Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
::The girl thing shouldn't be overdone, as he was not the "Casanova from the Alb" he is sometimes made out to be, though his "(unintentionally) serial monogamy" wasn't as common (or at least not as accepted) back then as it is today. And something seems to run in the family too. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(smile back)</sup>]] 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
::The girl thing shouldn't be overdone, as he was not the "Casanova from the Alb" he is sometimes made out to be, though his "(unintentionally) serial monogamy" wasn't as common (or at least not as accepted) back then as it is today. And something seems to run in the family too. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(smile back)</sup>]] 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::Well, this doesnt matter for this article but I'll point out not only was Hitler raised a Christian, he professed it throughout his entire life. He Cathlic Church never ex-communicated him, either. also, he was influeced by the strong anti-semitism that pervaded much of Christianity (esp. the right wing variety--Social Christian Pary). His Mein Kampf is full of Christian beliefs. The fact is there are bad and good Christians, just like with adherents to an other belief system. You want to call Elser a Christian because he was good guy, but not the bad ones? Is there such things as bad Christians, or the fact that someone acts imoral makes them not a Christian by definition no matter what they themselves profess? Religion is not so objective so we should accept what people choose to call themselves in regard to their faith. Christians can be just as immoral as non-Christians--it has no impact on moral behavior. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 07:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
:::Well, this doesnt matter for this article but I'll point out not only was Hitler raised a Christian, he professed it throughout his entire life. He Cathlic Church never ex-communicated him, either. also, he was influeced by the strong anti-semitism that pervaded much of Christianity (esp. the right wing variety--Social Christian Pary). His Mein Kampf is full of Christian beliefs. The fact is there are bad and good Christians, just like with adherents to an other belief system. You want to call Elser a Christian because he was good guy, but not the bad ones? Is there such things as bad Christians, or the fact that someone acts imoral makes them not a Christian by definition no matter what they themselves profess? Religion is not so objective so we should accept what people choose to call themselves in regard to their faith. Christians can be just as immoral as non-Christians--it has no impact on moral behavior. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 07:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::Gio, I know this is your mantra that religion is all subjective and hence we should accept self-styling. This pure relativistic nonsense. If you take Mein Kampf at face value, why don't you believe Hitler when he says he was not influenced by Christian anti-Semitism and even rejected it before he met "the man in the caftan". Mein Kampf is devoid of anything Christian. There are such things as bad Christians, but you declare their badness deriving from their Christianity. Of course you, as an atheist, have no basis of declaring anything good or bad, or I won't discuss the morality of Elser, which is not unproblematic with you. Goodday, [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(smile back)</sup>]] 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==several changes== |
==several changes== |
||
Line 181: | Line 183: | ||
:[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(smile back)</sup>]] 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
:[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(smile back)</sup>]] 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
::Lets not speculate about what Elser would have objected to in other places and other times. We don't need to. We know what he did object to. And what he did object to was fascism. That is meaningful correct in this context. Fascism is total in its character: Its relies on propaganda and effects education. He objected to that. He refused to follow in the nationalist madness, by refusing he patriotic salute. He disliked the attacks on the unions. These are all typical fascist actions, which is what he is infact rebelling against. I don't know what Elser would have done in the USSR. It doesn't matter since that is neither here nor there. Let the reader come to his own conclusion. Can you cite something saying that he hated Stalin like he did Hitler, that he felt Stalin should be assasinated or else the world would be thrown into world war? No, you don't. Nothing like that exists. That is in fact the bubble you wish to create, while what I say is concrete and specific and verifiable, and it distinguishes him others given few others were willing to do what he did. Also, I did not remove any valid information such as his reason for joining a union. If you look at my version I stated that clearly, I just restructured the sentence, which I see you basically kept in your version. The way you had used seemed to minimize his reason for joining. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 07:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
::Lets not speculate about what Elser would have objected to in other places and other times. We don't need to. We know what he did object to. And what he did object to was fascism. That is meaningful correct in this context. Fascism is total in its character: Its relies on propaganda and effects education. He objected to that. He refused to follow in the nationalist madness, by refusing he patriotic salute. He disliked the attacks on the unions. These are all typical fascist actions, which is what he is infact rebelling against. I don't know what Elser would have done in the USSR. It doesn't matter since that is neither here nor there. Let the reader come to his own conclusion. Can you cite something saying that he hated Stalin like he did Hitler, that he felt Stalin should be assasinated or else the world would be thrown into world war? No, you don't. Nothing like that exists. That is in fact the bubble you wish to create, while what I say is concrete and specific and verifiable, and it distinguishes him others given few others were willing to do what he did. Also, I did not remove any valid information such as his reason for joining a union. If you look at my version I stated that clearly, I just restructured the sentence, which I see you basically kept in your version. The way you had used seemed to minimize his reason for joining. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 07:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
::Just simply: No! Elser did not object to Fascism - he never had any contact with Fascism, he had contact with Nazism. Fascism is just as "what might be" as Communism would be. |
|||
::You are giving Nazi arguments when calling the "Hitler salute" patriotic. |
|||
::Let the reader come to his own conclusion? You are not doing that. You are meat already chewed and reducing Elser to an anti-Fascist (a highly problematic term to say the least). |
|||
::You did first excise the union info, then you put it in again in another form (which I retained), then you excised it again. |
|||
::Your edit summary "restructure sentence to tie in fascism" shows that you want to push a certain POV. |
|||
::BTW, you have once again violated 3RR - I will not report you now, but if you persist in this I will have to see. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|<sup>(smile back)</sup>]] 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:04, 22 February 2006
Line removed
- During the peak of Hitler's national and international popularity (e.g. Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938), he decided to act.
