Talk:Anti-Germans (political current)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Going by a number of recent edits, I believe there's some contention as to if this page should be part of a number of categories such as Category:Socialism and Category:Critical theory. As the ideology as a whole appears to be part of those ideas is there any particular reason why this page should be excluded? Browsing through the other pages currently under those categories I am finding it difficult to see how this page in particular should be excluded.


I shortened the article a bit. It is much better to read now!

In English there is no such thing as a "political current," it should be a "political movement". I don't have an account so I lack the permissions to change the page name. Additionally, is there no equivalent page on the German Wikipedia?


I made an edit to clean up the categories earlier but someone reverted it- there's multiple citations through the piece linking this ideological current to the radical left, and zero to say they're somehow neoconservative. Is there anything of interest and relevance as to why this page should be linked to the neoconservative category, given there's no actual citations in the actual article? And on a related note, why it shouldn't link to other "left" wing things cited through the article, like socialism? Dreadunicorn (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


This article is just crap. Applying the term "Anti-German" to these people is radical and incorrect. Using it in this conetext certifies a lack of education and a diminished intelligence to the person who does so. I´m German and until now i have only heard this term on the part of right-wing extremists. It´s like calling an American who criticizes the Vietnam War "Anti-American". It doesn´t make any sense at all. Maybe you could apply the term to people that just "don´t like Germany", but even then it would be highly doubtful, as it is a radical expression per se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive criticism. Actually these people call themselves Antideutsche. It's not a term anyone is applying to them.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the polemical undertone of my comment. The article itself is written well I think, i just have a problem with it´s content. Until now I´ve meat only one of these so called "Anti-Germans" personally and he didn´t refer to himself as such. However I´ve heard or read right-wing extremists using this term frequently in order to refer to anybody who is pro-israel or anti-nationalist. Refering as anti-germans to them seems radical to me. It´s like a German had to be nationalist to be German and we all now that today it´s quite the reverse sometimes. It´s a very incorrect term and even the fact that "Anti-Germans" themselves use it doesn´t change this. Again, I apologize for insulting the article while it just summarizes allready existing information about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from Germany and active in the political left, where I also have contact with Anti-Germans. I can understand, why you get a flap reading the title, because it's really a term of neonazis to insult everything left or antinationalist, but the Anti-Germans are flexible in their ideology and adapt to new agiitations of the neonazis. Now they really call themselves Anti-Germans and their postions try to be the opposite of the right populist or nazist content. The problem with that is, that the neonazis are copying left arguments and positions, so the Anti-Germans react and get away from the "orthodox" left side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was the other way around: Konkret, Jutta Ditfurth, and Thomas Ebermann began calling themselves Antideutsche in the late 80s shortly before the fall of wall as a local strain of anti-racism and anti-nationalism, and their first big, publically visible campaign was Nie wieder Deutschland in reference to Re-Unification.
Later during the 90s, Bahamas and Junge Welt tried to jump the bandwagon and claim the term for themselves, where Junge Welt only used the label to paint it somehow progressive, fasionable, and Leftist to deny Israel's right to exist as they've always done ever since they were still part of East-German state-controlled media, and Bahamas used the label to pioneer free Capitalist enterprise and nationalism among the Left by calling all critiques of it anti-Semitic (in a way that did and does sound a lot like what conservative to right-wing papers such as Welt, FAZ, Junge Freiheit have always been saying about the Left, who soon began gratefully quoting Bahamas and copying their way of utterly distorting short blurbs from Marx, Adorno, and Horkheimer to prove how Capitalism had always been right and the Left had always been wrong), with both being strategies none of the original late-80s originators of the label (see above) would do, even though they were fierce critics of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism as well. Note though that this issue that Bahamas really did act pro-Capitalist is separate from how Leninist anti-imperialists used to accuse all anti-Germans of being pro-Capitalist because anti-Germans were attacking their Leninism by means of Luxemburgian critique of Lenin.
Eventually, some people working at Junge Welt began to understand their paper was made up of nutcases and split off to form Jungle World in the late 90s, which I'd call more genuinely and legitimately anti-German in the original way that had popped up in the late 80s. But by 2005, the appropriation of the Antideutsche label on behalf of Bahamas and Junge Welt forced the original anti-Germans to drop the label as the other two groups were giving them a bad name.
Around 2008-10, a conference of many of the priorly involved called Auf einer Skala von 1 bis 10, wie scheiße ist Deutschland? happened, where most legitimate anti-Germans called Bahamas out on how it had misappropriated the label while only daring to speak of "Some anti-Germans..." rather than flat-out saying they meant Bahamas, which by the end of the conference gave a great opportunity for Bahamas to now divorce themselves from the label with great fanfare because, as Bahamas then pointed out, the conference had shown how "crazy" "those anti-Germans" had always been and they wanted nothing to do with "them" anymore. Ever since then, Bahamas even actively and fiercely denies being Leftist or opposed to Capitalism in any way (before then, they'd only claimed to be while actively defending free enterprise and lack of social solidarity), now only calling themselves "critical towards ideology" (ideologiekritisch).
And it was only *AFTER* that conference that some right-wingers first heard of the term and misunderstood it mainly as just a synonym for the slur Vaterlandsverräter ("unpatriotic traitors of one's own nation"), and partly also for people from other countries being "racist" towards Germans and "discriminating" against them. --2003:71:4E07:3B72:C8B9:C40D:F7B1:9516 (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@ - Wow. So according to you, calling people that want to take DOWN Germany, and that's just what the banner says, "Anti-German" is radical? Are you serious? I can't help but shake my head. No words.... -- (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


