Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 1

message: (german: "Tausendjähriges Reich")
Regarding this article's following sentence:
Because of its relatively short lifespan, historians sometimes call it the "Twelve-Year Reich."
While the phrase "Twelve-Year Reich" is often used in a joking way, I don't believe any credible historian uses that term professionally. I think this is a case where one of this article's authors has let personal opinions skew his/her writing. Unless references can be quoted showing established historians using that phrase, I believe the sentence should be removed on the grounds that it's innacurrate. Spookfish 01:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 12 year reich or 1000 year reich

message: This article should focus more on the 1930’s and Nazi domestic policy during the WWII.
--GeneralPatton 21:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree Sam [Spade] 22:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest starting with the chapters on the end of the Weinmar Republic and Gleichschaltung. The previous form of the article was plainly wrong, it focused 80% on world war II military history, and the rest where just links, but the links ought to be integrated with the text and chapters expanded with “see alsos” linking to articles that further elaborate on the topics. --GeneralPatton 23:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should primarily deal with the political history of the Nazi regime, the German military history of WWII being dealt on a page of its own. Most of the Gleichschaltung article should also be moved here.--GeneralPatton 08:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: focus

message: 2004-01-09: "This persecution reached a peak in the last years of the regime, in which some 6 million Jews, *10 million Slavs*, and sundry others, were systematically killed. This genocide is referred to as the Holocaust..."
The article about the holocaust talks about "3.5–6 million Slavic civilians".
Quite a difference. Someone with more expertise should try to clarify this...
----
There where far more than 10 million civilian casualties in the former Soviet Union (Slavs), the number is actually around 20 million, that died from starvation, disease, and maltreatment.
Combine that with about 10 million deaths in the Red Army, and you get to the staggering number of about 30 million dead, the reason why the WW2 is still quite remembered there.
--GeneralPatton 05:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is holocaust denial. Contrast the above w what I said down @ Talk:Nazi_Germany#National_Socialism ;)  08:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: civilian deaths

message: This should be an important article, but it has ended up being a brief history of World War 2, much of it not even about German involvement (e.g. North Africa). Shouldn't the pre-war years get at least as much space? DJ Clayworth 14:16, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Love to, but it will have to wait behind the dozens of other things I'd like to do. Maybe sometime. DJ Clayworth 14:31, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: wwII history

message: YA HISTORY PRETTY MUCH SUCKS..I REALLY DONT CARE FOR IT AT ALL..I WOULD JUST LOVE IT IF TABATHA HOFF WOULD JUST MAKE ME MY DINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:::mmmm, dinner --Hohns3 08:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Panzer tanks

message: Removed Book of Odin reference and Norway Adam and Eve.  Did Google search on "Book of Odin" AND "Nazi" and got nothing.  Need references.Ark30inf 04:53, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Book of Odin

message: Dear ohh dear. This article needs some serious work on pre-WWII. I've just remove a couple of recently contributed paragraphs that contained some classic ill-informed nonsense that Duffy would have blown his top at. I'm going to put this in Bad Jokes etc.. e.g.
:Hitler "reannexxed" Austria in ?1938? in a military action he called "Liberstruam"(Living Room in german).Although it was essentially without any fatalities, it was in clear violation of the Versialle Treaty and Austrian right to self determination. England and the U.S.A. decided to negotiate with and finally appease Hitler through a English diplomat named Neville Chamberland. 
:: Unfortunately I don't have time to sort this out myself right now.Mintguy 09:16, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-WWII history

message: Wilhelm Grimm must be a mistake of some sort, as he died well before the NSDAP even existed. Kent Wang 11:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wilhelm Grimm]]

