Talk:Georg Elser

Archives

 * Talk:Georg Elser/Archive 01

Education
The sentence "Equally, he loathed Nazi propaganda and its perversion of the education system, as well as the curtailing of religious freedoms." is still problematic.

"perversion" could be seen as POV and for my taste it is still a bit undescriptive. What is needed is a word that denotes the total, all-encompassing nature of the system of education that the Nazis had in mind and tried to implement - a word that doesn't say "totalitarian" as this offendes some sensibilities. Str1977 (smile back) 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate word is fascist. Fascism is all encompassing in exactly that way, but we cant use that word as it offends some sensiblities (but its accurate). Nazism, would suffice just as well. And, preversion is accurate for what they did with the education system. It doesnt imply any kind of partial intrusion. It perverted the whole system. The definition of the word: "1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt. 2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase. 3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse." In short, to corrupt, debase, and misuse. This is what the fascists did with education--they debased it into pure propaganda; they fired any teachers who would not go along with it. Ofcourse the study of History and Biology were most affected, which was a perversion of science, replacing with psuedo-science. Bsides the racism, pro-imperialism they taught, the sexism even included a different curriculum for girls to train them to be domestic housewives, etc. Perversion of education it was. If you want to add force to this to include the ideal of "total," you could say the perversion was both rampant and thorough. Giovanni33 11:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object to perversion, but others might have concernes. Note, I will take your arguments to heart and remember them here and elsewhere.
 * Fascist (apart from being imprecise), Nazistic etc. are utterly indescriptive in that context - they don't mean anything. The examples you give indicate that you still don't understand the issue. It is about slogans like "All children belong to the Führer" or Hitler's famous speech ending in the words "... and they will not be free their entire lives!"
 * But let's not repeat past arguments. Can someone else please make a suggestion?
 * Str1977 (smile back) 11:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do understand the issue and I understand that it fits exactly with what fascism is all about. Thus it's very descriptive; anyone who wishes to study what fascist education looks like in partice will study what it looked like in Nazi Germany. I do suppose that using the negative description could be seen as a POV against the Nazi/fascist POV on educatoin, however my counter is that Nazi "education" is objectively a perversion of education. The reason I can state this as a fact instead of just a POV is because the disciplines within education have scientific standards that are objective, and the Nazis perverted that. The example of the History and Biology classes are prime examples. Lies can not be said to be education but a perversion of it. Giovanni33 11:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You and I at least agree on Nazi education being a "perversion" but it's still only our POV - and not "objective" (though I think our POV in this is also objectively true, but I can say this from my standpoint - I don't know about you). What you say about objective standards in education is, frankly, nonsense.
 * Appearently you do not understand the issue: Fascism/Nazism subscribes to these "total views" I mentioned, but so do other systems/movements, e.g. Communism or the Jacobines' theoris (Saint Just) in the French Revolution. But also Democrats are capable of that (I only say Dewey or Durkheim). The issue is totally claiming the children for the collective. Str1977 (smile back) 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think there are any objective standards in science? Or can science be anything and still be regarded as science? My rhetorical question should make the point self evident. The objective standards in what was taught were subverted, objectively by the fascist propaganda. The only way you can deny this is to stretch educational standards to include teaching outright lies as truth, and anti-science as science. We need only see what their "education" looked like and compare that to the consensus among experts in the respetive fields to conclusively yeild a termination that it was a perversion of learning, engightenment, and knowelege.
 * As far your social theories, this article need not concern it self with it. Its suffices to describe it as Nazism (or fascism). For those who want to look up what the ramifications are of these ideoloigies put into political power, they can draw their own conclusions. Your theories, btw, are not fact either but Pov's. Not everyone shares your ideological constructs. Giovanni33 13:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about pupils being taught junk science (and I wonder whether it actually was such junk science and what the junk science of today is), but about the collectivisation of the children through school, Hitler Youth etc. That is what this passage is about. That you don't see this but rather worry about junk science, or simply equate Nazism and Fascism, or are merely worried about inserting "Fascism" at all cost, indicates a worrying blindness on your part. Sad but true.
