Real pedants know monkeys aren’t apes, but apes are monkeys.

This image shows it well, including where other primates fit in

Linnaean taxonomy classifies apes and monkeys as two closely related groups. This is the classification system most people are taught in grade school.

Cladistics is a style of classification that seeks to organize species and groups of species from when they branched off of other groups of species. In this style, everything is defined by novel features, but they are still members of the more ancient clade. Birds for instance, would be a novel clade emerging from Dinosaurs, and thus all birds are also dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.

Because there are two groups of monkeys with unique characteristics (new world and old world), and apes have unique adaptations not found in either group, we have no way of cladistically defining a monkey in a way that meaningfully does not also include apes.

As a side note, this is where the phrase "there is no such thing as a fish" comes from. 'Fish' in the Linnaean sense are a huge and diverse category. Two random members of the fish class would likely be far, far more distantly related than a random mammal and a random reptile.

In taxonomy (the system of biological classification), monkeys (Simiiformes) are an infraorder of the order of primates (Primates). Apes (Hominoidea) in turn are a superfamily within the Simiiformes. It's an "every thumb is a finger, but not every finger is a thumb" situation.

The easiest way to tell the difference is that monkeys have tails and apes don't. Chimps are definitely apes and I'm not sure what OP is getting at.

Also shouldn't it be "monkies"

Du kennst diese Gruppen vermutlich als Affen und Menschen-Affen.

so, frequently people will conflate monkeys and apes, and use the terms interchangably (that's the left end of the graph), people with a bit more knowledge may be aware of the common definition that monkeys have tails while apes do not (that's the middle part), while those with more knowledge of biological taxonomy argue that, since new world monkeys and old world monkeys share a more distant common ancestor than old world monkeys and apes, if we want to define a term 'monkey' that encompasses both new and old world monkeys, it would have to also include all apes (including humans). so, according to the right side of the graph people, chimpanzees are apes are monkeys (though lots of monkeys are not apes, it's a squares and rectangles kinda thing).

apes are squares

Yeah! Screw apes.