Talk:Horst-Wessel-Lied

Untitled

Perhaps a brief line explaining how Der Fuhrer's Face parodied the song would be in order, as it's not entirely readily apparent when listening to the two tunes. 156.34.221.174 14:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Second that, i can't find any Lied in the film. --Big gun 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What abowt telling us about the circumstances of Horst Wessels death and why the Nazis chose him as the subject of the song?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.11.217 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 April 2006‎ (UTC)

And how about posting the lyrics? Me and my friends like churning out some campfire songs, so I'd like to know what I'm singing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.249.27.160 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2006‎ (UTC)

Bad German?

The article claims "The line "Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen" is bad German."

This may not be the greatest line of German poetry ever written, but it is grammatically perfectly fine without having to assume that auxiliary verbs have been omitted. erschossen is 3rd person plural of the simple past tense of the verb erschießen. Translated literally, the line means Comrades, whom Red Front and Reaction shot dead.AlOgrady (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is of course correct. In fact, you would gain nothing at all by adding the auxiliary verb haben, it would still be exactly as ambiguous: Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen haben. This was apparently lost on the author of the paragraph, who used precisely that form as explanation for one of the possible meanings. It turns out that it's actually quite difficult to get rid of all theoretical ambiguity without completely changing the way the meaning is expressed. The Nominalstil I used in the article is ugly, but does the trick.

Furthermore, I prefer the translation of "Rotfront und Reaktion" given by AlOgrady, even though I suspect this usage of "Reaction" is not idiomatic in English (but in its defence, this is also the word currently used in the "approximate English translation" further up in the article). My language sense tells me the ambiguity would be heightened greatly if the line read "Kameraden, die Kommunisten und Reaktionäre erschossen". Whatever my personal feelings, the translation "Red Front and Reaction" is the more literal, and thus the better one in a discussion of linguistic specifics. --SKopp (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As a native speaker i assure, that it is an shorten of "was shot down by Red Front and Reaktion". That will be obivous by the next phrase, cause they march as moral support with their camerads. The complete phrase would be "Kameraden, die von Rot Front und Reaktion erschossen". i assume that was shorten to reach the meter. -- [[User:Gunnar.offel|Gunnar]] ^{[[User talk:Gunnar.offel|💬]]} (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Kälbermarsch

"Kälbermarsch" should be added to the parodies because it's by Bertolt Brecht —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.119.110 (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright?

What's the copyright position? Under the 70 year rule, it's only PD if the author died before 1936. And is the translation the editor's own or copied from somewhere?--Brownlee 12:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the article about the author of the lyrics and putative composer of the melody, Horst Wessel, you will see that he died in 1930. Further, it is now commonly believed that the melody itself is an adaptation of an earlier folksong melody. (See the linked article from International Folklore Review included as a reference.) The translation is another matter. It appears to have been copied from the Wikipedia Nazi songs article, which in turn cites a page of the the Internet History Sourcebook which grants permission for electronic copying. Mapleseed 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Original lyrics?

Is there any reason (such as the German law, though I doubt this has any effect) the original German lyrics are not shown in the article?  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now added them.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"A singable English translation: Raise high the flag, close ranks, now all together, Storm Troopers march, with firm and steady tread. Souls of our comrades shot by Reds and by the enemy March with us too, and swell the ranks ahead.

Make way, make way now for the brown battalion. Make way for storm troops as they march along. We raise the swastika, the hope of many millions, The day of freedom and of bread has come.

The bugle sounds its final call to battle, We stand at arms, we're ready for the fight. Soon Hitler's flags will wave o'er every street and byway The end of slav’ry comes with morning light."

excuse me but is it really necessary to add a "singable english translation" of that song into the article? in my opinion it´s just wasted space and so i deleted it. mfg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.254.39 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Horst-Wessel-Lied

Shouldn't this be moved to Horst-Wessel-Lied. The title is in German and the correct german spelling is Horst-Wessel-Lied. --° 11:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Think I'll do it now, in fact.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to tell that the lyrics in the article aren't fully correct. The following weren't correct: In the trird textblock they say:

• "Zum letzten Mal wird nun Appell geblasen!", after hearing the song myself I concluded that the line must be: "Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmappell geblasen!"

and the following is also incorrect:

• "Bald flattern Hitlerfahnen über Barrikaden." I heared the following in the song: "Schon flattern Hitlerfahnen über allen Straßen." What is a major difference with the line of the article.

I only wanted your oppinion about if I must change it or not...

Another thing what was said in the article isn't correct either i thought. They say that the Horst-Wessel-Lied was the national anthem during the second world war, but this isn't true according to many people I've spoken. Could anny one confirm this?

--KnorXone (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite/copyright

I have rewritten and expanded this article, largely using the linked paper by Broderick. There are some relevant photos here but I would want an opinion on their copyright status before I uploaded them. (General inquiry: what is the copyright status of "official" photos and artwork from the Third Reich under current German law? There seems to be an assumption at Wikipedia that because the Third Reich is defunct, copyright does not apply to its relics). Adam 04:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't load that page, it breaks my browser. But if you speak of propaganda materials, I think it's absurd to claim or fear copyright issues. Propaganda materials, by their nature, are intended to be spread as widely as possible. Citizens are sometimes arrested for failing to copy and distribute them. Now that the Third Reich is defunct and discredited, I think any copyright that might ever have been claimed is doubly moot. IANAL.

