Talk:Four Year Plan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lede sentence[edit]

An editor is attempting to replace the encyclopedically-written current lede sentence:

"The Four Year Plan was a series of economic measures initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany in 1936."

with this tabloidish sentence:

"The Four Year Plan was a sweeping range of radically ambitious planned economic measures, initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting 1936–1940.

I don't think this is an improvement, but the editor is edit-warring to force their changes into the article without discussion here.

Comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the tone of the alternative lead sentence is a bit too much, with too many adjectives. However, what I miss in the current lead sentence is an expression of the importance of the economic measures. This wasn’t about increasing the interest rate, was it? Maybe just adding “drastic” would do, since the most important aspects (arms production, autarky) are already treated in the second paragraph of the lead. Markussep Talk 07:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Markussep has it right IMO. I am not actually sure which I prefer. The original does seem to understate the plan's importance, which I assume is what the revision was quite reasonably trying to add. But the revision seems a little OTT for a first sentence. Possibly "The Four Year Plan was an ambitious range of planned economic measures initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting in 1936."? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1). The "an editor" is I, GeeTeeBee. I am Dutch, and in the Dutch language (as the other editor, Beyond_My_Ken, is bringing up language), we have a saying that translates as: "Where two quarrel, two are to blame." I think, whenever a collaborative back and forth (💡) is labeled as "edit-warring", both editors should own up to it. Applying Bold/Revert/Discuss is a good process, but optional, not mandatory. When editors begin by positing on my talk page, that I should open an item on the talk page of an article, I always wonder why they didn't just do that themselves in the first place ? The editor who chooses to just hit [Undo] (all!) – the bluntest possible measure – instead of just: editing (to fix something), and/or tagging for better sourcing or wording — by the way, which one is it, really ? – or doing a partial delete, so as to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, might just as well go straight to the article's talk page, to express what it is exactly, that they disagree with. The bright red square over my Alerts bell icon will certainly draw my attention. What's keeping them ?
2). It is a falsehood, to claim that I'm trying to "force" my edit without discussion. I'm promptly joining in the discussion here, after having slept some hours, and having taken several hours working on this one edit (!) I'm a guy who loves Wikipedia, who loves knowledge/content, and I will happily engage, as long as people are genuine. And some of the greatest discussions are ones that I "lose", because I then learn something (a win) ! – But fully undoing someone's good faith contribution, substantiated by nothing more than "Unsourced" (concerning the lead no less; see next), did not persuade me to go here at first.
3). My choice to reinstate, after revert #1, was because of the minimal motivation in the first instance. A simple "Unsourced" might have been a good enough explanation for a debatable edit in any other article section than the lead (WP preferred spelling). However, the lead should not introduce new information, and thus not require any actual sourcing, aside from throwing in some source-links as repetitions of sourcings used below the TOC, from a user-friendliness perspective. The lead must primarily provide a good introduction, predominantly by properly summarizing the article — the article itself therefore being the leading source of information for whatever the lead says.
4). Moreover, an article must also summarize important points from relevant parent articles, like about Adolf Hitler, the economy of Nazi Germany, and of course planned economy. The very name of the article and its central topic, plus the opening sentence calling it a 'series of economic measures', of course means you also have to tie it into the topic of planned economy, whether you believe the 4-yr Plan was that or not.
5). On the second revert, the argument shifted to a combination of lack of sourcing, and what exactly is the proper encyclopedic description in the opening sentence. And on revert #3, the editor supplied nothing else of relevance to the article/section's content — instead only providing ad hominem comments ... But to his credit, he opened this talk page section, and we are now finally discussing his objections to my alterations — although he still remains puzzlingly inexplicit, stating no more than: "I don't think this is an improvement .." (above; Why ?), and: "Until a source is given that describes it in this manner, this is the encyclopedic description." (paraphrasing from his 2nd revert summary). the latter not even giving a hint of what his objections are, while at the same time robbing me of any freedom to use language, essentially (wrongfully) imposing on me to find a source that uses this exact wording to summarize what Hitler's 1936–1940 4-year plan really was ? – And who exactly determines what "the (one and only ?) encyclopedic description" is ? — Is there one best way ?
Of course I understand, and agree, that we must avoid sensationalism and puffery, but the breadth, depth, ambitions and and profoundness of Hitler's "Four Year Plan" can scarcely be overstated. Just calling it a(ny old) series of economic measures is, I think, near criminally understating how transformative the effects on Germany – and on Europe and big parts of the rest of the world of this plan were going to be.
Although I appreciate it, I choose to make a major objection to the argument, that the opening sentence can be kept simple, because important aspects (arms production, autarky) are already treated in the second paragraph of the lead – because everybody only using a web search engine, and just scanning the top search results, are only going to read the preview of roughly the first two sentences.
That's Why I'm making such a Full Meal out of this !
And Please remember WP's Fifth Pillar: WP has No Firm Rules – I strongly argue that for Adolf Hitler's 1936–1940 Four Year Plan, the content must outweigh common WP notions of how to normally word and phrase the opening sentence. Once you dive into it, my wording has not a shred of exaggeration ..
Or do you think I'm really judging Adolf too harshly ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TLDR Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Markussep: a "drastic" could be added to the current sentence. Otherwise I like the curent lead sentence's tone and think that using too many sensationalist adjectives is uncalled for, especially here.

