Talk:Günter Grass

message: The expansion of government should not be described as "democratic reform".
The SPD policy of the 1970s of expanding government (higher taxes and more government spending and regulations)is described as "democratic reform" in the article  - it is absurdly biased to describe expanding government, in size and scope, as "democratic reform".176.249.239.141 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

message: The Schleswig-Holstein museum's collection doesn't show up for me; it shows me a list of pictures saying "Picture Restricted by Copyright Owner".  I've taken this out for now — do I need to do something special to get it to work?  --Mgreenbe 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link cleanup 

message: What do you mean Mr Grass was "not" a Nazi? Of course he was a National Socialist - where is the evidence that he was not? He never stopped being a socialist - he just changed brand of socialism (from the National Socialists to the SPD), his socialism, and therefore his hatred of the "capitalist" United States, remained a constant.176.249.239.141 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Grass was not a Nazi.  What was the Waffen-SS?

message: It would be nice to have references to the particular commentators mentioned, who are presumably the basis for the 'controversy' heading.   The CNN report referenced doesn't mention them, or any controversy. HenryFlower 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, CNN is a tad superficial and will forget about it the second the next US showbiz scandal comes along... It's all over the German press. Leibniz 16:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. But it's brewing already. Leibniz 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy?

message: I noticed that there was a dispute above over the phrasing of the description of Grass admitting to have "been a Nazi". I'm a little unclear on the details of the dispute, but it looks as if it was over whether he served "as a Nazi" in the Waffen SS. I don't think that this is necessarily the case any more than being in the Navy or other armed forces in the US means that one is serving "as a Republican" in the Navy. Allowing the two ideas to conflate is a mistake and almost certainly trying to put POV in the article. --Akhonji 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I wouldn't be surprised if you will be rewarded with a long rant for that statement. Leibniz 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I've been the subjects of several long, confused rants today already, I don't see how one more would hurt. The fact of the matter is that people are all too ready to immediately condemn anyone associated with the German military, whether they did or didn't have anything to do with Nazi atrocities, just because it's so much easier to listen to old propaganda condemning German soldiers as "the Hun" and so forth, and cast a blanket judgement over anyone who was associated with the wrong side. --Akhonji 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the comments that I made on your talk page, let me go over the facts once again. AchtungAchtung called my edits, well, "childish."  And I pointed out him that his comments are violations of the Wikipedia policy, they are against the rule No Personal Attacks.  See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  I told AchtungAchtung to stop engaging in personal attacks and I am now telling you again, do not encourage AchtungAchtung or any other editors to engage in personal attacks.  Above, you stated, "condemn anyone associated with the German military, whether they did or didn't have anything to do with Nazi atrocities," but you refuse to point out that Mr. Grass brought these condemnations upon himself because he has been a lying, blowhard left-wing weasel for 60 years.  As I pointed out to AchtungAchtung, Mr. Grass is a classic example of projection.  He points his finger at everyone else in the world and condemns their actions, but he just could not seem to be honest about his Waffen-SS past, as matter of fact he had to lie about it for 60 years. What a hypocrite!!!  Voice for a Generation, my arse.  If you are confused about what I just stated let me say it again.  Voice for a Generation, my arse. Also, don't encourage AchtungAchtung to engage in personal attacks. Any questions?? Also, as for your analogy on this page.  I understand your comparison between Republicans and U.S. enlisted Army men, but do you really believe that this left-wing blowhard who has been lying about his service in the Waffen-SS for 61 years is really telling you the whole story??  Why do you believe him without question?  He has not earned the benefit of the doubt. Why? How about the FACT that he has out and out lied about the Waffen SS service for over 60 freaking years??? No I don't give him the benefit of the doubt. Deal with it. --Getaway 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that you are the one that did the personal attacks. And if you don't give him the benefit of doubt, I would request that you stop editing this article. Your personal opinions have no place in this article - or Wikipedia in general. There are no facts of him being a member of National Socialist German Workers Party (aka Nazi), nor there are any indications that he was involved in any war atrocities. At worst, there was a 17yo boy who was drafted in military and then assigned to the Waffen SS. That does not make him Nazi or a war criminal. As for the being quiet... hmm, he was a part of the losing army and there are way too many people like who would gladly stamp every German Nazi and have them shot on spot. So please keep to NPOV or don't edit this article. DLX 19:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well, well.  Another comment on my editing without the benefit of pointing to anything that I have done wrong.  I have not engaged in any personal attacks.  If I did please show me in the edit history, where I did, otherwise, please leave that off the table.  Next, every single person has personal opinions just like you do.  You just expresed some.  However, I am honest in my opinion of Grass being a left-wing, blowhard.  And unlike Mr. Grass I did not wait 60 years to call him one.  Now, you are putting words in my mouth (let me point it out to you: "there are way too many people like who (sic) would gladly stamp every German Nazi and have them shot on spot".  I never said that, that is simply your imagination.  I guess you needed to make up words, put them in my mouth, so that you would have something to santimously condemn, as your hero Mr. Grass did for all those years.  Even if Mr. Grass is a Nazi, I don't want him shot, that notion is just your wild, uncontolled imagination.  I just want to call him what he is, a garden variety Nazi.  If he wasn't then why did he lie about it for 60 years? Oh, by the way, I'm not going to stop editing the article. I apologize if that disappoints you.  And one last final thing:  It is possible that he is a Nazi, but we don't know because the German government refuses to release the names of the 11 million Nazi party members on file.  The German government does not have the moral authority to condemn anyone. --Getaway 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not put words into my mouth. I never said you want to shoot anyone. That was your imagination. Please stick to NPOV or stop editing. This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. Or, we might need a mediator for this article. DLX 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, you have not provided an example of where I was engaging in non-NPOV.  So please drop it.  Also, once again, it is possible that he was a Nazi--we just don't know the records have not been released.  Also, his book is coming out on the first of Sept and we will learn more about what he has been lying about.  Also, you please stick to the NPOV or just stop editing the article, this is an encyclopedia and no one wants your preconceived ideas of Mr. Grass in it.  And finally, I'm waiting for your examples.  Thank you. --Getaway 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've avoided POV edits in the article, it's true and commendable. However, the talk page of a public figure is not the place for mud-slinging. Additionally, making sarcastic or denegrating comments in edit summaries, toward anonymous editors or otherwise, is bad. Remember, a lot of vandals do what they do to get a rise out of people, so if you revert something like that, just say "rv" instead of going after the other editor. --Akhonji 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the day, that's all the charges that you can get me on???  And I'm get a speech from you who assumed that I wrote, "served as a Nazi"??? But you had me mistaken for an anon editor????  Give me a break!!!  Don't lecture me.  You started all of the discussion by encouraging AchtungAchtung to continue to engage in personal attacks, basically you were encouraging another editor to continue to break one the most important Wikipedian rules.  Get out of here with that, jeez.  Really.  And don't forget Mr. Gunter Grass is a left-wing, blowhard. --Getaway 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of that makes any of what I said above less true. Just because I made the mistake of thinking you added something because you were defending it does not make my making note of what a talk page is for invalid. Neither have I encouraged to AchtungAchtung to make personal attacks; I think what he did was not a personal attack. Keep that in mind. A message board would be a fine place to talk and editorialize all you like; keep the talk page about the article. --Akhonji 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already pointed out that what AchtungAchtung did and stated is a personal attack, please review the policy.  I will provide it to you once again:  Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Getaway 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not regard AchtungAchtung calling the view you took of the situation in WWII Germany naive as a personal attack any more than I regard this edit summary as one. Further, I did not encourage him to make personal attacks, I suggested that he should rethink his words and use naive instead of childish. --Akhonji 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, for the sake of all that is good and decent, just freaking drop it.  What he said was a personal attack.  Stop arguing about it.  He's not even arguing about it.  Just edit the article.  And remember Mr. Gunter Grass is full of himself.--Getaway 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is (at WP:NOT) not a soapbox for pontificating from about how foul people you don't like are. As I said above, that's for message boards. --Akhonji 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You just can't stop yourself, can you??--Getaway 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't stop in good conscience as long as you insist on pontificating on talk pages. --Akhonji 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In good conscience, that's funny. --Getaway 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm not going to be baited by you on this talk page any more. --Akhonji 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serving "As a Nazi" 

