Talk:Ilya Ehrenburg

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

Revert[edit]

This material was removed and reworded:

'Ilya Grigoriewich Ehrenburg (January 27, 1891 - August 31, 1967) was a Russian writer and journalist. Ehrenburg was best known as the top war propagandist for the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin during World War II. During this time, he exhorted Soviet troops to kill and rape Germans that they encountered in the war effort. Ehrenburg authored an especially vitriolic leaflet entitled "Kill," which was circulated among the soldiers on the Eastern Front: "The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill." [1] Many historians attribute Ehrenburg's hate-filled incitements as a motivating factor for the mass murder and rape of German civilians that took place as Soviet troops advanced through Nazi occupied territory toward the end of the war. On his passing in 1967, he was interred in Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow. References [1] Alfred de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam (London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul, 2nd edition, 1979), pp. 6546, 201; and, Erich Kern (ed.), Verheimlichte Dokumente (Munich: FZ- Verlag, 1988), pp. 260-61, 353-55.'(from the Institute for Historical Review http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p507_Weber.html)

It is not untrue that Ehrenburg was one of the most important propagandists, but to start the article as saying his propaganda is what he is "best known for", and to follow up with up with something controversial he said, is inserting POV material by 1) ignoring everything else Ehrenburg did, and 2) emphasizing what he did wrong. He was an interesting character who defended a variety of causes in his lifetime, some of them highly questionable, some of them undoubtably correct, and he is very well known in the Russian literary world for some of his writing and his memoirs, rather than all the garbage he uttered during the war (to make a simple analogy, it is bit like writing a stubbed article on Clinton that says "Clinton is best known for lying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal" and including a quote of a lie he spoke - as you can see it may not be totally incorrect, but it would be insufficient and highly POV). I think the quote should be re-introduced at a later stage in the article, when it has been sufficiently de-stubbed, but to keep the article as it is above, with its bulk taken up by one quote, is quite unacceptable. -- Simonides 19:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First off, don't remove valid content just because the present article doesn't cover other aspects of his career. It does tend to inaccurately represent him, but that can't be helped, it's part of the wiki process of building articles. Make whatever edits you can to fix the problem. However, I have problems with your replacement content as well:
"Ilya Ehrenburg played many roles in his life, and was never fully understood by his contemporaries. A revolutionary as a teenager, a disenchanted poet in his youth, writing Catholic poems despite his Jewish background, a follwer of Lenin on arrival in Paris who became an anti-Bolshevik, truthful and sensitive journalist, turning again in later years to writing crude Communist and war propaganda, while occasionally defending his views with boldness against Stalin or government mouthpieces, Ehrenburg was a public figure who at times made severe compromises to survive under the inescapable paradoxes of Soviet totalitarianism, and at others took foolhardy risks that he survived perhaps only by chance."
Everything that is bolded is obviously POV. Everyking 20:07, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I think the part about 'breaking the racial pride' of the German women should be removed. It is stated in Berlin: The Downfall 1945(Beevor), Chapter 3 (Fire and Sword and 'Noble Fury'):

"Yet while Ehrenburg never shrank from the most bloodthirsty harangues, the most notorious statement, which is still attributed to him by western historians, was a Nazi invention. He is accused of having urged Red Army soldiers to take German women as their 'lawful booty' and to 'break their racial pride'. 'There was a time', Ehrenburg retorted in Krasnaya Zvezda, 'when Germans used to fake important documents of the state. Now they have fallen so low as to fake my articles.' Mikko Luukkonen 23:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is truly disgusting, why were the crimes committed by this man, and crimes he urged others to committ, nowhere to be found on this wikipedia article?Androme385 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny comment in the external link "Brief page on The Thaw"[edit]

"Honor of the first crack in the ice signaling the Thaw belongs to a young film student, Olga Shmarova, who in May 1953, three months after Stalin's death, complained about the absence of love interests in films and noted ironically that in Soviet films, lovers talk about bulldozers and tractors."

