60th Anniversary - White Rose

[Scott Smith]

Hi Scott
The luxury of deciding whether or not to invoke a Deity is a relatively modern concept. In 17th century England, agnosticism and atheism were not options.

I agree and that is why as an atheist myself I am conscious of the rights of minorities to dissent. We have come a long way from bitter internecine wars.

On the subject of traitors, the last words of Klaus von Stauffenberg was a cry of "Long live our sacred Germany!" and then the bullets flew. To which particular Germany was he alluding? To the Third Reich, or some other administration? Traitor or patriot?

I think he was loyal to his Junker class and his Faith. Hitler was okay so long as he was fighting and winning against the Catholic Poles and the Godless Communists.

Oh, sure, in the simple definition of treason, he tried to blow up the Head of State and was therefore guilty, even worse, you might argue, because of his pesonal oath of allegiance to the Fuehrer. But in the broader scheme of things, did he have the best interests of the Fatherland at heart?

The Junkers had served the State and the Nation well in the past but Stauffenberg went too far. I view Staufenberg as a tragic figure but the efforts by the Bundestablishment and Heer apologists to lionize him I find despicable. If Lee Harvey Oswald had hoped to prevent the Vietnam War by killing Kennedy his acts would have been no better (or worse) than the Goodly Graf.

[Scott Smith]

But in the broader scheme of things, did he have the best interests of the Fatherland at heart?

I agree. The Soviet dissidents also can be considered as traitors (and were considered as such by the Communist authorities and often by the common folks as well) of the State. Were they traitors ? No- they were couragious people who dared to oppose the totalitarian regime, as "White Rose" did.

That depends on what dissidents you are referring to. The situations are not at all comparable.

Was the movement against the war in Vietnam a treason? Again the same no.

It was never treason because the United States never declared war against North Vietnam--because to do so might bring in the Chinese and their Soviet rivals into the conflict as a united front. If the USA had declared war on North Vietnam, then the war would have been over in weeks, but a larger conflict might have become unavoidable.

Furthermore, the opposition to the Vietnam War came almost exclusively because of conscription. And that is why there won't be any real antiwar protests over the Iraq campaign. And unless and until Congress musters the courage to declare war against Iraq, I will protest Bush and his aggressive policies, just as I would have opposed Roosevelt's aggressive foreign policy prior to Pearl Harbor. If Iraq or anybody else were killing American citizens then I wouldn't side against my government, especially if I had given my oath to the Head of State.

[witness]

But in the broader scheme of things, did he have the best interests of the Fatherland at heart?

I agree. The Soviet dissidents also can be considered as traitors (and were considered as such by the Communist authorities and often by the common folks as well) of the State. Were they traitors ? No- they were couragious people who dared to oppose the totalitarian regime, as "White Rose" did.

That depends on what dissidents you are referring to. The situations are not at all comparable.

Of course the situation is comparable . Simply you don't want it to be
I am referring to the dissidents who opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime.Those who opposed to the regime and not their people as ROA.

It was never treason because the United States never declared war against North Vietnam--because to do so might bring in the Chinese and their Soviet rivals into the conflict as a united front.

Why should we care about these legal subtleties ? The U.S. were in the factual state of war so my example is valid. The anti-war movement was not only about the pragmatic goals of the people who were reluctunt to be conscripted . First of all it was about the wrong moral grounds of this war.
As well as now the anti war-movement in the US and elsewhere is directed against the fact that the war in Iraq is morally unjustifiable.
The "White Rose " perfectly match this dissident category. .

[Scott Smith]

Well, witness, I don't think the comparison is the same because the Soviet Union was not at war with the United States during the Cold War. Now, if we are talking about giving away nuclear secrets to the CIA or something like that it is different.

Interestingly, I just got a solicitation in the mail from some Jewish group that argues that the Jews in Russia are more threatened by Genocide now than ever before, and they wanted my money so that they could get more Jews to Israel (where they will of course leave that cess-hole and come to the United States). I found it hard to believe that the Refuseniks were threatened with Genocide more so now than under Stalin or the Soviet Union. But if they refuse national citizenship in an ideological or practical sense in their countries of origin because first they are Jews, I can see why the government would regard them as aliens, even though I believe in freedom-of-religion and free-speech for them and anyone.