 * I didn't indulge in any theories.
 * (Regarding "objective standards" - no, there's no real objectivity possible but still science and other fields of scholarship are possible. But according to your principles applied elsewhere anything that calls itself science is science - peer review doesn't count either as it is merely a power struggle and the most intolerant succeeded. Isn't that what you said?)
 * Str1977 (smile back) 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I never said that, and I think you know that. Your deliberately not understanding, or rather pretending you don't get it, I think is meant more to argue for the sake of argument. Despite what you say there are objective standards for various scientific disciplines, all of which if not adhered to, cease to be legitimate knowlege. You can deny that since it seems you want to deny the inflate the subjectivity of religion (which is whatever you want to make it) with science, which exists indepedently of what you may want it to be. Hence when the rules are not followed (and that goes for the social sciences too) they cease to be called that. To persist in calling it that is to engage in a fraud. That is what the Nazis did and that is why its a preversion of education. If you want to blind yourself to what fascism is and deny that nazism is such, then that is a worrying blindness on your part. Sad but true. Giovanni33 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, the topic of this page is Georg Elser. The topic of your post seems to be Str1977. Or am I missing something? By the way, that's a rhetorical question, so you needn't answer. The best "answer" would be for you to try to stick to the subject of Georg Elser in your next post. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC) I apologize for making that post, which I have now struck through. On reflection, I agree that you were not alone in commenting on editors rather than article, and it was therefore inappropriate to single you out. AnnH ♫ 18:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your honesty here is laudable, and helps to build trust.Giovanni33 08:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing something: The fact that Str1977's message above was equally about me, of which my message is only direct response to. Infact I adopt his very language and turn it around. Yet, that you only direct your comments towards me is a signifiant fact by which one may assess your impartiality and bias. Giovanni33 23:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll reword it. Could we all please try to focus on the article and not on the editors? The psychoanalysing of other editors is more obvious with you, because you do it a lot more. You do have a history of referring to Christian editors as POV pushers, and insinuating (or stating outright) that they felt threatened by the information you were providing. Even as a very new editor, when you were insisting that something you wanted must go into an article, you'd say that the only reason for suppressing it was that Christians "don't like talking about their origins. hehe". It would be nice if all this could come to an end now. AnnH ♫ 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you would stop making these one-sided attacks and distortions, much of which is not true, which has the effect of poisoning the well. It would also be nice if you followed your own adivse about talking about this article instead of other editors. What you say about me, although I dispute, I could equally say about your and other "Christians" (although I don't think being a Christian per se has anything to do with this behavior--its only one source of bias and POV). But, I won't be a hypocrite and talk about my view of your history since it doesn't have anything to do with this article, as you seem to keep doing about me. Giovanni33 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Manipulation instead of Perversion? Vulgar connotations aside, Perversion turns a thing from its natural state into an unnatural state. Perhaps that's arguable in this case, but then all education has a tendency to that end, and the article should outline the special circumstances which render Nazi influence on the state education system so remarkably perverse eg. jingoistic national histories would have been common at that time, but were unscientific notions of race on the German syllabus? Also, I don't think the article should refer to the subject by his first name.--shtove 18:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * These are reasonable comments and I do not disagree. "Manipulation" is also accurate and works. I think it should assuage NPOV conerns?Giovanni33 23:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "control" would be more neutral. Manipulation is a word that has negative connotations. AnnH ♫ 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to "control" either, and I do think that is the most neutral term, while still being accurate. Giovanni33 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, when you say, above, "Perversion of education it was", and claim that it is accurate, I wonder if you're confusing truth with neutrality. Basically, Wikipedia does not take sides. It doesn't call Hitler evil, even though he was. It's for the reader to decide whether the Nazi control of the education system was good or bad. Wikipedia, for example, doesn't say whether or not Michael Jackson molested children (except in brief periods following vandalism). It says he was accused of it, that he denied it, and that he was found not guilty. It doesn't say that Roy Whiting killed Sarah Payne, even though