# Talk:Greater Germanic Reich

I have always seen the term "Grossdeutsches Reich" applied to the Greater Germany. Does German even include a word like "germanisches" to identify Germany or German people? --70.79.150.161 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

German=Deutsch Germanic=Germanisch  See:http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/germanisch --151.41.186.71 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to conclude that the athenian empire was infact created as a good force against foreign entities or used for the progress of mankind.  I noticed nazi germany had tanks, however the tanks were not of the triangulum generator, it didn't really use so much energy on one feature such as fire power.  These beings from orion or mizar, i believe was the ishwaku empire, had a black tank which would create lots of devestation, the propulsion was bad though.  They expended too much energy and burnt out.  The tank used was in the form of an arrow launching device.  But they cheated and used nuclear launchers.  Like how present jets had missiles with fins, that's what the tanks had used.  These things were recreated by the csa during the civil war, even guns, submarines etc.  All of these technologies just reermerged some how.  Coincedentally it was all germanic or from grecian semite origins.  The chariot and fortresses were made by the athenians you could say. Or did they just progress too fast and too far to get trumpt by a new persian entity empire like the jews did?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 

Gee! I'll have some of whatever you were having. – AndyFielding (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I ran across this ridiculous source in the article: http://pseudoarchaeology.org/a10-ward.html. It is written by a person whom there is no evidence has any scholarly credentials. And it is focused on bizarre theories of the location of Atlantis and its connection with the Nazi vision of the Aryan Race. This is not a credible source to be used in the article for policies on territorial claims of the Nazi regime; and thus I am removing it now.--R-41 (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "unnecessary cite to Speer's memoirs in the lead; unneeded extended quotation; over-linking or wikilinks within quotations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the "Hitler's preoccupation with the Pan-Germanic plan began to fade" be removed, is it wrong? Editdude93 (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The reference previously given does not support the statement.  In fact, just the opposite.  The book argues "Himmler apparently found it expedient to allow his subordinates to voice support for a European union. But Hitler, and therefore Himmler, never gave up the goal of a Greater Germanic Reich ruled from Berlin.  It could not have been otherwise: the Fuhrers racial and geopolitical beliefs militated against the idea of a Europe not completely dominated by Germany."  Himmler, and by extension Hitler, never wavered.  "Nowhere, here or later, does Himmler advocate anything other than a Germanic Reich and a Germanic SS."---- Work permit (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The questionable statement was added by an IP [1] ---- Work permit (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be questions on using The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939-1945 By George H. Stein as a reference.  The blockquote "|We do not expect you to renounce your nation. [...] We do not expect you to become German out of opportunism. We do expect you to subordinate your national ideal to a greater racial and historical ideal, to the Germanic Reich" is there on page 148.  Stein taught Modern European history first at Columbia University, and later at the State University of New York at Binghamton where he became Distinguished Professor of History, and also served as Vice President for Academic Affairs, Provost, and Acting President.[2].  So is the consensus that the book and author are not reliable sources for the blockquote.?---- Work permit (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The author and book appear to me to be reliable sources.  In any case, the claim made by Editdude is that the citations were just randomly selected from the bibliography and did not support the statements made, which is not an arguement about reliability, but an argument about editorial misconduct, which appears to be false on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly the blockquote is supported.  However some of the other statements in the article may need to be reworded to match the source.  For example, "After the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Hitler's preoccupation with the Pan-Germanic plan began to fade, although the idea was never abandoned." doesn't jump out to me from the source.  It appears the source is saying interest from others faded, but not Hitler.---- Work permit (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
If you have access to the source, I would go ahead and make those adjustments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As a further qualification to "practically all of Germanic Europe" in the lede, the territory of the Danube Swabians needs mention. What future did Nazis envisage for German minorities outside the Reich? jnestorius(talk) 14:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