message: Grass is a, maybe the, major German novelist of the post-war period. I take it that it is appropriate for the Wikipedia entry about him both to mention the fact that he was briefly a member of the Waffen SS at the age of 17 and to mention the fact that he kept quiet about this for most of his life. But it is surely a violation of NPOV for these facts to occupy the proportion of the article that they to. Bristoleast 10:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems noone's expanded on the relevant sections yet, that's all. Feel free to add information if you can! 136.186.1.184 10:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is surely not balanced due to the fact that the section only quotes negative statements about his "confession", this is no doubt agenda driven. You can find almost the same amount of positive and respectful statements from high profile personalities in Germany. --Asdf01 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is something to definitely consider; the view on the English Wikipedia is probably slanted by systemic bias. If any German editors are able to provide examples to the contrary, that would be keen. However, if a positive view of his disclosure is a minority position (which I don't know if it is, or isn't), that should be reflected in the article. --Akhonji 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments have both sides here. Some people say that without this point in his vita most of his work would have not been possible. But others state that the moral advices always key point of his work are not authentic anymore. Hellmuth Karasek said that he never got the noble price if he would said this earlier. The worst accusation is that the marketing of the new book should benefit from the anouncement. --Stone 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most positive statement on Grass that I have seen is by Robert Schindel . Leibniz 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other notable positive statements exist from Ralph Giordano, Walter Jens, Arnulf Barning, Erich Loest. Asdf01 10:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth,  I can't resist pointing out that Robert Schindel's parents were sent to Auschwitz, whilst Walter Jens was a member of the Nazi party. Leibniz 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance?

message: Heya, this article includes the line:
"As Grass has for many decades been an outspoken left-leaning critic of Germany's treatment of its Nazi past, his statement caused a great stir in the press"
This would not be entirely clear to someone who is not au fait with Grass' past statements. What is his problem with Germany's treament of its Nazi past?  Does he think it has shoved it under the rug too much? Or...? Drett 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Das Question

message: Gass said that he was in a POW camp (with 100 000 others) near Bad Aibling together with Ratzinger (Benedikt XVI) and gambled and discussed their future plans.--Stone 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grass Ratzinger

message: While people are looking at this page, this might be a good time to look for a source, if there is one, for the claim that his mother was part Kashubian.   That's been appearing and disappearing from the article every so often for the last year or so, with no references that I've seen from either side. HenryFlower 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick googling gave me "Günter Grass was born in Gdansk, Poland (formerly Danzig, Germany), the scene of his several novels. His father owned a grocery and his mother was of Kashubian origin - Slavic people distinct from the Poles both as to language and culture." , "the Nobel laureate, Gunther Grass, despite being a German citizen, proudly calls himself a Kashubian." , and perhaps the best one, "Günter Grass was born on 16 October 1927 in the then “Free City of Danzig,” now Polish Gdansk. His parents, Willy Grass (1899-1979) and Helene née Knoff (1898-1954) of German and Kashubian-Polish origin respectively, were typical of the mixed ethnic population of pre-war Danzig. They owned a grocery store with an attached apartment in Danzig-Langfuhr. Grass's sister was born in 1930." . DLX 08:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashubian 

