Jared Cook

Nazism as a Changing Force on the Modern German Language

Language is an entity that succumbs to many different forces. Its changes and
adaptations can be driven by trade, the influence of other cultures, simple human characteristics,
technology or even war. World War II influenced modern German, especially in the decade
following the War. Yet, how was the German language affected, and what changes occurred? In
the following paper, I will show how Nazi Germans influence affected the German language
between the years of 1933 and 1960. To demonstrate this, I will divide the effects of the
language into two simple time periods, before and during the war (1933 -1945) and after it
(1945-1960). I will show how German purism affected the language during Hitlers reign, and
how Nazism affected syntactical changes during the war. I will also examine semantics in
divided Germany after the war, including an illustrative literary reaction to the linguistic
dominance of Nazism. I will conclude and unify the timeline by discussing purism from the War
till now.
Before and during World War II (1933-1945)
Purism
Linguistic purism has had a great effect on German from the Thirty Years War to World War II.
It is interesting to note that the German language has endured five purist movements, all
coinciding with times of national crisis and nationalistic excitement (Keller 611). I will focus
on the last purism movement in the German language, coinciding with the rise of National
Socialism and the Second World War (purism after the war will be addressed later). Of further
interest is the typical driving force behind these purism movements. Being interested in the
development of languages and philosophy, Germans saw how their language had become corrupt
and therefore uses of foreign words was an act of corruption and linguistic betrayal (Keller
610). At a time of national crisis or excitement, such purism would help rebuild or support the
national identity. Linguistic purism has been successful in creating a sense of unity and identity
among the Germanic people.
However, in the years of the Second World War, purism was not only unifying, but hypocritical
and transparent. Some put forth various ideas, explains R.E. Keller, about how to change the
German language in order to eliminate all forms of foreign words, such as Klaudius Bojungas
propositions for changes to German grammar terminology (e.g., Ttigkeitswort vs. Verb and
Doppellaut vs. Dipthong). Also, Germans of the Second World War chose to use words that
inspired them to take pride in their linguistic and genetic heritage (e.g., Sippe, arisch, and Volk,
with all its combinations) (Keller 605). Yet, this is not completely reflective of the attitude of the
government toward purism as they were completely fine with foreign words when it was the
most gnstig for their purposes, for example Konzentrationslager, Generalgouvernement Polen
(Keller 612). In each case purism was either exploited to ignite passion, or hypocritically
ignored.
Propaganda and Semantics
The propaganda of the Third Reich had a large impact on semantics within seven specific
domains in Nazi Germany. Within these fields new words were coined, new slanted meanings
[were] propagated, and then spread throughout the Reich (Keller 604). According to Kellers
The German Language, these fields are archaisms, violence and warfare, military, racism,
ideology and idealism, religion, and biology.

