In German, the word führer as a part of a compound noun is unsuspicious. For instance, a Fremdenführer is a tour guide and a book that describes hiking routes is a Wanderführer. Even the most die-hard Nazi hunter wouldn’t be alarmed (although there is an urban legend that the US military government in Germany in 1945 was arresting men who described their occupation as Kranführer (=crane operator).
But especially in the political sphere, the term Führer is taboo. For instance, when President Obama praises another politician in a speech by saying “thank you senator/secretary/prime minister/chancellor (insert name) for your leadership”, German language translators are cringing.
The main long-distance stations serving West Berlin was Friedrichstrasse which, confusingly, was in East Berlin -but only just. Matters were set up so the Platform A was accessible from the West, without going through border crossing procedures, and long-distance trains stopped at Platform A. Thus a Westi could board the Paris-Moscow train, say, at Friedrichstrasse.
Ostis, however, could not access Platform A without going through border exit procedures, even though they were not technically crossing the border in going to Platform A . But the same train would stop at the Ostbahnhof a few minutes later, also in the Eastern sector, and Ostis could board it there.
Yes, I neglected to note what Donnerwetter mentioned: the word Führer for ‘guide’ carries over from a human guide to a guide document the same way it does in English. A Wanderführer, for example, can be a person guiding a hiking tour as well as a book of hiking tour routes. Books, brochures can also be entitled Führer out of a compound noun without causing comment: Search on German Amazon for books containing Führer durch … e.g. ‘Guide to …’ in the title
So not just “leader” (a person) but “leadership” (the concept) is taboo? :eek: Surely there must be an un-baggage-y German word for the concept of positive non-dictatorial leadership? :dubious:
Dankeschoen ! When this stuff was going on, I was lamentably vague about it; essentially, at the time I was more interested in what the system’s remaining steam locomotives were doing. I gather dimly that as well as the above, there were lesser complications and oddities in the Berlin rail-transport situation; no doubt Googling would, in time, let one get the full picture. One is tempted to feel that if those concerned had set out from the first, to make this whole scene as crazy and cumbersome as possible; they could hardly have made a better job of doing so, than what actually did come about.
Jein. What Donnerwetter probably referred to:
(a) The German term for leadership, Führung, has no Nazi connotations to Germans - but to foreigners, listening to the German translation, it will probably sound unfortunate - Führer probably being one of the few German words they are familiar with
(b) The connotations of the term leadership as used in English speechifying does not map 100% to the German term Führung IMO - leadership can mean a person using their personal influence to point a way and others to follow of their own free will. The uses of Führung that I am familiar with are all aspects of management, i.e. implying a de jure subordination of the followers to the person exercising leadership.
This is from much earlier in the thread, but these aren’t ‘new’ lyrics, they’re just from the third and final stanza. They did replace the old (first) stanza in use.
The song was truly ruined by the Nazis, though, since the original intention of “Deutschland über ales” was not ‘Germany will rule over everyone’, but that ‘above all else, the concept of Germany is important’. It was written at a time when a unified Germany did not yet exist.
Although even without being ruined it wasn’t likely to stay popular with the neighbors, as the proposed borders of a potential Germany in the song go well outside the modern lines. They were about as optimistic as one could make them even in the time it was written.
A massive hijack is apropos* but coincidental on this, and your comment has an interesting linguistic match: the same applies, with appropriate adjustments, to Nietzsche’s word/concept “Übermensch.”
Although I don’t know how much of the mis-meaning was promulgated from the get-go by Nietzsche’s hated brother-in-law, a Nazi avant la lettre.*
:smack: Oops, I guess this must have referred to Germany’s prowess in beer-making. Which is the second stanza of the song… (technically it praises German wine.)
Well, true, as the Kenyans and the Malaysians can testify, among others.
But look what happens here. In 1922, before Hitler, the British pull out of (most of) Ireland after an initial attempt to hold it by force. Then during the 1920s they grant a substantial degree of independence to white-majority dominions, and to (white-ruled, but not white-majority) South Africa.
