Talk:Denazification

message: I believe that the punishment should be mentioned here. Another problem - Nazis in Western Germany are mentioned from a GDR point of view. So Nazis were frequently accepted in Western Germany. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/books/review-aftermath-life-in-fallout-third-reich-harald-jahner.html Xx236 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punishing of Nazi crimes 

message: Why is the section on putin's use of this term so utterly devoid of anything even approaching a position critical of ukraine, which objectively does have nazis in its military in the form of the azov battalion? I'm not asking you to quote RT or some propaganda rag but at the very least im sure one person here could find an article critical of ukraine and its closeness to domestic neo-nazis and get this article much closer to NPOV than its current form. 98.36.196.86 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  russian use of the term 

message: A recent edit by @Encyclopedia Lu draws attention to some mitigating speculation by Sarah Ann Gordon about why in 1946 the Germans still seemed to be in dire need of denazification; in fact, AFAICT the entire remainder of the section is quoting Gordon's 1984 speculations about what the survey-takers could have been thinking.
I wouldn't cast doubt on this work's status as a reliable source, but seven paragraphs feels like a bit much, doesn't it?
This is perhaps not fair, but I think the blurb from the Princeton press site for the book gets at what I'm sensing here:
: No apologia for the German people, this work shows how a minority of extreme anti-Semites coexisted in Germany with the indifferent or fearfully disapproving majority, while the heroic few assumed the extreme risks of opposition
Which to these eyes looks a lot like apologia for (the majority of) the German people; but even if the book itself takes a less defensive standpoint, it's transparent that the purpose of this extended section in the article is to downplay the obvious conclusions that one would draw from the actual survey results.
The brief note about the confusing double-negative phrasing is certainly warranted, but detailing one author's extrapolation from that to the inference that the results were therefore necessarily skewed in one direction feels like a stretch. I understand that we're merely citing the reliable, definitely-not-apologia-for-1946-Germans source making this claim; but spending that much time insisting that the survey results we just presented aren't really meaningful seems, at best, like a rude waste of the reader's time.
I don't think the edit itself is bad: the link is helpful context. I am questioning most of the rest of the section though.
Would there be a general uproar if that got trimmed down to a single paragraph, dropping all the detailed speculations and hypothetical mitigating factors?
Thanks,
ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surveys section 

message: Just letting you know, I’ve copied some of this page to Politics of Germany#Legacy of Nazism Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied to [[Politics of Germany]]