If you want legal issues when dealing with Nazi propaganda, worry about current German law forbidding display. Fortunately, our server is in Florida. Anyway, historical purposes should be fine. John Reid ° 12:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics format

I've reformatted the lyrics and translations; the old version was unreadable. You may wish to fiddle some more with the presentation but please avoid excessive italics. They are very hard to read in big blocks. No need to grind in the fact that they are lyrics or that some are in German, some in English. Okay? John Reid ° 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Front

A subtlety is lost in translation. The German text contains "Rotfront", which was a standard abbreviation for Rotfrontkämpferbund, who frequently clashed with SA. The KPD idea was Rot Front (written as two words). `'mikkanarxi 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Some decided that "Horst-Wessel-Lied" is song title. Its title was "Die Fahne hoch!". "Horst-Wessel-Lied" means simply "Horst Wessel's song", and that "Lied" starts with the capital letter (which could hint that is a title) is accidental, because in German language nouns are written from capitals. Therefore the article must be either moved under its original title Die Fahne hoch! or under its English name, which is Horst Wessel song.

Opinions, please. `'mikkanarxi 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand the hyphens. I don't think it matters, since there must be redirects from every possible variation. No matter where the article sits, it's unlikely that anyone searching for it will guess at the "correct" title first time -- but that's why we have redirects. It's probably more trouble than it's worth to move it, anyway. Besides, this is the kind of debate that can rage for years without conclusion. What is the "real" title? What Horst called it when he wrote it? Of course! What the drunken storm trooper called it when shouting it out in the Bierstube? Without a doubt, the only choice. What the Blitzed Londoners called it? This is, after all, English Wikipedia! What the dry scholar poking about in his papers calls it? Why, we must respect authority! What the common American schoolboy working on his essay calls it? We should be accessible!

This brings to mind a news account I read some years ago about a troubled spot on the border of Pakistan and India. It seems that for at least the last thousand years, the locals have disputed a certain specific location; both sides agree it is holy but they each have their own views on the proper god or gods to be worshipped there -- and, therefore, the proper building in which to worship. Periodically, local control shifts, the existing temple is demolished and a new and different one erected in its place.

After that latest clash (at the time of publication), several hundred locals were slaughtered and the previous building razed; however the losers rallied and regained control. At this point, one of demolishers rushed the ranks of the demolished, pierced their lines, and laid a single stone on the disputed spot. He was, of course, immediately killed for his trouble. The explanation given was that the martyr had begun symbolic contruction of a temple to his chosen god. I've always been intrigued by this story, a meditation on the folly of men and -- depending on how you ascribe their motives -- the power or impotence of gods. After all these years, the only stones available nearby must have been used at some time in the construction of both competing temples, so what was the young man really doing?

Contrast what the locals do in Jerusalem, where 4 or 5 major religions squabble over one spot and have their temples and bits of temples but don't usually kill each other over them. Instead, they built an airport and hotels and make a great deal of money from tourists who come to see.

I say we build an airport, don't worry about the article title. John Reid ° 01:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't panic. I didn't start moving the article from its current place, however strange for an English reader the title is now. `'mikkanarxi 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was given its current title before I became involved with it. I think it should be called Horst Wessel Song, because that's its most common name in English, but like Reid I don't think it's worth arguing about. On Rotfront, I dare say Mikkalai is correct. The original manuscript in Wessels' handwriting gives "Rotfront" not "Rot Front." Adam 02:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On the Rotfrontkämpferbund: I have always assumed that its title is composed of Rot + frontkämpfer + bund, that is, an organisation for KPD veterans of World War I ("frontfighters"), with the "front" refering to the wartime "front" rather than the political "Red Front." But I have not looked into this. It the Rotfrontkämpferbund is to have an article it also should have an English title Red Front Fighters' League or something like that. Adam 02:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I first searched for this article at "horst wessel song"; redirected that. Next, tried "Horst Wessel song"; redirected that. Finally found it (through rd) at "Horst Wessel Song". I really, really object to case-sensitive titles in the database. At least this time I didn't have to search WP using Google. John Reid ° 10:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Die Fahne hoch" is the first line. The separate title, for English-language purposes, may be "Horst Wessel Song." Normally in English the tune name of a foreign song is appropriated from the first line in the original language; thus the tune name would be DIE FAHNE HOCH. "Horst-Wessel-Lied" with or without the hyphens may be acceptable as an alternate title for native speakers of German (I'm not one; so they can decide). In other words the discussion is about a German song and we are writing in English about three English needs: the first line, the common title, and the tune name——respectively, and by way of illustration, consider "O Lord My God" (first line), "How Great Thou Art" (common title in English), and O STORE GUD (tune name, drawn from the Swedish first line). Perhaps someone can come up with three analogous terms for the song involved in this earth-shaking issue. Richard David Ramsey 06:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The name of the song is "Horst-Wessel-Lied". Maybe Wessel himself called his words "die Fahne hoch" - after his death in 1930 and especially from 1933-1945 when the song was part of a sort of national anthem, it was officially named "Horst-Wessel-Lied".

