Talk:Georg Elser/Archive 1

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)

Mein Kampf is devoid of anyting Christian? Wow, another bizzare claim. I'll have to get back to you on that one but I'm sure you are wrong about it. In some cases their badness is a result of their ideology, such as the intolerance of the dark ages where simply professing a belief that was at odds with the orthodox Christian dogma was enough to get hung upside down on a stake naked, and burned alive (as they did with Bruno). About your comment of my being an Atheist, and thefore no basis for having any morality, this is a prime example of Christian bigory. Not only is my secular humanism fully compatible with ethical constructs, its more universal in nature. Ever read the Universal Declarion of Human Rights? Those are moral codes that have nothing to do with your religious superstitions, and yet give a pretty good basis for declaring things good or bad. Hence your statment of my inablity to do so in non-religious grounds is refuted. Giovanni33 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you think my claim is wrong, but since you don't care about proper definitions of "Christian" you can only see it like this, if anything that can utter the words "Christ" and "Christian" is indeed Christian you'd be right. But you aren't.

My point about morality was that you have no basis for declaring something good or bad - you cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? As laudable as that document is, that's pretty thin ice, don't you think? In what way is that declaration binding, to whom, since when? I agree with Dostoievsky on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, its not thin ice and it proves a basis. I agree with Einstein, "A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."- Albert Einstein, in an article which appeared in New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.

And, to paraphrase Socrates, is something righteous because the gods deem it so, or do the gods deem it so because it is righteous? Fundamentalists argue the former, while humanists (not to mention most polytheistic religions) argue the latter: that morality transcends even the gods. If you lean toward the former, then answer this: since your religion is not universal, then how can a system of morality which requires your religion be universal? The world has many religions, and belief systems that are atheistic, and yet they all have formulated ethical systems. If there is no morality without God, then should we believe that morality doesn't exist in any part of the world until it was converted to one (with a lot of bloodshed, I might add)? Despite what appears to be your religious bigotry, there are certain truths which really do appear to be "self-evident", and which philosophers have discussed for thousands of years in various places all over the world, reaching similar conclusions with no help of "god" or your religious beliefs. I think they were far better off without it.Giovanni33 10:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for the Record

This is not spam. I worked to compile this evidence to counter your claims because I feel its important to set the record straight (against historical revisionism). The following evidence for the record is presented, to refute your claim that "Mein Kampf is devoid of anything Chritian." I have gone through section by section and pulled out only some of the more obvious elements of Hitler's Christianity, as well as provided other evidence. Enjoy. The talk page is not a place for you to start an edit war over your suppression of my right to free speech, here. I suspect you want to supress this evidence because its an effective refutation of your POV. Giovanni33 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"

Related to the above, the "Religion" article in The Oxford Companion to World War II notes that early on in his career, Hitler sponsored something called "practical Christianity," and that "German Christians emerged who claimed to be able to synthesize the best of National Socialism [Nazism] and the best of Christianity. Many Christians seemed to be able to reconcile themselves to at least certain aspects of anti-Semitic legislation. Those who could not . . . often ended up in concentration camps . . . Many anguished Christians serving in the Wehrmacht began to feel a little more comfortable about supporting a war that now included the overthrow of godless communism."

Getting back to quotes, on October 24, 1933, in a speech in Berlin, Hitler said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." In 1938, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech.

In a speech delivered April 12, 1922, published in "My New Order," and quoted in Freethought Today (April 1990), Hitler said: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . . . And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.""

I could probably find more speeches in which Hitler claims himself to be a Christian, but I think the point has been made.

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people." (From Hitler's speech, April 26, 1933, during negotiations which led to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.)

Hitler was baptized a Catholic, attended a monastery school early in life, and was a communicant and altar boy as a youth. During his years as Chancellor and then dictator of Nazi Germany, he was never excommunicated or condemned, even though the Vatican knew much of his policies and activities. The only major complaints from Rome regarded interference in Church matters. And those were largely silenced by the 1933 Concordat with the Vatican, under Pope Pius XII, which to Hitler meant that the Catholic Church recognized the Nazi state. The Nazi military wore belt buckles on which was the legend Gott Mit Uns ("God with us"), and much of his political philosophy was adapted from the Bible. Hitler would not have been successful without the support of German Christians.

The historical record shows that Hitler believed in God and was convinced he was carrying out God's will. Growing up in this environment, he surely learned something of the centuries of discrimination and persecution the Church had supported against Jews in Europe.

