From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon nazi.svg

This Nazism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Images... do we want them? I'm not too thrilled, even though I suppose I "get" the point of them. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Carptrash 22:26, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
"your wish is my command" No it's not. I am just trying to start a discussion. I ain't the boss of you, let's see what the rest of the mob thinks? Just because I sorta freak out when I see swastikas, doesn't mean that what you are doing is wrong. Let's get more input? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
It does seem strange to me that something that is in its nature graphical does not have an accompanying picture. Maybe we do need Swastikas from various different views, such as a Hindu one, Nazi one etc. 23:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
That's what I meant about "getting the point". The images were of everything but Nazi ones. Brit and Soviet propaganda, architecture, etc. But, you know, we also aren't wikipedia, where of course the images would be shown. They just creep me out, really. I find it hard to tell whether we are "telling a joke" or just subtly saying, "snigger, snigger, but here's what they look like". PS, and I am a free speech extremist, and hate seeing a symbol/design "banned" from discourse. Nice personal conflicts, eh? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:00, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
The question really is does adding a picture add value? For: Yes because the Swastika is a symbol and so needs an image. Against: Everyone knows what it looks like anyway and if Germany can ban it why can't we? Discuss. 00:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
If everyone knows what it looks like, and pictures are hardly difficult to get, there's not really much sense in an article about a symbol without a picture of said symbol. Well, unless it's an article on Goatse. -Judas Reward 10:44, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
What about a picture of a Buddhist temple with swastika (like this). It runs the other way to a Nazi one, so perhaps less creepy. I doubt this pic is fair use, but I can probably find an example among my own photos from Japan if it seems like a reasonable idea. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 11:24, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Human, your statement "They just creep me out, really." is likely the result of past life influences (pseudosciencealert) and can be easily attended to with a little Past-life therapy. You need help and I can help you. Carptrash 11:00, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

It must be thetans! Report to your local Scientology org for expensive auditing sessions immediately! --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 11:10, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Scientology. A group that I put on a par, with say fundamental Christianity. With more or less the same goals. To take over the world and make a lot of money ($ £ ¥ ₣ ₨ and more) doing it. 11:51, 3 September 2008 (EDT) aka Carptrash 11:54, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Personally I hate it when words get hijacked and become taboo, so that's why we have articles on things like cunt. Similarly, the swastika (which used to adorn the side of the Methodist church where I attended Boy Scouts) should be reclaimed from the racists. However, any images should be completely non-Nazi and square rather than diamond if you get my meaning. Jollyfish.gifГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Which is to say, "Do what ever you want as long as it in not what I object to." About as neat and concise a definition (opinion) of censorship as can be found. Carptrash 11:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't phrase that very well as it doesn't actually reflect what I think - I was just trying to accomodate Human's sensibilities. :(
If the article refers to Nazi usage then of course it should show the correct orientation but most non-Nazi usage (that I have seen) uses the square format. Jollyfish.gifГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 12:28, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

A real danger[edit]

Swastika is prohibited in all its manifestations in Germany (anyone confirm?). There was a comunitary proposal to ban it from every activity in the EU as well. This would have meant the end of WWII modeling and wargaming. Luckily it didn't pass. If someone can't stand a 1:72 scale model of a Panther tank or Bf-109 fighter plane with their historical symbols, (s)he should get a life. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 12:00, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I thought the military stuff used a more conventional cross? (thinking back to my modeling days...) ħumanUser talk:Human 17:44, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
You are right, and SS used the stylized SS too. I wonder what the gaming/modeling community was worried about. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 17:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
They probably needed it for other things than the ones we mean. Hmm, how about British/American fighter planes? Wouldn't the pilots have put little swastikas on the side to brag about their "kills"? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:51, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
As an aside, displaying the swastika in Germany is legal if done for the purpose of arts, teaching, research or other pursuits aimed at "staatsbürgerliche Aufklärung" [civic enlightenment]. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:53, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
We should really mention that German legal stuff in the article. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:59, 3 September 2008 (EDT)