mfg norbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.254.39 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to guess the original title sans autograph manuscript & whatnot (or other evidence), whether for this or for a less political, more art art-song (Schubert, Fauré) or others/any...; without that, one often goes to the next source, which is published title. When it was published, in voice-piano reduction in 1930 (by Th. H. Fritsch Junior of Leipzig; the reduction was by G. Groschwitz, fwiw), the title was, according to HMB, "Die Fahne hoch! Marsch-lied v.[on] Horst Wessel." (see: HMB 1930, p.239). Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Other lyrics

In Ruth Lewin Sime's biography of Lise Meitner, the lyrics (IIRC) "when Jewish blood spurts from our knives, we will feel twice as good!" or something very similar are stated to be a part of the Horst Wessel lied. I've seen words to this effect noted in a few other descriptions of the song. But I can't find these lyrics in any official version. Does anyone know how they fit into the song/story of the song? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

There were "official" lyrics to the song, which followed fairly closely what Wessel wrote - his manuscript can be seen online. These are as given in the article. There were also many unofficial lyrics, some of which are given in the article. I have seen references to the line you quote, but I have never seen a set of lyrics which incorporates it. Adam 10:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

i changed the english translation, it must be "shot dead BY red front and reaction". in the german original "...die rotfront und reaktion erschossen" we have an accusativ and not a nominativ use of "die" (german native speaker)

I changed the English translation, because the earlier version wasn't idiomatic English, although not usually incorrect. I changed "Red Front" to "Reds" because it sounds more like English, but please change it back if you think the actual words "Red Front" are important-- I don't think they are because that is explained later. In English, "Reaction" and "Reactionaries" have two completely different meanings so I changed that too. I had always wondered what the words are to this song, since books about Nazi Germany are always referring to it. Thanks to whoever posted the original German.

Evangeline (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Evangeline

Necessity to include an English singable version?

I don't quite get why it is necessary to include text for a singable English version, unless you want to encourage people to sing the song in English. Considering the historical context of the song that seems rather insensitive. Since it is not required for the accuracy or completeness of the article I propose removing the singable version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.81.43 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The English translations are literal but not metrical, and they don't rhyme. They are hardly singable, at least with this tune. Presumably the point is to convey to the English speakers who cannot read German what the German lyrics say. The translations shown for the other languages are, however, compatible with the metrical pattern (11.10.11.10) and rhyme, and they were sung in those languages, as a matter of historical record. They are reported factually but in no way approvingly. Richard David Ramsey 04:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem, the aticle seems fine. If you get rid of one translation based on a historical context, then we get rid of them all, starting with country national anthems. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not the job of an encyclopaedia to provide readers with "singable versions" of non-English language songs. The other versions are there because they were contemporary versions sung in the 1930s by other fascist groups. There was no English-language version which used a translation of the German lyrics. (There was an English song sung to the same tune by the British Union of Fascists but it used different lyrics.) The only English translation which Wikipedia needs to provide is a literal one so that readers know what the German lyrics mean. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Very POV (80.136.127.163 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC))

I'd agree, as far as this song is concerned, but disagree in principle. Generally: to "get a song", it is necessary, especially if you don't know the language, to get an idea of how the song would sound if it were English; the bare knowledge what the lyrics mean when translated to prose is only half of the information. And besides, if you translate German to English, in (very roughly) a third of cases the something that does fit rhyme and meter, or does so when filled up with a bit of "and" and "the" suggests itself naturally. So either one must artificially translate the song so as not to rhyme, or it would be really awkward, or deliberately translate it to rhyme.

Specifically: This song is to be wiped off the earth, not to be understood and "gotten". Plus, the danger that some Nazi might feel encouraged to sing it is too high a risk.--2001:A61:260C:C01:D100:4E82:35BA:86 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WesselHorst.jpg

The image Image:WesselHorst.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. --03:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

George Lincoln Rockwell edition

I removed an addition of a modern set of lyrics written by George Lincoln Rockwell because the anonymous user said it was "1960s". There are a number of copies of it around [1][2], however I cant pin down publication details quickly. I did find that This Time the World (1960) is public domain because it wasnt renewed, but this text isnt in there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sickening" lyrics

I've added a section with vicious Anti-Semitism that encourages mudering Jews. I hope that helps to show that Holocaust denial is unfounded. I've added a quote from someone who thinks it's sickening. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Die Fahne hoch

I have heard that the melody to "Die Fahne Hoch" is an old North German marching song. At least one on-line source (Deutsche Volkslieder: www.ingeb.org) attributes, with reservations, the same melody to "der Abenteurer" from the opera "Joseph" or "Josef von Agypten" by Etienne Mehul (1763- 1817). Horst Wessel was from Westphalia in Northwest Germany. The melody itself seems similar to "Erika", written by Herms Niel about 1930 and widely dissemeindted by Josef Gobbels, who also disseminated "Die Fahne Hoch" and who was from the Ruhr, also in Northwest Germany. It is also interesting to note that Mehul was, according to the Wikipedia entry, from the Ardennes (bit west and south of the North Rhein Westphalia area), he studied under a German music teacher in the Ardennes and that the Kingdom of Westphalia was a French sattillate state during the First Empire in 1807 when Mehul wrote "Joseph". There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests the melody to "Die Fahne Hoch" is something traditional to Northwest Germany east of the Rhein and west of Berlin, and not Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.13.250 (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the melody is not similar to Erika at all.--2001:A61:260C:C01:D100:4E82:35BA:86 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Melody similar to 19th century broadside ballad

It seems to be an outside Sweden seldom noticed fact, that the melody is very similar to the broadside ballad Alpens ros (Rose of the Alp). This is said to be an originally German song, translated into Swedish and published in 1871 by Wilhelmine Hoffman, born in Denmark and the widow of a circus rider. She supported herself and three children as an itinerant entertainer.

