Talk:New Order (Nazism)

Crappy article

Yeah I have to agree this is fiction. Stuff like this bothers me. I know this is false but what else is? What about things I do not know? Same for everyone else. Why don't we teach in schools the world is flat anymore? We know it is not. So why teach lies? That's what this article does. It makes all of wikipedia suspect. -Mark G. 1/30/15

This article needs to be completely rewritten. It's apparently nothing more than a miasma of Allied propaganda and sensationalist pseudo-history. The paragraph about England is obviously ridiculous, but so is most of the rest. For instance I believe the Soviets were well aware of Hitler's long term plans for the East and weren't "lulled into a false sense of security". The fact that something has been printed somewhere does not make it a reliable source. - Drilou

This has got to be the must absured article I have ever read. Its one thing to say that the Soviets were lulled into a false sense of security (at least Stalin did not believe that Hitler would invade the USSR while Britain was still around or until perhaps a few years later). Its another thing to say that the Germans would have exported all the men from England as slave labor which is a complete lie. I can guarantee that Hitler never thought about extermination of the English race; in fact he grealy respected the British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.61.4 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That part about Britain is derived from a 1961 book called England under Hitler, written by Comer Clarke. The subtitle alone reads like a sensationalist tabloid: "Revealed at last: The Secret Nazi Plans for the Rape of England!". I had the distinct displeasure of reading it when I tried to find out more information on the planned Occupation of Britain, and it truly is laughable. It reads like a novel rather than a scholarly analysis, is rife with hyperbole and dramatic phrasing used purely for shock value, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic tenets of Nazi ideology and the character of the Third-Reich-era German government. If that weren't enough it also includes some very blatant myths which even then had already been debunked.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

On further inspection it also seems there was never any Reichskommissariat planned for Great Britain by the Nazi government. After not being able to find ANY literary reference to such an entity anywhere I realized that the only source for this dubious claim was this wikipedia article itself, which means that somebody just made it up out of thin air. I always thought this was pretty strange, since it is directly contradicted by the well-documented intention of the Nazi leadership to retain the monarchy. The RKs were always created so that they could later be annexed directly into Germany, this being the only reason for their entire existence. Hitler relied on Britain's future use as an ally against America, not as a German province and certainly not as a slave colony. Franz Alfred Six was an Einsatzgruppe leader, not the designated head of a civil administration. Walter von Brauchitsch was supposed to lead a military administration on the island while local government would remain in place. Makes you wonder what else in this article is complete fiction. I'm going to start rewriting it from scratch.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Aren't SS stud-farms a confirmed myth? {unsigned question}

I don't believe they are, as they are sometimes described. Certainly SS war rapes of Polish and Jewish women are confirmed (the latter almost always to be exterminated regardless), and military brothels were believed to have existed as well, but those cases are highly unlikely to have been associated with a reproductive policy approved of by the Nazi leadership.

The Lebensborn program was established to help raise the children of single mothers, often the result of one-night stands between German women and SS/Nazi/German military men. Such promiscuity was quietly approved of by the Nazi leadership (specifically Himmler). The program also existed in German-occupied Scandinavia, the Low Countries, and in France. But again, it isn't really a "stud farm" either.

Maybe pre-war SA campgrounds could receive the label due to the widespread homosexuality practiced within, but that is something different entirely. --Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There were no "SS war rapes" taking place anywhere to my knowledge, neither of polish nor jewish or any other women, seeing as there were strong disciplinary and moral barriers in place within the german armed forces to prevent anything resembling such crimes from occuring. This sounds like a product of fantasy to me. If you have a (valid) source for this rather adventourus claim then do let us know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.49.85 (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy? Boy, do you need to start reading. Here's just three sources, there are dozens more. [1][2][3].  Yintan  11:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Neuordnung, not neue Ordnung!

German here. Just thought I'd let you know the original German phrase is a compound noun (Kompositum) in one word (Neuordnung), not neue Ordnung (which would be adjective + noun instead, just as the English grammar form of the phrase at hand).