Shmara in Russian means "slut." -Rako

The Ehrenburg article[edit]

File:Ilya Ehrenburg Kill.GIF
Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) 24 July 1942 (№173 [5236])

I am not going to spoil your good Encyclopedia and edit the text with my broken English... Just 2 kopecks from a Russian:

Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) 24 July 1942 (№173 [5236])

Kill him.

Here are excerpts from 3 letters found on the body of German soldiers:

Administer Raingardt writes to lieutenant Otto Von Shirak:

"They have withdrewed Frenchmen from us to the plant. I has chosen six Russians from the Minsk district. They are much more hardy than Frenchmen. Only one of them died, the rest continue to work in the field and on the farm. They costs nothing and we shouldh't suffer that these beasts (their children may be kill our soldier) eat German bread. Yesterday I put to the flogging two Russian beasts who surreptitiously have devoured a skim milk intended for pigs..."

Mateas Zimlih writes to his brother, lance bombardier Henrih Zimlih:

"In the Laiden there is an encampment for Russians. It's possible to see them there. They do not afraid of weapons, but we talk with them with a good lash..."

Otto Essman writes to lieutenant Helmut Vagand:

"There is Russian POWs here. These blokes devour the rain worms on the aerodrome, they snap at slop-pail. I saw, as they eat weeds. Just fancy that these ... are people..."

The slaveowners, they want to turn our people into slaves. They export Russians to Germany, torment them, drive them mad with hunger so much so that the dying people eat herbs, worms. And a dratted German with a rotten cigar in the teeths philosophizes: "Are they people?.."

We know all. We remember all. We have understood: the Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German discharges a rifle. We shall not speak any more. We shall not be indignant. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day. If you think that instead of you your comrade will kill a German, you do not realize the threat. If you will not kill a German, the German will kill you. He will capture your relatives and will torment them in his cursed Germany. If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill

http://www.sscadm.nsu.ru/deps/hum/reader/ehrenburg/004.html - original in Russian.

A necessary coment to the article: In this article the word German (in Russian - "nemec") means German male i.e soldier. In original Russian text the word "nemec" (German) is a masculine noun. He called to kill German soldiers not civilians. Ehrenburg wrote the article in 1942 when there were no any other Germans on the Soviet soil but soldiers.

The Soviet Command and Soviet Authorities and Soviet Media never order or call for raping and pillage or something. Just the contrary, Soviet Command issued special orders against revenge, and thousands of Soviet soldiers were punished. During first months of 1945 only number of officers prosecuted for violence towards German population exceeded 4000. Nekto



I wish also to clarify this paragraph in the wiki-article:

Other historians challenge Ehrenburg's authorship of the infamous "Kill"-leaflet. Their arguments are based on the absence of known original Soviet copies of the leaflet from archives and an article by the alleged author in the Krasnaya Zvezda dated November 24, 1944 in which Ehrenburg explicitly denies his authorship of the "Kill" leaflet. [2] (German) A few historians even claim the "Kill" leaflet to be a fabrication of the Nazi Propagandaministerium, invented to strengthen the German resistance during the final months of the war.

There is a confusion. The leaflet mention there was a Nazi fake. It also called “Kill” but has another words:

"Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these Germanic women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army."

http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs983a.html


These words never were written by Ehrenburg. And in his article “Blonde witch” (title hints to Blonde beast = ubermensh) in the Krasnaya Zvezda dated November 25, 1944 Ehrenburg wrote:

"There was a time, when Germans used to fake important documents of state. Now they have fallen so low as to fake my articles. The quotes that German general ascribed to me betrayed their’s author: only the German is able to make up this dirty"

Nekto 19:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)



The article in its present state seems very good but for one phrase. Calling Ehrenburg "a Soviet Jewish writer and journalist" seems strange. Despite the fact he was concsious of his origin, he never, as far as I know, wrote a single line in Hebrew of Jiddish, and wrote not often about Jewish life. Besides, he was not a Soviet writer till his forty years.

                                              D.E.