A traditional style recording of Alpens ros, speeded up and with some verses omitted to fit a 78 rpm record.

A guitar rock version from 1961

Fairhair45 (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the similarity is obvious, just like oatmeal porridge resembles roast beef. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

I added part of this text to the article here my text starts with, "Another version was". I assume the text by unknown 2nd World War authors isn't copyright but Wikipedians who specialize in copyright issues should check. I have translated the text into English after giving time to sort out the copyright, again my text starts with, "Another version was". Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Du Bösen Qb

"Du Bösen Qb" was in the parodies section of the article. A web search reveals nothing. Does the term mean anything or is it a test edit that got overlooked? An unregistered user added that, the user did only that one edit. I've taken it out but anyone who knows that the term means anything can restore it, please give a reference if you do. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Use outside Germany" section

An editor wants to have the title of this section reverted to "Fascist use outside Germany. I think the additional term is both redundant and presumptuous: It should be assumed that anyone (a person or an organisation) using this song would have Far Right political beliefs. On the other hand, we cannot presume to have proof that the users are all of fascist ideology. (The respective Wikipedia articles on the users describe them as "Far Right".) Any opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling it far right usage looks like a reasonable compromise. There is a section, Parodies dealing with Anti-Nazi versions of the song. Opponents of Nazism also sang versions of Horst Wessel. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling it "far right" is downright idiotic. The Nazis were "far left" socialists, in the conventional definition of the term. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lyrics?

What happened to the lyrics of the song? It looks like they were deleted, the only lyrics that are shown are just either later additions to the song or parodies. 174.50.171.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely worthless

An article about a song and it includes lyrics from parodies but it doesn't include the original lyrics of the ACTUAL SONG, what gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Equal first and fourth verses?

The text says that the Nazi salute was made on the first and fourth verses, that are equal, but these verses are not equal, other verses are. Either those were not the verses or it shouldn't be said that they are equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.158.47 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reactionaries?

"The 'reactionaries' were the conservative political parties and the liberal democratic German government of the Weimar Republic period, which made several unsuccessful attempts to suppress the SA."

How the hell is this true? Reactionaries are anti-[what I bolded]. —User000name (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. The Nazis opposed the liberal democratic government too, of course, but that's not meant with "reaction", of course.--2001:A60:1555:9C01:5889:7CA5:F2F6:EE6 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Title

Following WP:COMMONNAME, I have moved the article to the common name of the song in English, which is "The Horst Wessel Song". There is no policy-based reason for it to be at the German name on this Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm an English speaker, and I refer to it (on the rare occasions I have occasion to do so) as the Horst-Wessel-Lied. My memory is that is how it is referred to in general (eg, I remember a newspaper story where it was inadvertently played producing monstrous embarassment). I don't talk about "The Song of Marseille", either. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at a shelf full of books on Nazi Germany, and the common name in all of them is not the German one. BMK (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How curious. I wonder if this is a transAtlantic thing?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting we move it back; I have no strong preference. I'm just recording this discussion for later reference. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Could be a US/UK thing, except that at least a third of the books I'm referring to are by British authors. BMK (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And now Hazhk has moved it back, presumably without seeing this talk page discussion. Have fun, you two. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It should never have been moved in the first place; there was not a satisfactory discussion and I don't see any consensus for moving. I'm happy to accept it being moved again, if there is agreement for that movement. As I see it, the German name is preferable per WP:COMMONNAME (I don't see how this policy can be cited for the English name). -- Hazhk (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Verbiage in Post World War II section

Consider revising first two sentences.

"With the end of the Nazi regime in May 1945, "The Horst Wessel Song" was banned. The lyrics and tune are now illegal in Germany and Austria for any purpose other than educational ones."

The law prohibits the distribution or public use of the song, but there are numerous exemptions for art, civil enlightenment, journalism, research and science. From the Wikipedia article regarding the Strafgesetzbuch section 86a law: "(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. […]"

The second sentence only mentions one of the exemptions, educational.

Several artistic performances have taken place in Germany including, Karlheinz Stockhausen's Hymnen which contains a recording of the Horst Wessel Song (source: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Courses/154/Hymnen).

This misleading verbiage is also repeated in the Popular Culture section: "...The Horst Wessel Song, which is banned in Germany and Austria..."