Also, even though its literal translation "New Order" has become popular in English, what the original Nazi Neuordnung stood for was no political system (such as dictatorship, "people's rule", nazism, etc...), a more precise translation would actually be Re-structurizing or Re-structurization as the term in its original Nazi-era usage mostly referred to drawing new borders on the European map under post-war hegemony of Greater Germany. Hence, the term mostly appeared in full as Neuordnung Europas, for which die Neuordnung was merely a short-hand.

Of course, drawing new borders in Asia were part of Hitler's plans, however these Asian plans were hardly ever referred to as Neuordnung, probably because Nazi racism regarded Russia as a country as of yet lacking any recognizable civilization (in spite of the distantly Germanic-related ruling class that had formed aristocracy under the Czars and that Hitler had alluded to a few times in Mein Kampf) so there were no "structures" to "re-structurize". --Tlatosmd 10:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've read this article, and I would agree the above comments (before this section) regarding its quality and it also doesn't properly define what the German "New Order" was.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I completly agree as a german native speaker, this is seems to be a reiterated mis-translation. I will add a proper translation. Especially since it can be confused with other political terms like New World Order.Nsae Comp (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my opionion, I'm German too. Neuordnung is something other than Neue Ordnung. Neuordnung is not a fixed state like Neue Ordnung would be, but a continuous process. So Neuordnung doesn't mean "New Order", but rearrangement or reorganization.

https://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/%5BOrdnen%5D.html https://www.deepl.com/translator#de/en/Neuordnung

Move

Always thought this move was necessary, good job. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's War Aims by Norman Rich

I wanted to add to this article some of the data about Nazi policies of exapansionism from the very good book Hitler’s War Aims, the establishment of the New Order (by Norman Rich). Now, the problem is that I'm not a native speaker of English and I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to rewrite its contents properly. I'm also not very familiar with references. So, I decided to put the material I considered pertinent here, hoping that someone with good English would put this in the article. The book itself gives accurate references for almost every phrase, so, if asked, I will be able to reproduce them.

• Belgium and Northern France:

Hitler’s renunciation in Mein Kampf of the Germans’ ancient drive to the south and west did not prevent other Nazis – and even Hitler himself – from speculating about German claims to territory in these areas after their conquest by the Wehrmacht.
Some of the most interesting theories on this subject were put forward in a publication called Westland, a periodical devoted axclusively to the problems of Germany’s western frontiers. The articles in Westland may be considered more authoritative than the usual expansionist rhapsodies of Nazi theorists because the journal was edited by Dr. Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the Reichskommissar of the occupied Netherlands.
...By May of 1942 Hitler’s attitude toward Wallonia and Nortern France had taken a more precise form, for he was now convinced that these lands were as fundamentally German as Flanders. The abundance of Germanic place names and the prevalence of Germanic customs, “all these prove, to my mind, that these territories have been systematically detached, not to say snatched, from the Germanic territories. If there are territories anywhere which we have every right to reclaim, then then it is these.” Hitler spoke in much the same vein to Goebbels: it was now self-evident (eine Selbstverständlichkeit) that Belgium should one day be annexed to the Reich and reconstituted as the Reichsgaus of Flanders and Brabant.
…{Léon Degrelle} In a speech in Brussels on January 17, 1943, he claimed a Germanic background for the Walloons. Wallonis itself was a Germanic country, he said, and had been part of Germany for a millennium. He now looked to Germany to unite all peoples of Germanic origin, including the Walloons, in one great Germanic community.
Himmler scoffed at Degrelle’s speech and the Walloons’s “sudden decision to become Germanic,” but by this time the Germans could no longer afford an excessively strict line in racial matters. The decisive push on behalf of the Wallons came from Hitler, who in February 1943 ordered the German authorities to support Degrelle’s efforts. Himmler took the cue. He allowed a Walloon SS legion to be raised, which was incorporated into the Waffen-SS as the Germanic Volunteer Legion (Germanishe Freiwillige Legion).
After a personal inspection of the legion in May, Himmler conceded that it included many fine racial specimens who had proved themselves in battle. He agreed with Hitler in regarding the Walloon SS “as the renaissance movement of a basically Germanic people (als die Erneuerungbewegung einem in Kern germanischen Volkes).” The Walloons and above all the Flemings were two racial groups (Volksstämme) “which were subjectively best prepared for a very clever and delicately managed future process of amalgamation (die innerlich am reifsten für eine sehr kluge mit weicher Hand einmal vorzunehmende Eingliederung sind).
…Whatever doubts Hitler and his principal collaborators may have had about the future status of the Belgians in the Nazi New Order when Germany first occupied the country were completely resolved by 1942. The Nazis had always recognized the Flemish as a Germanic people. Once Hitler had decided that the Walloons were Germanic as well, there was no longer sny question as to what was to be done with Belgium: The country was to be annexed to the Reich and was to be divided into two new Reichsgaus, Flanders and Brabant. From these lands all undesirable political and racial elements were to be removed, in accordance with procedures already adopted in other parts of the Greater German Reich.
Territorially the one question that remained to be decided was the fate of the two French departments which the Germans had attached to Belgium for administrative purposes. Even here, however, there can be little doubt about what their future status would have been. Unless the Nazis had found compelling reason to restore them to France in return for a French military alliance or some similar advantage, it seems probable that these departments, which the Flemish regarded as French Flanders, would have been made part of the Reichsgau Flandern, and, with Belgian Flanders, would have been incorporated into the Germanic Reich.

