Talk:Hans Filbinger

Bundesrat and other issues

Hallo Basedview22, I don't know why you are so bent on including this but let me explain my reasoning:

• President of the Bundesrat is not a position independent of being Minister President. The Presidents simply serve in turns, one after the other. Being elected is a mere formality.
• While the President of the Bundesrat serves as a deputy of the Federal President and hence is technically something like Vice President (an office that does not exist), he does not hold any authority or political power in that regard. He merely replaces the President in case of a temporary absence or, in case of premature leaving of office, until the next president is elected.
• I think it in order (though not required) to mention that someone held that post ... in the article but not in the intro.
• I also think it in order to mention it in the intro of the current occupant, in this case Harald Ringstorff.
• I don't think it in order to include prediction that someone will hold that post. a) it is a mere formality, b) we cannot know whether that person, due to be president, will be around at tht time.

As for other issues:

• I do not object to including Filbinger's CDU chairmanship and vice chairmanship (not Vice President of the CDU) in the intro, as long as we can put it in a concise manner. It is covered in detail in the article.
• His particular denomination is not linked to his political stance: he was a Catholic and he also was a conservative politician.
• There is no reason to obscure the fact that the "criticism" refers not to an earlier war but to the Second World War.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The President of the Federal Council occupies the 4th highest position in the German state, after the President, Chancellor and President of the Bundestag (German order of precedence). The way one becomes President of the Federal Council is quite irrelevant in regard to the relevance of the position. In the case of Filbinger, this is the highest position he occupied during his career and clearly has to be in the introduction. Filbinger anyway was a clearly Christian and specifically Catholic oriented politician, spending most of his time after 1979 to the Christian think tank St. Weikersheim, and being member of a Christian party. This justifies describing him as a "conservative Catholic German politician" in the lead. I don't understand you when you say criticism does not refer to an earlier war, clearly it was an earlier war, not a war in 1978 or recently. Basedview22 19:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The 4th doesn't go on the podium. Lars T. 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All you write here is irrelevant. The President of the Bundesrat (BTW, if the WP article is titled like this, it is good enough for this article too, especially if it's explained right afterwards) is nothing like a Vice President. The way of election is important, as it makes clear that the position is not independent of the much more important Ministerpresident. The point of the last bit is that "an earlier war" is an awkward expression when we can as well state which war it was. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All you write is irrelevant and your edits, including removing the fact that he was Minister President of Baden Württemberg and President of the Federal Council, is bordering on vandalism. According to you, it is "irrelevant" that George W. Bush is President of the United States as well? Basedview22 00:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the Ministerpresident was accidental (it was late). I would never intentionally remove it as it is by far the most important factlet of the article. To take up your parallel, including the President of the Bundesrat in the intro is akin to including the fact that Bush chaired the annual G8 meeting. BTW, why aren't you including this factlet into the article's of any other former President of the Bundesrat?

Another point: it is wrong to say that Filbinger had to resign as Ministerpresident in 1978 - he had to resign as both MP and party chairman and federal vice chairman, in other words: from all active political posts. However, he was appointed honorary chairman (again, questionable as to its relevance to the intro). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion remains:

Dr. Hans Karl Filbinger (15 September 1913 - 1 April 2007) was a conservative  German politician and 
a leading member of the Christian Democratic Union in the 1960s and 1970s, serving as the first 
chairman of the CDU Baden-Württemberg and vice chairman of the federal CDU. He was Minister President
of Baden-Württemberg from 1966 to 1978. He had to resign after allegations about his role as a navy 
lawyer and judge in the Second World War and remained a controversial figure until his death. He 
founded the conservative think tank Studienzentrum Weikersheim, which he chaired until 1997.

• The Bundesratspräsident is no idenpedent political office but merely a administrative function awarded according to turn.
• The honorary chairmanship is just an honour.
• Filbinger's religion can be discussed in the "personal life" section ... it is not formative to his politics (the CDU is not a Catholic but a Christian party).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The comparison of the G8 and the Federal Council is ridiculous. President of the Federal Council is an office and the 4th person in the German order of precedence. Chairing a G8 meeting is an informal position and not an office. You are completely wrong that all prime ministers become Presidents of the Federal Council. They only become Presidents if it is the turn of their state. Filbinger was as much a Catholic politician as he was a conservative politician. He started as a member of a Catholic organisation (Neudeutschland), was a clearly Christian politician and devoted his last 20 years to a Christian think tank. Basedview22 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is ridiculous? So is comparing the Bundesratspräsident to a proper Vice President. Any state has some sort of ruling in case of the President's incapacity but not all have a Vice President - Germany has not and never had a Vice President. Note, I did not say that all Ministerpresidents become Bundesratspräsident - only if they happen to be in office when their state's turn comes along, which is only every sixteen (and back then, every eleven) years.

