Denazification was the overarching effort to create a self-sustaining, stable German society free from Nazi influence following World War II and the programs implemented to induce this goal. Having never proffered a strict definition for the term, postwar architects improperly relied upon an implicit usage of the object-model theory to discursively determine the bounds of denazification strategy. However, the lack of consensus surrounding the referential object anchoring these conceptions precluded a universal definition. The 1945 Potsdam Conference set forth the “4Ds of denazification”: demilitarization, decentralization, democratization, and denazification. Pursuant to this outline, “denazification” comprised both the primary goal and one of its key pillars. By applying Y. H. Krikorian’s theory on the composition of organizations, it becomes clear that the primary goal and pillar must be different, for constitutive entities are necessarily distinct from the organization they partially comprise. Therefore, “denazification” contained two separate meanings—1) the capacious definition that encompassed the broader Allied postwar project and 2) the narrow programs to purge Nazi officials from influential positions. This presentation explores how linguistic indeterminism led scholars to falsely conflate two meanings of the term. Importantly, it then introduces what I call the d/Denazification Paradigm, a method of historical writing intended to provide clarity to the field by deploying strategic capitalization to differentiate the two versions of denazification. For the past seventy-five years, scholars have struggled to make sense of the seemingly irreconcilable contradiction of a denazification strategy that simultaneously succeeded and failed after “big fry” Nazis regained suffrage in 1951 following the 1944-1949 purges. By distinguishing Denazification (the overarching rehabilitation project) and denazification (the series purges related to Allied-led, quasi-judicial tribunals), the modern historian proves that the incompatibility dialectic is false because there were two different “denazifications.” The Denazification of Germany succeeded even though targeted denazification purges sometimes failed.