File talk:Greater German Reich NS Administration 1944.png

Problems with the map

• The completely extemporaneous and arbitrarily-selected 1937 border is the most highlighted border, which can potentially be confusing to the reader. The only justification for it can be to keep some kind of separation between the two types of Gau, but that hardly warrants a border stronger even than country borders. Simply lighten them up a bit.
• The map confusingly uses both Axis-recognized borders (present on the vast majority of the map), and Allied-recognized borders at Belgium. Please introduce the borders of the Military Administration/Reichskomissariat in Belgium and Northern France.
• The abbreviation of Reichskomissariat ought to be "RK", not "RC": the English Wikipedia uses the German word "Reichskomissariat", not "Reich Commissariat" or whatever is imagined.

Notes: I introduced this map's German version at en:Nazi Germany, which is why I feel the need to fix it up. I didn't introduce the rather shoddy Belgium&Northern France border, but its better than the Allied border, which makes no sense in the context of the rest of the map.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

---

As mentioned before at DIREKTORs Discussion Page your edits are just vandalism. Although you don't respond on your discussion page I will repeat it here and will answer to you thoughts.
But before that I will explain the basics.
First thing to know, is the map is the work of a skilled and on the theme specialized expert (me) and an historian specialized on international law and juristically paperwork. Your "ideas" of "tweaks" reveal, sorry to say that, that you don't understand the thematic concept of the map or have just no idea about the theme. But you have one good point. I will answer your ideas and hopefully satisfyingly explain why the most things are displayed the way they are and what I accept to change in the map because it is reasonable.

1. you argue: "The completely extemporaneous and arbitrarily-selected 1937 border is the most highlighted border, which can potentially be confusing to the reader. The only justification for it can be to keep some kind of separation between the two types of Gau, but that hardly warrants a border stronger even than country borders. Simply lighten them up a bit."
---Fact is: You are completely wrong because you are missing significant part of base knowledge. The boundary of Dec 31, 1937 doesn't care the "Nazis", its an allied chosen point in time of the last legal German boundary before the first territorial expansion by the Nazis. This boundary was the basement of all allied conferences, contracts and decisions during and after the war till 1990 and therefore the most significant line in the map.

2. you argue: "The map confusingly uses both Axis-recognized borders (present on the vast majority of the map), and Allied-recognized borders at Belgium. Please introduce the borders of the Military Administration/Reichskomissariat in Belgium and Northern France."
---Fact is: As mentioned before, the military administration is NOT thematic content of this map and you mixed up “Military Administration” and “Reichskomissariat”. They are the direct opposite of each other. Whilst military administration is carried out by the army, a Reichskommisariat is governed by a civil regime. This mix up makes me sure you have not understand the map due to the fact exactly this is explained in the legend. The map show the de jure Axis point of view. The axis regarded even the de jure boundaries of France of 1939 as legal and valid in 1943. Because of this territories like Alsace were NOT annexed to the Reich from Axis point of view but only occupied by a civil German administration till a final peace contract settlement. The military administration is a de facto regime not influencing the de jure view of the Axis on international boundaries. Military administration is a big field and in common only shown on very special military maps. I didn’t see such a military administration map of WW2 yet. This would also include very volatile status in the area of active front lines e.g. in the east.

3. you argue: "The abbreviation of Reichskomissariat ought to be "RK", not "RC": the English Wikipedia uses the German word "Reichskomissariat", not "Reich Commissariat" or whatever is imagined. Notes: I introduced this map's German version at en:Nazi Germany, which is why I feel the need to fix it up. I didn't introduce the rather shoddy Belgium&Northern France border, but its better than the Allied border, which makes no sense in the context of the rest of the map."
---Fact is: The English/German-Problem is reasonable but your “whatever is imagined” again reveal you not have read the complete map because it is explained on the left bottom. I think it is not a mistake to try to explain this to the English reader by using “Reich Commissionerate” because it is a heavy discussed point at the Reichskommissariat-Articles in Wikipedia but I can change from the English term to the German term to fitting the usage in English Wikipedia. All other "ideas" to “tweak” are, sorry to say that, not useful.

4. in the Revert explanation you wrote: "Further slightly grayed out defunct 1937 borders, which suggest the Nazis were better than they were."
---What do you want to say?