message: ----
"Third empire"?? Shouldn't we delete this? Führer, dictator, Reichskanzler yes, but Emperor?  --KF 23:40 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
"Third Reich" is the usual way of referring to it in English, and yes, Reich does mean empire in one sense, but the article isn't referring to Hitler as an emperor. The word has some implications about referring to "the state", anyway -- even the communists called the East German Railways the Deutsche Reichsbahn. -- Arwel 23:47 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
:I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at. Empire is Kaiserreich, not just any Reich.  --KF 23:56 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
:: In German, Reich has more connotations than a territory being ruled by an Emperor. It has a strong mythological background and is really not translatable to English; the Reich page therefore correctly mentions that the term is used in the German Lord's prayer (and throughout the Bible also) in a very transcendental meaning. See my new entry on Holy Roman Empire also. It is exactly this fuzzy warm feeling that the Nazis exploited with the creation of the expression Drittes Reich. -- djmutex 2003-04-30
:::What are you both talking about here? I've never doubted any of it (except maybe the statement that it was the Nazis who created the term Third Reich). All I'm wondering about is why anyone would want to translate Third Reich with "third empire". I'd just delete the latter -- ersatzlos.  --KF 00:12 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
::::Done. :-) I wasn't quite aware that we agreed. djmutex 2003-05-01
:::::I've heard "Reich" translated as "realm" in English, this word has connotations of medieval Britain to me but perhaps it's more accurate than "empire".--Critic9328 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be useful with a caption indicating that it was an attempt to symbolize unification of Germany and Nazi Party.  Just sitting there by itself it looks a little propaganda-ish. Ark30inf 18:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This is  propaganda-ish. Have a look at Wolfram's contributions. Ericd 18:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuk. I see what you mean.  I think the image can be saved if it is put in the proper context of a propagandistic image by associated text.  Its an attempt to merge traditional German concepts together with Nazi Party concepts and to associate the two, which is a concept touched on briefly in the article.  It might also be moved farther down in the text to de-emphasize it if this is done.Ark30inf 18:52, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see sources for this statement and exactly how the Soviet Union provoked (or planned to provoke) the western powers into going into war. If nothing is forthcoming I'll remove it. Mintguy (T) 10:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: OLD TALK From [[Third Reich]]

message: There was no "Third Reich" de jure, the Weimar Republic's constitution from 1919 was valid until end of war 1945 (Well, mostly.) But the official name of the state was always "Deutsches Reich". "Third Reich" was invented by author Arthur Moeller van der Bruck in his book "Das Dritte Reich" in 1923. However, the term was officially banned since 1939.
Third paragraph should make clear "Third Reich" was just a nickname.
:: Some references:
:: Name of Reich: Wilhelm I of Germany: ...the North German Confederation (1867-1871) was transformed into the German Empire ("Deutsches Reich", 1871-1945)...
::Reich: ...Later, Deutsches Reich was the official name of Germany from 1871 to 1945...
:: About van der Bruck, there are many references: Encyclopædia britannica: German cultural critic whose book Das Dritte Reich (1923; “The Third Empire,” or “Reich”) provided Nazi Germany with its dramatic name. , , 
:: Term "Das Dritte Reich" was banned "Im Juli1939 verbot das Propagandaministerium die weitere Verwendung des Begriffes "Drittes Reich"  also 
:: Mikko Paananen 17:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term "Third Reich" 

