Talk:Großdeutschland (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Germany

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles

War crimes

Ok, it really worries me when a non-logged in user with no user history absolves Grossdeutschland of war crimes -- especially as Grossdeutschland fought on the Eastern Front, alongside the Einsatzgruppen. However, anonymous is apparently right that Grossdeutschland wasn't part of the SS, and the bit about the book seems factual. But still, I'm suspicious. Can anyone shed light on this? orthogonal 10:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Grossdeutschland was an Army unit, one of only three known by name that I'm aware of, the others being Feldherrnhalle and, in France in 1944, Panzer Lehr. It was an elite unit with an unusually large establishment strength, probably as large as a regular panzer division and panzergrenadier division combined, especially considering it was more likely to be up to strength. It began in 1939 as (mostly sure, not entirely sure) as an all-volunteer motorized infantry regiment, so-called because recruited from all over Germany and, unlike most Army units had no territorial attachment. It became a division in 1942 and a panzergrenadier division in 1943. Although I haven't looked, I don't recall seeing any specific mention of Grossdeutschland in Eastern Front atrocities. It was probably as culpable as the rest of the regular German Army, which means it may very well have carried out the Commisar Order and participated in small-scale massacres of civilians. But as for Einsatzgruppen-type stuff, no, almost certainly not. The question isn't really, "Was GD like the SS and the Einsatzgruppen because only they committed atrocities," but rather what did ordinary soldiers in the regular Army do? I'm sure there are books with info on this. --ArminTamzarian 01:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

re "an Army unit", does know whether GD was a Heer unit, or an OKW unit? — B.Bryant 22:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kleindeutschland, Grossdeutschland and Greater Germany

GeneralPatton and I appear to be having a somewhat time-delayed edit war about whether the content about the historical concept of an Austrian-dominated Germany should be in this article or at Greater Germany. I brought it up on his Talk: page in August and got no response, nor have I had anything on my Talk: page.

My logic is that, if we have an article at Kleindeutschland and the two concepts are usually discussed as "Kleindeutschland and Grossdeutschland" together, that the article belongs here. Equally, I believe that there is no reason that the two article-chunks shouldn't be in the same article. I even put a manual TOC in, to increase the prominence of the Wehrmacht division article-chunk, which I hoped would make the remerger less contentious.

I think we could do with forming a consensus on the matter. I'm happy to accept arbitration, if that would help. But can we discuss the matter here before continuing this edit war? :o) — OwenBlacker 15:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Correct translation of term?

Is "Greater Germany" really the correct translation? I'd prefer Great Germany rathermore, elsewhere it would have been called Grösser Deutschland --Shandris 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's common usage to translate German Groß-foo with "Greater Foo" in English. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Greater Germany" is not a literal translation but rather an equivalent expression to represent a geopolitical concept. The term has come into widespread usage in English-language texts. See additional comments, below. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of term

The stub says {{World War II stub}}; Grossdeutchland is a pre-Imperial German term as the article says

It was also one of the official names of the WW2 german state. Thus, a WW2 article as well as a 19th century article. -Alex 12.220.157.93 11:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Greater Germany

This needs to be expanded upon the idea of Greater Germany of National Socialist; this reference may come in handy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Großdeutschland is a compound from groß (great, large, big, grand) and Deutschland (Germany). It has the same grammatical structure as Großvater (grandfather). The translation "Greater Germany" is, allthough common in the English-speaking world, simply wrong and Allied propaganda.

BS. Gene Nygaard 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Grossdeutschland.jpg

Image:Grossdeutschland.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation again

Greater Germany is absolutely standard as the translation of Großdeutschland. Some people may not like it, but an encylopedia article isn't the place to try to change a well established translation. Incidentally, Kleindeutschland is normally rendered as Germany without Austria. Norvo (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Europa1937-1939.gif

There is a deletion request for this image at Commons on the ground of a number of factual inaccuracies in this map. You are very much welcomed to participate in this discussion. Given the problems with that image, it might also be advisable to remove this map from this article. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the img and replaced it, until further notice (this says nothing about a my POV in this matter). Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Germany and Lebensraum

Greater Germany is a concept different to Lebensraum, I would not mix them, certainly not in the introduction. It should be mentioned apart in a special part.--Ziko (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short-lived annexations from Italy

Upon the Italian armistice with the Allies, Nazi Germany annexed sections of northeastern Italy, including South Tirol/Alto Adige. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to see a map of the annexations in northern Italy upon the Allied invasion and link this to the Italian puppet state site (Social Rep). Plus it included much more than just the South Tyrol.