Former Jesuit theologian Peter de Rosa describes the groundwork Catholic theology laid for Hitler and the Nazis: "[Catholicism’s] disastrous theology had prepared the way for Hitler and his ‘final solution.’ [The Church published] over a hundred anti-Semitic documents. Not one conciliar decree, not one papal encyclical, bull, or pastoral directive suggest that Jesus’ command, ‘love your neighbor as yourself,' applied to Jews."

Not surprisingly, then, Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf: ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.

Hitler considered himself a Catholic until the day he died. In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church's Index of Forbidden Books.

Hitler's biographer John Toland explains Catholicism's influence on the Holocaust. He says of Hitler: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. . .."

The Protestant influence on Nazi Germany was no better, because Hitler is said to have admired the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, more than any other German. Among Luther's many denunciations of the Jews, there are such religious sentiments as: "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."

When Hitler was asked in 1933 what he planned to do about the Jews, he said he would do what Christians had been preaching for centuries.

Christians constituted a wellspring of support for Hitler. Steve Allen notes that in the 1930s, Nazi Germany "was the most church-affiliated nation in Europe. The German people were almost entirely Catholic and Lutheran. Despite such factors they launched the Holocaust and World War II." Charles Kimball likewise says the Holocaust "would not have happened without the active participation of, sympathetic support of, and relative indifference exhibited by large numbers of Christians."

Also in pre-World War II Germany, corporal punishment was used in the schools and schoolchildren were required to start their days with prayer. Today's advocates of spanking and school prayer should consider that those practices, although supported by religion, proved ineffective in promoting high ethical standards and good behavior among German youth. Further, Nazi Germany's soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us"). Like many tyrants both past and present, Hitler used the mantle of religion to justify and further his selfish, hateful, and destructive philosophy. By conditioning people to blindly accept the pronouncements of authorities, instead of teaching them to think for themselves, religions often make it easy for such evil dictators and demagogues to succeed.

From the Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 2, Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna

I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) (Note: Karl Lueger (1844-1910) belonged as a member of the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party, he became mayor of Vienna and kept his post until his death.)

The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times. -Adolf Hitler speaking about Dr. Karl Lueger (Mein Kampf)

How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: *by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.* -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Volume 1, Chapter 3 General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period

the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Even less could I understand how the Christian Social Party at this same period could achieve such immense power. At that time it had just reached the apogee of its glory. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people. -Adolf Hitler speaking about the leader of the Christian Social movement (Mein Kampf)

In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people. -Adolf Hitler speaking about the leader of the Christian Social movement (Mein Kampf)

Volume 1, Chapter 6, War Propaganda Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

...we must pray to the Almighty not to refuse His blessing to this change and not to abandon our people in the times to come. -Hitler recalling a priest's speech after the defeat of WWI (Mein Kampf)

Volume 1, Chapter 8, The Beginning of My Political Activity To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Volume 1, Chapter 11, Nation and Race

Here, of course, we encounter the objection of the modern pacifist, as truly Jewish in its effrontery as it is stupid! 'Man's role is to overcome Nature!' -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) (Man's dominion over earth appears in Genesis 1:26) ...the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) (See Genesis Chapter 3) ...that is why the prophet seldom has any honor in his own country. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) ("For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country." John 4:44) Volume 2, Chapter 1, Philosophy and Party Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Volume 2, Chapter 5, Philosophy and Organization

Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Volume 2, Chapter 10, Federalism as a Mask

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making *people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated.* For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], *the most devout Protestant* could sit beside *the most devout Catholic,* without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany. -Hermann Goering

---

I swear before God this holy oath, that I shall give absolute confidence to the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people.

-Heinrich Himmler (reminding his hearers about the oath taken by all SS men as well as by the military forces) (The mass murderer Himmler got brought up as a devout Catholic, like young Hitler, and he was careful to attend mass regularly.)

You *Einsatztruppen* (task forces) are called upon to fulfill a repulsive duty. But you are soldiers who have to carry out every order unconditionally. You have a responsibility before God and Hitler for everything that is happening. I myself hate this bloody business and I have been moved to the depths of my soul. But I am obeying the highest law by doing my duty. Man must defend himself against bedbugs and rats-- against vermin. -Heinrich Himmler (in a speech to the SS guards)

---

Julius Streicher, the ninth child of a Roman Catholic primary school teacher, also became a school teacher in Nuremberg. When Hitler got released from prison in December 1924, Streicher hailed Hitler's return to politics as a "gift of God," a judgement the Fuehrer never forgot. Streicher held an enthusiam about allegations that the Jews murdered non-Jews in order to obtain blood for the feast of Passover. He charged that Jews hated Christianity and mankind in general. Streicher went to grotesque lengths in his attacks on Jews claiming the discovery that "Christ was not a Jew but an Aryan."