message: Tin Moralist
Nobel laureate Gunter Grass, author of the postwar classic "The Tin Drum" and self-styled conscience of Germany, is a darling of the anti-American and anti-globalization set. He is also a former member of Hitler's Waffen SS. 
This previously unknown biographical tidbit emerged Saturday, 61 years after the fact. In an interview with the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to promote his forthcoming autobiography, Mr. Grass offered that he volunteered for a U-boat unit in 1943 at age 15, but was turned down. A year later, he was drafted into the Waffen SS, a special unit notorious for its role in the Holocaust. He served in the closing year of the war but the details are still fuzzy. He didn't explain why he kept all this secret, except to say he felt ashamed. Cynics smelled a PR stunt to boost book sales. Others rushed to forgive him. Mr. Grass, after all, was only a teenager in a country at war, and by his own account never fired a shot. 
Harder to ignore is Mr. Grass's silence all these years. His fiction as well as his political activism is built around the facts of his life, from his birth in "Free Danzig" to his experiences in wartime and postwar Germany. The new detail on his resume is not exactly small. But it does shed some interesting light on his public moralizing, for which his passion has often seemed greater than for his fiction. 
To wit: In that same interview, Mr. Grass remembers that as an American prisoner of war he saw white GIs mistreat black comrades. "All of a sudden," he says, "I was confronted with direct racism." Let's see if we get this straight. A man who just confessed to serving in an elite Nazi unit, who belonged to the Hitler youth and who may have found it hard not to notice the disappearance of Jews from his native Danzig, claims that his first experience of racism came in a U.S. camp. Even in the Waffen SS, Mr. Grass felt morally superior to those damn Yanks, and he still does six decades later. 
In 1968, he claimed the U.S. was "continuing war crimes in Vietnam, which, as German war crimes, had been rightly condemned at the Nuremberg Tribunal, including by American judges." Perhaps lowering Americans to the level of Nazis helped Mr. Grass's personal catharsis. Next he sought to establish German moral superiority as a direct result of having once been a Nazi state. In Saturday's interview, Mr. Grass muses about his country's accomplishment in confronting its past, concluding that "winning makes you dumb. The victors think they don't have to deal with the sins of the past." 
This is an old Grass theory. Shortly after the start of the Iraq war in 2003, he said that "The word of the current American President 'You are either with us or against us' weighs as an echo of a barbaric era on all current events." He contrasts America's war for "economic interests" and moral decline with Germany's new superiority. "After two world wars with criminal consequences, for which we have to assume responsibility, we have, and it was difficult enough, learned from history and understood the lessons." 
Had the U.S. followed Mr. Grass's advice 65 years ago, his career in the Waffen SS might have lasted longer than several months. But in a Continent liberated by American blood and treasure, this "peace" activist can, along with fellow European Nobelists Harold Pinter, Dario Fo and Jose Saramago, bash the U.S. in comfort and freedom. 
The Wall Street Journal 08/16/2006
(Copyright (c) 2006, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) 13:41, 16 August 2006 192.128.167.68 (Talk)
::The above is misleading to the extent that it suggests that the Waffen SS was an elite "unit."  Actually it was more akin to a branch of service, like the USMC.  While certain units of the SS engaged in damnable atrocities, for the most part it was involved in conventional military operations on different fronts in which millions served, suffered and died, particularly in Russia at places like Stalingrad (Battle of Stalingrad) and Kursk (Battle of Kursk) (See also, Operation Barbarossa).Tom Cod 18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tin Moralist, Wall Street Journal, 16 August 2006, A10 

message: One thing is clear about the political opinions of Mr Grass - whether in his National Socialist period or his SPD period.  Mr Grass, all his life, supported ever bigger government - he was a collectivist. This is the true source of his anti Americanism. And this should be made clear in the article.176.249.239.141 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "He abandoned his mission of gradual socialist reform through the existing West German political institutions.  Grass instead adopted a philosophy of direct action, similar to that advocated by the younger generation of 1968." 
Sources? What the hell is "philosophy of direct action"? A twee euphemism for Baader-Meinhof gang terrorism, presumably? Grass was in fact a critic of the 1968 radicals.  Leibniz 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political stance

message: Does he wear a wig? It sure looks like he does. Revision as of 17:19, 16 August 2006; 195.93.21.103 (Talk)
:Maybe Mike Wallace knows whether Grass wears a wig? ;-)
:Intersting to note from his prisoner of war record (now pictured with article) that Grass was captured on May 8, 1945 – coincidentally, the day Nazi Germany surrendered unconditionally.
Sca 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wig?

