Talk:New Swabia

New Swabia's role in alternative historical theories section

the New Swabia's role in alternative historical theories section contradicts what the hitlers suicide page on wikipedia says. namely that the soviets found the bodies and kept them for 30 years after their deaths before destroying them. so how could the soviets have intellegence reports putting them in argentina? this section needs to be changed.

Article name

This article should either be at New Swabia or Neuschwabenland, probably Neuschwabenland, as that's what's called on the maps I've seen. As it is, it is a mix of German and English.

I'd also disagree that the name is seldom used to describe the region. Most detailed maps of antarctica (eg National Geographic, my atlas etc.) that I've seen include the term.

• Feel free to move the article if you see a more appropriate title for it. I think the name is seldom used to describe the region, although it does appear on some detailed maps, mostly notably the National Geographic one. Warofdreams 22:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it to "New Swabia", which is less of a mouthful for non-German speakers; fixed links as appropriate - Mmartins

I must ad that the claims as quoted in the german book Neu Schwabenland where not abondand by the german Federal Republic it where renewed in 1955 by an official state declaration but since than now offical statement was given Johann

Cleanup

At some point this article had been seeded with a PoV framework to support unfounded popular rumours that AH may have fled here after the war. I have NPoV'd that content and generally cleaned up the prose and syntax. Wyss 08:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't agree, IMO you gave far more airing to these ideas than anyone else had. As far as the "Hitler in a UFO w spaceman friends", I don't know of anyone who admits to believing that ;) I find it a fun story tho, much like the "Jesus rides on a UFO w bigfoot" cult in brazil. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I took out credible because it is inherantly POV. What I think we can agree on is that there is no expert witness claiming this "Hitler in a UFO w spaceman friends" idea is literally true. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Literally true? There's zero evidence for any of it. Wyss 20:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is plenty of evidence for it being mythologically true, look into Miguel Serrano and Nazi mysticism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Semantics. I mean yeah, the myths exist but there's zero evidence of reality. Anyway putting it all in a Nazi mythology section is totally ok with me (!), truth be told I like it and find it entertaining presented in that context. Thanks for persisting with creative ideas, it makes a difference :) Wyss 23:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Such unusual informations are what got me interested in encyclopedias in the first place. From a very early age I have enjoyed researching bizarre or esoteric phenomena. As far as "reality", anything that is even thought of has a certain intrinsic reality, even centuries after the imagining. Also, if only one out of every 100, or 1000 conspiracy theories or cryptid sightings contains a legitimate mystery... that would still be pretty impressive ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I read Snopes from time to time, as an amused skeptic. IMO this stuff can be presented in an encyclopedia (especially WP) so long as it's done in a way that a reasonable, skimming reader can't mistake it for reality (or whatever one wants to call it). You know... that's why I didn't just delete it or try to ban it to a separate article etc. Anyway the moment I saw the new section title, the issue was resolved for me. Wyss 12:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, my interpretaion of NPOV is that I neither want to confuse the reader into thinking such tales are widely respected, nor insult the believers (if they exist ;) by dismissing them out of hand. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the sensitivities of people who want to believe such things (as you say, few apparently do). So long as fantasy (or myth, or whatever one wants to call it to avoid a semantic dispute) is plainly labeled and separated from supportable assertions, informing readers that such tales exist is helpful. Wyss 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I wish there was some kind of reference for the Hitler myth - an in-text cite or something. As it is, it seems dubious whether there are any people who believe this. Evan Donovan 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you go the the Nazi moon base article, which this article refers to, you will find a link at the bottom to the originator of these fantasies: Vladimir Terziski. Regards. Thomas Blomberg 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and who knows... that Russian living in LA may not even believe it (and if he does, he's a nut). Lots of this stuff comes down to people hoping to make a bit of money by stirring up controversy about famous topics among the gullible. Wyss 08:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt about Terziski's nutiness - but he probably believes it himself. He would probably have made more money working as a cashier at Wal-Mart, than he has made on his books during all these years. Thomas Blomberg 20:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Moon base

