Jump to content

Talk:Eva Herman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Woops

[edit]

As you can see from the history of the article I did some accidental extingushing, while I only wanted to put in the citation wanted about the controversy. I undid this and shall try again after having found out, how this could happen. I never had this problem before. Sorry! Heinrich L. 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Eva Herman did not ".. her public comments about what she felt were benefits that the Nazis brought to German society ultimately..." What she was:"Und wir müssen vor allem das Bild der Mutter in Deutschland auch wieder wertschätzen lernen, das leider ja mit dem Nationalsozialismus und der darauf folgenden 68er Bewegung abgeschafft wurde. " freely translateted "And we must, above all, the image of the mother in Germany again appreciate learn, unfortunately so with the National Socialism and the subsequent 68-movement was abolished.". However a false quotation led to the image that she did praise it. --Cyrus Grisham 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow Germany has acquired the attitude that ANYTHING of which the Nazis were in favor must be repudiated, and apparently this includes motherhood. It seems to be part of a mental disease, massively afflicting the present German population. More than 2000 years ago, the ancient Greeks had already figured out that the merit of an idea does not depend on the merit in the character of its proponents. The Germans, once so sensible, seem to have forgotten why that is true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.192.50 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite arrogant of you to claim the Germans suffer from a 'mental disease'. Perhaps you don't remember but they were part of an incredible act of destruction in the 1940s that most of them actually opposed. Your comment reeks of Nazi sympathy and you should be banned from Wikipedia.

Letter soup

[edit]

...and THAT's what happens when people edit who don't know the facts.

Someone (my guess is, a German with language problems here) wrote "...comments about the benefits the Nazis brought to German society...". What he meant were good things (Mrs Herman said, positive values) that were also stressed in the "Third Empire"; Mrs Herman clarified that the Nazis abused them, her point was that the 68ers did throw out the baby with the bath water when they "de-nazified" German society, and also abolished good, and much older, values and traditions.

Until now, it is just an error that can be explained by language barriers.

The next editor obviously knew nothing of the facts; instead of moving the whole sentence here and asking for clarification and voicing his concerns, he tried to clarify that if Mrs Herman said such thing (she didn't), this was her opinion: "...comments about what she felt were benefits that the Nazis brought to German society...". Which is libelous.

Boys and Girls, you ever pull this stunt on me, wikipedia's got its first libel case. To claim something like that about persons living as well as dead must only be done when there are unambigous sources for that claim. If someone thinks something's not kosher, but doesn't know about the facts, move it to the discussion, but don't edit it into something you feel is right. --137.193.51.192 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well but she did openly say that Autobahns were invented by the Nazis (we know they weren't) and that's why she was thrown out of the show. Of course she was pressed to say that, but she did anyway. 200.222.3.3 (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was thrown out of the show after her "Autobahn" quotation which was propably misunderstood. She had criticised that the media had published wrong indirect quotations (about her alleged glorification of the Nazis' family values) and she accused the media of behaving in a "gleichgeschaltet" way. "Gleichgeschaltet" means "controlled" for the effect of political propaganda, but it is a word that is often used in German language independently from its Nazi past. It is also used to describe propaganda in other toltalitarian regimes, such as Stalinism. The German Wikipedia article said at that time that the word had already spread in spoken language to describe systematically biased media reports in general. In the show, she was accused of using "Nazi vocabulary" (the word "gleichgeschaltet"), and she defended that even the newspaper "Spiegel", which was the first that had accused her of using that "Nazi" word, had used the word itself hundreds of times in its online magazines - in a completely different, non-Nazi context, and that one could check that by searching the internet for the word. She defended herself by claiming that "gleichgeschaltet" is a word that is not a taboo and used in German language regularly in a metaphorical sense. She was then accused that she'd trivialize the Nazi regime by criticising the German press with such a word. Herman then answered, that the word "gleichgeschaltet" had of course been used by the Nazis - but that the Nazis had also built (not invented!) Autobahns and those Autobahns were also used today. The argument seems clear to me: If we must not use the word "gleichgeschaltet" because the Nazis have used it, we'd just as well have to avoid all those Autobahns that the Nazis have built. Huge parts of the German press then cited her "Autobahn quotation" with the words: "Eva Herman said, if one could not discuss about the benefits of the Nazis' family values, one must not use the Autobahns that were built in that time". In fact, Eva Herman had repeatedly said in the show, that the Nazis had abused the family values and that the problem was that the 68 generation had then tried to abolish all family values because they regarded them as potentially fascist. The wrong "Autobahn quotation" has then been forbidden by a court, because it was regarded as misleading. The behavior of the German press was intensely discussed in the Internet and was often itself described as "fascist". The press itself, and especially the J.B.Kerner Show, rejected this criticism, called it an "internet phenomenon" and compared these critical voices to conspiracy theories.
If anyone speeks German, you can read that all in the German Wikipedia article about Eva Herman and the linked sources. 77.24.103.146 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did the Nazis "abuse" family values? In fact, they glorified them. The health and welfare of the German family was central to National Socialist philosophy, and it was to promote and defend the German family that the Third Reich was created. Naturally they spoke of family values and motherhood. It would be very strange had they not.
The post-WW2 repudiation of the Nazis by the German people generally is a form of Stockholm Syndrome. When Germany lost the war, the Soviets came in and imposed a regime of terror, privation, and oppression on the German people, who were thus conditioned to acquire a kind of mental disorder in which good values were repudiated and wisdom was despised, while bad values were endorsed and a kind of self-destructive philosophy was encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.192.50 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you idiots come up with such nonsense? You are illiterate and illiterates should be banned not only from Wikipedia but from connecting to the Internet. They can hurt themselves and others.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eva Herman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eva_Herman&oldid=1252888554"