Talk:Mass suicide in Demmin

pharmacist story

can we be sure, that there really were "soviet officers", that ate+drank with a foreigner, who had a governmental (nazi) approbation (pharmacist)? IIRC that story is just a myth, that came up due to a certain mental condition... "even" radio broadcasts can be wrong... i dont c a reliable/reputable source for that weird story... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a line in a Focus article which says it's a legend, I introduced that into the article. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk)

thx... i didnt know that article... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement related to the pharmacist is East German propaganda, which officially surfaced in a 1975 report compiled by the SED party. Since the pharmacist and his wife had already committed suicide when Soviet troops reached their pharmacy, it is highly unlikely that they should have thrown a party, as other sources would like to claim or have poisoned soldiers. Please remove the reference to the pharmacist. - source Buske: page 16 and 18. I do agree that this statement, next to the "Werwolf in Lusientor" claim was what I was taught at school back in East Germany. My family, friends, pastors taught me different. LordFarrow (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

On a general note, the problem with your request is that Buske is an established researcher and has published his report while we don't know neither you nor the people who told you a different story. Wikipedia is based on published evidence not on hearsay. But you might have missed the following sentence in the article that states how Focus later dismissed the story as a legend, so there is already a counter-perspective given in the article. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

point taken De - There is an official East German report which mentions the pharmacist story. I've seen it, my aunt was a Demmin teacher. So I guess, as long as we don't have that report published in one form or the other, the pharmacist stays in the entrance paragraph of this article. Thanks for clarifying. LordFarrow (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

Hm, my understanding of Lord Farrow's comment is that Buske on pp. 16, 18 says it's a legend? So far, two competing views are mentioned in the article: that it really happened, referenced to the NDR report, and that it is a legend, referenced to the Focus article. Lord Farrow, could you provide the respective Buske statements here? They certainly carry a higher weight than the other reports and should be included. I don't have access to the source atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do this on January 19, Skäpperöd. Buske references an East German report, which is understood to be incorrect, but does unfortunately not footnote it. I'll translate the parts. It's not that I want the pharmacist's story to disappear at all cost, but as it is, the article mixes both, official East German POV (which is incorrect) and true RS current historic view. Even if the Focus magazine report mentions that the pharmacist story is a legend, and the article takes note of this, the preamble still mentions the pharmacist, which might be confusing to some readers (and is incorrect - the man was dead, when the Russians entered his pharmacy - and not even the fact of "entrance" can be proven" - apart from an assumption that the Russians entered every house in the town). I am fully aware that this entire topic is highly controversial and even harder to proove reliably. LordFarrow (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

I've so far removed the pharmacist from the lead section but left the story in the main text with all references. When we've got the Buske quotes we can maybe put some comment on it back in the introduction. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Buske says: »Auch die offenbar hinzuerfundene Vergiftung russischer Offiziere macht die Darstellung nicht überzeugender.« "Even the obiously fabricated poisoning of Russian officers doesn't help the report to be more convincing." The said fabrication is published in »Der Weg des Sieges April/ Mai 1945«, and can be seen in Demmin's museum "Kreisheimatmuseum" (today located at the port, in the big "municipal" building - you can't miss it, it's huge), signature: KHMD # 10629. The actual problem I could see is that Buske doesn't explicitely footnote this report in his finding above, but 1 tertiary source (a school friend of Dr Martens, whose memories he printed; probably classified as hearsay) , and one classified as non reliable by WIKI source (Marie Dabs who published her memoires). the report however is clear, is East German, hence questionable, and can be seen at Demmin's museum. LordFarrow (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

Nice find, LordFarrow. I think we can add Buske's findings to the Focus story that dimissed the pharmacist's party as bogus. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, I searched the Batov text back and forth. He doesn't even speak of "resistance" in regard to the capture of Demmin, but that could also be some form of repression or simply "ommission". LordFarrow (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you LF for the Buske reference. It is missing the page number though, was it p. 16 or p. 18? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The RS is at page 16. Page 18 mentions the pharmacist, and states that the (Müller) family was already dead when the Russians entered the building later, but is hearsay. LordFarrow (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"There were fanatics"-please help to translate the sentence

http://www.ndr.de/land_leute/norddeutsche_geschichte/erinnerungen/vor_der_teilung/ndr1250.html Es gab Fanatiker, die auf vorbeiziehende Russen schossen, die sich das auch vorgenommen hatten

