[untitled]
8 comments
But he was?
The Grok calls Hitler literally "Führer und Reichkansler" in an otherwise English language article, so the most lnient interpretation is that Grok is simply not that well adapted to translation. One normally don't use use the original language words ("Statsminister" or "Rey" anyone?) when describing state officials when there are English translations, unless you have an agenda. The translation to English is straight forward: "leader and Chancellor of Germany".
The article says that Grok is "writing that Hitler served as “Führer und Reichskanzler from August 1934 until his suicide in 1945."
Wikipedia page on Hitler says that he "took the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934".
What is tendencious about either? It is right to report the titles in German, not least because Hitler is known for his title "Führer" pretty much universally so that it is an important keyword to include. It does not imply anything.
This all sounds like trying too hard to find "dirt", frankly.
Wikipedia page on Hitler says that he "took the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934".
What is tendencious about either? It is right to report the titles in German, not least because Hitler is known for his title "Führer" pretty much universally so that it is an important keyword to include. It does not imply anything.
This all sounds like trying too hard to find "dirt", frankly.
Which he was. Woke media still getting triggered because of facts.
You might have more credibility on this subject if you didn't post explicitly anti-Semitic comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46079665
Is there some OCD bubbleverse where calling Hitler “The Führer” is a huge deal? That sounds about as pointless as arguing the legitimacy of his great-grandmothers' births. Though once you get people polarized into "Butter-side Up" and "Butter-side Down" camps...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer
It is weird to use a non-English word like that though. Lots of connotations too, of course. But "praise"?