I removed this sentence. The Time citation wasn't a laudatory approval; it's clear from the 1938 article that Man of the Year in 1938 was a ranking of power and not of 'good people':
- Not the mere fact that the Fuhrer brought 10,500,000 more people [...] under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. [...] More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.
Tempshill 20:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Tempshill: you are totally wrong to have taken that out. it doesn't matter whether the times citation was laudatory. the fact is, hitler was verly clearly a dangerous threat to many people, the times citation spotlights the reality of that. the citation can help us understand the larger geopolitical context of elser's goals and actions. you should change the word "popularity" to "attention" or something like that, if you're so afraid that people will think Time commended hitler. 128.119.132.42 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
conspiracy theory
In the section Arrest and custody: Since 1969 after a reliable study published by historian Anton Hoch from the important Institute für Zeitgeschichte, it is clear that Elser acted completely by himself. There is no evidence, that anyone else was involved in his plans.
His moral courage was even approved by his murderers. This is the conclusion made by Lothar Gruchmann in the Year 1970 who analysed the hundreds of pages of the protocols concerning Elsers police and judicial interrogations which were accurately filed by the Gestapo.
Today, there is no doubt about Elsers moral integrity. The point is, that the conspiracy theories helped many Germans to hide their shame, because so they could claim, that one person alone would have never been able to kill the dictator, so how could they?
The idea that even the SS played a role in the background can be seen as fully nonsense.
My english is too bad to rectify this in the article. In memory of Georg Elser this should be made clear.
From German Wikipedia: Strafrechtler 18:33, 2 Nov 2005 (CET)
Dear Strafrechtler, if you are German (as I think your user name suggests), you can post your concerns in German on my talk page or send me a user mail message. The last time I looked at the article I didn't see conspiracy theories advocated though they were addressed and maybe not sufficently rebutted. So I wouldn't mind having a look into your concerns. Regards, Str1977 19:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Edits by Ip 63... and query by Dr. Dan
Dear Doctor, thanks for your message and your compliments about my language. And thanks for your considerate words despite my revert of your friend 63's edits.
Let me first explain how to communicate on Wikipedia. You can leave messages at an article's or an editor's talk page. All posts should be signed by typing for tildes (~) at the end of your post - this will automatically add your user signature, the date and the time of your post. Through your wiki-linked user name another editor can easily switch to your user/talk page and reply to your posts. Exchanges about articles should be done at the talk page, so that others can read your posts and profit from the content.
Anyway, concerning 63's edits and your comments:
- I agree with his statement "murder, terror,and assassination are either justifiable or not justifiable" (and I think they are not) and don't advocate a double morality that your can do bad to the bad. So, Elser's act was an act of murder, aimed at Hitler but also implicating and actually killing others. I don't advocate distinguishing the victims. My reinclusion of the passage "Seven of the people killed were members of the NSDAP who had taken part in the meeting." was only due to the revert of your friend's edit. Sometimes that some good gets reverted along with the bad. And I think the info is not bad in itself, as it gives only facts, but I see your problem and will remove this sentence (but also the "innocent") it again. In fact, after this passage I removed this sentence: "This made his actions justifyable and less terroristic, since mainly nazis were killed and injured." [1] There is nothin I loathe more in this world than Naziism, but even Nazis are human beings and hence have the same right to life as anyone else. If you look at this edit you will see other "hagiographic" statements I removed - despite my own admiration for the man.