So, witness, I think you are generalizing a bit. If Russians were to adhere to the United States during the Cold War in anything more than nostalgic terms it could rightly be considered disloyal if not treasonable. In wartime it would be no question. The White Rose were not peacetime-dissidents.

You can dismiss the technical niceties on undeclared wars but nothing the antiwar protesters did during Vietnam was illegal unless it involved property-damage or civil disturbance (rioting). It was not aiding and comforting the enemy because the United States was not technically at war; it's troops were merely undertaking an imperial police action, and it was thought by the "best and brightest," incorrectly, that with the firepower and technology available to a superpower like the USA, the Viet-Cong would be defeated via attrition alone. It turned out that the will of the Vietnamese people against the imperialists was very strong, and the steady losses and necessity of conscription made it a very unpopular war at home indeed.

Now, as far as Saddam, I am not saying that Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, does not have the RIGHT as the head of a sovereign state to bomb or invade whomever he wants. I am saying the he has exaggerated the threat and is in fact serving a global-Interventionist agenda that is not in the national interest of the United States. And since few people but the lower classes join the military and are no longer conscripted, there will be little real protest, which will be entirely legal anyway, unless and until Congress declares war, which they are unlikely to do.

Saddam is not a threat to my country; he is only a threat to Israel. Bush expects to score a great legacy for his aggression and the establishment has grossly overplayed the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat. You won't see this gang threatening to invade Israel unless they get rid of their nuclear arsenal.

[FL Jim]

What is Evil? How does one objectify this? And where is this God? I would like to have a word with him...

Evil is the negation, opposition, or destruction of that which sustains the life of a rational person. Evil is the irrational and the denial of objective reality. One can have morals without religion. I wasn’t making a case for religion but I recognize that many people use religion to illustrate or concretize their moral systems.

I'm not a pacifist either. And I don't particularly care for peace-creeps. But they are the only ones opposing Bush's Interventionist war, so they deserve some notice and my respect. Unless and until war is actually declared against Iraq I will continue to speak out against Bush and his vile gang. But I would never betray my own country and side with people who are murdering its citizens because of my differences with the regime. And I sure as hell would not invoke diety in support of such haughty political agendas.

You make it sound as if a German's “difference” with the Nazi regime was of no more value than a difference Republicans and Democrats have on the capital gains tax. If your own country commits mass murder on a historically unprecedented scale, you would not oppose it for you do not wish to give aid and comfort to your country’s enemy. Sorry, I cannot submit to such an amoral and relativistic philosophy.

There are some things for which it is worth sacrificing one's own life. There are wars that are necessary. Resistance to German aggression in World War II is clearly such a case. Resistance to dictatorship as Eastern Europeans did when they threw off communism is another.

Resistance to Germany's enemies was also a worthy goal and one supported by 99.9% of Germans.

Right and wrong are not something decided by majority vote. No rational society sanctions genocide at the ballot box. Lynching of Blacks occurred with great frequency in Southern US until the 1960s with genuinely popular support in the towns where they happened. Besides, I do not recall any Gallup polls in operation during the Nazi regime.

Adhering to the enemies of your country who kill its citizens is always treason.

The goal of the United States in World War II was not absolute annihilation of the German people. The US did not intend to thoroughly wipe Germany off the map, to hunt down every last German unto death. If that was so, then the behavior of the American, British, and French troops in occupied Germany and the assistance of the Marshall Plan makes no sense. The members of the White Rose may have understood that hindrance of Germany’s war effort might actually have ended the war sooner and saved more German lives (and others) in the long run. The fact that thousands and thousands of Germans rushed to be conquered by the Americans rather than the Russians proves that a significant portion of the German population knew that their own destruction wasn’t a universal Allied war goal.

If one views Popery as an alien influence, then More (cannonized in 1935) was a traitor to his Nation as well as his King. The King of England may not have had England's interests entirely at heart, but Henry--and not the pious More, who burnt more heretics at the stake as Lord Chancellor than his admirers will care to admit--was still the King.