As for the other issue: yes, Filbinger was a Catholic; yes, Filbinger was a Christian Democrat; yes, Filbinger was a conservative. Only the latter two are political epithets and they are not the same - not all Christian Democrats are conservatives. Anyway, Filbinger's Catholicism is not formative to his political afiliation (it would have been different had he been a Centre Party politician in the 1920s). Neither has the think thank anything to do with this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also you still have not replied to the issue why this should be included here and not in the articles of the other Presidents of the Bundesrat. I checked the articles - out of all the existing articles it is contained in five:

• Karl Arnold, who is a special case as he was the first and also acting head of state.
• Kai-Uwe von Hassel - for no particular reason (note that the article is short, so there is no distinction between intro and article text)
• Gerhard Schröder - for no particular reason and only as a sucession box
• Harald Ringstorff, who again is a special case as he is the incumbent (but that was added by me)

It is not even include in the Klaus Wowereit article, despite the latter having used the position to manipulate a vote (later invalidate by the Federal Court).

So we have two special cases and the other two don't have the post in the intro. I am asking you: why should we include it here in the intro? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Because, being President of the Federal Council is the 4th highest office in the German state and just as relevant as being President of the Bundestag. The Federal Council is an important institution in a state based on federalism. The articles where this information is missing needs to be updated. Since the turn of a state only comes along every 16 year, only some Minister Presidents become Presidents of the Council.

Anyway, Neudeutschland where Filbinger was active already in the 20s was affiliated with the Catholic Centre Party. Basedview22 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not argue about noncontroversial stuff: of course the Bundesrat is important and that its president ranks as number 4 is also undisputed. The question is how relevant it is to an article about a man. Of course it is relevant and should be mentioned but should be included in the intro? That is unless the person is the incumbent or really hit it big time on this position, as I would grant Karl Arnold or maybe Mr Wowereit. I have no objection at all to the sucession box * or the current box with all the presidents - though maybe we could make it an inflatable one - * or any mentioning in the article text. It is only the intro I am about.

Also, what about the honorary chairmanship? The only way we could make this relevant is by pointing out the controversy and give two sides, one blasting him at every turn and the others defending him e.g. his party making him honorory chairman.

On the other issue, Filbinger wasn't a politician when he was a member of Neudeutschland. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles have much longer introductions, i.e. this introduction is not particularly long and I don't see why it is a problem using 6-7 words to mention he occupied the 4th highest position in Germany. Since the introduction states that he "resigned", I think it is necessary to make it clear that he didn't resign completely. Being honorary chairman of CDU Baden-Württemberg is not unimportant. I guess we could add a sentence describing there was different views on him. Basedview22 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the length but the importance of that information. I just don't think the mere fact that he was Bundesratspräsident important enough for the intro.

In the right form, the honorary chairman is certainly includable. But note: he did resign completely, from all his political offices. But the CDU Baden-Württemberg gave him the honour often due to to former chairmans: after all consider Lothar Späth who resigned because of a scandal and became honorary chairman, or Willy Brandt, who resigned in anger at his party and was made honorary chairman of the SPD. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And being President of the Federal Council, one of the most important political institutions in Germany, and No. 4 in Germany after the President, Chancellor and Bundestag President, clearly is very relevant in my opinion. As such he even takes precedence before the entire cabinet except the Chancellor.

When I said he "didn't resign completely", I meant he didn't resign from all party offices. He was a member of the Bundesvorstand until 1981 and honorary chairman until his death, as well as serving in the Bundesversammlung several times.

As for honorary chairmen, Helmut Kohl had to resign his honorary chairmanship because of a scandal (and a quite irrelevant scandal when compared to the achievements of this great statesman). Basedview22 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please desist from repeating things over and over: there is not dispute about the rank of the Bundesratspräsident. The dispute is whether it is relevant to the intro. I don't think so because it is not relevant to the biography of the man, while his being MP is.