- However, I don't think "terrorist" is an accurate description of Elser or his acts. He meant to kill Hitler in order to prevent/stop the war. This is murder, but it's not terrorism. The terrorist's objective is not so much to kill someone but to strike terror into other people - anarchists tried that in the 19th century, the original IRA around 1920 and now the terrorists in Iraq are doing the same (they are not trying to kill all US troops and "collaborators" but to kill as many so that the Americans will leave and the Iraqis will be too afraid to oppose them). Also, Elser didn't make a habit of killing people except for this special case.
- When I say that I admire Georg Elser that doesn't mean that I am blind to the fact that he's a murderer. And even murdering a tyrant is murder, though there a longlasting debate (since the Middle Ages) about the moral quality of tyrannicide in Christian morality.
- You're right - WP should not be not be a forum for propaganda of any stripe - in fact I'm involved in a major confrontation with another editor who is doing just that.
- Your friend removed "Through this job he came into knowledge of the Nazis' rearmament program", but this is a perfectly neutral statement that is important and has its place in this article, unless your friend claims that it's factually incorrect.
- Your friend included "an out of wedlock son" - it's true that he was born out of wedlock and I'm not aiming at denying that, though the article already says "girlfriend", but I don't think it's essential to explicitely mention that. (And no, I am not Manfred Niedermann. My user name gives you my birth year. You can work out the difference.)
- Your friend replaced "Though he was not a Communist" with "Although he was not a member of the Communist Party" - I guess he was misunderstanding the meaning of the passage: the fact is that Elser was not only not a party memeber but he also was no Communist in his political thinking, hence "that was where his political sympathies lied" is too general a statement. But he thought that the Communists were "the best defenders of workers' interests" - that should not be read as saying that his opinion was true - it certainly wasn't true, but that's what he thought (BTW: I wasn't the first to post this opinion of Elser and I haven't been able to check whether it's accurate, but it doesn't sound impossible. If it were proved to be factually wrong, it should be removed).
- Your friend replaced "by his longing for personal freedom" with "by his Marxist political associations" - the two are hardly identical, are they? His working class views is one thing, his longing for personal freedom another. To state this is not POV, though I see that the wording is a bit dramatic.
- There is absolutely no reason for your friend to delete "As a devout Protestant Christian he also deplored the growing restrictions on religious freedom" - It is a well known and essential fact about Elser. This fact is not liked by some leftists editor (hence the German Wikipedia didn't have it), but to exclude this is to misrepresent Elser.
- Your friend removed the reference to the Kristallnacht, but again, this is essential as it was the event which made Elser decide to do something.
- Your friend removed "During these preparations, World War II started on 1 September, 1939, which proved his estimations correct" - again, this is a fact. If you consider my anti-hagiographic edit (see the link above) you can see what others can make of this if they don't care about NPOV - but to simply state that his prediction became true is not POV.
- I deleted the comparison to Timothy McVeigh because it does not contribute anything to an understanding of either McVeigh or Elser.
- Some smaller bits I will correct, unless they have been already corrected. (Though neither-nor is correct IMHO - and it has also passed Ann's edit).
If you (or 63...) have anymore questions, please feel free to post them here on my talk page. Cheers, Str1977 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind greetings. Since I know very little about Elser, I will get back to you on your detailed remarks after doing a little research on the topic. I had a big argument with my friend for using my computer to express points of view that do not coincide with my own. Originally he was only to check emails, etc., until he replaced his broken computer. I explicitly told him not to buy anything from my computer, nor to visit "chat rooms" or the like. As a consequence, he will have to make contact with you from another source, as he is "persona non grata", for failing to do so, and is "banned" from using my computer. This is ironic, since he introduced me to Wikipedia in the first place. And yes, we are still friends all the same.
A quick glance at the Elser article however, gives me pause, because it is in fact not scholarly and quite "propagandistic", in my opinion. I will expound on why I think so, after I do some more research on the subject. My friend is the one who wrote some "hyperdulia" on Elser, in order to smoke out the source of what he called "lesser hyperdulia and sympathetic propaganga about Elser". I think he is correct to some extent, that you have interjected many superfluous facts, many that should be documented or removed. This goofy "smoking out of the source", is precisely the kind of mind game that I deplore, when sharing different viewpoints with others. Not only did I tell my friend this, as I'm telling you also, but told him if he looked in the Hitory of the article, he would see the evolution of the article as it has changed. In truth, the article took a very differnt turn when you added a lot of information on September 12, 2005, which can be challenged, as to where this information came from. An example is when you added that Elser was not a Communist. This in contradiction to your earlier comment to me on the talk page, that he was in fact a Communist. Which is it? Have to go now. More later.Dr. Dan 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Dan,
that explains the over-the-top nature of the hyperdulia edit.
