changed for example the communists could change their belief, or the JW's or the gays etc, but their ethnicity. Infact they were the only ones apart from the Jews who could not change and were condenmed to go down a one way street.
The Holocaust museum is not a random reliable source, but can be considered as one of the most authorative sources on this subject.
I am glad that you consider CoE's word as final. You are quoting an old CoE directive, it has since been changed, I will share it here as soon as I find it, it is hypothetical, but will you then back to ban the word here.
You are right the word Gypsy is like N***o and not N****r, with relation to the example I gave.
(Please check your email)
In his keynote address at the European Commission Meeting in Brussels on March 10, 2010 Prof. Hancock comments on importance of the right designation quotes the a Chinese proverb "The Chinese say that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name.". I have the pdf copy of the address which I have sent to your email id, available on your page, I do not know whether it is in public domain.
An CoE officer writes, "This to underline that the time when exonyms could be imposed on this population is definitely over and that the majority society, and the media in particular whose role to educate the public is of great importance, should start consider calling these people the way they want to be called." I am trying to find whether this is available in public domain.
Since we are discussing so many points in parallel, I will again use your numbering:
I see what you mean, and you will have noticed that in a sense I have come around to your position anyway. But allow me to explain what I had in mind: As far as I know the Nazis (as a German myself I prefer to refer to them rather than to "Germany" in this context, because I prefer not to marginalise the German opposition of the time, even though it was too weak) started persecuting the Jews basically because they actually believed in the "Jewish conspiracy" nonsense. This is not an excuse. It's a scientific explanation (possibly a wrong one – I am not an expert and may remember incorrect information) of the kind that one needs in order to know what to watch out for, so that things don't go wrong again in a similar way. I am not aware of any "gypsy conspiracy" theory, so the persecution of the Romani must have had a different reason. That nonsense "Aryan race" ideology can hardly have been the original reason for doing it. After all, they had no problem with accepting the Finns as "equivalent", and due to the Romani's origins in India that kind of thing would have been more logical in the case of the Romani. Judging from today's still existing prejudice against the Romani, I am pretty sure that the original reason for the persecution was the difference of lifestyles. Once it was clear that they wanted to persecute the Romani, they used ethnic criteria, with the horrible consequences you describe. That's what I wanted to say without going into too much detail. Sorry if my brevity made it offensive in any way.
I certainly didn't mean to disparage the Holocaust museum. As far as I know it's a highly reliable source. My point was that just because one source uses one word consistently doesn't mean that another word, used consistently by another source, is wrong. Especially if the words don't mean exactly the same thing.
I never said I consider CoE as final. The same caveats apply as for the Holocaust museum. If they actually switched from "Gypsy" to "Romani" that makes your argument stronger than if they had used "Romani" from the beginning.
–
Again, thanks a lot for sending me this interesting document.
I note that you have taken the quotation out of context. Hancock's point was that one needs to distinguish between the different Romani communities. That's something I have brought up on this page before (w.r.t. the Sinti) as another thing to consider. Hancock seems to identify "Gypsy" with "Romani". Our disambiguation page Gypsy contradicts this to some extent, and I think that Germans also generally include the Yeniche among the "Zigeuner". From some surfing around I got the impression that the Yeniche themselves identify with the term to a great extent. But my current understanding is that due to some differences in the kind of persecution it's better to mention Romani and Yeniche separately anyway. That probably means that the Yeniche will get only a brief mention somewhere together with other small minorities, but I am not sure about the numbers. (There may not be any reliable numbers.)
As I said, when referring only to Romani, Romani is of course the only polite option. (Some complication in Germany with the Sinti/Roma distinction, though, although I don't know if it affects the English language.) And as Hancock implies, when referring to a specific subgroup, it's better to refer to that subgroup specifically. But when grouping several ethnicities together there is often no other choice than using an exonym or enumerating them all.
I am replying to Hans following the same sequence.