I have just added a new article for the Nazi Moon base, I ask for assistance to anyone who is familiar with the subject of conspiracy theories and Nazi mysticism to aid me in expanding and making this article a worthy component. Thanks. Piecraft 18:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I just removed an external link about the moon base from this article, as the same external link already exists on the Wikipedia page about the moon base, which this article already has a link to. The madman Vladimir Terziski has enough Wikipedia plugs to his website as it is. Thomas Blomberg 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"An esoteric Hitlerist legend recounts that Adolf Hitler did not commit suicide in 1945, but fled to Argentina, then to an SS base under the ice in New Swabia during the early 1950s where he either disappeared into the hollow earth or resumed his career as a painter - until the 1960s when he was taken by aliens to Aldebaran, where he is planning a campaign to conquer the planet. According to this account, Neu Schwabenland becomes the underground control center for a Nazi moon base. "

Seriously????? What was the deciding factor in whether he chose to resume his career as a painter or as an all-powering conquering aryan messiah of sorts? I guess they both have their merits...

Map requested and added

Quadell requested a map on 22 January 2006, so now there's a map, and I have removed the map request tag. Thomas Blomberg 04:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, nice. Thank you! Wikipeditor

Fair use rationale for Image:Schwabenland.jpg

Image:Schwabenland.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New Swabia

In the article on New Swabia it states that some think through a legal loophole the Third Reich still exists in New Swabia. Please provide a reference. Almost certainly the Final Settlement of 1990 excluded German claims to this region, if they ever existed after 25 May 1945.

131.123.169.63 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Francis Graham

"Legal standing" section

I have removed the following text from the "Legal standing" section: "leading to the Berlin Declaration made by the Allied Control Council, which legally dissolved Germany's civilian government and was further acknowledged in 1990 when a re-unified German government signed the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany." This implies that a claim to "New Swabia" was still on the agenda when Germany surrendered in 1945, or was explicitly rejected by the Allies, which is nonsense. It played no role in 1989/90, either. By the way, the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" was not signed by a "re-unified German government" (which didn't exist then), but by the governments of West and East Germany. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, the remaining text in the "legal standing" section ("No country ever recognized Germany's claim, which lapsed under the terms of the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers signed on 8 May 1945."), and a part of the lead ("which was claimed by Nazi Germany between 19 January 1939 and 8 May 1945"), strike me as problematic, too. Has there ever been a formal claim to the territory that other countries could have recognized or refused to recognize, and which was consistently upheld until 1945? I assume that for most of the war, the German government had other problems. A brief Google search did not yield any evidence that the area was formally claimed in terms of international law. The closest I could get was this e-book whose description says that claims "were explored" in a scholarly journal on international law. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever loose/dodgy claim there may have been (keeping in mind Hitler tended to declare jurisdictions unilaterally at the time), the terms of the 8 May 1945 surrender at Reims indeed and explicitly gave the Allies legal means to wipe out all civil jurisdiction of the TR in one fell swoop, which they did in June. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole "legal standing" section is absolutely wrong. Norway claimed on January 14, 1939, Queen Maud Land, this was 5 days before the German expedition even reached the area. The German government rejected these claims with a diplomatic note on January 23, 1939, but never officially claimed Neuschwabenland. Heinz Schon, the author of a book about Neuschwabenland [Heinz Schön: Mythos Neu-Schwabenland. Für Hitler am Südpol. Bonus, Selent 2004, p. 106, ISBN 3-935962-05-3] contacted the Foreign Office to confirm that there were no official cliams. In 1952 the governmental bulletin (Bundesanzeiger No. 149, August 5th 1952) published a list of 87 names of geographical objects, given by the Ritscher expedition, but this was just a confirmation that these names are valid and should be used on maps. Maybe a native English speaker can edit this section accordingly. --Diorit (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading this post, I could not find a reliable source to support the assertion that Germany ever followed up with a formal claim. Although the government was straightforwardly planning on annexing this territory, those plans appear to have been dropped or postponed with the outbreak of war. Less than reliable sources seem to have muddled exploration undertaken for a planned, later claim with the mistaken notion that a claim was made. I've echoed this in the text for now, along with taking out the little section about the "status" of such a claim, given it does seem never to have happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is mostly for editors who may need to deal with this again someday: Having delved into the early sourcing background of the article, I'm finding that reliable secondary sources (moreover in English) have had little to say about New Swabia since 1939. For a long while the only online sources to be easily had on the topic were unreliable and some even (wrongly) asserted that, owing to a legal glitch stemming from a territorial claim, the Third Reich still carried forth (on paper, so to speak) as a civil jurisdiction in New Swabia. Although these sources were cut from the article long ago, the notion that the expedition was followed up by a disputed territorial claim in 1939 which lapsed in 1945 seemed wholly verifiable/believable and was left in the text by every editor who worked on the article (myself among them). As it happens, a source about flags which was listed for years below the inline citations, noted, "In how far this claim is real at present is quite doubtful." I dimly recall reading that sentence long ago, but at the time was thinking about assertions the claim still had legal standing and thought that's what the writer was getting at, whilst now I think the writer was saying there were strong doubts a claim had ever been made (but was also daunted in finding reliable sources on it). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This artcile has greatly improved by your efforts! I have created a list on the German Wiki with the 87 names given by the 1938/39 de:Liste der von der Deutschen Antarktischen Expedition 1938/39 benannten geographischen Objekte. I will try to find all English names for these objects and edit the list in the article. One minor thing: Neuschwabenland was named after the expedition ship Schwabenland de:Schwabenland (Schiff) (which itself was named after the German region Swabia).

