Talk:Pan-Germanism

Jacob Grimm?

The other problems of this article aside, here is a quite obvious mistake:

Similar expansionist policies were preached by Munich professor Karl Haushofer, Ewald Banse, and Hans Grimm, author of Volk ohne Raum and his brother Jacob, who published a treaty about German "Volksrecht".

Hans Grimm (1875-1959) was NOT the brother of Jacob Grimm (1785–1863), that one lived a hundred years earlier. They may not even be directly related, at least I couldn't find anything that says so. Also, it is misleading to mention Jacob, an academic, linguist, cultural researcher and one of the famous brothers Grimm at this position. Yes, he was a proponent of pan-germanism, but under different auspices in a different time. Especially as the sentence says "preached" (negative and intensive connotation), I don't think his name and work belongs in a line with the aforementioned people. Particularly not at the end of it, because he came long before them. Either one should find a different spot to bring his name up in the article, or maybe should not mention him at all.MegaChaosGelee (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

removal of Constantin Frantz

I removed the name and link to Constantin Frantz as it cannot be proven by primary sources, that he supported pan-german nationalism. His intention was the founding of a Central European federation, including a restored Poland. The former german principalities would have been only members among others and not the base for political hegemony or cultural germanization. For further information take a look into his work "Die Weltpolitik unter besonderer Bezugnahme auf Deutschland" (1882). Though Frantz is often mentioned by later authors in relation to the pangerman movement, this derives mostly from abusive quotation of Frantz by german nationalists after Worldwar I. Currently, I am trying to revise the article in the German Wikipedia, but several questions will remain tasks for further research.--Christophmahler (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Alldeutsch is not Großdeutsch

If you say "Pan-germanism" is "Alldeutsch" then the colors would be black-white-red, not black-red-gold, and austria's Freedom party has nothing to do with pan-germanism....Alldeutsche and Großdeutsche are rivals....while Alldeutsche were for uniting all "germans" under prussia, the Großdeutschen were for uniting all germans under Austria....thats a BIG difference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.186.152 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Nothing about Pan-German League and its interesting program ? Will have to expand. --Molobo 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit on Pan-German League ideas: [1] We need a free press for our national life, a press of and for Germans, one that expresses the German spirit I shall suggest concerning the distancing of Jewry from our public life will be sufficient to preserve the health of our press system Let us be clear in the discussion of these necessities that the innocent must suffer along with the guilty.... Today, the borders must be totally and unconditionally barred to any further Jewish immigration. This is absolutely necessary, but no longer sufficient. Just as self-evident, foreign Jews who have not yet acquired citizenship rights must be speedily and unconditionally expelled, to the last man. But this also is not enough....We must demand that resident Jews be placed under an Aliens' Law.... Newspapers which have Jewish collaborators must make this fact known. The others, which we generally call "German" newspapers, may neither be owned by Jews nor have Jewish editors or reporters. Banks that are not purely personal enterprises may not have Jewish directors. In future, rural property may not be owned by Jews or be mortgaged to Jews. As compensation for the protection Jews enjoy as foreigners, they shall pay double the taxes of Germans....

Resolutely militant policy against the Poles through application of expropriation and introduction of a prohibition against parcellization of land....Extension of military law to all regions endangered by Polish assault. Especially for Upper Silesia we must demand that those elected by the Polish people can sit in parliament only as advisors; they therefore should have no vote and are to be heard only on those matters of interest to their fellow nationals or homeland. Should it turn out that these determinations are avoided by mergers with other parties, we should not shrink from the further step of finally withdrawing the active and passive franchise from Poles. The definition of a Pole should be established on the same basis as suggested for Jews, naturally with language as the determining factor.

Under all conditions Polish newspapers and periodicals must include a German translation next to the Polish text. German will be the only tolerated language for any assembly....

However, there must be created a Central Office in which everything concerning the Polish question is deliberated upon. Only after an Ostmark[3] ministry [has been created] in which the practical struggles of the Polish question are worked out by experts, guaranteeing uniformity of direction, will, and execution of policy, can we expect a lasting success. Should it come to the stage of Polish resistance with recourse to means thus far avoided, the state should not shrink from the ultimate.