• France:

The aim of German policy toward France, Hitler said, should be to break France’s power to throttle German nation aspirations. For this purpose “a final, decisive settlement” with France was necessary. But such a settlement, he insisted, would only be meaningful if it were not regarded as an end in itself, but as “a means of subsequently and finally giving our nation a chance to expand elsewhere.” By elsewhere Hitler made clear that he meant the territories of Eastern Europe. Thus German expansion at the expense of France was not originally one of the primary goals of Nazi Germany.
…The actual defeat of France in the spring of 1940 produced a more concrete program. Even before the armistice, Hitler was talking in terms of a peace treaty that should restore to Germany “all the territory robbed from the German people during the past four hundred years.”
…Soon afterward Hitler ordered his Ministry of the Interior to draw up plans for a new boundary with France that should incorporate into Germany those territories in northern and eastern France which for historical, political, ethnic, geographic, stategic, and any other reasons appeared to belong to Central rather than to Western Europe. The line drawn up in response to these orders corresponded approximately to the western boundary of the Holy Roman Empire at the time of Charles V, except that it did not run so far south but stopped at the old Duchy of Savoy. This line was approved by Hitler in general, but he wanted the area included in Germany to be extended, especially along the Channel coast. The final boundary, approved by Hitler in full, ran from the mouth of the Somme river eastward along the northern ridge of the Paris basin and Champagne to the Argonne. It then turned south through Burgundy along the western boundary of the Franche-Comté to the lake of Geneva.
Later Hitler decided it would be necessary to claim even more territory. “If we are to ensure our hegemony on the continent, we must also retain military strong points on what was formerly the French Atlantic coast. Further, we must not forget that a large portion of German history took place in the old kingdom of Burgundy, and that this land is therefore age-old German soil, which the French stole from us in times of our weakness.” When a German workman on the Atlantic fortifications expresses regret that Germany shoul give up these strongholds after investing so much work in them, Hitler saw a wealth of wisdom in his remark. “I need hardly say that nothing on earth would persuade us to abandon such safe positions as those on the Channel coast, captured during the campaign in France and consolidated by the Organisation Todt.” Where Hitler’s greed would have stopped will never be known. The only thing certain is that large territorial annexations would have benn made at the expense of France had Germany won the war.
What was to be done with what was left of France remained indefinite; it is probable that Hitler himself had no fixed ideas on the subject. He had no desire to incorporate all Frenchmen into the Reich, he told his associates in 1942. he was willing to include those who dwelt on the borders of Germany and who had been Germans four hundred years ago. But the others? “The real question one must ask oneself is this,” he said. “Can we absorb them with advantage – do they by blood belong to our race? And then one must act in accordance with the answer one gives oneself.” In practice, Hitler’s wartime policies toward France varied according to the military and political needs of the moment. In September 1941 he declared that he would postpone any final decision until after the Russian campaign so that he could approach the French problem with a clear mind (mit freiem Kopf).
…Of the territory under the administration of the German military government in France, Hitler left no doubt about his intentions with respect to the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. At the very beginning of the German occupation he had given orders that these provinces were to be restored to Germany in the shortest possible time, and by 1942 all preparations had been made to their future incorporation into the Reich. Equally clear was Hitler’s intention to annex the area of the so-called Closed Zone, that broad strip of border territory from the mouth of the Somme to the lake of Geneva. For stategic purposes he also proposed to retain control over fortifications along the Atlantic coast. There was some talk among Nazi leaders about detaching Brittany from France and making it an indipendent state, but Hitler himself seems to have taken little interest in this project.
In speculating about the future of what was to be left of France in a Nazi-ordered world, a question that naturally arises is what Hitler’s policies might have been if the Vichy government had co-operated more actively with Germany or had actually joined in the war on Germany’s side. In commenting on this problem, Hitler had remarked in May of 1942 that, even if the French threw in their lot with the Axis, they must clearly understand that Germany intended to retain the strategic positions it now occupied along the Channel coast and that they must resign themselves to the idea of satisfying the territorial demands of Germany, Italy, and Spain in Europe and overseas. In fact, all that Hitler appears to have been willing to concede to the French in return of their co-operation was an extension of French colonial territory in Central Africa at the expense of Britain, and presumably a guarantee of whatever territory remained to France in Europe after the demands of Germany, Italy, and Spain had been met.
After he had embarked on the conquest of Russia, Hitler stated that Germany would now acquire so much territory and so many resouces in the east that in the future it would not need France at all. But this did not affect his plans for Alsace, Lorraine, the Closed Zone, and a large part of the French Atlantic coast. Further, as he told his associates in April 1942, Germany had legitimate claims to the former kingdom of Burgundy, which had been German territory from time immemorial and which the French had stolen in the period of Germany’s weakness.
What Hitler meant by the ancient kingdom of Burgundy and what territories he would have claimed under that title for purposes of annexation to Germany will never be known for certain. There is reason to wonder, however, whether Hitler would have allowed even a French rump state without Burgundy to exist indefinitely. Given Hitler’s fear and hatred of France, combined with his insatiable greed, it seems probable that the Nazis would soon have begun to regard rump France, like rump Poland, as a desirable and necessary area for Germanic expansion and that this territory too would have been absorbed into the Germanic empire and subjected to a full-scale program of Germanization. As, by that time, a large proportion of the “Germanic” elements would have been removed from rump France already, the re-Germanization of this area would presumably have required its almost total resettlement.--151.51.51.194 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Peronists?