message: The news states the whole party, also it includes Lech Welsea, and others. Please discuss on talk page and provide citation to claim "only" MP - it's not true. I'm from Poland and you can believe me:>. 
* This is not official statement of Law and Justice. There are no official statements or hand-outs. Only Jacek Kurski stated - see Gazeta Wyborcza or PAP communicates
* Wałęsa is opponent of the ruling party. Szwedzki 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have take your word for it because as I stated earlier I don't know any East European languages and all I have read is in English from Reuters and other sources and they claim that it is the whole Law & Justice Party that has made that request, Obviously, though, Wałęsa has a much higher profile in the media over here in the States, which makes me tend to believe that Wałęsa did make a call for the honorary citizenship title to be given up. Also, I understand your point (he is in opposition to the Law & Justice Party) about Wałęsa, but that fact does not prove that the ruling party did not make that request.  Believe it or not there are Republicans and Democrats that agree on things all the time, for example. --Getaway 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an interesting article in TSC Daily by Austin Bay (today's edition) that discussed how conspiracy theories "are public ghost stories of a sort, campfire horror tales tarted up with government devils, corporate witches and other demons-of-convenience." It is good reading.  You can read the whole thing here: .  Cheers,--Getaway 18:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurski 

message: The manner in which this article has been hijacked by pointless gossip about Grass' career in the War is absurd. I hate to be the voice of reason amongst children, but Mr Grass' service with the Waffen SS is irrelevant to the vast majority of his career as a writer and campaigner. I find it utterly shocking that you people can reduce this great man's contribution to western culture and politics to a load of nonsense about the War. Grass' was one of hundreds of thousands who had exactly the same experiences. May I also remind you he was merely 17 years old when he signed up.
Waffen SS simply means 'The Army' in the vast majority of cases - one did not need to be an Aryan supremacist to get into the Waffen SS. Having fired some tank shells does not make Grass some flag waving Nazi. If anything he is the total opposite.
If you have any common sense you will reduce this trash about his war record to a minimum and concentrate on what really matters - his works.
Had I lived in a time of war would I have signed up? I probably would have. Like any 17 year old boy I would have loved the idea of a gun or a tank or a fighter plane. I look at this whole episode and the sincerest reaction I have to the pathetic rantings of the liberal-left is "Get over yourselves, you pontificating fools. Big deal, he fought in the war...so did my grandfathers".
This is such immaturity, it really is...it demonstrates a total lack of interest and concern for Grass' contribution. The most aggravating thing about the whole debate in this discussion page is that the majority of the contributors had a) Never even heard of Grass before, and b) Have never read a single thing he has written - they are here merely to feel self important and air their ill-informed and tiresome points of view.Iamlondon 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh. You've just added another screenfull of rant. Stop complaining and add something about his work. Dog Years (novel) is a stub to get you started---just in case you are serious. But writing simplistic guff like 'Waffen SS simply means 'The Army'" is just bait for further "Nazi elite Pantzer SS" rants. Leibniz 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd Turn

message: An editor slapped a NOV tag on the article and made no comments on the talk page.  He/She did make one comment in the edit summary, that basically stated, "I think so."  It is no enough reasoning to justify the tag.  There has to be some kind of discussion and effort to fix the article.  The response was too random. --Getaway 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted. But I find Kurski (Who he?) and Irving (likewise) equally trivial point-scorers. Why not say they cancel and cut both? Leibniz 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although i agree the information on Kurski is of fairly minor importance, I have to disagree about Irving, if you don't know who he is you should click the wikilink and have a look, he's a fairly major American novelist and has been well noted for having a very liberal social outlook and so his defence of Grass is pretty notable. As well as this, I think you're way off the mark when you say that the two comments cancel out, before I added the John Irving section there was information on 3 critics of Grass and none on his defenders which hardly presents a balanced view of the reaction to the whole thing, its still incredibly biased towards his critics now but at least there's one defender listed on the page. Caprosser 14:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The information on Kurski is NOT of fairly minor imporatance.  Kurski is of fairly minor importance.  There is distinct difference.  What Kurski is calling for can be left in and attribute the notion to Welsea and Kurski can be removed.  Also, Irving is really only famous for The World According to Garp.  He will never earn the Nobel Prize for Literature.  Cinder House Rules and the others are only famous because people paid attention for a while after Garp.  I don't see how a B+ writer from America compares to Welsea, a Nobel laureate.  Sure, cut Kurski, but don't cut the point that people are calling for Grass to disavow his honorary citizenship.--Getaway 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sort of agree with both (if that's possible). There have been quite a few people who were supportive or only mildly critical of Grass. We have been there before, see talk. It just looks a bit US-parochial if a minor US celebrity from a wholly different league than Grass is parachuted in to sort out a European mess. Leibniz 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  To dismiss Irving's defence of Grass on the grounds that he's not really that good an author is ridiculous, regardless of what your opinion of Irving's literary merit the fact remains that he is a notable figure in the literary world and is particularly important in this instance because Grass is considered to be one of Irving's major influences and someone that he has written about a great deal in the past (see Irving's Trying to Save Piggy Sneed if you want an example). To dismiss Irving simply because he's American is also ridiculous and looks completely Euro-parochial, Grass is too major a world literary figure for this issue to simply be considered a European one. Its all very well noting that many people have defended Grass on the talk page but the issue at stake here is what appears on the article and to present views that are only critical of Grass and none in his defence is completely POV. Caprosser 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I offered an alternative, which is Walsea.  --Getaway 01:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, Walsea isn't defending Grass, the article already says "Lech Wałęsa has severely criticized Grass for keeping silent about his membership for 60 years" so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Caprosser 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  If Irving is so insignificant and only remembered for Garp, then what about his winning the 2000 Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay? Irving has always acknowledged his own literary debt to Grass. A Prayer for Owen Meany is a critique of US war policy in the past. The hero is a diminutive male who carves gravestones... sound familiar? (Trevek 12:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drive-by NOV tagging

