I'm still waiting for you to get your source on the gruesome film nonsense. You've had lots of help. No more excuses.Beppo Schmidt wrote:As I said before, I will call Scott Smith and everyone else exactly what they are, and to be perfectly frank, it is just too bad if someone else doesn't like that. I call a spade a spade and a worm a worm.Qvist wrote:David; I do not think you can reasonably expect people to avoid what would normally be considered insulting language and discuss politely when confronted with the sort of things Scott posts. For my part, I do not consider what I've written inappropriate.
July plotters
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
- Beppo Schmidt
- Member
- Posts: 4324
- Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
- Location: Ohio, USA
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
[Deleted out of courtesy to Beppo. ~S.S.]
Last edited by Scott Smith on 28 Sep 2003, 05:51, edited 1 time in total.
- Beppo Schmidt
- Member
- Posts: 4324
- Joined: 14 May 2003, 03:05
- Location: Ohio, USA
walterkaschner wrote:
Walterkaschner, I cannot speak for Scott Smith, but I am also an atheist, and no I don't consider practicing Christians to be "fanatics". I respect other people's beliefs and would appreciate it if they would do the same for me and more often practice what they preach.Well, if I recall correctly, Scott has proclaimed his aetheism, or at least agnosticism, on this Forum on several occasions in the past, and so I would suppose that anyone of that persuasion would consider a devout Christian as a "fanatic."
-
- In memoriam
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
- Location: Houston, Texas
My point was not that no war had been declared, but rather that the July 20 plotters (at least most of them) desired to end a war which was hopelessly lost, the continuation of which they believed could serve no useful purpose, but only heap additional suffering, death and destruction upon the German people and ultimately lead to an even greater catastrophy for the German nation.Scott Smith wrote:Well, it's not a perfect analogy; for one thing no war has been declared. But attempting to assassinate the President during the the "War on Terrah" would probably be viewed as treason just the same. Going to pray with the Taliban would be considered treason at least.walterkaschner wrote:IMHO disagreement with the recent U.S. war against Iraq simply bears no comparison with disagreement with continuation of Germany's war against the Allies, which, in the opinion of many of the military plotters, was hopelessly lost after the 1941-42 Winter, and by virtually all after the Normandy invasion. Scott Smith's analogy in this regard is specious to the nth degree.
:)
BTW, the crime of "treason" is quite narrowly drawn in the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 provides that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The testimony of two witnesses to the alleged act is required for conviction. I find it hard to believe that under that test, either the assasination of the President or praying with the Taliban, in and of themselves, could support a conviction for treason.
Of course the framers of the U.S. Constitution had to be somewhat tender about the concept of treason. After all, the United States was born out of treason against the King of England, and the Founding Fathers were well aware that they themselves were guilty of it. Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who said : "If we don't all hang together, we will all hang separately"?
So as an American, it seems to me that treason, at least as the term is used in generally accepted parlance, may, under certain circumstances, be an acceptable thing, and that simply dismissing the action of the July 20 plotters as treasonable (which it probably legally was under the law of the Third Reich) does not put an end to the discussion - unless, of course, one believes that there is no higher good than a slavish obedience to the State, however evil, oppresive, corrupt and utterly despicable that State may be. Such a belief IMHO was at the very heart of Fascism - so long, of course, as the State in question was a Fascist one - the principle tenet of which was the subservience of every individual interest to the corporate interest of the State as a whole, as determined by the totalitarian dictatorship at its head.
To my mind the real issue regarding the German Resistance is not whether it was treasonable. So what if it was? The real issue is: Was it the right thing to do? I have no answer to that, although my sympathies, admittedly romantic, lie with with the resistors. The conflicting considerations of duty to country, duty to God, duty to one's family, duty to one's own principles of honor and decency illuminate to me the agony of decision that many of the participants had to undergo. And I suppose that in the actual context in which the participants (and non-participants)had to answer that question for themselves the problem was such an individual and existential one that there is no way a definitive and universal answer can ever be established, either on this Forum or elsewhere. The issue of individual conscience against orders of the State is to my mind one of the most poignant conflicts in human history; essentially the same in our time as it was in Sophocles' some 2500 years ago, witness his Antigone.
That being my own view of it, I think it pointless for me to participate in any further discussion of the merits of the German Resistance to Hitler, although I probably will be eager to try to set right what I believe to be factual errors that may be reflected in further posts.