If I am correct this sentence speaks that there were fanatics in the city that shot at passing by Russian soldiers? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned in the article already. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has some "fanatics" shot at the Soviet soldiers. Why are fanatics in "..."? Shot could mean a single action, the article mentions shooting. Also passing by is missing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The quotation marks are there because it's a loaded, non-neutral term, taken from a quote. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing loaded or no-neutral in determing Nazis as fanatics.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But you are not quoted in the article but a source that writes fanatics in inverted commas. De728631 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't have the full quote in the article but a single word that is presented in inverted commas, suggesting non-neutral term.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we make reference to eyewitnesses whose account is given as "fanatics" in inverted commas. De728631 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not give the full sentence, only a single word. Solution is to either give the full quote, or remove the inverted commas.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fanatics would require you'd know something about mind-set of the shooters, which I presume you don't. 105.8.0.12 (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

After the war, discussion of the mass suicide was forbidden

Sorry to stir around in this, read the Talk page from bottom to top, understand what it says. As a Demminer, I agree with some of it, "some", since I am probably biased. The statement "After the war, discussion of the mass suicide was forbidden" is incorrect. I was allowed to talk about the mass suicide during 12 years of school, and at any time. I believe the statement should be "After the war, discussion of the mass suicide was actively discouraged." - If you spoke about the events of April 30 - May 04,1945 openly, you knew what was going to happen, so you didn't. That didn't mean you were forbidden. Mr Quadt, the town historian, should agree to this. His family, like mine, was affected by attempted suicide(s). Could "forbidden" please be lessened into "actively discouraged" or "discouraged" ? If this is considered to be hair-splitting, please excuse the intrusion. LordFarrow (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

I think in the introduction we should write it like we did in the main section: "tabooized". And according to the Spiegel report at least one museum's clerk from Neubrandenburg was in fact prohibited by the party to publish his findings about similar events in NB; that was in the 1980s, mind you. De728631 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"taboo" is a good compromise, De, yes. Don't forget that this is about "discussing" an event in Demmin, and the Neubrandenburg museum's clerk was actively researching. THAT was indeed actively discouraged and quite impressively sanctioned, yes. The NDR report's source, Mr Quadt puts it nicely, and actually outlines an entire cultural identity, »In DDR-Zeiten musste man sich schon in einem vertrauten Kreis befinden, um über diese Ereignisse zu sprechen. Am Image der Sowjetarmee war nicht zu kratzen.« "You had to be amongst people you trusted to talk about these events in GDR times. The image of the Soviet Army was not to be tarnished." (NDR report - source # 16 in the article) LordFarrow (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

grammar and style

Just to add this to the discussion; with the exception of the translations of the references, I have proof read the entire article for grammar mistakes and for style improvements (I am a qualified English teacher, and have been living in a native English country since 1996). I have corrected the article where necessary. I had 2 more native English speakers cross check my changes, and comment on the style. The translations in the references need some improvement, I believe, e.g. you never put a comma before "that". The teacher Moldenhauer "passed away", yes, but violently, so "passed away" shouldn't be used in that context. The sentence order, too, needs to be checked. Can this be presented to a reviewer at this stage, or should work be done on the translations - to improve those ? LordFarrow (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC) LordFarrow

