Talk:German American Bund

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

Congressmen Dickstein[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article on him, Dickstein was not in the pay of the Soviet Union until 1937, well after investigation of Bund began. I therefore don't see what it has to do with this article. --JB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.42 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reflects on the character of the public official conducting this investigation and raises questions about the integrity of said investigation. Are we to believe that he was a good citizen in 1934 but amazingly transformed into a degenerate spy for a genocidal totalitarian power three years later? Falange (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this article have to do with anti-war? thanks Hmains 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since they were supportive of Hitler's Germany, they didn't want the US to go to war against the Nazis. I guess that's why. The Ungovernable Force 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler didn't want war with the US or with the British, for purely practical reasons--he had his hands full in Europe. That's why the German Nazis encouraged American isolationism. That's also why he considered Churchill a "warmonger" (!)--Churchill had Hitler's "number" early on and understood why America and Britain couldn't just sit by while Hitler established the Reich on the continent. Acdavisad 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let whoever oversees this article know that under external links the single newsreal link leads to no results. Since it is unclear to me whether that fact is the result of an error in link address, or deletion of the material which is was once linked to the link will remain, but perhaps someone with a deaper knowledge of the article could correct that. Thank you. --WalksWithGrizzlies 20:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of New Germany[edit]

Please DISAMBIGUATE, as I have formed a separate article under this heading: Friends of New Germany. Its like the League of Nations being simply REDIRECTED to the United States!
Yours truly, Ludvikus 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

something must be confused about the history[edit]

The article currently reads:

...established in the 1930s as a merger of two older organizations, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) and the Free Society of Teutonia, both of which were small groups with only a few hundred members each.

But the National Socialist German Workers Party: 1) was not an American organization; 2) did not merge to form the German American Bund; and 3) was much larger than "a few hundred members". Presumably some American Nazi organization is meant instead? --Delirium 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Youth Camps list?[edit]

Does anybody want to compile a list of Hitler Youth Camps in the United States for this article, or as a link to it? I'll start with Camp Siegfried in Yaphank, New York. DanTD 15:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Nordland in Andover, New Jersey and Camp Bergwald at Federal Hill, New Jersey. There was a Camp Siegfried in Wisconsin too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.4 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic Organizatiuon[edit]

It appears as if this "poor" German American organization was the victim of Jewish boycotts, etc. I seriously doubt the current neutrality of this article. I ask that the authors reconsider that issue. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler & Peace[edit]

I question nthe following: 

    . . . Friends of New Germany. Its main goal was promoting peace and friendship
    between the United States and Germany, and preventing another war.

That's what the authors say in the opening of this article. And the Jews caused the trouble is the implied message. We might as well say that Hitler too wanted peace - and it was the Jews who forced war on him. That's precisely what Hitler said in his famous speach at the Reichstag. And now we have the claim here that this Bund was also a peaceful organization!!!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust museum[edit]

The above has the following: 

    The German American Bund, an organization of ethnic Germans living in the United States, was marked by a pro-Nazi stance.
    
    Aside from its admiration for Adolf Hitler and the achievements of Nazi Germany, the German American Bund program included
    antisemitism, strong anti-Communist sentiments, and the demand that the United States remain neutral
    in the approaching European conflict.
See the External link to said Museum: [1].
Yours truly --Ludvikus 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another quote from said Museum: 

    Public opinion surveys of 1939 show that Fritz Kuhn,
    the leader of the German American Bund,
    was seen by the U.S. public
    as the leading antisemite in the country.

Yet the author(s) of our article says this Bund was "attacked" by Jews with "boycotts"! --Ludvikus 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm having a hard time understanding why Jews fighting this awful group is a bad thing. Shouldn't everyone have attacked it? Did boycotts actually take place? If so, include that information. Maybe change the word "attacked" since it seems loaded. Sharpvisuals 11:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Attack by Jews[edit]

The second paragraph of this article currently opens as follows: 

    Soon after their formation, the Friends came under attack from two fronts.
    The first was a Jewish boycott of German goods in the heavily German neighborhood
    of Yorkville on the Upper East Side of New York City.
    The second came from Jewish Congressman Samuel Dickstein,
    a Democrat who represented New York City and who was also reported
    in Soviet archives as as an espionage agent receiving a monthly stipend from the NKVD,
    in return for giving them reports on Congressional activities.

This is the old antisemitic lie that Jew and Bolsheviks to harm some third party - in this case the poor German American Bund. So this Bund was not essentially a front for Hitler and everthing he stood for? --Ludvikus 04:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no details are given about what sort of "attack" the FotNG came under from the New York j00z or congressman Dicksteinbergman, I removed both and left the mention of the Jewish boycott -- which the FotNG presumably made the choice to involve themselves in. 67.168.160.218 (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thought ragingly anti-semitic and serving as a dilapidated and largely un-officially backed aryan front for the States, Hitler, Rudolf Hess and German ambassador to the US Dieckhoff all made calculated efforts to distance themselves from Kuhn and the Bund (and its predecessor Friends). German nationals were even twice prohibited from membership in both groups, due to its brash and whimsical rallies, publications and general outbursts against "jewish" and "red" conspirators - user: evanP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.192.9 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note though, that Germany was not above recruiting Bundsmen for espionage work. A massive spy operation against the USA was undertaken by Germany, which knew that the USA would likely be sympathetic to Germanys enemies. Germany knew war was likely, given Hitler's policies, so military info on this potential foe was sought. Gestapo agents operated in New York kidnaping and even murdering those who got out of line during this spy effort. See the article on the Rumrich spy case.