message: ...and stick my nose where it may not belong.  The following are my thoughts, which I offer with the hope that they can clear up the debate over "socialism."
1) Socialism generally defines a hodgepodge of ideologies that can seem to be radically different from one another, however
2) All forms of socialism are based on a collectivist ideology.
3) These ideologies can favor differing groups, such as "workers," a "master race," or whatever the stated purpose is.
Economic planning, abrogation of private property, conscription, and quite a few other things are clear examples of subjecting the individual to the state or the "greater good."  Whatever this state claims to advocate, and whose "greater good" is in question, are only cosmetic differences.  Aside from the damage done by association with National Socialism, there is no reason why this brand of socialism should be set apart from any other.
Paul 16:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for your wise and agreeable statements. While I understand the motivation of Socialists who wish to distance themselves from unpopular variations of their ideology, the category is incredibly broad and inclusive. IMO Nazism was significant among other totalitarian socialisms in its economic successes (until its impatience for territorial expansion undid it), and relative religious tolerance (compared to Communist states). Mass killings seem to be pretty standard in authoritarian states, and don't strike me as being so unique to Nazism as popular culture makes them out to be. People are often horrible, and I sympathize with Germans who feel they have been particularly maligned, while human rights abuses came long before Nazism, and continue to this day. In conclusion, we can learn from their mistakes without soiling the "good name" of socialism, and most importantly, while maintaining perspective. Sam Spade Arb Com election 17:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, under Mao and Stalin, millions of people were either killed in Gulags/Camps off or deliberately starved into death. Even in smaller states like Cambodia, the Marxist Khmer Rouge deliberately killed a few million people, same thing went on in North Korea, communist Vietnam,... Just like the Jews, all these other people were also killed because they were called the "enemies of the people/revolution/ideology/proletariat,...". GeneralPatton 18:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Great points Paul, it’s a really precise assessment. GeneralPatton 18:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: An interesting assesment, though one I must disagree with. First off, you at first define "socialist" as a "collectivist ideololgy" favouring possibly different groups. However if we use this definition, every nation in the world is socialist for with nationalism comes a sort of collectivism that favours the people within the nation. You could go into any nation and find favoured groups, and thus we find this is a too broad definition of socialism. Next, you go on to define socialism as the state subjegating the individual. Again, with this definition many many nations in the world are socialist including the US. Your specific examples of "economic planning, abrogation of private property, conscription" have too occured in many nations around the world including the United States especially during wartime. I think you have the correct idea, but the specifics I believe are flawed. With this definition in hand, I could classify anyone and anything as socialist. Comrade Tassadar 19:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm just going to jump right into this... 

message: Care to cite that? I'm done reverting for today, but tomorrow, tomorrow, is only... a d-a-y a-w-a-y...  18:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Political Scientists think JFK is a Jelly Donut...

message: A web vandal apparently got a hold of my password and posted some pretty nasty messages then proceeded to attack my user page.  Looks like they were blocked.  Anyone know how to change a Wikipedia password?  In any event, the article was restored. -Husnock 05:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evil Web Vandal

message: User:Punkmorten, why did you remove Schindler and Wallenberg from the list?--AI 14:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nazi Germany#Other|Other Prominent persons in Nazi Germany]] 

message: i created this article when i was in year 12 for an assignment, it cannot be inside the encyclopedia as it is not biased nor make no conclusions, but it is a very good look at how each seem simila -- User:Whatsup_will
:Your message seems to have gotten truncated.  Please note Wikipedia:No original research.  If you have an essay or original theory based on your own research, unfortunately an encyclopedia isn't the place for it (see the link to understand why). -- Curps 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sparta and nazi germany article 

message: why does it say this at the bottom of the page -- unsigned comment by User:81.231.226.58
:Anyone can edit, and sometimes they do.  It's not there anymore. -- Curps 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am not a NAZI" 

message: I note that Consolidation of Power contains nil reference to the above . Indeed this subject is hard to find anywher in the german history pages, very hard .
Str1977 rejects this below  as off topic to Enabling Act (consequences) so I bring it here where it should form a small part of an 'Industrialists' section.This is brought in by  John Toland as immediate consequence of Hitler's rigged success .The subject of the magnates bank-rolling Hitler prior to the rigged success  is completely absent here , and so is their  link to his supposed economic miracle, concerning  which this sheds light.  
::The Reichstag success also brought into the open a number of industrialists who had supported Hitler , and unlimited credit was extended to the regime in the form of Mefo bills ( Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G.) which could be drawn by Government contractors , that acted as a form of promissary notes and which allowed Hitler to re-arm on a large scale. 
With a link to  Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. Why this blind-spot ? Why are we behaving as if the Nuremburg Trials , and their American  lessor trials concerning Trading with The Enemy , never happened? 
 EffK 11:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Industrialists

