Talk:First they came ...

Untitled

UK relevant use of ' ... first they came for...' , to illustrate the impact of and importance of standing up to public sector cuts: http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html#8984236131271759464 Imogen36 (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey just something to add to the "Influence on Pop Culture," Charles Mingus used an extended version of this poem in his song "Don't Let It Happen Here." He never produced it on an album but has it on two live albums, and an adaptation by the Mingus Big Band (which is post-mordum). Hope that helps.ToroQ3000 (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm relatively new and so am not up on all the minutiae of Wikipedia policies, but shouldn't the text of the poem(s) be placed on Wikisource or some other website? -- Dan Carlson 22:26, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

It's useful to see this article published by the Martin-Niemoeller-Stiftung. [1] Norvo 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a documented reference to the "mentally ill" version, so I think that the big question mark that this is an unverified entry can be removed. -- Harold Marcuse, 6/30/07

Poem Date?

Is there a date for the poem? Seems silly not to date it. MrZaius 03:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's no date for any written version by Niemoeller: hence the problems. Norvo 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Text?

The version of this poem in the Wikipedia entry on Martin Niemöller has a slightly different text; shouldn't the two be the same? I do not know what the original was, so I cannot make the correction.

It appears that both could actually be correct as niether are the "original". They are both translations from german into english and as such appear similar enough to allow for slight differences in translation. The original was written in german not english so some slight variation should be expected after translation.

Reading through [[2]] and [[3]], the impression I get is that Niemoller expressed the basic thrust of the poem in prose, but that the poem itself is an immediate post-mortal distillation of his thoughts by parties unknown. As mentioned in the article, the groups mention in the text vary ("Trade Unionists" are often substituted for "Catholics"). In other words, I believe that Niemoller thought the thought but did not write the write. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The interpretation of Catholics would not make sense. He was writing about Nazi Gernamy, and as most people know, Nazi Germany was a Catholic state, so coming after the Catholics would not make sense if the whole point was to leave only Arian Catholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkydarkbird (talk • contribs) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank God Wikipedia isn't about what "most people know", but is instead about verifiable facts. Steve (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

there were more protestants in nazi germany than catholics!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.83 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Kunkydarkbird, Nazi authorities did persecute the Catholic clergy to some extent, certainly more than they persecuted Protestants, because Catholic clergy was on average more hostile to them. Interestingly, as part of that project they reputedly did some fabricated sex abuse cases against certain priests they didn't like. The conflict culminated with repressions against the Church over the publication and public readings of Mit brennender Sorge encyclical. Which in itself is an important historical document that educated people ought to be familiar with. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The variation Niemöller delivered in his speech to the United States Congress on October 14, 1968 specifically mentions Catholics as the second group. It can be found in the Congressional record. Also, it is a verifiable historical fact that Catholics were a persecuted group in Nazi Germany. To this day, Catholics are still hated by Neo-Nazis.WoodchuckBeowulf (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have my suspicions about the German "original": for one thing there doesn't actually seem to be an attested German original: I think the so-called original is likely translated back from English. Reading some of the original texts at Marcuse's site, I note that he frequently used the verbs "beseitigen" (put aside, get rid of), and "schweigen" (to keep silent) to describe the Nazi actions and his (non)reaction, respectively. They don't appear in the "original". And as to the order of the victimisation, he would of course have known the actual order: Commies, the "Unheilbaren", Socialists and trade unionists, the Jews, and finally the uppity Christian clergy (I think that's the historical order). MMacD, 14th Jan 06

The translation is not exact, as it would be if translated from English to German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.33.146 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Image

Is it just me, or is that "image" of the poem on a stone just crappy photoshop text against a stone background? 74.104.77.121 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No - it does look that way for a second but the angle, lighting (darker around the edges and to the right, consistent with a camera flash and the orientation) and the other text at the bottom "gives it away" as real - it is just you ;-) Machete97 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a second, separate photo of this taken by a different photographer. Why is the piece of granite in perspective, but the text not? It appears that the text has been plastered over a photo of a blank slab of granite. Mcvoorhis (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mcvoorhis: After looking at the image with greater scrutiny, I thought at the very least, the attribution was shopped in. So I found the slab in Street View and you can clearly see the blocks of text match the image. I'm thinking the text looks out of perspective due to the slab's bottom edge being cut to align with the slope it's sitting on, while the text remains level. Uncropped version of the photo and a 2019 Google Street View image: https://goo.gl/maps/ZbNQ2zhfTaHB8XNr6 →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 09:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic

I moved this stuff over from the article, as it seems off topic to me. What does this contribute in regard to the poem "First they came?" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It contributes nothing at all. It's just irrelevant axe-grinding.