GeeTeeBee, please remember that the Nazi government were heavy hitters in propaganda and self-aggrandisement. Heavy dramatising and sensationalist use of adjectives was exactly their way of communication. Wikipedia should strive for a more neutral tone, I think.
Additionally, you expect too much from a lead sentence content-wise. Conciseness and readability is a virtue here, in my opinion.
TLDR: One more "drastic" is ok, but the rest is too Göring-style for me. (I'm German, btw.) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, I'm leaning more towards Gog the Mild's above – unsigned – proposal: "The Four Year Plan was an ambitious range of planned economic measures initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting in 1936." The simple reason why my sentence is so OTT, is because Hitler's 4-Yr Plan was grandiosely OTT. And that is just being factual. If neutrality stops us from WP: calling a spade a spade – then neutrality is taking us off the rails !!
Two questions for ΟΥΤΙΣ:
1). Would you not agree that giving the reader an honest first impression is better than a level of neutrality that, on this particular article's topic, is so vastly understated and euphemistic, that it is downright obfuscating & misleading ? — Especially when you keep in mind that many readers will not even click on any search result link - precisely because of TLDR !! — Thanks to Gog the Mild for making my point for me !
We live in a world of pings, tweets and sound-bytes, and people want the opening sentence(s) to inform them as swiftly and as accurately as imaginable, what they really need to know about it — Quality (what?), Scale, and Intensity. In REAL language.
2). Exactly which part(s) of my proposed opening sentence do you find not factual ? — Which part(s) do you find "aggrandizing / dramatizing / sensationalist — or to be more concise, exaggerated ?
Were the measures not sweeping enough for you to be called that ? -- The word "range" is actually more concise than "series". -- Was Hitler not implementing a system of planned economy ? -- Was this plan, cutting straight across the portfolios of ministries including Defense and Economy, not entirely radical, or totally ambitious ?
And as to your view, that I expect too much from a lead sentence, content-wise, I obviously completely disagree. What can be accomplished is only limited by the imagination. As to readability – yes, there's room for improvement. How about:
"The Four Year Plan was a radical and ambitious set of drastic, planned economic reforms, by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting 1936–1940." ?
--GeeTeeBee (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or:
"Adolf Hitler's Four Year Plan (1936–1940) was a set of drastic reforms, giving Nazi Germany near total economic control, and prepare the country straight for war." ?
--GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A short formal meta-point about this discussion: Indentation in discussions is usually meant to advance one level per different user. It confuses me slightly, if a text by the same author "jumps" in between paragraphs, because I would expect the next author.
Having now thoroughly read the article for the first time, I find it underemphasizes two important points (especially the second, with only a single passing mention):
  1. National survival > economic freedom => central government control of production
  2. National survival > economic profitability => huge state debt (mostly hidden, to avoid inflation)
Hitler of course stayed mum about this side of rearmament to the general public to avoid eroding trust in the Reichsmark, but those at the top who had to know, knew.
Schacht, as a banker, couldn't stomach the ever increasing debt. He eventually refused to issue more Mefo bills and other paper money, and was promptly removed from office as President of the Reichsbank in 1939.
I might work on adding more emphasis on these points in the article later.
With this in mind, I propose the following lead sentences (also inspired by the current intro of the German article):
Only then do we go on about Göring and so on.
I'm trying to bring across that it wasn't just another economic program, but rather the subjugation of the whole national economy under the imagined needs of the nation as a whole. (Yes, I agree now that thr program was a bit more dramatic than it appears in the current lead. Although I still think you appear a bit high on adrenalin about this topic. ;) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "..a bit more dramatic.." ? — OK, After the first sentence, the lead is much better. — It's that crucial first sentence, the first thing people see in the search engine results preview, that falls short so terribly ...
Are you still the same ΟΥΤΙΣ, who said I expect too much from the introducing sentence ? — Now you're already proposing to go into the motivation and delusional worldview of Hitler in the second sentence ? (Oh, and by the way, how about freeing Germany from the shackles of the Versailles treaty ?)
My adrenaline always goes high, whenever truth and honesty, the real scale, depth and profoundness of things are sacrificed on the holy altar of that cursed neutrality – on any topic ! — When I was younger, there was so much more actual journalism, instead of neutral reporting. Real journalism does more than report the news, but also helps you understand the meaning. Not by telling you what to think, but by placing the facts in perspective. "A series of economic measures" is obviously factual, but tells you nothing about how it compares to other series of economic measures...
I understand how the use of big adjectives can still evoke a foul taste to you as a German. But the words are not to be blamed. It's their past use, or rather abuse, that is to be blamed. Good people, like all the volunteer knowledge-workers involved in this discussion, should reclaim the words for their rightful purpose ! Every word in the dictionary can be used for good or bad, like a hammer or a pitchfork. If a slightly more colorful opening line can persuade people to click or tap on the WP link, and read further, don't you think that's a win ? — Of course the topic should merit it, but don't you think that is the case here ?
I think I should gracefully bow out at this point. I've already bored you with way too many of my words, and this article is way out of my territory too. Thanks, and have a great Sunday ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this already is in WP:NOT but it should be in some way: I feel that Wikipedia should not use tabloid style techniques to attract more viewers. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't do journalism here, although writing an encyclopedia may sometimes feel similar.
Regarding your comment on my proposal, I feel that this is substantial for the article: The whole program was a way for Hitler to increasingly make all of Germany act according to his paranoid world view. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who started this discussion resulted to personal attacks. For instance, "Well, it doesn;t seem as if you can read all that well, because you;re edit warring instead of discussing on the talk page." Okay. But the sentence itself is a different story. The first lead sentence may be "encyclopedic" depending on your definition of the word, but it definitely doesn't summarize the article. The article seems to portray the Plan as radical ("Hitler hesitated for the first half of 1936 before siding with the more radical faction in his "Four Year Plan" memo of August."), ambitious ("which necessitated a total effort at rearmament regardless of the economic costs."), and fear-mongering ("The basic premise of the Four Year Plan memo was that 'the showdown with Russia is inevitable'."), or my interpretation of it. If you are going to say the first sentence is right then you're undermining the article. But, if you say the second sentence is right then you are doing too much (yet it is better than the first). A hybrid, like the one proposed by Gog the Mild, works. FredModulars (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the consensus here is to add another well-considered adjective such as "ambitious" to the sentence, I have no objection to that. I simply object to using tabloidish language on Wikipedia. And I also object to the insinuation made above that my objection has something to do with the suggested change being too hard on Hitler. Anyone who is in the least familiar with my editing on Wikipedia would know that is a completely ridiculous idea. I am utterly opposed to glorifying or dignifying Hitler and other Nazis and fascists, including the current neo-Nazis and neo-fascists who burden our public discourse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break (proposal)[edit]

