Talk:Kniefall von Warschau

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

Correct article title[edit]

Isn't there an English name we can use for the title? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My books use Warschauer Kniefall. You have to remember that English-speakers are endlessly fascinated by the German language, because it is so like English, and yet so different. Also, academics love pretentious-sounding foreign terms. I suspect those are the reasons it has entered the lexicon in unaltered form ;) --Jpbrenna 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google shows that Warschauer Kniefall exact matches beat out "Warsaw Kneeling" by 914-1. For the first time since 1870, a war that the Germans can say they won ;). --Jpbrenna 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from Polish perspective they won the last one as well... You know the good ol' joke: "Mom, if we lost the WWII, would we be as rich as the GDR?"... Sorry for the OT. Halibutt 23:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Gdr is rich? He never told me...--Jpbrenna 01:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the extra level of irony. — Wegesrand (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a German living in Germany, and I've never heard the term "Warschauer Kniefall". Everyone I know, including my former politics teacher and classmates, as well as all my history books refer to it as "Kniefall von Warschau" (Kneeling of Warsaw). It is hard to explain the difference, it just makes it sound... greater, if you like.
Although not German, I second that unsigned opinion. — Wegesrand (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if English-speaking historians know "Kniefall von Warschau", I think the article needs an English title, because it is not addressed only at historians! I will change the title as soon as I have settled on one. Something shorter than "Willy Brandt's Kneeling at the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial, 7 December 1970", I hope. — Wegesrand (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unpatriotic[edit]

It should also be added that Brandt was critized as being "unpatriotic" by the german media of that era. -- Imladros 03:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

by PARTS of the german media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.206 (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to whom?[edit]

A question: is Brandt's act regarded as applying only to victims of the Ghetto, to Jewish victims of the Holocaust more generally, or to all victims of Nazi war crimes, including Allied military personnel? Grant65 | Talk 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Germany it's considered to apply to all atrocitys commited by German forces in Poland. That was one of the reasons he was critisised for it that strongly. Many Germans at the time preferred the view that the Holocaust and the warcrimes were commited by the SS while the regular army fought a clean, honorable war (this being defined as doing nothing that wasn't done by the other side as well). From that point of view such an apology seemed exagerated. Nevfennas 08:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous claim?? Why should he apologize to enemy military personnel? Fighting a war is not "war crimes". Most war crimes during WWII were committed by the Stalinists and their accomplicies. Including Poland which was responsible for ethnic cleansing of million of Germans and horrible crimes. This is the reason the left-extremist Brandt (who only had power thanks to his Stasi friends) was unpopular. Germany owed Poland nothing and Poland has to this day not apologized for its crimes - rather the other way round with this new fascist chauvinist government. -Munt
If you have any _evidence_ of Brandt being an extremist, the Stasi making him chancellor or Brandt having friends in the Stasi (except Guillaume :) ), it still wouldn't belong here but to the utmost in the Willy_Brandt discussion / article. You probably set up "Germany owed Poland nothing" by the "since 5:45am, we are shooting back" radio quote? In what definition is "this new government" (the german one? the polish?) "fascist" or "chauvinist"? Is that really of importance _here_? --- if not: Catch. >-)))D 134.83.201.84 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for his personal secretary being a Stasi spy, the Stasi paid MPs to vote for Brandt in parliament during the vote of no confidence. At least one and possibly two (or more?) of the pro-Brandt MPs were paid by the Stasi. Brandt was a Stasi Chancellor, not a Chancellor representing the German people. The new fascist and extreme chauvinist government of Poland is led by the rightist extremist PiS party.
"(Guillaume :) )" alleged to Guenter Guillaume, Brandt's secretary, being a Stasi spy. Brandt obviously didn't know about that; his political career was terminated by that affair. I don't know if the Stasi's attempts to bribe MPs actually succeeded -- you might have a point there. But Brandt was no member of the Stasi, or why should they have spied him with Guillaume? Brandt was elected by the parliament, which itself was democratically elected by the german people. SPD/FDP had a majority of six in that election. The actual polish government has nothing to do with the polish government of the 1970s. It was, even if it is extremely right-wing, elected in a democratical process. -- Except that I don't know whether WP is an appropriate place to discuss all this: Maybe try to keep all the "-ism"s and "extreme"s at a low level. Calling members of democratic governments "left-wing" or "right-wing" is fine; I see problems calling them "extremist". -- I think I'm right. WP is _not_ the place to discuss this. No more stuff from me, I promise :) 134.83.201.84 15:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Germany owed Poland nothing" What about mass executions, slave labour, using people in medical experiments, treating them as sub-humans, denying them education and non-physical work? What about all those blond, blue eyed children who were taken away from their families to be raised as germans? Do some research! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.7.138 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of Brandt quote[edit]