As can be seen the Pan-German program represented by Pan-German League was motivated by anti-semitism and discrimination of Poles. It alledged that "German spirit" was harmed by Jews and Poles and wanted to discriminate those nationalitites. Such information should be included into the main text along with quotes. --Molobo 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a "See also" link to Alldeutscher Verband already, where this discussion belongs. Kusma (討論) 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are the citations in this article?74.138.89.115 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) heather

I do not know much about "Pan-Germanism," but based off the article, it seems like Hitler's Anschluss and Greater Germany should at least be mentioned. The only mention of World War II is germans being treated badly in the Soviet Union. That seems to ignore some very blatant events... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.20.111 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

IT IS WRONG!

To say that geopgraphical reasons and mixed areas where the onlyreason why the German speaking people of Austria couldn't live in a German speaking country after WWI. Especially in South Tyrol and in the border region between Austria and Czechoslovakia closed predominatly German speaking territories stretched well into what became Chechoslovakia and Italy. The poeple living in the region were not asked (with two exeptions, and those referendums might have been rigged) in what country they wanted to live and this was done purely for political reasons, namely to fullfill promises to the Czechs and Italians and to weaken the german speaking countries. This was quite contradictionary to what had been promised in Wilson's 14 points and was on of the most important political topics of the time. As it stands the article has to be seen as anti-German (or anti-Austrian, your choice) propaganda and is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.67.177.11 (talk) 11:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Removing reference to Nazism

Yes, a reference to Nazism should be put in the article. But drawing a straight line from the Pan-German League is somewhat misleading. --91.96.195.148 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

somewhat simplifies the Austrian situation

The article says:

In Austria, only the extreme right still clings to Pan-Germanism. During most of the Second Republic, this part was represented mostly by the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) (founded in 1955 and led by the internationally-known populist politician Jörg Haider from 1986-2000).

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "clings to Pan-Germanism", but some variety of pan-Germanist sentiment has been present, especially through the 1970s and 1980s, in most of the major Austrian parties, including the left-wing ones, especially in more conservative regions. For example, the SPÖ governor of Carinthia, Leopold Wagner (1974–1988), was rather controversial in his party for his populist overtones and non-apologetic mentions of his time in the Hitler Youth. --Delirium (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the philosophical origins?

I can't believe this article has been here this long without reference to Herder, Fichte, or Hegel. Ehusman (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

German-Austrian Reunification is logical

Given the fact that Germany is a democratic federation I don´t find any reason why not just Austria, but Switzerland, Luxembourg, Flanders and The Netherlands couldn´t become member states of that democratic Federation if they decide so. In fact, I think that is a necessary outcome if we want Europe to have a say in the World stage. The result of Austria, Switerland, Luxembourg, Flanders and The Netherlands becoming Landern of the Federation of Germany would be a nation of 120 million people, with a GDP of $5,4 Tr. and an strong industrial base.--81.32.121.105 (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in the Netherlands for many years I can assure you that any notion of that country choosing to become a German laender is pie in the sky. Germany is probably the most despised nation for most Dutchmen for obvious reason. (I'm not Dutch btw.) 1812ahill (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User 1812Ahill, you are a buffoon. Maybe you should state your "Obvious" reason before speaking. Seeing as you are not a dutchman, surely you have no damn clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.74.130 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yea, everybody knows: The Dutch are the Germans gratest fans! Just learn a little history before posting your obscure theories about pangermanism. As being an Austrian I can assure you, only very few people adhere the idea of a second Anschluss. Read Friedrich Heer, Erwin Ringel etc.--Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes but a true Austrian knows he is ethnically German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum please discuss outside, thanks. By the way avoid personal statements next time. 190.195.112.29 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not personal at all it is the truth, holy roman empire of the german nation, german confederation, german austria, anschluss and this article itself proves it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Pan-Germanism

Is there any documentation of Pan-Germanism as modern movement in the US? I know it has become taboo, and perhaps underground in Germany, but the idea is still present in the US; especially among German descendants and Social Darwinist youth cultures. Also, I would imagine Neo-Nazis are also Pan-Germanists. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing information