More on the Ehrenburg article[edit]

There is a detailed analysis and discussion (in Russian) on this very subject on the following web pages:
http://labas.livejournal.com/301205.html
http://labas.livejournal.com/301410.html
http://labas.livejournal.com/301740.html

One particular bit I have translated here:

London weekly "Soviet War News" for the most part printed translations from Soviet Informbureau and articles from leading Soviet papers, including articles of Ehrenburg. On December 7, 1944 it printed the following text: "We need none of these flaxen-haired hyenas. We are coming to Germany for something else - for Germany. And these particular flaxen-haired witches will not easily escape us."

This article gives reason for modern English-speaking readers to accuse Ehrenburg of racism for the phrase "flaxen-haired" and to ask a rhethorical question, "Finally, the words "will not easily escape us" could be construed as an incitement to violence against German women. What is it that Erenburg thought German women could not escape?"

The problem is, however, that in the original article published in the "Red Star" 25 of November 1994 there are no "witches" in plural. It says, "We need none of these flaxen-haired hyenas. We are coming to Germany for something else - for Germany. And this particular flaxen-haired witch will not easily escape us."

75.84.102.227 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add that "flaxen-haired" is not the good translation. In the Russian original he uses the word "белокурые" or blond. Here he sarcastically associates Germany with blond hyena or blond witch and hints to the Nietzsche's concept of "the blond beast" ("blonden Bestie" or Übermensch). This playword was easily understood by a Soviet reader of the time. --Nekto 11:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

controversy[edit]

KILL! KILL! In the German race there is nothing but evil. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill! You gallant soldiers of the Red army

that is a quote I got from James Charles Roy's The Vanished Kingdom: Travels Through the history of Prussia but I don't know how to cite it. it clearly states what the other one is attempted to be debunked of. I think the other one should be deleted, as the other one does not state what is being claimed by the adversary of it. and now the section can be cited

--Jadger 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, it was explained above by Nekto (on 26 October 2005) that Ehrenburg is not an author of this leaflet, and apparently all the thing is a fake. It is just a popular myth that you can sometimes meet in bagrain books on 1945 events but never in serious study. --Mgar 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nekto doesn't cite a source that says it is fake though, he cites a source that also states that he wrote it. he cites the man himself saying he didn't write it, but how trustworthy is that? I'm pretty sure if any of us wrote it, that we would also deny it later. and I can definitely say this wasn't some bargain book, it has been properly peer reviewed. it was reviewed by Steven Ozment, Mclean Professor of Ancient and Modern History, Harvard University for one.

--Jadger 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Source was cited by Mikko Luukkonen (see [1]. He has quoted Anthony Beavor's "Berlin: The Downfall 1945". Also, there are references in this anonymous comment: [2].
As I said, this leaflet is a popular myth, and occasionally one can find it in some books (especially in German) but usually not in serious studies. The most comprehensive biography of Ehernburg, "Tangled Loyalties" by american Joshua Rubenstein, also says nothing about this leaflet - and Rubinstein's book is far from apologethic!
Below are referencies to some of German scholars that have found this story is a myth:
  • Fisch, Bernhard , Ubej! Toete! Zur Rolle von Ilja Ehrenburgs Flugblaettern in den Jahren 1944/45. In: Geschichte, Erziehung, Politik, 8 (1997) 1, S. 22-27
  • Urban, Thomas: Als Held der Roten Armee gefeiert, als "Deutschenhasser" dämonisiert. Ilja Ehrenburg zwischen den politischen Fronten, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung 14.04.05, S. 10.
  • Carola Tischler: Die Vereinfachungen des Genossen Erenburg. Eine Endkriegs- und eine Nachkriegskontroverse, in: Elke Scherstjanoi (Hrsg.) Rotarmisten schreiben aus Deutschland. Briefe von der Front (1945) und historische Analysen. Texte und Materialien zur Zeitgeschichte, Bd. 14. K.G. Saur Verlag, München 2004; S. 326-339
The latter author cites the expert examination of Instituts fuer Zeitgeschichte (in Munchen) from May 15, 1966. The Institute claims it has no evidence of neither Ehrenburg's authorship nor existence of this leaflet in Rissian.
--Mgar 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why so many sources remaind here and aren't included into the article. At the same time source [2] isn't available.Xx236 17:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"("убей немца" literally translates as "kill the German man")" - NO - literally it means " kill a german (ANY GERMAN REGARDLESS OF SEX AGE etc)" - I am quite good in german, english, russian, estonian and finnish. So "убей немца" - means kill germans in general.
Please do not obscure the issue. (Не наводи тень на плетень).
Do you insist that you can say "немец" ("German" - masculine noun in the singular) about a German woman? If so then you definetely cannot claim that you are "good at Russian". Here you are a little lesson:
There are three genders in Russian: masculine, feminine and neutral. Lets analize the word немец.
немец (masculine noun in the singular) - a German man.
немцы (masculine noun in the plural) - can mean German men or the Germans in general and it depends on the context.
немка (feminine noun in the singular) - a German woman.
немки (feminine noun in the plural) - German women.
Next step. Lets put the word немец in genitive case:
убей немца (masculine noun in the singular) - kill a German man.
убей немцев (masculine noun in the plural) - kill German men or kill the Germans in general and again it depends on the context.
So the only case when it can be said about killing the Germans in general is "убей немцев". But Ehrenburg didn't wrote "убей немцев", he wrote "убей немца" - kill a German man (masculine noun in the singular). Let's see the cases when in his article he used the word "немцы" - (masculine noun in the plural) which can mean both - German men or the Germans in general. Let see the context:

Here are excerpts from 3 letters found on the body of killed Germans (masculine noun in the plurar. So it can be either German men or the Germans in general. But 1942 year, when the artcle was writen, explicitly points at the first.):

Administer Raingardt writes to lieutenant Otto Von Shirak:

"They have withdrewed Frenchmen from us to the plant. I has chosen six Russians from the Minsk district. They are much more hardy than Frenchmen. Only one of them died, the rest continue to work in the field and on the farm. They costs nothing and we shouldh't suffer that these beasts (their children may be kill our soldier) eat German bread. Yesterday I put to the flogging two Russian beasts who surreptitiously have devoured a skim milk intended for pigs..."

Mateas Zimlih writes to his brother, gefreiter Henrih Zimlih:

"In the Laiden there is an encampment for Russians. It's possible to see them there. They do not afraid of weapons, but we talk with them with a good lash..."

Otto Essman writes to lieutenant Helmut Vagand:

"There is Russian POWs here. These blokes devour the rain worms on the aerodrome, they snap at slop-pail. I saw, as they eat weeds. Just fancy that these ... are people..."

The slaveowners, they want to turn our people into slaves. They export Russians to Germany, torment them, drive them mad with hunger so much so that the dying people eat herbs, worms. And a dratted German (masculine noun in the singular) with a rotten cigar in the teethes philosophizes: "Are they people?.."

We know all. We remember all. We have understood: the Germans (masculine noun in the plural) are not human beings. From now on the word German (masculine noun in the singular) means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German (masculine noun in the singular) discharges a rifle. We shall not speak any more. We shall not be indignant. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German (masculine noun in the singular) a day, you have wasted that day. If you think that instead of you your comrade will kill a German (masculine noun in the singular), you do not realize the threat. If you will not kill a German (masculine noun in the singular), the German (masculine noun in the singular) will kill you. He (sic!) will capture your relatives and will torment them in his cursed Germany. If you cannot kill your German (masculine noun in the singular) with a bullet, kill him (sic!) with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German (masculine noun in the singular) in the meantime. If you leave a German (masculine noun in the singular) alive, the German (masculine noun in the singular) will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman (sic! does it mean that "any German regardless of sex age" rape a Russian woman?). If you kill one German (masculine noun in the singular), kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans (masculine noun in the plural) killed by you. Kill the German (masculine noun in the singular) -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German (masculine noun in the singular) -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German (masculine noun in the singular) -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill!

Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) (24 July 1942 (№173 [5236]))
So one can see that Ehrenburg uses
немец (masculine noun in the singular) - a German man - 15 times + he (masculine pronoun in the singular) - 2 times = 17 times.
немцы (masculine noun in the plural) - German men or the Germans in general (depends on the context) - 3 times. The context is the usage of the masculine noun in the singular - 17 times.
--Nekto 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of confusing, you first claim he never wrote the article, but then you later claim that he wrote "nemec" meaning German male, not all Germans. You refer to the article as not being wrote by him, then you claim it is mistranslated and he did not mean it as such. well, which is it?