German liberals were right

It is natural for Austria to be a member Land of the present democratic and liberal German Federation. After all, they already have the same language and currency and there is not a border after the Schengen Treaty...So, from any point of view, Austria is already closer to the German Federation than any of the states (former sovereign nations) which built the Federation in 1871. It is something natural. In fact, the former DDR was, and still is, much more different from any point of view from the former West German Lander than Austria or even The Netherlands or Luxembourg.--88.23.27.105 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most academics assume that the Greater Germany or Anschluss Movement to bring Austria back to Germany died with the Nazis in WWII. Most Austrians are happy to identity with Austria and their home Land and if anything they will tell you they are everything but German! Only people on the fringe right would suggest the unification of the two countries today and whats-more making the entire nation of Austria a mere German Federal-State?! Austria and Germany coexist quite well in the EU model and there may room for both and the Low countries and other central European states in a democratic future "Klein-Europe" which most likely will occur once the larger EU has outlived it use. (now?)

Kleindeutschland Meaning?

The reference to Kleindeutschland in the intro seems to me to be either badly worded or horribly misrepresented. As I understand it, the concept of Kleindeustchland had absolutely nothing to do with Lebensraum, either for or against it; rather, it was more of a political idea excluding Austria (and Hungary) from any idea of a "United Germany". For that matter, I'm not sure that the concept of Greater Germany has any relation at all to Lebensraum; Greater Germany was about unifying all or most of the disunited lands with German ethnicities, while Lebensraum was about, essentially, European colonization (and displacement).

To put it another way, if similar terms were applied to the United Kingdom, "Grossdeutschland" would have been about uniting the kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, East Anglia etc. into England, while "Lebensraum" would have been about the British colonial drives into Africa and so on. This is of course a very loose analogy, intended merely to convey the difference between the concepts. 114.28.255.201 (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

greater germany vs. greater german solution

this article is totally off the mark and desperately needs a change. i only stumbled upon it by chance because the german article on the "greater german solution" led me here. but that is a wrong link and i will delete it.

greater germany (großdeutschland) was a term only used by the nazis for germany and all the occupied areas they figured should be part of it.

"the greater german solution" (großdeutsche lösung) was one of the two options that were considered in the era of nationbuilding in the 1800s. the other one was the "smaller german solution" (kleindeutsche lösung). the former would have included austria-hungary and all its non-german possessions which, in bismarck's view, would have invited a lot of trouble into the new nation. the latter excluded austria-hungary at the price of leaving a several million germans outside. this was the option bismarck chose.Sundar1 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Greater Germany"

The literally translation of Great Germany is Großdeutschland, like Great Britain is Großbritannien. Greater Germany is Größeres Deutschland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.19.142 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Großdeutschland simply means large Germany, or greater Germany, as in "comprising a larger area". Great, and Grand, would be "großartig" in German, just like gorgeous, magnificent etc. -- Matthead Discuß 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Großherzog means Grand Duke. The translation of the Groß German language prefix into the English language has the following meanings, Grand, Great, Greater, as well as Major, Superior, Big, Bigger, Large, Larger (in contrast with Minor, Inferior, Little, Littler, Small, Smaller, respectively). Großdeutschland translates to Greater Germany, and GroßBritannien translates to Great Britain. The suffixes of Country-Endings include -land (German), -ien (German), -ia (Latin), -ie (French, -y (English). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned earlier on this very page, regardless of what the literal translation of Großdeutschland may be, the actual English expression that has come into use is Greater Germany. To extend the argument to the extreme the most literal translation of Großdeutschland in English would be "Great Dutch Land", but I don't think anyone would actually argue for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As was mentioned earlier on this very page, regardless of what the literal translation of Großdeutschland may be, the actual English expression that has come into use is Greater Germany" - hit the nail on the head. Actual usage is what matters - you can't try and impose a consistency on language which just doesn't exist. Knepflerle (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Currently there are three articles that cover the same topic:

This is silly. These are two sides of the same coin; to understand one necessarily implies talking about the other. I definitely think a merge would be appropriate here, similar to Enclave and exclave. Looking at the content... the Grossdeutschland article is short and redundant to the current Grossdeutsche Lösung. The Kleindeutsche Lösung article has practically no content and what content is there should really be added to the Grossdeutsche Lösung article, which is currently the most complete.