message: "Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically-loaded term, it remains strongly-related to the establishment of an organized working class; created through either revolution or by social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. Socialism had its origins in the ideals of the Enlightenment, during the Industrial Age/Age of Industrialization, amid yearnings for a more egalitarian society. It has also increasingly become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist may refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed."
The definition of Socialism given by the Wikipedia article of what Socialism is. If we accept this to be true then National Socialism is NOT socialism. Nowhere in Nazism is there a belief society should exist with popular collectives controlling the means of power/production. Even if we use the  De-Facto meaning of Socialism, Nazi Germany never had any intention of producing a class-less society (according to Wikipedia's articles on Nazism and National Socialism) or an egalitarian society.--GinAndTonic 01:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then apparently neither was the Soviet Union, but it should be acknowledged that both build off of this egalitarian theory while combining elements that are foreign to the virtual definition of socialism. Practical application of the theory being turned into policy must be considered. Where is the "popular collective" in the Soviet system? It was left powerless as a wing of the Party, yet this is as close to "socialism" in that private property was (largely) nationalized, "predatory" capitalism ended and so on and so forth. Again, if we hold socialism up on a pedestal, no, this utopia was not achieved. There are few reservations to throwing around terms such as "democracy" and the like, so what gives with socialism?--Hohns3 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviet Union was socialist, because its official ideology said that the people should control the means of production.  In practice, the USSR was run rather differently, but that's a different issue. john k 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Socialism 

message: The article states: "By February 1943 the Soviets had defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad and began the push westward, winning the tank battle at Kursk-Orel in July."
This makes it sound like the Germans were essentially defeated for good at Stalingrad, and that all the Soviets did after that was advance westwards. Kursk was a massive offensive launched by the Germans, which nevertheless did end badly for them.
Also why do people always have to use the word "Nazis"? The Axis forces on the Eastern Front included hundreds of thousands of troops from Italy, Romania, and Hungary each, as well as co-belligerent Finland and tens of thousands of Waffen-SS volunteers from all over Europe, as well as the Spanish Division Azul and a quarter million Soviet "volunteers" (Cossacks, Tsarists, POWs, etc.).
--Critic9328 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should not refer to "Nazi" defeats.  We should refer to German or Axis defeats. john k 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of tide turning a little too simplistic 

message: I believe the flag depicted as the "Nazi war flag" was simply the flag of the German navy during World War II, perhaps it is a misinterpretation due to the German word for navy--"Kriegsmarine" (people may know that Krieg means war in German).--Critic9328 23:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a "Nazi war flag" 

message: The article states:
"West Germany recovered economically by the 1960s, being called the economic miracle (German term Wirtschaftswunder) due to economic aid by the United States of America (Marshall Plan),..."
This sounds a little to straightforward and self-congraulatory to me, other factors have been cited such as hard work and financial discipline of the Germans, along with the boom in manufacturing as a result of the Korean War.--Critic9328 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much credit given to Marshall Plan? 

message: I do not know if this has been brought up as an issue in the past, but this seems like something that should be fixed. The term Nazi, as most of you probably know, is a portmanteau of the German words National and Socialist (Nationalsozialistische). I do not know this for certain, but I do not believe the term "Nazi" was used in Germany until sometime after the fall of the Third Reich, which makes the term "Nazi Germany" a questionably accurate name. This article doesn't even seem to mention the actual title of the party in the first few paragraphs. My suggestion: anywhere the term Nazi appears, replace its first mention in an article with "National Socialist (or Nazi)." Yes, 99% of the world says "Nazi," but our readers deserve accuracy and some background on what they are reading. Not to stick my hand into a hornet's nest here (and not to start an argument over whether they were "real socialists" or not) but omitting the term "socialist" when discussing the Third Reich is like omitting "Neocon" when talking about today's United States. (Although, "Neocon America," while maybe destined for use in future encyclopedias when discussing the U.S. 2001-present, would itself be an incorrect title.) Anyways, thank you all and I'd love to hear your comments on my talk page. Paul 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I refer any editors concerned with changes I make  to sources povided through my recent history button , prior to any necessary absolute repetition; ie this is done after source in good Faith. The source was Alfred Rosenberg, 1936 A History of the German Republic, a foundational historian in the subject.
EffK 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition decree issuance

