Talk:Nazi Germany

Template:Vital article

Importance of the Royal Navy in Sealion`s cancellation

I`m surprised that someone thought it necessary to delete an addition stating this. I don`t think there`s any modern historian who doesn`t take the same view of the RN`s role in deterring Hitler from attempting to invade the UK in 1940. Even Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz believed air superiority [on its own] was not enough and admitted, "We possessed neither control of the air or the sea; nor were we in any position to gain it". As for citations, you can use the same ones on the Sealion page, or, indeed the Sealio--JustinSmith (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)n page as a citation......

This seems to be more a case of "but it's not in that citation", then an actual understanding of the topic. Yes this is fairly well known, and not even new. Just add a cite that says it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, but note that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

True, but he is not using Wikipedia as a source, he is telling you the sources are there.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

He was trying to use Wikipedia as a source; someone add a proper RS source herein and add back in the information as it was copy edited. And secondary RS sources and not primary source quotes is the best way to go. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have located the sources for the quotations that were added, using Google preview and Worldcat. I agree with Kierzek that secondary sources would be better, but at least what we now have is properly cited. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed Kershaw 2000 "Nemesis" and re-cited the material to this, correcting an error of chronology (The Blitz wasn't started after the realization that they couldn't achieve air superiority, it was part and parcel of the Battle of Britain, the loss of which led to the scraping of Sealion) and moving the primary sources into a footnote. I think this cleans up the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added a citation directly to Doenitz though I must say I find the idea that Wikipedia itself is not regarded as a reliable citation to be slightly bizarre.... Doenitz actually thought Naval superiority was probably more important than air superiority because the latter is a fluid concept anyway, unless you`re talking the complete destruction of the RAF, which was always going to be impossible bearing in mind the limited range of the German fighters (apart from other factors).

I have not bothered to replace the sentence about putting pressure on the UK Govt to come to terms (using bombing), even though that`s commonly understood to be the case, because I cannot find a direct citation in the time I have available. The losers are the readers.--JustinSmith (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your latest change because (1) it again mistates the chronology: Operation Sealion was not called off (or, actually, "permanently postponed") until after the Blitz, not between the attacks on the air bases and the attacks on cities. Kershaw (and every other source) is clear about this. (2) You ascribe to Raeder an opinion expressed (afterwards) by Donitz, and confuse sourcing at the same time. Kershaw (2000) says that Raeder told Hitler in June hat air supoeriority was necessary, it makes no mention of his specifying Naval superiority as well. Both the statements by Rader and Donitz are ex post facto statements made after the war, and therefore suspect, which is why they were in a footnote and not in the main text. Your elimination of them almost entirely confuses the issue.

In short, your change was not an improvement, which is why it was reverted. Please do not make that or similar changes again until you have a WP:COnsensus to do so after discussion on this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think those were my edits; you are correct, the Blitz started before Hitler made the decision to call off the invasion. Sorry for the mistake. I have edited the section again to try to make the prose simpler, and have moved the two citations to the end of the paragraph as the two citations cover the whole paragraph. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it. See what you think. Kierzek (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not mention the fact that the Navy did not think the Luftwaffe was capable of protecting them (even if they had air superiority)? In fact quote a few historians think that it was the RN, not the RAF that "won" [1]Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I added a word on that using the source you provided. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The article size has been creeping up on us - I will make time to do some edits for length over the next few days. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Why don`t editors on here read Wikipedia`s own page on Sealion, this for instance :

"In fact, in November 1939, the German naval staff produced a study on the possibility of an invasion of Britain and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had" - Operation Sea Lion – The German Invasion Plans section (David Shears) – p. 156

As it happens I don`t see as it makes any difference at what point in history Doenitz made his comment which I quoted, unless you`re saying he didn`t think that at the time or never in fact thought it at all, which I think is highly doubtful. As it happens Slatersteven is right, many think it was mainly the RN which prevented Sealion though I`m not sure I`d go that far on Wkipedia, it`s a bit contentious. What we do know for an absolute fact is the RN were just as important as the RAF in preventing Sealion taking place. As such it should be in this article. I have changed eth citation but really, I think this is all so unnecessary. As it happen I`m stil unhappy with this sentence "By the end of October, Hitler realised that air superiority could not be achieved, even though he had ordered nightly air raids on British cities, including London, Plymouth and Coventry." Blitzing British cities at night was nothing to do with trying to gain air superiority. The Blitz was because the Germans didn`t have air superiority, and certainly not an attempt to gain it. But I do not want to get into a revision war about something I`m not that bothered about. What is important, is that the deterrent effect of eth RN, and the implication Sealion couldn`t have gone ahead anyway, more or less regardless of the BofB`s outcome, is what is important.
If editors are unhappy at chronology or inference I think they should be modifying the text, not just deleting something which is pretty well agreed by most historians and, as it happens, has citations anyway--JustinSmith (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.