sign, what is the problem? Gooduserdude (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"no vital or sourced information was removed, does not barely even contain any information" really, did you even look at it, or you just removed it? Gooduserdude (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The only information in the infobox was the map, which was present on the article before. The rest is just unsourced conjecture and/or no suitable for the article, which describes the collective info from several plans which existed for the future reorganization of Europe. Aside from this previous map, the infobox adds nothing. It shows the flag of Nazi Germany and the article name "Greater Germanic Reich" instead of "Greater German Reich". Thats it. How can it be declared the driving side would be on the right?? What does the infobox add to the article? There is not information in it. Such an un-concrete plan like this cannot have a strict defined "country infobox". That allusions towards a possible future Germanic state were mention in Mein Kampf (alread mentioned in article) or that it would be established in some form following the end of World War II is not new information or a concrete "timeline" for this non-state --Havsjö (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
this infobox includes the proposed form of goverment, the future title and name of the future leader, the future capital and sourced information about the projected polpulation estimate, but yeah yes i 100% agree with you, why discuss this blantant content blanking if the other part has no intrest in discussing the issue without reverting to edit warring Gooduserdude (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
None of that is new information and presents the repeated content of the article inaccurately through a infobox about a undefined non-existent country. It vaguely defined "government form" and leader (as well as flag, etc) is just a trimmed down, name-changed Nazi Germany. A country-infobox is unsuitable for the article, which does not discuss a so strictly defined proposed state as to be able to include an infobox in this way. The bad source used for the population estimate (the only actual "content") can be included in the text normally, as it is the only thing of any actual "worth" --Havsjö (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
but thats what the infoboxes are for(party) for give easy, fast acess for the main points of the article without have to read the entire article Gooduserdude (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This page is regarding the future plans to merge Germanic area of Europe into some form of a Pan-Germanic state by the Nazis. It has been explained how such a "strictly defined" infobox is unsuitable for such a loosely planned entity in this article discussing the sum of various plans towards that end. The infobox is not only therefore out of place, but contains no actual information, just regurgitation from a Nazi Germany infobox; repeating flag, leader and even driving side(!) It contains no actual information except for a previously existing map and vague proposals synthesized from the article content (mentions in Mein Kampf etc) as the dates of "proposals" and "hypothetical establishment" (i.e. no actual sourced information giving an overview of this (non)-"state". Only weak synthesis of various things not about a concretely defined state). All this is presented in a very misleading way through this infobox. It will be reverted to the long-standing "Good Article" rated version. No argument presented meets with the fact that the inclusion of such a country-infobox at all is inherently misleading and inaccurate in relation the article content --Havsjö (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 I agree with Havsjö here: having a "country" infobox for an entity that was never a country is actively misleading to our readers. If the purpose of the infobox is that the readers should not have to think (which I think is a terrible idea to begin with), then it is counterproductive to have information there which has to be actively analysed by the reader. As for "access to the main points of the article" – it doesn't even do that! The infobox is a mixture of WP:OR and repetition of various scattered facts from the article. --bonadea contributions talk 08:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
ok lets also delete the infobox for volkstaat(which had no infobox at first either) and Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics(which had no infobox at first either) then as a final compromise, i am starting agree with you two on certain conditions, i thought meybe if that 2 articles now has its own infoboxes then should this one too, but i really dont like country infoboxes for a non-countries Gooduserdude (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Feel free wo discuss the content on other articles on the relevant article talk pages. --bonadea contributions talk 08:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP,
I am not convinced, what do you mean by authoritative voice? It is arguable the policies listed would be harmed, please engage here.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC))