I think my edits on September 12 are quite justified. I removed terms like "anti-fascist" as they are tainted by Communist propaganda and IMHO not appropriate in regard to an opponent to Nazism (which is not Fascism). The rest was merely rewording.
The "though not a Communist" passage I translated from the German wikipedia, even though the previous editors there had tried to paint him all red as well. However, to portray Elser as a Comumunist is untrue.
Elser was not a Communist in the sense that he adhered to Communist ideology or that he wanted to turn Germany into a Soviet-state. Neither was he a member of the KPD, only of the Rotfrontkämpferbund. He voted Communist and he had his reasons for doing so
I object to the allegation that I included "superfluous facts" - they are facts and have some bearing on his personality.
Str1977 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Elser's goal
the wiki says that elser had nostradamusian foresight about world war 2. does anyone else think this is silly? the wiki makes it seem like Elser's goal was to stop world war 2 from happening. the argument is quite weak: "due to his knowledge of German Foreign Policy [he attempted to assassinate hitler.]" this is silly. ok, he was appalled at the pogrom, and thought hitler was a dangerous terrible man. but that's entirely different from simply having some magical foresight of ww2 and wanting to stop it. User:128.119.132.42 22:06, 2 December 2005
The current article says nothing of that kind. It only says that Elser considered Hitler a warmongerer after he saw the destruction of the Kristallnacht. And he decided to prevent such a disaster. There's nothing magical about. I don't want to draw any parallels (as they would be preposterous for all the rest), but some people thought, when Bush became president that he would make on Iraq sooner or later. And that's what came to pass. Str1977 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup Badly Needed
I have wanted to cleanup this article for a while, but haven't had the time to do so. It's a mess both from its atrocious grammar and syntax, and its ridiculous propagandistic perpective. I suppose much of the article's problem stems from a poor German translation of its German counterpoint in Wikipedia. I haven't bothered to look, and my German isn't good enough to be certain that this is entirely the case. If I'm correct, however, that may explain its childish and disconnected tone. I like Wikipedia. I like it a lot. I have taken my limited available time when using it, to correct grammar, spelling, remove vandalism, and put it on a more scholarly plane. In otherwords, make it comply with the idea of its being an encyclopedia, and not a springboard for crackpots and propagandists, of any stripe. Looking at the history of the article, it's lamentable that the original, initial entry could not be left alone. It had the facts, and the whole Elser story could be told as in a lexicon, short and sweet. But that was not to be. "Editors" decided that this murderer and thug, and yes Terrorist, needed to somehow be brought forth in a warm and Gemütlickheit format, with nonsense that does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm not against expanding articles, in fact the more useful and verifiable knowledge that can be brought to the table the better. But at some point, superflous information need not be added. His playing of the double bass for the local choir and also on dancing occasions, would put a tear in Walter Ulbricht's eye. In other words, whether or not Elser's grandmother liked apple strudel, need not be added to this article. And whether Elser was in a "tracht" club , or could play the "cithara", are also not relevant to the historical scope of this article. Stand back from the article, read it and ask yourself, What's really being written here? Unless of course this editor likes apfelstrüdel and is in a "tracht" club him or herself.
- I can see where a biography might include this information, but not in a shorter encyclopedic article. Personally, whether or not Hitler loved his mother, his dog, or "liverdumpling soup", have about the same relevancy to me as to whether or not Luther had hemmorhoids, in the context of their historicity.
- I do not want crypto nazis to take heart by my future edit of this article. I have no use for them or Hitler. I will say however, that I want the historical unbiased facts presented to me, on all subjects, at all times.
Terrorist
If Elser's actions took place in Stockholm yesterday, would anybody in their right mind deny that he was a terrorist? If he missed killing the King of Sweden, or the Prime Minister of Sweden, and killed eight "innocent" people instead, would they object to the term innocent being included in the description of events? I rather think not. So here we go again with the BIG BAD HITLER, and the BIG BAD NAZIS, and apply the old double standard to them. "Terrorist" and "Innocent" out. Why, because the editor doesn't like the terms. So Str1977, what were these eight people guilty of? There was an irrelevant inclusion of Timothy Mcveigh, in the article that was deleted. I don't have a problem with this, but on the other hand, is it right to say Elser was not a terrorist, because he only did it once? Can one say that McVeigh was not a terrorist because he only did it one time? (read above discussion).
