Talk:Post–World War II anti-fascism

Germany

An editor with a history of hounding my recent work by adding spurious tags to every reference used, always with no rationale, and no previous interest in German political history as far as I can tell, has attempted to add a clearly spurious tag to the Germany section, while offering no rationale at all, neither here on the talk page, nor anywhere else. That is disruptive, and the tag has been removed as clearly unjustified, in the absence of any concrete issues or proposed changes raised here. The section is a fair and reasonable summary of the relevant main articles based on mainstream German sources. --Tataral (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless a rationale for the tag is provided within the next 24 hours, the tag will be removed as spurious. I note that there has been no attempt to add, propose or discuss any changes, or to demonstrate on the talk page what is supposedly the problem with the section. For example, there has been no attempt to argue what kind of material/views that are supposedly lacking, and based on which sources, or even to add any such material to the section. These are minimum requirements for adding such a tag. The section is a Wikipedia:Summary style section that just summarises what is mostly entirely uncontroversial information and otherwise attributes it to relevant and very solid sources (e.g. the German federal government as a source for how the government views those groups).

I also note the false edit summary[1] that claimed that a rationale had been provided; at the time of the edit summary[2] the only comment about the material in question was the comment I myself had added on the talk page (note: the section was rewritten entirely as a plain summary of relevant main articles earlier in 2020, and there is no previous discussion of the current text on this talk page). After more than half a dozen requests for a rationale, the best thing the editor in question has come up with is a link to Google (with results that seemed at best tangentially relevant & didn't demonstrate anything in relation to this section), and a strange claim that the "German gov't isn't neutral" (of course, the section isn't just based on the German government, but a combination of scholarly and official sources) which seems to imply that all mainstream German scholarly and gov't sources aren't "neutral" (on Wikipedia we don't treat WP:FRINGE sources as equally valid as mainstream sources, and the only argument that could be made would be that the section doesn't read like the website of those groups, comprising a few hundred people, that the German gov't views as violent extremists, in its treatment of them based on mainstream scholarly and official sources, but that was never the goal of the section); for the most part the section is purely factual, e.g. in its discussion of the GDR tradition; i.e. it just describes how they interpreted and used this tradition and term.

The editor who added the tag came here from a discussion of the article on anti-fascism, in which the editor was engaging in the same kind of behaviour. The material found in that article and the discussion going on there aren't very relevant to the material summarised in this section in this article. While anti-fascism is a very underdeveloped article on a very broad, globally relevant and complex phenomenon and where clearly e.g. non-German perspectives are highly relevant, this section is specifically about a well-defined and far more narrow topic, the German and post-war (i.e. Cold War and today) Antifa tradition, today a tiny movement, in which the only mainstream perspectives are those offered by political scientists/historians and government sources predominantly in Germany (non-German sources rarely even bother with this tradition). It's not sufficient to point to the general article on anti-fascism in order to demonstrate that a summary of German post-war Antifa movements isn't accurate.

I also note that the tag was added by an editor in the habit of adding spurious tags en masse to each and every German source used, with no explanation or rationale, and in topics that are entirely German in nature and where nearly all the relevant literature is German. While an editor may request a quote or translation if they have a reason, and while I'm happy to provide that on a case by case basis, preferably following discussion on the talk page, that is not carte blanche to indiscriminately use a large amount of such requests at a time with no rationale whatsoever, in a way that makes it practically impossible for European-based editors to work on European topics based on European sources. Such behaviour is really an example of the US bias often found on this project, something I have criticised over a decade or so. --Tataral (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Tataral, I have removed the tag. Verification should be possible, it doesn't have to be easy. Vexations (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Peters, Tim (2007). Der Antifaschismus der PDS aus antiextremistischer Sicht [The antifascism of the PDS from an anti-extremist perspective]. Springer. pp. 33–37, 152, 186. ISBN 9783531901268.
• Pfahl-Traughber, Armin (6 March 2008). "Antifaschismus als Thema linksextremistischer Agitation, Bündnispolitik und Ideologie" [Anti-fascism as a topic of far-left extremist agitation, political alliances and ideology]. Federal Agency for Civic Education.
• "Linksextremismus" [Far-left extremism]. Verfassungsschutzbericht 2018 (PDF). Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community. 2019. pp. 106–167. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• "13. August 1961: Mauerbau in Berlin" [13 August 1961: Wall construction in Berlin]. chronik-der-mauer.de (in German). Retrieved 16 July 2015.