  • I like ΟΥΤΙΣ's suggestion above, although I would add "ambitious" and alter the second sentence:
  • The Four Year Plan was an ambitious economic program initiated by Adolf Hitler that aimed to prepare the German economy and military to fight a war within four years. It subordinated laissez-faire capitalism to economic controls in order to insure national survival, which Hitler saw as threatened by "international Jewry" and communism, but stopped short of a fully controlled economy.
Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like your proposal, Beyond My Ken. It's closer to the reality experienced by the majority of the German population before the war: Apart from the propaganda, the program had little noticable effect on most people's everday lives. You couldn't get that impression from my version. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is good, but I have concerns about "in order to insure national survival" in wiki-voice. No other country was threatening Germany's national survival at that time. How about "autarky" instead? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler claimed that a war with the Soviet Union was unavoidable in the near- to mid-future as part of the non-public memo for top national government circles (see article). The extent to which this danger was real or imagined is another discussion that does not really belong here, does it? In my personal opinion it was quite imaginary in 1936, and Hitler's paranoid militarization policies were the main ingredient to make it real in 1941.
It was only in the heads of Hitler and his top ideologues at this point, yet they got to decide for 80 million Germans. "to ensure national survival" is a good paraphrasing of Hitler's documented thoughts on the plan's motivation; it should be in the lead sentence. Another attempt:

--ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my previous post: added signature and changed "brought about" to "intensified". --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ΟΥΤΙΣ: Could you expand a bit on why "fiscal responsibility" is in there? I'm uncertain about exactly what it refers to in this context. I think that perhaps it is what I was aiming for with "It subordinated laissez-faire capitalism to economic controls". Would you be amenable to something like:

The Four Year Plan was an ambitious economic program initiated by Adolf Hitler that aimed to prepare the German economy and military to fight a war within four years. It intensified an already existing militarization program, and subordinated laissez-faire capitalism to economic controls in the name of national survival, which the Nazis felt was threatened by the Soviet Union and "international Jewry".

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I consider it important to show the intensity and all-out mindset with which militarization was pursued by the German government. (Please see my above quote from Economy of Nazi Germany.) In simple terms, the Nazi government were pawning decades of future national income to buy arms.

Incurring national debts at such a pace was unprecedented, and could only lead to extended despondency and forced austerity or repayment from expected spoils of war. In the the neo-Darwinist mindset of Hitler and his cronies, history was a succession of armed conflicts between nations and peoples. Fearing the inevitability of armed struggle they helped make it real by arming for it, forcing their violent worldview on all Germans.
Regarding your last proposal, I don't like the wording "an existing program". The general policy of re-armament paid by inflation was pursued by the Nazi government before 1936, alas not as part of a grand 'program', so that would be misleading, there. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about "It intensified his re-militarization efforts, ..."? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like in my last proposal? Minus the instensified typo, I still stand by it. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that "did away with fiscal responsibility" is not a description, it's commentary, which I attempted to address via the "lasissez-faire" language. 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
It is a statement of fact, proven by historians in reliable sources, but we can change the wording. I agree that "fiscal responsibility" is a bit abstract and may mean little to the average reader. (The concept got its own article, which would be linked there to explain. What about
? Now your pet "increased government control" part fell overboard for the sake of readability. Nothing personal, please suggest a good phrasing including it, if you got one. I could also imagine the "debt" part inside a note, technically apart from the main sentence. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My only suggestion is to remove "covertly" which, again, is commentary and not description, so would have to be directly sourced. Otherwise I think we have a winner! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Overy, R.J. (1996). The Nazi economic recovery 1932–1938 (2. ed.). Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 42. ISBN 0521557674.
  2. ^ William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011, p. 260

It was important to the regime that this was not discussed publicly. They did not want the German population to worry about the Reichsmark's value. Everyday economical activity was not notably affected, except for falling unemployment numbers.
I may be trying to put too much into two sentences. I feel that the connection of "huge national debt to pay for a strong military", "plan to reimburse creditors with war loot and forced labor" and "co-opting the willing cooperation of a majority of the population while being silent about financing and plans for aggressive expansion" is important to mention to illustrate the reckless and underhanded character of Hitler's planning. But it may be too much and too complex for the lead. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_Year_Plan&oldid=1207280549"