Talk:Adam von Trott zu Solz

message: nice article already, not that stubby any more. the correct spelling of the name is 'Adam von Trott zu Solz', i will create a redirect soon. High on a tree 12:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: stub, spelling

message: Nice page, good info although more on family ties perhaps?
I would be very interested to research whether Adam von Trott zu Solz was a family member ( my name is Emanuel William Stephen Solz)born 1966 in South Africa
*It's probably an "interesting" fact that he was 3G-grandson of John Jay, President of the Continental Congress and first Chief Justice of the United States... - Nunh-huh 21:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family member ??? 

message: Why  should you accuse me of simplification and un-reasonableness concerning the use  
of abandon or continuewhen you  take opportunities to support the thesis in general 
(and your presence over time on that page without questioning it could suggest support)? 
You seem to have some deep interest in this subject as whilst you offer repeatedly to change
the text as presented you won't allow that it is actually wrong, so your offer is a
conditional one requiring a diminution of real facts ,that I have referred to, down to 
the level of a POV. The offer was made by von Trott twice to Ripka as the Czech conduit 
and as you seem to be well aware , it  was being made by him directly to those in power and  
presumably his hosts knew about  this offer and encouraged him (another can of worms, 
there which won't go away, will it?). This is not a Grant Duff issue(she is referred to as Grant Duff in all books ) is it? It is a von Trott issue.  You suggest that might it be von Trott presented something  to  the Prime Minister . Either he did or he didn't, I am referring to eye-witness reports anfd you are referring to speculation . Always  revisionism can return to this catch-all that " he might have been shot" . Every other man  in the street was getting shot at shortly afterwards and in fact  as a consequence of Chamberlains appeasements.  I fear , I'm sorry  to have to say, that it is again a subject of well-known dispute what you have to  mention about von Trott in  regard  to anti-semitism . There was always widespread suspicion about  von Trott  which has been continuous ever since his denial of  German  anti-semitic activities in  the Manchester Guardian in the  early  thirties  .  This showed  not anti-semitism to his friends  but gullibility tinged with a nationalist's inability to reason .  
German  revisionism  emanates from two fronts: the  national need for redemption in Germany ( and to non -Germans the  Treskow line appears  more redemptive in both thought and in action); and from  the actual  survivors or descendants of  appeasers who cannot bring themselves to accept that it was wholly wrong.  I repeat that your readers should beware and  it must be said that revisionism isn't just perpetrated  by  Holocaust denial  but also by the modest little nibbles and bites which are almost invisible to the unaware yet add up to a generalised changing of emphasis. I find this appears even within the Churchill wiki pages and I am shocked .  The reader of the future gradually comes to receive the required picture, history is whitewashed and we can all sleep easier in our beds, can we ? I'm sorry that   the Adam von Trott story and dispute is not left but perennially raised  and in fact the central schizm between von Trott and Grant Duff remains . That impossibility of somehow buying off German, excuse me, German demands . 
Oh yes ! Versailles , let's get on to Versailles soon, after we have done with the Jews  perhaps. There has been revisionism there since it's very signing  and I can tell you now that Grant Duff is not half tough enough about that. No, I refer your readers to Edgar Ansel Mowrer-SGD's boss when she worked in the Paris office of the Chicago Daily News -a man  who should have a whole section devoted to his un-paralled analysis from his first -hand experience of the rise of Nazism and Fascism  Lastly  ,as to your points  about my incorrect  because supposedly nationalist and anti-German thinking ,well , after a little perusal around this encyclopedia I can see that  one has oneself to provide balance and that it is very needed certainly within this period of history and being such a new open and interactive medium of storage , that it is open to abuse of the kind I found on von Trott's page . 
Yet I still strongly maintain that whilst the Wiki presented the error or distortion or whatever we call it  and that the word even were it to be  changed  ,as I have tried to explain,  does not at all reflect on von  Trott's justification for the shameful offer-ie. that in the light of say, his belief that an assassination attempt(well,at this stage the actual death of Hitler was still hard for many Christians to justify, itself a cause of delay and failure as you know) it was perfectly understandable if he used this just as a purely  tricking activity to await the imminent coup . We know he did partly  think this and it is to his eternal credit but we also know some of this thinking aligned to such a solution as(the Coup) was also tinged with many shades of unacceptability , stemming largely  from a Versailles  revisionism and a generalised  pre nazi  militarist  slanted educational and national conciousness. I repeat , the offer was made  . The offer had it's reason( & Ripka thought it bore the hallmarks of Goering's devious mind). Do you want to comprommise on that , because the only way to do so would be to simply write abandon/continue. I cannot treat this as an etiquette issue  however , or consider that civility should reign over fact . The Wikipedia has a problem which is the same problem that Grant Duff faced  . There is  a need  by some factions  (who need not be specified though I supply  this note in the interests of educational clarity )to re-write history . They try and do so . At length and under multifarious and apparently innocent guise , and it is very dangerous . And what do one do about it ? I talked earlier about unacceptable fact . What you do is uncover as much as possible the mind of man , analyse the factors social and , religious,political and historical that lead to tragedy  ,in order not to repeat it . You don't distort it , don't chip away and belittle the facts unless you have a reason . 