the anti-german group sinistra! wrote a text in english about the anti-german ideology.

Structure ?[edit]

From the article, it´s possible to figure out what "Anti-Germanism" is against, but not it´s theoretical schematics. As far as I can see it (having consulted the linked documents), "Anti-Germanism" is a rather scattered set of theoretical and historical fragments. Therefore I assume the lack of structure of the article corresponds well to that of it´s topic. It seems to be tough work to set this straight...


the anti-germans are not just marxist...there are also some anarchist or non-marxist communist who are anti-german! also it is not only based on the solidarity with israel but also on the thought that german politics and society is the most capitalistic and imperialistic and that (western)germany never was "cleaned" of the old nazis which made lots of careers in the post-war-germany. also they fight against that part of the new german pop-culture who stay for a new "proudness"of being german,who are very popular at the moment in germany (fler/mia etc.) there are two kinds of antigermans the so called hard- and softcore antideutsche (antigermans).


There is only one sentence for the topic of "anti-German" proper! I understand that this is an English-language Wiki, but this is absolutely ridiculous. The first step in helping racism succeed is to convince observers (and the victims) that it doesn't exist. First there is the ethnic factor, some form of anti-German feeling is present wherever Germans are a minority, in most places around the world including the United States and South America. The Volga Germans of the former Soviet Union are now the most rapidly disappearing ethnic minority on the planet. Second, there is the national factor- you could go on for pages about the British press!

I desire to see this article fixed, but I doubt there would be many takers... judging by the articles on German Expulsion from the East, it has become fashionable on Wikipedia to adopt an anti-German bent. So much for NPOV.

Can we split this article?[edit]

