Talk:1933 anti-Nazi boycott

93.97.194.138 (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC) This is a good and important article but it would be good if there were more detail and more about the response in Europe. Also more about what support, if any, was received from outside the Jewish community.[reply ]

The image File:DailyExpress March1933 judeafrontpage.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I've reverted the edit of April 3 because it included a lengthy quote from the March 24 1933 London Daily Express, not yet in the public domain, and therefore a copyright problem; because the edit was not formatted; because the edit included criticism of the article's fairness (valid or not, that kind of criticism doesn't belong IN the article); and because it was the one and only contribution of user SolonCroesus (usually a red flag). I assume the edit was made in good faith, and welcome any material that adds relevant fact and balance. --Lockley (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

i merged Jewish boycott of German goods here today, as the content was almost entirely overlapping, yet had some additional valuable content and sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The assertions in this section require better sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk)—Preceding undated comment added at 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

I propose that the title be changed to Jewish boycott of Germany in 1933. The boycott was instigated by jews and supported by jews. The boycott was against Germany, not the Nazi party or the Nazi parts of Germany. The current title suggests that it was an over all boycott directed against nazis in germany. The facts are it was a jewish boycott against the whole of Germany Nazi or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.98.197 (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Throughout the whole history of Germany there was no Jewish boycott until after the Nazis took over. That tells you exactly who the boycott target was. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

That sounds like Original Research and independent analysis, not citing a reliable source.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D031:C216:F0E1:58AC (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment The title is fine, but in fact the boycott was against Germany. For example, one was not supposed to buy German goods (not "Nazi goods", whatever that would mean). The title is fine because the boycott was aimed at German government policies, and the government was Nazi. Think about any other boycott against a country; it has much the same breakdown. Zero ^talk 04:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment The London Daily Express March 24, 1933 has a banner headline that explicitly states "Judea Declares War on Germany", not a "boycott" but a "war", and not against "nazis" but against all of "Germany". http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/American_Jewish_boycott_of_German_products 2605:6000:6947:AB00:D031:C216:F0E1:58AC (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

"The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933 was a boycott of German products by foreign critics of the Nazi Party in response to an organized campaign of violence and boycotting undertaken by Hitler's Nazi Party against the Jews of Germany following his appointment as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933." I think you got the horse the wrong way up. First the Jewish organizations initiated a world-wide boycott, then there was a ONE DAY counter-boycott in Germany. --105.12.3.253 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

Please provide a citation from a reliable source, i.e. a recognized historian in the field, to support your contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

This article is a mess. I completely can't figure out the timeline of events from it. The Nazi actions which triggered the boycott are left pretty vague. As far as I can make out, the big protests and decision to boycott German goods came on Mar 27. So how could there be a big British headline about it on the 24th? Then the Nazis threaten a counter boycott if the protests don't stop for Apr 1. But there's only a couple days in there; when was the threat issued? Had any *actual* boycott against Germany even managed to get started yet? I'm trying to figure out if *either* boycott could in any way be considered justified, and from this article, you can't tell. I leave disappointed and uneducated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.119.179 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

The article narrative jumps backwards and forwards in time in a very confusing manner. It badly needs some serious attention. Zero ^talk 04:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

The entirety of this article focuses on Jewish merchants and "stores" as if that were the only reason for the anti-Jew sentiments, when in fact it was almost exclusively focused on the Jewish Bankers and the Jewish Newspapers that advocated for them. This article makes it seems as the primary intent of the Nazis was to harass low-level Jewish store owners when in fact it was the top-tier industrialists that were blamed for Germany's economic malaise, similar to how today George Soros and his associates exercises power over the American economy.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D031:C216:F0E1:58AC (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

Please provide citations from reliable sources to support your contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

That Daily Express headline did appear and describes an appeal at a meeting for a boycott by members of British Jewish organizations; but did any British Jewish organizations actually call on their members to boycott German goods? If so, which one(s), and what are the reliable sources for the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norvo (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

"Continued anti-Semitism in Germany is likely to react seriously against her. A move is on foot on the part of Jewish financiers to exert pressure to force anti-Jewish action to stop." — The Daily Express, "Judea Declares War On Germany" (March 24, 1933), page 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.241.144 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

Recently, code was added to the article to try to invoke this reference <ref name=Wallace/>. I reverted it because there is no definition for a reference named "Wallace" in the scope of this article. As such, the material not only unreferenced, but the use of the undefined reference invocation causes a red error message to be added to the "References" section of the article: Cite error: The named reference Wallace was invoked but never defined.

Surprisingly, the fix to replace the undefined reeference with a {{fact }} tag was reverted, bringing the error message back to the article. I've reverted that change because I don't think there's any sensible reason to cause the article to render with an error message, and that the {{fact }} tag is appropriately used in this situation.

Would it be better to completely remove the uncited material? Perhaps no reference is available at all. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

• Mikeblas, I looked at the editor's other work: I have no doubt that it's the Wallace listed in 1933 Madison Square Garden protest. But EagleLanding, this needs to be cleared up--and in that article you're not providing a page number. And please provide edit summaries for your edits. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

• Just to say that I reverted because I didn't notice that "Wallace" wasn't a defined ref. My bad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

• I figured, BMK. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

• The book by Wallace is indeed the intended ref. The reason a page number wasn't provided is that the Google Book preview for that book does not included page numbers. I have included the URL of the page cited, which I think should be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]