First, this is an article on Nazi Germany as a while, and therefore an overview. The section as it is is quite sufficient, and does not need further detail. Besides, the naval superiority of the British was a given, and there was nothing whatsoever the Germans could do about it - the fleet being harbored beyond the range of their bombers. The only thing they could do is to have air superiority to give them at least the possibility of protecting an invasion fleet. That was the purpose of the Battle of Britain, to knock out the RAF so that the Luftwaffe could then protect an invasion fleet from the Royal Navy without having to worry so much about air-to-air battles. The Kriegsmarine may have tried to convince Hitler that even if the Luftwaffe was defeated, the overwhelming numbers of the Royal Navy would make an invasion untenable, but that is not the situation as Hitler -- who had no feeling at all for naval warfare -- accepted it, nor did that affect the mission given to Goring.

Once again Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

One thing further. The Blitz came about because German bombers accidentally bombed a British city (London, I believe), and the Brits then retaliated by bombing a city in Germany (Hamburg?). Hitler was so incensed that he ordered the systematic bombing of English cities that became known as The Blitz. In a way, that was lucky for the RAF, because they were reeling from the German attacks on their air bases, and the Blitz gave them time to regroup. Ironically, if the Luftwaffe had continued to bomb RAF bases and not been diverted by Hitler's rage, there's at least the possibility that they might have prevailed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as bombing of cities, it started in the European war with the Germans bombing in Poland. And before that there was the city bombings in the Spanish Civil War. The British had already bombed German ports. But the RAF had not yet specifically targeted civilians. Two German bombers, I recall on 24 August, are the ones that strayed off course and dropped their loads over London. Then the British made a raid on Berlin the night of 24/25 August. Going from memory. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That all sounds right to me, without looking anything up - the two stray bombers in particular. I had forgotten about the port cities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Blitz came about because German bombers accidentally bombed a British city (London, I beleieve)"
This is folklore, not given credence by most historians, it gained much traction with the masses because of the film the BofB. A good reference on this is Overy`s "The Bombing War".
I think the fact this article reinforces the myth that it was the RAF wot saved Britain (even worse, just the RAF, because that is what it says in the article at the moment) is a travesty. Remember, that fact that Germany didn`t (couldn`t) invade the UK was, arguably, the pivotal moment in the whole war. Thus I think some editors should think very carefully about what is said in the little paragraph concerned with Sea Lion`s cancellation (yes we now that technically it wasn`t ever cancelled, but equally, many think it was never ever seriously considered either). Not me, I`ve had enough.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry when I read the edit ("reverted") I drew the obvious conclusion. Here is the article by Andrew Gordon on the RUSI website. Does Wikipedia still disapprove of external links, particularly within the main body (as opposed to a foot note which hardly anyone reads...) ? I personally think the relevant sentence should include the link to the article. But I can`t be bothered to get into a revision war over it.--JustinSmith (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Justin, I have never seen the film BofB, sorry I only read and cite RS books and sources. You seem to have a pov axe to swing here. I suggest you swing it over at the BofB article or Operation Sea Lion article. The fact again is that without having air superiority first, there would be no second action possible; no chance at all of the sea operation and the navy coming into play. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I did add a word about Andrew Gordon's view on the role of the navy on December 22. We don't have room for big additions here, in fact I am in the process of trimming the article for length as it has grown by 1400 words since passing GA. Ideally we are supposed to be at 10000 words or less and presently we are at 13433. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Beyond My Ken here. One night during a German air-raid around what's today is the Docklands, one bomber flew wrong, and either westernmost of East End or the easternmost part of the City (of London) was bombed accidentally. I've read exactly the same story (and watched TV-documentaries about this event). It's well put. Including the conclusions, which I would like to say are fairly well known. Boeing720 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

use of the word "hypnotic" (source - traced to "American psychologist Henry Murray - CIA" )

trace was made to "Amanda Macias May 13, 2015 Business Insider" - is (simply) perhaps a naivety by the source (not CIA officer), and the reason for this - used by the propaganda minister 23h112e (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=816792312

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/ahspeak.htm

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypnotic

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-hitler-was-such-a-successful-orator-2015-5?IR=T American psychologist Henry Murray describes the Führer's overall presence as "hypnotic" in "The Personality of Adolf Hitler," a 229-page report that was commissioned in 1943 by the Office of Strategic Services, a precursor to the CIA.