there isn't the slightest doubt that he did. It just says that he was convicted of her murder. No matter how much we may abhor the actions of the Nazis, as Wikipedians, we just report them accurately, in neutral language, and leave the reader to decide whether these actions were good or bad. AnnH ♫ 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your understanding of NPOV. Insofar as perversion and manipulation are not neutral, while control is more so, I support the use of "control." My argument was to that Nazi education was objectively bad according to well established criteria that is violated (esp. in the sciences such as biology). This can be shown to be factual, and therefore reporting this corruption is a judgement of fact, not opinion. This is true because there is no valid basis that anyone can claim that the verified corruption of the content of the education constitues valid education. Any education that is based on lies can not be said to be good education by any stretch of the meaning of the world. That it was lies is not in dispute. It might seem to be only a POV, but because there are objective standards to evaluate such things, and thus determine them as facts, it can be maintained. Infact a Nazis may very well feel that the need for progpandanda serving the needs of the State justifies the corruption of education, and feel that such corruption is what should take place, that its not a negaive thing, just like hey feel that the word "Nazi," or "fascist," is not negative to them. Its negative to most people because of our POV. Note that this is all in contrast to the subjective notions of "evil." While I agree the actions of fascists are evil, that is only ones POV, as it depends on ones ethical system. I would never argue that as a fact, without first ascribing it to a certain school of thought. For science there are no legitimate competing schools of thought that maintain that anti-scientific teachings are science. Determining if science is science is objective, and if it's not science, it's simply anti-scientific as a matter of fact, not opinion. Because this is clear cut, we can objectively say there was a corruption of education as a matter of fact. That this corruption is seen as negative is our POV, but corruption it was. Most people see this as negative, but that doesnt make it not factual. Nazi's may think the corruption is good. Still, I'm content with "control" as the most nuetral word choice. Giovanni33 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me state some things:
 * I did post about Gio as an editor and that was inappropriate. However, the reason for this was my frustration at him not getting the point of the passage and trying to talk about something else, even now in his last post.
 * I was certainly not arguing for the sake of, hence my frustration, but to retain the actual meaning of the passage and to prevent POV pushing.
 * Gio thinks about Nazis teaching junk science into schools, while I am talking about the complete, total grasp of the state on the children. That was what was meant with the original sentence about Elser's opposition.
 * I already stated the POV problem regarding "perversion" - though I do agree with the characterisation, it is still POV language.
 * "Manipulation" does not grasp what Elser objected to.
 * "Control" might be NPOV but it is also meaningless and not what Elser objected to. As a preliminary version I will however use this and change it to "total control".

Str1977 (smile back) 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We disagree, apparently, about what Elser objected to. You say you just want to stop POV pushing, but in my estimation your pushing your POV and I'm trying to stop the POV pushing. Based on my understanding of the evidence, what Elser objected to was not the "total control" of the educational system, in itself, but the fact that it was the Nazi's who were corrupting education turning into little more than fascist propaganda. Objection to their control? Yes. But, the this objection is not based on  an abstract objection to "total control" (as in your totalitian theory you are pushing), but rather then ends to which this control exists for: fascism. Their control is only a means to such an end, and its what this control looked like, the content, the substance of the control (fasicsm) which Elser detested. I don't mind saying "total control" because it identifies the total control as being done by the Nazis, hence his objection is to fascism, and he is a great anti-fascist.Giovanni33 08:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm happy with "total control", while we try to find something better. I may not be around much in the next few days. I thought I was sickening for something recently, and I'm quite sure now. :-( AnnH ♫ 18:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio, finally you admit the difference and clerly state your view. I am now wondering what you have read about Elser that makes you think this way? I have stated what I have read anc these books confirm my take, among these the essential works by Hoch and Grundmann. What I described as POV pushing is not POV pushing in the usual sense, but rather a spill over from Adolf Hitler and our debate about T. vs. F., which legitimate over there but meaningless here. Str1977 (smile back) 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always stated my view. Maybe only now you finally understand it. I don't dispute your sources, I share the same sources, and have read much of the translations from German. Our disagreement seems to be on the interpretation of what the facts tell us about Elser's views. Based