Also it is curious that the East German antifascism part doesn't mention the crackdown on East German antifascist veterans like Walter Janka. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rupert loup, what is the problem with these citations? Is it that you can't read German or that you don't have access to the source? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't read German. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rupert loup, well, for example. For cite #16, the statement is "For example, from 1961 to 1989, the East German regime used the term "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall" (German: Antifaschistischer Schutzwall) as the official name for the Berlin Wall." it is supported by a link to https://www.chronik-der-mauer.de/node/178754, which says:

"Die DDR feierte den Bau der Mauer – in der Sprache der SED-Propaganda „antifaschistischer Schutzwall" – als Sieg des „sozialistischen Lagers" über den westlichen Imperialismus." surely you might have found that if you searched for "Schutzwall", and than you could have run it through deepl.com or something and found: "The GDR celebrated the construction of the wall - in the language of SED propaganda "antifascist protective wall" - as a victory of the "socialist camp" over Western imperialism." which is a decent translation. And you want us to do this for all the citation s you listed because, what, you didn't believe the SED actually used that term? Why would anyone doubt that? This is very basic common knowledge. Please provide better reasons. Vexations (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the affirmation that the wall was "against the western world and NATO in general, and against the western-backed Federal Republic of Germany and its main ally the United States in particular" is disputed, antifascist were also target by East Germany, and I think that should be stated in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rupert loup, the Peters quote is on page 34: "In der politischen Gegenwart der Bundesrepublik Deutschland findet der Begriff Antifaschismus bevorzugt im linksextremistischen Spektrum Verwendung." That's exactly what the article says: "the term anti-fascism is primarily used by the far left in contemporary Germany". Again, why would anyone doubt that? Vexations (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So the far left are the only ones that oppose to fascism in contemporary times? The section focuses only in the term, and it also should be about the opposition to fascism itself. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The topic of this article is postwar "Anti-fascist movements / anti-fascist action networks". In Germany that is a left wing movement, as demonstrated and explained by numerous reliable sources included in this and other articles, and different from German resistance to Nazism. The topic is not "opposition to fascism itself" which implies that today's Germany is "fascist". The only ones who claim that fascists rule Germany now are a small number of extremists. --Tataral (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead is also wrong and should be rewritten, this article is about "Post-World War II anti-fascism", which means "opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals." And your sources are POV, it took me 3 minutes to find the sources that I presented here. So I think that content is omitted on purpose.Rupert Loup (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The topic, as defined already in the lead section (which I didn't write), is post-war anti-fascist movements and anti-fascist action networks (aka Antifa) in Germany, not opposition to actual, historical fascism. There is no fascist regime in place in Germany today. The article even includes a gallery with no less than 13 Antifa flags, leaving no room for doubt that the topic is Antifa networks. And if that wasn't enough, the hatnote explicitly explains that This article is about Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements worldwide. If you have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute and you don't even understand what the topic of this article is, stop wasting people's time. If you want to write about opposition to fascism as it existed historically, this is the wrong article. And no, I didn't omit Janka on purpose, because no reasonable and knowledgable contributor would believe that he, as the only person, ought to be mentioned in a brief summary of postwar "Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements worldwide", that doesn't mention any other individuals, and when he isn't mentioned in any relevant main articles either, and when he doesn't seem that central to this specific topic. --Tataral (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There are probably a number of articles where Walter Janka – a communist who was imprisoned in East Germany for counter-revolutionary activities – deserves to be mentioned, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me to mention him in a very short summary style section here that summarises postwar German Antifa movements, and that doesn't discuss any other individuals, especially considering that he isn't mentioned in any of the relevant main articles either. In any event, a desire to include him is no justification for the tag, and I also note that there was no previous attempt to include him (it's not like I would oppose his inclusion in articles where he is relevant and where his inclusion doesn't seem like intricate detail), and that is he is mentioned in the discussion now seems like an entirely artificial "argument". While being able to read German (it's not my native language either) is not generally required to contribute to Wikipedia, following editors who are working on specifically German topics in specifically Germany-related articles or sections around to question every source they use merely because they are in German is not productive at all. German is a major world language that is reasonably accessible to most people interested in anything Germany-related, and if you have a question regarding a source, you need to, at the very least, state your specific reasons on the talk page in connection with that source, and also no bombard editors with unreasonable requests or an unreasonable amount of requests. --Tataral (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several articles about Janka, and Heinz Zöger, and Paul Merker, and the anarchists[3][4], and others.Rupert Loup (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And? --Tataral (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And it should be mentioned in the article the fate of notable antifascists. Aslo "post-war anti-fascist movements and anti-fascist action networks (aka Antifa) in Germany, not opposition to actual, historical fascism." So why the GDR is mentioned in the article then? The GDR was not "Antifa". I'm going to change the name of the article to reflect its content and removing that content per this discussion. