Talk:Martin Niemöller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Lutheranism Martin Niemöller is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Niemöller's initial support for Hitler, Confessinal Church: William L. Shirer, The Nightmare Years: 1930-1940, pp. 151-155

Contents

[edit] a slightly different version of the quote

on the jewish virtual library's website, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Niemoller_quote.html, a slightly different version of the quote is presented. I'm wondering which one is the actual quote. The one you presented on wikipedia or the one there.

Isabel Araiza

In the German, it is the original, the translation next to it is better than most approximations that have circulated, including at the website you mentioned.

IV

[edit] Martin Niemöller and antisemitism

The article is chronological; therefore, I’m moving the 1935 entry back to its original position following the 1934 entry. Removing misstating of argument. The argument is that people who made “these kinds of statements” were “collaborators in the Holocaust.” Removing editorializing, “Despite his anti-Nazi credentials,” and returning to original language of the cited material.Doright 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The article makes a great song and dance about Niemoeller's anti-Semitism but also says that Israel honoured him by naming him one of Righteous Among the Nations. Even Bonhoeffer was not accorded this honour. The article is confused and below the standard one expects of Wikipedia; and for users who know little about Niemoeller, the article must be utterly bewildering.

Norvo 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin Niemoller is an antisemite? Are you kidding me. I'm editing this article. This is absurd. He spoke out on behalf of the Jewish people and others against the Nazi Propaganda machine. --Max 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've added the templates to this section because it urgently requires cleanup. Currently, it's rather a quotefarm. I suppose that it's merely a collection of the most controversial and provocative statements made by the quoted scholar. Besides, it exclusively focuses on the works of one scholar instead of giving an overview of modern scholarship; thus it should be rewritten and expanded to be more balanced and representative.--84.167.165.245 10:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed these sentences:
"Both Nazis and their Protestant opponents were antisemitic." "This kind of evil harmony between Nazis and anti-Nazis would be fatal for the Jews."
The statement of the scholar that Niemöller had anti-Semitic views may be correct but to blame the whole Confessing Church is blatant POV. Marking this stuff as quotations does not make it better. In fact, the Confessing Church was divided on that matter.--WikiLover 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I've tried to tidy up a little. If H-antisemitism is a discussion group, could that be replaced please by a proper citation? See WP:V and WP:RS. Also, the rest of the page needs citations too. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the rewrite. H-antisemitism is one of the oldest listservs, a discussion conducted via email. This one goes back to the 1990s. It is managed by H-Net. It would be better to find a different cite. --CTSWyneken 21:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
CTSWyneken, please consider using SlimVirgin's contribution as an example of how to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. Entirely deleting references and then tagging the material for lack of references is not helpful and could be considered vandalism as has been explained to you before on other articles. SlimV, I agree the rest of the page needs citations too. If I'm not mistaken, I may be the one that asked for some of those citations.Doright 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As Slim observes, we need to cite in the article more thoroughly and carefully. We need a replacement for the Michael quote, which, as she notes, is from a source Wikipedia does not consider reliable. Every quotation needs to be documented. If an opinion is rendered, it should also be sourced. For example, the first time we call him antisemitic, which I do not doubt he was early in life, we need to document it. I have marked the places where I believe such citations are needed. --CTSWyneken 13:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand the attack on Niemoller. It says he was in concentration camps from 1937 to 1945. How could he be offering to support the Nazis in 1939 if he was imprisoned. Also, his famous quote is one of regret. He acknowledges he "DID NOT SPEAK OUT" when all the other groups were attacked. Maybe the Nazis attack on the church was the changing point, but the chronology makes no sense. Can someone explain that to me, or is this just a slanderous article?