I have consciously used German and not Nazi. The so called Nazis were not Germans with a horn, or a forked tongue or a tail. They were regular German citizens with varying and sometimes exceptional degrees of talent, educational achievements and professional expertise who when the situation demanded or offered indulged in actions that lead to the events as we know and judge now. Established knowledge tends to disagree with your interpretation that the Roma were bothered with as they lived unacceptable life-styles. I quote Prof. Hancock from the above mentioned speech, "When the biggest daily paper in Romania, Evenimentul Zilei wrote that "Gypsies are believed to be genetically inclined to become criminals" it was repeating Hitler's rationale for the extermination of Romanies in the Third Reich." The Holocaust Encyclopaedia writes "Among the groups the Nazi regime and its Axis partners singled out for persecution on so-called racial grounds were the Roma (Gypsies). Drawing support from many non-Nazi Germans who harbored social prejudice towards Roma, the Nazis judged Roma to be "racially inferior." The fate of Roma in some ways paralleled that of the Jews."[14] It is not easy to understand the rational behind implementation of the German ideology that lead to the genocide, but it aimed at ethnic cleansing; Germany for Germans, and Germans were those who confirmed to then defined German-ness. That the Jews were economically formidable was another parameter that worked against them which gave rise to campaigns like the Jewish Conspiracy, for the Roma who existed at the other end of the economic spectrum, it was their pre-industrial ways. Please read further down the Holocaust article, even Roma soldiers who fought for the German army were not spared. They definitely were not socially or economically deviant but belonged to an unacceptable race to the Germans.
&
Information contained in my email to you corroborates my statement about CoE's recommendations on the use of designation for the Roma.
-
Oh you are most welcome.
I quoted Prof. Hancock on the importance of the right designation, this quotation was to counter your argument that "...This does not, however, solve any problems, and there is no advantage to be had from doing it prematurely." The argument for which designation to use has been given elsewhere by me.
I cannot see how one can draw the conclusion that we can use an exonym for a group from Prof. Hancock's speech, on the other hand there is a source quoted above by me that states that the use of exonyms for people is obsolete.
Thanks for another very interesting email. Re 1: I don't think we disagree at all. I was looking at root causes in a scientific spirit; at times this can come across as if lacking empathy, even if it's done with the best intentions. Sorry if I wasn't entirely clear. I have not heard of Roma soldiers who were killed, but I heard of highly decorated Jewish WW1 veterans who were killed, so I would have guessed that Roma were also affected. Re 3: Assuming what you sent me is not a translation, for me personally that's a very strong reason not to use "Gypsy" in English. Thanks! I will keep this in mind in the future. Re 5: Maybe you know Prof. Hancock and can interpret his words in the context of what you know about his more general opinions. I have been trained to use language very carefully, and to be careful not to overinterpret what someone else says – so I am simply being a bit more careful. I think it doesn't really matter because we agree about the basics. Generally I agree that it's better to avoid exonyms. (On Wikipedia it is sometimes not possible because some rules require us to use the most common word.) But sometimes this gets tricky, e.g. when different groups claim the same word for self-designation, or in the case of the Sinti/Roma confusion of terms. In such situations there is often no perfect solution, and I have seen many conflicts on Wikipedia that resulted from such problems. HansAdler19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello guys, please don't forget: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. In order to establish fruitful debates, please do your private exchanges and comments (e. g. on the difference between Germans and Nazis, or on your emails) on your own talk pages. Thanks in advance. And now back to the original topic. I'd like to know why this article now mentions the Romani people, but not the Sinti. And I'd ask one more favor, that's to keep your answers short and simple. Lengthy remarks are just tedious and, from my experience, not very helpful, especially when other readers try to follow the course of a debate. Catgut (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the previous verbosity. My current understanding is that Romani or Roma is the general term, and that the Sinti (the majority of the Roma in Germany) refer to themselves only as Sinti and use the term Roma for all others. This kind of language use is natural and is fine locally, but tends to cause all sorts of terminological problems internationally. Personally I could imagine some alternatives, such as "Sinti and Roma", or maybe "Travellers"? (The last one would include the Yenishe, who were also prosecuted and killed, but as "antisocial" rather than under ethnic criteria, or sometimes because their language was mistaken for Yiddish.) From an international, English-speaking culture POV I gues just "Roma[ni]" is most correct, but readers with a background from Sinti-dominated areas may not understand this.
