Talk:Consequences of German Nazism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page is a daughter article of the main Adolf Hitler article. WhisperToMe 18:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Moved from article

" In that sense, Hitler's Final Solution destabilized the already volatile Middle East for the long term.


The only positive outcome of the war was the destruction of Nazism and fascism as political and ideological forces, although modified forms of fascism lingered in Spain and Portugal under Franco and Salazar. The horrors of Nazism, when fully revealed by the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, also produced a radical re-assessment of the anti-Semitic attitudes which had been so prevalent in Europe. The process known as denazification meant that German society, in particular, was radically changed for the better in the postwar years. Other forms of pseudo-scientific racism, such as eugenics, were also discredited by the uses to which the Nazis put these doctrines. The founding of the United Nations on October 24, 1945, and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, were signs that at least some of the lessons of Hitler's career had been learned. "

"The Jewish people consider Hitler's regime the greatest calamity in their history since the fall of the Temple in AD 70. "

"The Polish were compensated by lying in ruins former German cities, that required a lot of effort to bring to the life Recovered Territories. For the first time in history, Poland ceased to be multiethnic and pluralistsc country. For the first time in history, the share of Catholic and the share of Polish speaking exceeded 2/3 of Polish population.

Poland was put under thyranny of totalitarian regime. Loses of Poland were immense, and poportionally the highest in Europe."

" This confirmed the Soviet Union's already paranoid fear of the West, which led to the setting up of the Communist governments in eastern Europe; the Soviets hoped to use the satellite states there as a buffer zone against new invasions from the West, and to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again.

Another outcome was the destruction of Nazism and fascism as political and ideological forces. While modified forms of fascism continued in Spain and Portugal under Francisco Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar, it never regained popular appeal. As Germany radically reworked their society in a process known as denazification, the credibility of anything associated with Nazism was damaged or destroyed. Militarism, long a feature of German society, was abandoned. The horrors of the Holocaust, revealed by the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, prompted a reassessment of old anti-semitic beliefs, resulting in an increasingly tolerant atmosphere toward Judaism in the West. Eugenics, which had been popular in the scientific and government communities since the late 19th century, lost appeal after the brutal excesses committed by the Nazi regime in its name. " (no cited source, sounds POV, impossible to verify).

This stuff is clearly very POV. In a way, the whole article is, but I kinda like it. The quality of what you've written is high, but the anti-fascist, anti-eugenics, pro-jewish POV comes thru too clearly at times. JackLynch 05:26, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't write any of it. I said in the talk page, I split the text as a daughter article. WhisperToMe

[edit] who wrote it then?

and is it really neccessary to have it seperate from the Hitler article itself? You mentioned that there was a concern of an overly large hitler article on some browsers. Can you explain this more, or give a link to somewhere it is gone into in greater detail? Jack

I wrote the text in question, but I didn't split it off from the main article, which I presume was done on the grounds that article was too long. I apologise for being anti-fascist, anti-eugenics and pro-Jewish. Feel free to write some pro-fascist, pro-eugenics and anti-Jewish text to balance mine. Adam 02:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, rodger, will do. Jack 03:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't really like this title. A consequence is "a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon". I don't think Hitler is a phenomenon. I don't have anything better, but hopefully somebody else will. Tuf-Kat 03:22, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
one definition of a phenomenon is "A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon." Seems pretty accurate to me. Jack 03:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I guess, but it still just sounds wrong. To my ears (or eyes...) it seems incomplete without something after Hitler. Tuf-Kat 03:54, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

The title of this article was originally a subheading in Adolf Hitler, and is not a very good title for a free-standing article. Since, however, whoever has attempted to rewrite the text has produced a badly-written and morally bankrupt piece of nonsense, full of a whole lot of new opinionated statements under the guise of "NPOV, the article might as well now be abolished. Adam 04:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps I felt a little too free?

I'm sorry to have vexed you so severely. Would you perhaps like to point out a few of my numerous mistakes, so that I might reflect? I am sure that in time, and with cool heads, we can sort this article out nicely. Jack 05:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Is this stricktly about Hitler?

