Talk:Fourth Reich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Africa[edit]

How odd that the article refers to South Africa as being "populated by predominantly European-descended peoples". According to Wikipedia's article on South Africa, 80.2% of the population of that country is "Black African". Just 8.4% are white (European-descended peoples). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.84.144 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Reich symbol[edit]

Ages ago there a was symbol of the 4th Reich on here, now it's gone. Basically it was the 3rd Reich swastika edited with 7 hands. Could someone ad itt back to the article, i can't find it.

Volksdeutsch[edit]

"The Soviet Union and Poland had essentially removed - to put it politely - their Volksdeutsch elements after the war."

I don't understand what this sentence is saying, and why it supports the notion of a unified Germany as a 4th Reich. I've left it in for now because it sounds interesting, but I shall remove it soon if no more explanation is added.

Rdr0 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Fourth Reich[edit]

The current Federal Republic of Germany isn't technically a Fourth Reich, because it is separate from Austria. If the 2 states would merge, than it would technically be a Fourth Reich. It corrected this.

>>Rdr0: After WW2, the USSR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia have exiled all the germans living on their new territory (those were a few million). This supports the notion of Fourth Reich because there are no german minorites outside the Federal Republic.

80.170.39.111 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. "If" Germany and Austria would merge - there are no provisions whatsoever concerning this in both countries' constitutions -, a new hypothetical state would not be a "Fourth Reich". Indeed, the term "Third Reich" was a Nazi propaganda term to establish a succession to the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. It was also technically wrong because Nazi Germany evolved from the Weimar Republic and, while it was an oppressive totalitarian system - as opposed to the democratic Weimar Republic -, the was no king, emperor or royal family or any form of monarchy that would "allow" the term "Reich". The term itself is simply an abbreviation for "Königreich" (Kingdom) or "Kaiserreich" (Empire). As both the Federal Republic of Germany and the Federal Republic of Austria are republics - as denoted in their names -, there is no way a hypothetical Austrian-German country could be a "Reich" whatsoever. Cheers, Something Wicked 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

96.52.228.141 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)How silly. Reich means Realm. It does not necessarily imply empire or a particular form of government. Take for example the German language names for France which is Frankreich or Austria which is Österreich, both of which are Republics and neither of which are Empires. Equally ridiculous is the claim that if Germany and Austria were to unite they would contain all Germans and therefore be a reich: this fundamentally misunderstands the word and assigns it only one narrow meaning shared in the German language. Secondly German speaking people live in Switzerland, Belgium, and to a more limited extent Poland so to claim that Germany + Austria = All German Language speakers is flawed, to claim that only Germans and Austrians constitute Germany would need to substantiated. I agree that the significance of the term in English stems from the propaganda during the war, but I take it further in that the limited context in which the word has been encountered by English language speakers colours their understanding of the term. Imagine if the word 'State' implied a political organization akin to that of the United States of America; it would be silly and completely take the word out of context when any country and some sub-national units can accurately be referred to as a state. And broadly speaking the un-objective language (particularly at the start) of the article should be removed entirely, supported with appropriate citations, or rewritten to demonstrate that the notion of Germany forming a Fourth Reich contemporarily is indeed a contentious notion. 96.52.228.141 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the use of the term "German states" for Austria and Germany. If you must, please write "the two german speaking states". The whole sentence as it stands now gives somehow the impression that Germany and Austria were united after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is NOT the case It was of course Germany and the People's Republic of East Germany).

Concerning the last part, there are still a lot of traditionally German speaking people (if you want "Volksdeutsche", but it is such a fascist term, that it leaves me a bit queasy) living in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kasakhstan, Uzbeskistan, Hungary, Italy, Rumania, that it really doesn't make sense to give that as a reason that recent Germany could be called a "Fourth Reich". So, editing this article is clearly necessary.