I repeat that it is very understandable that Trotts terrible martyrship should be portrayed as completely the result of unequivocal goodness . I can revere  that innate goodnes and believe  that it was genuine but  , can I accept that people who come after him should so much need to gain their strength from it as to be allowed to revise also some essential and important facts and factors? Von Trott himself would not want that .
It is the case that  resistance studies exist , as they are bound to , but  I saw  in Wiki a heading earlier emboldened   to  resistance fighters . There may have been  but we don't seem to know much about them nor how many because it is an abuse of language and of the Wikpedia. Obviously hundreds of thousands were arrested and incarcerated and tortured and enslaved, even experimented on. But insurrectionaries shooting at cavalcades ? It returns too much  to the overall subject, not the subject of Trott , but to the subject of revisionism by stealth , and  its' requirements  for cultural reasons ( the unacceptability  of facts). Your final justification from one who didn't make the error  in the  von Trott  wikipage is however interesting because it does open the von Trott mind and the resulting analysis that this poor  Martyr of a man has further had to suffer . I  refer to the plethora of books written about him  in two languages  which because of the ,to Trott tangential , issue of left-wing, right-wing  thinking bring us back to the scandal of appeasement. Rightly  ,indeed,the  German resistance   is questioned  inside  and outside Germany  on this score and rightly your readers should be aware of these factors as motives now for this nibbling revisionism .  The diplomacy conducted in this era should be examined under the facts of this matter , everyone's motives should be open for examination and dissection .  So we go back into conspiracies that are never far from the usual  families of course, & which require persistent minor manipulations  of  revision to obfuscate facts and scandal un-useful to said interests. It could be that your readers might not have thought about this,and that I rant or it could be that I serve a useful purpose of enabling already suspecting and unhappy minds with a rope,say, across a chasm . Yes , this history really , really stinks  !  And we don't know as much as we should  but this need to revere Trott must be tempered with questioning if it can lead us to real culprits rather than at all think that this fine individual represents culpability that he does not. Von Trott maintained the values  of his background , tempered with his insertion into an international sphere and we all know what happened to him for trying his best . This is not to say that his views were correct. He held them for himself  and for the circumstances pertaining to his life and  he was perhaps not a free man whether because of  The Third Reich or because of his duty to his Family . Mind you , how free are each of us ? Don't we all largely and through  multifarious  plural reasoning stand by finishing our sand-wiches whilst actual people are clobbered and tortured today  and every day ? 
This scheme in  mid-1939 is revealing on many levels and  von Trott does not constitute the most important aspect . Nothing is settled about any of this period. The Wikipedia presentation of the era leading up to the Munich settlement is by no means satisfactory but leaves out the major fact that by the British and  (get this further sign of intolerance) The French abandonment of  their cast-iron ally Czechoslovakia , Hitler gained a vast extra store and workshop of armaments all used to great effect by German soldiery far and wide.  
We should thank you for poking the old dog with a stick really ! 15:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeasement

message: I couldn't understand a single word of the last paragraph. It has long and winding sentences and has grammatical and spelling error.
Pranesh Bhargava 13:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph 

message: Since the page hasn't been edited by anyone in over a week, I'm making a note here of some changes I'm making.  I've added some sources, more modern ones, than Chritopher Sykes's book, which was written 45 years ago, and is severe on Bose, and not considered unbiased. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding some sources 

message: It has a 2009 notice that it needs citations. It looks like it's been expanded with citations since then. Note: Many of the citations are corroborated by Marie Vassiltchikov's (aka Maria Vasilchilkova): Berlin Diaries 1940-1945. She worked for Adam von Trott zu Solz as his assistant and was part of the plot to kill Hitler (the July 20th plot). She recorded their interactions in her diary.  They match the cited items in this article from other sources. 
Is it time to take off the 2009 warning? 
Oakbranch (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has been expanded with citations