Under the heading: Plan for economic domination in South America is written: Long-term Nazi hopes for political penetration of the region were placed on the local Fascist movements, such as the Integralists in Brazil and Peronists in Argentina, combined with the political activation of the German immigrant communities. This statement is false because Peronism was not created until 1946, after the defeat of the Axis and the death of Hitler. Peronism had some sympathy for the fascism, but he always said democracy and, indeed, was never a Nazi. In Argentina, the nationalist movements supported the victory of Germany because they believed that their main enemy was the British Empire. At that time the local economy was under the financial control of England.--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good observations, but the reference (Weinberg 2005, p. 506) directly mentions the Peronism movement as a potential Nazi ally. I don't know if Weinberg is simply mistaken, or is alluding to the United Officers' Group in general. Could the "ideology" of the junta of 1943 be described as "Peronist"? How do you feel the section in question should be rephrased? Mvaldemar (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not read the book of Weinberg, but it is certainly wrong to say that Peronism was before 1946. The ideology of GOA (Grupo de Oficiales Unidos United Officers' Group ) was nationalist, close to fascism in the way of thinking about politics (corporations) and mostly anti British. The Argentine nationalism had many branches. The mainstream was against Britain economic influence and a few claimed Catholic nationalism at Franco-like style in Spain. I rewrite the paragraph in the sense that the Nazis would rely on nationalist movements.--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