Germany and Austria don't have to conclude another Anschluss to constitute a "Fourth Reich". Bismarck's German Empire was the Second Reich, without Austria included. If the German monarchists ever got their way and the Hohenzollerns were restored, the German government would probably call that a "restored Second Reich" rather than the "Fourth Reich" because that term has been co-opted by the neo-Nazis and because they wouldn't accept the "Third Reich" as legitimate in the first place. 74.251.200.216 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans and the Fourth Reich[edit]

Hilarious as the current version of the article is (and with multiple edits supporting it!), I'm reverting this to something that makes sense. If anyone has a genuine beef with this, let me know. Vygotcha 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd vs 4th[edit]

I read some time ago, in an article about the Neo-Nazis, that the NeoNazis distinguished between the 3rd & 4th Reichs. The 3rd was mostly 'Old Timers' (survivors of the Nazi Empire of the 30s & 40s), for the most part SPYDER and other South American groups, and the next generation (this was in the 70s and 80s), largely based in Europe, were the 4th. CFLeon 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Popular culture' section[edit]

This batch of listcruft and song lyrics overpowers the small amount of actual information in the article, making a half-way decent article look unbalanced and juvenile. I'm removing it. --CliffC 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive East[edit]

1.Have you seen where Eurosceptics link leads to? 2.As far as I'm informed Drang nacht Osten politics traces back to the 8th or 9th century AD, 

 i.e. colonisation and conquer of land east of Germany (Holly Roman Empire) or the 1st Reich,
 that is Slavic Lands.That is for sure one of the things that all four reichs (including EU)
 had in common.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.78.217 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sartorical[edit]

What does this word mean?
--Alba7 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Reich in fiction[edit]

I suggest mentioning the (sub)genre of thriller that concerns a (fictional or hypothetical) attempt to create a "Fourth Reich". Thomas.Hedden (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted[edit]

I deleted See also: Western Imperium because it was a redlink and I thought it would be taking up space. Someone create that article...... Hotaru 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple Saturn (sailormoon) (talk • contribs)

European Union[edit]

Could this be cleaned up please? "Some eurosceptics" is WP:WEASEL and there is only a reference to an opinion piece in the Daily Mail to support the assertion. Connolly15 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be cleared? Just because it is badly supported, because there are other sources on the web that support the same opinion, so if I put those links will the part be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.166.125 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved it by trying to be more specific about who holds these views, and bringing the alternative view into the paragraph, although more work needs to be done. In the context of an article on the Fourth Reich, a section on whether the term is applicable to the EU is in my view clearly appropriate. Simon Heffer from the The Mail is certainly representative of a larger number of people, but we should nonetheless seek to make clear that it is not a majority view. Problem is, how do you do that within Wikipedia's guidelines? —WFC— 11:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I removed this section because while it is true that "some people believe this", and that there is documentation which supports this fact, it's not really relevant information. My reasoning is: A dominant country within the EU (or any other conglomerate of countries) is not the same as the Arian supremacy and blut und boden opitimized by Nazi Germany. If someone wants to reword it, go ahead and undo the edit, but as it is is is a little out of place.Editfromwithout (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to say that the term fourth reich does not fit to EU because the EU has nothing to do with Nazi ideology is not a good argument, because the first and second Reich had nothing to do with Naziism either. (don't get me wrong calling EU 4thReich or EUSSR is kinda stupid, and hurts legitimit critisism of EU)178.210.114.106 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i think it should be mentioned that Fourth Reich is a term used for the EU by some of it's critics134.3.76.108 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This usage is far more common than any other use of the term. The Nazis "fourth reich" is a pipe dream. The actual Fourth Reich exists today, it runs roughshod over the national sovereignty of most of Europe, and it actively suppresses any democratic initiatives to control its behavior. 50.131.153.242 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Couldn't believe what I was reading, not here. I'm usually a talk-first-edit-later person, but this was ridiculous. Before we Dutch were kneedeep in manure ourselves, we liked to tell other countries to get their finances sorted out. I don't recall us being accused of wanting to conquer Italy or France for that. It's always a certain kind of politician that will make the suggestion "Germans are Nazis" to a (minority) willing audience. WWII and Gemany's politics seems to be the politicians' variety of Godwin's Law. And yes, that's POV. Sander1453 (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this may be uncomfortable for many readers, but the term Fourth Reich is indeed very commonly used by UK Leave supporters to describe the EU, particularly in the context of a situation where Brexit is reversed and 17.4 million people are compelled to live in a supranational empire in flat contravention of the biggest democratic exercise in British history. Just because you don't like this doesn't make it untrue. Please be fair and balanced. Many people consider the EU to be an undemocratic imperialist project. You don't have to agree with them, but if you deny their right to be heard you merely confirm that they are right to feel oppressed.

Wikipedia works by reporting what wp:reliable sources and wp:notable people say. Vague handwaving and "everybody knows" won't do. So if you can find a report in a trustworthy source that records (for example) an MP or MEP having made that claim, then it can and should go in. But not otherwise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought[edit]

Being Jewish, I would say that the Fourth Reich does not have to be based off the Third.