Anyway, I'd be willing to merge these myself, but wanted to get some input. Also, I'm unsure what name the unified article should have. By default I'd suggest Kleindeutschland—Großdeutschland debate as the "-land" suffixes are what I read in English literature on the topic, but I dunno, things might have changed. I think one of the topic pages claimed that the "Lösung" versions are how the debate is referred to in German, which is interesting information, but I definitely think the most common English usage should prevail... which might still be the Lösung versions, who knows. If we went with that, the title could be Kleindeutsche Lösung and Großdeutsche Lösung or Kleindeutsche Lösung — Großdeutsche Lösung debate.

Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Großdeutschland was a very important historical country. It deserves an article of its own. The Greater German Reich as the long-form Name of the state only lasted from 1943-1945, but historically it was VERY significant one. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but that state already has an article at Nazi Germany, right? To be sure, I'm proposing a merge, not deletion; the information in Großdeutschland would still be in the merged article, and mention how Hitler dug back up an old 19th century debate to help press for the Anschluss. SnowFire (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Großdeutschland deserves this separate article, separate from the Nazi Germany article. The Nazi Germany article is over-sized, and diluted with alot of political-posturing. Here one can just click on Großdeutschland and voila! ... one gets the State they where trying to establish.

Addtionally, Kleindeutsche Lösung (i.e, Little German solution), and Großdeutsche Lösung (i.e., Great German solution) are NOT related to Großdeutschland (i.e., the Greater German Reich), you've got the time-period all wrong. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the time period just fine. I also understand that Hitler's unification of Germany & Austria was only tangentially related to the actual 19th century debate, and more a "hey look there's historical justification for this" type move.

I disagree that this different name necessarily means a different article. I mean, you could use the same argument that "Third Reich" should have its own article, too, but it's just a different name for Nazi Germany. There are really only three sentences of content to this article as is, and that's too short. To say it again, I am not proposing this information be deleted - you can still type in Großdeutschland which, if all three articles are merged, will redirect you to the relevant information that this was a name the merged Germany-Austria used from 1938 onward. Just that this information is far too spread out at the moment, and that (to my knowledge) "Großdeutschland" was definitely a term used in the original Little Germany / Big Germany debate of the 1800s. SnowFire (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: an idea. If you really think that "Großdeutschland" is separate, we can change that into a disambiguation page instead. One link will go to the Kleindeutsche Lösung - Großdeutsche Lösung debate, and another link will go to Nazi Germany and the Anschluss. This is in fact exactly what German Wikipedia does. See:

ab dem 19. Jahrhundert für die Vorstellung eines vereinigten deutschen Nationalstaats, der auch Österreich einschließen sollte, siehe Großdeutsche Lösung
in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus nach dem Anschluss Österreichs als informelle Staatsbezeichnung, siehe Großdeutsches Reich

Would that be fair? SnowFire (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if kleindeutsche and großdeutsche lösung are merged, it would have to be under a new title: the german question. that would make sense.Sundar1 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Großdeutschland and similiarly Greater Italy were ideas, concepts, used by the Fascists ... but not originated by them. The Fascists ressurected these ancient dreams. The Latins of the Italian Peninsula created the "Homeland" of Italia for the Roman Empire, and then proceeded to found Roman Provinces outside of Italia. Similiarly, the Germanic Tribes of the German Plain envisioned Großdeutschland to be their "Homeland" and set off to found outer Provinces, ... the Empire of Francia [with Charlemagne crowned Emperor (i.e., Kaiser) in AD 800] was the result [Note: Emperor, Caesar, Kaiser, Tsar (or Czar) are all the same thing]. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to say as relates to the merits of article placement, ArmchairVex. Anyway, the content here is still in the "Later influence" section of the new German question article; I've changed this to a disambig page. It can always be split back out if ever it stands on its own again, but I'm a fan of "2-3 big articles" over "10 small articles that repeat themselves." SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]