As far as I'm aware, Niemoeller wrote one letter in September 1939 offering to serve in navy. It's unclear what the motivation was. It could have been an attempt to get out of the concentration camp. Without more detail, which may not be available, it seems one needs to be very careful. Niemoeller was a very enigmatic man, and the article needs a thorough revision from someone with real insight into his personality. There needs, too, to be some discussion of his postwar pacifism and his deep skepticism about the Cold War. He may well have been uncritically glorified in America, but there needs to be a determined attempt to understand him. Norvo, 21:08, 03 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Comment

I've moved the following here from the first paragraph of the article.

writing that fails to reflect the paradoxes of his own political positions,[citation needed]

If we are to use this, it has to be from a published source. Our OR policy requires we not render an opinion ourselves, simply reflect the literature. --CTSWyneken 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Martin Niemoeller in his radically antisemitic August 1935 sermon noted that the Jews would not be released from their suffering until they converted, Jewish suffering being "proof" that Jesus was God. The essential reason the Jews were cursed was because they "brought the Christ of God to the Cross ... These kinds of statements are a result of traditional antisemitism, and beliefs such as these corrupted average people as well as the elite and made them all not just victims of Nazis but active or passive collaborators in the Holocaust." [1]

I've moved this quote here because it is from a Listserv archive. Does anyone have an equivalent quote from Dr. Michael to put in its place? --CTSWyneken 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CTSWyneken, do not delete citations from reliable and reputable sources

CTSWyneken, please do not delete citations from reliable and reputable sources.Doright 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed quote from Listserv archives per policy

I have removed the following from the page, since it is from a listserv archive:

"beliefs such as those held by Niemöller made even Nazi victims into Holocaust collaborators: "Martin Niemoeller in his radically antisemitic August 1935 sermon noted that the Jews would not be released from their suffering until they converted, Jewish suffering being "proof" that Jesus was God. The essential reason the Jews were cursed was because they "brought the Christ of God to the Cross ... These kinds of statements are a result of traditional antisemitism, and beliefs such as these corrupted average people as well as the elite and made them all not just victims of Nazis but active or passive collaborators in the Holocaust." [2]"

See policies: Burden of evidence, Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

See also discussion at: #Sources, Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews#CTSWyneken --CTSWyneken 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Robert Michael, "Christian Theological Antisemitism", H-Antisemitism, May 6, 1997.
  2. ^ Robert Michael, "Christian Theological Antisemitism", H-Antisemitism, May 6, 1997.

[edit] CTSWyneken, please do not delete citations from reliable and reputable sources

  • Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (WP:Point). SlimV may not have been familiar with H-Antisemitism, but you know it’s not part of Usenet. The citation meets the [Burden of evidence criteria] of being from “reputable, reliable, third-party sources.” The author has published more than 50 articles and eleven books on the Holocaust and the History of Antisemitism.. Doright 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • H-Antisemitism is a well known and highly regarded international consortium of scholars in the humanities and social sciences with both an editorial and advisory board. Furthermore, it is their stated policy to "delay posting until authorship AND email address are confirmed." [[1]] . Doright 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CTSWyneken, again, please talk about it if you have additional concerns. There is no need to delete this material from this article. Doright 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CTSWyneken, please do not promote edit wars. Reverting edits without addressing the above answers to your concerns is bad behavior. Seek understanding, not edit wars, please.Doright 03:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is H-Net a WP:RS?