And where in my statements did I claim Sir Thomas More had led an exemplary life? I certainly did not justify the burning of heretics. Nevertheless, even the most wretched among us can once make a right and moral decision. Also, unthinking worship of the state, as you seem to do in this case, negates the inherent ability of a person to think and make moral decisions.

Part of my differences with the government is that all it does is respect the rights of property, and it has learned how to manipulate fear and attempts to justify the loss of liberty.

Property is that which allows a person to sustain his or her life. The role of government is to protect property acquired through peaceful trade in the market without force or fraud. The right to acquire property is a bulwark of liberty thus a rational government protects both equally. I do not apologize for being a radical capitalist.

And they did this by siding with Germany's enemies in a very brutal war, so the government made an example out of them. Instead of execution they should have been sent to work in a hospital for German burn victims after Allied bombing raids.

[/quote]

And the reason the Nazi justice system was incapable of taking your advice is why they were opposed by the White Rose in the first place. The Nazi regime demanded that every German citizens suspend the ability to make moral judgment and let the state do it for them. To excuse such behavior by a state or any organized band of thugs only serves to legitimize such behavior again in the future.

A better way than treason is freedom-of-speech and assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances, although Tolerance isn't something that can be legislated. A loyal-opposition is not always possible in wartime--but that is no excuse for treason. Today the Germans think they are acting democratically by criminalizing so-called Hate-speech that makes the Germans look like Nazis--nevermind that most Germans favored Hitler's broad goals and supported their beloved Führer.

Freedom of speech and assembly was illegal under the Nazis. It just wasn’t an option for the White Rose. A loyal opposition is possible in wartime---under a constitutional government in which all sides share the basic values. That’s what makes them a LOYAL opposition. The United States held every scheduled federal, state, and local election during World War II. Great Britain did not dissolve its basic constitutional principles, either. Please note that I am aware that Allied governments did not always uphold their constitutional principles and do not always do so today. This only proves that governments can never be held beyond reproach.

Again, you equate a citizen’s acceptance of policies that built gas chambers with policies that determine income tax rates or motor vehicle codes. Germany held no free elections under the Nazis and no independent press existed to question policies or present any information which would allow an individual German to make an informed judgment.

A discussion of hate speech and current German law is a bit beyond the scope of this thread’s topic.

[Scott Smith]

Freedom of speech and assembly was illegal under the Nazis. It just wasn’t an option for the White Rose. A loyal opposition is possible in wartime---under a constitutional government in which all sides share the basic values. That’s what makes them a LOYAL opposition. The United States held every scheduled federal, state, and local election during World War II. Great Britain did not dissolve its basic constitutional principles, either. Please note that I am aware that Allied governments did not always uphold their constitutional principles and do not always do so today. This only proves that governments can never be held beyond reproach.

I disagree that a loyal opposition is possible in wartime. Even before the war FDR was having dissidents tried and convicted for Sedition. Roosevelt's no. 1 agenda was to get the USA into the war despite the will of the American people to remain Isolationist (his term) and neutral.

Again, you equate a citizen’s acceptance of policies that built gas chambers with policies that determine income tax rates or motor vehicle codes. Germany held no free elections under the Nazis and no independent press existed to question policies or present any information which would allow an individual German to make an informed judgment.

Bourgeois forms are not the be-all/end-all of self-government. And I never said that Nazi Germany was a democracy. My point was against totalitarianism, especially totalitarian-liberalism, which is a greater threat than comic-opera dictators.

A discussion of hate speech and current German law is a bit beyond the scope of this thread’s topic.

I disagree since this is exactly why the Bundestablishment lionizes its own country's traitors.

[Marcus]

Scott,

This is not the place to discuss present day laws so drop it.

/Marcus

[Nigel]

Thanks guys for an interesting and lively discussion.

By any dictionary definition of treason, what the members of the White Rose did was treason. The deeper question is whether there is any such thing as a "noble treason" that will neutralize the repulsiveness of the term?

Cheers 8)

Nigel

[chalutzim]

(...) These people showed that Germany was not all about Nazis and that there were some thinking people with the real guts who dared to oppose the bloody regime. (...)

witness, impossible to say better. I feel sorry that even today people are unable to see this simple distinction: Nazis x Germans (not brainwashed and ignorant citizens).