If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way-- the extermination of that people whose father is the devil... -Julius Streicher (in an article in the newspaper *Der Stu:mer*) Only the Jews, he shouted, had remained victorious after the dreadful days of World War I. These were the people, he charged, of whom Christ said, "Its father is the devil." -Julius Streicher

(See John 8:44, for Christ's accusation of father the devil) Germans must fight Jews, that organized body of world criminals against whom Christ, the greatest anti-Semite of all time, had fought. -Julius Streicher

The pious Catholic parents of Joseph Goebbels raised him and his two brothers in that faith. He spoke of Hitler as "either Christ or St. John." "Hitler, I love you!" he wrote in his diary. A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically-- it is a fact. -Joseph Goebbels (in his attempt to win the eternal gratitude of Hitler)

---

In his Nuremberg cell, Rudolf Hoess told psychologist G.M. Gilbert how he got brought up in a rigorous Catholic tradition: My father was really a bigot. He was very strict and fanatical. I learned that my father took a religious oath at the time of the birth of my younger sister, dedicating me to God and the priesthood, and after that leading a Joseph married life [celibacy]. He directed my entire youthful education toward the goal of making me a priest. I had to pray and go to church endlessly, do penance over the slightest misdeed-- praying as punishment for any little unkindness to my sister, or something like that. When asked if his father ever beat him, Hoess replied that he was only punished by prayer. "The thing that made me so stubborn and probably made me later on cut off from people was his way of making me feel that I had wronged him personally, and that, since I was spiritually a minor, he was responsible to God for my sins.

Alfred Rosenberg stands as the major reason why so many American Christians think Nazism represented Nordic pagan beliefs instead of Nazi Christianity. Hitler chose Rosenberg to create a 'religion of the Blood' knowing that any form of propaganda could prove useful. However, Hitler also attempted to establish a Reich Christian Church for the future of Germany. Hitler, himself, did not believe in pagan cults. Rosenberg charged that the true picture of Jesus had been distorted by fanatics like Matthew, by materialistic rabbis like Paul, by African jurists like Tertullian, and the mongrel half-breeds like St. Augustine. The real Christ, wrote Rosenberg, was an Amorite Nordic, aggressive, courageous, "a man of true Nordic character," a revolutionary who opposed the Jewish and Roman systems with sword in hand, bringing not peace but war (see Matthew 10:34-37). Rosenberg later went on to say that he favored a "positive Christianity," which would purify the Nordic race, re-establish the old pagan virtues, and substitute the fiery spirit of the hero for the crucifixion.

Volume 1, Chapter 12 The First Period of Development of the Nationalist Social German Worker's Party

The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack. -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

(The above statement refutes the common impression that Hitler admired ancient Nordic customs.)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/hitler/hitler1.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-and-religion.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm

Helmreich, Ernst Christian, "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979 Hitler, Adolf, "Mein Kampf," translated by Ralph Manheim, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971 Scholder, Klaus, "The Churches and the Third Reich, Vol 1" Fortress Press, 1977 Scholder, Klaus, "The Churches and the Third Reich, Vol 2" Fortress Press, 1977 Toland, John, "Adolf Hitler," Anchor Books Doubleday, 1976 Macfarland, Charles S., "The New Church and the New Germany," Macmillan Co. Giovanni33 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly won't "enjoy" a misguided compilation (based on low level internet websites) of occurences in which Hitler proved that he could talk Christian language (well, it was more common in these days). That still doesn't make him a Christian in any meaningful sense. Also note, that in quite a substantial number of your points, Hitler doesn't even speak as a Christian. "The Allmighty" is not specifically Christian, lauding words for Lueger are not Christian (Lueger was a Christian, yes, but that doesn't make all his supporters - and whether Hitler was one is another issue - Christians). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it ammusing that you wish to deny Hitler's being a Christian. Are you saying there can not be any real fascists who were real Christians? Would I need to find one that went to church every Sunday, or would you still say it was all an act, a conspiracy to pretend to be Christian? We have no evidence that he was perpetuating a ruse. Even in unguarded moments, he asserted faith in God and Christ. His entire philosophy was thoroughly intertwined with and built upon the religious assumptions of Christian theism. Fascism and religion can merge very nicely together and Christians can happily carry out the worst of crimes including genocide. This is not a happy thought for a Christian, esp. one who thinks that being so gives one some special claim to morality, but it is the reality nontheless. This paper makes the case: The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis by Gregory S. Paul [2] Enjoy.