Then, after Hitler, the British let India go without any kind of War of Independence. But in the 50s and 60s they are a bit more selective; some places have to fight a war for independence, but others do not.
The point is, though, there is no difference between before Hitler and after Hitler. Both before and after Hitler, some places have to fight, and others do not, to secure independence. The orginal suggestion in post #60 that, because of Hitler, the British couldn’t hold India by force doesn’t really hold up. Both before and after Hitler the British attempted to hold some places by force. India just didn’t happen to be one of them.
The supposition is correct. If there had been no WW2, the British would have been able to hold on indefinitely. The war destroyed Britain’s ability to do so. And the US was not willing to help them at that time. A few years later, they would have.
I accept that the war had drained Britain’s resources so much that holding India by force was impossible. Perhaps I’m reading post #60 wrongly, but I took the suggestion to be that the example of Hitler specifically, not just the practical consequences of a big war, made holding India undemocratically by force a political and moral non-starter, as well as militarily unfeasible. And I don’t think that suggestion would be correct.
Even before the war, as I understand it, the UK’s official plan for India was always full Dominion status, like Canada and New Zealand, but All In Good Time. Given that, long term occupation of India by military force was always going to be difficult to justify, even before Hitler came along. There was also the problem that occupation of India largely depended on the continued loyalty of the Indian Army and, really, why would you expect that, if dominion status was repeatedly deferred? I don’t think Hitler changed these calculations very much.
If there was a British decolonisation which was accelerated by Hitler, it wasn’t India; it was Palestine.
No the actual plan was to hold on to India, however to transfer most of the day to day powers to the eventually elected provincial governments., while maintaining control in the centre. After all, the other dominions would never accept India as a dominion, since it was so big it would dwarf all of them (official reason) and it was non white (the real problem), and the Indian Army was needed to further British policies in the Mid East and the Pacific.
German racial policies had little to do with the decision to leave. Their military policies OTH, were key.
On this Führer/Leiter thing (and I’m sorry if someone already said that):
I’m not sure how many words there are where the “-führer” -“leiter” substitution really took place, and/or works. We’re still using the Word “Führer” quite frequently where it’s appropriate. Hitler, of course, was “Führer” metaphorically, “leading” his people to glory, etc. There’s still plenty of people who lead/guide people even today: museum guides, hiking guides, mountain guides, all of who are Führer–Museumsführer, Wanderführer, Bergführer, respectively (both if they’re people and if they’re books, incidentally). And none of them could possibly be “leiter”. By contrast, yes, we do say stuff like “Gruppenleiter” for work group heads, for example, but I’m not sure those were ever called “Gruppenführer”. You can’t say Gruppenführer primarily because that’s just an SS rank, not because of the “führer” bit…
If I remember correctly, when I was in the Bundeswehr the leader of a small unit of about 12 men was officially called “Gruppenführer”. I’ve never had a second thought about it.
There are even more führer in the modern day Germany military: Zugführer (platoon leader), Rechnungsführer (paymaster) and I’m sure there are more. The term führer becomes a problem when used in a political context.
That’s right. I can imagine a politician saying “Unsere Partei braucht eine starke Führung” (“Our party needs a strong leadership”), but “Unsere Partei braucht einen starken Führer” wouldn’t fly at all.
Look at selections from this book I found. Amazing. Not just the individual items you can read there even in these photos, but the very book itself. I found it at a used book store before it was even looked at by staff. All set to buy it, they took it away, back it comes: $100.
Too rich for my blood. But I have it on hold. PM me for details if you want it and I’ll keep the hold on. Mr. Kobayashi, OP, gets dibs, of course.
Finder’s fee: if the buyer is a Member: Change the little thingie under your username for one week to read " Doper Leo Bloom says “Hi” "
If not a member, be nice to someone or a dog or something.