About the flag issue: In Ritscher's expedition report one of these "flags" is shown. It is a 1.2 m long metal arrow made from alumina with a 30 cm cone end made of steel. The upper end had three stabilizer wings with embossed swastikas. These arrows have been tested on the Pasterze glacier in Austria before the expedition and were they dropped at the turning points of the flight polygons. Additionally, some ordinary swastika flags were raised by the ship crew on the sea ice near the coast. A special flag for New Swabia (like shown for a while on the Russian wiki) was never designed.

Regards --Diorit (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put in the naming and the arrows, along with more tweaking of the text. Do you have a date and name for Ritscher's expedition report? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've amended the description of the 'arrows'. From the article in the German Wikipedia Deutsche Antarktische Expedition 1938/39, these were intentionally designed as territorial markers - An den Umkehrpunkten der Flugpolygone wurden Metallpfeile mit Hoheitszeichen abgeworfen, um hoheitsrechtliche Besitzansprüche zu begründen. - and hopefully improved the technical description as well. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be a mistake (one cannot source a Wikipedia article), the source says they marked the flight polygons, not a territory as such, not at all the same things. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pity about that, as the text that I quoted from the German Wikipedia article dates from the earliest version (22 April 2009), created by User:Diorit, who seems to be fairly knowledgeable in this field. The individual word elements in the compound noun "Hoheitszeichen" translate literally (according to my Collins German Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2003) as "sovereignty + sign". Perhaps User:Diorit can supply an appropriate reference.

When I made my edit (in good-faith) I wasn't aware of the extent of the myths and conspiracy theories concerning this topic; indeed when I first came across this article today, I had no prior knowledge of the Third Reich's interest in the Antarctic, or even that they had mounted this particular expedition (although I did know from some earlier editing concerning one of the commerce raiders, that another of them early in the course of the war had captured a Norwegian whaling fleet in Antarctic waters; and despite, in my professional life, recently having to do some desktop research on the geology of the Antarctic coast).