Of course Moldenhauer "passed away" violently by hanging himself. But as he himself put it in German "dann werde ich aus dem Leben scheiden" and that has to be reflected in the translation. Mind you that it's not the article text that speaks of "passing away" but in the reference an eyewitness is quoting Moldenhauer in his account. It was that teacher who announced that he was "going to pass away". You're right about the comma before "that" but while we are at it I must say I don't agree wit all of your revisions regarding the translations. This one is in a fact a quoted statement and it was already translated according to this fact, using about the same style of speech the German statement does. With an experience as a professional translator I did this to reflect the speaker's attitude and tone. And where exactly is anything wrong with sentence order? De728631 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Or this edit of yours where you apparently overread what the German quote wanted to express about the diffilculties of judging between "Erlittenem und Erlerntem", i.e. between the suffering (this would be the "experience" you added) of the people and what they were taught later on, what people had to learn about the Soviet Army in the GDR. I'm not going to argue about thesaurus for arbitrarily and random, etc. but I've revised this "correction" so far to reflect the original quote. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, De. I trust your professionalism, and agree. I've marked the sections where I corrected grammar in a way a native English speaker (I've asked 3 native English speakers to assist. They have some 20+ years experience as professional translators or as teachers at colleges in Oxford) would understand the text. Living in an English speaking country can make blind for the subtleties of one's own native language. The native speakers have agreed on "passed away", but not on "learned" vs "experienced. Change back what you believe needs changing back. I merely wanted to help, since I think, as a native Demminer living in an English speaking country, I should contribute, and not sit idly by - again, as happened too often on this subject (and the topic has some relevance to me, as it also affects my own family). I truly appreciate your input. LordFarrow (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here, I appreciate your input as well. Even more since you don't fall for the original research trap. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for assessment

The entire article was thoroughly checked for all criteria listed in the requirements for B-Class article by more than one impartial native speaker of English. Please assess “Referencing and citation”, “Coverage and accuracy”, “Structure”, “Grammar and style”, “Supporting materials” in order for this article to be lifted to B-Class. LordFarrow (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Some IP has now granted B-Class status on behalf of the Germany Project. De728631 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That might have been mine (if it was 109.76.8.181 ?; Ireland/ Vodafone) - forgot to login. I added the marks in the section - kept References & Citation on an exclamation mark (used "yup" instead of "no" or "yes"). Change it back, if you don't think it's ready. If I understand the requirements correctly, I think, it is ready to go "B"(?). LordFarrow (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've got a B now which I fully support. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

the largest mass suicide ever recorded in Germany ?

It's not the Guiness book.

More people committed suicide in Berlin, so it may be the largest relatively mass suicide.Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"The largest mass suicide ever recorded" is what two reliable sources claim. In summary, the overall death toll from individual suicides may have been greater in Berlin, but did these Berlin suicides also take place in a single mass event? Can you provide a different source for the greatest mass suicide in post-war Germany? De728631 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

a single mass event in many places, in many ways, during several days (compare the lead - one day?).

• The alleged source [1] is about psychiatry, not history. Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• 50 einfache Dinge, die Sie über Ihr Recht wissen sollten is about law, kind of Law for dummies.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a 2015 book:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/politische-buecher/selbstmordepidemie-1945-ein-manisch-depressives-volk-13501602.html

I don't have it, an article in Polish says that Demmin was exceptional, because it was an isolated island, all bridges destroyed. But there were two similar tragedies in the neighbourhood.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this source is a psychiatric study on a "pre- and post comparison of a preventive program against depression and sucide after 2 years of intervention". The Demmins event is cited as a typical example of mass suicide quoting the "largest mass suicide known so far in German history. Ca. 900 citizens took their lives before and after the invasion by the Red Army by drowning themselves in the river Peene". Note that although this did take place during several days before and after the arrival of Soviet forces, it is still considered one coherent mass event. The book review you mentioned writes about a "suicide epidemic" in Germany of the time, calling Demmin (600–1000 dead) one example among others. However, in this review of Huber's book, a quote is given for Demmin being the "presumably largest mass suicide in Germany [mutmaßlichen größten Massenselbstmord in Deutschland]". Here is another book which says that "collective hysteria and related collective suicide in the first days of May 1945 have been conveyed from many areas of the Reich. ... More suicides than in Demmin, however, were not recorded anywhere else – about five percent of the inhabitants passed away in this manner." This book lists 4858 suicides in Berlin during April and May 1945 vs 700 in Demmin but does not call the Berlin suicides a mass event.

To sum it up, the Wikipedia article calls it the "largest mass suicide ever recorded in Germany" (my emphasis), and even Huber who only presumes that it was the largest event of this kind acknowledges that it is the "best-documented case" [2]. De728631 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)