this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
765 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
77090 readers
2029 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Führer is not just „leader“, it is tainted and using it as a substitute for Hitler in a factual text is super weird, like casually calling Jesus in his Wikipedia article „our lord and savior“ now and then.
Thank you for this comparison. That's a fun one and one that's made a little more 'subtle' in the US if only because of how common that language is among the populace in regions and how pervasive protestantism is in advertising/messaging.
Yeah I fully agree with this. I am thick in the middle of "Third Reich Trilogy" which gives an enormous amount of context to the word though.
If they changed it, it's further evidence of scummy behaviour, but on its own it's not a huge red flag for me with historical context.
Can't recommend the books enough if you're into that. The lad must have spent half his life in primary sources.
Leader would be "Anführer" these days. "Führer" was probably a perfectly neutral word before 1933. Now you just can't use it anymore without alluding to that period. You can call your mountain guide "Bergführer". All such derived terms are unaffected, but "Führer" is basically off limits for anything outside the Nazi Germany context.
From what I gather I don't think the German people meant it like that (read: they weren't supposed to). Of course he was the solitary head of state and everybody knew that his word was above any other's, but addressing him as "my Leader" is much more about ideology than politics. The honorific would've probably been "my Chancellor" if it had been about his political authority. As "Führer" he was the figurative savior of the German people after the perceived injustices encapsulated in the WW1 armistice. And he did lead them back towards a sense of national pride that was completely shattered after 1918.
Being a political figure was just a means to an end for him. If he hadn't been dismissed as a bad artist by a Jewish professor and if WW1 had taken a different course who knows what he would've ended up doing with his life. His weapon was his voice and that weapon was fueled by all these toxic convictions. If your hatred is aimed towards entire peoples and nations I guess your only shot at revenge is becoming a politician.
In his case it was very much meant as dictator.
There was debate after Hindenburg died and he took his powers with the plebiscite (as well as chancellor) about what his title should be. He didn't want to harken back to Kaiser per the previous Reich so they went with Fuhrer.
It had been used within the party before that but came into common usage as his title at that time.
Is there another more 'generic' German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of 'he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer', and then no need to keep using "Fuhrer" anymore in the rest of the article.
Pretty sure its usually "Diktator" in that context.
Maybe Staatsoberhaupt. I would translate it as "leader". But given how illegitimate his reign was, it is still a bit to soft.