Also note, there is no reference for "The lyrics and tune are now illegal in...Austria..." Needs reference to Austrian law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tor Tiiktok (talk • contribs) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thatthe ban has a limited number of exceptions does not make it any less of a ban. I have made some adjustments, such as removing Austria. It can be added with a cite. BMK (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Attribution of the French version

In the Far-right use outside Germany section, the French language version is allegated to be sung by the Milice française; however, it seems, given the rest of the lyrics (two versions here and here), and the fact the anthem of the Milice was the Chant des Cohortes, that it was the Légion des Volontaires Français or the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French) who sung this. --Jean Po (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not == extreme poverty?

I'm a bit confused by the recent edits. As far as I know "Die Not" can be all kinds of hardship and "äußerste Not" or similar would convey extreme poverty. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted pending consensus. BMK (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's true that die Not can be any sort of emergency, but "poverty" is a fair translation here. The Communists used the phrase Not und Elend, which means something like "poverty and despair". Roches (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's the "extreme" bit I was querying - someone edited it in and I didn't think it was justified. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the melody

Criticism of Horst Wessel as author became unthinkable after 1933, when the Nazi Party took control of Germany and criticism :would likely be met with severe punishment. (...) In 1936, a German music critic, Alfred Weidemann, published an article in :which he identified the melody of a song composed in 1865 by Peter Cornelius as the "Urmelodie" (source-melody)

So, ah, which is it? Unless Weidemann had escaped Germany - my German is insufficient for the cite - in which case that might usefully be noted. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The article cited was published in Switzerland, says so right in the cite. BMK (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

So it does. I must have been asleep when I wrote that. :-/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horst-Wessel-Lied. 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/20041108042943/http://www.george-broderick.de/ns_docs/ns-horst_wessel_lied.doc to http://www.george-broderick.de/ns_docs/ns-horst_wessel_lied.doc

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) 04:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Funeral

The article states that "Wessel's funeral was elaborately staged to be as provocative to the Communists as possible". Can somebody elaborate on this? What does this mean? I would like to request some extra information on this funeral, and for someone to add that information to the article. In the meantime, I added a {{clarify}} template. Duivelwaan (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How to spell Straße / Strasse

After changing Strasse to Straße, I got this interesting feedback by User:Beyond My Ken. I prefer to continue the discussion here. --Nillurcheier (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: Unless you want to brought up on the noticeboards for admninistrator sanctioning, I would suggest that you do not replace English-langauge spelling with German-language spelling again. This is English-language Wikipedia, and the "ß" is nota feature of the English language. If you want to use that, I would suggest you go and edit German Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, first I prefer a more polite style of conversation, we are not debating the most important conflict of the world and are not in an edit war. Be so supportive and link the appropriate Wikipedia guideline that has a rule for this issue. Be also so kind and explain, why many last names in English Wikipedia are spelled according to German rules (Göring, Schröder, Özdemir etc.). Next, please explain why there are dozens of "Straße" in the English Wikipedia like Hohe Straße, Ingolstädter Straße and many more. Finally let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page. I will copy it. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason not to spell "Straße" in its native form (note that Strasse is a REDIRECT). The ß-spelling is supported by MOS:FOREIGN and widely used on the English Wikipedia, including in the article for Große Frankfurter Straße, the term disputed here. I don't think there's a single Wikipedia article with "Strasse" in its title. The proper spelling ought to be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is every reason not to use ß - this is English Wikipedia, and the English-language WP:COMMONNAME is what controls. ß is not an existing symbol in the English-language Latin alphabet. I wouldn;t expect German Wikipedia to use "ss". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

a1) WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, this is about using a foreign-language term in running text. a2) WP:COMMONNAME doesn't address diacritics, MOS:FOREIGN does. a3) WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to conflict with dozens of Wikipedia articles with "Straße" in their title, and none with "Strasse". b) The spelling in the linked article of that street uses "ß". c) This article uses "ß" in "Straße" and other words several times; spelling "Große Frankfurter Straße" differently is inconsistent and makes it seem sloppy. d) There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles with diacritics and other non-English characters in their title, so their use seems well established. e) The English Wikipedia uses this and other foreign-language terms widely in their proper spelling. Aside: if the Strasse in question were in Switzerland or Liechtenstein, it would be spelled that way even in the German Wikipedia (de:Nationalstrasse vs de:Nationalstraße). The proper spelling of "Große Frankfurter Straße" ought to be used here as it is elsewhere. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

a1) COMMONNAME sets up a precedent for usage throughout Wikipedia. a2) "ß" is not a diacritic. a3) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. b) The spelling in other sources is no concerns of our, only the informational content. c) all other uses of "ß" are in the article are in German-language text, not English-language text. d) repetitive and contradictory with a1. e) duplicative.