message: There are some problematic "members" in that section, especially in the sub-section "Others". Some have not actually lived in or during the Third Reich, though they were connected or had influence to Nazism.
*Richard Wagner
*Houston Stewart Chamberlain, died in 1927
*Arthur de Gobineau, died in 1882
*Guido von List, died in 1919
*Karl Lueger, died in 1910
*Lanz von Liebenfels, actually lived in Austria during the time it was annexed by Nazi Germany, but as a figure of obscurity
Under the circumstances the best solution probably would be to rename or split up the "Others" section. Any suggestions? Str1977 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent persons in Nazi Germany

message: The inclusion of civil liberies is a means to avoid the truth - the truth is that un-constitutional arrest gave Hitler the chance to subvert the remaining catholic Centre Party Germany bloc. The truth is not acceptable here on WP , viz even the removal from Adolf Hitler of the half-way truth of John Kenney's Atkins and Tallet conclusion, that the kick-back scheme with the Centre started on 9 April 1933. I refer you to my response of a few days ago at final diffs 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005
The kick-back  did not, of course start then, as Hitler's speech proves , and sources attest and was not limited to the Centre but inculpates the Holy See. However, even that limited aspect is forbidden, naturally. Naturally because even that post-Enabling Act scurrilous barter is shocking scandal, which leads into the Hitler's Pope literature (multiple books exist). What about Wikipedia civil liberties? We are under constant revisionist attack, and that is why this article repeats the civil liberties nonsense . The 11000 arrests of activists  did not affect the vote in the Enabling Act. This article could be put right, in one short sentence but as revisionism is so powerful here on WP, I cannot expect to repair this article-it would last 5 minutes. I am, naturally enough, -blocked . The kick-back with the church is not a subject for inclusion on WP, not on Adolf Hitler and  not anywhere. Some digital advance....Oh I forgot to say that the revisor of Hitler was the User immediately above. He is the subject of the link 'diffs', as he contradicted himself from his much earlier agreement with Atkins and Tallet. This is enough to short-circuit any editing. I at any rate, am prevented, but you can try ... 
EffK 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Liberties are not the point

message: Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)  02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board|German Wiki Notice Board]] 

message: I have found this article to be extremely useful thus far but I really think that it should contain information about life for the ordinary people in Nazi Germany.  That information is hard to find and I believe that if we included that in this article then it would be used alot more for research in assignments etc.  I may had a little go and add some of that myself later on today if I have time Banana.girl 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Life for the ordinary people in this time

message: This section is badly missing. What was administrative status of occupied lands? Terminology? Satellites/protectorates? mikka (t) 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography/Administrative organization of Third Reich 

message: As has been said by someone else above - the beginning of the article doesn't say that the term "Nazi" is slang for "National Socialist" (a compound of the German "NAtional SoZIalist"). The fact that this (important) bit of information is missing from the beginning  of the article doesn't bother me as much as that it's simply bad style - slang should have no place in an encyclopedia (as far as I'm concerned, at least... ). An encyclopedia should educate it's readers and not feed them with crude knowledge of history. I therefore suggest replacing "Nazi" with "National Socialist" - at least in the article's title and in the first few paragraphs. Maybe some of the rest of you might like to comment below. 22nd February, 2006
*I think we should keep the title, specially since Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is a big assignment topic in High School.  We need to make it clearer what Nazi comes from as its quite unclear.  We could/should bold out the letteres so it looks like this : Nationalsozialistische.  I did this for my recent assignment.  I do agree with you that the purpose of Wikipedia and any encyclopedia is to educate but we have to keep in mind what the reader will more than likely look up.Banana.girl 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is to use common names, not more "correct" ones. A quick Google search shows that "Nazi Germany" gets a hundred times the hits of "National Socialist Germany." In my experience pretty much all historians also prefer "Nazi." - SimonP 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the term "Nazi" 

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

message: what were the first two? Kingturtle 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what were the first two reiches? 