Sorry, I forgot about the Bundesvorstand (though he eventually had to resign that too. Possible wordings would be: "... had to resign as Ministerpresident and eventually from his party offices" (with a note about the honorary chairmanship right next) - or "... had to resign as Ministerpresident and party chairman" (glossing over the membership in the Bundesvorstand (all this mentioned in detail in the main text. And sure he was elected to the Bundesversammlung but a) that mentioned in the main text, b) we cannot possibly include every time in intro. Remember this is an intro giving the most important facts, the rest is for the article.

Helmut Kohl is the sole exception that someone resign an honorary chairmanship and remember: he wasn't forced to resign. He was asked to either produce his donor's names and until to let his honorary chairmanship position rest, to which he reacted by resigning alltogether. In any case, what power or authority does an honoary chairman have? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some considerations on proportionality and NPOV

I think description of his work as a non-commisioned and later commisioned navy officer should be more proportional, and more neutral.

First of all, sentencing deserters in war time to death was the usual practice in all countries at that time (both Allied and Axis, and other countries) and still is in many countries, and was also in accordance with the German military criminal code of 1872.

It is clear evidence Filbinger did nothing that violated the laws of war or German law. Furthermore, it is clear evidence that Filbinger in fact was a staunch oppononent of National Socialism, being a Christian activist, and that he on multiple occasions was risking his own life to help the anti-Nazi cause. It is hence absurd to criticize him for alleged Nazi sympathies, and I would like to see what his critics did against Nazism.

From this article:

He was a member of the Jugendbund Neudeutschland (Youth Federation New-Germany), which he had joined in grammar school. As this Catholic students' federation with political leanings to the Centre Party opposed their being integrated into the Hitler Youth, it was banned. Filbinger, who was a leading member in the district of Northern Baden, in April 1933 called his fellow members to continue their work with their previous intentions and issue a programme for the upcoming future[1]. As a result, the NSDAP deemed him "politically unreliable".

Without his knowledge, two of the conspirators of the July 20 Plot - Karl Sack and Berthold Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg - recommended Filbinger for employment after a successful coup, adding that one could always rely on Filbinger's "principled anti-Nazi stance and loyalty". [3]

During that time he was a member of the Freiburg circle, a group of Catholic intellectuals centred around the publisher Karl Färber. Filbinger used his periods of leave to return to Freiburg and attend lectures by Reinhold Schneider[2], a writer critical of the Nazi regime.

It is also clear that Filbinger in fact never issued a death sentence that was carried out - although this question really is irrelevant since this was the law at the time.

Lieutenant Guido Forstmeier was charged with Wehrkraftersetzung, which carried the death penalty, and saved his life only thanks to Filbinger, according to later interviews and statements [1]. This needs to be included in the article. Forstmeier also explains the pratice of sentencing deserters to death (Forstmeier was not a deserter and did not defend desertation).

Journalist: Politisch korrekte Tugendwächter werfen Dr. Filbinger vor allem vor, dass er an Todesurteilen mitgewirkt habe. Wie war denn – etwa bei Fahnenflucht – die Praxis in anderen Ländern?

Forstmeier: Im Zweiten Weltkrieg galt die Androhung der Todesstrafe in allen Armeen der Welt als gerechte Maßnahme bei Fahnenflucht. Natürlich musste auch in der letzten Kriegsphase die Disziplin bewahrt bleiben, um die deutschen Soldaten nicht in einem Chaos versinken zu lassen. Im Frühjahr 1945 rettete die deutsche Marine 2,5 Millionen Flüchtlinge aus Schlesien, Pommern, Ost- und Westpreußen, denen die Rote Armee den Fluchtweg über Land abgeschnitten hatte, über die Ostsee. Dieses großartige Rettungswerk der Marine war nur möglich, weil die Disziplin unter den Schiffsbesatzungen und darüber hinaus Bestand hatte. Hätten Desertionen überhand genommen, so hätten weitere Hunderttausende ihr Leben verloren. [2]

And from the German Wikipedia:

Der Historiker Golo Mann sprach von einer „meisterhaft konzertierten Hetze gegen Filbinger“. [11] Dass, wie heute bekannt ist, im Hintergrund das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit der DDR an den Veröffentlichungen beteiligt war, legte Filbinger als Unschuldsbeweis aus. Er behauptete, „von den Verschwörern des 20. Juli 1944 für eine Verwendung nach geglücktem Attentat auf Adolf Hitler vorgesehen“ gewesen zu sein und „mehreren zu Unrecht zum Tode Verurteilten das Leben gerettet“ zu haben. Filbinger bezeichnete sich selbst als rehabilitiert; genauso sieht es der CDU-Landesverband Baden-Württemberg bis heute.