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I really think that the article should be about post-war antifascism in general, that means the opposition against fascism (old and new) by the different German goverments, political parties, organizations, movements and notable individuals. Specially in contemporary times against Neo-Fascism/Nazism. Denazification and related laws/policies should be in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And the section already mentions that the current movement has its roots in the West German Außerparlamentarische Opposition left-wing student movement during the 1960s and 1970s. But the left-wing student movement and its legacy aren't synonymous with "Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements", the defined topic of this article. The text that you simply copied from tangentially related articles just makes the section bloated and off-topic and is no description of postwar Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements in Germany, but descriptions of more general aspects of West German society not directly related to the topic and only forms, in a vague sense, a backdrop that was in fact mentioned appropriately with a link to the Außerparlamentarische Opposition, and co-opts all left-wing causes and protest culture for the cause of Antifa, the small anarcho-communist movement in Germany. At most, this topic merits one or two additional sentences on the student movement and its radicalisation in the 1960s. --Tataral (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• The student movemnt is the contentext in which this groups were created, not including it in the article is misleading. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree that it would be good to see a range of scholarly sources used in this section, I don't understand what specific objections Rupert Loup is making. Mention of Janka, Zoeger and Merker seems completely undue in this article; their stories may belong in other, more DDR-related articles, but aren't relevant here. All sources in need of verification appear to be verified. Inline tags would be sufficient for any sourcing issues; section tagging is overkill. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that it should be breifly mentioned that notable antifascists that participated in the WWII were persecuted by a goverment that claimed to be "antifascist". However, my main objection is the range of sources, and that requieres a tag. Also more neutral stances toward the GDR aslo should be here for WP:NPOV, although it was pointed by Tataral that this article is about "Antifa" and not about antifascism itself. My point is that there is more than the point of view of the CDU and the current goverment. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Janka et al are relevant, because they're not sufficiently noteworthy within the larger history of anti-fascism. Maybe if there were a more detailed page on Anti-fascism in Germany they'd be relevant, but this is meant to cover the whole post-war period, so they seem undue. I agree there needs to be a wider range of sources, and there is plenty we could use. I'm not clear what the problem with the existing links themselves is. I also agree Peters' CDU affiliation is probably relevant, because his PhD was funded by the CDU. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The very bloated and unfocused (for this article) third paragraph touches upon an issue that could be elaborated on, but in a more relevant way (for this article) and more succinctly. It could be replaced by an additional sentence in the paragraph that starts with the West German left-wing student movement, e.g. "Parts of the left-wing student movement, and later the Antifa movement in West Germany, viewed the West German government as fascist and pointed to continuity in the civil service since the Nazi era and policies they viewed as imperialist." --Tataral (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The opening of the section seems to be in dispute. Can I suggest this compromise wording: "The post-war history of the anti-fascist movement in Germany includes two distinct traditions, an East German tradition and a tradition that arose in West Germany during the 1970s but with roots in the student movement and in post-war dissatisfaction with denazification." BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that is entirely correct. Dissatisfaction with continuity from the Nazi era was simply one of several issues that influenced, formed a backdrop of or were cited as grieavances by the German left-wing student movement, which in turn indirectly influenced the creation of Antifa by Maoists in the 1970s, but it's not accurate to describe it as the only influence, neither on the student movement nor on its "grandchild" Antifa. Protest against Germany's alignment with the U.S., the Vietnam war, capitalism itself were other at least equally important factors; for the student movement the policies in the 1960s were seen as imperialist and indeed often fascist, and the continuity in the civil service was mainly an explanation, in their view, for why West Germany in the 1960s was a fascist country supporting imperialist wars (through its alliance with the U.S. and its arms industry). The most radical elements of the student movement, that became terror organisations like the Red Army Faction, also decided that Israel was fascist in their view and established alliances with organisations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. They were more interested in what was going on in the 1960s-1970s than just history for history's sake. In my opinion the material on the backdrop of the student movement belongs somewhere at the start of the final paragraph that discusses today's Antifa's roots in the left-wing student movement of the 60s, which also makes the most sense chronologically. --Tataral (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