May be we can write remove the redirect and write an article Anti-German sentiment, and write an article following the example of the article Anti-French sentiment and anti-Americanism. Anti-German sentiment was quite strong just after WWII and enduring in some countries, like Norway. This should be described somewhere. (I am somewhat pro-German by the way). Andries 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there is anything stopping anyone from writing an anti-German sentiment article. This one refers to something entirely different. I'm not sure if it would need to be moved, although we could create Anti-German (ideology) or something if there was a lot of confusion.
However I would caution that an anti-German sentiment article would need to be historical and only makes sense if it identifies a geneaology of the phenomenon with references provided. Otherwise, the page, just like the old Anti-American sentiment page and the French page, will just become a mess of random ranting with a contemporary focus. Tfine80 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
But I do agree it is dumb to have that sentence at the top. We should either have an article or not mention it here. Tfine80 22:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Anti-German sentiment was of significance in post war Europe for some time and to a lesser extent even now. For that reason an article should be made. I dunno how to make it a good article and how to keep POV disputes and edit warring out of the article, but that is another question. I would appreciate help. Andries 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is a phenomenon. Probably much more coherent than a subject like Anti-Australian sentiment. However, it is hard to know where to begin. I think that anti-Americanism is an important article because it discusses a clear concept that has been variously defined and we can try to place some limits on its scope. To understand anti-German sentiment we would have to examine the Congress of Vienna, Bismarck, German colonial policy, and German landholdings in Eastern Europe. And it would differ from every historical perspective and actor. What I don't like is an article that gives a brief history and then discusses petty (in the long term) and contemporary issues like trade disputes or emotional topics like the Iraq War. Or one that collapses into a collection of stereotypes. Tfine80 22:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It is perhaps important to write the article first before wondering about POV issues. It hasn't even been written yet. You're still only talking about doing it. I don't understand what the contention is about. Why not see what the content is first before you voice your disapproval of the article? Goodbye to All That had a few passages describing anti-German sentiment on the English homefront during WWI, for example, which isn't mentioned at all in any Wikipedia article.--Denkmal 03:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Much better![edit]

This topic is so scattered, I wasn't even aware of the "organised persecution" article. "Well done" to the person who corrected this problem. --Denkmal 00:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is a POV mess[edit]

Sources need to be cited. This article seems to just be someone's opinion written as fact. The term needs to be discussed for what it is - a subjective label that some people apply to some other people. Also, the term has different meanings in different contexts - whether it's someone in the states with hostility towards germany and germans due to a prejudice that they're all nazis or a person in germany who opposes his government's policies and is thus labled by some other germans as "anti-german." i'm not even sure how pervasive the use of that term is in that context. see the Anti-Americanism article for a good example of what an npov article might look like. good luck everyone... Blackcats 08:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Blackcats. My impression is that Anti-German (or antideutsch) refers to a coherent movement unlike Anti-Americanism, so the article you linked to is just completely irrelevent to this topic. (contributed by, 10:40, April 5, 2006)
It is not "a subjective label that some people apply to some other people". It is a self-chosen and self-applied label: the "Antideutsche" call themselves just that. I think it is a translation of de:Antideutsche, which does have sources, including the authoritative (but POV) page Antideutsch from the Home Office of North Rhine-Westphalia, but all are in German. --LambiamTalk 07:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It IS a POV Mess. The defining paragraph for this entry seeks to establish that "The Anti-Germans emerged as a response to the rise in racist attacks and nationalism in the wake of the German reunification." This can only be read as a passive aggressive justification for anti-germanism. It should be made more neutral. The opposite interpretation is that anti-germans are not reacting to anything, but are rather the aggressors or initiators of anti-nationalist force.

Also, the writer seems to intend to disperse and broaden the membership roster of this political tendency. The article therefore lacks scholarship in this section which appears to inflate, camouflage, and mystify the subject rather than describe it.

Someone is also trying to divorce Israeli solidarism from anti-Germanism. These three paragraphs taken together form an apologia for Antifa cells, not an objective description of anti-germanism.

The at this point collapses into a tiresome elaboration of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. I am assuming this article could be written without becoming a defensive essay of Marxism. --contextflexedTalk 12/13/07 —Preceding comment was added at 14:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Communism, anti-German criticism and Israel[edit]

Stephan Grigat from the anti-german group "Cafe Critique" describes these three subjects:

the german left[edit]

i do not think you can say that "most antifa groups in germany also hold an israel-sympathetic position" and that solidarity with israel "is in fact a position widely shared, though not universally, among many sections of the german left". i live in germany and especially during the lebanon-war it was quite obvious that the majority of the german left does not practice solidarity with israel, but did even march together with islamists, namely supporters of the hizbullah. links: -> the weblog of the editor of the weekly newspaper "jungle world" this demo was supported by the german left party and parts of the radical left wing. in fact most of the german left is very antiimperialist, antiisraeli and antizionist. and, btw, you should mention the anti-german solidarity with the usa and the uk and their war against terror.