message: The eagle doesn't show the "coat of arms" but the "Party eagle". The coat-of-arms-eagle displayed the head turned to the left side.--Gomeira 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of Arms

message: The sentence reading "The German community was nationalized and both labor and entertainment, from festivals, to vacation trips to traveling cinemas, as part of the "Strength through Joy" program." is nonsensical in English. Enzedrail 07:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. a few words appeared to be missing beforehand.--68.81.242.37 04:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Policy

message: The article refers to the Nazi ideology as a right-wing one. Economically, the left wing supports a government-run economy and the right wing supports a free market. Social politics gets murkier, but I don't know of any compelling arguments that would prove the Nazis were socially right-wing (conservative). https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
Nazi is actually shorthand for 'National Socialist' which is 'Nationalsozialistische' in German. The Nazis controlled businesses, healthcare, and education. 
If the Nazis were the extreme tip of the right-wing of political ideology, they would have favored the weakest of government power, not the strongest. The extreme right wing is manifested by libertarian (and at the climax of the right wing, anarchist) ideology in which individuals have all of the power and the government has none. 
The Nazi ideology was, therefore, a left-wing one and not a right-wing one unless I am severely mistaken. Branding the Nazi ideology in the same manner as conservatives in the US are branded could appear disingenuous to some readers. Aluaxelman (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are severely mistaken. This is a common trope of the right-wing, and is counter-factual. See this article for a couple of academics deconstructing this nonsense and explaining the facts. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

text: We go by what the vast majority of reliable sources have to say. Evans 2003 page 170 describes the party as far-right; Shirer 1960 page 51 says right-wing. In the section "No Second Revolution" starting on page 204 Shirer describes how left-wing members of the party were seriously disappointed that the socialist part of the platform would not be carried out; he says on page 205 that Hitler never had any intention of fulfilling these campaign promises; "the Nazi socialist slogans had been merely propaganda" to win over the electorate.Nazi Party has three sources describing the party as far-right. This article describes it as "an anti-socialist, anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business party"; this article notes that "While Hitler’s party carried the word “socialist” in its name, only a few of the policies pursued by him were left-wing or indeed socialist." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

text: And Democratic People's Republic of Korea is clearly Democratic by that logic. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Diannaa is correct. Some European history is needed here.  In the USA, libertarianism is currently on the right. (It used to be on the left in the US). In Europe, libertarians were always on the left. Monarchy was the main right-wing position in Europe until 1918 (when Germany, Russia, Austria & others) lost their monarchy). Then "right" in Europe shifted to fascism in many countgries & naziism in Germany.  Nazis were never libertarian. As for "socialist" in NSDAP that refers not to Marxism but to the primacy of society over the individual (ie anti-libertarian). Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Also I think you will find that most European sources call it right wing as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Diannaa is correct. BTW - the Talk:Nazi Party talk page has a nice little capsule of frequently asked questions, which Aluaxelman you may want to read on this subject. Kierzek (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I am badly mistaken, no one has even been able to come up with a neutral reliable source which labels the Nazi Party as anything other than right-wing. (The citation above is most definitely not a neutral reliable source.)  This is a non-issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Lexlex, you linked to a mere essay, not a policy. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Where are the reliable sources describing Nazi Germany as a socialist state? Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the Nazi ideology really right wing? 

message: Why is Germany not wikilinked at all, preferably at the earliest mention in the article?  It seems like a very basic thing to miss off a Wikipedia entry! 2.24.71.140 (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. People are constantly editing the lead; it probably just got accidentally removed at some point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no [[Germany]] wikilink??? 

