Talk:Horst-Wessel-Lied

Perhaps a brief line explaining how Der Fuhrer's Face parodied the song would be in order, as it's not entirely readily apparent when listening to the two tunes. 156.34.221.174 14:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Second that, i can't find any Lied in the film. --Big gun 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The mention in the article should be removed, they’re not the same song. 38.93.197.164 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

What abowt telling us about the circumstances of Horst Wessels death and why the Nazis chose him as the subject of the song?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.11.217 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 April 2006‎ (UTC)

And how about posting the lyrics? Me and my friends like churning out some campfire songs, so I'd like to know what I'm singing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.249.27.160 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2006‎ (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

The article claims "The line "Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen" is bad German."

This may not be the greatest line of German poetry ever written, but it is grammatically perfectly fine without having to assume that auxiliary verbs have been omitted. erschossen is 3rd person plural of the simple past tense of the verb erschießen. Translated literally, the line means Comrades, whom Red Front and Reaction shot dead.AlOgrady (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is of course correct. In fact, you would gain nothing at all by adding the auxiliary verb haben, it would still be exactly as ambiguous: Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen haben. This was apparently lost on the author of the paragraph, who used precisely that form as explanation for one of the possible meanings. It turns out that it's actually quite difficult to get rid of all theoretical ambiguity without completely changing the way the meaning is expressed. The Nominalstil I used in the article is ugly, but does the trick.

Furthermore, I prefer the translation of "Rotfront und Reaktion" given by AlOgrady, even though I suspect this usage of "Reaction" is not idiomatic in English (but in its defence, this is also the word currently used in the "approximate English translation" further up in the article). My language sense tells me the ambiguity would be heightened greatly if the line read "Kameraden, die Kommunisten und Reaktionäre erschossen". Whatever my personal feelings, the translation "Red Front and Reaction" is the more literal, and thus the better one in a discussion of linguistic specifics. --SKopp (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As a native speaker i assure, that it is an shorten of "was shot down by Red Front and Reaktion". That will be obivous by the next phrase, cause they march as moral support with their camerads. The complete phrase would be "Kameraden, die von Rot Front und Reaktion erschossen". i assume that was shorten to reach the meter. -- [[User:Gunnar.offel|Gunnar]] ^{[[User talk:Gunnar.offel|💬]]} (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously correct, also interesting for the idea of the NSDAP and esp. the SA as "revolutionaries": "comrades shot by the "Reaktion"; who does this refer to? There must have been a number of nazis beaten up, even killed, by communists, the Rote Frontkämpferbund, but who was murdered by "reactionaries", and who is this Reaktion? Monarchists, veterans of Stahlhelm? True nazis, hard to believe now, did not like the once (until the end of the Great War) ruling aristrocacy at all.

This articles misses the fact, that Hort Wessel was a successful Nazi organizer, not easy im "Roten Berlin"; also it was rumored that Horst Wessel had been a pimp and his death the result of a struggle in the "sex-work industry" (my father, born in 1920, thought so).--Ralfdetlef (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen is perfectly correct German AIUI, and features the active voice and a past tense verb. In English the word order would be identical and the phrase means "Comrades [whom] the Red Front and Reaction shot". It doesn't mean "were shot by", because that is the passive voice, which is not being used. It doesn't require haben because that would make it past-perfect tense (a completed action) as opposed to past-historic (an action in the past). These are generic grammar terms not specific to English study of German but I hope are clear.

I'm surprised to read above that "The complete phrase would be "Kameraden, die von Rot Front und Reaktion erschossen" because in my understanding you need a "wurden" in there at the end to make it passive: "were shot". Otherwise it's active: "shot".

The debate about what's meant by Reaktion is separate and not a grammarian's point. All nouns are capitalised in German, so I assume this means "reaction" and can be taken to mean "reactionaries" or anyone else who "reacted" unfavourably to the NSDAP.Tirailleur (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Mua kutsutaan Adolf el hitler nazii on paras 2001:999:41C:1411:52D6:519A:E18F:57D6 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

I don't quite get why it is necessary to include text for a singable English version, unless you want to encourage people to sing the song in English. Considering the historical context of the song that seems rather insensitive. Since it is not required for the accuracy or completeness of the article I propose removing the singable version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.81.43 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The English translations are literal but not metrical, and they don't rhyme. They are hardly singable, at least with this tune. Presumably the point is to convey to the English speakers who cannot read German what the German lyrics say. The translations shown for the other languages are, however, compatible with the metrical pattern (11.10.11.10) and rhyme, and they were sung in those languages, as a matter of historical record. They are reported factually but in no way approvingly. Richard David Ramsey 04:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem, the aticle seems fine. If you get rid of one translation based on a historical context, then we get rid of them all, starting with country national anthems. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not the job of an encyclopaedia to provide readers with "singable versions" of non-English language songs. The other versions are there because they were contemporary versions sung in the 1930s by other fascist groups. There was no English-language version which used a translation of the German lyrics. (There was an English song sung to the same tune by the British Union of Fascists but it used different lyrics.) The only English translation which Wikipedia needs to provide is a literal one so that readers know what the German lyrics mean. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Very POV (80.136.127.163 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC))

I'd agree, as far as this song is concerned, but disagree in principle. Generally: to "get a song", it is necessary, especially if you don't know the language, to get an idea of how the song would sound if it were English; the bare knowledge what the lyrics mean when translated to prose is only half of the information. And besides, if you translate German to English, in (very roughly) a third of cases the something that does fit rhyme and meter, or does so when filled up with a bit of "and" and "the" suggests itself naturally. So either one must artificially translate the song so as not to rhyme, or it would be really awkward, or deliberately translate it to rhyme.

Specifically: This song is to be wiped off the earth, not to be understood and "gotten". Plus, the danger that some Nazi might feel encouraged to sing it is too high a risk.--2001:A61:260C:C01:D100:4E82:35BA:86 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, Nazis have their own publishing platforms, I guess.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we include as "Party anthem of the NSDAP", unlike Taiwanese national anthem article. 49.150.0.134 (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)