I repeat, I wouldn;t expect German Wikipedia to use "Strasse" and we shouldn't expect English Wikipedia to use "Straße". That's the bottom line, despite all of this Wikilawyering to the contrary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• If I had fucks to give, I wouldn't spend them here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• A reasonable viewpoint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• German-language context: is just as true for the Große Frankfurter Straße as it is for the lyrics. You may also notice that this article's title is in German, so misspelling Straße seems sloppy. Further, Strasse is not English, so I don't understand the argument favouring that misspelling.
• I know that "ß" is not a diacritic; I used that word as a shortcut for "not an existing symbol in the English-language Latin alphabet". MOS:FOREIGN and accepted practice allow for those.
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST: That essay says, "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." Here, the use of "ß" is inline with WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:FOREIGN and consensus. There's further useful reading at WP:Some stuff exists for a reason.
• Wikilawyering: Where did I use policies or guidelines contrary to their principles, or commit any of the other offences mentioned in WP:Wikilawyering? If I had provided no reference to policies or guidelines, you would have asked for those. Providing them, you accuse me of lawyering.
• Your only reference to policy is WP:COMMONNAME (properly WP:Article titles). It recommends to follow dominant usage in English language reliable sources. Judging by the existing use in Wikipedia article titles, Straße seems to be supported.
• WP:Manual of Style/Proper names recommends, "other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places", which applies here. Also, WP:WikiProject Germany/Conventions says: "The Wikipedia convention is to use the full German alphabet in proper names, in line with the broader Wikipedia convention of using local Latin alphabets."
• Regarding this edit summary: WP:CON about a disputed matter does not require unanimous agreement; you are the only one disagreeing. Further, local consensus "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", which is obvious in the consistent use of "ß" in the naming of many articles; I couldn't find a single "Strasse" in a title. This article shouldn't use it either. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Strongly supporting Michael Bednarek --Nillurcheier (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken please check the discussion here on talk, not the slightest support for your position, so please continue the discussion at Karl-Marx-Allee, if you really want to continue... --Nillurcheier (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nillurcheier: Your edit summary said there was "100% consensus," which is obviously not the case. I would suggest you get an uninvolved well-respected editor to certify the "consensus", since it flies in the face of (1) We are English Wikipedia and prefer the Latin alphabet as used in English, and English forms whenever they exist, and (2) WP:COMMONNAME. An average English language reader will come across "Straße" and not have a clue how it is to be pronounced (it looks superficially like "StraBe"}. We are here not to show how durn smart we are, that we know German special letters, but to communicate with our readers. Anything which comes between our readers and their understanding of the information we are presenting to them is bad, and I will only acquiesce to it under duress. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nillurcheier was wrong to claim 100% consensus. However, "consensus does not mean unanimity". I have shown that Wikipedia practice is to spell "Straße" with "ß", and WP:COMMONNAME supports the use of foreign characters in many cases. MOS:LIGATURE is quite clear in its support. There is no article name that uses "Strasse" for a street in Germany, except Wilhelmstrasse and Ludwigstrasse (with lively histories of page moves), and Leopoldstrasse. On the other hand, the matter has been discussed at length and resolved in favour of "ß" at Voßstraße. There are more than 100 articles with "Straße" in their name. This treatment of "ß" is similar to non-English characters from other languages (Irish, Icelandic, Croatian, Serbian, etc) that are widely used here. Conclusion: overwhelming project-wide practice is to use "ß"; that should be used here, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Beyond My Ken:, after waiting another week, and still nobody supporting your position, and after pointing out, that amongst all occurances of Große Frankfurter Straße this one here is the only one with a deviating spelling, and in the light that you do not make any attempts to change the general spelling of Große and Straße in english wikipedia. Would you be so kind and agree in using this spelling also in this article. At least, point out a path towards an agreement. Thanks Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please get an uninvolved editor to close the thread in agreement with your position, that's the path. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, BMK does have another supporter, but unfortunately I didn't see this thread in a timely manner; otoh it doesn't seem to be closed, either. There is no letter eszett in English. As someone who reads and translates articles from German, I'd say that this is en-wiki, and we should write German loanwords using the English alphabet unless the preponderance of reliable sources in English use the German spelling. So, "gummi bear" (not *Gummibär); "muesli" (not *Müsli), and "Strasse" not Straße. I can certainly see introducing the eszett in a foreign-spelling parenthetical appositive in the first sentence as suggested by MOS:FORLANG, but I see no reason to use eszett in the title just because they do so in German, unless, of course, that's what the preponderance of English language sources do, which does not (yet?) appear to be the case with Straße. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue was settled with reference to the general rules in en-wiki: WP:Manual of Style/Proper names and WP:WikiProject Germany/Conventions. Feel free to discuss these rules at the matching discussing pages. --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but those guidelines settled nothing. This is English Wikipedia, our readers understand English, and words should be written in English whenever possible, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. There is absolutely no compelling reason to write "Straße" instead of the English transliteration "Strasse", although there are very good reasons not to, such as that most readers will not be able to make sense out of it. Anything we do to confuse the reader is a serious disservice to our customers, and no non-mandatory guideline should force us to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

English lyrics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The lyrics were recently changed and then reverted with an edit summary "see talk". I see no discussion which declares the previous version better. Here is a comparison:

	Previous	Recent
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen! SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt. |: Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen, Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit. :| Die Straße frei den braunen Bataillonen. Die Straße frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann! |: Es schau'n aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen. Der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot bricht an! :| Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen! Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit! |: Schon flattern Hitlerfahnen über allen Straßen. Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit! :| Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen! SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt. |: Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen, Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit. :|	Raise the flag! The ranks tightly closed! The SA marches with calm, steady step. |: Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries March in spirit within our ranks. :| Clear the streets for the brown battalions, Clear the streets for the storm division! |: Millions are looking upon the swastika full of hope, The day of freedom and of bread dawns! :| For the last time, the call to arms is sounded! For the fight, we all stand prepared! |: Already Hitler's banners fly over all streets. The time of bondage will last but a little while now! :| Raise the flag! The ranks tightly closed! The SA march with quiet, steady step. |: Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries, March in spirit within our ranks. :|	Our flag is high! Ours ranks are in formation! Storm-men press on, in silent, steady step! |: Comrades who fell – shot down by Red Front and reaction, march on with us, in spirit they live on!:| So clear the street! Here come the brown battalions!, So clear the streets! SA is marching by! |: Our flag waves on and bears the hopes of countless millions, for freedom dear and bread upon each plate!:| For one last time, the call to arms is sounded! For one last time, we stand prepared to fight! |:Soon every street will proudly fly our flag unbounded! The chains wil lbreak, and bondage come to end!:| Our flag is high! Our ranks are in formation! Storm-men press on, in silent, steady step! |: Comrades who fell – shot down by Red Front and reaction, march on with us, in spirit they live on! :|

There is no special imprimatur for the previous version. I think the recent version has a better flow and metre and should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the previous version which is a more direct translation. If we are to use a "home made" translation, priority should be to convey the exact meaning, not to have any particular aesthetic or artistic qualities. Especially I find the fact that the proposed "recent" translation omits the originals references to Hitler and the swastika to be highly problematic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there no reliable source which gives a translation? We should not be in the position of having to rely on what are essentially OR translations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've sourced the previous version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Much preferable then - both sourced and more accurate textually.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The second translation is, in my view, totally unacceptable. In translating a song, you can choose to translate to prose trying to convey the exact meaning, or you can choose to translate to a song, necessarily taking artistic licence (though still trying to stick to the meaning if possible). What you cannot do is to translate a song which rhymes to a song that fits the metre but doesn't rhyme. No way. And quite independent from the fact that this is the Horst Wessel song. Also, you cannot translate something which rhymes to something which doesn't rhyme but then have one rhyme pair, "founded/unbounded", in its place where it should be, without the others. - Plus the criticism especially that neither Hitler nor the swastika are mentioned by name, though the original does, is valid.--2001:A61:260C:C01:D100:4E82:35BA:86 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should this article be included in the category "Obscenity controversies in music"?

There is a clear consensus to exclude this article from Category:Obscenity controversies in music.

Cunard (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article be included in Category:Obscenity controversies in music? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No, do not include - Although the editor who wishes to include it defines "obscenity" as "an extremely offensive word or expression" [3], in fact, a much more common definition of "obscene" would be on the order of "(of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency", that is, "obscenity" is primarily used in referring to sexuality, in particular coarse sexual language. The vast majority of other items in this category would fall into that definition.
  In point of fact, the Horst Wessel Song was not banned because it was obscene (there's nothing particularly repugnant about the words used, but because of its history: its intimate connection to Nazism. Shoving it into an inappropriate category, the purpose of which is something else entirely, seems to me to be overkill, simply an attempt to vilify it even more than it is already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, do not include it is a misunderstanding of what the word "obscenity" means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• No per above comments and reviewing the category this would be completely out of place with articles like Eminem and Marilyn Manson. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• No Not obscene, just a song about a man who happened to die in a brawl with a marxists over a woman.(Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Certainly not - the very suggestion is absurd. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• No Not obscene by any reasonable definition. Cesdeva (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• No Historically ugly but not obscene. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• No There's nothing obscene with the song; it's banned for political reasons. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) – Surprised this is even up for discussion; someone thought this was obscene? Potter Stewart would have a thing or two to say about that. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not the national anthem

The Horst-Wessel-Lied was never the (or a) national anthem of nazi Germany. It was always played after the anthem (on Hitler orders) and is therefore confused, but it only was the anthem of NSDAP. It is correcly described in the main article, but not in the intro above the contents section. Please check and change. 47.71.27.83 (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nazi ghostsoldiers shooting people?!?

Removed part about the lyrics being ambigious about whether the "kameraden" got shot by communists/"the reaction" or whether they were shooting them.

There is no controversy there, since the next line in the song is "march with us in spirit/as ghosts".

The "SA men are shooting communists/the reaction" interpretation therefore only makes sense, if Wessel believed that the SA men were aided by an army of bolshevik-shooting ghosts.

I have seen no reference to this belief in any reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.137.160 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it until there is a consensus here on the talk page to remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that the section in the article where an alleged ambiguity is mentioned ought to be removed. It is technically unsourced (page number? quotation?) and the context makes the meaning clear. Klemperer's text in LTI is more an understandable polemic than a serious point about misunderstanding the lyrics and only of philological/linguistic interest. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• National anthem of Nazi Germany, Horst Wessel Lied.oga

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong attribution

@Beyond My Ken:, since you wanna discuss. As i commented the reduction: nor text or rhythm allows a parody in that way. the song belongs to the militaria in the third reich as whole.

The most notable English-language parody was written by Oliver Wallace to a similar melody and titled "Der Fuehrer's Face" for the 1942 Donald Duck cartoon of the same name. It was the first hit record for Spike Jones. The opening lyrics give the flavor of the song:
When der Fuehrer says we is de master race
We "Heil!" (pffft), "Heil!" (pffft) right in der Fuehrer's face
Not to love der Fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we "Heil!" (pffft), "Heil!" (pffft) right in der Fuehrer's face<ref>"Der Fuehrer's Face", songlyrics.com</ref
Each "Heil!" is followed by a Bronx cheer.