message: I noticed this on a number of historic battle articles, including one linked on the main page of Wikipedia;  the flag is not rendering properly.  Here or anywhere else.  Can anyone fix this?  Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 05:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  On this page, it appears to be so.  On a ton of history pages (e.g., Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Kasserine Pass, et al.), it is not, but that is a subject for those dozens (or hundreds) of other articles. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 05:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe someone changed a hyphen in the title to an ndash, or something like that.  The answer is to replace the current file name with:File:Flag of Germany (1935–1945).svgwhich links to the current name of the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm not going through hundreds of articles to fix someone else's screw up.  But it is at least good to know what went down.  And I left a message on the Commons page.  Thanks again.  Cheers. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks again.  I'm not entirely sure of the technical aspects either, though I can look at it again tomorrow.  My patience with the technical and bureaucratic aspect with this project are pretty much up, but that is another story.  Thanks for the update to this page and for the assistance.  I do appreciate it.  Best of wishes. :) --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 06:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've posted a section on VPT.  Hopefully they can figure it out.  Thanks again. :) --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 06:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Ah, double redirects, that explains it.  Glad it's straightened out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag in info box .... 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: Diannaa, I find the argument that "here's no room" to be extremely questionable, fist when I just added one image you removed it saying "here's not room for another image here" yet there is no image in the entire article which highlights Polish suffering — yet, some section have a double image in a thumb frame just to get the point across. What I also find disingenuous that the issue of Poland is minimized, yet this was a country which was fully annexed into the German Reich, making millions of Poles stateless, and in effect what was happening in occupied-Poland was happening in the Greater German Reich (which happens to be the subject of this article). I find this type of omissions very shameful, and the constant removal on new materiel no matter how small very questionable (Btw, the secton on Poland had an image until some more took it down). --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Diannaa's assessment.  I have about 6' of books about Nazi Germany, a good portion of which is about the suffering of various peoples under the Nazi regime.  It cannot all be put into this article, which is already very, very, long.  It's a survey article in an encyclopedia, not a place to stuff in everyone's chosen information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond My Ken, as late as 1 Oct, 18 this image was in the section on Poland not causing clutter or anything, it got removed, when I tried to re-added today all of a sudden there is "no room" which just sounds like a bogus argument.--E-960 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My removing the addition is not related to the subject matter you chose to add, but is based on best practices as outlined in your the guidelines. Regarding the image I removed: There's really not room for more images; excessive images makes the page difficult to view for those reading the article on their phone, laptop, or tablet, and a tiny section like that one is too small to host an image, as it overlaps with the following section. Regarding the prose I removed: Articles should not be above a certain size - see the recommendations at Wikipedia:Article size. This is an overview of the topic. Additional material is present at sub-articles. In fact you copied some of the material from the sub-articles Nazi crimes against the Polish nation and General Government. The sub-articles are linked in the navigation templates and section hatnotes for those interested in exploring different aspects of the topic in more detail. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Diannaa the Soviet Union has the following images in this article , , and  but we can't have one of Poland? The one image of Poland gets removed after 1 Oct, 18 , but not for example the one showing Soviet POW which was in the section right below Poland? That's why I find some of the editing choices a bit questionable. Btw, in Germany there are monument to all different groups which were targeted by the Nazis, the one that missing is for the Poles. --E-960 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we can have an image of Poland, just not in that tiny section. (At one time there were about 15 images of Poland in the article, which was excessive, but now it seems it's gone too far the other way!). I don't think we should use the one you added though, as the sourcing is not the best, and it's not clear who is being shot. How do we know for sure (given the sketchy source) that they're even Polish? Better to choose a different photo. How about we replace :File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-031-2436-03A, Russland, Hinrichtung von Partisanen-2.jpg with :File:Public execution of 54 Poles in Rożki (1942).jpg? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: E-960, as stated this is only an overview article and given the subject matter one could pour in everything and throw in the kitchen sink. But, that is not practical and the fact is for the section mentioned, besides the links to other articles, including Expulsion of Poles by Nazi Germany, Polish culture during World War II and operation AB-Aktion, there is a further reading link to a main article: Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) (Nazi crimes against the Polish nation). As for additions and work done since the timeframe of October you mention, that had to do with the ACR review. The article is already over the recommended byte limit and we just cannot include everything in large detail; that is what links to other articles is for, which is available to the reader. Kierzek (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: As for adding photos, I am sure something can be worked out; exchange as Diannaa mentions seems like a good idea. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead with the change. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I retoractively agree with swapping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppression of ethnic Poles