The article completely misses information on racism aspect of Pan-Germanism, calls on depopulate Slavic territories and influences it had on Nazism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The influence on Pan-germanist ideologies on the policies and ideologies of Nazi germanyis quite possibly the single most noteworthy part of this topic and the article devotes one line and mentiones none of the racist, anti-semite or anti-slavic parrts of the pan-german literature, nor any of its connections to scientific racism and falsification of history. Quite a bit of an NPOv problem. Tagged accordingly. User:Alphasinus removes the sourced mention connecting pan-germanic and racist idelogy in the lead saying thatit is covered in the 1818-1845 section (which it isn't) - this is not a valid argument since the lead is supposed to summarise the main aspetcs of the topic. This is the main aspect of the topic - it is just not covered sufficiently.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User Alphasinus is now edit warring to remove information that is critical of Pangermanism, and which was found in the very sources he had himself included as support for other claims from the lead, and to include unsourced information. He/She has a chance to give a rationale here before being reported to ANI for editwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never removed info about nazi pangermanism but it's undue that the intro of the article talks more about pangermanisms links to racism and nazism than the very concept that the article is about. It would be better to integrate it into the rest of the article. Alphasinus (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You've removed it from the lead. According to WP:LEAD the lead must summarise all the information of the article body. There are two editors here that say that the links to nazism and racism are a very notable part of the topic - so does all of the sources that are in the article - especially the Encyclopedia Britannica. You have also made misleading editsummaries. You have reincluded information that I removed because sources either contradicted it completely or not directly suppoerted the claims made. This is not good editing behavior. Please stop it. You are of course right that the information about the links of Pan-Germanism to some of the historical events that lead to the invention of the concept of "crimes against humanity" should of course be integrated fully into the article's body as well as the lead. I will start working on this when I have time - untill then the NPOV tag will warn editors that this article gives a highly partial and misleading view of the topic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"This page in a nutshell: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."

Correct. "appropriate weight" is not excluding information about the only aspect of Pan-Germanism that has had lasting historical interest and which is covered in all available reliable sources about the phenomenon.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw. when you say you "never removed info about nazi pangermanism" but merely integrated into the article body then what are you doing in this edit[2]?(the edit that caught my attention here).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That link does not disprove what i said. You on the other hand has been removing pictures of areas settled by germans in 1910, referings to the pan-germanic liberal revolutions of 1848 and the pangermanic tendencies of Hamsun and Ibsen.Alphasinus (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does because in the diff you remove the only reference to antisemitism and antislavism in the article. I have removed information that was not supportyed by sources - the source given for the inclusion of Hamsun and Ibsen stressed that they only partially supported the pan-german ideology, whereas bjørnson was fully in support. Get a better source if you want to include the claim. I will reinsert the statement about Weber in a more correct wording - since i have found source that support the claim that he supported pan-germanism in his early years although later he rejected it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Det er lite kjent at Henrik Ibsen, Bjørnsson og Munch ivret for et storgermansk rike."

"Kristoffer Brun og andre store folkeførere på 1800-tallet, forfekta de samme ideene, de pan-germanske ideene. Og Knut Hamsun slutta seg 100 prosent til de ideene. "

References

I've included mention of them in the section that also mentions Bjørnson and Munch.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive removed Ibsen again - this[3] article gives a very good description of the different attitudes to pangermanism among Danish and Norwegian intellectuals at that time. Ibsen was strongly against Bjørnsons version and against Germany - he sarcastically referred to Bjørnson as the "Priest of Pangermanism".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ibsen

Ibsen did not support pangermanism - the (not very reliablke) source you provide suggest he supported it partially. In fact as as I have shown he published against Bjoernsson's pangermanism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There's even a quote of Ibsen saying that he regards himself as germanic rather than Norwegian. The quote is in the book that is being reviewed in the dagbladet article but i can't find it anywhere else. As you're obviously dedicated to discredit Pan-Germanism, you're probably going to find this source unreliable as well. [4] It's very frustating that you keep reverting all my work! Alphasinus (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Do better work and more discussion and you'll be less frustrated. I generally think snippets are not reliable sources - you should not use sources that you haven't read. in their entirity. Often meaning is different when it is in context. In this case I think the book looks like a reliable source and since the snippet clearly states that his pan-germanism was restricted to his later years that does not necessarily contradict the source that I have found which states that he rejected Bjoernsons pangermanism and was more positive towards pan-scandinavism in his middle years. However we would need to actually read the sources and use them correctly in order to feature Ivbsenas a prominent proponent of pangermanism. When I get to a good library - that will be sometime in september - I will look for biographies of Ibsen and use them to get a clearer picture of his relation to pangermanism. Please refrain from speculating about my motives - that is a prerequisite for me refraining to speculate about yours. In anycase I don't need to discredit pangermanism - history has already done that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

btw. did you notice that the snippet actually says that for Ibsen pangermanism was "just a phase he passed through".?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It still seems like it was his final phase. Nevertheless, he wouldnt have been mentioned in the dagbladet article if it wasn't for a reason. I don't really see how the fact that Ibsen labeled Bjoernsson a "prophet" of pangermanism proves that Ibsen opposed it altogether. May i ask what danish political party you support? Alphasinus (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No in the snippet his final phase was "mysticism". And no you may not ask what Danish political party I support - it is irrelevant - and in fact it is offensive that you would ask, especially given the political climate in Scandinavia right now. The fact that Ibsen labeled Bjørnsson "high priest" of pangermanism doesn't prove it, but if you read the article I linked (I assume you read Danish) you will see that he had a falling out with Bjørnsson because the latter supported Germany against Denmark - whereas Ibsen in this period supported a pan-Scandinavian unity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Map errors