message: Günter Grass makes the following statement in his forthcoming memoirs (English translation from English-language site of Der Spiegel):
:"What I had openly accepted with the foolish pride of my youth was the very same thing I wanted to conceal from myself with a delayed sense of shame after the war. But the burden remained, and no one could make it lighter. True, the war crimes later revealed were never heard of during my training time as a tank rifleman - a training time that dulled my mind for all of that fall and the following winter. But while I didn't know of these specific crimes, I did know I was part of a system that had planned, organized and carried out the destruction of millions of people. Even if I allowed myself to be convinced that I hadn't contributed actively, something - all too easily called complicity - has remained until today. I will certainly have to continue living with it during my remaining years."
To my mind, this comports with views I expressed above. The issue is not about the fact that he was in a Waffen-SS unit at age 17, but that he kept quiet about it until he was 79. Whether he fabricated the bit about being a Flakhelfer remains unclear, to me at least.
Sca 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grass's statement

message: :Daniel Kehlmann, writing in Der Spiegel, observes:
:Involvement in the Nazi system, even among the youngest Germans of the time, was more widespread than we have previously wanted to perceive, and many aspects of the era's crimes even now lie buried in silence. They are crimes that few books chronicle so well as "The Tin Drum," "Cat and Mouse" and "Dog Years."
:Later, Grass changed, and his novels changed, too, becoming didactic and colorless. These weaker books will be effaced by the passage of time. His earlier novels, however, which tell of the deep corruptibility of human beings, of the coexistence of mendacity and greatness and of the infinitely complex nature of guilt, will be with us for as long as people read books.
:I agree. The Danzig Trilogy of "The Tin Drum," "Cat and Mouse" and "Dog Years" will remain a masterful portrayal of human foibles in the distinct cultural and historical setting of Danzig, which is no more.
:Sca 01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An opinion

message: I find the article unbalanced in that it dedicates an enormous amount of space to the Waffen-SS controversy. Grass is one of the greatest living writers. A lot more should be said of his literary contributions.
--Larean01 12:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced 

message: This page is a total disgrace. While I do agree that it is important to note the Waffen SS issue and represent it fairly and from a balanced view point, but this does not mean it should be the core of the article on this man. One paragraph, one measly paragraph on the Nobel Prize for literature. What a disgrace.
What a totally warped article this is. In no way is this encyclopedic. This article is just as wikinazi as the man is being accused himself of being. 
This article is clearly run by one of wikiality's many cabals. It's jaundiced, prejudiced, wikiized "truth".
Nazism, and the distortion of truth is pure evil whether it comes from a writer or from wiki editors.  These days it's much more common to find Nazis on wikipedia than it is jackbooting through streets in uniform.
The Waffen SS were pure evil. But so it seems are some of the editors of Wikipedia, and the twisted cabals they represent.
Agreed. I "third" this. I am not a person with a left-leaning past and I might be expected to belong to a grouping who has a loathing for Grass, but his political orientation and his abilities as a writer are two different things. The way the Grass article currently stands is a laughing stock, totally disproportionate. No empathy either. As a person with a German / Kashubian past and in view of the way that the minds of young people were wired at first during the war and then rewired after the war (first the Hitlerian brainwashing, then the reeducation and the remorse), people might consider giving the man somewhat of a break. Are his works lacking in humanity? Of course not.
What I really wish to say is that someone within the Wikipedia apparat (a senior editor, I don't know how tenure is attained, perhaps Jimmy Wales or his anointed right hand person), should jump in here and set the imbalance straight. The man is a writer of great stature and at present (December 07) the whole center of balance is off. Yes, the SS consideration should not be glossed over. Should it be the axle around which this treatment turns? No. Scrap some of the current SS center of gravity (don't ignore it) and restore balance to the item. Knowing Grass, methinks, he was embarrassed and confused, although a smidgen of opportunism probably exists with most authors. Wanting to be a success is a human trait. I see him as a convoluted but great author, even if his world view doesn't suit me. --Sean Maleter (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced Seconded 

message: Did West Germany "annex" East Germany? I think it's better to speak about reunification, not annexation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafifurnik (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anschluss? 

message: The sections on both the 2012 poem (also suffering from recentism) and his teenage membership in the Nazi are absurdly WP:Undue, especially since the Tin Drum gets exactly one sentence. Too many articles are filled up with some editor's hobby horses and it's really unencyclopedic. CarolMooreDC 19:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I was thinking the same myself. The long section on the debate on his military service is also redunant because this is covered in the early life section. I'm taking the liberty of shortening this material significantly now. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see one paragraph on his military service with references in the early life section, including mentioning later controversy.  Similarly a couple sentences on the poem. (Though there should also be sections on a couple of his other works which are notable enough to have articles.) If there is little material and no references on either it just begs for someone to either put back all or most of the same material. CarolMooreDC 20:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be slightly expanded (I'm looking into this now), although a very detailed discussion like the one that was just removed is out of place for an article like this. The section didn't really focus on his military service as such, but rather on the recentism-like debate in the media a couple of years ago. The main issue back then, was that he was criticized, mainly by the political right-wing, of hypocrisy. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move to make it its own article, especially since this interesting development. I have a feeling there's more that can be put under social activism. Busy with other things but might expand early life section if you do not. CarolMooreDC 20:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not support a fork in the article. We should resolve this here. The idea is to work collaboratively. Span (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no fork anywhere. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since other of his works have their own article and there was quite a bit on his newest one, creating an article was a natural alternative and if it had occurred to me I would have suggested it. CarolMooreDC 12:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The major defect in the article is that the two sections on his SS-Waffen enrolment and the 2012 appear as WP:Undue violations only because Grass's extraordinary literary career and his novels have been almost totally neglected by editors. In a biography, of the modern 500 page sort, these episodes will account for 3 pages at most, and are indeed trivial compared to his life achievements. However, they can't be elided or forked because the literary section is underdeveloped. The Waffen SS-bit should be done in 3-4 lines (compare someone like Hans-Dietrich Genscher or Pope Benedict XVI with a similar background, or the parallel pages of Israeli politicians who were militant terrorists at one stage of their careers, like Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin), where the 'controversial' aspect is muted). Much of the basic legwork could be done by simply translating the German wiki article.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There already was quite a bit in the article just removed yesterday from which another couple sentences could be drawn, leaving it in the early life section. CarolMooreDC 12:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Two WP:Undue sections

