Talk:Schrecklichkeit

Comments on dispute
A lot of the dispute below can be resolved because most of the article has been lifted verbatim from the short paragraph Haverford link / reference, including no-longer-used French spelling of Leuven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.14.180 (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, how can you base such an ssumption on one (Haverford) link ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.150.169 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just a stub, do not worry, I am planning to expand this article in the near future. --Molobo (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Things to clarify: 1) this is WWI or WWII? 2) Contradiction: ''Due the haste and rush of the invading forces atrocities were made against civilians... No civilian harassment or irregular warfare was tolerated by the Germans'' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This was used during First World War however the sources I have seen sometimes note that the practicies of it were refined into WW2 by German Army.--Molobo (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes only by the Quaker Haverford University, and Kramer's "... A History of denial" ? -> " ... In most cases Horne and Kramer's conceptual ingenuity helps in illuminating complex issues. However, some of their usages might seem baffling to some readers. Thus, throughout the book they use both German atrocities and "German atrocities" with and without quotation marks to distinguish between the actual crimes of the German Army and the depiction of these actions by allied propagandists...." See e.g. Louis Raemakers and his "own accounts" - he actually never went to Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.2.135 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice try
I like fake articles, they prove we shall not trust but what we have researched ourselves. German is my mother tongue, and the word Schrecklichkeit wouldn't be used in the sense it is used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.64.173 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anon, the word is used by English speakers to describe the military policy of Germany started German Empire era. The term is used by several scholary sources which can be easily confirmed.--Molobo (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, then maybe it is better to change the first sentence into: "Schrecklichkeit is used by English/Belgian/? writers to describe the military response of the German Army etc." You should give some more real info though. If using terror was a concept of the German army leadership in Belgium in 1914, the commanders who ordered this should be named. It would be also interesting to know how this concept was named by the German authorities. Just putting together some examples of war crimes committed by individuals (as in every society, in a conscript army there is always a certain low percentage of insane sadists, send several 100.000 armed men somewhere, and war crimes are inevitable) plus some gruesome rumours which are spread for propaganda, doesn't make a concept of warfare. But do as you please, it is only Wikipedia ... --84.173.64.173 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Added citation requests. Responce is very POV-ed. Rapes or murder of priests weren't responce to any action--Molobo (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the book from John Horne and Alan Kramer "German Atrocities 1914 : A History of Denial" is highly controversial. Instead from presenting real evidence they always refer vaguely to "barbarian" methods, which are not named - NAMED atrocities are all quotes/citations from belgian and english sources, the last relying on the British War Propaganda bureau, and cannot be relied upon.

" ... Germans adopted harsh measures (schrecklichkeit), to try and crush this resistance quickly. Hostages were shot, priests thought guilty of encouraging the resistance were killed and crimes committed by German soldiers, such as rape, were not seriously punished.[1] ..."

Since you wrote this i really advise to read the following sources, even if this is only a very short sum-up of the intentional lies of the allied propaganda bureaus:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_and_world_war_one.htm

http://www.propagandacritic.com/

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/propaganda/

http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050209/films.html

http://www.greatwar.nl/students/papers/collins/propaganda.html#Third

There were atrocities against civilians, and lots of damage and killing, indeed being war crimes - but neither systematic nor deriving from a higher policy urging german soldiers to commit those. The "prussian beast" is an idea of war propaganda, as well as german soldiers being blinded etc. like can be seen in the links posted above. Official prussian reports mostly deal with the damaging of private (belgian) goods, but then it can certainly be expected, from reports of atrocities like rape etc., to be suppressed, however - it seems there was no killing of priests, no bayonetting of belgian babies, no crucifying of canadian officers etc. This is indeed propaganda from the WPB and CPI - evidence for this systematical belying can be found everywhere - it was certainly considered necessary and maybe vital for the war effort, but they went too far here.

Food for thought, thanks.

Is it still propaganda, after all this time ? http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/propaganda.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narsinha (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

- After some thorough search (not only on the internet) i did not find any source that would state that this "Schrecklichkeit" existed as a name or german policy of conduct against the civilian people of conquered territory, other than being used by English scholarly sources.

It was somewhere said that Mr. Strasser (head of the german naval branch of airships) used this word relating to an airship attack on London, but i did not even find this QUOTE in any book, or report - let alone a believable source.

Again, if there had been a policy how to conduct warfare on civilians of conquered territory, it is almost sure it would not have been called "Schrecklichkeit" - i mean they just would not have been THAT dumb ? It is like the british war propaganda bureau calling their own army's certain action an "atrocity". Can't we have some evidence, or source.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWatrocities.htm " ... As one British general pointed out after the war: "to make armies go on killing one another it is necessary to invent lies about the enemy". ..."

What does "Schrecklichkeit" mean?
Strangely enough, the word "Schrecklichkeit" is not used in any modern german languages (D, A, CH, B, LUX etc.), although the plural "Schrecklichkeiten" is known, but hardly used and when used than in a more ironic connotation. As for modern german the term "Abschreckung" (=deterrence) or even "Vergeltung" (=vengeance, retribution, retaliation) would descibe such military forms of punishment more correct. (I added this to the text, because I never heared this word before, although it is build up with germanic word-elements: "Schreck - lich - keit")

German is my mother language but I don't know this word. Wo has invented it and in which context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.215.151 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only "quote" i ever found on this was the FdL (Fuehrer der Luftschiffe) Strasser ever mentioning this word "Schrecklichkeit", but again the sources for this quote come from dubious sources, and i never found it in any publication. So it really should read that this S. is a belgian/british term to describe german war atrocities. That superiors are reluctant in war times, to punish own soldiers committing war crimes can be seen all over the world, recently in Kosovo, in Iran, or Afghanistan. I still doubt that a real policy names S. existed in WW1. I may be wrong, but please - give some real sources since those quoted go all back to propaganda bureuas like the CPI (US Committee on Public Information), and WPB (War Propaganda Bureau). Regards, Narsinha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.149.228 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In Heinlein's novel The Door into Summer the protagonist says he survived the nuclear destruction of his assigned base because he was in Dallas "drawing a fresh supply of Schrecklichkeit", but I can't figure out what he meant by that. One interpretation might be that he was on leave and getting drunk to reduce his personal terror? Another possible interpretation was that he was doing something related to his MOS, which apparently involved preparing nuclear weapons. On this interpretation, he was helping to create the state of Schrecklichkeit against some still unspecified enemies, but judging by the date of the book (1957), was probably the Russians. Anyway, if anyone can clarify this, it would be appreciated (though I'm not sure I'd ever find the Wikipedia linkage)... Shanen (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Easy enough to find "frightfulness"; even Google translate says so. Schreck=Fright; the remainder is left as an exercise. Kortoso (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

American Revolution
A reference appears in Washington's Crossing, Fischer, D.H. (Oxford 2004), at 75: "Other British leaders favored a different strategy, which Germans call Shrecklichkeit. This was the deliberate use of extreme violence and terror to break the American will to resist.   .   .  This policy was supported by other British leaders such as George Germain who had experience of war in central Europe, where Shrecklichkeit was widely used." JTR9521 (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Original exchange of letters on the german occupation of Belgium: An account of the official papers going to and fro Belgium and Germany regarding the conduct can be found here: http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_German_Occupation_of_Luxembourg You really wonder what is going on there - but "Schrecklichkeit" ? It was done by a lot of armies, and still is - but to name this a planned policy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.142.96 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Love
What is love 91.238.94.29 (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)