Der Film zeigt, wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können, auch wo früher Gewalt war.

The film shows how words can convey peace, even where there used to be violence.

Breakdown of Der Film zeigt, wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können, auch wo früher Gewalt war.

• sein: to be
• können: can
• zeigen: to show
• der Film: the film
• früher: earlier
• wo: where
• das Wort: the word
• wie: how
• der Frieden: the peace
• die Gewalt: the violence
• vermitteln: to convey
• auch: even

Questions & Answers about Der Film zeigt, wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können, auch wo früher Gewalt war.

Why is wie used here instead of dass?

In this sentence, wie introduces a content clause that means “how”:

• Der Film zeigt, wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können…
  = The film shows *how words can convey peace…*

If you used dass, the meaning would shift slightly:

• Der Film zeigt, dass Worte Frieden vermitteln können…
  = The film shows *that words can convey peace…*

Both are grammatically correct, but:

• wie emphasizes the manner / the way in which words bring peace.
• dass simply states the fact that they can, without focusing on “how”.

So wie fits better when you’re highlighting the process or the way something happens.

Why is the verb order “vermitteln können” at the end of “wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können”?

In German subordinate clauses (introduced here by wie), all the verbs go to the end of the clause.

We have a modal verb (können) and a main verb (vermitteln):

• Subject: Worte
• Object: Frieden
• Main verb (infinitive): vermitteln
• Modal verb: können

The structure is:

…, wie + subject + objects/other elements + main verb (infinitive) + modal verb (finite form)

So:

• wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können
  literally: how words peace convey can

In subordinate clauses with a modal verb:

• The finite modal (können, müssen, wollen, etc.) comes last.
• The main verb infinitive comes right before it.

Example patterns:

• …, weil er das Problem lösen kann.
• …, dass wir dir helfen wollen.

What is the difference between Worte and Wörter, and why is Worte used here?

Both mean “words”, but there is a nuance:

• Wörter = individual, countable words as dictionary items
  
  • drei neue Wörter lernen – to learn three new words
• Worte = words as part of an utterance, often with emotional or stylistic weight
  
  • schöne Worte – beautiful words (as speech)
  • letzte Worte – last words

In this sentence:

• wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können

We’re talking about spoken or written expressions that create peace, not just separate vocabulary items. So Worte is more natural, because it suggests words as speech / messages, which fits the idea of peace-building language.

You could say Wörter, but it would sound more like “individual lexical items,” which is less idiomatic in this context.

Why is there no article before Frieden (why not den Frieden or einen Frieden)?

Frieden is used here as an abstract, uncountable noun, similar to “peace” in English:

• English: Words can convey peace. (not a peace in normal usage)
• German: Worte können Frieden vermitteln.

Some points:

• Frieden is the direct object (Akkusativ), but in German, abstract / mass nouns often appear without an article:
  • Liebe zeigen – to show love
  • Hoffnung geben – to give hope
  • Frieden bringen – to bring peace

You can say den Frieden in other contexts, when you mean a specific peace:

• den Frieden bewahren – to preserve the peace (e.g., in a specific region)

But here the idea is peace in general, so bare Frieden is most idiomatic.

What does Frieden vermitteln mean exactly?

vermitteln has the general meaning of “to mediate, to convey, to bring about, to pass on”, depending on context.

With Frieden, there are two close meanings:

1. to mediate peace

   • acting like a mediator between conflicting parties to help them reach peace

2. to convey / communicate a sense of peace

   • to make people feel peace, to bring peacefulness through words, actions, etc.

In this sentence:

• wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können

it’s more about conveying / creating peace through words—how language can help people move from violence to a peaceful situation, either emotionally or socially.

How is auch being used in “auch wo früher Gewalt war”? Does it mean “also” or “even”?

Here auch has the sense of “even” rather than simple “also”:

• …, auch wo früher Gewalt war.
  ≈ …, even where there used to be violence.

This use of auch emphasizes that even in difficult or unlikely places, words can bring peace.

Compare:

• Neutral “also”:
  
  • Worte vermitteln Frieden zu Hause und auch in der Schule.
    – Words bring peace at home and also at school.
• Emphatic “even” (like in the given sentence):
  
  • Worte können Frieden bringen, auch wo früher Hass und Gewalt waren.
    – Words can bring peace, even where there used to be hate and violence.

Why is wo used here, and can it refer to something abstract like “where there was violence”, not just physical places?

Yes, wo can refer both to literal places and to situations / conditions.

In the sentence:

• …, auch wo früher Gewalt war.

wo means “where / in places where / in situations where”.

Some patterns:

• Concrete place:
  
  • Dort, wo du stehst, war früher ein Wald.
    – Where you are standing used to be a forest.
• More abstract:
  
  • Er hilft, wo Hilfe gebraucht wird.
    – He helps where help is needed.
  • Sie bringt Hoffnung, wo Verzweiflung herrscht.
    – She brings hope where despair prevails.

So wo früher Gewalt war comfortably covers both physical places (regions, neighborhoods) and a more general idea “in contexts where violence used to dominate.”

Why is it “wo früher Gewalt war” and not “wo früher Gewalt gewesen ist”? What’s the effect of using war?

Both are grammatically possible, but war (simple past) is:

• shorter and more natural in written, narrative style,
• very common with sein (war, waren) for past states.

Nuance:

• wo früher Gewalt war
  – neutral, factual: where there used to be violence.
• wo früher Gewalt gewesen ist
  – grammatically fine, but sounds heavier; you might use it if you want to emphasize a connection to the present, or in spoken emphasis.

In many contexts, German prefers the simple past of sein for past conditions:

• Früher war hier ein Park. – There used to be a park here.
• Wo früher eine Mauer war, ist jetzt ein Garten. – Where there used to be a wall, there is now a garden.

So war is stylistically the smoothest choice.

Why is the word order “auch wo früher Gewalt war” and not something like “auch früher, wo Gewalt war”?

The phrase wo früher Gewalt war is a single subordinate clause introduced by wo. The normal word order inside that clause is:

wo + time adverb (früher) + subject (Gewalt) + verb (war)

So:

• wo früher Gewalt war
  literally: where earlier violence was

If you say:

• auch früher, wo Gewalt war,

then früher is no longer clearly part of the wo-clause; it sounds more like:

• also in earlier times, where there was violence

which slightly changes the structure and emphasis.

The original:

• auch wo früher Gewalt war
  = even in places/situations where there used to be violence

keeps früher tightly attached to “where violence was”, correctly marking the pastness of the violence itself.

Why are there commas before wie and before wo?

German uses commas to mark subordinate clauses.

1. Der Film zeigt, wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können, …

   • The comma before wie introduces a subordinate clause that is the object of “zeigt”:
     
     • Der Film zeigt *was? → wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können.*

2. …, auch wo früher Gewalt war.

   • The comma before wo introduces another subordinate clause (wo früher Gewalt war), attached to the previous idea with auch.

So the structure is:

• Main clause: Der Film zeigt
• Subordinate (object) clause: wie Worte Frieden vermitteln können
• Additional subordinate clause: wo früher Gewalt war

German comma rules:

• You must put a comma before a subordinating conjunction (wie, dass, weil, obwohl, wo, etc.) when it introduces a full clause with its own verb.