Filbinger hatte in dem jüdischen Rechtsgelehrten Professor Dr. Ernst Hirsch einen großen Fürsprecher. Hirsch sagte über Filbinger: „Es fehlt der Geist des Emile Zola, der das Unrecht, das man [Filbinger] angetan hat, auf die Gassen schreit.“

Basedview22 20:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Wolfram Wette's lecture on "The Case Filbinger":

The case of the sailor Walter Gröger

…So could Filbinger have acted any other way, if he had wanted to? The answer is, in principle yes. But it would have taken him a dose of civil courage that was was so far out of his character. He could have told the head of court that he thought the original sentence was adequate …. An absenting vote like this would not have brought him any disadvantages. There is not a single case known where a military judge or persecutor who did not follow the guidelines of the head of court was reprimanded personally. Unlike his later claims, Filbinger did very well have this latitude. But it was neither wanted nor used by the conformist Filbinger, because he basically found the death penalty correct. … Later evidence for this inhuman attitude Dr. Hans Filbinger gave himself in 1995. In the aforementioned letter to the editor (to the „Badische Zeitung“) … „The sailor G. went AWOL in Norway.“ Even 50 years after he was shot he still called him "sailor G." — Gee-period! — didn't even name his full name as a symbol for the full human being and thus denied him once more any respect. His warrantors … he named with full name and title.

Exactly what you would expect from a Christian activist and anti-Nazi, unlike cowards like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Lars T. 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And where did Bonhoeffer criticize Filbinger? Relevance? AFAIK he did not belong to the military. Anyway, the sentence of the sailor G. clearly was correct, and no reason to criticize. Filbinger acted in accordance with German law and the usual international practice. It was not even him who sentenced the deserter G. Filbinger acted only as a prosecutor. As a prosecutor, it is not your job to defend the defandant, but to prosecute him. When his superiors told him that death sentence was the adequate sentence, Filbinger had no reason to have a different opinion. Deserting is a serious crime during a war in any country! Basedview22 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? Unlike Filbinger, Bonhoeffer stood up for what he believed in (and died). That is unless Filbinger did exactly what he believed in. As for Walter Gröger, there already was a lesser sentence of 6 years, this was a re-trial that took place because the Nazis thought he should be killed, and F. did what he thought was right as a Christian - insist on the death sentence. You might as well read what I wrote. Lars T. 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Filbinger did what was right as a lawyer. Filbinger was a lawyer and a judge and his work was based on German law, the military criminal code of 1872. Do you object to German law? I don't see why the deserter G. should have a lesser sentence. If more navy personnel had acted like that deserter, hundreds of thousands more regugees would have died. It was clearly necessary to make it clear to all personnel that deserting carried the death penalty. Deserting in war is a crime! Criminals should be punished. Basedview22 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Filbinger did not everything to save lives however - one more thing he always kept claiming. And for the last time: There was no reason for him to ask for a death sentence but the fact that that's what the Nazis wanted in a 2nd trial. He could have asked for a lesser sentence without fear of any reprimands, but he didn't. Lars T. 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Filbingers job was to fulfill justice in accordance with the German military criminal code of 1872, not to save lives. However, he did all he could to save wrongly convicted people, like Lieutenant Guido Forstmeier, who was charged after making anti-Nazi comments. There is a clear difference between anti-Nazis like Forstmeier and regular criminals like the deserter G. There is no evidence the deserter G. was an anti-Nazi, he was a person who only did what was best for himself and bad for everyone else, like million of refugees who needed the assistance of the navy to survive the Stalinist slaughter. I don't understand why an immoral criminal like the deserter G. should receive a lesser sentence. Filbinger was a hero, and I admire his moral stance and courage. Basedview22 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep ignoring that Gröger was "just" a deserter, and he was already tried for his crime according to the law you keep quoting, and sentenced to only 6 years. And F., as a good Christian, supported a re-trial and the death sentence for an man he deemed unworthy life at least by simply "following orders". Your hero, Aryan Superman Filbinger proved to be, if not a Nazi, then somebody who should not hold a public office because he holds a human life lower than blind faith in a government. Lars T. 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, faith in law and faith in order. Clearly Filbinger should hold office, that was why he was elected Prime Minister and de facto Vice President of Germany. Basedview22 08:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who're you tring to bullshit here, Biasedview? "Law and order" in the Nazi era meant war and murder. Why did "anti-fascist" and "Christian" Filbinger rub shoulders with and buddy around with Rolf Schlierer (holocaust denier), the Danubia fraternity (under observation by the Bavarian Verfassungsschutz for neo-Nazi leanings), Ulli Boldt (a leading neo-Nazi for years, until he got too hot so they'd have to drop him) and Horst Mahler? All at his "christian" think-tank, which is as Christian as the Aryan Nations HQ is a sunday school (the correct term would be Neue Rechte).