Giovanni33 12:51, 23 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)

Pretty bizzare comments, Str1977. Elser did not object to fascism? He was not anti-fascist? I'm sure you are anti-fascist, as I a, and most people today. All indications is that Elser was too, during his time. Trying to kill Hitler is a pretty good indication to me, along with the other facts we know about him, such as his joining the communist party, including its militant wing, almost by definition makes him part of the anti-fascists. I totally disagree with you trying to implicate Communism with fascism. The two are opposities. And, since we are dealing with Nazi Germany we are dealing with fasicsm not communism. I acknowlege your POV but its a tiny fringe pov that is not reflected by the mainstream of scholarship in the question of Nazism (which is seen as a varient of Fascism).

I did not excise the union info. I simply moved it around so as not to imply a belittling of his commmitment to the union. Also, I wanted to fix the sentence structure. Since I might have gone based the 3RR rule I will not touch it but I hope someone else can see that there are some sentences in your version that you reverted back to which is awkward English. In particular this sentence that talks about "total claims of nazi education, etc." Its fuzzy, too. Giovanni33 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I concede you that there might be akward English, as I was not at my full capacity when I wrote it. As for your favourite word:

Why do think what I wrote bizarre - I think it bizarre that you do.

You say "we are dealing with Nazi Germany we are dealing with fasicsm not communism" - wrong: since we are dealing Nazi Germany we are dealing with Nazism and nothing else, regardless of how we would classify this movement in regard to other political forces. Using Fascism transfers Elser to Italy. What Elser rejected was Nazism and nothing else.

This is not about the F vs. T debate, but about making a meaningful sentence - you appearently oppose this.

You say "Fascism" and "Communism" are opposites - is that a meaningful sentene in light of what I have written. I didn't implicate the one in the other. What I wrote was that Elser loved freedom and objected to it being restricted, but you appearently believe he only objected to it being restricted under brown auspices and not under red (the USSR had propaganda, total education, no choice of workplace and no unions too). That is what he objected to and to shrink to mere anti-fascism, to eventually put Elser into one boat with Walter Ulbricht is deplorable.

You asked whether I was an anti-fascist. In a way, yes, as I reject Fascism, as well Nazism, Communism and other modern ideologies more rampant today. However, I wouldn't call myself anti-fascist, as this is a loaded term, misused by Communists. Appearently you are unaware of what anti-fascism meant in the early Thirties (may I throw in Social fascism) and how anti-fascism was used after 1945. And I also reject the utterances of some anti-fascists today, especially slogans like "Fascism is not an opinion but a crime". They could also quote Hitker: "Yes, were are intolerant!" We can only hope that people like these never achieve power.

But that all is off-topic here and hence shouldn't be pursued here any further.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not off topic. You are making an argument based on a fringe view that Nazism is not Fasicsm, and I'll cite sources what support my claim and refute all of your claims in defense of my possition. And when you bring up something that is off topic, I then I have a right throughly refute it to pieces, and get the last word, which I'll do a little later with your above arguments. Don't supress my response. Giovanni33 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Gio.

Our discussion on anti-fascism are indeed off topic. And you cannot have a right to something when you lack the ability. Contradiction is not refutation.

