Talk:Pan-Germanism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jacob Grimm? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removal of Constantin Frantz 

message: 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)
thread_title: Alldeutsch is not Großdeutsch

message: Nothing about Pan-German League and its interesting program ? Will have to expand.
--Molobo 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a "See also" link to Alldeutscher Verband already, where this discussion belongs. Kusma (討論) 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing reference to Nazism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  somewhat simplifies the Austrian situation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about the philosophical origins? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  German-Austrian Reunification is logical 

message: 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)
thread_title: Modern Pan-Germanism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  It's very frustating that you keep reverting all my work! Alphasinus (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ibsen

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map errors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misconceptional description 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frisian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Supposed Sudeten-German Map from 1938