message: Can someone please add the dates and references for when translations were first published in national newspapers (as opposed to websites of said newspapers) in Spain and Italy?
(Link to the appropriate section, ). --155.55.60.112 (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First translations published in national newspapers of various nations 

message: If you are claiming legal reason for persona non grata is not important and factually incorrect, find sources for your claim. The current version is properly sourced.--AsiBakshish 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's evident to everyone that he was declared persona non grata because of his poem, not because of his involuntary military service as a conscripted child soldier 67-68 years ago which he himself disclosed years ago. The fact that he was declared persona non grata as a result of the publication of the poem suffices for this article. The rest is just factually inaccurate (he has never been a member of the Nazi party or any other Nazi organisation, a conscript is not a member of anything) propaganda of some extreme-right party in a country Grass has never visited and probably has no intention of ever visiting, and does not merit any extensive mention in the biography of one of the world's most famous living writers. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  User Josh Gorand is not being objective. They seem to have a personal agenda regarding the article about Gunter Grass and I suggest that this user be asked not to contribute their subjective opinion to the article. The Der Spiegel source in the article clearly reads the following: "Er habe sich freiwillig gemeldet, erklärt der Schriftsteller im "FAZ"-Gespräch, "aber nicht zur Waffen-SS, sondern zu den U-Booten, was genauso verrückt war". Dort hätte man aber niemanden mehr genommen, die Waffen-SS habe jedoch in den letzten Kriegsmonaten 1944/45 genommen, "was sie kriegen konnte"." (see http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/0,1518,431333,00.html). If user Josh Gorand speaks any German, they will understand immediately that the first five words of this quote from the Der Spiegel source read that Gunter Grass was a volunteer (not a conscript) and that he attempted initially to join the submarine divison of the German naval forces but ended up in the Waffen-SS because the navy did not accept any volunteers at the time (while the Waffen-SS did take anyone they could get their hands on - refer to Der Spiegel article, and quote from this article above). The same source further states clearly that Gunter Grass, at the time, regarded the Waffen SS an elite unit - prior to my first contribution to the Grass article, Grass' encounter with the Waffen-SS was described as "only to find out that it was the Waffen SS when he arrived" (see [revision]). While I respect the fact that Josh Gorand obviously holds high esteem for Grass as a writer, user Josh Gorand should not be allowed to misrepresent published facts (e.g. Grass was a volunteer, NOT a conscript) or ban other published facts that paint a less favourable picture of Grass in his early years (the fact that Grass did all this 67-68 years ago does not change the fact that he carried out these actions).  Edit: apologies for not signing. --Somename somewhere (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What Must Be Said" 

message: I have reviewed the sources. For each source in this article, the ultimate source is the Günter Grass himself, which is quoted in the provided links. This does not correspond to my own research on World War II, during which a large part of my family was killed. It was quite difficult to get in the Waffen SS, as opposed to the Wermacht. Nobody was "drafted" in the Waffen SS. The units of the Waffen SS were no better than those of the Allgemeine SS, even though they often did have to fight against people who could actually defend themselves. The numerous slaughters of villages in Russia were done by the Waffen SS. These were nearly systematic. [BLP violation removed]. The units that did not were stationed in Germany and in the West. I think that this article is very, very POV. [BLP violation removed].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabial (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia's policy on original research. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, in an interview to the New York Times in 2000, he said "“I belonged to the Hitler Youth, and I believed in its aims up to the end of the war,”. In other words, he was a nazi, which was why he was accepted in the Waffen SS.  -- Jabial (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jabial's main point is whether anyone was directly conscripted or if the process was more complex. We work by citing and discussing specific reliable sources. The above NYT article doesn't refute the assertion of drafting. It is not WP's role to condemn or praise the subject, but to present a neutral account. Span (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Please review the policy I mention above.  There's a big difference between being indoctrinated within a youth organization and being a member of a political party...  Sindinero (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't go into an edit war in Wikipedia. I don't do squabbles. This is why I posted in the talk section rather than in the article itself. However, he was a Waffen SS and served in Poland. Nobody can pretend in 2012 not to know what the Waffen SS, which were part of the nazi party and not of the regular army, and which was very selective, did in Poland. He was no longer a child. He was necessarily very well noted for political opinions in the Hitlerjugend or he wouldn't have been allowed to enter the Waffen SS. I think that the people who think he was not a war criminal are very, very naive. He "confessed" what was already impossible to hide. When the Russians, God bless them, entered Berlin, everybody was a communist. -- Jabial (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1944 the Waffen-SS took every combat capable man they could get their hands on to fill their ranks. There was no special selection anymore. You should invest some time to research history, especially the war situation in 1944 and later. Not every german in this era was a Nazi. --Denniss (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jabial, please find a reliable source that shows Grass was a war criminal, and then we can include this in the article. Until then, do read up both on wikipedia's policy of original research and the history of WWII. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The phrasing "In 1944 the Waffen-SS took every combat capable man they could get their hands on to fill their ranks" is not wrong, but missleading, as this includes drafts of school pupils. While obviously physically capable of shooting a gung one can argue about these people being combat capable.--46.142.41.127 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscripted / drafted in the Waffen SS 