To be clear: I don't doubt the sentences, I just don't see that they are at the right point in this lemma. -- [[User:Gunnar.offel|Gunnar]] ^{[[User talk:Gunnar.offel|💬]]} (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

This song never was an anthem

The Infobox stated:

Former co-national anthem of  Germany
Also known as	"Die Fahne hoch" (English: "Raise the Flag")
Lyrics	Horst Wessel, 1929
Published	1929
Adopted	1933
Relinquished	1945
Preceded by	"Deutschlandlied" (as sole national anthem)
Succeeded by	"Ich hab' mich ergeben" and "Hymne an Deutschland" (by West Germany)
"Auferstanden aus Ruinen" (by East Germany)
"Bundeshymne der Republik Österreich" (by Austria)

That's wrong in more than one way. First of all, that song was a song of the SA not Germany or third reich. Also theres no Co-Anthem. Nor it was succeed by any song, since theres different countries. -- [[User:Gunnar.offel|Gunnar]] ^{[[User talk:Gunnar.offel|💬]]} (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That the Horst-Wessel Lied was named the co-national anthem of Nazi Germany is attested to by numerous sources, and is a fact which is not in doubt. Do not make changes to the article which introduced unsourced information or removes sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Königsberg-Lied is not named by a BOAT

The city Konigsberg was a german city and region at the baltic sea. The text corresponds that. Which mind accocciates a boat with the time at the beach and can write this (sorry for this) brainfart down and get it in for so long. -- [[User:Gunnar.offel|Gunnar]] ^{[[User talk:Gunnar.offel|💬]]} (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The information is sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the area Königsberg: https://mapire.eu/en/map/europe-19century-secondsurvey/embed/?bbox=2164683.4775006683%2C7260910.270874712%2C2348896.715667943%2C7406599.246786258&map-list=0&layers=158 . Your say that the information that Königsberg with the beaches and the baltic shore is trusty sourced to a boat. Since there's no reference on the textpart, I ask you to show me this the trustworthy source and add it as a reference. -- [[User:Gunnar.offel|Gunnar]] ^{[[User talk:Gunnar.offel|💬]]} (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It's sourced by Mall in the nmz 11/98: "1918 auf die Auslieferung des Kreuzers Königsberg an die Alliierten gedichtet". That may refer to SMS Königsberg (1915). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2020 (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:

• Die Fahne Hoch.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct lyrics: "fest geschlossen" (current article text) or "dicht geschlossen" (picture with lyrics)?

See also: special:diff/1008969973

Apokrif (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

should not be indexed in the Wiki anymore due to it (the song in question) BEING ILLEGAL IN GERMANY!

§ 86 StGB Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations

Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda: of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; ... means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. ... Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. § 86a StGB Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations

Whoever: domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (§ 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in § 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto. The exceptions from §86 subsection (3) and (4) apply accordingly.

Also, please acknowledge that even some Jews payed the third reich actively. These people abuse their minors, just as well as actual Satanist occultists, other pedocrimers in general and therefore, they should be hopelessly unindexed in the Wikipedia for this reason, if the audio in question is not and never also containing any thoughtful social distancing from this crap. Crap is crap.

Is it possible please to condone thoughtful unindexation of anything antidemocracy-related without such as sentimenting added up to it here? Thx in advance here.

--94.134.91.54 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is a worldwide project of the Wikimedia Foundation which is based in the United States. German law cannot control Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is not censored. Typing in ALL CAPS is not an effective means of persuasion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Succeeded by

Why is the Austrian anthem listed as a successor? Adrianolusius (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted lyrics

I removed all copyrighted lyrics which are not public domain, similar to this removal per consensus in The Internationale after 18 years. 14.228.138.192 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is copyrighted, perhaps it is not, but there is absolutely no reason to remove text about the various groups that have translated the text or made their own versions. Sjö (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sjö: Some translated lyrics are under copyright, then restored by the URAA in the US, similar to these Chinese patriotic songs, Ode to the Motherland, The East is Red, March of the Volunteers, and others are still in copyright. 14.228.138.192 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The words "do not add Nazi" has been in the infobox since December 2021 as far as I can see, and I think that shows consensus. That is a minor point, since the main problem with your edit is that you removed texts like "One of the marching songs of the British Union of Fascists, known as The Marching Song or Comrades, the Voices was set to the same tune, and its lyrics were to some extent modelled on the song, though appealing to British Fascism", which I am sure is not copyrighted. You also removed similar texts about other groups.

The copyright issue has been discussed above and it was determined that Wessel died in 1930 which makes the German text PD. Given that other movements of the time translated the text, it is not impossible that those text are also PD. At least there is enough uncertainty that you can not say that those lyrics are copyrighted without investigation or presenting sources. Sjö (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No 179.53.28.255 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@En Ali 179.53.28.255 (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Party anthem

Should we include as "Party anthem of the NSDAP", unlike Taiwanese national anthem article. 49.150.0.134 (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)