Talk:Studentenverbindung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why the revert? --Anarch 10:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because to my knowledge the position formulated before your revert was more factious (maybe not including the three / many questions). -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 12:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's stunning, since my revert practically returned the article to your version... --Anarch 18:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, relativity. I changed a bit of a version I thought POV, then whats-his/her-name changed it a bit more in the direction I was changing it, and then you reverted back to my version. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 18:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right - (s)he pushed it a bit further, but beyond the NPOV borders. We can't seem to compromise, so I propose the following: In future, we make assertions only with arguments/independent sources backing them. I reverted the version again and found this source (in German) for my claim that three burschenschafts are being observed. Please supply sources for further changes, too. --Anarch 08:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why? Because I considered it to be biased. Well, maybe it's just me but... Here are a few examples 1) "Some of the traditional orientations as well as misbehaviour of a minority of the corporations regularly leads to prejudices about them being right-wing and chauvinist." "A minority" is biased. And, if you call a spade a spade you're not beeing prejudiced. If those groups promote nationalism, then it's not a prejudice if you call them nationalistic. Maybe it should've read "prejudices about all of them being right-wing...".

I agree, "... all of them being ..." is less mistakable (change done). But why is a minority biased? In what way doesn't it represent the facts?

It's biased because it's judgemental. It's POV. Others might say they aren't a minority and are representative for a majority of the corporations. --JustinSane 07:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2) You erased the nationalism part out of the history section. Well, if you portray some of them as 'tolerant' and 'democratic' you should accept that some of them are nationalist and are being called nationalist. What's interesting is, that a whole part about the history of the Studentenverbindungen is missing completely: the part betweeen 1933 and 1945. I know that it's quite uncomforting for today's Burschi's to talk about such things but they should keep in mind that others won't forget or stay silent.

The article is far from complete, so feel free to add something instead of making funny-sounding announcements. Besides, Studentenverbindungen had been abolished completely until 1935, so a gap up to 1945 is not that surprising.

Wow, guess what. I added something (nationalism), you erased it. As for the ties between the Nazi-movement and the corporations: in the mid-20ties, during the Weimar Republic, the 'Deutsche Burschenschaft' announced that Jews are not allowed into one of it's member corporations. Others soon followed. The DB also expressed their regret about Hitler's failed coup d' état in 1923. The Kyffhäuser-Verband was even more nationalistic. Non fencing unions like the CV, KV et al. were more moderate. The fencing corporations however, all expressed their hatred for democracy and the Weimar Republic. This I think is worth reading. The non-catholic corporations like DB, Turnerschaften and others praised Hitler's takeover in 1933 and didn't mind to adopt the Führer-Prinzip. In 1935 the only corporation left was the NSDStB, the National Socialist German Student Assoc., that's what happens if you support fascists. --JustinSane 07:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The author of the linked paper doesn't even get the different associations' names right, so better take his assertions with a grain of salt... Plus, he doesn't cite a single primary source (what is a strange way of working for a paper with academic claims), only secondary ones, some of which are at best "debatable" in regard to their credibility.
• "The fencing corporations however, all expressed their hatred for democracy and the Weimar Republic" - that is nonsense and not even supported by your link. Actually, a strong part of Germany's students was pro-fascist, the NSDStB reached or surpassed the 50% margin in several AStA elections. This support for the national socialists could also be found in many corporations of course, but it is plain silly to place blame on the Studentenverbindungen in special, let alone the fencing ones:

• There are huge differences between the different umbrella associations: Most tried to arrange themselves with the new system, some even welcomed it; e.g., many Burschenschaften (not all of which are fencing!) saw the Third Reich as the fulfillment of their political aims and acclaimed the Nazis. Others, like the Corps (who are basically non-political, yet fencing is mandatory!) were a different story:
• There was an incident called the Heidelberger Spargelessen ("Heidelberg Asparagus Meal"), where corps students disturbed the public broadcast of a Hitler speech by mocking the Führer and making boisterous comments about how he might be eating asparagus, be it knife or fork or "with his paws". Their corps was abolished as a result and the incident caused a considerable uproar against the "feudal" corps amongst the system's representatives.
• In the "Lutze-Erlaß" (Lutze edict), SA-leader Viktor Lutze ordered on September 25, 1935 all members of the SA to leave the Corps by the midst of October, because the corps association (KSCV) had "rejected to implement the aryan principle" ("die Durchführung des Ariergrundsatzes abgelehnt"), i.e. rejected to exclude their jewish members.1 Lutze's statement is only partly true, though: Not all Corps rejected the orders, some succumbed and acted accordingly to the edict.)
• The Reichsjugendführer Baldur von Schirach decreed on July 7, 1935: "Alle [...] Mitglieder der mir unterstellten NS-Jugendverbände, die einer studentischen Verbindung angehören, haben sich sofort dahingehend zu entscheiden, ob sie dieser Verbindung oder der HJ angehören wollen" ("All members of the national socialist youth organizations which also belong to a university corporation must decide immediately whether they want to stay with the corporation or with the Hitlerjugend"), and in January 1936 he even boasted about the "glorious fight against corps students and communism" (sic!).

• I won't go as far as the German social-democrats who wrote in their Prague exile in 1936 "The most determined enemies of the Nazis are the Corps and Burschenschaften. Their traditions are intended to be targeted and destroyed. And in fighting for the preservation of these traditions, they are so fanatic that, albeit being reactionary, they refuse any cooperation with the Nazis", but one thing is clear: The imputation that student corporations had unanimously or at least predominately supported Hitler is grossly false. Members of Studentenverbindungen were both in support or in opposition of the Nazi regime; all facets could be found amongst them, from important representatives of the system over merely nominal members, up to opposers and fierce resistant fighters. This applied to all of society's groups, be it workers, scientists, physicians, lawyers, christians, communists (sic!) or whatever else. And, of course, it applied to student corporations, too.--Anarch 13:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "In 1935 the only corporation left was the NSDStB" - um, the NSDStB wasn't a corporation at all...

3) As far as I know aprr. 90% of the Verbindungen are male-only. If less than 10% allow women as well as men then it's more appropriate to say some instead of many cause it gives the readers the impression that there is a big proportion being mixed-gender.

I wasn't the original author of the "many" passage; if you have sources for your numbers - go ahead and add them to the text, so the reader can make up his own mind whether "many" or "some" would be more appropriate. --Anarch 20:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AStA Uni-Hamburg --JustinSane 07:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but that publication isn't worth the electrons that were used in its creation - I stopped counting the errors and false allegations after the first few paragraphs, else I wouldn't be finished yet. The discussion so far has been controversial but fair; let's keep it that way and leave out hate propaganda. --Anarch 13:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The word 'corporation'

This article uses the word 'corporation' frequenty, in a way not often used in English. I'd speculate that this is an inappropriate translation of the German word Gesellschaft, meaning a corporation, organization, or society. I can't think of a good replacement in the article, perhaps organization, society or group. Or is corporation appropriate? LittleDan^talk 04:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the German version, it looks more like the word Verbindung is used rather than Gesellschaft, meaning basically the same thing. LittleDan^talk 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)