Archaisms were popular with Nazism as a way to get back to the real Germany and its
heritage. This involved reviving words from the Germanic past. The issue is that some words
were made-up instead of revived. An example of this is Heil, a supposed Germanic salutation
(Keller 605). This was supposed to be an archaic word, though there is no substantial evidence
for its past. Nazism invented the meaning for this word to serve its purposes. An example of an
old word being used anew for the Nazi purpose of work was Maid: Arbeitsmaid female
member of the labour service (Keller 605). Nazism would take an old word and change the
meaning, reusing it to promote not only the Nazi ideal but a spirit of connectedness to the past.
Within Nazism the need for proper words describing violence arose. Common examples are
Blitzkrieg (lightning warfare) and Sturmabteilung (Storm-division, referencing elite
soldiers). These were new words, invented for the purpose of inspiring soldiers in battle. It gave
Nazism a way to describe battle as its own. By using new words for battle, Nazism could
differentiate its battle tactics from the rest of the worlds. New words for warfare made this war
unique and inspiring, as though it were different from the numerous other devastating wars
Germany waged.
Along those lines, there arose new words for military operations and positions.
Examples include Front, Kampf, Marsch, Fhrer. These terms belong to the group whose
meaning already existed, but was slanted. National Socialism brought them their peak (Keller
605). To this domain belongs the fact that the enemy was always described with negative
language (e.g., Parasiten and staatszerstzend), while the Vaterland and its politics were
described in a positive light (e.g., Volksgemeinschaft and einmalig) (Stedje 165). In this case
there were also no real words to describe anything to do with retreat. Instead the German army
made planmige Absatzbewegungen and Frontbegradigungen (Knig 121). Nazism
completely revamped the German terms for military.
Because of the Nazis alienating attack on Jews, there arose a need to describe them as
negative within in the language. By creating and reusing words for racial propaganda Nazism
brought a twisted form of legitimacy to its genocide. Words like Arisch, Blut, Blutschande,
Mischehe took on a new meaning. Whereas they had previously been used in an inter-religious
context, these came to mean inter-racial (Keller 606)). Polenz describes that out of 170 A-E Nazi
Stichwrter [gehrten] 54 in den Bereich Rassismus/Antisemitismus, [und] 8 in den Bereich
Euthanasie (Polenz 549). He explains further that as fellow citizens were being carried away
durch Staatsterrormanahmen, these words became less frequent, out of fear of ones own
Sonderbehandlung, and the people essentially quit talking about politische und rassistische
Menschenvervolgung using these Stichwrter (Polenz 549). Instead, they began to use
euphemisms such as nicht mehr da, abgeholt, [and] weggebracht worden (Polenz 549). Such
terms fit into the domain of racism. These new semantics were Nazisms way of maintaining,
reinforcing and enforcing racial purity.
The language of Nazism needed a way to promote the general Nazi ideology and
idealism. Terms were coined and used to promote the ideal and influence peoples thinking.
Words such as Leistung, Volksgemeinschaft, glhend, Opfer, Schicksal became prominent in the
language for describing the Nazi ideal. Among other things this domain had an influence on the
emotions of the people. This domain was important because through these words, das eigene
Denken [konnte] vernebelt werden (Stedje 165). With the minds and thoughts of the people
clouded, they were essentially under the leading personalities control. Along these same lines,
Keller describes how the semantics of Nazism had an influence on style by appealing to

emotion rather than reason (607). Such idealistic words could pacify the people, and keep them
from using their own powers of reason against the government.
One way of gaining a sense of legitimacy for Nazism was through the secularization of
religious terms. Examples include Heilig, Mission, Glaube (e.g., an den Fhrer). Instead of using
these words in a religious context, all of these types of words pointed to the Fhrer and Nazism
for leadership. Such words contributed to an emotional, anti-rational vocabulary (Keller 606).
By using religious words, it was as though Nazism claimed that God was leading this battle and
that it was more than just the desires of the leaders to wage such a campaign. This allowed them
to be backed linguistically by deity.
Biological terms became very useful to the Nazi aesthetic. Among these words were
Gift, Blut, giftige Geschwre, Seuche. These terms were used not only to describe the Aryan
ideal, but the plague that was the Jew. Therefore, this domain connects to the racial domain.
However, this domain also promotes the fascist ideal of the people (Volk) as a single unified
body. By proposing linguistically that the people are a body, this promotes the ideal of keeping
the body safe from infection and disease. Biology promoted a goal of maintaining the wholeness
and purity of the Nazi body.
The large impact on certain words within these seven domains was advantageous to the cause of
the Third Reich. The leaders could blind the people with false hope and security, while
simultaneously carrying out deeds of deceit and disaster. These terms could inspire a Volk to
action and pride, while simultaneously undercutting the enemy, Jew or Allied force. The Nazi
leaders manipulated semantics in order to form a relationship between language and the German
national identity. As such, the people got a skewed view of reality were less likely to interfere
with plans and rise up against the power. This act of dominating semantics and purifying the
German language was crucial in giving Hitler another level of power.
After World War II (1945-1960)
Semantics in the Two Germanys
The fact that Germany was divided in two, and ruled by two very different governments
entirely, naturally influenced the semantics of words in the two states. Keller states, Different
political systems and different social institutions naturally require different terminologies
(Keller 607). In this way the two states split from being unified overall in speech and meaning.
The Western State defined words based on its democratic political system and the Eastern doing
exactly the same, but based on Marxism, for example, Bundeswehr in the West vs. Nationale
Volksarmee in the East. During this period East Germany borrowed many words from Russia,
such as Kolchos, and Sowjet (Keller 607). Each state with its individual value and political
systems took the language in a different direction.
Just as in Nazi Germany, the two Germanys used words in their own way for
propaganda and were responsible for many of the semantic changes within the country. Keller
describes a few of these. For example the West would call the immigrants returning to
Germany Umsiedler, while East Germany called them Neubrger. The Berlin Wall in the West
was known as the Schandmauer, and the antifaschistischer Schutzwall in the East (606). Along
these lines, East Germany tended to use lexical forms that gave a good impression about the
GDR (607). The two states used meanings of words differently for propaganda, causing further
splits in German semantics.
The New Literary Style

