Is this really needed? This should all be in
Germany,
World War II, etc.
I think it does have a need for separate treatment and should be linked appropriately. In much the same way as [History of the Roman Empire]
? is separated from [History of Italy]
?, it deals with a specific historical feature.
sjc
My point is: These things absolutely
have to be in
History of Germany, so why repeat them here?
I see the special role of this era, but it is an integral part of the History of Germany. It would be better to categorize the History somewhat if you want to stress things like this. -- Yooden
I personally wouldn't have chosen to do it this way (I'm playing devil's advocate here, to an extent), but it does act as a useful link page and is almost certainly going to be a target for queries. These things should
also be in
History of Germany and/or
World War II and if they aren't they soon will be....
sjc
Yes, it should be a link page, pointing to various parts of the
History of Germany hierarchy. As it is, you find here more than there. --
Yooden
Do you want to do it or shall I?
sjc
We don't need to keep repeating ourselves - just link. You should find more detail about nazi gemrany in the specific nazi germany entry than in the general history of Germany entry. -rmhermen
No, we should definitely not repeat ourselves. The question is whether the
History of Germany, 1933 - 1945 should be part of the
History of Germany or not. I think it should.
If you want to keep this page as more than a link page, you should consequently divide History of Germany in German Empire, [Weimarer Republic]?, Nazi Germany, [German Post-War Era]?, BRD?/DDR?, [Reunified Germany]? (this is only the 20th century). After that, follow the pattern with all other countries/regions.
While dedicated pages for important eras offer a good opportunity to collect some links, the overall picture should be in History of Germany.
sjc, if you want to do it, go right ahead, I will follow you. --Yooden
Another thing: You cannot cover WWII in [[History of <country>]], because it inherently involves more than one. This is not the case with
Nazi Germany. --
Yooden
History of Germany can easily include a general treatment of years 1933-1945 while Nazi Germany continues to be a highly detailed account. -rmhermen
That's redundant. History of Germany can easily include a highly detailed account. --
Yooden
Yes I suppose it would be partially redundant. However as pages get increasingly detailed and complex, it gets hard to find basic (or introductory) information on them. Therefore less general (more specific) topic names are more useful, especially if tied together through a general page. It doesn't require the general page page to be only an outline (hierarchy) though. It can have basic information and links to the more specific pages. -rmhermen
I think we agree on most points. What I dislike about
Nazi Germany is not its function to collect/organize facts and pointers. I only think it is more important to integrate this page into general German history.
What's needed is some structure in History of Germany, then all the pieces will fall into place. Whether this peculiar place is called Nazi Germany or 1933-1945 is secondary. --Yooden
This argument has many false claims:
First, there was no Polish army in 1944-45. There were Polish army units of Red Army, but they were
completely controlled by Rusians.
Second, it wasn't just Germany but also Soviet actions (attack against Poland and Finland) that started WW2.
Third, Germans didn't declare war on UK, it was the opposite.
And last, Nuremberg was propaganda trial, what isn't clearly stated here. --Taw
- Taw, it seems to me that you are using propaganda in a purely pejorative way, and I'm not sure why. Propaganda is not necessarily a bunch of lies -- sometimes it's just an overpublication of the views of one (generally winning) side. In the case of the Nuremberg trials, yes, they were show trials -- but was that bad? Since then, the world has taken more seriously the concept of "Crimes against Humanity" and there have been more and more attempts to prosecute those who are believed to have committed them.
- Moreover, there is now a legal precedent for the punishment of those who walk the fine line between war crime and genocide. This has led to some very interesting court cases of late, and a new legal theory that any sovereign state can detain a citizen of another based on accusations of committing such crimes. Moreover, it is becoming ever more likely that even those who were on the winning side (of whatever conflict) will not avoid justified prosecution. (For example, I heard a very interesting interview with an ex-US Secretary of State who was asked, in the context of Pinochet's arrest, why he no longer traveled outside the US -- he was very irate about why he didn't have to answer that type of question...)
- So, I guess I'm asking what your implied objection is -- unless it's that others, including the Soviets, got away with their actions? JHK
I disagree with the characterisation of the Nuremberg Trials as show trials or propaganda. Under customary international law going back centuries an occupying power has the right to try the troops, commanders or leaders of the defeated power for violations of the laws of war. The members of the Nazi regime were accused of serious violations of international law, and I don't think anyone can really argue that they were innocent of what they were accused of. The trial and punishment of the accused was fair and legal, under the standards of the time. -- SJK
- I remember that some of those who were found gulity in the Nuremberg Trials were in fact not, or only partially. Don't quote me on this, I don't remember the source, maybe TV or newspaper. The Nuremberg Trials have a certain "guilty until proven otherwise" touch, though, again, I can't back this up right now. I think that's what Taw means. Do we have an article about Entnazifizierung? ("De-Nazification")? It might be helpful in this context. --Magnus Manske
- I'd argue that the trial and punishment of the accused was fair and legal under the standards of the current time. One should point out
that three of the Nuremberg defendants (von Papen, Frisch, and Schacht) were accquitted of all charges. --
Chenyu
- Just look at these four "accusations": first two are completely absurd. War was completely legal means of politics then (and is still one now). How one can be accused of doing something legal and what was being done by every bigger country in the world ? These two accusations alone made this trial a parody. Speaking of the other two accusations, they were quite serious and about real issues, but nobody required that someone to be found "guilty" had to do something that wasn't standard in all other armies. And they weren't accused of breaking laws of war, they were accused of breaking something that never existed. --Taw
- Sorry, Taw, but that's why they came up with the charge of Crimes against Humanity, I think -- no one had ever done anything remotely like the Holocaust (arguably, I know, but let's say, in the modern world) before -- special circumstances made this necessary. And I'm not sure what some of the accused being acquitted means, other than that there was sufficient evidence to indict, but not to convict -- that's why we have trials -- to make sure that the accused are PROVEN guilty before being punished. And by the way, the whole point of the Geneva Conventions was to establish some rules to modern warfare -- I think if you check your facts, you'll see that western warfare has, at least since the Middle Ages, had some rules. When killing technology outstripped the range of those rules, it became necessary to try to redefine those rules, hence the Geneva Conventions. JHK
- First, Russians made things like Holocaust on much greater scale before WW2 even started.
- Second I know how political show trials work, because I lived in communist country and we had lot of them here. They work this way: some of minor accused are usually acquitted (often those who agree to colaborate with secret police), many of the accused are found guilty of only some of accusations and majority is sentenced to less than attorney demanded. And that's all to make it look more like a real trial. Anyway I can't see much difference between Communist political show trials and Nuremberg show trial.
- Third there was no rule of modern warfare that German Army broke that weren't being broken by everyone else.
- Fourth, most of accused officials had little to do with Holocaust. --Taw
You have to look beyond the basic four charges at the more detailed evidence, the small version alone takes up about 40ft of library shelving.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)