Talk:Völkischer Beobachter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

right wing radicals like the Nazis[edit]

Yep, just recycling the convenient and mendacious myth that the Nazis were 'right wing'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The NSDAP, or Nazis if you prefer, were Socialists, thus creatures of the left. They were not 'right wing.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.9.252 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


discussed ad nauseaum in the talk page of nazism...

Georgefotiou (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation of name: ethnic/folkish[edit]

I think the description "ethnic observer" would be more accurate, instead of making up a new word like "folkish" whose origin has few to do with the Nazi use of the word "völkisch". That meaning was one of racial and ethnic definition and had nothing to do with "Volk" which translates into "people".

Perhaps there should be no direct translation of Völkischer Beobachter, since the root word Völkisch has no single equivalent in English. The translation currently used, Nationalist Observer, is inaccurate and misleading IMAO. It is telling that the Thule Society chose the name years before the Nazi acquired the paper. Völkisch is a word which became popular in the late 19th century, and it expressed an idea that combines the notions of race, ethnicity, tribe, nation and blood into a kind of mystical identity. Translating it as "Nationalist" or even "Racialist" falls short of the true meaning.ENScroggs (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 'ethnic' is far more accurate than 'nationalist', which frankly is nonsensical, and that "folkish" is equally absurd (I have seen it but very rarely). Völkisch has no single equivalent in English, indeed, so best to just leave it in situ.

Translation from German[edit]

Advice for German-speakers: Be careful with "since", because it is not used exactly like seit. 213.78.96.182 12:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NSDAP vs. Nazi[edit]

I find the use of the term "NSDAP" as opposed to Nazi Party misleading. It appears in this and other articles, and would seem to be more of a term used by those particularly knowledgeable in the field of the Third Reich than the general population. It has no resonance or meaning, certainly not as the word Nazi does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.105.140 (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Uhm, NSDAP is the abbreviation for the official name of the Nazi party. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Rosenberg was its edictor until 1945?[edit]

Was Alfred Rosenberg the edictor of this newspaper between 1920 decade until 1945?Agre22 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Should this page be protected?[edit]

I'm currently referring to this publication in a rather-bitter comment that compares Fox News, saying that F.N. is our 21st century counterpart to the V.B. I know that's a stretch, but I'd hate to see this page hacked. (I do not refer to Wikipedia, on purpose, preferring to keep some obscurity.)

I also risked translating the headline via Google Translate; the word "massnahmen", alone, translates to "measures". "Hitler" was the last word in the raw translation, and I deduced the full meaning from that. (I'm not yet ambitious enough to transcribe article text! I'm glad to be able to read probably most Fraktur, although Kurrentschrift is another matter.)

Best regards to all, Nikevich (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Fwiw, I just turned 75, so I experienced the horror of a terribly-deformed society of a basically quite-civilized people. I dearly hope the USA doesn't have to go through that.

..........

Comparison of Fox News Channel to the Völkischer Beobachter, Pravda, or any other totalitarian outlet of course violates NPOV. Some Americans consider FoX News Channel and the TEA Party groups the definitive expressions of democracy. The solution to propagandistic media in a free society is even more media.

I am fully aware of the old say that the Germans had Goethe and Johann Sebastian Bach but still ended up with Hitler. Well, the Japanese had Hokusai and Hiroshige yet still 'gave' the world the thug empire of the Tojo clique. The Russians had Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky and still 'gave' the world Stalin. The Italians had Dante and Verdi, yet still came up with Mussolini. If you wish to fault the French for the vicious Vichy regime, then you can name Voltaire and Cezanne. Mark Twain and George Gershwin cannot inoculate America should it ever go sour. Perhaps there is a pseudo-populist terror fitting the culture of any country but as a rule it is distinct to that country. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"I'm currently referring to this publication in a rather-bitter comment that compares Fox News, saying that F.N. is our 21st century counterpart to the V.B." - that is idiotic beyond words, ignorant and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Falsely attributed, possibly fake quote[edit]

"There were large red posters in Prague announcing that today seven Czechs had been shot. I said to myself: if I had wanted to hang a poster for every seven Poles that were shot, then all the forests in Poland would not suffice in order to produce the paper necessary for such posters."

This quote attributed to Hans Frank about hanging Poles never actually appeared in the Voelkischer Beobachter as claimed in the article. So says John Connelly, "Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice", Central European History (Cambridge University Press), Vol. 32, No. 1 (1999), pp. 1-33. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

I will begin an expansion before the end of the year. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)