On reflection, while I think some of the West German history, from denazification onwards, is definitely relevant here, we should aim to be much more concise and include the detail in the relevant article, Antifa (German) (or possibly there should be an article like Anti-fascism in Germany) and not in this general article on post-war anti-fascism globally: the section should not be more detailed than the main article it relates to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a detailed discussion of this material belongs in other articles (we already have some articles that discuss some of this material, such as West German student movement and Außerparlamentarische Opposition), but a concise summary here (e.g. one or two sentences as part of the final paragraph, rather than a separate, full paragraph) is fine. --Tataral (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Requested move 26 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to the proposed title (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Post-World War II anti-fascism → Anti-fascist action networks – The current title and lead section suggests a far broader subject matter than the contents. If this article was about the entirety of "post-World War II anti-fascism" it would talk about the Spanish transition away from fascism and the counterprotests to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Instead, the contents of this article is specifically about left-leaning groups that employ direct action. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 20:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

—Relisting. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. What is an "action network"? Surely Anti-fascist activism since World War II would be a better title? There were plenty of "left-leaning groups that employed direct action" before World War II and these would presumably not be intended to fall within its scope. If they were, History of anti-fascist activism might be better. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – this feels like a solution in search of a problem, and the proposed title has its own issues. If there are sources that identify the Spanish transition as a moment in the history of anti-fascism then it can probably be mentioned here. The main reason Charlottesville isn't mentioned is because this article uses summary style and it's mentioned in Antifa (United States), but, again, it may be significant enough to merit a mention here too. As Brigade Piron notes, "action network" is ambiguous; also, using "anti-fascist action" would lead to confusion with Anti-Fascist Action; and losing "post-World War II" would leave readers wondering why the article has nothing to say on anti-fascist movements active around fascism's pre-1945 heyday. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you look up this talk page you'll see this discussion has come and gone and there have been a few name change proposals, as the article has gone back and forth between being an introduction to "antifa" movements/networks and an overview of anti-fascism after WWII. Both versions are problematic. The problem with an articule on post-WWII movements is that it creates an arbitrary divide with the main Anti-fascism article which used to come up to the present day until the material from the last seventy years was moved here. But there is no particular reason for a more focused article on Anti-fascist action networks, because we have an article called Antifa (albeit oddly recently edited to include a bunch of things that aren't called Antifa). So I would be in favour of finally making it a proper article on Post-WWII anti-fascism, including opposuition to Franco and current US mobilisations against the far right, etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: "Anti-fascism" is a term with a very specific history and meaning, and is overwhelmingly associated with the former Soviet bloc where it was ubiquitous and used synonymously with the party line until 1989 (e.g. "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall", the official name of the Berlin Wall), and with certain left-wing groups or movements outside of the Soviet bloc, especially what is known as "Antifa" or antifascist action networks. It is crucial to understand that "anti-fascism" within both of these contexts didn't refer simply to opposition to the actual far right as most people in the west understand it, it could include opposition to everything from social democrats to western democracies. Within antifascist action networks/Antifa, they still use "anti-fascism" to refer to more than just opposition to actual fascism or the actual far right; often attacks on police, the military etc. are framed as anti-fascism. This is clearly already an article on anti-fascism as a left-wing ideology/movement/strategy/slogan, which includes but is somewhat broader than just Antifascist action networks. It has no less than 15(!) images of the (communist and anarchist) Antifa logo. It would not be appropriate to include Spain's transition to democracy in this article, because that is an entirely different topic than the movement or ideology covered by this article; I don't think Juan Carlos I is commonly regarded as an "anti-fascist". Still, the title of the article isn't ideal, because not everyone is aware of how Antifascist action network or the communist parties of the former Soviet bloc have used the term fascism (and anti-fascism). Anti-fascism (left-wing movement), Anti-fascism (left-wing political current) or something like that would be a clearer title. It is not as narrow as the proposed title, and defines what is already the topic in a clearer way than the current title. Opposition to the far right in the U.S., Spain's transition to democracy are all worthy causes that should perhaps be included in other articles or articles yet to be written on other topics than the movement once started by the Communist Party of Germany at the urging of Comintern under Stalin at a time when they were in the habit of referring to social democrats as fascists (the 15 flags in the article was the symbol of that movement, a movement that German authorities consider to be extremist today). --Tataral (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.