Talk:Nazi seizure of power

message: The sound file is too short! 172.176.103.178 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: File too short?

message: Eliminated?  Were they killed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.121.191 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminated?

message: I am puzzled by two claims: 
1) that in German, both "Machtergreifung" and "Machtübernahme" are used to refer to the events discussed here. In my experience, only "Machtergreifung" is used as a term on its own. "Machtübernahme" (i.e. "coming to power", "takeover of the power") would always have to be qualified further, such as in "Machtübernahme der Nationalsozialisten". A sentence like "Nach der Machtübernahme 1933 ... " would sound odd. 
2) that both words retain their general meaning when used without clear context. While this is certainly true for "Machtübernahme" (should be clear from what I just explained, i.e. it only has a general meaning), it is wrong for "Machtergreifung". I have only ever heard this term to refer to 30 January, 1933 in Germany.
I cannot cite any sources, but I am German, 40 years old, lived in Germany nearly all my life, and have had a keen interest in history since the age of, say, 15. But if the above claims are to be corrected, I would be glad to help (perhaps the claims themselves are taken from some other source?).
--Fsavigny (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms Machtergreifung and Machtübernahme

message: I did a random search and came here. Having never heard of the terms they are confusing. My Schoolboy German suggests the word is formed from Machter-greifung, and Machter seems to be power, but it would be helpful to have more information in the form of an etymology. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Is this an article about a German word or the National Socialist German Workers Party obtaining power in Germany in 1933? Or both? Currently it's a confusing, grammatically incorrect "Hodge-Podge" of information, needing some kind of attention and/or correction, as it meanders between both concepts. Neither are handled in an encyclopedic manner. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Machtergreifung revisited

message: (I'm a Germany resident and a native German speaker. Not enough time for registration on en.wikipedia unfortunately.)
"Legalization strategy" would be "Legalisierungsstrategie", i.e. a strategy that involves turning an illegal activity into something legal, either by changing the activity or by changing the bounds of the law.
"Legalitätsstrategy" is a strategy where an essential part is staying within the bounds of Law. I'd translate the term as "strategy of legality".
I therefore suggest changing the translation to reflect the latter meaning (possibly to "strategy of legality" but I'm not a native English speaker).
:I changed it to legality strategy.--Patrick (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "Legalitätsstrategie" 

message: I checked the article after it was highlighted by another user over unjustified changes by 89.168.109.232, without checking this talk page.  It did not appear to be in either American or British English, and checking the history prior to Dale Arnett's amendment, it appeared to have been in British English.  I therefore reverted Materialscientist's change to remove his reintroduction of Dale's American spelling, and marked the reversion as a return to British English.
So, we have one flag at the top of this talk page and a different marker on the article's revision history. Anyone else any idea what language this should be written in (besides German)? Tim PF (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Dialect 

message: So the tone is that Hitler seized power by cheating, but actually reading the article, it is the opposition that tried to change the legislation to keep the Nazi party out.  As I thought before seeing this article,  The Nazi party was democratically elected with considerable popular support.  What is the motivation here?
86.185.34.205 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewriting history? 

message: I'm not sure why this article even exists. It's completely unfinished, and the article covering hitler's rise to power is better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:4258:7C12:EFAC:FE4:EA33 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons why this article should not be merged with Hitler's rise to power? 

message: Hitler and the Nazi Party did not "seize" power.  It was given to them quite lawfully, when President von Hindenburg, acting pursuant to the Constitution of the Weimar Republic, appointed Hitler to the office of Chancellor.  Later actions, confirming Hitler's ability to rule by decree, were adopted by constitutional and legal procedures as well.  This article needs to go, because the highlighted term "Nazi seizure of power" is appearing in other articles as well.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Paul Parks (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article needs to go ..."  appears to be a suggestion that that the article should be deleted. Are you suggesting it should be nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Or are you proposing that the article should be moved (renamed)? --Boson (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What John Paul Parks says is not entirely true. There were several putsch attempts, and the Reichstag fire is disputed by serious historians. Some historians do not accept the official account of the fire. There is also the Night of the Long Knives. Unless there is another page to merge with, this is a valid topic. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will say that the article Adolf Hitler's rise to power covers the overall subject matter of this article in much better detail and depth and is well WP:RS cited. This article is for the most part redundant and needs a lot of work if kept. True, that Hitler was appointed, but it was based on coercion and Machtergreifung and then Gleichschaltung heavily factor into the obtaining power and total control. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the article should be deleted.John Paul Parks (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with User:Kierzek, this article is redundant. Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  I agree with User:Kierzek that the article is mostly redundant. I would suggest merging it into Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Since that article already has most of the information, it would probably just be a matter of adding a sentence (or two) to the relevant section. We should probably first add the appropriate templates to the two pages. --Boson (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Boson will you implement the notice templates. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do (in a few hours). --Boson (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  . I have added templates to this article and the appropriate section of Adolf Hitler's rise to power. --Boson (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like it has been long enough for comments. I will  for opinion and advice on implementing the action herein. Kierzek (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus appears to be to merge any useful content from this article to Adolf Hitler's rise to power. If any such content is found, copy it over, using the edit summary "content merged here from Nazi seizure of power; please see the history of that page for full attribution". Then this page should be converted into a redirect to the other article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   --Boson (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article redundant and/or misleading?