Am I overreacting or is that outrageous?

[Terrysnotmine]

In a shop near me

The Nazi's what??

I thought you meant the apostrophe and the ellipsis.

Oh I love this!
So are we saying that @Terrysnotmine is offended because she’s a Nazi?! 🫣

Yes I think Nazis are supposedly offended by the word 'Nazi'.

I would perhaps tell the owner I thought it offensive, particularly for the Eastern European members of our community

Well if they are anything like my late dad (family fled from Eastern Europe in 1939), they wouldn't be offended at all. Now if it were Allied soldiers portrayed in such a way that may be different.

A full explanation from Wikipedia as to why the word Nazi was / is offensive to Nazis....

The full name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (English: National Socialist German Workers' Party) and they officially used the acronym NSDAP. The term "Nazi" was in use before the rise of the NSDAP as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards farmer or peasant, characterising an awkward and clumsy person, a yokel. In this sense, the word Nazi was a hypocorism of the German male name Igna(t)z (itself a variation of the name Ignatius)—Igna(t)z being a common name at the time in Bavaria, the area from which the NSDAP emerged.[15][16]
In the 1920s, political opponents of the NSDAP in the German labour movement seized on this. Using the earlier abbreviated term "Sozi" for Sozialist (English: Socialist) as an example,[17] they shortened the NSDAP's name, Nationalsozialistische, to the dismissive "Nazi", in order to associate them with the derogatory use of the term mentioned above.[18][16][19][20][21][22] The first use of the term "Nazi" by the National Socialists occurred in 1926 in a publication by Joseph Goebbels called Der Nazi-Sozi ["The Nazi-Sozi"]. In Goebbels' pamphlet, the word "Nazi" only appears when linked with the word "Sozi" as an abbreviation of "National Socialism".[23]
After the NSDAP's rise to power in the 1930s, the use of the term "Nazi" by itself or in terms such as "Nazi Germany", "Nazi regime" and so on was popularised by German exiles outside the country, but not in Germany. From them, the term spread into other languages and it was eventually brought back into Germany after World War II.[19] The NSDAP briefly adopted the designation "Nazi" in an attempt to reappropriate the term, but it soon gave up this effort and generally avoided using the term while it was in power.[19][20

So Nazis are the snowflakes

Max Hastings being called a historian is offensive. Go read some Antony Beevor.

Have I missed the latest missive from the permanently offended? Is Nazi a banned word now?

One person’s (even if they are an historian) interpretation of historical events doesn’t make anything so.

Just because Max Hasting believes X, it doesn’t mean X is so.

I can’t believe anyone with even vague critical thinking skills, would come on and say such a thing.

David Irving, an historian, denies the holocaust ever happened. Are we supposed to take his interpretation of historical events as gospel, just because he’s an historian and thinks he’s right?

The allies defeated Germany, Italy and Japan, and the Soviet contribution was significant.

Good grief Op

Clearly some more than others

Do you have children?

He is an excellent military historian as is Anthony Beevor who has also written similarly about the huge Russian contribution to the victory. Ditto the late John Keegan who was the doyen of military historians of his generation.
The Russian campaign wasn't the only thing, but it was the thing that turned the tide. The British army were pretty ineffectual actually. It's been suggested that it's because the average British soldier drew a line which they refused to cross on moral grounds. So no shame that our army was perhaps the least effective. Sturdy individuals and no very good generals.
British contribution was The Battle of Britain which exposed the weakness of the Luftwaffe, and innovative technology - thinking outside the box. Also brilliant intelligence and mobilisation on the home front, which the Germans never really got to grips with.
Blitzkrieg, which the Germans excelled at, was really only geared to a short sharp war. They were much less good in a war of attrition as the Eastern Front became after the initial advance.

But still baffled as to why the notice is offensive. .

I don't get it. What are you complaining about if it isn't the apostrophe?

5/10 though. It's a lot more subtle than certain other threads I've seen this week.

we have a particularly large EE community in our town (compared to other community groups, before you jump on me for that too

huge numbers stayed in the U.K. after WWII as they knew they would be killed if they returned home. Because - in one word - Yalta. Now that was offensive and it is something many have neither forgiven or forgotten.

we aren’t offended by the word “Nazi”.

it’s a word. Nothing more.

war gaming figures in Nazi uniforms aren’t offensive either,

Oh that's fascinating. Thank you for the explanation and it makes total sense!!

I'm German and had never heard anything about this. You learn something new every day!!

(But surely op isn't upset about Nazis being potentially offended???)

I mean I'd never heard about Nazi being associated with Ignatz on purpose. I knew of course about the NSDAP (mustn't let random strangers on the internet think I'm an ignatz...)

It’s very odd to claim that well a established historical fact is merely the whim of one historian. And then be snotty about ‘critical thinking skills’.

The force responsible for the decimation of 80% of the German army is reduced to an also-ran.

I’m not saying he’s wrong, per se.

I’m saying you can’t state something as fact based on the account of one historian, as if that’s some sort of mic drop moment.

Asserting that Russia single-handedly won WWII is not some incontrovertible fact.

My humour, I like it.

But I also gave you another source, a Professor of History.

www.historyireland.com/stalins-victory-the-soviet-union-and-world-war-ii/

Whereas you have provided no sources.

I didn’t actually make that claim if you read my posts.

And it’s not just one historian that’s the point.

Live seeing someone cite Max Hastings and then accuse another poster about reading revisionist British historians

top trolling

@Mirabai I think that even Mr Hastings would concede that the truth lies somewhere between “the Soviets were also rans” (which absolutely nobody on this thread has said) and “the Soviets alone won the war” (which several people on this thread have said).