CTSWyneken and Doright bring up a good question, whether H-Net is considered a WP:RS. It is hosted by educational institutions and it includes discussion amongst scholars and teachers, many who are reputably published. Perhaps this resource's citability at WP should be clarified at the talk page of WP:RS. I lean toward it being a reliable source, as it is essentially peer-reviewed. However, I am aware that others who have a good handle on WP:RS, have previously expressed that it is not a reliable source when the question has come up on other articles. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the opinion, MP. I've deferred to SlimVirgin on this issue. There are two sides to it. First, it is a set of listserv messages among scholars -- and anyone else who wants to join. The lists, however, are not peer reviewed. There is no revision after criticism, which is the heart of peer review. On the other hand, the opinion of scholars is expressed here. So I can see it both ways.
You may be right that it would be helpful to ask opinions on the talk page of WP:RS. For the moment, however, I think Slim's opinion should carry the weight.
In any case, the points that are made in the quote are also made in another Robert Michael passage from a print source. That should be sufficient. --CTSWyneken 19:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, if the same material can be sourced by something published that would be preferable, since either way, H-Net is at least a gray-area that holds less weight than published material. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Two observations. First, if you one reads what Dr. Robert Michael says in the repeatedly deleted material it is not the same material that is not deleted. So one can not rationalize deleting it as extraneous material. Second, I'm concerned an essential point may not be fully appreciated. There is no doubt that when h-antisemitism publishes a piece written by Robert Michael, it is in fact by Robert Michael. Therefore, we can reliable cite h-antisemitism as a source for what Robert Michael states, says, argues, believes, etc. After all, we are reading exactly what he wrote. The only issue left is whether Robert Michael is noteworthy, if his scholarly account warrants inclusion in WP? I think a good argument can be made that he is.Doright 23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If we can have certainty that statements signed by Scholar X on an online source are indeed by Scholar X, then indeed, we can use those statements as Doright suggests: "Scholar X (writing on h-whatever) says blah-blah-blah"; I don't really see why it matters whether Scholar X said this in a book, in an online forum, in an interview, or in a newspaper column -- it's still Scholar X. We can assign a more absolute weight to it if it's in a refereed publication ("According to the Journal of Applied Metacitations, 'blah blah blah'"), but if the notability of Scholar X stands on its own, I don't think it matters where he's stated his opinion as long as its attributed to him correctly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, JP! I think we can be fairly certain that these folk are who the say they are, but there are no absolute certainties. Listservs essentially are email sent to hundreds of your closest friends. It's been a decade or more since I posted to an H-Net list, so I'm not sure if they do any verification of a person's identity. This is a long way around saying we can be as sure about a person's ID as we are about folk who email us for the first time. For me, that's good enough. I think we should still take the thing to WP:RS to see what the opinion of the community is, however. --CTSWyneken 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
CTSWyneken, you say, "I think we can be fairly certain" and then you say "we can be as sure about a person's ID as we are about folk who email us for the first time." This is in fact a long way around saying that it is your opinion that it is unreliable, but "that's good enough." This contradiction is clever but transparent rhetoric to continue justification of its deletion. Please see above authorship IS confirmed.Doright 17:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged whitewashing" section

Could someone please rationalize the quotes and blockquotes in this section? The indentation is totally scrood up, but I can't tell for sure what the intent is -- what's a quote and what's a quote containing a quote, and so on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jpgordon, I'll try to answer your question. The second paragraph was originally quoted entirely verbatim from the author. Ref: Werner Cohn, Bearers of a Common Fate? The "Non-Aryan Christian Fate-Comrades" of the Paulus Bund, 1933-1939, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, Vol. XXXIII, 1988, p. 337. It was then enhanced by other editors. The author originally wrote:

"One of the most striking exemplars of the pervasive anti-Semitism of the non-Nazi right wing is a man whose record is nowadays often whitewashed. Pastor Martin Niemöller, later himself to be persecuted by the Nazis, never made a secret of his strong, racial anti-Semitism. In his Sätze zur Arierfrage in der Kirche ('Theses on the Aryan Question in the Church') of November 1933, he opposed the introduction of the "Aryan paragraph" in the Protestant church on doctrinal grounds grounds, but takes care, nevertheless, to opine that Jews had done great harm to Germany; he also indicates that the baptized Christians of Jewish origins are personally distasteful to him (text in Günther van Norden, Der Deutsche Protestantismus im Jahr der nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung, Gütersloh, 1979, pp. 361-363). As late as 1935, Niemöller goes out of his way to preach hatred against the Jews: "What is the reason for [their] obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years ? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross !" The text of this sermon, in English, is found in Martin Niemöller, First Commandment, London, 1937, pp. 243-250. Pastor Paul Leo, a member of the Paulus-Bund and, like Niemöller, engaged with the Confessing Church in the fight against the "Aryan Paragraph," also expresses anti-Semitic sentiments in his 1933 memorandum on "Church and Judaism." Like Niemöller's "Theses," Leo's memorandum maintains that Germany had suffered from the Jews. The memorandum is reported (and described as "a remarkably original, thoughtful and objective composition") by Richard Gutteridge, op.cit., pp. 118-119. Pastor Leo, born in 1893 in Göttingen and related to Moses Mendelssohn through Wilhelm Hensel, emigrated from Germany in 1939 and taught at the Lutheran Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa, where he died in 1958. According to his widow, he and his family had been Christian for several generations but was considered more than 75% Jewish under the Nazis' race laws. (Interview on July 26, 1986). See also Rudolf Elvers and Hans-Günter Klein, eds., Die Mendelssohns in Berlin, Berlin 1983, p. 55. On the attitude of the Bekennende Kirche to the Jews see also the revealing essay by Uriel Tal, 'On Modern Lutheranism and the Jews,' in LBI Yearbook XXX (1985), pp. 203-213."