Norvo 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Poem as a Confession of an Antisemite

September 1939, ten months after Kristallnacht, Lutheran pastor Niemöller volunteered, "to fight for Adolph Hitler’s Germany".

This offer to serve the Nazis was made by a man whose famous words, uttered after the defeat of Germany, so appeal to us. This offer to serve the Nazis "in any capacity" was made by a man who, when "they came for the Jews", failed to speak out because he was a common variety of anti-Semite. This offer to serve Hitler "in any capacity" was made by the man who, "after they came for me", spoke out for himself by offering to bear arms for them, for those who, had they won the war, would have searched the earth to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child. What darker example of the power of nationalism is there than Niemoller, a Christian minister, ready in the name of Germany to drink from the cup of genocide? http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/NiemollersAntisemitism.htm http://scarsdale.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-01_cy-2004_m-01_d-10_y-2004_o-0.html

Pastor Martin Niemöller Record Whitewashed

One of the most striking exemplars of the pervasive anti-Semitism of the non-Nazi right wing is a man whose record is nowadays often whitewashed. Pastor Martin Niemöller, later himself to be persecuted by the Nazis, never made a secret of his strong, racial anti-Semitism. In his Sätze zur Arierfrage in der Kirche ('Theses on the Aryan Question in the Church') of November 1933, he opposed the introduction of the "Aryan paragraph" in the Protestant church on doctrinal grounds, but takes care, nevertheless, to opine that Jews had done great harm to Germany; he also indicates that the baptized Christians of Jewish origins are personally distasteful to him (text in Günther van Norden, Der Deutsche Protestantismus im Jahr der nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung, Gütersloh, 1979, pp. 361-363). As late as 1935, Niemöller goes out of his way to preach hatred against the Jews: "What is the reason for [their] obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!" The text of this sermon, in English, is found in Martin Niemöller, First Commandment, London, 1937, pp. 243-250. .... On the attitude of the Bekennende Kirche to the Jews see also the revealing essay by Uriel Tal, 'On Modern Lutheranism and the Jews,' in LBI Yearbook XXX (1985), pp. 203-213. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/NiemAntisemCohnHMCorresp034.htm

The author, Professor Werner Cohn, states:

“I lived as a Jew under the Nazis in the very years that he [ Martin Niemöller ]told his Dahlem congregation that we Jews were race aliens, and also that we deserved what we got, having murdered Christ. I lived not too far from his church, and his name was mentioned in my home.” http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/NiemAntisemCohnHMCorresp034.htm#cohnbiog

It's widely known and stated in the article that Niemoller was an antisemite. Now, if you can attribute such virulent ideas to him later in life, THEN you have a revelation. Here, however, we have the story of a man who held virulent ideas and publicly repented for them. If you feel like crcifying him for this, fine, but doing so on the Wiki is not neutral unless you can find proof that he held these views throughout his life and his anti-nuke activism .etc was a front. --128.119.17.205 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Translation

why on earth is there a google translation in the article? it seems completely pointless, if not counter productive, to insert a machine translation. since when is google translate an authoritative translation? sorry, i'm pulling it. it adds nothing of value to the article. nothing. Anastrophe 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. Earlier I removed a Google translation, only to see it later added back. jareha ^(comments) 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit of references to Mentally ill

Hmarcuse deleted the references to substantiate the mental illness inclusion. I think they are nessary as evidence. I am (hopefully~I never reverted before) reverting it.--Mark v1.0 04:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Valid message

because there's a lot of precedent for despots desiring to kill or arrest every last person in their lands --NEMT 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Removing questionmark

[[4]] Who has the power and authority to remove the questionmark it?--Mark v1.0 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I;m gonna try pulling it -- 02:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)--Mark v1.0 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The euthanasia of the sick (Action T4) was removed from the poem, when "sick" is in the original.

from 1946 "Dann hat man die Kranken, die sogenannten Unheilbaren beseitigt."

is translated to

"Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables." http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm#discsources --Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The mentally ill badge of shame voluntary worn "White cards aim to ease law enforcement" http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_24343538/white-cards-aim-ease-law-enforcement-interaction-mentally --Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when, but the article is fixed for this complaint. It now includes "they got rid of the sick" that was in the original writing.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My first link to the proof of "mentally ill" should be a sentence in the poem has gone bad , so I correcting it here. This goes to the writing that names the mentally ill as the second group of people to be eliminated by the Nazi's. https://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/niem.htm#versions --Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Poem?