on what he objected to, and who he objected to, his membership and associations, and lastly his actions, I interpret that as being anti-fascist, and his objections were to the Nazi's reactionary policies and politics. I'd like to see you support your view, based on the known facts. How do you come to interpret his views as you do? I'd like to see the support. The alleged POV pushing is not a spill over from any other article. Rather it simply relfect similar disagreements and arguments, which were also an issue in this article, since you wanted totalitarian and I prefered fascism as a word choice.Giovanni33 18:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a spill over, as you arrived here coming from over there (don't try to deny it) and as you continue the T vs. F debate that has no bearing on this article by trying to insert into the text your POV from that debate without caring for the valid and relevant info you deleted thereby. Your post here also once more indicates either your cluelessness about Nazism (reactionary?) or your ideological leanings. Your interpretation has no foundation in the cited works. Str1977 (smile back) 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When I came here I found the world "totalitarian." I prefered "fascism." Same issue, same arguments, but different article. You prefer one ideological term and I another. Don't make this one-sided. Also, I never deleted any relevant info, what i did was substitute a loaded term with one that is more widely accepted and precise. I also added a lot of information and detail about Elser. Lastly, I'm not clueless about Nazism. I've actually studied it in some depth, and yes its is reactionary. Fasciscm is a reaction against modernity, a longing for the greatness of the past. Its right-wing populustic reactionism, specifically against liberalism and Marxism. My interpretation of Elsers objections is very straightforward. You say that he did not really object to what the Nazi's were doing per se, but rather did not like the fact of control being total in nature. This idea has no foundation in the cited works. If it does, please show how.Giovanni33 03:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may intrude, and break it up a little. To Giovanni, contrived is better than bogus (which is very unscholarly). Lots of elections before Germany 1933-45, and even today are "bogus", but that's an opinion, not in the supposed purpose of Wikipedia, to be expressed as fact. Lots of executions have not been legal, some would argue all are illegal. This article has come a long way since its inception. At one time it was so blatently propagandistic, that I thought Klara Zetkin, wrote it. Call his death a killing, or a great tragedy in the continuum of human history, if you prefer. I really don't care. Please keep in mind Elser, killed eight innocent people, and I reiterate innocent people, and in any objective person's mind, would be considered a murderer and criminal. Typically when they are dispatched, the term killed is not usually the word of choice. All kinds of euphemisms are used, instead. I guess you don't like executed. If murdered or killed makes you feel better, go for it! I won't change it on you again. Dr. Dan 19:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If contrived is not nuetral enough, I'd be content with "disputed elections." Hitler rounded up, arrested most of the communists at this time, and made their party illegal. It's widely acknowleged that this effected and hence de-leglitimized the elections. "Contrived" has the double implication of being obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous; but also implies a falseness. Still, "disputed" may be the most nuetral.
 * Yes, I agree innocent people died, but that doesn't mean Elser was not justified morally to have taken the actions he did in that context. It's a complex debate. I'd also say there are degrees of innocence, with a big line being drawn between those in the military and civillians. And the higher up in the military (Nazi officers) the less innocent and more legitimate the target. In general, I'd say that individual actions like his in which consequences are not that well controlled (leaving a bomb and leaving) is generally not justified. Considering the extreme nature of the Nazi's, though, and the fact that organized resistence was largly already decapitated (the communists and social democrats choose not to work together earlier when they could have made a difference), has bearing.Giovanni33 03:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may give my take on this: Whether or not Elser was guilty in a judicial sense or not (and I guess he was, despite my admiration for his courage) - his killing was not an execution of a convict, as no trial had taken place. Hence "murdered" is actually accurate, even under the legal conditions of the Third Reich. Str1977 (smile back) 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and am being slightly facetious. I'm not trying to get into a semantical or other type of argument, especially after reading the Elser talk page, the last few days. I don't have it in me. Still hoping to get your (Str1977's), spin on Eugen Schauman, and Matti's POV. A few months ago, we touched on the deaths caused by Elser's failure to kill Hitler. I had gotten the impression that you disagreed with me that they were innocent. Were they innocent, or not? Dr. Dan 00:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to get the information of who was killed in the explosion? Do either of you know? Giovanni, Str1977, may be busy or tired after these long discussions with you, and