message: Since Grass is an obvious anti-Semite, I thought it would be useful information to have a description about this evil man who tried to exterminate my people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.39.174.135 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  His activity with the Nazi's is detailed in the 'Early Life' section. Span (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it "detailed". I would described as "barely mentioned" despite the global press coverage surrounding the revelation. Vapour (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

text: It's mentioned in two paragraphs. There is lots of discussion about this above. Wikipedia does not set out to condemn or praise the subjects of the articles. We aim for a neutral point of view appropriate to an encyclopaedia. Span (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And that should mean presenting the issue with NPOV, not censoring it. The issue gained global coverage by the press so its notability is beyond dispute. "the controversy overshadow his literally achievement" is a pro Grass POV. Surely, the right way to correct undue balance in this instance is to expand section on his literary and political writing. Plus, many commentator stated that the revelation cast new light on his past literary and political writing. So this censorship do disservice to overall contents of this article. Vapour (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no detail about his earlier life as a Nazi? 

message: In regard to Grass’s poem Was gesagt werden muss, the only note of reaction is that Israel declared him persona non grata.  I detect a subtle anti-Israel bias in omitting the firestorm of criticism of Grass over the poem from within Germany itself, reaching high political circles, as well as international criticism.  The way it reads now, it sounds like the Israelis are being taken to task for trying to promote censorship of criticism of the nation as their predictably hostile reaction appears in a vacuum.  
If no one objects, I am going to add note of such criticism (as well as a lesser degree of support) within a week or so.  Comments are appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  We did go through all this. The decision was to split the poem into a separate article and cover the issues fully there. We spent a long time hashing it all out and finding some consensus position, fully referenced by strong sources. I recommend looking at the poem's article and bringing any proposed changes to the talk page. Cheers. Span (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll do that presently.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Israel Bias in the Article 

message: Hello, as a Wpedia editor today I happened today to check the Grass page for the first time.
Besides the summaries of recent controversies whose summaries struck me as fairly
balanced I found Wikepedia's failure to acknowledge  his significant graphic work quite 
inexplicable and incompetent.
After triying to make a corrective entry including a web citation of a random show of his graphic
art and a statement about its neglect, my entry was briefly displayed, then removed.
How is the Grass page managed by Wikipedia, and exactly by whom, upon what standards?
How can the complete absence of his graphical works ever be excused?
This oversight and obstinance severely tests one's confidence in Wikipedia.
W, Woodward
Williamstown, Mass  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwberlin (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grass page is not 'managed' by Wikipedia, but by editors like you and me. Many articles are lacking and need expansion in important areas. That's not an "oversight" on anyone's part nor a lack of competence (q.v.), but simply indicates work that's still to be done. I was the one who reverted your changes, because your edits disrupted syntax throughout the article. Please feel free to make use of the sandbox to test out your edits and wikipedia syntax before making live changes to an article. As I've said on your talk page, I support the general impulse to add mention of Grass' visual art to this page, but please do so in a way that doesn't harm other parts of the article. I suggest reading up on how wikipedia works, and checking out the help desk or the WP:Teahouse. I heartily welcome anyone who wants to improve articles on literary topics, and look forward to your future contributions. Sindinero (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass visual arts work 

message: In my browser, the printable version has two pages with nothing but the infobox and the images as a column on the right, and the text starts at page 3. The location/position of the images should be changed (completely); some be put on the left and further down or both. --Schwab7000 (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for the "printable version" 

message: I came to read more about it here and a bit taken back by the fact this article mention only in passing that he was a member and there was a controversy. This kinda a smack of censorship by fanboys. Surely, the right way to correct undue balance is to expand his literally and political view section rather than censor this controversy, whose notability is beyond doubt from global press coverage. Plus his literally material as well as political view are so much related to WWII era, and many, at the time of controversy, commented that the revelation cast new light on his literally and political writing. Whether this amount to hypocrasy (yes, imo) or overshadow his literally achievement (no, imo) should be left up to the readers, not wikipedia editors. Vapour (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Waffen-SS controversy barely mentioned?

message: Under Waffen-SS revelations it states that Grass was "publicly critical of Germany's Nazi past, unlike many of his conservative critics."
Shouldn't there be some outside reference to these critics and their statements? This phrase strongly implies that many of his critics are Nazi sympathizers.  I would think that this is a statement requiring some support.  DrDuav (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Critics 

message: As an occasional but knowledgeable contributor to Wikipedia, concentrating on multi-talented artists worldwide, e.g. the Slovene architect Joze Plechnik and the Nicaraguan painter Armando Morales, I tried in 2013 to add a small section to the Gunther Grass Wikipedia entry covering his modest but real and significant work in the visual arts, mainly engraving.  My contribution was immediately removed by an unknown editor.  When I challenged the removal, the editor refused to identify himself.  I assumed that the controlling editor would eventually recognize the need for a modest recognition of Grass's work in the visual arts and add a section.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gunter+grass+etchings&espv=2&biw=1313&bih=559&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=dRIeVZeDJcflsASp_4CICQ&ved=0CB0QsAQ&dpr=1
Today after various additions/corrections in other esteemed artists Wikipedia entries, I checked the Grass entry and found, after two years had passed, nothing had been added on his works in the visual arts. This omission is seriously wrong, and foreshortens Grass's life and character. The controlling editor's judgment is thus deeply questionable. I hereby challenge whomever has monopolized the control of the Grass Wikipedia entry to identify himself and explain why Grass's material output in the visual arts has been omitted.  Otherwise, as a major Wikipedia donor, I will escalate to senior Wikipedia management to get to the bottom of this scurrilous censorship of Grass's life.
Hoping for a speedy and just resolution.
William Woodward
Williamstown, Massachussetts, US-01267
Bwberlin (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gunter Grass as Visual Artist 