You indicate a certain immobility of thoughts on your part. I am not "making an argument based on a fringe view" (that might be true for the Hitler discussion, though I keep up my claims). I am making an argument based on the contents of this article. This article is about Elser and what he opposed - and he didn't oppose Fascism at all (since he was confronted with Nazism, which may or may not be a form of Fascism, but the umbrella term is not needed here), and he didn't oppose these things because of their being Fascist but because they were restricting his and others' freedom. To use an analogy: You may have opposed the Iraq invasion (I did) and you may say: "I oppose this war as a violation of international law". That is a valid statement. But to say: "I oppose this republican war" is not a valid statement, at least it is utterly less informative and not expressing a valid objection (which might still lie behind it, but it isn't expressed). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is about anti-fascism because I say he was opposing fascism in practice. You say "he didn't oppose these things because of their being Fascist but because they were restricting his and others' freedom." Yes, but that is what fascism is---what he was opposing was the very things that makes fascism, fascism, in a practical sense. What you seem to be arguing for is that Elser was rebelling either against 1. Nazism (in which case he was rebelling against fascism), or 2. he was only rebelling against what the Nazis were doing in practice, which affected him (propaganda, his union, their imperialism, plans for world war, etc)---but these things are fascist, commited by fascists and part of fascism. That is what he was rebelling against. To call him anti-fascist is clear esp. when you also add in the fact that he was a leftist (most lefitst are by definition anti-fascist), and that he not only voted for the Communist Party but he joined the militant anti-fascist paramilitary organization. His militant action (which he actually carried out), makes him quite a militant anti-fascist. I know the association with being an anti-fascist and the communists, but that is only because the commies were the most active fighters of the fascists, always bitter enemies, hence the association. It doesn't mean that one who is an anti-fascist need be a commie, but it does mean that if one is a commie, or leftist, then they are anti-fascist. Its not a loaded term. It simple means an activist against fascism. I agree that saying one protests the Iraqi can be done with less precise and descriptive ways but that is not what we I did for Elser. If you are willing to use Nazism to describe what he was rebelling against, then you should not have any objection to saying fascism. Is your using Nazism mean he was an anti-Nazi? Yes, it does. But, then you seem to be arguing he wasn't really against Nazism, he just didn't like some things they were doing. Well the things he objected to and he action he took to try to correct these things makes him to be clearly an opponent of the core of the regime. That makes him decidely anti-nazi, anti-fascist. Giovanni33 12:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now it is you who is conflating Fascism with other systems - as other systems also restrict freedom, so these must be fascist as well. You still don't see the point: this is not about Fascism, but about Elser and what he actually opposed. I don't say that anti-fascists are Commies but that the term has been embraced to death by Communists. I would have no objection against calling him an anti-Nazi, as this term hasn't been misused (it didn't fit the Communist aims, hence they settled for Fascist). He was an opponent of Nazism, which you and others classify as Fascism - but he still didn't oppose an umbrella term but an actual movement, namely Nazism. However, I would oppose the insertion of Nazi in the passage we are talking about as being non-descriptive "he opposed the nazi claims of Nazi education and propaganda", apart from saying one thing twice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of talk page

Giovanni, please don't keep clogging up talk pages and Wikipedia server space with these long, off-topic posts. And since you're bound to disagree about it being off topic, then please don't keep clogging up talk pages and Wikipedia server space with these long posts. It's disruptive, and you've already been blocked twice for misuse of talk pages. Str, as a historian, may have been interested enough to read that whole "evidence for the record" post; I wasn't. Imagine if I started filling talk pages with whole chapters from the Bible. In fact, I know a Wikipedian who did fill talk pages with long quotations, trying to prove his point, and another Wikipedian moved them all to the bottom of the page with an edit summary "creating a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article". On another occasion, following a series of long posts like yours, a Wikipedian wrote something like, "Cripes, XXX has just vomited another long rant on this page. Can't we start deleting his crap on sight? Give him a subpage to rant on, so that we can work on the article?" You can rest assured that none of your Christian opponents, whom you seem to have followed to this page, will attack your dignity in such an unkind manner. I deplored such behaviour when I saw it on other pages. But removal of posts that clearly go against the intended use of talk pages is often done, by ordinary users, by administrators, ArbCom members, and bureaucrats, though repeated removals or replacements could lead to a 3RR block. It's a bit disturbing to see someone so determined to "get the last word". That's not what the Wikipedia talk pages are for. If you really must follow Str from one article to the next, please try at least to focus on article content and not on editor personalities. By the way, I'm not going to report your recent 3RR violation either, or at least, not unless you persist. AnnH ♫ 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My providing extensive evidence to support my claim can not be compared with the quoting whole chapters from the Bible. That would be nonsensical. Also, I did not follow anyone here. I resent the accusation that I'm following others. I guess your trying to make a case for WikiStalking violations now. I'm not naive. Your other charges such that I'm focusing on editor personaliy as opposed to content is also not true. Clealry I'm focusing on content, and my argument is specfic to the argument made by Str1977. That you don't like this evidence is understandable.

The block you mention about talk page use was wrong and another admin told me he did not condone it. My use has always been proper, if a little long on occasion, but all content has been relevant and specific. The admin who blocked me unblocked me. The 3RR, you feel the need to bring this up here although its clearly dated by now, is soemthing Str1977 was also guilty of at the same time, but you and him are close friends and you share his POV, and join in with him to edit war against me when he needs help, hence your coming here to accuse me of these false things. Lastly, I am not aware of any "clogging" going on. I assure you that my postings as an individual has no "clogging" effect, but instead presents good evidence that I hope many people read so as to dispell myths Star1977 and other Christians want to perpetuate. Hitler was a Christian and anyone who says he wan't will find my effective refutation of such a myth.In anycase, most of my messages on talk pages, are considerably short and in keeping with others postings, as I usually able to cite sources by links with a short quote of the relevant point. Giovanni33 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)