Hi KIENGIR, thanks for taking this to the talk page. What I meant by referring to an "authoritative voice" was by the usage of direct quotes from Hitler as a unilaterally agreed-upon historical fact, rather than an personal opinion from Hitler himself. In addition, the sentence perfectly illustrates Hitler's ambition to form a colonial empire of his own in Eastern Europe, without the confusing implication on how exactly it was going to be done (how morally was Germany going to achieve this- if it could be done in a moral manner, would they not do it at all? You see what I mean here). Perhaps re-writing the sentence could be a good compromise, but it's already come across its point very well as of now. Regards, 31.205.38.57 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This article subsection (along with WP:UNDUE) further explains what I mean, although they are separate points. 31.205.38.57 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, not to come across as a pushy busybody, but 3RR has already been reached. Just so you are aware of this, that's all. 31.205.38.57 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Since those expressions were quoted, your concerns about not being Hitler's words is not justified. The problem is you did not even wait to discuss to rewrite, and during resolution the former version should remain per policy, 3RR is only your concern, not mine, you are acting against our rules. Just revert yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
Hi KIENGIR, sorry for not being very well versed in Wikipedia's rules- I'm sort of new here, so I apologize if I make mistakes here and there. However, I am confused by your position that the 3-rule-revert does not apply to you here- I made an edit, than you (partially reverted) my edit before I counter-reverted you. Than you took it to the talk page, so "waiting to discuss for a re-write" seems confusing. From my point of view, the former version was my first edit to the article on Oct. 18th. In addition, the rule doesn't really have anything on waiting for rewrites, but maybe I might have missed it, if so maybe you can point it out to me. By referring to the "former version" do you actually mean the article at the time it was a Good article nominee? (I mean, even those have room for improvement). As to your statement about "not being Hitler's words is not justified" makes me a little confused. My point was that the sentence used quotes directly from Hitler not as a acknowledgement that those were Hitler's personal opinions, but a historical fact merely being expressed by Hitler. In addition, the usage of quotes by Hitler is confusing for the reader, as I have reiterated previously in our conversation. I know you strive to maintain an issue of neutrality on controversial issues, so I hope we can reach a compromise. Regards, 31.205.38.57 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
If you cite in a rule, you should read it first carefully. Nobody is exempt of our rules, I just expressed I did not breach that rule you cited, but your side is really dangerous. If you are reverted and the discussion starts in the talk, you have to remain there and do no further reverts. The former version is the version before you made your first edit on this issue. The quotation approves that is not an acknowlegdement, but the subject's own words, so it's not a question of neutrality.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
My apologies for not reading the rules more carefully (I'll do so in future, but I didn't bring up the 3RR to try and say you were in violation of it). However, in regards to the article, which Wikipedia rule says that the revision before the contentious edits is to be reverted to in cases of dispute? Also, I must disagree on your claim that the quotation is not an acknowledgement- it (from my pov, at least) repeats Hitler's quote verbatim in a manner that is both confusing to the reader (as I have mentioned previously) and does not indicate it is merely Hitler's opinion. The fact that it is the "subject's own words" is irrelevant unless those words are put forth in a manner unlike what it is done now. Furthermore, I think my revision solves the issues mentioned above in a constructive manner. I know I can be difficult to understand sometimes, and I thank you for being so patient, but I feel my claims (as reiterated previously) are still valid given the discussion thus far. Regards, 31.205.38.57 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok. For instance the WP:BRD principle. No, it cannot confuse the reader, since it is in quotation marks and it is attributed from his Second Book, so I disagree.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC))
Hi Kiengar. I think I may have not addressed my point very clearly, so I'll do so again. My point was that adding the quotations of how Hitler planned to establish a colonial empire in Eastern Europe in the manner that the previous revisions did so was bad for two reasons: 1, the usage of Hitler's quotes as something that is a unilaterally agreed upon historical fact (rather positing it as the personal opinion of Hitler itself) as the previous revisions phrased it. 2, the confusing implication on how exactly it was going to be done via the quotes being added to the sentence (how morally was Germany going to achieve this particular goal- if it could be done in a moral manner, would they not do it at all?) Your point that it is in quotation marks and from his books are something I both acknowledge and think is still irrelevant to my point, which referred to their addition as a unilaterally agreed-upon historical fact (as done in the previous revisions). Also, the confusing portion was related to how the sentence comes across to the reader, which I have explained two sentences back. Regards, 31.205.38.57 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you don't need to repeat what you have been already told. Again, since it is quoted and attributed, cannot be treated like an agreed upon historical fact, and your poetrical questions about moralty has nothing to do with the issue, we just refer what the source say. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
Hi Kiengar. I really don't think my points are that confusing. Just because it's quoted and attributed doesn't mean its automatically 'bueno', so to speak- its the manner in which its added, which raises some issues that i've raised previously. It is presented upon the sentence as a "unilaterally agreed upon historical fact", which is why I removed it. Numero duo, the addition of Hitler's personal opinions into the sentence does confuse the reader because of the implication on the relevance of morality to his plans. Best regards, 31.205.38.57 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, sorry your argumentation became circular, everything is fine and conform with WP standards, quoting and attribution is sufficient, so it is not presented as you say, and does not confuse the reader, moreove explains Hitler's intentions and methods. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC))
Hi Kiengar. I hope I don't offend you, but I'm going to be blunt, which I feel will get things across much clearer. My arguments are not circular, I have raised two valid points and you have not answered them. Quoting and attribution is not the issue- how it's presented and the relevance to Hitler's intention is the issue. I have raised the two points earlier, and you have not answered them in any other way than "quoting and attribution is sufficient", which are not rebuttals to my points raised. Regards, 31.205.38.57 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, excuse me, it is. I answered all of your concerns, even more times, it's another thing you don't accept them. It's relevant, since Hitler took many ideologies and practises also based on former empires. Sorry, no consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC))