How does this constitute a poem?

It's a passage from a speech that Rev. Niemoeller gave on a number of occasions after the war. Take out the artificially imposed formatting and it goes back to what it was: part of a speech. Powerful, yes. Evocative, yes. But you could take an excerpt from MLK's "I have a dream" speech and format it similarly ...

I have a dream
that one day this nation
will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream
that one day on the red hills of Georgia
the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners
will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream
that one day even the state of Mississippi,
a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression,
will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream
that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin
but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

...but it wouldn't be a poem. Neither is the "First they came..." quote. It's the same things, an excerpt from a speech, and formatting it like a poem doesn't turn it into one.

The modern view is that a poem is anything a poet claims it to be, and a poet is anyone who claims to be one, but Rev. Niemoeller never (to the best of my knowledge, at least) claimed that excerpt from his speech to be a poem, nor did he ever claim to be a poet. One reason, by the way, that there is no "definitive" version is that he worded it slightly differently in various speeches. Compare the version from the Congressional Record, not usually considered a repository of poetry:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church—there was nobody left to be concerned.

All ranting aside, should this have an article defining it as a poem, when it was never written as one, never meant to be one, displays none of the conventional attributes of poetry, and it has only gained the appearance of poetry through artificially-imposed formatting?

It's one of the quotes which has defined the way I want to live my life. It's one of the most powerful statements against oppression and injustice ever to be written. It is many things. But in this humble contributor's opinion, one of the things that it is not is a poem.

So, should there even be a page discussing it as a poem? Wouldn't it be better to have a page that discusses what it is, and why it is important, instead of portraying it as what it isn't?

Worldwalker (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

reference in desperate housewives

here Machete97 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But is it notable 69.7.41.230 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Communists" omitted in U.S. I find

I recall that several presentations I hear, and general knowledge by the public that first line is omitted. I think it may be that anti-communist propaganda is so deep rooted, that it's actually preferable to kill a communist. Just a minor insight.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.170.129 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read German and look at the article in German, you will see the original quote has a reference to social democrats after the communists, and there is NO REFERENCE to the Jews... Cospelero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

He clearly said he got imprisoned before the Jews, which is why there is no reference to them: http://martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/martin-niemoeller/als-sie-die-kommunisten-holten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.158.180.137 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio?

As I understand it, copyright in the poem doesn't expire until the end of the 70th calendar year after Niemöller died. So why is it up here? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you his lawyer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.92.30.245 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Nor are people who nominate non-free files for deletion necessarily the lawyers of the files' copyright owners. I'm just pointing out where the article might conflict with the copyright policy of a copylefted encyclopedia. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Having the entire poem, even in two different versions, seems a stretch of our fair use policy. It should be removed and replaced with links to other sites with those versions. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - isn't a translation from German, actually an original work in itself? I'm thinking of Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. See [http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-New-Verse-Translation-Bilingual/dp/0393320979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274320733&sr=8-1#reader_0393320979 here] for instance, where the author appears to be asserting copyright of his own translation. I'm no copyright expert, but perhaps if we do actually have one who might comment here and we provide our own translation from the German, this might be a way to satisfy the likely recurring question? --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason the poem isn't in the article?

It's pretty short, so I don't see how it couldn't fit. Is it copyrighted or something? 68.202.97.110 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Read the section above this section: copyright in the poem doesn't expire for a few more decades. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Laura Ingraham and Jon Stewart

The poem was discussed on Wednesday, December 16 2009 on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in connection with a speech Laura Ingraham gave where she adapted the text of the poem so that it would be about President Obama's policies. References: [5] [6] [7] [8]. —Mathew5000 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Poem or statement?