"Morality" of Tyrannicide
Those who will disagree with me, will say that you can't take Hitler out of the equation. "Sic Semper Tyrannis", they will say. I say, don't forget that America's most famous assassin, John Wilkes Booth, cried out this very slogan after shooting Lincoln. Needless to say there are no monuments to him, and very few articles telling us that he liked to dance or play the harmonica. Which causes me to digress, albeit vulgarly, and say Booth had the "balls" to shoot Lincoln and get the job done. Both Elser, Stauffenberg, and the other " hitler attentat failures" did not, and they killed innocent people. I think a victim or two of Stauffenberg's were actually sympathetic to the July 20 conspiracy. Enough said. Tyranncide is a euphemistic code word for killing someone you disagree with, and then hope enough people agree with you, after the fact. Some people think Hitler was a tyrant, and Stalin was not. Some people think Stalin was a tyrant, and Hitler was not. Some people think they both were tyrants. Some people don't think at all. So much for "tyrannicide, at least for now.
Pending Edit
As I began this discussion, I intend to do a massive edit on this article. It is more because of its childish and nonsensical grammar and style, than because of its propagandistic bent. But I will address that problem too. So a call for help! Before writing this discussion piece, I looked into Elser. I found nothing connecting him to Kristallnacht other than a lame movie by Karl Maria Brandauer. Is this the source for this inclusion, of Kristallnacht, being part of the impetus to his actions? I hope not. What then is the source then, please? Next, what is the source for the remark "as a devout Protestant Christian..."? This was deleted and re-added. The editor says this "fact" is well known and "essential" information. In light of the fact, that he was a member of the communist equivalent to the nazi "stormtroopers", and voted communist, this seems a bit incongruous. I could not find this well known and essential information. Where can I find it? Please don't tell me in the Wikipedia article on Elser, either, ha,ha. Lastly, Elser and this article, are a lot less important to me than might be made out from my comments. My adherence to principles make me to some extent, go against some of my inner feelings about the events of November 8, 1939, but historical objectivity first. One can muse about Opinions over wine, beer, or milk by the fireplace, (or on the Wikipedia discussion page), not in the article.Dr. Dan 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What an extraordinary interchange. Word of advice to all: cool it. Dr Dan: get off your high horse about 'checking spelling and grammar'. Your rant is full of mistakes in both categories, as well as containing a German misuse and misspelling. To the others: please don't bait Dr Dan, it'll only make things worse.
The purpose of any encyclopaedia article is to present the facts, and nothing else. I don't know if Elser was devout or not. If you want to include this, add a citation, so we can work out for ourselves whether to rely on it or not. The term 'terrorist' is loaded, especially these days, especially in the US where it has become politically charged in daily discourse. Elser's was an assassination attempt against Hitler. It failed, though there were other casualties. He was arrested, interrogated, imprisoned and ultimately executed on Hitler's direct order. That's it. It is not the encyclopaedia's role to tell us whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, though it may be telling that a contemporary thought it was a good thing or a bad thing.
Can we all behave now, please? 86.129.111.27 14:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously when one disagrees with a different viewpoint, it's easy to dismiss it as a "rant". Probably even more so, when they cannot come up with the necessary proof of the sources being questioned.
I suppose my detractor would prefer incorrect grammar and spelling to remain in Wikipedia's articles? (by the way, no comment from them about the quality of the Elser article)
Sorry, that my German inclusion was not up to your standards. One thing I do agree with, is that the purpose of any encyclopedia article is to present the facts, and nothing else. The Elser article deviates from this principle quite dramatically. And as to Elser's Guru-like "knolwedge" of German foreign policy, and its re-armament program. Please, give us a break. "Nach der Tatsache alle wissen wir Besser". Or, the concept of "the Monday Morning Quarterback," has been applied rather heavily.
Yeah, don't "bait" Dr. Dan. Stop the discussion! On Elser: "He was arrested, interrogated, imprisoned and ultimately executed on Hitler's direct order. That's it." Why discuss it any further? That might improve the article, or correct errors in it. We wouldn't like that, would we?Dr. Dan 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Dan,
I perfectly I agree with you on grammar issues. If you see something wrong in grammar or style, please improve it.
As for rant, I agree that it is no argument. And having experience with ranting editors I can say that your "rant" isn't so bad that your point cannot be understood.