From the current state of this article, it took me a while to figure out that there had been a Nazi interest, and that it was an early manifestation of their aggressive war-planning strategy, abandoned when the war actually broke out. I get the impression that in their efforts to not pander to the conspiracy theorists and revisionists, there is a danger that WP editors can perhaps sometimes go too far to the other extreme in trying to present a NPOV, producing a result that is just too sanitised and bland, which can become in turn, another kind of euphemistic revisionism.Bahudhara (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This can happen, but as to this article, the sources are straightforward. The 3R made no territorial claims to New Swabia and the dozen dropped arrows did not mark territory, but flight polygons (which in no way even look like the outline of a territory, one of the ELs in the article has a diagram). The main thing here is verifiability, readers must be able to check the text against published sources. Revisionism of sundry kinds, sourced and not, can and does creep into articles here, but I've come to know something about the sources on this topic and I'm not aware of any revisionism in the text as it stands now. This is not to say someone in Berlin didn't think about making a territorial claim, only that such a claim was never made. Also, for what it's worth, I did think your edits were made in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that you have done quite a lot of work on this article, and of the need for verifiability. I'm sure that you are right in saying that ultimately the 3R made no territorial claims.

One problem of verifiability is the paucity of sources, particularly in English, which it seems has been compounded by the conspiracy theorists, who have muddied the waters and made it an unattractive topic for researchers, until the appearance of the Summerhayes and Beeching book in 2007.

My objection to the article as it stands now is that virtually all references to the 3R have been removed over time, replaced with the words "German" and "Germany" used in a generic sense, and a vague reference to "it was thought that Germany would soon likely be at war", and only the date of 1938/39 gives the context, which is hardly likely to ring many bells with younger readers.

Even with my very limited German, however, the articles in the German WP spell out that context: Hitlers' demands on the economy, from 1933, for rearmament and preparation of the army for war through a series of Four-Year Plans, which from 1936 were under the direct supervision of Göring; and the consequent demand for raw materials. This was a time that suited ruthless opportunism. The planning and preparation of the German Antarctic Expedition (1938-1939) was delegated to "Councilor of State Helmut (aka Helmuth) C.H. Wohlthat, who as economist and fiscal officer dealt with the organization of the expedition", and after whom Ritscher named the Wohlthat Mountains. U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Wohlthat Mountains

In February 1939 Wohlthat was negotiating with the United States businessman George Rublee (serving on the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees), over the emigration of Jews from Germany.

In late March 1939, even before the Antarctic expedition returned to Hamburg on 11 April, under the "heavy pressure of circumstances" the Kingdom of Rumania last week signed a trade treaty with the Third Reich which, in effect, converted Rumania from an independent nation to a German dependency. In no instance of modern times has one State made such humiliating, far-reaching economic concessions to another as Rumania's King Carol II made in Bucharest last week to Dr. Helmuth Wohlthat, Führer Hitler's traveling salesman. Time magazine. 3 April 1939

Little wonder then that by this time the ambitious Wohlthat was no longer concerned with New Swabia. By April 1941, eight months before Pearl Harbor, he was leading the German business delegation to Japan.

Seen from this perspective, it does seem highly likely that in 1938 Wohlthat was planning a territorial claim as a primary aim of the German Antarctic Expedition (1938-1939), in order to seize an economic advantage over the Norwegian dominance of the whaling industry, and that the "arrows" were indeed territorial markers designed for this purpose. It's also quite possible that the expeditioners planned their flights to suit their own operational survey needs, and simply dropped the markers at the turning points of their polygons, in order to satisfy the requirements of their political masters. It's even possible that they may have known that this was an empty symbolic gesture, as the Norwegians had already established their claim to the area.

It seems pretty clear to me that there is a much meatier story here that deserves to be told, of the intentions behind the expedition - the problem is getting the detail from reliable sources - and the task will require someone with much better German skills than mine, so I am happy to let it go. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have the details for both reports (only few people know about a second report with the scientific results, it is an exceedingly rare book which was published in several sections over a 4 years period):

• Alfred Ritscher (1942): Wissenschaftliche und fliegerische Ergebnisse der Deutschen Antarktischen Expedition 1938/39. Volume 1, 304 pp., Koehler & Amelang, Leipzig.
• Alfred Ritscher (1954-58): Wissenschaftliche und fliegerische Ergebnisse der Deutschen Antarktischen Expedition 1938/39. Volume 2, 277 pp., Striedieck, Hamburg.