The page as it stands uses the word "poem" in the intro and throughout. However, I've been looking at the references and external links, and while the word "poem" does appear in some of them, others describe the text as e.g. a "famous statement" (Franklin H. Littell), or "famous quotation" (Harold Marcuse), "statement [which] has become a legendary expression of the Holocaust" (Holocaust survivors and remembrance project). Harold Marcuse's site shows that Niemöller in fact made a series of statements post 1945 expressing similar points but with various wordings. Was he composing a poem, or simply trying to tell people what happened? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It was neither a poem nor a statement. It was a small part of speeches he made in 1946, so the correct terminology would be 'quote', but as it has alway been presented as a whole, rather than part of a speech, people have come to think of it as a poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.88.36 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because people who do not know what poetry is "think of it" as a poem doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to agree with them. It isn't, and we shouldn't be furthering that particular myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.189.20 (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Niemoeller include Catholics?

I am the researcher whose web page on the quotation forms the basis of most of this article. In the past couple of days (March 2011) several scholars and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum have sent me emails because of controversy about whether N. included Catholics as victims (at least at those times when he referred to "the Church." I think it is clear that he did not. His point was that large groups must protect the rights of the first minorities attacked. In later interviews (1970s) he emphasized that he wanted to underscore the responsibility of the German Protestant Church (he referred explicitly to the splinter Bekennende Kirche he co-founded). He had already begun trying to get his Protestant church to take responsibility in its October 1945 Stuttgart "Declaration of Guilt." The earliest versions of this quotation emerged when N. was spreading the word about that declaration in Germany in 1946, when admitting 'guilt' (responsibility) was VERY unpopular. He would not have presumed to include the Catholic Church as a victim, which not only comprised a large proportion of the population, but also failed to speak out during the early years of persecuting minorities, although it (or Bishop Galen and many Catholics who disseminated his sermon) did ultimately speak out against the Nazi euthanasia program. It would have gone counter to his message that majorities have to take responsibility, and the Catholic Church was one of the first groups to make a pact with the Nazis that it wouldn't interfere with their policies (the July 20, 1933 Concordat). In the version of this page that I just changed, someone had written that with "Church" N. meant the "thousands of Catholics imprisoned in Dachau." Even if he had, he would have only referred to German Catholics imprisoned there, who numbered at best hundreds. According to his Dachau prison-cell-neighbor Bishop Neuhäusler there were 447 German Catholic clergy in Dachau, of 2720 total (including 1780 Polish clergymen). But N. really was giving a mea culpa for Protestants, not all Christians, so this is beside the point. If someone is upset that I removed that sentence, I'm sorry, there is no basis for it beyond wishful thinking. Hmarcuse (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of the piece oftens seems too focused on who is and isn't including and not on how asinine it is overall. It has never been the stated or unstated goal of a ruling party or autocrat to systematically exterminate the ruled land's entire population outside of the realm of fiction. --NEMT (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Niemoeller Foundation Version

The Martin-Niemoeller-Stiftung gives this version:

http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a31

It lists the Communists, the Social Democrats, the trade unionists and himself. There is no mention of the Jews. The Foundation does say that the quotation is 'often altered' and 'sometimes misused. Norvo (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a31

As a retired professional linguist and interpreter, I find the start-off quote using communists and socialists in lower case to be somewhat misleading. In the original German used by the Martin-Niemöller-Foundation, Mr. Niemoeller refers to Communists, Social Democrats and trade unions. IMHO, he was clearly referring to members and followers of the Communist and Social Democrat political parties, both of which were opponents of the National Socialist party, which is why “First, they came for” them. Also, the Nazis themselves were socialists. So, it is illogical to say they were going after (all) "socialists" in general, which they clearly were not. Therefore, I plan on changing the quote to more closely reflect what I believe is the original intent and more specific meaning of the quote and capitalize those two terms, as Norvo does above. FWIW, the trade unions, though a political force in 1930s Germany, were not political parties as were the Communists and Social Democrats, ergo the term does not demand capitalization as the other two terms. Uncle Ivan (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be careful about saying the Nazis were themselves socialists, and the poem doesn't say "all" socialists, but you point still stands. A reference is being made to some specific groups, not just broad ideologies. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of death?

Seems he died only a few years ago? Funny that wikiquotes has same death date. --71.110.66.172 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-intellectual tag

Why is this tagged as being anti-intellectual? it's anti-pseudo-intellectual, actual intellectuals don't fall for such obvious fascist ploys... That tag needs to be removed. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Someone told me today that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the original source for "First they came..." I see zero reference to Bonhoeffer in the article, so I assume he's remembering his quotes incorrectly, but now that I read up on Bonhoeffer I'm somewhat curious to know if there was any link between him and Niemöller, or if there ever was controversy over the origin of "First they came..." --Stéphane Charette (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Are people confusing "communism" with "socialism" in the poem translation?