--Jadger 06:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you got it all wrong. I'm sorry if it happened probably because I'm handicapped in English.
First. I said that in 1942 he did write the article which is called "Kill!"(or sometimes translated as "Kill him!"). Above I have analyzed this article.
Second. In 1944 German propagandists wrote the bogus leaflet which they also called "Kill" and which had absolutely another words (all that rubbish about "the racial pride of German women" etc).
--Nekto 12:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, that's understandable now, thanks for explaining it.

--Jadger 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945[edit]

"De Zayas, who also reads Russian, was able to evaluate captured Soviet records found in the files of the Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle and Fremde Heere Ost, including flyers of Ilya Ehrenburg (including the infamous "Ubei" flyer, which de Zayas publishes in facsimile, providing a partial translation)." (quoted from Talk:The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, signed there Dr. Dr. Johannes van Aggelen).Xx236 11:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

meant for soliders not civilians?[edit]

Some one wrote that the translation means "German man" in the "kill" pamphlet, and that this rules out civilians completely, in terms of being targeted by soviet war crimes. as many men are civilians, even in war, last time I checked. So, this does not make sense, even if it is true which I don't know if it is, men can be civilians . In addition, inciting to kill is just that.

The article was written in 1942. It was the second year of the war when German troops advanced deep into the Soviet Union and reached the line Leningrad - Moscow - Stalingrad. At that time there were no any civilian Germans available to Soviet soldiers to commit any "soviet crimes" against them. At that time for Soviet soldiers the name "German (man)" only meant an armed enemy in the opposite trenches. In wartime there is nothing wrong in "inciting to kill" invaders. That's all.

Ehrenburg was a fucking communist. Cummunism has killed million people. That`s all. --195.126.85.141 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You German scum murdered over eleven million innocent civilians in World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperalso2 (talkcontribs) 02:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I like cake. 65.129.253.78 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A very poor article[edit]

This article's completely lopsided, full of trifles, full of holes - and the talk page's much longer than the article itself. For anybody with a knowledge of German & interested in how a good article on Ehrenburg may look like, see here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilja_Grigorjewitsch_Ehrenburg

Excellent job!
It reminds me an old Russian joke:
There was an international competition for the best book about elephants.
Germany submitted 8 volume set under the title "Introduction into elephantology."
France submitted a lavishly illustrated booklet titled "Elephants and love."
England presented a treatise "Elephants and the World Trade."
The USA furnished a pocketbook "Everything you would like to know about elephants."
The USSR sent three volumes, with the following titles, Vol. 1. Russia - the Motherland of elephants. Vol. 2. Marxism classics about elephants. Vol. 3. Elephants in the light of decisions of the XXX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Bulgaria translated Soviet volumes and added Vol. 4. Bulgarian elephant is a younger brother of Soviet one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekto (talkcontribs) 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nekto! Fine user name. Being the main author of the German article, I appreciate your description. I don't think every Ehrenburg article has to be an introduction into Ehrenburgology. But maybe the English one could do with some grains of real knowledge ...--Mautpreller (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As has already been said in this talk page (and in the German wikipedia article!) the alleged call for rape is a Nazi fake. Removed. Feketekave (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think any page where the "talk" section dwarfs the actual article should automatically warrant more to be written about the topic. When I first read about this guy it was in reference to the mass rape/murder during the invasion of Berlin. At the very least, the fact that some people hold him at least partially responsible. We can all agree Goebbels did his part in the genocide, which was nothing more than inciting Germans against those deemed subhuman. You can't let the fact that Germany was pretty much 100% in the wrong here, being that they started shit with Russia to begin with. After a non-aggression pact, mind you. Still, this man's writings had to have contributed at least a little bit to what happened during the final act of the war in Europe, the fall of Berlin. 65.129.253.78 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation from Russian[edit]