If the Metrodome picture shows a swastika then we would have to start labeling all pictures of Greek crosses as "swastikas." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to stare at that photo for ages before I saw the swastika. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It took me a few seconds. I reinserted it here, but left it removed from the Minnesota page. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked at it for several minutes and I can still only see a very pixellated "X." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If I had a dollar for every time some white supremacist tried to tell me what I was looking at wasn't really a swastika... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And I would like a nickel for every time some Red saw a nonexistent swastika, or something similar, and tried to claim the person who "put it there" for a Nazi. But no matter. This particular "swastika" appears to be rather difficult to spot, a quality I attribute to the necessity to pull four lines right out of your imagination to make an "X" look like a swastika. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Swastikadoleia? What will those dastardly commies think of next? Professor Moriarty 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Where were you from 1979 to 1982? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if it is an accidental swastika, it's such a bad example that it doesn't improve the article one bit. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It's just the central 8 lines, by the way. And I think it's funny at least. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now I see it. Must acquire better pattern-matching skills. I agree with Totnesmartin that it is a bad enough example as not to add to the article. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It's just an EL, fercryingoutloud. And is exactly as advertised on the tin: "accidental architectural swastikas". Image the freakout if some Red Sea pedestrian glances up during a game and see, glowing through the roof gaps, the horrid insignia. Tell you what, let's let it ride for a month or two, then when it's boring, replace it with something else? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When exactly does Germany censor it?[edit]

The article reads:

"Another exception is if the swastika is displayed for the purpose of teaching, research or other pursuits aimed at staatsbürgerliche Aufklärung (civic education). However, material that is not considered educational, such as WWII-themed computer games and plastic model kits, have to be sold in special, Swastika-free versions."

So, works of art that aren't intended for education can't have a swastika, right? However, Wikipedia's article on the Tarantino film Inglourious Basterds contradicts this:

"Though the advertisement posters and wallpapers must not show Nazi iconography, this does not apply to "works of art" according to German law, so the film itself is not censored in Germany."

Their article has a citation, but only briefly touches on this topic. Can somebody knowledgeable clear this up? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See [1] and [2] for a start - the second reproduces the statute in question, though it seems that you also need to be familiar with German constitutional case law to fully understand the situation. :)
As for IB, I looked up that sentence, and the provided citation does not seem to support it.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hm, being German myself I always thought the exception was indeed only for "educational purposes". But looking up the article in question (§86, rather than §86a), "art" is indeed listed as a separate reason for exception than education. And indeed, come to think of it, the swastika does appear in movies that are sufficiently, well, artsy. But back in the 80s, nobody thought video games were "art". So if the swastika is in Inglorious Basterds, that would be a sign of times changing about what is "art". Octo8 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Just in case there's some confusion, IB is a movie. AFAIK, from the time I was interested in such things: in the particular case of video games, the problem is that they are legally classified as "toys"...--ZooGuard (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Germany has always had rather unconventional attitudes towards video games... along with Australia. Especially when it comes to censorship. Nullahnung (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I know IB is a movie, thanks. ;) The problem with German attitudes is rather this tradition of distinguishing between ("mere") entertainment and (serious, "true") art. Only in recent times has that attitude weakened. So, as I said: Changing times, and changing attitudes. Octo8 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert on this, but it might also have something to do with the fact, that It might be easier to change a swastika into something else in video games, than it would be in a movie. The line between entertainment and art is certainly blurred but tempers can still rage high. Remember a couple of years ago, when some rappers (Bushido?) were flying a Reichsadler Flag in one of their videos and some politicians wanted to censor it immediately? Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 12:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just an aside[edit]

This isn't worth putting in the article by any means, but I find it highly amusing. At UAHuntsville, which is near where I live, there are (or at the least were as of ~2013) tile swastikas in the floor of one of the office spaces. This actually isn't just a case of pareidolia, either: they were put in the wake of WWII, when von Braun happened to do much of his work there. That they have managed to stay is rather strange, all things considered, but it makes for a neat story. PacWalker 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


I thought the Nazis did use the left-facing swastika till 1924. Hitler then changed to the right-facing one we know, using some rationale about the ancient Aryans to do so. In ‘ Triumph of the Will’ the section of the film devoted to honouring fallen Party comrades who died in the putsch attempt in 1923 starts with a shot of the left facing swastika. I think this is meant to show a harking back to early days, when an earlier symbol was used. To look a a different political tradition, is is like flying a 13 star flag at historical events in the USA. Some properly sourced information on this could improve the article. I would include a link to Hitler’s announcement of the change, and his rationale for it. 2A00:23C5:E097:5D00:5539:1A63:598F:D24F (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have a source for that i'm interested. — Dysk (contribs) 10:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)