Is there confusion between the terms "communist" & "socialist" in this translation, as the poem doesnt make sense when the word socialist is there. The Nazi Party were a Nationalist Socialist Party, and I know they hated the communists, so I am wondering if someone confused the translation, because in its current form it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.255.253.24 (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Nazi's were about as "socialist" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "democratic".★Trekker (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The German original poem

It would be suitable to mention the German original of the poem to show who Niemöller talked about. (There is only one well-known version in German.) The poem mentioned in the article is not a good translation of Niemöllers poem. The original goes like this:

„Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist. Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter. Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.“

In english: First the Nazis came for the Communists and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.14.14.64 (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

horrific english

""smallest, most distant" group to the largest, Jewish, group, and then finally to." What pre-school english grammar is this?07:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.114.35 (talk)

The current version requires 2 major revisions

1. It's not a poem, but a confession now often displayed in poetic form, this must be addressed, because it's inaccurate to treat as a poem from its inception.

2. The article as stands is inaccurate and conflicts with the cited facts of Niemöller's relationship with the Nazis which are documented on his personal page.

1. This is not a poem written by Niemöller. It is part of a personal confession, of his and the clergy's and German congregations' personal guilt at not only allowing the Nazis but in supporting them tacitly or openly. The wording of that is clear in the translated sections of the original speech which are in the article as pre-revert and remain post revert. In the 1950's people began paraphrasing and using excerpts from the speech and confession as a poem, but it's a confession which he first made in 1946, and he never wrote it or intended it as a poem. People do treat it poetically, which should absolutley be noted. But the original should be identified as a confession made in a public address. I made the revision today and it was reverted and I was recommended to come here before reasserting the edit. This should be identified as a confession which has been transformed into a poem since its inception. Both those who say it is and isn't a poem can then be satisified, by referring to it as a confession which is now often written in poetic form.

2. This article as it has been reverted requires correction, at the minimum of the following sentence. "In reality, Niemöller had been one of the most outspoken Christian critics of the Third Reich and Nazi ideology in Germany, from the early days of the Nazi movement." Niemöller was unfortunately not an outspoken critic at first, nor did he criticize the NSDAP in the early days of the movement, as can be seen in his personal wiki and in the correction (taken therefrom) which was reverted today. Niemöller, like many conservative clergy was a collaborator with the Nazis and then turned against them later. He publically voted for Hitler twice, made sermons in favour of early NS government and supported the Nazis against the communists and other subjugated groups until Nazi brutality and inter-church political problems with the GC changed his mind. This is not original research, as it was taken and cited directly from the bio in Niemöller's personal entry. He has a troublesome and complicated relationship with the Nazis and this shouldn't be whitewashed.

Why? This is not to smear Niemöller, vis a vis neutrality concerns, but rather because of the nature of this citation. It's a confession, from Niemöller, not about only intellectuals, but rather about the Christian Clergy of Germany and their congregations, it is not originally a poem or lament from a Niemöller who was a tried and true enemy of the Nazis like Barth who was never fooled, but a confession because he WAS fooled, did support them, and then had to do the most difficult of things, change his mind and then do penance. Niemöller spent the rest of his life trying to make up for his mistakes. But Niemöller confessed the mistakes first. This is the primary nature of the confession in or out of poetic form, and must be addressed, along with the inaccuracies about Niemöller's relationship to the Nazis. To whitewash and ignore the confession, defeats the point of the confession, and the poem, and is inaccurate. Robbie.johnson (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have checked with the editor who reverted my edits. I waited for 48 hours and proper policy would now be to revert to the edit I made. Robbie.johnson (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

See Also

It strikes me that the inclusion of "If you give a mouse a cookie" in the 'See Also' references, while an example of a 'slippery slope' is inappropriate to the tone of the discussion and adds little. Objections to removing it? Brennalhughes (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd go further and say that the See Also section is unnecessarily long and could stand to be whittled down to half the number of links. Jyamine (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Linking to this article is problematic

The way this article is titled with Ellipsis makes linking to it problematic. The title should be reformulated to make it a valid link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Text

Why is the “text” section so vague? What is the actual original text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:564a:7800::95f0 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Copyright, I assume. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)