I personally know some Nazi war criminals, and I can tell which ones of these are repentant and which are not. Believe me, it shows. Filbinger was unrepentant His only critique of the NS can be summed up by "it was not morally legit" - well, Hänschen klein, why then did you make a career out of providing legal aid to that Unrechtsstaat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs)

Dysmo,

I had my disagreements with Basedview but he is not trying to bullshit (as you chose to call it) anyone here. Lars' announcement that Gröger was "just a deserter" is telling. But in general, desertion is considered a crime in war times and tried according to the law. Filbinger was put on the spot of prosecutor very late in this case and had neither possibility nor reason to go against the orders in this case - no reason because it wouldn't have saved Gröger.

"according to the law" - the law in this case being the German naval code dating from before the 1st world war and a law pretty much identical to the law in other countries. So, hardly a Nazi law.

Gröger was already sentenced to a lesser sentence "according to the law". Why don't you actually check the law, and see what it calls the death sentence for, and what not? Lars T. 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And while you are at it, look up "Führer-Richtlinie". Lars T. 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dysmo, "anti-fascist"? Who ever said he was anti-fascist. Is this now a requirement? He was no anti-fascist, while Stalin was.

So you know war criminals and can tell repentence. Of course, Filbinger was unrepetent but then again, he wasn't a war criminal in the first place.

And you decry his calling the Third immoral? Why? Is that not the really problematic fact about it? As for his career, who apparently have no clue what live in a war and in totalitarian regime is like.

Furthermore, WP articles cannot serve as references for WP articles. Even German WP articles can't.

Finally, please provide your objections regarding NPOV if you want to tag the article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oettinger called him "anti-fascist" (verbatim "convinced opponent to the Nazi regime" if I recall correctly). Dysmorodrepanis 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, no. Oettinger did not call him an "anti-fascist", as your verbatim quote shows. He called him an "opponent of the Nazi regime". Some such opponents indeed were anti-fascists while others were not. The term anti-fascism has a long history, including Communists fighting against Social-democrats as the greater enemy, the establishment of dictatorships in Eastern Europe post 1945, to say nothing of the "antifaschistischer Schutzwall". There is also debate in how far Nazism can and should be classified as Facism in the first place. In any case, please don't criticize someone for something he didn't say. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wolfram Wette seems to be a left-wingish person with strong POVs, typical SED/PDS person, not exactly an NPOV person. His POV is rather irrelevant for this article. He completely lacks knowledge of (German and international) military law and customs. Basedview22 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Boo-hoo-hoo. Just like F. you blame it all one the evil lefties, instead of admitting what he had done. Just like Hanns-Martin Schleyer and other Nazis who build the new ruling elite of West Germany. Of course Filbinger's membership in the NSDAP alone should have cost him his office by the terms of the Radikalenerlass he liked so much. Lars T. 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? I clearly stated Filbinger did his duty, and there was no reason to criticize him for this. Your claim is absurd. The Radikalenerlass was aimed at political extremists. Doing your job in accordance with German law and international customs is not extremism. This seems to be a double standard. How about all the Allied military judges and prosecutors that sentenced Allied deserters to death? (in the Soviet Union, you were sent straigt to Gulag and killed for far less). How about military judges and prosecutors in the US, France and other countries that sentenced deserters to death for years after that particular war? And the NSDAP was a legal political party and had millions of members, and Filbinger was not even an active member, save a politician. The Radikalenerlass was aimed at political extremists, not members of a government party decades ago. Basedview22 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So your excuse is "he was just following orders". And that Nazis aren't political extremists. And neither are Stalinists obviously, else you wouldn't try to defend Filbinger with Stalin's terror doctrine of "fight till the death, or you are dead". Lars T. 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Filbinger did what was the law and custom at his time, not only in Germany, but in any country. It was not Filbinger who made that law, but the Parliament of Germany in the 1870s. If you criticize Filbinger, you have to criticize all military justice in all countries of the world until very recently. In several countries (like the US), deserting in war still carries the death penalty. Lawyers who served in the war did make political career in other countries as well. Basedview22 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In which country did members of the NSDAP make a political career? Lars T. 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of your question is? Basedview22 08:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello McFly, somebody at home? The reasons for why the NSDAP and uts political and legal system are today considered a gross flagration of the legal standards of its time as well as of today's should be publicly available knowledge. Read any monograph about the Nuremberg Trials and think, "Filbinger was part of this. He toed the party line. He never spoke out. He never tried to oppose the will of his superiors, even if he could and could have gotten away with it. According to your logic, nobody should have been sentenced for shooting Republikflüchtlinge at the Berlin Wall, as this too was 100% legal.