The article translates the quote "[...] was Menschen tun, wenn die Worte versagen" with "[...] what man does when words fail". Well, German isn't my first language, but I think a closer translation would be "[...] what people do when words fail". Agree? Junuxx (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as a first language guy, I say that the first one is closer (people=volk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.206 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really must disagree. 'People' can translate to 'Volk' , as in 'the American people', where it refers to a nation or ethnicity, but not in a sentence like "several people were sitting around the fire" where it just refers to multiple persons. I'd say 'what man does...' would be closer to 'was der Mensch tut...". Then again, the precise translation is not all that important and I'm probably nitpicking here. Junuxx (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"People" as in "people do stuff" doesn't quite capture the connotations. When he says "was Menschen tun", it should be understood as "what human beings can't help but do". As in, he felt that at this point, it was the natural thing to do because of his being human. "what people do" doesn't quite capture that, it would translate in German as "was Leute tun", and here the emphasis is much on the "Menschen". So "what man does", while not being the literal translation because of it not being in plural, is in my eyes still the more precise translation when it comes to capturing the intended meaning. "What humans do" is not quite right in tone and style, I think, and "what men do", while being in plural, I think would be associated with the male part of mankind, whereas "man" is usually understood as representing the whole of mankind, male and female alike. In this light, I think "What man does" is as precise as we can get when it comes to translating the original meaning.--89.12.188.197 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a German, the term Menschen means human beings in general in his quote. He does refer to himself as human being and you can take it like the biological classification of homo sapiens sapiens. It doesn't have the connotation of Leute, race (white, black etc.), or something else. The importance is also not the plural or singular, because it's only common in German to use the plural for this kind of phrase, but it would also work with the singular "was der Mensch tut, wenn...". You would use the singular, while speaking to friends, the plural is more appropriate to use in official matters. So maybe you can take the plural more as formal and the singular more as informal. Wouldn't it be a good translation to use this "what human beings do when words fail" ? Maybe I didn't get the nuances that you English natives are able to get from English words as appropriate translations. Anyway, I hope this will be helpful for your discussion. Kind regards -77.8.196.75 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulleted list item

The quote[edit]

I've noticed that the link to the quote is dead, and the quote at the German wiki site is different that the one used here.
- ″Am Abgrund der deutschen Geschichte und unter der Last der Millionen Ermordeten tat ich, was Menschen tun, wenn die Sprache versagt.
instead of used at the English wiki page:
- ″Unter der Last der jüngsten Geschichte tat ich, was Menschen tun, wenn die Worte versagen. So gedachte ich Millionen Ermordeter
what has a significantly different meaning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btokarsk (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about a photo?[edit]

If he was surrounded by dignitaries and journalists surely there must be a photo available?Historian932 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's the good old licence problem. Just because the event belongs to all of humanity doesn't mean the photos do. I added the picture that was used in the German article which is a photo of a photo in the Haus der Geschichte. There are other pictures overlapping but at least it should be legal. --Mudd1 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, should be legal but wasn't because museums aren't public places in German law. God I'm so lucky I didn't study law or I'd be mad by now. --Mudd1 (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warschauer Kniefall. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why "genuflection" rather than "kneeling"?[edit]

Why is "Kniefall" translated as "genuflection" rather than "kneeling"? He went down on bent knees and remained in that position, whereas genuflection is best known from the quick Catholic gesture of bending one knee while crossing oneself and standing up again right away. I suspect either mistranslation on enWiki, or a wider use of a possibly inaccurate word. Google hits ("Warsaw kneeling" vs "Warsaw genuflection") stand at a relatively balanced 63:108, so c. 3:5, AFTER enWiki adopting "genuflection" with the usual multiplication effect. What is the opinion of English native-speakers? Arminden (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genuflection article clearly differentiates between itself and kneeling. It says "Genuflection or genuflexion is the act of bending a knee to the ground, as distinguished from kneeling which more strictly involves both knees." So I would say this is kneeling, but I would ask the person that originally wrote it because I don't much about this. Alexysun (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kniefall_von_Warschau&oldid=1204862020"