Anonymous173.74.57.205 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies?[edit]

Sorry, but large swathes of this article read like the usual conspiracy theories you'd read about UFOs, world government, Illuminati, hollow Earth and similar stuff. I suggest a thorough revision. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a poorly written article. It's a bunch of barely relevant strung together points, it's got a definite slant, some of the sources are sketchy, and it reads like a bunch of conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. 108.87.75.41 (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LTQ?[edit]

  • "LTQ", the lingua quartii imperii ("language of the Fourth Reich")

Shouldn't this be LQI? Jogloran (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Usage-- Washington Heights[edit]

This page leaves out another use of the term 'fourth Reich'-- a nickname for the Washington Heights area of New York City. For instance, see here [1]: "In the 1950s, when my schoolmates and I grew up in what came to be known as “the Fourth Reich” of Washington Heights and attended the Jewish schools of that time, we all seemed to be short of relatives."

Yavneh Academy Graduating Class Presents ‘Soldiers and Slaves’— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.220.30 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German Democratic Republic[edit]

The mentioning of the GDR here, especially in the introduction, seems rather surprising to me. Does this refer to the LQI book? If yes, it should be made clear that this comparison is based on language solely. If it is based on other claims, these should be corrobated and referenced in the main text. FaktenSucher (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish criticism[edit]

This stuff:

"During the ongoing Eurozone Crisis, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was accused of having pushed for Germany to have a greater say in the domestic governance of the Eurozone's then-18 members, as part of a deal which saw Germany provide a significant part of the Euro Bailout program. Among other measures meant to reduce the likelihood of another Euro crisis, she called for real European power over countries’ budgets. In Poland, former Polish Prime Minister Jarosław Kaczyński suggested in a book that "Germany wants to annex part of Poland"."

Does not belong here in my eyes. There is no mentioning of "Fourth Reich" whatsoever, this is just a (rather populistic) criticism of percieved German political dominance. FaktenSucher (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2016 (UT


Agreed, template added to section.--Darius (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent on this. It's not completely off-topic, as the linked article quotes Kaczynski as saying Merkel would like to 'reinstate Germany's imperial power' - a clear reference to the old Reichs. On the other hand, it is straying into original research. It might be better to strictly limit this section to people using the specific phrase 'Fourth Reich'. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody voted yet strongly for keeping it i will delete it beacuse it is OR. FaktenSucher (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


for reference in case anybody wants to extends this and can draw a connection to the Fourth Reich term: 

During the ongoing Eurozone Crisis, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was accused of having pushed for Germany to have a greater say in the domestic governance of the Eurozone's then-18 members, as part of a deal which saw Germany provide a significant part of the Euro Bailout program. Among other measures meant to reduce the likelihood of another Euro crisis, she called for real European power over countries’ budgets. In Poland, former Polish Prime Minister Jarosław Kaczyński suggested in a book that "Germany wants to annex part of Poland".[1]

... 

George Soros' comments that the result of the Eurozone crisis would be "a Eurozone dominated by Germany" and "a German empire with the periphery as the hinterland"[2] received mocking by comedian Greg Davies on the British satirical show Have I Got News For You, with Davies making Nazi analogies.[3]

FaktenSucher (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spiegel Online: "Polish Opposition Leader: Kaczynski Warns of Germany's 'Imperial' Ambitions", 5 October 2011
  2. ^ Giovanni Moro (28 February 2013). The Single Currency and European Citizenship: Unveiling the Other Side of The Coin. A&C Black. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-62356-095-9.
  3. ^ Have I Got News For You, Season 43 Episode 9.

Fourth Empire listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fourth Empire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South American 'Reich's[edit]

A film about Klaus Barbie, My Enemy's Enemy, refers to the Junta of Commanders of the Armed Forces 1980 (Bolivia) as a 'Fourth Reich' and shows the swastika flag being flown. I wonder if this term is commonly used in similar contexts in Argentina etc? Sparafucil (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or[edit]

It could just be an inocuous term of a constitutional monarchy or smth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:D2D9:30F5:238:C629:50B2 (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous troll message in page preview[edit]

Hello, the page preview for this page contains a troll message: "Will be the best thing ever Palestine will be free from Zionism Shalom Hitler". Unsure of where to report or how to correct. Dizzletrich (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting. According to the page history, that vandalism was only present for two minutes, from 22:42 UTC to 22:44 UTC, some six and half hours after you reported it? Does that make any sense? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fourth_Reich&oldid=1220908676"