[Nautilus]

Attempting to raise a rebellion which would allow your country to be overrun by the enemy (Soviets) has to be treasonous in any kind of organized state, ever. At least as long as there is a hope to beat the Soviets back. From this point of view, the White Rose group were traitors.

However, there is one thing which no one involved in the Reich was, from the most sincere supporter of the Führer to his most deadly enemy, and that is robotic. Everyone is influenced by things around, to good or bad, and reacts accordingly.

A gentleman once commented on the affair of Georg Elser's Munich bombing of 1939 like this: by 1939, the Reich had been victorious on all fronts, had rebuilt the economy, annexed without bloodshed Austria and Czechoslovakia, vanquished Poland. While they caught Elser and savagely beaten him to extort a confession, but did not sentence him to death, they were in a good mood (and Hitler first, as he found the myth of his invincibility proven) and could afford to be somehow lax or at least forgetful. By February 1943, with frontlines pushed back after the Stalingrad disaster, magnanimity was out of question, any opposition had to be stomped. By July 20, 1944, knowing how the fate of the entire Reich was dangling from a hair over an abyss, Hitler went absolutely hysterical and ordered barbarous punishment for the entire families of the plotters, with no regards for them being involved or not in the plot.

It's a bit like tickling a lion when you saw it dozing off - it may be the last thing you do in life.

[TedjeX]

TO Nigel

Last year it has been 70 years ago and now they found the axe that killed them,both Sophie & Hans.They are wandering whether to show off the machine or not in a museum.Crazy world.There were so few of people like Sophie&Hans,or Schulze-Boysen and his wife Libertas,what a beautiful name!Harro and Libertas,Sophie and Hans!
We must remember them.

[Cerdic]

The prosecution had clear evidence of motivation (they printed thousands of leaflets, distributing them to many cities in the southern half of Germany) and also evidence of attempts at sabotage - one of their leaflets promoted sabotage of the war effort and institutions, even charities IIRC. Reading the court judgement, it is clear that the court took this matter very seriously. Why fight your nations' enemies on the battlefield, but not fight those who are trying to destroy your country's ability to defend itself from the inside?

Don't get me wrong, it's sad that a couple of young, intelligent university students were brought to such an end. However, there are several good justifications for what the German government eventually decided to do with them.

Iraq and Vietnam aren't great comparisons because in neither situation was the US faced with a destruction or near-desutrction of its country. Millions of Germans were burned alive, raped, expelled, shot, frozen etc. by the very same people the White Rose said the Germans should surrender to. Only the incredible work of the Germans who put one brick on top of another because noone else would do it for them means that Germany still exists as a country today.

Here is the partial court judgement

Partial transcripts of the sentencing of German anti-nazi group White Rose members Hans and Sophie Scholl, Christoph Probst, Alexander Schmorell, Kurt Huber, Wilhelm Graf and other supporters of the group in 1943

Sentencing of Hans and Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst, February 22, 1943.

In the Name of the German People in the action against
1. Hans Fritz Scholl, Munich, born at Ingersheim, September 22, 1918,
2. Sophia Magdalena Scholl, Munich, born at Forchtenberg, May 9, 1921, and
3. Christoph Hermann Probst, of Aldrans bei Innsbruck, born at Murnau, November 6, 1919,

now in investigative custody regarding treasonous assistance to the enemy, preparing to commit high treason, and weakening of the nation's armed security, the People's Court, first Senate, pursuant to the trial held on February 22, 1943, in which the officers were:

President of the People's Court Dr. Freisler, Presiding, Director of the Regional (Bavarian) Judiciary Stier, SS Group Leader Breithaupt, SA Group Leader Bunge, State Secretary and SA Group Leader Köglmaier, and, representing the Attorney General to the Supreme Court of the Reich, Reich Attorney Weyersberg,
find:

That the accused have in time of war by means of leaflets called for the sabotage of the war effort and armaments and for the overthrow of the National Socialist way of life of our people, have propagated defeatist ideas, and have most vulgarly defamed the Führer, thereby giving aid to the enemy of the Reich and weakening the armed security of the nation.

On this account they are to be punished by Death.

Their honour and rights as citizens are forfeited for all time.

