Talk:Victor Klemperer

Ownership of pets under the Nazis

"Eventually the Klemperers were forced to put down their household cat, a tomcat named Muschel, because of a restriction as to Jews' ownership of pets." Klemperer also put down Muschel because he feared the Nazi would torture the cat (he says this in his diary which has numerous references to Muschel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.168.179 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The exact quote from the English translation of the diary is this:

Frau Ida Kreidl, whom I met while I was shopping, reported the latest decree, she then showed it to us in the Jewish Community Newspaper: Jews with the star and anyone who lives with them are, with immediate effect, forbidden to keep pets (dogs, cats, birds), it is also forbidden to give the animals away to be looked after. This is the death sentence for Muschel, whom we have had for more than eleven years and to whom Eva is very attached.

Entry for Friday 15 May 1942. So I think the article has it right. Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

Thanks for the clean-ups and revisions to this article. I have been following this topic for a few months now, and it is steadily improving.Jeffpw 09:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC) It should be noted that he survived in Germany throughout the Holocaust where Hitler was killing every Jew he could lay his hands on as part of a "Final Solution"

Negative critical review needed

I read one of his books, and was profoundly unimpressed by how he could observe these things happening to his friends and family, and essentially do nothing about any of it. Every few weeks he repeats, "Well, it can't get any worse". Surely there are published, reliable critical sources pointing out his role is more of a cowed, ineffectual observer than a folk hero. 76.126.217.129 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Klemperer neither was nor ever considered himself a "folk hero". In fact most of his friends and family were able to emigrate (=flee) Germany. There is no need for a negative cvritical review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.145.33 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that there are no published critiques of what he did during the war years. If there are any reliable sources that say as much, they should be included for the sake of NPOV & being more encyclopedic. 69.131.224.228 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Businessman

In what sense was he a "businessman", as stated in the first line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.107.178 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

He in fact worked "as a commercial apprentice in a fancy goods company". I will change the first line.--Joel Mc (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Losing academic position

His book indicates that he, as a ww1 veteran and protestant, was not technically stripped of his professorship due to "race" but rather due to loss of students. Such details are important as they distinguish the situation of people like Klemperer from Jews with no mitigating circumstances.--Jrm2007 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you mean by this?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He had very few students perhaps in part to his being of Jewish descent but the point is, whereas a Jew who had not fought in WW1, was not protestant and married to an aryan might have been removed from from his position simply for being Jewish.Jrm2007 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha, what exactly does the source say about the reason for his dismissal. The sources I have reviewed state that he was forced out of the university for being Jewish, not because he had few students. Also I am not sure your argument holds up to scrutiny - for example Karl von Frisch was only 1/8th Jewish amnd classified as Mischling, but was still removed from his post for this reason. I don't think we should conclude anything about how Klemperers situation compared to that of other jews unless it is explicitly mentioned in secondary sources. But the article generally lacks detail, and doesnt mention many important aspects how the gradual dehumanization that Klempere was subjected to, such as his forced name change in 1938, his near arrest for having his WW1 saber at home, how they loist their housekeeper, their drivers licenses, or the moment when he had to euthanize his cat because Jews weren't allowed to own pets.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This book[1] says that he was gradually squeezed out of responsibilities, and then "made redundant" (i.e. fired). This suggests that he was forced out of his position before it was legally required.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• This book[2] says he was "forced by the Nazis to retire".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In the preface to the Modern Library Paperback Edition 1999 on page xiv explains: "Even when he was dismissed in 1935, officially it was not because he was a Jew, but because he was surplus to requirements..."Jrm2007 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is explained by the fact that the 1933 laws legally exempted World War one veterans from expulsion - causing Nazis to find other ways to remove them from the professions. I have added this to the article now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason as expressed in the preface is worth including. To understand how things were phrased is important.Jrm2007 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless secondary sources think so, I don't think we can assume that it is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Does a secondary source contradict what is said in the preface?Jrm2007 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that matters, since what you are argueing is that it is particularly important to include the exact wording - which none of the two secondary sources that I have consulted do. In fact implicitly they suggest that the wording is not important, because they specifically do not say that Klemperer was "spared" but on the fact that he was forced out of his job. This suggests that by including the sentence and focusing on the excuse given by the Nazis instead of the underlying reality, your version would be at odds with the description of two secondary sources. You have not articulated an argument for why it would be important to include, and there is no support for the importance of including the wording in the secondary sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps cite preface. The importance of how such regimes act, being concerned with exact wording (due maybe to concerned of how perceived in other countries or to lull its victims into a false sense of security) cannot be understated. This is not a curiosity but genuinely valuable information for people throughout the world to understand as soon as they can the true nature of the government they live under. People in the USA and Russia, China, etc. must always be wary. Americans think they are living in the freest, best country in history but I doubt if the people of Iraq think this about the USA So let's try to figure out the best way to help people understand how VK and other nazi victims were treated to help future generations try to stop things like this from happening again. That is to say, I do think it matters.Jrm2007 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources suggest that the important information in regards to the way that Nazi germany treated its citizens was that they forced Jewish Klemperer out of his job in spite of the fact that as a veteran he was legally exempt from the law, not what excuse they invented in order to do this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

But ignoring what was actually said might allow future generations to be deluded again. It is also interesting that nazis cared. I find further interesting in the book his interactions with various officials, some of whom apparently were not completely indoctrinated but rather seemed sympathetic. Not that such sympathy saved him. In fact, had Dresden not happened and VK not escaped, the world would have lost some incredible information, preserved because VK was a professional writer who managed to survive by the skin of his teeth.Jrm2007 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A Diary of the Nazi Years

The title appears to be "I Will ...". https://archive.org/details/KlempererVictorIWillBearWitness19421945ADiaryOfTheNaziYears -- Steve -- (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This is almost totally unimportant, but it appears that the Klemperer Diaries (in the translation by Martin Chalmers) were published as either "I Shall Bear Witness" or as "I Will Bear Witness". This may reflect publication in different markets, but it is certainly not worth making further edits to the current text of the Article to change the title.Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Entry contains numerous instances of improper distinction between Jewish and "German"

Inadvertently, it seems, previous contributors have made a distinction between Jews and "Germans". In actuality, Klemperer was a native-born German of German (Jewish) parentage. The distinction is between Jewish Germans and other Germans. The racial laws of that time were immediately invalidated in 1945 and such distinctions are prohibited by the German constitution today. If Klemperer were alive today he would be a German citizen based on "jus soli", no different than any non-Jewish native-born German. I suggest these references should all be changed to "Aryan". 86.42.41.84 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"Cleaning jobs"

This article says that Victor Klemperer and his wife were compelled by financial need to take "cleaning jobs". I just finished reading the diary in question. His wife Eva was a semi-invalid and did not have any outside employment for wages in that period. Victor was drafted for labor details, but the closest he had to a cleaning job was shoveling snow. Most of his labor was in light industry. Bruce in MN (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate 'Scare Quotes'

Is there any reason for the inclusion of scare quotes around 'extermination' in the phrase 'Jews became aware only gradually of the nature of atrocities and scale of "extermination" at camps such as Theresienstadt and Auschwitz', which seem to imply that the term is suspect in some way? If not, it would read rather better to remove them. 2A02:C7C:CB3F:4000:60E9:3DBC:6812:BEFD (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)