see the history of file regarding karelia (in the source karelia is part of the greater germanic reich (in the new map karelia is part of finland which is incorrect): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png
this was already discussed then, also why is the new picture better? Gooduserdude (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it's clearer, and is not the same data put on a different projection, with the straight line from the edge of the current picture still existing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do not change the image until you have a consensus to do so.  Discussions on Commons are not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we use the original map  or the new map ? Gooduserdude (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


### Survey
original map according to the source to the map, and the new map shows the german reich within the germanic reich, not the germanic reich itself Gooduserdude (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
New - The artificial straight line through the Soviet Union has no relationship to reality Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Neither contrary to BMK's claim, in 1942 Germany and Japan agreed on the 70 parallel as the delineation of their spheres of influence. See Rich, Norman (1973). Hitler's War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion. W.W. Norton & Company Inc., p. 235 I checked the original source but it's also discussed in Axis powers negotiations on the division of Asia. The first map is better—clearly showing that Nazi war aim was not to go all the way to Vladivostok—but the line isn't exactly at the 70 parallel, so the article should use a map with a line at the 70 parallel. (t · c) buidhe 13:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Longitudinal lines are not "parallels", they meet at the poles. Latitudinal lines are parallel.  What is shown on the old map is a longitudinal line, or, at least, something close to one.  If the line on the old map is not at 70 degrees of longitude -- which it is not, since 70 degrees east longitude is much farther to the east, and the line shown is more like 45 degrees -- then it indeed has no relation to reality, which is precisely what I said.  Please get your facts straight before you criticize your fellow editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The second map is unacceptable because it does not show where the Greater Germanic Reich ends. It appears to cover the entire Soviet Union, which is not accurate. It's like a map of Germany that is cut off somewhere and doesn't actually display all of Germany. I'm not going to bother with obscure semantic quibbles since clearly you understood what I meant. (t · c) buidhe 16:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Neither - Probably the best is to create a third one with Soviet Union colored in bright green as a country for potential annexation. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment. The line drawn across the Soviet Union in the first map is from Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan, as described in the source map from the description page: [3]. — Goszei (talk)  20:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If Germany's planned sphere of influence stopped at the 70th meridian east, does that necessarily mean that the political entity of the Greater Reich was planned to go all the way there? Political entities are not always contiguous with spheres of influence. — Goszei (talk)  20:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
original map Broadly, the Germans saw Russia as lebensraum, and while they wouldn't have adhered to an exact line, the idea was to stop at the certain points and certainly not go all the way into Siberia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, Germans wished to deport remaining Slavs to Siberia per Generalplan Ost. Mellk (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Original map (Summoned by bot) for now - until a clearer map can be produced. Apart from the "70th meridian" matter, the newer map tends to imply that the Reich would continue to some unknown point on the way to, or possibly beyond, Anchorage. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Original map per above editors. Idealigic (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Original map for now, at least, if the choice is between the two. The new map incorrectly gives far too much weight to eastern Russia. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Original map No evidence of German interest in the region of the modern Nenets Autonomous Okrug for example. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)