Partial transcript of the Sentence of Alexander Schmorell, Kurt Huber, Wilhelm Graf, and others associated with the White Rose, pursuant to the Trial held on April 19, 1943.

In the Name of the German People in the action against
1. Alexander Schmorell, Munich, born on September 16, 1917, in Orenburg (Russia);
2. Kurt Huber, Munich, born October 24, 1893, in Chur (Switzerland);
3. Wilhelm Graf, Munich, born January 2, 1918, in Kuchenheim;
4. Hans Hirzel, Ulm, born on October 30, 1924, in Untersteinbach (Stuttgart);
5. Susanne Hirzel, Stuttgart, born on August 7, 1921, in Untersteinbach;
6. Franz Joseph Müller, Ulm, born on September 8, 1924, in Ulm;
7. Heinrich Guter, Ulm, born on January 11, 1925, in Ulm;
8. Eugen Grimminger, Stuttgart, born on July 29, 1892, in Crailsheim;
9. Dr. Heinrich Philipp Bollinger, Freiburg, born on April 23, 1916, in Saarbrücken;
10. Helmut Karl Theodore August Bauer, Freiburg, born on June 19, 1919, in Saarbrücken;
11. Dr. Falk Erich Walter Harnack, Chemnitz, born on March 2, 1913, in Stuttgart;
12. Gisela Scheriling, Munich, born on February 9, 1922, in Pössneck (Thüringen);
13. Katharina Schüddekopf, Munich, born on February 8, 1916, in Magdeburg;
14. Traute Lafrenz, Munich, born on May 3, 1919, in Hamburg;

at present in investigative custody, regarding rendering aid to the enemy, inter alia, the People's Court, first Senate, pursuant to the trial held on April 19, 1943, in which the officers were:
President of the People's Court Dr. Freisler, Presiding, Director of the Regional (Bavarian) Judiciary Stier, SS Group Leader and Lt. Gen. of the Waffen-SS Breithaupt, SA Group Leader Bunge, SA Group Leader and State Secretary Köglmaier, and, representing the Reich Attorney General, First State's Attorney Bischoff,
find:

That Alexander Schmorell, Kurt Huber, and Wilhelm Graf in time of war have promulgated leaflets calling for sabotage of the war effort and for the overthrow of the National Socialist way of life of our people; have propagated defeatist ideas, and have most vulgarly defamed the Führer, thereby giving aid to the enemy of the Reich and weakening the armed security of the nation.

On this account they are to be punished by Death.

Their honour and rights as citizens are forfeited for all time.

Eugen Grimminger gave money to a person guilty of high treason in aid of the enemy. To be sure, he was not aware that by so doing he was aiding the enemy of the Reich. However, he was aware that this person might use the money for the purpose of robbing our people of their National Socialist way of life. Because he gave support to high treason, he is sentenced to jail for a ten-year term, together with loss of honourable estate for ten years.

Heinrich Bollinger and Helmut Bauer had knowledge of treasonable conspiracy but failed to report it. In addition, the two listened to foreign radio newscasts dealing with the war and with events inside Germany. For this they are sentenced to jail for a term of seven years and loss of citizen's honour for seven years.

Hans Hirzel and Franz Müller - both immature boys misled by enemies of the state - gave support to the spread of treasonous propaganda against National Socialism. For this action they are sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Heinrich Guter had knowledge of propagandistic intentions of this sort but failed to report them. For this he is sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment.

Gisela Schertling, Katharina Schüddekopf, and Traute Lafrenz committed the same crimes. As girls, they are sentenced to one year's imprisonment.

Susanne Hirzel assisted in the distribution of treasonous leaflets. To be sure, she was not aware of their treasonous nature, but she was guilty in that in her inexcusable credulousness and good faith she did not seek certainty concerning the matter. She is sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

In the case of all the accused who have been sentenced to jail or imprisonment, the People's Court will accept as part of the punishment the time already spent in police and investigative custody.

Falk Harnack likewise failed to report his knowledge of treasonous activity. But such unique and special circumstances surround his case that we find ourselves unable to punish his deed of omission. He is accordingly set free.

http://libcom.org/library/white-rose-se ... ranscripts