I hope the change of Commissionerate to Kommissariat is satisfying for you and you understand and agree to my explanations on your other thoughts. --Exec (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Truly thou art a god of making maps. Now fix the stupid errors in them.

• Yes, I am fully aware of that significance - except that this map is meant to show Nazi Germany, not "what Nazi Germany should have been" or whatever. Sure - keep the 1937 border, keep it highlighted even - but not so much that its the main border of the whole map. It confuses the reader: this map is meant to depict internal German borders, as valid in 1944. That isn't one of them.
• Once again, I am FULLY aware of the difference between a Reichkomissariat and a 'Military Administration' - the problem is you're not aware that the Millitary Administration became the Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich on 18 July 1944 (hence the dash, "/" in my post). I'd wager I'm more familiar with this topic than you are, so kindly cut out the patronizing tone.

You're not showing EITHER the RK, or the military administration - you're showing the map of 1940 Belgium (not "1939".. do you even know when Belgium and France were occupied?). You might say "that's de jure" - but then why isn't Alsace-Lorraine shown as a part of France? Why is the RK Niederlande there but not RK Belgien-Nordfrankreich? Its just stupid. Depict the de facto state of affairs on the ground, according to Germany: depict the boundary of the Military Administration/Reichskommissariat.

• English Wiki uses the German word. The English language at large predominantly uses the German word - therefore its sensible to use the abbreviation of that word. Nothing more to be said on that.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Hi Direktor, i really feel honored that you like my map, but I am still very sorry to say you are not right. You are right with isolated facts but not in connection with the map. Let me explain.

1. What do you mean again with "Nazi Germany should have been"? The December 31, 1937 boundary was reversed declared the only legal boundary of Germany, all expansions after that point in time were declared illegal. This boundary was declared the legal boundary according to international law till 1990. It shows the original situation in 1937 and the legal boundary till 1990. You seem not to understand the concept of the map. Yes, the map depict the Nazi point of view, but only as it was also the de facto situation. Even for the Allies. It really show the situation in May 1944. A historical map don't need to be one dimensional. The reader, you believe will be confused, I say he needs that information of the 1937 boundary for support, to compare the 1937 boundary resp. the later legal boundary till 1990, with the de facto situation in May 1944 and to support the mental map. A reader, as you believe, so unfamiliar with the topic to be "confused" absolutely need a stable geometry to have a spatial idea about the area.

->That is why I reject the desired change.

2. Sorry, for the patronizing tone, but you provoke it by your behavior in the nonsense revert explanations, your argumentation and you repeatedly show that you are unwilling or unable to read the very few text of the map. The question arise how you could be "more familiar" with anything if you can't read a simple map? As we saw during this discussion you not even know the title of the map. According to the map title the map depict the de facto situation as of May 1944. The Reichkommissariat Belgien und Nordfrankreich was created on July, 18 1944. So there was no Reichskommissariat in May. Only the military administration. You now may argue, what the date of the map should moved to a point after July 1944. BUT this will lead to a increasing difficult situation due the front lines. The chosen date is optimal to show the last "stable" de facto situation in the mapped area around Germany. All later actions in the West up to the incorporation as Reichsgau on December, 15 1944 were ether extreme short lived or not carried out de facto cause the area were liberated by the Allies till September 1944. The theme of the map is the de facto administrative boundaries of Germany by the NSDAP and the status of the surrounding countries in May 1944. Not in July or December 1944. I believe it is hard, but trust me, I know what I am doing (PhD student on historical cartography).

-> That is why I reject the desired change.

3. Again. The military administration don't changed the international boundary in the view of the NS-Government. The creation of a Reichskommissariat would do. But this happened months later and after two month of existence the area was completely liberated by the Allies and therefore the Reichskommissariat was de facto abolished. You are right in one point, it shows the Belgian boundaries of 1940 after the annexation of the Eupen-Malmedy area to Germany. But by asking me if I am so stupid to don't know about the occupation of Belgium and France, it seem again you are unable to read the maps legend. It clearly explained that Belgium and France were military administrated by the German armed forces. The military division is irrelevant to the international boundaries because, as YOU may not know, a military administration is just a temporal interim administration till a territory become civil reorganized. Every occupied country/area conquered by the Wehrmacht had an initial military administration. Poland, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Denmark ... but strange, this seems not be relevant for you. In fact in this area, you only believe it is important due to the later transformation in a Reichskommissariat. I know it may sound confusing, but the affairs were not that one dimensional in time of war. The Nazis regard Lorrain and Alsace as de jure part of France till a final peace treaty will handle them over to Germany, but they create a civil German administration and treated the areas de facto as part of Germany BUT clearly don't annexed it as they does with e.g. polish areas.