However, as for the content of your "rant" (sorry, if I keep on using it, I mean it tongue-in-cheek, ok?) I have to disagree:
- The private details (cithara, Tracht) may not be of interest to you, and they may not be what GH is notable for, but they are nonetheless part of his life. I admit they were included from the German Wiki but nothing what I know of the man contradicts this. Unless this information were factually incorrect, it has a place in this article. It is sort of a biography and need not be a short encyclopedia article - WP has more space than a printed work. And IMHO the Elser article is not frightenly long (when editing it does not even warn about its size).
- I currently see now propagandistic bent in the article. There was one when he was portrayed as a die-hard communist and "anti-fascist", and I haven't seen anyone (except your friend) attributing GE with super-powers. And in Elser's case it isn't knowledge from hindsight.
- The passage about innocent victims vs. Nazis was wrong and it wasn't me who included it first.
- The Kristallnacht and his faith are historical facts, though right now I can give you no reference, as for me as a historian it's general knowledge.
- I know the film by Klaus Maria Brandauer, but I certainly wouldn't base anything on a work of art (other editors on WP might, I don't).
- I can't see that he is made a hero so much. Yes, he is not portrayed as negative as Tim McVeigh but there are reasons for that. Which leads us to ...
- Tyrannicide. This concept has been debate since the middle ages (or actually since ancient times, but I'm basing myself on Christian morality right now). I cannot give you a clear-cut answer (except that the Sorbonne was always biased) and the concept certainly is problematic. It is also true that there might be subjective views on "who's a tyrant and who isn't". And hence the assassin bears the responsibility of being completely wrong in his estimation. But the question whether someone is a tyrant is not completely subjective. Look at Hitler, look at Lincoln and you will see some differences. (And Tim McVeigh is completly different since he did not try to assinate President Clinton).
- I don't think GE is a terrorist in the actual sense of the word (with the primary intent of spreading fear), and certainly in current circumstances the word is a bit inflammatory.
- I don't consider him a thug anymore as I would consider someone a thug who saved someone by shooting an attacker. GE has not been going around all the time, bombing other people. Granted, an assassin might be a misguided idealist (as McVeigh possibly was), but that doesn't make him a thug.
- I also want to protest against to cavalier dismissal of Stauffenberg. It was he alone (of all who had access to Hitler) that had the guts to place the bomb (and that with one eye and three fingers missing). Trouble was that he was also needed in Berlin - one of the reason for the failure. And you are forgetting (or probably have never heard about) the forty other failed attempts on Hitler's life, including shooting him.
- Now all these attempts have to be seen in the light of tyrannicide theory. If you reject that concept, you will of course also reject Elser and Stauffenberg etc., but you will have to reject a great deal more. At WP we are not telling readers what to think (neither this way nor that way), but we can provide the facts, the motivations etc. And that's what the article is doing right now.
PS. "If thy right hand offends thee, cut it off"(Mt 5,30 - KJV), means that attaing salvation is supreme over anything and that you should be willing to suffer damage or sacrifice even your most prized possessions if it is a hindrance or a seduction. A more modern translation is "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." (RSV) (Now, the "being maimed" in paradise is of course figurative speech, as I don't think "glorified bodies" can have effective injuries). There were cases in which this verse was followed to literally, most famous in the case of Origen, controversial even during his day. Hope that helps.
Str1977 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Str1977, Thanks for your comments and opinions. You are a gentleman, and even when we disagree, I like your style and attitude. You say you admire Elser. This seems odd to me. If you go back to your much earlier assessment of right and wrong, you claim even nazis are humans and do not deserve Georg Elsers. I do not admire him, and have hopefully told you why, more than once. By the way I'm aware of the many plots against Hitler, and do not "cavalierly" dismiss Stauffenberg. His lack of courage to shoot Hitler was more based on self preservation, than his needed presence in Berlin. Incidentally having seven fingers and one eye, doesn't necessarily give you more "guts", than having ten and two. But enough of Stauffenberg. He can be discussed at another time on his own page, along with his co-conspirators. As I remember, many of them didn't have a problem with Hitler in July 1940, when the were made Field Marshalls.
Back to Elser, If I challenge the inclusions that he was a "Devout" Protestant Christian, and that Kristallnacht was an impetus to his actions, I'd like the sources for those statements. If you can't produce them, I too as a historian, see a large problem with their presence in the article. You say you are a historian and this is general knowledge. General knowledge to whom and where can it be found?