And this is how it looked in WP before it was improved:

One of the most striking exemplars of the pervasive anti-Semitism of the non-Nazi right wing is a man whose record is nowadays often whitewashed. Pastor Martin Niemöller, later himself to be persecuted by the Nazis, never made a secret of his strong, racial anti-Semitism. In his Sätze zur Arierfrage in der Kirche ('Theses on the Aryan Question in the Church') of November 1933, he opposed the introduction of the "Aryan paragraph" in the Protestant church on doctrinal grounds, but takes care, nevertheless, to opine that Jews had done great harm to Germany; he also indicates that the baptized Christians of Jewish origins are personally distasteful to him (text in Günther van Norden, Der Deutsche Protestantismus im Jahr der nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung, Gütersloh, 1979, pp. 361-363). As late as 1935, Niemöller goes out of his way to preach hatred against the Jews: "What is the reason for [their] obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!" The text of this sermon, in English, is found in Martin Niemöller, First Commandment, London, 1937, pp. 243-250. .... On the attitude of the Bekennende Kirche to the Jews see also the revealing essay by Uriel Tal, 'On Modern Lutheranism and the Jews,' in LBI Yearbook XXX (1985), pp. 203-213.


I hope this helps. Have a go at it. Your participation and contribution are certainly appreciated. Regards, Doright 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Since I'm being quoted extensively I'd like to have a link to my paper which is available as pdf file added to the reference. However, I'm having difficulties with editing the references. Could a kind soul please add the following link to the reference "Raimund Lammersdorf, The Question of Guilt, 1945-47: German and American Answers, Conference at the German Historical Institute, Washington, D.C., March 25-27, 1999."

http://www.ghi-dc.org/conpotweb/westernpapers/lammersdorf.pdf

It's a 65k pdf file.

Thanks!

Raimund Lammersdorf

Raimund, I've added some per per your request, but have to go now. FYI, references can be found "inline" with the text body. To edit references, edit the section that contains the text that is cited and you'll note [1]. Also, you should sign your talk page posts with four tildes Best regards, Doright 17:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing OR

Since much material flagged {{Fact|date=December 2007}} for some time now have not been documented, I have removed these comments as OR. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Immediately under the "First they arrested" poem there seems to be a blurb which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the poem. The whole article also paints a very negative view of the man and is definately NPOV and focuses entirely on one aspect of him, the fact that he was an anti semite. The article doesn't even mention the fact that during the thirties anti-semitism was common throughout the world, and it seems to go to great lengths to make the man seem as sinister as possible. I don't know what to do about this though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norvo (talk • contribs) .

Welcome to Wikipedia! You are welcome to add information based on published sources that bring out other aspects of Niemoller. Drop by WP:V and WP:CITE for suggestions on what our community values in its sources. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help by an expert needed

I've added the template because this article is really in need of an expert on this subject whose intention is not to misuse this article for inflicting his personal views on it. Before I approached the article it didn't even mention Niemöller's post-war pacifism with one word although this is one of the things he is best known for. His resistance to Nazism was always a subject of controversial debate. He had a very bad image in Great Britain shortly after the war and he himself openly admitted that he had not done enough to fight Nazism - as the famous poem explicitly says. So it would not do justice to him to exclusively focus on his pre-war political views although it is certainly important to point out the darker sides of his biography. The article should also cite more works of modern scholars instead of focusing on those who all favor a particular view on Niemöller.--84.167.165.245 11:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the poem?

An unsigned post (previously at the top of this page) read:

The version of First they came... in the Wikipedia entry on it has a slightly different text; shouldn't the two be the same? I do not know what the original was, so I cannot make the correction.

I'd go a step further. Why have two copies at all? How about we get rid of the one here? The article on the poem itself mentions many variations, including references to Jews, so we're not losing information by doing that. If no objections in a few days, I'll do that. Matchups 05:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Anti-Semitism

The "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" section of the main article is tagedd with the following two two templates:

 This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.
Please improve the article or discuss proposed changes on the talk page.
You can edit the article to add more encyclopedic text or link the article to a page of quotations, possibly one of the same name, on Wikiquote. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for further suggestions. (April 2008)
This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2007)

They are obviously contradicting each other. The same section cannot, reasonably, "seems to contain too many quotations for an encyclopedia entry", and, at the same time, "read like an unsourced personal reflection or essay".