Difference between Anti-Germans - Anti-Nationalists[edit]

The Anti-Germans did not call for "unconditional" support for the regime of Slobodan Milošević. (I don't know any argument for this.) They criticise the war, because it helped the islamistic UCK and their seperistism.

The difference to the Anti-Nationalists ist, that Anti-Nationalists say, every Nation ist equally bad. The Anti-Germans recognise differences according the form of states: Israel ist the only state, which has a reasonable reason to exist. It is the only resort to every person persecuted by Anti-Semitism in the whole world. The world that knows Capitalism and Nations generates Anti-Semitism. That is why Capitalism and Nations should be abolished, and Israel must be the Country that exist longest.

I concur that it would not be fair to label the Anti-Germans collectively as pro Milošević. They are a heterogeneous current and their exponents can be expected to have conflicting views on just about anything. However, the Anti-German current of the mid-90s was not the same as that of today. In the works of one of the most outspoken representatives of the then Antideutsche, Jürgen Elsässer, you find strong pro-Milošević positions, plus lots of anti-Albanian statements which in my view do not only border racist stereotypes. Elsässer has later turned his back on the Antideutsche and rejoined the more traditional anti-imperialist camp. But during the initial phase of the Antideutsche current, he has been one of the most influential figures. Also, I strongly remember the positions that the Junge Welt advocated during the war in Bosnia, 1995. (This was way before a schism in the editorial office, between the traditional East German and the post-working-class West German camps led to the eventual founding of the Jungle World weekly.) At that time, both self-styled antideutsche and anti-imperialists jointly praised Milošević and denounced all reports of massacres in Bosnia as rumours. But even today, people associated with the more "hardcore" segments of the current, with whom I have personally communicated, continue to advocate a strong pro Milošević position. So, however unfair such a generalisation may seem, there is a grain of truth. --Johannes Rohr 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality, accuracy, etc.[edit]

I'm not too impressed by this article. It is certainly not adequate for the average reader of the English Wikipedia, who cannot be expected to be familiar with sub-factions of the German Autonome Linke ("Autonomous left (current)"). However, it is surprising that such an article exists at all, as the "Antideutsche" represent a truly marginal phenomenon.

Even in Germany, few people outside the radical left are aware of their existence. To put things into perspective: Most the critique voiced by Antideutsche is targeted at other radical-left factions, or even at other sub-factions of the Antideutsche current.

The first and foremost task of an encyclopaedia is to differentiate between the more and the less important. If we look at political life in contemporary Germany, the Antideutsche are without doubt of little importance.

In my view, their most outstanding feature is that they use radical-left language to justify right-wing politics. They have vigorously supported George Bushes and Rumsfeld's politics in Iraq, they have even spoken out pro Guantanamo bay, pro Abu Ghraibh. The so-called Hardcore Antideutsche (most promimently represented by the journal "Bahamas") have mostly exchanged their former anti-German convictions by anti-muslim sentiments, which includes support for and admiration of right-wing populists such as Pim Fortuyn. While they are regularly bashing moderately left media such as the daily die tageszeitung, many hail right-wing newspapers such as Die Welt, Germany's most outstanding right-wing conservative daily. To go even further: Personally, I have spoken to Antideutsche who openly favour the "transfer" of all Palestinians from "the territories" to Jordan, something, that even openly islamophobic right-wing Germans wouldn't easily demand.

However, according to my personal observations, the Antideutsche current has its future already behind them. With the war on Iraq turning more and more into an undeniable disaster, they have lost much of their former attractiveness. Many observers judge that this movement has already passed a point of no return from the bourgeois conservative, islamophobic environment, where many Antideutsche have since taken refuge...