World domination

It's suggested that Hitler's intention was to take over the world, but there is no source.67.1.59.46 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, there is at least one source countering that statement - Russel H. S. Stolfi, "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny", Prometheus Books, 2011, p. 345: "It cannot be said convincingly that Hitler intended world domination in 1937 or at any other time. But it can be said that Germany would have vastly increased its world influence through the effects of military “victory” in Europe. The conventional wisdom’s indispensable and never-failing comment that Hitler desired world domination must be taken in the spirit of the self- confident moral censure offered. The same wisdom has presented the words of November as Hitler’s plan for conquest, but the “plan” did not contain a hint of world dominion. The words of November as scribbled so fiercely by Colonel Hossbach for posterity say it all — Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the rendering harmless of the British threat, the defeat of France, the conquest and occupation of western Russia. Hitler’s vision was not trivial, and it allows us to characterize him as a world-historical personality but not as possessed by some chimerical drive to enslave the world". 77.65.91.250 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hitler's plans for North America

"Nazi propagandists went as far as declaring that Germany would return expropriated land to the Indians, while Goebbels predicted they possessed little loyalty to America and would rather rebel than to fight against Germany.[64] The Nazis considered the Sioux, and by extension all Native Americans to be Aryans..."

This is almost a cut and paste of reference 64, which is a book that was written in 1999 so I would assume it is still under copyright. Can someone clarify if it is correct to use this text in this way or should it be rewritten? --ZARguy (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not a cut and paste--it is a rewritten paraphrase. and it's properly cited. looks ok to me. Rjensen (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The part about North America is crazy, there were no important plans of Hitler for America until December 1941, and Nazi organizations in the USA were supported by Germany even after 1935, although for some reason you did not describe the activities of pro-Nazi organizations in any way, which of course is not encyclopedic and Hitler is not strong at all concerned about the American Indians, this was rather done by individuals among the Nazis who dealt with the topic of the United States and they did it for populist purposes, not to mention the fact that Hitler was inspired by the colonization of North America when building a new order, in particular based on the works of Friedrich Ratzel and Karl Haushofer 193.108.118.26 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Article is completely confused, badly sourced, the New Order referred to the Axis Powers including Italy and Japan, not just Germany

This article is misrepresenting the New Order as being exclusively a German phenomenon and thus is misrepresenting quotes where the term New Order is used. It was used to refer to the Axis powers in general, the clauses of the Axis Pact signed in 1940 clearly states what the New Order meant:

• "Article 1: Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in the creation of a new order in Europe."
• "Article 2: Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the creation of a new order in the Great East Asia."

(Source for above: [4])

This article needs to be moved to "Foreign relations of Nazi Germany", and material involving German and Germanic expansionism should be moved to the article titled Greater Germanic Reich.

A new article needs to be created titled "New Order (Axis Powers)".--74.12.192.213 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be confused between the generic use of term "new order" and the specific phrase employed by Nazi propaganda. The article here – from its title onwards – clearly refers to its use in Nazism, although the page also, at various points, discusses the issue in relation to the wider world beyond Europe. It's a little odd to argue that the problem with any page is that it needs both a new title and a new topic. Also, if you're going to keep editing here from multiple IP addresses, despite being blocked, you should really think about editing in different topic areas from the ones you did previously. N-HH talk/edits 17:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid that I agree there is a big problem here - there seems to be a theoretical divide between the concept of (a) New Order and (b) New European Order; (a) certainly may refer to Nazi racial objectives, but is much wider - other Fascist political parties (with less explicit racial agendas) use the term as a kind of byword for a command political system, ending of democracy and a rejuvenated nationalism. (b), referring effectively to the foreign policy aims, I think would be better fitted in the other articles as a very separate concept. As far as I can see, the only real similarities are terminology and it would certainly allow a clear explanation of the "New Order" component itself. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is major confusion because Anglophones obviously can't tell between Neuordnung (Europas) and neue Ordnung, and on top of that come decades of post-1945 global cabal conspiracy theories according to which commies and pinkos would be trying to create some "new world order" by means of things such as "cultural Marxism" and "political correctness", combined with ideological theories of extremism calling the extreme Left and the extreme Right "basically the same".