Wolfram Wette did work at the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt (MGFA) of the Bundeswehr. I'd hope the Militärischer Abschirmdienst was able to prevent SED members and spies from joining this institution. --Pjacobi 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A few remarks:

• Wolfram Wette is not a SED member or DDR spy. He is a qualified historian. However, as any human being, he has his political convictions (which probably are to the left) POVs and certainly is a representative of the anti-Filbinger POV. He is not a nutcase as Hochhuth but still he represents a certain POV. As such he can and should be included but only as that, not as "the truth".
• The Radikalenerlaß is completely irrelevant. It did aim at extremists on both left and right. The thing is, even if Filbinger were a Nazi in 1945 (he indeed was a party member but no convinced Nazi), the Erlaß aimed at the extremists of the time, be they right or left. It did not retroactively aim at former Nazis (however defined) - had the Federal Republic or the important parties chosen to exclude former Nazis the new state could have never survived. Kudos to the people that clearly saw this, including the concentration camp survivor Kurt Schumacher.

"In which country did members of the NSDAP make a political career?" ... in the Third Reich! Or did you mean former members? Well, in those countries the party had been active: Western Germany, Eastern Germany (which even had a "former-Nazi-party") and Austria. For the wisdome of allowing former Nazis (as opposed to unrepentant) see the previous item. However, that "Nazis ... build the new ruling elite of West Germany." is indeed a Eastern German propaganda claim. There were a few former Nazis in leading political positions but there were also people like Kurt Schumacher, Konrad Adenauer, Thomas Dehler.

• Comparisons with Bonhoeffer are out of order. The latter also served the Third Reich and an illminded person could construe allegations out of that. Both were placed in different positions with different challenges. Bonhoeffer (though much more admirable than Niemöller) did not "stand up for what he believed and died". He sneaked his way into German intelligence to hurt the regime and was caught helping Jews flee the country. He was killed because of his involvement in an assassination plot. Is he an admirable person? Yes, I think so. Is he spotless? No! Is he the standard by which anyone should be measured? No! Had he survived he undoubtedly would have been slandered by opponents too.
• It must be taken into account that the death penalties for deserters in war was the norm back in the day, no matter what country or political system. This has nothing to with Nazi laws (though the Nazis did take it to an extreme in other fields, vs. so-called "defeatism").