The current map (as of April 2015) shows a map of the situation in 1937, according to its information. It also shows Danish as a spoken language in parts of East Prussia, bright green colour. These facts makes the map a bit unreliable, perhaps it contains other errors as well ? Haven't we got a better, more reliable map ? Boeing720 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think what the map is trying to show there is the Polish minority in East Prussia. Missaeagle (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Also the Elsass-Lothringen area appear to be wrong, not all French speaking people left this area after the Franco-Prussian war 1970-71 (Alsace-Lorraine in French). Likewise there were German speaking people north of the German-Denmark border, as well as Danish speaking people lining south of the border. Still today Flensburg has around 5.000 people who are native Danish speaking. Boeing720 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Luxembourg, Hungary, Székely Land, Alsace-Lorraine, and Western Poland all seem to have a much greater German presence in this map than they really did, this map implies that Luxembourg is completely ethnically German, which is simply factually incorrect. Darknight1342 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Misconceptional description

The German term "Pangermanismus" refers much more accurately to Pan-Germanicism, not Pan-Germanism. This is because the term German in the German language refers to Germanic things only. English is absurdly confusing here, but it suffices to say that in the German language only Deutsch refers to Germans while Germanen refers to Germanics. Thus, stating that it only sought to unite the German-speaking people would not cover the whole aspect of it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Frisian

The article talks about Frisian. The respective articles are West Frisian language and Frisian languages.Hence the wording Frisian should be removed. Sarcelles (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Supposed Sudeten-German Map from 1938

The map "German Map Sudeten.PNG" is quite obviously not from 1938, as it accurately depicts the months in which various conquests took place and a map of occupied Europe from the height of Nazi expansion. Moreover, the map rather strangely includes the date 1948. The fact that it is claimed to have been published in a left-wing British publication makes the whole thing rather dubious. It should be removed.2601:85:C202:150:E1CA:5128:1B18:B50E (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of a future date is not a problem, considering that the map purports to be of the Nazi's future plans. The provenance of the map is another matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at the dates on the map "Herbst 1939, etc." they show exactly where the Nazis conquered at that time during the war. Considering that things like the conquest of Yugoslavia, the boundaries of occupied France, etc. were not planned in 1938, it's fairly obvious that it cannot be from that year.2601:85:C202:150:7D45:F0CD:99F9:2357 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But if the map was published in The Daily Worker in October 1938, it cannot date from after that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any proof of that provenience? It sounds highly dubious to me and isn't sourced. Somehow I doubt "The Daily Worker" could look into the future.2601:85:C202:150:7C7D:4CC9:329F:D86A (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You do know about the newspaper that accurately predicted the atomic bomb, right? The details were so spot-on that security officials investigated, fearing a leak, but it turned out to be a mere coincidence. Sometimes, short-term predictions of the future just happen to get it right.

I see two problems here, First, was the map actually published by The Daily Worker on the date specified? Since it's referenced, it's up to you to show that it wasn't. Second, is the map what it purports to be, something issued by the Nazis in 1938 that the newspaper was simply republishing? That seems more problematic to me, given the left-wing nature of the newspaper and the propaganda value of publishing such a map. For that, we only have the word of the newspaper itself, so further invetsigation is warranted. However, in my mind, for neither of these questions does the congruence of the dates on the map and the actual dates of events rule out the map actually dating from 1938. I don't think it would take a great deal of geo-political acumen to project forward at the time from past events to future ones with relative accuracy.

I suggest that if you continue to believe that there are problems in the provenance of the map, you do a little research to shore up your argument, because otherwise we're just swinging at air here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have also issues with that. 1.) Is the "Daily Worker" a reliable source, if yes what are the specifics of the publication that map is shown in? 2.) What happened to the original source? My take is: 1.) No 2.) The pamphlet was made up. 105.12.0.177 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)