Anyways, when it comes to contemporary Nazi German propaganda and ideology, you find a lot of mentions of Neuordnung relating to re-distribution of land among the European nations by any means necessary (specifically relating to the ideology according to which post-WWI nations were divided between those nations among "the haves" and those nations that were "the have-nots", and of course the Nazis counted Germany among the "have-nots" as such that Germany had not only lost WWI but especially had "too many people" and "too little Lebensraum") and the economic hegemony of Germany resulting from this territorial re-distribution, whereas neue Ordnung is a very, very rare term in Nazi German jargon and is hardly as well defined as the term Neuordnung.

Now, the Tripartite Pact (here's the original version: [5]), being a re-newal of the original Anti-Comintern Pact, as quoted by the IP above only very vaguely attributes some right to create just about "any new (internal) order" ("neue Ordnung", not "Neuordnung") they please to hegemonical peoples within their geographical sphere of influence, without defining it in any way whatsoever on purpose (the Pact even specifically states that these internal orders may be very different from each other as long as the signatories will not interfere in each other's internal affairs), and this has basically zilch to do with the much more common term Neuordnung referring to re-distribution of territories among nations. --2003:71:4E07:BB50:88EC:DAAB:3277:49D3 (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hitler's Retirement Section

I'm going to remove this section. I was doing some personal research on this topic and checked the source cited in the article, Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich," p. 139. I own this book. I checked the page cited and read several pages before and after it; wowhere is to be found the claims that Hitler intended to retire to Linz, or anything about Hitler's "retirement" for that matter. As I see this article has been bedeviled with problems concerning unsourced and poorly-sourced claims, I am not too surprised at this. Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It would also be problematic to use Speers autobiography as a reliable secondary source for general claims like that, since it is a primary source with an obvious agenda (to absolve Speer of any serious involvement in criminal activities in connection with his prominent positions in the Third Reich). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Himmler's secret memo

The previous version of the article said "Jewish Bolsheviks who he refers to in the memorandum as the subhuman people of the East [Untermenschenvolk des Osten]", this is incorrect.

In the memo, Himmler says this:

"The parents of such children of good blood will be given the choice to either give away their child; they will then probably produce no more children so that the danger of this subhuman people of the East [Untermenschenvolk des Ostens] obtaining class of leaders which, since it would be equal to us, would also be dangerous for us, will disappear--or else the parents pledge themselves to go to Germany and to become loyal citizens there. The love toward their child, whose future and education depends on the loyalty of the parents, will be a strong weapon in dealing with them."

The full text of the memo can be read at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=63400.

He is clearly not speaking exclusively only about the Jewish Bolsheviks but all the people in the East whether it be Jewish Bolsheviks, Slavs, Soviets, Mongols, etc etc.--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't world conquest Allied propaganda?

Wasn't the idea that the Nazis planned world conquest simply Allied propaganda? Specifically American propaganda, designed to encourage Americans to fight in what otherwise would be seen (rightly) as a European war? There is no evidence Hitler planned any conquests beyond Europe. The quote from Goebbels "Whoever dominates Europe will thereby assume the leadership of the world" actually reinforces that. If there is any evidence that Nazis planned or intended world conquest, that should be given. If there is no evidence, which seems probable, that should be stated. It would not be correct to say that people are divided on this, if there is no evidence of such plans. That is like saying that people are divided over whether UFO's are little green men in flying saucers. Unproven and improbable theories should not be given such weight.101.98.74.13 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you find (and cite) a WP:RS to support your belief that it was "simply Allied propaganda"?—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Order (Nazism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101018195527/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AM006.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AM006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

RM

Talk:New_Order_(band)#Requested_move_14_April_2016 In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Translate in French

Hello can i translate this in French ?

Also, you're guys have rode the Hitler political testament, he seems very peaceful with the Arab World

In Mein Kampf, Hitler reprehend the Slavery and the colonialism in Central Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hitler about north Africa

Hello, in Hitler political testament, he is talking about the north africa, by is word, he was talking about emancipate these countries !

The italians would not get the control of these...because during Vichy France, Hitler send a letter to Mussolini, and told him to not get the north of the africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Academic source

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674545748 Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)