It seems to be more generally about the Nazi party and the wartime German state. While he was responsible, he didn't, for example, actually kill all those Russian soldiers himself. Also, was Hitler a dictator? He was elected wasn't he?209.102.125.76 10:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He was elected, was he? Care to give me the election results of 1937, 1941 and 1945? Generally, I don't think this is the right place to discuss Hitler himself. --KF 10:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
He was elected as the leader of the biggest party in 1932. Besides, he was one of the most popular leaders. Unlike Lenin, he doesn't have to kill milions of citizens to be followed. Cautious
A dictator is an absolute ruler - elected or not. And hitler made himself to the absolute ruler of germany after the burning of the reichstag. Absolute ruler, dictator. The word is more than justified. And Lenin didn't kill millions of citizens - stalin did. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right that after having been elected first time he didn't bother again, but he was elected to office, and commanded significant public support for his program. He wasn't a dictator in the sense that it's often used of governing without consent.209.102.125.76 10:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To Cautious: This is so one-sided I'm not going to reply any further. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to justify Hitler's cruel regime. If you, for whatever reason, you feel that is what you have to do, find some other place. However, I would encourage you to reconsider what you have written first.
One the features of democracy is that the majority can decide to murder, expell a minority. Hitler was somehow democratic dictator, that doesn't mean that he was good. This only means, that the society democratically elected the monster. Why don't you want to discuss? I understand, that in the German-speaking lands the myth is taught that describes him as dictator. This is to defend the society. Cautious
To 209.102.125.76: I'm sorry, but "not bothering again" boils down to governing without consent. There is something called term of office, usually laid down in the Constitution of a country. All the best, --KF 10:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If you read German memoires, you would find, that most of people supported Hitler untill Sep 3 1939. He was applauded for the anti-Jews policies, for economy recovery, for the external policy, for the Nazi-Soviet pact, for the aggression against Poland. Germans were disturbed only by the England and France declaration of war and later by invasion on Soviet union. Cautious


PS I'm sorry, I can't continue now, I have an appointment. KF
Please don't misunderstand, this isn't a call for Hitler or Nazi apologetics, but the term dictator does carry the implication that there was not broad agreement for his platform. He was certainly terrible, and latterly undemocratic, and no-one is trying to excuse that, but I'm just a little worried that prehaps it is not very careful use of the word 'dictator'.209.102.125.76 10:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to put this here again, because you guys are abusing the word dictator. A dictator is an absolute ruler. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also, on the other note - this page does not seem to really be about Hitler - does anyone object to changing it to something like Cons. of Nazi Germany or something like that?209.102.125.76 10:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Nazi POV

The anti-Nazi POV of this page, and certainly of many of those in the talk is clear. I think that this POV is probably shared by the vast majority of the west (I am far less certain that it is the majority world view). What I am wondering is what is the wiki policy on popular POV? Should an article take a side on stuff, ever? Should it describe the holocaust as horrible? Are words that have a good or bad connentation ever acceptable to use? Obviously many think so, but I don't. Opinions have no place in an encyclopedia, and those who insist on placing them here should "find some other place" IMO ;). Jack 18:51, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Move to Consequences of Adolf Hitler's rule? --Jiang 03:09, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) I second that. Vacuum 03:14, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't like that name. I think it should be merged w the Hitler page, or left here, unless you can come up w a better name. Jack 03:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about Consequences of German Nazism? It wouldn't have been possible for Hitler to do everything alone. --Jiang 23:15, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thats better, but can't we just merge it into the Nazism article? This article has ALOT of issues, (see above) and IMO doesn't do a very good job of justifying itself as a stand alone article. Should I list it on VfD, or what? Jack 23:57, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No need to list on vfd since we're not deleting content. Merge if no one objects soon and the Nazism article has room. --Jiang 22:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't really understand this concept of "room". How big is too big? To be perfectly honest, I don't know how to merge an article, nor how to determine if the size is a concern. But if others agree that merging with Nazism is a good idea, I certainly do as well. If space is a concern for some reason (and please explain why, or give me a link to where it is explained) I think your latest idea for a name change "Consequences of German Nazism" is acceptable, if not prefereable over a merge. Jack 00:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Browser page size limits. --Jiang 06:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