This is the reason the change was made - this isn't the case of Henry Murray stating "hypnotic", therefore this user and anyone else feels and is hypnotized. 23h112e (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User 23h112e (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Jan_Hanussen - there is no evidence showing the connection to the individual A. Hitler at the article link identified by this user 23h112e (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC) - reference 1 at the link is a dead link Thanks 23h112e (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Google scholar gives thousands of examples of Hitler hypnotic. It's standard for historians. It appears in scholarship BEFORE Murray's 1943 secret report. See 1) FW Lambertson in Quarterly Journal of Speech (1942) who wrote "Hitler himself apparently realizes this power for he says that when folks are in a state of fanatic devotion his ideas will remain 'like words received under an hypnotic influence.'" also: 2) "HR Trevor-Roper - 1945 " In a megalomania fired by almost hypnotic personality"; 3) F Guerin, Technologies of Memory in the Arts (2009) "explanations of such frightening historical realities as Hitler's hypnotic power over his audience hold up a dark mirror to our own anxieties"; 4) Rowland 1999: " Hitler's hypnotic power is understood as a mass projection"; 5) Hypnotic leadership by M Popper - 2001: " I chose these men [includes Hitler] because they were clearly destructive leaders who merited the title 'hypnotic'" 6) JP Stern - 1975 - "the famous laundry-blue eyes, whose supposedly hypnotic spell is mentioned by a variety of witnesses" etc etc Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored "hypnotic" for the reasons given by RJ, and because it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Hitler was a "professional hypnotist" or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

that's fine, though all the reports repeating the description of his speech being hypnotic, if he were a professional hynotist, his speech would be therefore hypnotic because he is a hypnotist, to state his speech is hypnotic, and he isn't a professional hypnotist - this is some-how a little mysterious - you might or might not agree - how anyone thought to describe his speech as hypnotic - what you think this actually refers to - the sources - numerous sources state - hypnotic - how this word is actually though in reality representative to his speech - they all repeat it - but it isn't true, "hypnotic" is the same as hypnotic - to me the use of the word is the same as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality - where the evidence the description should be "hypnotic" and not instead "skilled", "charismatic", "charming - like a psychopathic trait identified in this article" - for me the indication of "hypnotic" is only relevant to his use of the drugs Barbiturates and nothing else. You both expect this user and other viewers to accept "hypnotic" without any indication of how his speech might be hypnotic - what you and the other editor involved is trying to imply be maintaining this description - tell me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_health#Drug_use indicates "hypnotic" The choice of Beyond My Ken is by his own definition beyond his "range of vision or comprehension" I think (how I would trust the opinion of someone who identifies himself as this), how either of you think the description originates other than as how I've indicated. (M Popper - 2001) indicating Hitler and who-ever else (and who-ever else might indicate to support your opinions) - yet I don't see Hitler in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis#Applications- do any of the sources you indicate understand actually the nature of hypnosis, they are just repeating the term as a by-word for some other term - charismatic, persuasive - because of the notion - Hitler's influence over others was powerful and he controlled others, this is to state implicitly "he terrorised people" therefore they obeyed him - "he was a dictator" not he was hypnotic. c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis#Hypnotherapy his "hypnotic" speech was some-how healing, he was a therapist and healer also in his spare time (where the sources are for this claim - I'm still looking) 23h112e (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing at all "mysterious" about it, "hypnotic" can mean "to produce results as if hypnotizing". There's actually nothing to the idea that there's a special "hypnotic state" which can only be produced by specific techniques used by "professional" hypnotists - the placebo effect and the willing participation and belief of the subject plays a very significant part. There are many things which can produce psychological states which are recognizable as "hypnotized", so to look for indications that Hitler did the exact same thing that a therapist who uses hypnosis does is simply ridiculous. I myself experienced such a state when listening to LaMonte Young's music, where the band played the opening chord of a 3-chord blues progression for about 20 minutes, and I passed from interest through irritation and boredom until I reached a hypnotic state which was only broken when the band finally moved to the next chord, and I realized that I had been spell-bound for some time. For me, at that concert, Young's music was definitely "hypnotic", in exactly the same way that Hitler's speeches were to his audiences.

