Talk:Georg Elser/Archive 1

message: :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)
thread_title:  Line removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  conspiracy theory 

message: 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."  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)
thread_title: Edits by Ip 63... and query by [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Elser's goal

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup Badly Needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  Enjoy.
Giovanni33 12:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for the Record