There is an edit warring around article "Kill the German" by Erenburg. This article is widely know, published in hundreds of Soviet books, an no one ever disputed the authorship by Erenburg. However, the translation from Russian is indeed very poor. This is original Russian text (see ru:Убей немца!):

Мы знаем все. Мы помним все. Мы поняли: немцы не люди. Отныне слово «немец» для нас самое страшное проклятье. Отныне слово «немец» разряжает ружье. Не будем говорить. Не будем возмущаться. Будем убивать. Если ты не убил за день хотя бы одного немца, твой день пропал. Если ты думаешь, что за тебя немца убьет твой сосед, ты не понял угрозы. Если ты не убьешь немца, немец убьет тебя. Он возьмёт твоих и будет мучить их в своей окаянной Германии. Если ты не можешь убить немца пулей, убей немца штыком. Если на твоем участке затишье, если ты ждешь боя, убей немца до боя. Если ты оставишь немца жить, немец повесит русского человека и опозорит русскую женщину. Если ты убил одного немца, убей другого — нет для нас ничего веселее немецких трупов. Не считай дней. Не считай верст. Считай одно: убитых тобою немцев. Убей немца! — это просит старуха-мать. Убей немца! — это молит тебя дитя. Убей немца! — это кричит родная земля. Не промахнись. Не пропусти. Убей!

This might be translated better as a notable example of war-time propaganda.Biophys (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

However such direct citation would be only appropriate in an article about Soviet war time propaganda; not here. "Kill, kill, kill!" is hardly an encyclopedic content.Biophys (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
But this is quite a piece: "If you did not kill a German today, your day is wasted. ... Nothing makes us happier than dead German bodies... Do not count the days [remaining to the end of the war]. Do not count the miles. Count only Germans killed by you...".Biophys (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Literary references[edit]

Should we include Ehrenburg's appearance in Neruda's memoirs (which are certainly literary), or should this section list only fictional references? (Ehrenburg plays a fairly major role in "Confieso que he vivido".) Feketekave (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way - I have to agree with what somebody said above; the German wikipedia page on Ehrenburg is actually much more complete and NPOV than this one - it is in many ways an infinitely better page. I propose scrapping this one and translating that one. We can do much worse than that. Feketekave (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No "scrapping" this page please! Please add new content if anything is missing. Sure, why not include his appearance in Neruda's memoirs or anything missing from German version?Biophys (talk)

Edits by an IP user[edit]

I am not quite sure what's the problem. The text inserted by IP seems to be sourced and explanatory.Biophys (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem - among other things - is that he was implicitly accusing me of having lied about the content of the German wikipedia article; he replaced my edit by a text based both on other sources - which he may include - and on some rearranged passages of the German wikipedia disjoint from the ones I was referring to.
Quite aside from the issue of this user (who seems to be following my edits from varying IP addresses that can be traced to the same source, and has been more explicitly uncivil; I have reported him), I should say that, on the whole, de.wikipedia's account (essentially a rebuttal) of the accusations against Ehrenburg of encouraging violence against German civilians is admirably well-balanced and well-researched. The article there is simply a much more complete one than the one here. We may want to have a shorter one, but not a worse one. Feketekave (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
In this particular edit, the IP user provided some presumably valid refs rather than German wikipedia. The edit seems to be rather neutral and explanatory. I suggest to discuss content rather than behavior here.Biophys (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ehrenburg himself was criticised by frontline soldiers in 1945"

German WP states E. was critizised by Viktor Semyonovich Abakumov, the head of the SMERSH in 1943-46 and from 1946 to 1951 minister of State Security (Ministry for State Security (Soviet Union)), calling such a person "frontline soldier" is .. well... not really true, exact. But maybe I overlooked something, where does the German WP article exactly say what you translated?84.139.243.179 (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As you in all probability know perfectly well, having looked at the wikipedia.de page, your claim that I have called Abakumov a frontline soldier is untrue. The wikipedia article states: "Im letzten Kriegsjahr erhielt Ehrenburg kritische Briefe von Frontsoldaten, die ihm vorhielten, er habe sich gewandelt und trete nun plötzlich für Mildtätigkeit gegenüber den Deutschen ein. Am 7. April 1945 antwortete Ehrenburg in der Krasnaja Swesda, er habe bereits 1942 für „Gerechtigkeit, nicht Rache“ plädiert.[65]" - "In the last year of the way Ehrenburg received critical letters from frontline soldiers, who took him to task, stating that he had changed and now stood for mildness towards Germans. On 7. April 1945 Ehrenburg answered in Krasnaja Swesda, that he had always pleaded for "justice, not revenge.""