Therefore, unless some other editor gives me a good reason to the contrary, I am going to remove both templates from the section.

Miguel de Servet 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance of Content?

Generally, Niemoller enjoys a glowing historical reputation, mainly on account of the famous poem attributed to him. This article's content concerning his anti-semetism is probably the most important content any article on this man could contain since it informs the reader of critical but not widely publicized information. That being said, it is also controlling in this article. Perhaps more attention should be given to Niemoller's popular legacy, even if it is uninformed by his anti-semetic past? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.102.179 (talk • contribs)

In a lot of ways, even First they came for... is informed by Niemoller's anti-Semitism, at least in the sense of the old platitude the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. There maybe a slight WP:UNDUE problem, e.g. at least one of the quotes isn't from a WP:RS (to be picky). I'm myself unaware of his popular legacy per se, but the article could bear expansion in that direction. -- 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Someone is very preoccupied indeed with Niemoller's alleged antisemitism. Much of the article is at present contradictory and of little use to ordinary users who have no axe to grind. On what grounds does the article apparently treat statements like this as on a par with gossip in Dahlem in the 1930s?

" Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews, assuring me as follows: 'There will be restrictions against the Jews, but there will be no ghettos, no pogroms, in Germany'."

This makes it pretty clear that Niemoeller was concerned about the plight of the Jews already in 1932. This is completely at odds with the extraordinary claim that he was a 'Holocasut collaborator'. After all, the man was out of circulation from mid 1937 onwards. He was behind bars or barbed wire when the Holocaust took place.

The article describes Niemoeller as 'a prominent German anti-Nazi theologian' his but later refers to his 'radically antisemitic August 1935 sermon'. Kindly spare a thought for users (and for the reputation of Wikipedia) and leave out the obsessive axe-grinding. Norvo 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anti-Semit?

The article says that Niemöller hated jews because he stated that the reason for the jews suffering is because they cruzified Jesus. But how is believing that equivalent to hating jews, and being in agreeance with a genozide as the article indicates? Actually a firend of mine also believes that the reason for the Jews suffering is their cuzification of Christ - yet she is almost 80 and is a jewish holocaust survivor herself.

Besides, if Niemöller hated jews why would he found the "Pfarrernotbund, an organization of pastors to 'combat rising discrimination against Christians of Jewish background.'" as early as 1933 ? Doesn't that fact in itself discredit that "Niemoeller agreed with the Nazi's position on the Jewish question."? How could he want to go all out to "combat rising discrimination against Christians of Jewish background", well knowing that his engagement may cost him his life, and yet at the same time be an "active or passive collaborator in the Holocaust" and "go all out to preach hatred against the Jews?"

Is having articles full of statements that contradict themselves, Wikipedia's ideas of neutrality?

[edit] Start of cleanup

As I think this article here is not in a good state I started including/correcting information from the de.wikipedia article into this here beginning with the time up to the end of Weimar Republic: [2]. E.g. the former chapter heading " U-boat Commander" simply didn't reflect his nonetheless impressive military career during WWI and made him look like a German ÜbermenschTM that is born as commander (also silly nick names aren't exactly useful in order to describe his role accurately). I hope that now as well his contradictory life during the Weimar Republic is now more clear and gives some hint for his later spiry way from open admiration to opposition of Nazi Germany. At the moment the article sounds more like a strange mix out of black-white payoff of the lucky afterbornes and some naive white-washing and not like an objective description of his non-linear and impressive life. By the way Niemöller is not a singular case. Many prominent German people from that time had a similar struggle with themselves: E.g. Gottfried Benn, Max Planck, Otto Hahn and many more. These people weren't hypocritics like quite some parts of the German society during the Adenauer era but managed to overcome their own dazzlement and risked their life doing that. Arnomane (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Clean-up template. And Arnomane, if you want to do some clean-up, just do it instead of waiting for answers on the talk page that will never come. There has not been a serious discussion here except when edit wars were going on.--84.167.153.72 (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)