Talk:Kristallnacht

Number of victims

At least 400 Jews were murdered. It is pathetic - and typical of Wikipedia - to minimise this by writing 91+.

Why the name change?

The Radio Times site says "Kristallnacht (which Germans prefer to call the November pogrom now)", but does not explain why this has changed "now". What is the reason for the change, and is it true that there is consensus among Germans on this? 2.31.162.104 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This was referred to by a German historian in a recent episode of the BBC series Who Do You Think You Are? (hence the piece in Radio Times). It's also worth noting that the version of this article on German Wikipedia is called "Novemberpogrome 1938" (November pogroms of 1938), and the text describes the name Kristallnacht as cynical and euphemistic, due to the perception that it belittles the suffering of the victims. I think it's worth having a debate about whether to also change the name on English Wikipedia. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Our job is to report what the reliable published sources say, and in English language history books and articles they overwhelmingly use "Kristallnacht". Change the title and thousands of students will get lost. Rjensen (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a weak argument. The term is overwhelmingly criticized in German and European historical circles as outdated. Not sure which historians you refer to, but quoting historians from the 20th century wouldn’t really support your argument. It is also a term the Nazis framed. I don’t think Wiki should use Nazi terminology which is clearly meant to minimize what happened FantinoFalco (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Germans actually seem to call it Die Reichspogromnacht. For example, a newspaper article from two days ago: https://m.bild.de/geld/wirtschaft/wirtschaft/zum-pogromnacht-gedenken-kfc-verschickt-versehentlich-geschmacklos-push-81890356.bildMobile.html

I wouldn't rename this page yet, as WP:COMMONNAME applies. I think a new section "Historiography of naming" would be appropriate with a link from the lead to "see: naming" that explains why Germans consider the naming problematic today. I would say de:Novemberpogrome 1938#Bezeichnungen is a good starting point.-Ich (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mark and inwardly digest: @Rjensen: I was BOLD and translated the entire section from the German wiki. It probably needs to be edited for length but I think covers the debate pretty well.-Ich (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

[1] explains it pretty well. We should change the term to November Pogroms to not continue using Nazi euphemisms FantinoFalco (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The common name in English is still Kristallnacht. Wikipedia guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME) say the title should reflect common use, so before Wikipedia can change, society needs to change first. In the meantime, however, Wikipedia can and should document, using reliable sources, the historiography of the names used and the discussions surrounding their use.-Ich (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I am working on a draft at User:Ich/sandbox. The original text is my translation from the German wiki but please feel free to make and suggest changes.-Ich (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"Nazi diplomat Ernst vom Rath"

Is there any record of vom Rath being a member of the "Nazi" Party at the time of his murder? If not, it is inaccurate and defamatory to describe him as being a "Nazi diplomat," and he should be described as a "German diplomat."

Americans have rightly stopped using the World War II-era word "Japs" when referring to the Japanese people and Japanese military forces of World War II. The time is similarly long past to stop using the World War II-era "Nazi" as a catch-all term for all things German in the years 1933-1945. 06:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 2603:800C:3A40:6400:D53C:5356:BEB7:A3B0 (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

He joined the NSDAP on Nov 14, 1932. is that enough not to hurt his feelings? FantinoFalco (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Poorly written

This paragraph is quite poorly written and inconsistent with other wiki sources

“The Polish government threatened to extradite all Jews who were Polish citizens but would stay in Germany, thus creating a burden of responsibility on the German side. The immediate reaction by the Gestapo was to push the Polish Jews—16,000 persons—over the borderline, but this measure failed due to the stubbornness of the Polish customs officers. The loss of prestige as a result of this abortive operation called for some sort of compensation. Thus, the overreaction to Herschel Grynszpan's attempt against the diplomat Ernst vom Rath came into being and led to the November pogrom. The background of the pogrom was signified by a sharp cleavage of interests between the different agencies of party and state. While the Nazi party was interested in improving its financial strength on the regional and local level by taking over Jewish property, Hermann Göring, in charge of the Four-Year Plan, hoped to acquire access to foreign currency in order to pay for the import of urgently-needed raw material. Heydrich and Himmler were interested in fostering Jewish emigration.”

(1) “extradite” is vague. The polish government request polish citizens outside Poland to have their passports stamps or lose their citizenship. (2) the Gestapo didn’t “push” Jews over the border, they attempted to deport 17,000 (3) The border guards were not “stubborn” they simply refused to admit many of the deportees. (4) Herschel Grynszpan did not make an “attempt”, Von Ruth was actually assassinated.

This all needs a lot of work to improve, and I don’t have the time. 2A00:23A8:C55:6601:90B1:E0E7:9C5E:1FC (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)