Talk:Denazification

Punishing of Nazi crimes

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)

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)

Putin

Putin used this term to justify a war, perhaps it should be in the article?

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I did add the term to the article, but removed it as it seemed too recentist (and tbh I'm not sure my wording was neutral enough). Happy to re-include it if editors prefer. —AFreshStart (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have readded a slightly reworded version of your contribution in a separate section clearly indicating Putin's misuse of the term. Given that he is using this as rationale to have started the war, I think it is quite important to discuss his attempt to "occupy" and water the term (a tactic common in far-right circles) in order to help those who are under the influence of Putin's propaganda.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor Reflecktor has now removed the section header "Misuse of term" ([1]). I continue to maintain that it is very important to include this header instead of discussing this under the header "In other countries" as all the examples in "In other countries" can be seen as proper applications of the term denazification, whereas Putin's use is, per highly reliable sources (and many more could be given), a bold abuse of the term, which therefore should not be mixed up with the other uses. Reflecktor's argument that two sentences would be too short to warrant a separate section is incorrect, we have articles introducing subsections for single sentences if only the topic is relevant enough and logically separate from the other topics, conditions which are both given here. Also, it would be very easy to further expand this paragraph by providing more details of Putin's abuse of term or adding more reliable sources. A separate section header will also ensure that this shows up in the table of contents, and is therefore easier to find by readers. As an encyclopedia, I think, we have the duty to make the information as easily accessible to anyone, including those who might have difficulties to access neutral, facts based and well sourced information. Therefore, this or a similar subsection header should be restored.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Since Reflecktor did not engage into this discussion while continuing to be around reminding other editors to engage into discussions ([2][3]), I have restored the subsection header.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Matthias I had no idea there was a discussion, you should have pinged me then I would have known. The article makes clear anyway that Putin is misappropriating the term and also from a format point of view its completely abnormal and to format a section that way. Reflecktor (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding "term usage" to clarify your concerns. Hopefully we can agree this is a solution? Reflecktor (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finally joining the discussion.

Regarding the actual disagreement, I wonder why you object putting the Putin example into a separate section. If we put it into the same section as the other examples, it does not stand out as a misuse of the term and could even "water" the examples for legitimate uses of the term further above just as if anyone could come along and reuse the term for whatever they like and we would list it as "it can mean this, it can mean that, ..." - no: there is the historical meaning referring to denazification in Germany, there are some legitimate modern usage examples, and there is misuse. Attempting to redefine established terms and thereby weakening their semantic value is a common strategy in far-right circles, so by not letting Putin's misuse of the term clearly stand out as something different, we are not doing our audience a good service.

Regarding your "format point of view" we typically do not need a section for counter-examples, but where it is important to have one, we have (for example: Gaslighting#Excessive_misuse_of_the_term_"gaslighting").

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There are two references of/in-text mentions to Holocaust organizations condemning Putin for his misuse of the term, that enough should make the point. We don't need to go committing format sabatoge just to hammer home a point over the reader's head. Reflecktor (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? What kind of "format sabotage"? Adding a section header for a sub-topic is perfectly normal.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To me calling it a 'subtopic' is a bit of stretch given its a one-liner. Reflecktor (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

On my screen it is five lines. Two sentences. But I would not see a problem even if it would render as one line only. What counts is if the content is semantically or logically different enough from other contents to separate it from those other contents - and, in my opinion, it is.

Also, if it is too short for you, we could easily expand it by going into more details.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that the section on Putin's misuse of the term has meanwhile been further expanded, Reflecktor's concern that the paragraph would be too short to warrant a separate header no longer applies (in my opinion it never did, but anyway). I have therefore restored the section header. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You are supposed to ping Reflecktor than going ahead and restore the disputed edit. I agree with Reflecktor that we don't need any subheading for this singular example. Sachin.cba (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sachin, there is no requirement to ping other editors - many editors feel annoyed of being pinged. It is within each editor's own responsibility to participate in article talk page discussions when they are interested in a subject and revert other editors.

The concern voiced by Reflecktor was that the paragraph would be too short. This was addressed by Amakuha, therefore Reflecktor's argument was moot (in my opinion, it always was, as I have explained above several times already).

And now, that the subsection has considerably grown in size and is actively linked to from various other places, it is even more important that we have a proper subsection header for it. Your incorrect removal ([4]) of the subsection broke incoming links, I have therefore temporarily fixed this by adding an invisible anchor, but I maintain that the subsection header is important to have to properly differentiate the misuse of the term "denazification" from the proper usage examples of the term in the other section. This is the very purpose of section headers.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Matthiaspaul on all points. (Hohum ^@) 20:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This is currently mentioned in the last paragraph but due to its significant position in the Russian propaganda I think it should at least deserve a sub-subsection? Santorini36 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There is allegedly a list of protesting academicians https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083677765/putin-denazify-ukraine-russia-history Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• This section is now pretty big, and I think it does not belong to this page. The reason: there is no any actual/real denazification in this case. It was used as a propaganda slogan, this content belongs to pages about misinformation and others (where it is already included). My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: I strongly agree that the section just doesn't belong here, and should be removed. This article should remain focused on the post-WW2 practice, which has strictly nothing to do with Putin's propaganda usage. The section should be replaced with a simple hatnote at the tom of the article, to whatever would be the most appropriate article on Putin's usage. DFlhb (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

russian use of the term

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)

Surveys section

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)

Copied to Politics of Germany

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)

1946 Denazification Questionnaire

I would like to add in some details about the 1946 denazification questionnaire. An image of the document as well as the origins, purpose, and the controversy of how Nazis should be reintegrated/rehabilitated. I chose this topic for a class assignment because of my interest in the denazification process. This is my first time adding to/editing a wikipedia article, so any input would be much appreciated. I plan to discuss OMGUS and there involvement with the creation of the questionnaire. General Lucius Clay and John J. McCloy's different approach on denazification, as well as there influence on the OMGUS. I also want to discuss the five different categories of Nazi's (highlighting major offenders). Lastly, mention the goal of reintegration and how certain denazification methods were softened over the years. Skylermurphy (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)