Anyway, in short: Make it clear that this is a marginal faction, please don't make too much fuzz about it... --Johannes Rohr 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear your opinion... Branding everyone associated with a certain opinion as right wing is probably indeed the most sophisticated form of denuniciation. But working on the article might be more helpful than that.--Carabinieri 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, how would you label Die Welt or the current US administration? I would say, that "right-wing" is a faily appropriate, non-polemic description. Second, I did not start editing right away, because having been involved in editing de:Antideutsche, I am well aware, how controversial and contested this topic is. Third, what also deters me from getting involved, is the current messy state of the article. Generally, this topic is better for some ranting then for serious article work. It may become easier in a few years time, if my observations are correct and this current is more and more becoming history. Adequately judging such a phenomenon in retrospect is probably easier. --Johannes Rohr 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In comparison with e.g. the former SPD-Greens government in Germany, I would not label the Bush administration as right wing. The former enthusiastically supported the Fascist UCK and its opposition to the Iraq war was mostly motivated by blatant anti-Americanism and economic interests in the Middle East (illicit trade with Hussein's Iraq as well as legal trade with its neighbors). Further prominent members of the Greens (Christian Ströbele, for example) have openly spoken out for the fascist Ba'athist regime and anti-Israeli terrorism. On the other hand, such politics are not really exclusively right wing, if one considers the fact that most of the post-WWII left wing has been pro-PLO (and most recentlyparts of it pro-Hamas).--Carabinieri 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While what you wrote, is a truly authentic representation of core beliefs held in the Anti-German current, it certainly is not what I would call NPOV. With all due respect: The simple fact, that the Bush administration represents the right-of-centre segment of the American political spectre is something, that cannot be seriously disputed. I won't go into details, even though I feel that some of your above statements are gross misrepresentations. But I have been through this kind of discussions way too often, and I feel that it is nothing but a huge, fat waste of time. --Johannes Rohr 13:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was presenting my POV, just like you were when you wrote "In my view, their most outstanding feature is that they use radical-left language to justify right-wing politics" for example. Are you seriously claiming that what you wrote was NPOV?--Carabinieri 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, what I was trying to show is that the simplistic formulas "right=bad" and "left=good" are complete nonsense.--Carabinieri 13:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is not about good or bad, but about right and left. Why? Again, simply because it is an outstanding (although not entirely unique) feature of Anti-Germans that, while identifying themselves as "communists", they have increasingly assumed political views, which are typically associated with right wing politics. And outstanding features of a particular subject should be mentioned in the respective article. --Johannes Rohr 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding image[edit]

It seems that the following is an Image from a demonstration of the Anti-Germans (according to Talk:Militant anti-fascism) . However, I didn't manage to find a way to make it fit nicely into the article. Can anyone help me with this?


Tal :) 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To include a picture requires to say what the picture shows. On Talk:Militant_anti-fascism#Image, the image has the caption Antifa's demonstration against anti-semitism and in support of Israel, in Hamm 2004.. Unfortunately, the link given as a source on Image:Hamm02.jpg seems to be dead. I'm afraid to just include this picture with this caption would be original research. About a year ago, there has been a lengthy discusison about a similar problem on the German page Diskussion:Antideutsche#Beanstandete_Teile. The recent stage of discussion there is (since August 2006) to remove some pictures of antigerman demonstrations from the article, with the reason given that original pictures of an event donated by wikipedians are allowed only if there has been an independent press coverage about the event. Otherwise, the picture would be original research. In our case this would mean that this picture could be included only if the article would refer to an independent source which confirms that there has been an antideutschen demonstation in Hamm 2004.--Schwalker 10:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems really abstruse to me, is anybody going to object if I include this photo? (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurz and zionism[edit]

I think that the reference about Robert Kurz and his School is incorrect. They don't support zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Robert Kurz deleted[edit]

It was false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Robert Kurz restored[edit]

I have restored the reference to Robert Kurz, and sourced it. I don't understand why the previous user even regards it as controversial. The support of the Krisis and Exit groups for Israel is well-known, and the third issue of the Exit journal even includes a theoretical defense of Israel within the context of an article on anti-semitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negative potential (talkcontribs) 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

German speaker wanted[edit]

Am I right that the text on this banner means "German thinking is Auschwitz thinking"? (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means "Thinking (of) Germany means thinking (of) Auschwitz" (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology incorrect, biased[edit]