You say that only my friend questioned GE's supernatural powers. Did you forget the above by- line ELSER'S GOALS. The point made there was rather cavalierly (thought the word cavalierly, would be appreciated by you), tossed aside by you.
Lastly Lincoln, Hitler, Booth, Elser and Mcveigh, are not the same, and the only difference is not the name.(not a poem) I don't feel they are inappropriate analogies to concepts we have discussed. Not any less than your inclusion of Bush and Iraq, anyway. p.s. liked the Origen tip. By the way thanks also for if the right hand offends thee, comments. Do you agree with that?Dr. Dan 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I should have to do some digging to provide the references you asked for.
It's late so I want to clarify only one more thing: I didn't meant that your friend alone questioned GE's super powers, but that only your friend claimed super powers for GE (albeit, if I understand it correctly, in irony). The other editor (Elser's goals) slipped trhough my mental fingers and in my mind I linked his comments with yours. So that makes two. Still, IMHO the current wording, to me, don't suggest super powers but only an open eye. Of course things could have turned out differently and he would have been wrong. I remember providing, in an earlier post, the analogy of someone in early 2001 saying that "Bush will wage war on Iraq". Would that person be a clairvoyant, a conspiracy nutter or clear-sighted. Sure, all three options are possible and there are specimen of all three around. And so it was, IMHO, in Hitler's day too. (Disclaimer: In no way shape or form do I want to imply any connection or similiarity between Hitler and Bush and the respective wars. And is meant in earnest!)
Goodnight, Str1977 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Good Morning! Please keep digging for the requested sources. Since you say that you are a historian and it is "General Knowledge", it shouldn't be all that hard to produce them. I've always thought general knowledge is more like World War I began in 1914, or the capital of France is Paris. Or maybe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Still waiting. Dr. Dan 05:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
References and overhaul
To whom it may concern, especially Dr. Dan:
here is a list of books I consulted:
- Lothar Gruchmann (ed.), Autobiographie eines Attentäters Johann Georg Elser, Stuttgart 1970 - basically the protocoll of his testimony.
- Lothar Gruchmann & Anton Hoch, Georg Elser: Der Attentäter aus dem Volke, Frankfurt 1980 - includes Gruchmann's edition of the testimony and Hoch's article Das Attentat au Hitler im Müncher Bürgerbräukeller 1939, originally published 1969 in VjHZ.
- Helmut Ortner, Der Einzelgänger, Rastatt 1989.
- Hellmut G. Haasis, "Den Hitler jag' ich in die Luft", Berlin 1999.
The article is basically correct, but a few minor changes regarding his biography are in order, especially regarding his private life, women & his son (he and the mother split after Manfred's birth), jobs, religion (devout overstates it, but that's a common mistake in the English language). I will see into these changes in a short while.
Str1977 (smile back) 11:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Dr. Dan 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, he is knowns as a ladies man, but I felt this was too trivial to include. You will notice I got rid of the devout, aspect. He was a leftist but of a pragmatic sort, a man of action and not an intellectual so he did go to Church regularly. We was for personal freedoms in general (detested both the restriction on the labor unions as well as religious freedoms), so his being protestant is necessarily connected as the language had implied. Hiter himself was a Christian, as was most of country, which accomodated fascism and Hitler. Giovanni33 23:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- As you might expect, I disagree on the Christianity of Hitler, except if you refer to it as a shell to be filled. Granted, Hitler was not the only one. And please, keep your niceties a la "he was no intellectual so he went to church". Both are true, but there were Christian intellectuals and intellectual Christians around as well. But probably not in Königsbronn. But to get back to the point: Leftist I think yes, but not in any really political or even Marxist way, but rather with the attitude of the countryfolk who value their freedom and mistrust the "big heads" (as Bavarians would say).