It seems sensible to integrate it into one of the articles about German Nazism, the WWII and its aftermath etc, I tried to raise the issue of whether this page is really about AH, but seemed to be painted into being a Nazi apologist for it - this just seems to atribute a whole load of broad historical themes to one, albiet influential, man. 209.102.127.70 07:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whats the deal?

I admit I failed to register the whole discussion that has been going on about this article. Right now I think it's not that bad and could give an uninformed person looking for knowledge a good introduction to the post-WWII situation. I wonder if Adam still thinks it is "a badly-written and morally bankrupt piece of nonsense, full of a whole lot of new opinionated statements under the guise of NPOV" and that it "might as well now be abolished". >KF< 21:31, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

hahahahaha..... I understand its a bit hard to follow, but he made that in statement in context, responding to some rather extreme edits I made in response to his "I apologise for being anti-fascist, anti-eugenics and pro-Jewish. Feel free to write some pro-fascist, pro-eugenics and anti-Jewish text to balance mine.". I clearly did too good a job, and he was in no way amused, lol. Anyways, it has been edited mercilessly since them, and continues to be. Jack 01:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)


      • Can some one please tell me***
I have a term paper to write and i need to know:
  • Copyright
  • author
  • Publishing *if any*

thanks alot!!! please email me the answers at OomojoOo@hvc.rr.com

[edit] What's with the usage of the word "Jewry" ?

Jewry is, as far as i'm aware, an antequated if not outright derrogatory term - i think Judaism would be much better. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've definitely seen talk of "the attack on world jewry". Certainly "world judaism" doesn't make much sense. john 02:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

[edit] Additions and removals

Two (fairly) recent changes seem in need of review here. First, I'm not sure I agree with Sam Spade that the "Impact on race relations" section was hopelessly POV and needed to be removed. Seems to me that when the most notorious regime in recent history is connected in most people's minds with racism, that has to have a major impact on how people think about race. At the very least the section should have been discussed here before deleting it.

Second, the new section "Twisted impact on the post-war democracy" needs lots of NPOV work. Isomorphic 21:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right that something can be said about the impact of nazism on contemporary race relations, but what was there was unfixable, so I deleted it. If you have something completely new to say, lets take a look. Sam Spade 03:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Removed from the article:

Twisted impact on the post-war democracy
The winners of the WW II have put the Nazism into one end of the dichotomy Evil - Good. The consequence is that most of the Nazis' descendents are mute about their history sixty years after the war. See Nazi children. Historically the Nazi parties were as legitime as any other party. The post-war European democracies are defective as long as millions of citizens are afraid of their history and of themselves. The consequences of making the German Nazism to a stigmatizing project are demoralizing and can only find a solution through a European reconciliation.

I had several tries at reworking this into something that didn't appear to be an apologia for Nazism, but this appears to be hopelessly POV, so I removed it. -- The Anome 07:08, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] 8.7 million dead not 11: Not conclusive

The Soviet Union lost 8.7 million soldiers in ww2 not 11

Russia's War by Prof. Richard Overy tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

Deng 08-02-06 13.20 CET

Overy's figures are not conclusive. There are estimates of up to 13 million Soviet soldiers killed in World War II. Total Soviet war deaths range from 20 to 27 million. The real figure will never be conclusively known. However it is obvious that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war against Nazi Germany and without Soviet participation on the side of the Allies, Allied victory over Germany would have been exceedingly problematic. Britain fighting alone was not militarily strong enough to defeat Germany and the United States may not have involved herself in another general European war.

[edit] Balance

The article focuses on Germany and its treatment, seems unbalanced-the fate of Jews and countries ruined by Germany has only few lines. --Granet 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConsequences_of_German_Nazism_01f0.html"