I would advise you to get a username. Feketekave (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way - on the claimed "citation" of Ehrenburg on raping German women:

de.wikipedia.org: "Die Forschung ist sich seit langem einig, dass es sich um ein Gerücht der deutschen Propaganda handelt.[78] Und Lew Kopelew hat als Zeitzeuge mittlerweile vielfach bestätigt, dass ein solches Flugblatt Ehrenburgs nie existiert hat und weder sprachlich noch inhaltlich in Ehrenburgs Produktion passe. „Es scheint nur bei den deutschen Truppen bekannt gewesen zu sein und war wohl ein Versuch der Goebbels-Kader, auf diese Art den Widerstandswillen der Wehrmacht zu stärken.“[79]" - "Researchers have long agreed that this is a rumour [put around] by German propaganda. And Lev Kopoelev, as a contemporary witness, has stated numerous times that such a pamphlet of Ehrenburg's never existed and would not fit either in language or contact in Ehrenburg's work. "It seems to be known only by German troops and was most likely an attempt of the Goebbels cadres to strengthen the will to resistance on the part of the German army."[79]". Feketekave (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry I had not seen that single sentence in the German article, you would avoid that with proper citations. However you seem to mix up citations of Ehrenburg's newspaper articles with the leaflet. You're absolutely right, the leaflet most probably never existed but that "kill the Germans" is real - do you deny it? And you're also absolutely right about the quality of the German article, it is balanced and also mentions critical aspects of E., something you seem to dislike. And who claims a citation of E. on raping women, I don't and I'm not aware of anybody else here. Maybe you're a little overreacting. 84.139.237.202 (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When I brought the matter of this user's behaviour in the administrator's noticeboard, he complained that I had "deleted sourced content" - and linked precisely to a diff containing a supposed quote from Ehrenburg calling for the rape of German women. Since this quote is, as the de.wikipedia.org article states, in all probability a Nazi fake, I removed it; this is what this user complained about (stating that I was "throwing stones from a glass house").

I am confusing nothing and he is confusing nothing. He is simply trying to spread confusion - that is a different thing. Feel free to contribute to the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard. Feketekave (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking a content dispute to ANI does not really help. Registering as a regular user for making controversial edits is certainly a good idea. You both should and can negotiate the issues. The IP user seems to be more or less reasonable. Blocking a wide range of IP addresses he operates from would be undesirable.Biophys (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in negotiating with somebody who uses his supposed anonimity (which in fact makes him easier to track) to make false claims about his own edits and those of other users. There is one way in which his addresses help him, though - unless you are going to spend a few minutes on this, you cannot see his other edits, or how he tracks other users while attempting to avoid being tracked. I have already received assistance at the administrators' noticeboard. Feketekave (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not see any obviously false claims. "There is no point in negotiating" is not good attitude.Biophys (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Take time to look at the evidence before voicing an opinion. He claimed at the administrator's noticeboard that nobody had ever claimed here that Ehrenburg called for the rape of German women - this not only after the authenticity of this "quote" was discussed here at length, but also after he criticised me there for deleting precisely that quotation. He also claimed I had fabricated material supposedly from the German wikipedia, whereas that material was actually there.

This user is simply a disruptive element logging in through anonymous Deutsche Telekom addresses. His stance, overall - if you care to follow it in other pages; the way I do this is to look at frivolous edits that anonymous IPs have made to my own edits, but he may have done this in others - is one that would be thoroughly unacceptable in the German wikipedia: it is a fringe attitude. He uses anonymous IPs so that no pattern emerges, and so his edits may look sensible to a casual outsider - until you realise his attempts at making the issue look bilateral are based simply on blatantly untrue statements used to spread confusion. Do you believe he cannot remember edits he has himself made within a 24 hour span?