The different maps of Neuschwabenland came with the first volume. In the early 1980s, Ritscher's widow handed over about 600 aerial photographs which survived the second WW, that allowed a kartographer to reconstruct the flight polygons and identify most of the objects, named by the expedition Karsten Brunk (1986). "Kartographische Arbeiten und deutsche Namengebung in Neuschwabenland, Antarktis" (PDF). Deutsche Geodätische Kommission, Reihe E: Geschichte und Entwicklung der Geodäsie. 24/I: 1–24.. Unfortunately, most non-geoscience publications about Neuschwabenland are written in German. The only English-written paper dealing with the expedition I know is Summerhayes & Beeching (2007), Hitler’s Antarctic base: the myth and the reality. Polar Record 43:1–21 Cambridge University Press. They are dealing with the myths circulating in the internet and the real background. --Diorit (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw the flight polygons for the first time only yesterday (on an EL in the German article, which I added to this one) which was of overwhelming help to my understanding of the whole expedition. Likewise seeing, for the first time, photographs of the seaplanes which did the flights (and things like the catapult on the ship's stern). The online abstract for Summerhayes & Beeching is already listed as a citation (that the expedition was undertaken secretly, though this didn't last for long). Thanks for the Ritscher cites, I'll add those later when I have more time. Yes, clearly the biggest glitch with this article has been the utter lack of meaningful secondary sources on the topic in English. Your input here is a big help, to both editors and readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tourism in New Swabia.

Meanwhile, since 1997 New Swabia can be visited by normal tourists. I gave sources for that:

1.)John Krakauer: On the edge of Antarctica, Queen Maud Land. In: National Geographic. 193, Number 2, pages 46-69).

2.)[1]

So, please don´t delete that again, or say why you don´t think it should stand in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.234.244 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, it's coatrack spam for a tour promoter and if it's on de.Wikipedia it should be removed from there too. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric speculation and myth

I have removed the paragraph below. It is unreferenced and, since the claim is easily disproved, not notable.--Duncan (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Swabia expedition has led to speculation, which is given no credence by academic historians, of later expeditions there by the Schwabenland, secret Nazi bases, Nazi UFOs and Nazi survival in Antarctica. These myths enjoy a considerable popularity in Esoteric Nazism. However, the Schwabenland's later whereabouts throughout the war are well-documented.

No worries here that it's gone, the section was an artifact from the article's earliest days. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Still. Forcing Germany to renounce its claim to Antarctica? Harsh! :) --Kizor 14:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It now appears they never got so far as to make a claim, see above. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that a claim is easily disproved doesn't make it non-notable. There is a whole bunch of articles on the anti-vaccination movement.The Neuschwabenland conspiracy theories are quite well known and have even been the topic of satirical novels lampooning the whole idea. (http://www.amazon.de/Neues-aus-Neuschwabenland-Tageb%C3%BCchern-Adjutanten/dp/3939459771/ref=tmm_other_meta_binding_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1444258600&sr=1-1) --95.90.54.245 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of New Swabia.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of New Swabia.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My Background/German Antartic expedition 38/39 "explosives" edit.

Rer Isi Rer (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Hello all, I should like to set out the reasons why I have amended this article to include this reference to whale fat as a strategic material in the manufacture of explosives.My reasons are that I was very pained and surprised when I learned that whale fat converted into high-explosive at more or less a one-to-one ratio! I read too in the same article that the German government had been stockpiling whale oil for some years previous to the second world war. In this article an high up German politician had been quoted as remarking that (to paraphrase) "Had the German Empire been in the possesion of the large strategic reserve which we now possess ,previous to the Great War , the victory in that war would have been more or less assured."