This info should be put into the article,69.228.93.150 (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV Tag?[edit]

The POV tag has been up since September 2007 and, it seems to me, attempts have been made to address the concerns raised by the editor who put up the tag. I left a note on that editor's talk page, but he seems to be on something of a hiatus. Unless anyone can identify any particular issues where the neutrality of this article is still disputed, I think it's time to remove the tag. croll (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the tag due to lack of any response. If neutrality is still disputed, feel free to put it back up with an explanation here as to what you think needs to be fixed. croll (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Goal[edit]

The "goal" of this organization - as was the case of all such Nazi organizations outside of Germany, was also to promote Nazi ideology - which was essentially Racist and Antisemitic. The opening paragraph - rather inoculessly - omits these facts. Why? It appears there is whitewashing here. The article needs to assert, clearly, the nature of the program of the American Nazi party: Racism and Antisemitism. --151.202.89.243 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't that go without saying? Is it necessary to point out that a Nazi organization sanctioned by Adolf Hitler himself was racist and antisemitic? Are there many Nazi organizations around which aren't racist and antisemitic? --J3d3md4ss3in3 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is a nice big swastika at the head of the article too. That well-known brand should identify what the group was about. Non-racist, non-antisemitic Nazis, lol.69.228.93.150 (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written[edit]

This article is not written like an encyclopedia should be. The following sentences: "the ailing German Republic fell to the fervent rabblerousing of the Fascist megalomaniac, Adolf Hitler while America on the other hand, although crippled by the Depression held true to its democratic principles under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt" and "Hitler quickly emerged as to be the most provocative and awe-inspiring orator of his age, and likewise inspired many hopeful impersonators around the globe, even in a liberty-loving nation like America" is very self-centered and do not belong in an encyclopedia, as true as they might sound to you. These are just some of many examples

It would also be nice not to base this whole article on only one book (Diamond, The Nazi Movement in the United States)

And come on! Prejudices??? ("With them, many German immigrants brought their ‘Bismarckian’ culture of efficiency, orderliness, and strong work ethic, quite unlike Hitler’s Nazism")

This article really is a joke and somebody needs to rewrite it.

MrMoving (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. It's written as an essay, not an encyclopedic article, and it's replete with broad brush-stroke stereotypes and assertions. It's obviously someone's term paper. I'm reverting the article to its previous version, before AgtBrown's contributions. --Sift&Winnow 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It is much clearer now. MrMoving (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heinz Sponknobel mentioned here is Heinz Spanknobel? I don't know, and if it's a mistakes, it is continued through the article. There are other questions too: What and who was trained at the training camps? Was it a movement, a party or a heritage group? How did they saw themselves and how was the official reaction? The Bund had own storm troopers(?), in what organization or structure? Cheers Sebastian scha. (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

I'm a little confused by the section at the end called "history." For one it seems to be about modern events that reference this group rather than the group in history or the group's history. For another I don't entirely follow it or see why we need a whole thing about Glenn Beck in this article.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--the section strikes me as a digression, a critique of Beck's criticisms of the Bund, which is not appropriate to this article. I'm removing the section. -- Narsil (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith section[edit]

"Arguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939..."

This statement leads one to presume that there was a "Presidents' Day" holiday in 1939, which is factually incorrect, and one need only go to the Wiki page on Presidents' Day to discover, "The first attempt to create a generic Presidents Day occurred in 1951 when the "President's Day National Committee" was formed..."

And it would have been called "Washington's Birthday," and it would not have been celebrated on Feb 20, because, "As the first federal holiday to honor American citizens, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22."

And it was NOT until "...January 1, 1971, [that] the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. This date places it between February 15 and 21..." Arcanicus (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of New Germany Section[edit]

The section consisting of material copied and pasted from the main Friends of New Germany article seems unnecessarily long since FONG has its own article and this page should be primarily concerned with the Bund. I feel that a shortened section focusing on only key aspects of FONG as it relates to that groups demise and early investigations into pro-Nazi sentiment in the US (with a {{Main}} template to direct readers to the main article) would benefit the article by allowing the reader to be informed of the context surrounding the Bund's formation, but also keeping the focus of the article primarily on the Bund and its activities. RA0808 talkcontribs 21:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do people get more informed about the context when context is removed? The problem is not that the information on FONG in this article is too long, the problem is that the FONG article needs to be expanded. BMK (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on German American Bund. 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) 22:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

There are way too many entries in the "see also" list. How can we shorten this list?Nillurcheier (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut several that were already mentioned in the article, so they didn't really qualify as "see also". I have also cut several more that were more relevant to discussions of racism and Nazism in general, those are much more general topics. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End[edit]

The article talks of the decline, but what of the end? Kdammers (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Relations[edit]

The article lacks a reference to how the bund affected the relationship between Germany and America and how it was a heavily contributing factor to the public opinion of Nazis in America. I think it would be beneficial to include this in the article as it was a large part of the Bund’s identity wether they identified as more German or American and was also often the only real life exposure Americans had to the Nazi party before joining the war, therefore it was a factor in how American citizens supported joining the war.

I am working on a section to add this at the moment but would love input from others. Lottierutherford (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_American_Bund&oldid=1216343452"