-> That is why I reject the desired change.

4. I accept the change to the German term and I will carry it out after we finally settle down this discussion.

-> Are you satisfied and accept my argumentation or we still need further discussion on topic 1-3? I guess, like I do, you believe you are right ;-) but I hope my explanation was able to convince you that the map elements and structural concept were made on a solid rational basement.

--Exec (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Once again. This is a map of German internal boundaries as valid in 1944. The 1937 border is not one of them. Nor has it been formally "reverse-declared the only legal border" yet at that time (but even if it had, that's no argument - as the map obviously represents the German, not the Allied, point of view). I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, if for no other reason than it depicts the boundary between the Gaue and Reichsgaue.. but its way too emphasized - just make it grey like I did, bring it down a bit.
• I understand that the military administration was a temporary thing pending a peace treaty. I understand that perfectly. However, that doesn't change the fact that the borders of the military administration were the de facto borders valid in German-occupied Europe: the actual Belgian border with France was meaningless. Not only that, but we know those were the intended borders of German annexation (by the declaration of the en:Reichsgau Flandern, and en:Reichsgau Wallonien in 1944, after the Allies had already come in). And finally - you ignore the en:Reichskommissariat Belgien-Nordfrankreich - which, as you know, was very much a civil administration. I recommend scrapping the meaningless border, and bringing in the Reichskomissariat. This map already shows the maximum late-war extent of German annexations (not the most long-lasting extent), and that would fit in quite well.

Yes. I do like your map. Because its clearly and very informatively differentiates between the various levels of control Germany exercised over various annexed and "semi-annexed" territories. But that 1937 border just confuses things no end... As for Belgium, maybe you can do something like this: [1]. And notice how that map (which is more popular, btw) doesn't even show the 1937 border. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

---

STOP coping my map because you have no valid arguements to force your "tweaks". This is a very poor and evil way. Seems you allready realized your argumentation will not succed. But I will not tollerate this.

Delete this clone with your tweaks and stop implementing it in pages!

1. Once Again. Yes, it is a map about the German internal (and surroundings) boundaries as valid in May 1944. And yes, the boundary of December 31, 1937 was not important in May 1937. BUT you remain wrong, doesn't matter how often you repeat your argumentation. Againː It's not a map of a simple "point" of view, it is about the de facto situation. Further a good "history" map is never a simple view on a specific point to a peific time but give the reader additional information to support the understanding and orientiend above a specific point in time. Such an information is the boundary of December 31, 1937, existend till 1938 de facto, defined by the Allies during the war as the only valid boundary of Germany till 1990 and therefore a VERY important information to understand the initial (1937) and the final situation (1945/1990). The line color has the needed contrast to underline the importance and to create a good map view. I am a professional cartographer, diploma engeneer and master of science, PhD stundent. What is you qualification to believe you know better how to deal with colors in maps?

2. Military adminitration BOUNDARIES are no thematic content of the map, not in the west, nor in the east, north or south. The map show MAY. Not July, so no Reichsmmissariat. May was choosen for a good reason as explained before. If you would have a single idea about the original maps of that time there are ALL showing the de jure international boundary between Belgium and France and ignore every temporal military administration devision.

3. Again you are unable to read. [2] is also a map created by me but with a different concept. This is a "historical" not "history" map only have one dimension in time and is more pupular because of the more detailed levels of administration but it explain nothing to the reader. But indeed it is a mistake on the map showing a Reichskommissariat there in March 1944... it alway was wrong but years ago i din't know it better. Maybe you will see it like I do in a few years.

AND AGAIN STOP TO TRY TO BYPASS THE DISCUSSION by copying the map. This will only lead to a deletation or edit war and I will report this to higher authories.

--Exec (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)