message: Requesting citations for the entries in a list of published works of a major author is absurd. Each entry IS a citation to the work in question and can be verified with anyone with half a brain. In this case it can only be considered a WP:POINT violation that an editor editwars to tag the entire seciton of citations to Grass' works as uncited. At this point I am willing to attribute it to incompetence rather than malice. But not in the long run. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation request for bibliography

message: Grass was the author of "The Tin Drum". Today's featured article is about a Japanese drum that is sometimes made of tin. What do you think? 1234567890Number2 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence? 

message: If his father was German and his Mother Kashubian, then he is of mixed descent and the phrase is misleading. Also the sources don't really bear out the claim. One is a Polish article boldy asserting that Grass "always" identified as Kashubian. Such a generalized remark would need to be sourced with at least one or two statements by Grass himself in order to be credible. Also the expression "schnauzbärtiger Kaschube" (moustached Kashub) in the German article really isn't proper source either, that's a commentor trying to sound original and making assertions, not even claiming to cite Grass. Unless we have a reliable source where Grass can be shown to actually have identified as "of Kashubian ethnicity", that particular phrase is not warranted. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that "of Kashubian ethnicity" and "of mixed descent" contradict each other. Certain is that Grass is often described as "schnauzbärtiger Kaschube", not only in the cited Focus article. The demand that Grass identify himself as Kashubian runs counter to WP:PRIMARY – secondary sources win – and shows lack of familiarity with his best known work, The Tin Drum. The current wording in the article is clumsy, but correct & relevant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about  orginal research, but about providing a reliable source. What I would demand is e.g. a reference to an interview where Grass states his self-identification or to a biography which says so. An offhand remark by a commentator certainly doesn't "win" here. Now, the biographic fact is, that he was of mixed descent (not sure why you think this is a "clumsy" expression, as far as I can see, it is stylistically neutral). That's what can be stated as a fact. The only way you could state factually that he was "of Kashubian ethnicity" would be if you understand "ethnicity" as meaning "ethnic self-identification" and you have some evidence, that Grass actually did see this as he primary identity. But no such source has been provided. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (Re "What I would demand is e.g. a reference to an interview where Grass states his self-identification"): In an interview with Erhard Kluge from Deutsche Welle in 1997 (transcript), Grass is asked whether he is proud of his Kashubian-German, multicultural origin and responds "I wouldn't say that I'm proud of it, but I am certain that this double-rootedness has made me rich. I am equipped with several sources [...]" ("Ich will nicht sagen, daß ich stolz bin, aber ich bin gewiß, daß mich diese doppelte Verwurzelung reich gemacht hat. Ich verfüge über mehrere Quellen. [...]". ---Sluzzelin talk 14:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which really doesn't corroborates the claim that he "always said he was Kashubian". Clearly he always emphasized his mixed decent. The claim that he "indentified as Kashubian" without further qualification is therefore misleading. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Let's list JFK as German, he clearly claimed Ich bin ein Berliner. 62.155.193.160 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we have to list him as Irish, he clearly have no American ancestors, all of them were Irish. So he isn't even mixed!--92.224.150.67 (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "of Kashubian ethnicity"? 

message: Per guidelines the lead should mention all major facets of article.
Announcement of membership has had relevant authorities in field debating the moral basis of Grass's work. This makes the SS memebership important to the topic of the article.
Yet it's currently lacking. One solution;
 "German novelist, poet, playwright, illustrator, graphic artist, sculptor, recipient of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Literature and member of Waffen-SS 1944-1945."
 124.171.198.7 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the next paragraph of the lead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead lacks mention of Waffen-SS membership 

message: his mother was kashubian, so he is of kashubian ethnicity. his father was german, so he is of german ethnicity. if grass (or rather you guys) like it or not.
another question would be the "felt identity" or the "self-image". you can open up this new category and write "self-image: kashubian". but your category is called "ethnicity".
if ethnicity is only about how one feels, then you guys have to turn kurt cobain into irish, for he didnt feel american at all and when he was touring around ireland he was so sentimental and said that he felt that this was his real home.
and if i feel bavarian and not german, do i by this feeling lose my german ethnicity? no of course not, how could this be possible?
lets keep to the facts  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malzkorn (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicity//felt ethnictiy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Günter Grass. 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/20100305070326/http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows to http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Günter Grass. 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/20140825153611/http://www.israelcfr.com/documents/6-2/6-2-8-AviPrimor.pdf to http://israelcfr.com/documents/6-2/6-2-8-AviPrimor.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the article, as I see it right now, there is a section called Memoir Trilogy. And then, in the section only "Peeling the onion"is mentioned. What are the other two items? If they do not exist, change the name of the section. 18:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memoir trilogy 

message: Does it strike anyone else as strange to have Grass's actual literary work mentioned only after a short paragraph mentioning his service in the German forces as a teenager? Both are clearly notable, but given that he's known for his contributions to literature, it would make sense to me to have that paragraph precede the brief bio facts one. Mundart (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative ordering in lede paragraphs