- The girl thing shouldn't be overdone, as he was not the "Casanova from the Alb" he is sometimes made out to be, though his "(unintentionally) serial monogamy" wasn't as common (or at least not as accepted) back then as it is today. And something seems to run in the family too. Str1977 (smile back) 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this doesnt matter for this article but I'll point out not only was Hitler raised a Christian, he professed it throughout his entire life. He Cathlic Church never ex-communicated him, either. also, he was influeced by the strong anti-semitism that pervaded much of Christianity (esp. the right wing variety--Social Christian Pary). His Mein Kampf is full of Christian beliefs. The fact is there are bad and good Christians, just like with adherents to an other belief system. You want to call Elser a Christian because he was good guy, but not the bad ones? Is there such things as bad Christians, or the fact that someone acts imoral makes them not a Christian by definition no matter what they themselves profess? Religion is not so objective so we should accept what people choose to call themselves in regard to their faith. Christians can be just as immoral as non-Christians--it has no impact on moral behavior. Giovanni33 07:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Gio, I know this is your mantra that religion is all subjective and hence we should accept self-styling. This pure relativistic nonsense. If you take Mein Kampf at face value, why don't you believe Hitler when he says he was not influenced by Christian anti-Semitism and even rejected it before he met "the man in the caftan". Mein Kampf is devoid of anything Christian. There are such things as bad Christians, but you declare their badness deriving from their Christianity. Of course you, as an atheist, have no basis of declaring anything good or bad, or I won't discuss the morality of Elser, which is not unproblematic with you. Goodday, Str1977 (smile back) 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
several changes
I will let my changes speak for themselves, and will gladly respond to any points of contention here regarding them. Basically the article was a little short so I added some more detail. I also made changes where generality could be replaced with specifics, or more precise terms. I also tried to remove any POV insinuations, while keeping the same factual content. Overall the article was accurate, and I was happy to not see any of the conspiracies theories. Giovanni33 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on the conspiracy theories. As for your edits, I integrated them into my overhaul (which is still thin on Elser's pre-assassin biography), but I couldn't retain "Fascist" in "Fascist claims" in this context, as Elser did not deplore the political orientation of the government (which still would be better called Nazi) but the total-totalitarian nature of the claims in regard to education and schools. If you don't like totalitarian because it might suggest an adherence to the "theory of tolitarianism", then think of a better word along the lines of total, all encompassing, comprehensive. Fascist doesn't work here at all. Str1977 (smile back) 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with all your changes except your using totalitarianism and not fascism. Fascism encompassing; its typified by its attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, in much the same way that totalitarianism puprports, but without the troublesome problems the latter theory has (which is why it should be avoided, unless specifically dealing with its ideology). That Nazism is a form of fascism is generally accepted in the mainstream of scholarship on Nazi Germany. Elser's objections, esp. to the attacks on the trade unions, indicates his detestment of fascism in particular the trade untions are prime targets for the fascists, along with all leftists, of which Elser was. Giovanni33 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, no, no, no. Do you think Fascism (and given the fact that we are only dealing with Germany here, we could also say Nazism) is the only ideology that restricts these things? Do you think we would have yelled "Hail Stalin!" if the Bolshevils would have done the same? I don't think so. By using "Fascist" you are basically ridding the passage of any meaning - it turns into an empty "He rejected Fascism" bubble. I have repeatedly asked you to suggest a better alternative, if you don't like the word totalitarian. Since you will not cooperate I will do it myself. But fascism is wrong and meaningless in this context.
- Also, I object to your removal of valid information, such as his motive for joining the union.
- Str1977 (smile back) 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Lets not speculate about what Elser would have objected to in other places and other times. We don't need to. We know what he did object to. And what he did object to was fascism. That is meaningful correct in this context. Fascism is total in its character: Its relies on propaganda and effects education. He objected to that. He refused to follow in the nationalist madness, by refusing he patriotic salute. He disliked the attacks on the unions. These are all typical fascist actions, which is what he is infact rebelling against. I don't know what Elser would have done in the USSR. It doesn't matter since that is neither here nor there. Let the reader come to his own conclusion. Can you cite something saying that he hated Stalin like he did Hitler, that he felt Stalin should be assasinated or else the world would be thrown into world war? No, you don't. Nothing like that exists. That is in fact the bubble you wish to create, while what I say is concrete and specific and verifiable, and it distinguishes him others given few others were willing to do what he did. Also, I did not remove any valid information such as his reason for joining a union. If you look at my version I stated that clearly, I just restructured the sentence, which I see you basically kept in your version. The way you had used seemed to minimize his reason for joining. Giovanni33 07:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just simply: No! Elser did not object to Fascism - he never had any contact with Fascism, he had contact with Nazism. Fascism is just as "what might be" as Communism would be.
- You are giving Nazi arguments when calling the "Hitler salute" patriotic.
- Let the reader come to his own conclusion? You are not doing that. You are meat already chewed and reducing Elser to an anti-Fascist (a highly problematic term to say the least).
- You did first excise the union info, then you put it in again in another form (which I retained), then you excised it again.
- Your edit summary "restructure sentence to tie in fascism" shows that you want to push a certain POV.
- BTW, you have once again violated 3RR - I will not report you now, but if you persist in this I will have to see. Str1977 (smile back) 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)