This learning had a profound effect upon me and I were thereafter forced to reappraise my perceptions of twentieth century history.Please accept my apologies that I am unable at this moment to recall which German politician had made the above comment , and even my references for the article ,I shall however return here and append the information so soon as I am able to do so. I do solemnly request ,however that my edit be given room to stand in the meanwhile, as being authentic,most relevant , informative and thought -provoking. Blessings- R.I.Rer. Rer Isi Rer (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Without a reliable and verifiable source, this claim by Rer Isi Rer seems extremely unlikely. The article on Whale oil has an external link to Whale oil - an overview > Explosives which has some information about whale oil being a source of glycerol for the manufacture of nitroglycerin (used in dynamite) during World War I. The dynamite article states:

Dynamite is mainly used in the mining, quarrying, construction, and demolition industries, and it has had some historical usage in warfare. However the unstable nature of nitroglycerin, especially if subjected to freezing, has rendered it obsolete for military uses.

Nitroglycerin is not listed in the List of explosives used during World War II or the List of Japanese World War II explosives and it seems that TNT and RDX were among the most widely used military explosives by that time, and TNT had been used by the German armed forces since 1902. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy ... again

Hey folks, you seem to have discussed this already, so i ask first before adding some text. The nazi new Swabia conspiracy is pretty popular (at least here in Germany) and there are some citable sources (one even peer reviewed) that denounce these phantasies as such. Can I add a short paragraph about theory vs. reality based on these sources here:

• http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/mythos-um-antarktische-nazi-zuflucht-die-maer-von-hitlers-festung-im-ewigen-eis-a-475772.html (well respected german newspaper)
• Summerhayes, C., & Beeching, P. (2007). Hitler’s Antarctic base: the myth and the reality Polar Record, 43 (01) DOI: 10.1017/S003224740600578X (seems to be even peer reviewed)

FaktenSucher (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@FaktenSucher I realize that this an old question and that your Wikipedia activity has been both minimal and confined to the German variant since 2020, but it seems you're still around.

I haven't checked the book, and even though I have the linguistic advantage of being Scandinavian, I guess I'm too lazy to have learnt German. But in general, if conspiracy theories are prominent and written about in reasonably reliable sources, I don't see anything wrong with describing them as conspiracy theories in relevant articles.

Der Spiegel is listed as a generally reliable source, and should be fine. Though if you're going to use Cite web or Cite news, it might be beneficial to include |quote =, |language = and |trans-quote =. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Swabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626153457/http://141.74.33.52/stagn/Antarctic_Maps/Documents/DGK_1986_Reihe_E_Heft_24_Teil_1.pdf to http://141.74.33.52/stagn/Antarctic_Maps/Documents/DGK_1986_Reihe_E_Heft_24_Teil_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"unrecognized" claims

The terminology "unrecognized" claim is used in the article. The meaning is very unclear. Generally, nearly all of the claims made in Antarctica at that time (the 1930s) were not subject to any formal recognition. The area in which New Swabia was located was within Norway's Queen Maud Land which was (at the time) equally unrecognized. It would be possible to call the claim disputed, but "unrecognized" is not something that appears in any other article on these claimed areas in Antarctica covering this period of time. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Southern Reich" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Southern Reich. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Flag

the article showed a Flag of New Swabia with is identical to the Flag of the Reichskolonialbund (see also this unused flag image). There is no evidence this flag ever appeared in context of a New Swabia claim (which is anyway to be doubted ever officially made) or the German Arctic Expedition of 1938/1939. See also the crwflags page.
Therefore I will remove this flag from article. If a flag is needed to be shown, either the normal 1935 Nazi Flag of Germany, no flag or Question mark image make sense here. I will simply leave the flag attibute empty, so no flag wil be shown at all – just the expedition logo. -- Burts (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flagge Reichskolonialbund2.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)