We have disagreed mildly before on other pages; I do not see why this means you must favour somebody who has this sort of agenda.

Take further discussion of this topic to my talk page. Feketekave (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now we understand the Germans are not human. Now the word 'German' has become the most terrible curse. Let us not speak. Let us not be indignant. Let us kill. If you do not kill a German, a German will kill you. He will carry away your family, and torture them in his damned Germany. If you have killed one German, kill another." (http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html)
That's what Faketekave deleted [3] by calling it "Nazi fake", even though it's sourced by "sovlit.com". Ehrenburg's propaganda articles are not disputed, the leaflet is. Maybe I caused some kind of reflex, I don't know. Somebody is indeed behaving disruptive here - and to be precise: nobody wants to add anything about "rape of women" currently, I don't and I'm not aware of anybody else (currently!). P.S. it would be nice to give some examples of "frivolous edits" instead of blindly accusing. I'm not aware of such things. 84.139.224.236 (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the diff again. Anybody who clicks there will see the alleged call for rape, which is, indeed, a Nazi fake. The other quote was marked as [citation needed]; apparently others thought the (online) reference insufficient. Feketekave (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The matter was taken to the administrators. Checkuser determined that the anonymous IP editor was logging in from the same computer as User:HerkusMonte. User:HerkusMonte states that the anonymous editor was his brother; he has also stated that there should be no more trouble from that corner in the future. Feketekave (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Contrast[edit]

Contrast this article with Goebbels'. Hilarious, really. Or pathetic, whichever one prefers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.45.184 (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

True. Surprisingly (or not), the article in the German wikipedia is much more respectful and neutral. (The article on Ehrenburg, I mean...) Feketekave (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda article[edit]

The article declared that Germans "are not humans". This kind of description is quite misleading. The article quotes German behaviour towards Russian prisoners of war ("are they really humans?") and then bitterly comments that it is the Germans who do not behave as humans, "are not humans". This is not a "declaration".--Mautpreller (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting over[edit]

This is a severely deficient article on a major writer. The article on de.wiki - which is full of information, well-written, sympathetic but rather balanced - has earned a citation as an excellent article there; I cannot but agree. The article here could be improved vastly simply by the incorporation of translations of most of the de.wiki article here.

The matter of finding the time aside, would this be OK? What are the precedents? A main concern would be how to credit properly the authors of the de.wiki article for their good work. Feketekave (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As the main author of the German article (about 100% of the text ;-), I have no objections. It would be fine, however, if my work were credited in any way. I offer to help if there are any problems as I know the literature about Ehrenburg rather well. --Mautpreller (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I've got started. Let us see how it goes. Feketekave (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine. I don't know if you want to write anything about the ideological turnings of young Ilya Ehrenburg. It was interesting for me that he first joined the Bolsheviks, then was attracted to a kind of catholicism (under the influence of Jammes), later set his hopes upon the mencheviks and even the white army, and finally got acquainted with the idea that communist rule was "necessary." It was for this reason that Victor Shklovsky called him a "Paul Saulovitch." But feel free to decide what is important for the article.--Mautpreller (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is all very interesting to me. I find all of the material in your article rather worthwhile; at the same time, it might be best if we don't commit ourselves to sticking to a literal translation. Feketekave (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You are right. The introduction sounds fine to me. If you agree, I'll have a look from time to time. Keep up the good work --Mautpreller (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is definitely unbalanced. Too much about WWII propaganda, too little about actual issues, such as his work and struggle with censorship (good source (Russian). My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed a little, but this is still an overkill. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We have barely got started. Incidentally, isn't the first paragraph (as it stands) a little be odd? It raises more questions than it answers (notably, on the original language of the Black Book) and it spends too much times on issues that are better dealt with later. The biography should start with a brief mention of the background he was actually raised in ("middle-class" may do well enough, and is relevant given his political positions) and then deal with his positions regarding ancestry, religion and the like in an appropriate section (possibly its own section, once the page gets detailed enough). Feketekave (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ilya Ehrenburg. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)