As for Hitler, as Rjensen says, the description of him as producing a hypnotic state did not originate with Murray, it was a standard way that newspapers of the period described the effect he had, not only on a mass audience, but on individuals. Even people who disagreed with him felt the pull of his personality, and, in particular, his eyes. Just for one well-known example, Goebbels was a lefty, and opposed to Hitler, until he met him and fell under his spell. When he was away from Hitler, his diaries are replete with criticisms of the Fuhrer (sometimes expressed as criticism of "Munich"), but whenever he met with Hitler face-to-face, he invariably wrote about how great he was, etc.

So the hypnotic power of Hitler's personality and his speaking was no mistake, it's a major part of what brought Hitler to power, although not, of course, the only factor. In any case, its use in this article is quite appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The matter is well cited and something of general agreement by RS historians. I am not sure we need the latest addition in the mention of it in the article to make the point. Kierzek (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What made it possible for Hitler to became a dictator ? The "hypnotic eyes" mainly affected those who became his close supporters (like Goebbels). His eyes couldn't be seen through radio. If it were not for the Wall Street Crash, the NSPAP wouldn't have grown in the 1930 Parlamentary election. Here one also must remember that Germany was in chaos after WW1, and during the French occupation of the Ruhr, the German Mark was subjected to hyperinflation. Only during a few years, between 1925 and 1929, Germany had a brief period of "good times". Also the treaty of Versailles was pretty unfair. It's just to compare the Wilson Doctrine (President Woodrow Wilson's demands for peace, early in 1918) with the actual treaty. The major differences are two - 1. Germany was blamed for the entire war ! (which began with Serbian terrorists killing the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke and counterpart to the Prince of Wales - and the German Empire had no no territorial requirements after 1871, not in Europe at least) 2. The astronomical amount of money which Germany should pay France until 1981. But most of the border-changes were not a huge problem for Germany (with exception of Danzig and the corridor which actually divided the German territory in two parts, and the fact that the "new Austria" wasn't allowed to join Germany - which was totally inline with the Wilson Doctrine). It wasn't just Hitler who thought this was unfair, not even just the Germans but many others as well. If Germany had decided to continue this madness, which WW1 really was, it's not even certain the American's could have managed to invade Germany within a reasonable time frame. Remember, the only real battles inside Germany during this war, was the Tsar-Russian intrusion in East Prussia, in August 1914. There it became obvious how one single German army, by the use of their own railways, could defeat Russia's two best armies. Many more millions would have died before the Americans possibly could have reached Berlin. One could argue that the new Social Democracies in Berlin were the first who realised the madness, but they were punished by Georges Clemenceau and Lloyd George at Versailles. And this later gave birth to the Stab-in-the-back myth. In any case, there was more than "hypnotic eyes" involved. Bad times mainly and Versailles secondly, were the reasons behind the Rise of the Third Reich. Boeing720 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"The matter is well cited and something of general agreement by RS historians" -

that may be the case, but there is something of the post facto about this acceptance of Hitler's apparently superhuman ability to carry a crowd with his oratory. As Laurence Rees points out in Chapter 1 of his book "The Nazis: A warning from history" (also a BBC television documentary series), Hitler became leader of the Nazi party in 1921 - when the Nazis took part in the 1928 election seven years later, they polled 2.6% of the vote. That's seven years in which Hitler's abilities have been on display to the German public. Hitler was certainly a gifted speaker, but then so are all successful politicians. The suggestion that Hitler had some mysterious animal magnetism is a later addition, with "evidence" being found to support it in early sources in the same way that dinosaur bones "proved" the biblical flood myth, and stories of giants. Hitler was no more or less "hypnotic" than any other crowd-pleasing speaker - be it a politician, a comedian, an actor or singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.245.91 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

the journalists at the time and the scholars ever since are agreed on his highly unusual powers; they attended the rallies, interviewed thousands of live Germans and reviewed the films for evidence. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is incorrect - it was not ex post facto. Many people came under his spell, and commented on his "magnetism" at the time'. It simply took time for the effect to spread, as Hitler addressed more and more crowds of larger and larger size. Ceratinly it was not the only thing the Nazis had going for them, but it was very clearly one of the factors which contributed to their success. It was not a later addition to the mythos. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Flag