Referring to this group as leftist is incorrect, and the preface "anti-fascist", used in reference to members of the groups, is innapropriate, and an example of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rössel v Philippa Ebene[edit]

The following paragraph was recently added here. I think it should be deleted, because it is a lot of proportion of the article devoted to something not that central. If it is included, can we have references that make it clear that Karl Rössel is actually part of the anti-deutsch movement? It also needs better wikilinks etc

A current example of anti-German (anti-deutsch) activities are the attacks of Karl Rössel against Philippa Ebene, the director of an institution in Berlin called Werkstatt der Kulturen.[1] Rössel, the curator of an exhibition called 'Third world during WW2' attacked her because she rejected his exhibition, by claiming that she had only refused it because it showed pictures that depicted the collaboration of Arabs with Hitler. The actual reasons for said rejection were that his entire exhibition was deemed racist by Philippa Ebene because the curator was unable to distinguish which 'non-white' soldiers actually hailed from developing countries. Yet Rössel decided to claim that the real reasons were the images showing Arab collaborators. He retracted later from this claim when asked directly, but it was too late. The German press not aware of Rössel's long standing anti-Arabic feelings [2] had already helped him achieving something no right wing party had ever achieved in Germany, which is that Germans can now claim that they were not the main culprits of the Third Reich, but the entire Arab world was almost equally responsible for the Shoah.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the most important is missing[edit]

"Antideutsche" or in english "anti germans" is a term that was coined by the nsdap. It is the term they used for anyone nazi regarded as an enemy or opposed to nazi germany. Mosst prominently the resistance but also allied forces in WW2. Its a propagandistic term used against antifascist. Some antifascists took that term up for themselves saying "yes we are those you call anti germans". It might be a good idea for wikipedia not to use the term in a diffamatory way as thats where it derives from. this article really is a shame. (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

do you have a reference for the claim that phrase was originally coined by the Nazis (I never came across any usage of the term anti-deutsch/anti-german in the Nazi-era context, yet) (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


It should be made clear, that they hate muslims and germans (themselves), but love the US, Israel, support the building of settlements, support war (even nuclear!) against Iran, oppose antiimperialism ... I have seen these people in Vienna. They are truly evil, racist and retarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What an Idiotic comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are the evil, racist, and retarded one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spentgrodfg3 (talkcontribs) 09:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact the position is true, they do hate muslims and germans, but love the US, Israel, support the building of settlements, support war (even nuclear!) against Iran, oppose antiimperialism ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The so-called Anti-Germans who are mostly Germans themselves are indeed Racists but they do not hate Muslims they are just against Islam. German Anti-Germans are just like Jewish Anti-Zionists self-haters.-- (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The only mention of Islam is in the categories. If they have a position on Islam, it should be in the article. --Error (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Hate your Heimat

is this image related to this movement, or is it just snark? its categorized as "Euromasochism", not sure if this exists.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anti-Germans (political current)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article still needs a lot of work, especially sourcing. Two good sources: [1] and [2].--Carabinieri 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Substituted at 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Germans (political current). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


An anon editor put this book in as a "primary source" (although of course Wikipedia doesn't do primary sources, see WP:PRIM, but they probably didn't mean primary source) because it described the Anti-Germans as racist: Harald Bergdorf and Rudolf van Hüllen Linksextrem – Deutschlands unterschätzte Gefahr? Schöningh, Paderborn 2011, ISBN 978-3-506-77242-8. I have removed it, as I looked through it and couldn't find any reference to the Anti-Germans. Does anyone think (a) this book should be on the page, and (b) the page should be included under category:racism? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Im a German and I read the book and Anti-Germans are mentioned there and clasified as Racist.--Der Graufuchs (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I've searched again, and it doesn't use the term Antideutsch or Anti-German, or the word rassist(isch). Can you point to a page number or give more info? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ [ > beunruhigt-article564377.html
  2. ^ [3] Rössel claims that the centre for a modern orient is denying the impact of Arabic collaboration