I too apologise. Actually I am privy to a few documents which are not in the public domain, I am trying to work with the present owners to make them public (which explains reference to emails, sorry you are right Cat, most of this should have been on our talkpages), which prove that the CoE regards the term Roma and Travellers as the most appropriate for Roma, Sinti, Kale, and related groups in Europe, and aims to cover the wide diversity of groups concerned, including groups which identify themselves as Gypsies. It also adds that "Today educated and professional journalists are required to avoid the use of derogatory words like "Eskimos to refer to the Canadian Inuits, or Lapps to refer to the Nordic Sami. The same respect should apply for the Roma. Terminology is important and should be carefully addressed in media reporting..." I checked the Joshua project site, it marks the Yenish ethnicity as South Asian, on the other hand their Wikipedia article suggests that they descended from Celts? I do not know now whether Yenish are included in this umbrella term, I am seeking information and will get back as soon as I have it. The remark about Nazis and Germans though unsourced at the moment has been made very seriously and purposefully. I know one journalist/activist/researcher who always uses the word National Socialists, a PhD and a reliable source. The Holocaust site juggles between Germany and Nazi Germany. However I do not wish nor do I have the means to debate on this at the moment. Thanks for bearing with me and sorry one more time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
On the Yenishe or Yeniche: They are generally believed to have originated as poor Germans who imitated the Roma lifestyle. (Initially both groups probably looked down on each other, and apparently they still tend to keep a distance.) There is definitely no connection with Celts (they only came up in the Middle Ages) or South Asia. I believe in Germany there are many more Sinti/Roma than Yenishe, but in Switzerland it seems to be the other way round. From my unsystematic research, the Yenishe are included in "travellers", normally included in "Gypsies", and not included in "Roma" or "Sinti and Roma". Nevertheless, the Porajmos monument in Berlin will mention "Yenishe and other travellers" explicitly as other groups also subject to (less systematic) persecution. Based on this and their relatively small number, I guess it's OK if we use a formulation that does not include them. HansAdler19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Terminology used by the CoE, see under definitions pl. The term ‘Roma and/or Travellers’ used in the present text refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale, Travellers, and related groups in Europe, and aims to cover the wide diversity of groups concerned, including groups which identify themselves as Gypsies.[15]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Correct terminology
The term “Roma” used throughout the present text refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale, Travellers, and related groups in Europe, and aims to cover the wide diversity of groups concerned, including groups which identify themselves as Gypsies. [16] Whether the above definition includes Yenish is not known to me. Can we change the term Romani people to Roma please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The exact area (territory) of Nazi Germany in numbers.
I am not good with editing or even with discussions at this level, yet I've decided to write here, because I am sure that
the area of the Third Reich, in numbers was a lot larger than 696,265 km2 by 1941 (ergo during it's largest extent) -as it is wrongly stated in it's profile.
I've come to this conclusion by inspecting the map of Nazi Germany in 1941. During that time the area of the Third Reich included all the territories of present day Germany, Austria, Czeh Republic and Poland and other territories (including the area of Eupen and Malmédy, Luxemburg, Elsaice-Lorraine, parts of present day Slovenia, Eastern-Gallicia, Kaliningrad Oblast, and the Memel-land) but just by adding together the areas of the first 4 countries the number would be alredy as high as 832,444 km2 (based on the wikipedia profiles of these countries).
Therefore, I think this matter requires a closer examination. Thank you.
The infobox also needs more statistics from several key years for both territory and population given Nazi Germany's significant territorial growth both before and during WWII. My suggestion:
1937 (pre-expansion territory - does already include Saarland);
1939 (pre-WWII);
1941 (largest commonly agreed extent of the Third Reich after Operation Barbarossa);
1943 (creation of operational zones in Italy).
It should also be specified what regions are considered Reich territories in the total sum, and whether it's just German citizens (Reichsdeutsche) that are counted, or if ethnic German natives (Volksdeutsche) of annexed territories and their subjugated Czech, Polish, Ukrainian (the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia and the General Government were considered to be part of Greater Germany by the Nazis), Belarusian, French and so forth inhabitants are counted as well. Strange statistics in some areas due to the Deutsche Volksliste might be a problem though.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Expansion of the Section on Education
I am considering adding information to the section on education, but first I wanted to make sure there was not an existing article. I haven't found any, save for the article on universities in the Third Reich. Please let me know if there are any! ...the point is to change it (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Thanks for the catch. Lars T. (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome. Sorry, but that change does not seem appropriate. The curent text is factually accurate since those were the four countries which occupied Germany after the war. Celestra (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