Regards, Kaschner[/i]
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
I agree that the Declaration of Independence was treasonable; however, it wasn't a gang of plotters with a bomb but the Continental Congress who elected to do it, and they did not kill anyone trying to assassinate the Head of State. They merely defended their country from the resultant crackdown. Passive aggression is one thing but leaving bombs in briefcases and then ducking and running is quite another. As I've said before, one could respect a man who was willing to blow himself up in order to make war on the Head of State, particularly if he were more than a lone nutcase. To the question of slavish obedience, how does one not slavishly obey? I have to support the War on Terrah whether I like it or not. John Walker Lindh got a forty year sentence for being with the Taliban when Bush declared war on him. Personally I would not have taken the plea bargain but make them put-up or shut-up with the treason charge. Anyway, I would have had to support the war against Japan and Germany also, and after Pearl Harbor I would have had few reservations, even though I did not like the ruling clique. No good can come from headstrong Interventionism but one cannot simply neglect one's duty to the State and still be a good citizen, the basis of all stable and legitimate governments. Plots are not the basis for good government. Even Lenin had something to offer, albeit negative, a way out of the war, which could not be won. But who were the Bomb Plotters to decide for the whole nation that the war could not be won? Did any of them have any diplomatic responsibility or skill? No more than Ludendorff and Hindenburg when they were at a loss in 1918, I would argue. If the military effort collapsed then their would have been nothing to bargain with the Allies over, and there were no colonies that could be unloaded like Lenin or the Kaiser had. Basically, the plotters had absolutely nothing to offer their country once their coup took off and imagined wrongly that Hitler was the source of all their problems. They resented a corporal running an army and a nation and the blinders just fell into place. If they had succeeded, then the most likely scenario is that the German people could rightly blame the plotters for bringing down the government in the darkest hour when the people needed it the most. It would have been the mother of all Dolchstosslegenden.
Last edited by Scott Smith on 28 Sep 2003, 05:49, edited 1 time in total.
Walterkaschner wrote
What we are discussing here IMHO belongs to the realm of emotions.
There is no external Good and Evil which can be used as the criteria . Everybody decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
For one the slavish subservience to the State represents an absolute duty.For another - his convictions derived from the other values such as conscience.
One can be pro or against murder .
However one can never logically prove that murder is either right or wrong . Those advocating murder can bring up no less logical arguments
then those rejecting it.
For example Nietzshe's pro point :
IMHO -it all depends on our chosen points of view which are of course conditioned by our emotions.
There are people who enjoy tormenting animals . How can it be "logically "proven to them that it is a wrong thing to do ?
You either feel it or you don't ..
I agree. There could not be any mathematically logical answers.The conflicting considerations of duty to country, duty to God, duty to one's family, duty to one's own principles of honor and decency illuminate to me the agony of decision that many of the participants had to undergo. And I suppose that in the actual context in which the participants (and non-participants)had to answer that question for themselves the problem was such an individual and existential one that there is no way a definitive and universal answer can ever be established, either on this Forum or elsewhere.
What we are discussing here IMHO belongs to the realm of emotions.
There is no external Good and Evil which can be used as the criteria . Everybody decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
For one the slavish subservience to the State represents an absolute duty.For another - his convictions derived from the other values such as conscience.
One can be pro or against murder .
However one can never logically prove that murder is either right or wrong . Those advocating murder can bring up no less logical arguments
then those rejecting it.
For example Nietzshe's pro point :
On the other hand this point can be refuted with the arguments that people are not exactly the jungle beasts. And the counterargument would be that we are first of all biological creatures whose underlying impetus is Darwin's struggle for survival . From the other side there will be yet another counterargument etc - and thus this argument can be continued ad infinitum .Is there not in all life itself -stealing and killing ?
(Thus spoke Zarathustra )
IMHO -it all depends on our chosen points of view which are of course conditioned by our emotions.
There are people who enjoy tormenting animals . How can it be "logically "proven to them that it is a wrong thing to do ?
You either feel it or you don't ..
One often quoted justification for the July Plot was that more Germans died in the last 12 months of WW2 than for the previous period from Sept 1939 to May 1944.This includes both military and civilian deaths.The increased ferocity of the Allied aerial bombing of Germany is also demonstrated by the tonnage of bombs being dropped in the one month of March 1945 as being equal to all that of 1942.Such a justification of course assumes that the war could have been ended with Hitler's death,another what if...
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
This was addressed to Beppo, who previously suggested that I should be banned, which is the only reason that I was aggressive toward him on this thread. Actually, I'm planning to get the info. myself.Qvist wrote:"I'm still waiting for you to get your source on the gruesome film nonsense. You've had lots of help. No more excuses."
I've never partcipated in that discussion and am not going to start now.
Not sure what point that would be.Once more, you are dodging the point.
Re: July plotters
Gentlemen, whatever happened to the July plotters, I think we can take it that they had a terrible end. There's not a lot of point in either denying that, or in ripping each other apart here over the fairly ghastly details.
www.Perilous-Moon.com
Re: July plotters
You're addressing a thread that ended seven years ago, so calls to order might be somewhat misplaced.
cheers
cheers
- Kurt_Steiner
- Member
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: 14 Feb 2004, 14:52
- Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Re: July plotters
Specially to members that are not visiting the forum since a quite long time ago...
Re: July plotters
I always like to ruminate about things before firing off... !
Seriously though, thank you. I noticed the last date as I clicked the post button and felt suitably foolish. Mind you the bickering had gone on for what felt like 7 years and I'm missing it.
Seriously though, thank you. I noticed the last date as I clicked the post button and felt suitably foolish. Mind you the bickering had gone on for what felt like 7 years and I'm missing it.
www.Perilous-Moon.com
- Kurt_Steiner
- Member
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: 14 Feb 2004, 14:52
- Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Re: July plotters
If you just knew how many times I've made that mistake, my dear mate... And I keep doing it, from time to timeStanford9 wrote:I always like to ruminate about things before firing off... !
Seriously though, thank you. I noticed the last date as I clicked the post button and felt suitably foolish. Mind you the bickering had gone on for what felt like 7 years and I'm missing it.