In this time there was a new literary movement that was exemplary of the linguistic
style that took place after the war. After the strict, forced, and skewed semantics of National
Socialism, there was a Verlangen nach einer nchternen, einfachen, unbelasteten Sprache
(Stedje 165). A group known as the Gruppe 47 was formed in 1947 and was comprised of
authors who sought to perpetuate and support this linguistic movement. Looking briefly at this
group will give a good idea of the movement.
Firstly, there was the yearning for the simple life and the elementary language. In a
book about the group, one of its members, Gnter Grass, describes how and why they sought
after this ideal. He says, diese jungen Schriftsteller fhlten sich, versehrt von einer
Gesellschaft, der sie doch entstammten; und sie waren beseelt vom Wunsch, sich in eine
unbelastete Zukunft hineinzuentwickeln (Arnold 14). These men felt shunned and betrayed by
the old government and sought a future of freedom and simplicity, especially where the language
did not restrict them. They even published a newspaper of sorts called die Wandlung (the name
of the newspaper being indicative of their motives), in which they discuss the new direction they
want to take things: auf das Einfache und Wesentliche (Screiber 151). They sought the simple
life, not necessarily freedom, just a simpler, and more basic, unburdened life.
Secondly, this desire for the simple was intertwined with the uncontrollable urge for
them to bring the old ideologies, and therefore semantics, of the Third Reich into question.
Gnter Grass calls it a nachfragenden Grndlichkeit within the group, saying they were mehr,
anders, neu (Arnold 14). In a special edition of der Speigel, members of the group describe
what it was like in those early years. They say, apart from the striving for the simplistic, they
wanted an Abkehr von Behrden, Amtern, berhaupt von der groen Politik und ihren Parolen
(Schreiber 151). The Gruppe 47 members were constantly trying to rid themselves of the
linguistic structures of the Third Reich by questioning them, and themselves, to find something
new.
These two desires, created in post-war Germany, a new linguistic style that showed
itself an everyday speech. Through this Hinterfragen and seeking, the linguistic style became
one of ease and simplicity, even in formalistic writing and speaking. This is a byproduct of the
desire to come away from the Third Reich and get back to the simple way. As Stedje says, Von
1945 an knnen wir somit mit einem neuen Schriftdeutsch rechnen, das sich mehr an die Sprache
des Alltags anschliet (Stedje 165). Trying to come away from the twisted forms of language
known from the Nazis, Germans were getting a form of language that was simpler and simpler.
This became the new linguistic style.
Purism after the War
Purism after the war essentially ceased in Germany. Since this time there have been a
large number of loanwords taken from English, French, and Russian, amongst other languages.
Whereas this would typically spark a new wave of purism, Keller notes the oddity that in the
last thirty years German has borrowed extremely freely without this evoking a new wave of
purism (Keller 612). Whereas the GDR borrowed many words, the FRG has done so to a
significantly larger degree. And along that same line, the FRG has did so more from English
(Team and Asronouten) and the GDR borrowed more so from Russian (Kollektiv and
Kosmonaut) (Knig 123). Purism is mostly dead in Germany at this time, maybe because of
post-war movements, and the language is now free to be influenced from all sides.
Conclusion

In the end we are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Purism, having sparked an
overhaul (true or transparent) of the German language, is gone. Those twisted meanings and
arms length Fremdwrter were simplified and adopted. This can be summed up and
exemplified in the writings of post war Germany and the Gruppe 47. Though the GDR no longer
exists, the splitting of the German nation had an effect on the semantics of the language. War
and powerful regimes can be a very strong influence on languages development and can cause,
as is the case here, repercussions across decades.
Bibliography
Arnold, Heinz Ludwig. Die Gruppe 47. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch,
2004.
Keller, R.E. The German Language. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1978.
Knig, Werner. dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache: Tafeln und Texte. Mnchen:
Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1978.
Polenz, Peter von. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Sptmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
Schreiber, Mathias. Das Brot der frhen Jahren. Der Speigel. Jan. 2006: 1/2006.
Stedje, Astrid. Deutsche Sprache gestern und heute. Mnchen: Wilhem Fink, 2001.