The NSDAP Swasika flag didn't became the flag of Germany until 1.September 1935. The Swedish encyclopedia Nordisk Familjebok, third edition, second printing, in article "Flagga" (Flag) , there is a poster of most flags of independant countries. Germany is reperesented by the old Imperial flag + the Swastika-flag, with the comment "from 1.September 1935". Within Germany the Swastiska-flag was more common to see, but it didn't really represent Germany until that date. And internationally never.
Also the period February 1933 - August 1934 , Germany was in a period of "Nazification". The change of the flag can be seen as the very last part of this process. By 30.January.1933 Hitler still was just the 21st (or so) Chancellor of the German Republic ("the Weimar Republic") since 1919, and the President (Hindenburg) stood above Hitler. If the parliamentary situation called for a dozens of Chancellors 1919-1933, there were only two Presidents, Friedrich Ebert 1919-1925 and Paul von Hindenburg 1925-1934. The Presidents of the Republic were "strong" Presidents, standing above the Chancellor and his Government, as the ultimately responsible. Just as Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor, he could have fired him again. Boeing720 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

"invaded Poland in September 1939, launching World War II in Europe."

It's debatateable when WW2 started (dates vary from the start of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 to the entry of Japan and America in 1941) - this would better read "invaded Poland in September 1939, leading to war with France and the British Empire, often cited as the beginning of WW2". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.245.91 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Also

"Hitler's refusal to admit defeat led to massive destruction of German infrastructure and additional war-related deaths in the closing months of the war."

A more neutral POV might say "Hitler's belief in the power of his ideology to ultimately triumph, despite the overwhelming evidence of defeat, led to massive ........etc" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.245.91 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You mistake what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean giving the facts in a way that is not unfavorable to anyone, instead it means that we present the facts as provided by reliable sources in as neutral a way as possible, but we do not distort the facts in doing so. I believe that the vast majority of reliable historians date the beginning of WW2 from when war was actually declared between the Allies and Nazi Germany. Certainly the Spanish Civil War was an important precursor, but so was the Anschluss, the appeasement which led to the Germany getting the Sudetenland, and the invasion of the rest of Czechoslivakia. But none of those caused the start of a war between the major European powers, and the invasion of Poland did.

Similarly, no historian of WW2 worth his salt would warp the facts about the effects of Hitler's prolongation of the war the way you suggest we do. (Poor guy, that Hitler, so wrapped up in his ideology he didn't realize what he was doing to his beloved country.)

In other words, as we say here in New York City "Fuhgeddabowdit!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If World War II had actually started in 1936 it would have been known as "World War II" and not the "Spanish Civil War". The clue is in the name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The map in the infobox

Why isn't the General Governorate shown as being separate from Germany Proper? It was annexed in 1939. 85.167.120.156 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And why is Denmark not marked as occupied? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021060807/http://www.bundesarchiv.de/benutzung/zeitbezug/nationalsozialismus/00303/index.html.de to https://www.bundesarchiv.de/benutzung/zeitbezug/nationalsozialismus/00303/index.html.de

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Flag(s)

Flag of the Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany 1933–1935 (wanna add to infobox secondary)	Weimar Republic is not the same as 1933–1935
	Nazi Germany 1935–1945 (added in infobox)

An editor is attempting to add to the infobox the flag of the Weimar Republic, to supplement the flag of Nazi Germany. My feeling is that this is deceptive, because even though Hitler became Chancellor under the flag and constitution of the Weimar Republic, there was a time of transition before the country fully became what we now call "Nazi Germany". Even if the Weimar flag was still official for some period during that transition, it does not symbolize the Nazi state in the same way the Nazi flag does, so its inclusion is misleading to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The Flag of German Reich (1933–1935) is a well-known historical fact, it isn't flag of the Weimar Republic, because colours are different, is indentical with flag of former German Empire (1871–1918) and there is no reason to revert editation or write comments for long-term discuss. Stop revert, thanks. Dragovit 21:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we'll wait for a consensus of editors here, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got reliable sources that says that the flag you want to add is the flag of Nazi Germany, per se? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)