therefore unable to answer me on his thoughts about Eugen Schauman. I realize that Schauman is a different issue, and if it becomes a worthwile topic, it can be discussed elsewhere. Morality, tyrannicide, terrorism, ect., were topics that Str1977 and I, touched upon sometime ago, in relation to Elser. Can you, G, give a brief opinion of Schauman? Dr. Dan 01:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dr. Dan. Sorry I did not respond earlier, but I've been very busy and had to go on a wiki-break. I'm afraid I can't yet give you a solid educated opinion on the case of Schauman without doing a little more reasearch myself. I'm familiar with it, and I do think it falls in a different category than does the Elser case. After I brush up on some of the details, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on the matter. Unfortunately, now I have to do with more personal attacks directed against me by the usual characters who took advantage of my absense. So, this will take up some of my time first. Giovanni33 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Morality of Elser
I have a lesser opinion of Elser, than Str1977. I have explained why, but wish to expound on this a little more. I will await your imput, when you can return. Dr. Dan 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Str1977, Giovanni,? Nothing? Dr. Dan 02:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Niemoeller and Elser
Did Niemoeller ever explicitly say that he suspected Elser was a member of the S.S.? It seems highly unlikely considering his political inclination and I can find no hard evidence for that assertion (as is stated in the article). Shirer, in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (pp. 865-867), characterizes Elser as being bribed by the S.S. while already incarcerated at Dachau. According to Shirer, Elser was allegedly approached by S.S. officials who promised to escort him across the border to Switzerland in exchange for building and planting the bomb in the Buergerbräukeller. After the blast he was speeded away to the frontier and left conveniently for other Gestapo agents to "discover" him as the culprit and coerced to implicate the British agents, Best and Stevens. While I wouldn't put such scurrilousness below Himmler's S.S. (e.g., the Gleiwitz incident), Schellenberg and Gisevius both believed it was a genuine attempt on Hitler's life and subsequent research by Anton Hoch bears this out. I would, however, be surprised if Niemoeller himself believed he was a member of the S.S. Does anyone have citations to back this up? If not, I'll remove the assertion from the article. Inoculatedcities 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would rather have Shire's version besides the current one, as this article paints Elser as a martyr of sorts. Or Hitler was really a very lucky man or the murder attempt envolved foul play.  And this means Elser was in together with another interested party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.137.133 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

You have to remember, Shirer wrote his book before a lot of evidence on the Nazi's was released by the Soviets or came t light by other means.

I do not understand
in the first sentence it says the assasination attempt failed because of faulty wiring but later on it says the bomb went off properly but Hitler had left earlier than expected. 98.196.78.26 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the same thought when reading this, how is the wiring at fault when Hitler changed his predicted routine?128.231.88.6 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What Germans think about him now is not a part of his article
Understandably, German people celebrate this person as one of the few who actually had the guts to go and do something against the monster. But what is thought of him in Germany actually belongs not to his biography, but to one of the numerous articles dealing with Germany's past, or articles on how Germans deal with it. Therefore I removed the the text after "I wanted to prevent even greater bloodshed through my deed", because it mostly deals with how Germans deal with their shame, and not what Elser actually did. LMB (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A person's legacy is relevant to his biography. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Flying Boat
Why is there an image of the Dornier flying boat? I don't see where it is referenced in the article or what it has to do with the subject. Was the ferry mentioned in the article the flying boat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LienEmpire (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have the names of the people killed by Elser's bomb?
Would their names be relevant? The entry mentions their funeral and the "hyperbole" of Hess regarding their deaths, why not include their names? 66.162.249.170 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johann Georg Elser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228040748/http://en.tracesofwar.com/ to http://en.tracesofwar.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Map
I'd like a map with the location of the places mentioned: Heidenheim, Friedrichshafen, Konstanz, Bottighofen, Meersburg, Schnaitheim, Nuremberg. The article details his movements but without a map, it is hard to picture their relevance. --Error (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Gisevius
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Undue weight to Gusevius, Nebe's friend and apologist; pls see Arthur Nebe". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Georg Elser 2-12179.jpg