Well, you are wrong. The only two countries where the death penalty was "the norm" was Nazi Germany (as opposed to Germany during WW 1) and the Soviet Union. Lars T. 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• In the Gröger case, Filbinger only came in in the last minute and was confronted with the demands of the military superior (not "the Nazis" but some colonel or general), who had rejected the earlier verdict and commanded the prosecution to plea for the death penalty. Filbinger was only a last minute replacement for the prosecutor without any time to work out the case. In any case, even if he could have acted differently and asked for a lesser sentence this would not have saved Gröger (who would have been sentenced to death in a third trial) and Filbinger argued that it would have undermined his ability to help others, including Forstmeier. But even if you don't accept this reasoning, Filbinger's involvement didn't make any difference to Gröger. Maybe he wasn't heroic at that moment but heroism is not something anyone can demand of any person.
• The same holds true for his membership in the NSDAP - surely not a heroic act but opportunism. He cannot be praised for this ... but neither should he be bashed for that act. One has to get a life. It is interesting however that among Filbinger's critics was Walter Jens, a convinced member of the Nazi party at the time (a thing he later tried to cover up), not to speak of those youngsters that were acting it out in the Hitler Youth and/or volunteered for the Waffen SS at that time.

Yeah, you already told us he "was just following orders". Lars T. 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from that and from this edit 99, which I consider vandalism - where are here the concerns about the Neutrality of the article, as promised by the POV tag? If there aren't any, I will remove the tag. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Prove that this isn't a quote of F.. Lars T. 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@Lars: That argument doesn't fly, see proof of a negative, but see below.

@Str1977: Several secondary sources, few of them online, source this to a quote from Filbinger at a May 5 1978 press conference: „Ich habe kein einziges Todesurteil selbst gefällt!“ -- for complete validation, a walk (or paid online access) to newspaper archive may be necessary.

Pjacobi 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pjacobi, could you give me link(s) to this?

Lars, first of all: you inserted a quote so you must provide the source. The only source in the vicinity was Gilessen who included the indirect quote of the statement that nobody lost his life through one of F's verdict. It might be that Filbinger at first had forgotten about the two in absentia verdicts and said that he never sentenced anyone to death. Quite possibly. But we must be certain before we include it.

And secondly, I called this specific edit vandalism because of your invisible addition about "lying politicians" - that was completely unhelpful and out of order and doesn't put your other postings in a positive light.

Thirdly, you now have had the chance to reply and actually provide a reason for the POV tag. You haven't and I will remove it until you come up with an argument. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Filbinger never issued death sentences that was carried out. The death penalty was also used in other Allied countries, not only the Soviet Union. It was also used in the great war. Basedview22 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Basedview, that is the question I am about: did Filbinger say what Lars quoted (because he had forgotten the two unexecuted verdicts) or did he say (what he later said countless times) that no one died because of his verdicts, or was he misquoted. I personally see no reason to bash him but first and foremost we must be clear on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@Str1977:

1. http://www.giessener-anzeiger.de/artikel/2723747
2. http://www.uni-muenster.de/Soziologie/Papcke/PapckeHeyseBrailich_WS0506_Skandal_TP_Bio.pdf
3. ISBN 3593370697
4. http://www.faz.net -- search for "Hans Filbinger In den Strömungen der Zeit" (URL isn't persistent)

Pjacobi 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will digest them and comment on them here:

1. To incoherent to be of use, a mere staccato and very onesided - we are in need of facts, not of opinion.

2. confirm the direct quote, unfortunately only a students' presentation. I wounder whether Mr Neubauer wrote to books of the same title, one on Filbinger, one on Stolpe or whether it is just a sloppy bibliography. Nonetheless, in conjunction with number 4 I take it as good enough a confirmation.

3. Seems not very scholarly (thus echoing the public opinion), rather sensationalisic, hard to access.

4. Good and under the circumstances balanced, relevant sentences: "Seit Prozessbeginn hob der Ministerpräsident mehrfach hervor, kein einziges Todesurteil selbst gefällt zu haben. ... Als Anfang Juli bekannt wurde, dass Filbinger entgegen früheren eigenen Bekundungen an weiteren Todesurteilen mitgewirkt habe - beispielsweise in Abwesenheit eines Angeklagten, so dass Filbinger von einem „Phantomurteil“ sprach, das überhaupt nicht habe vollstreckt werden können und nur der Abschreckung gedient hätte -, trat er am 7. August 1978 zurück." Unfortunately the floating URL makes it unusable in the article. The quote is only given indirectly but in conjunction with number 2 I do accept it.

Therefore I will use the FAZ article as a reference for the quote. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the problems with the links given -- but in summation they very much imply to me that definitive proof can be found, if only enough expense and effort is supplied. As at least one one of these stated "vor laufenden Fernsehkameras", even the MAZ auf that statement may still be around.

I agree with your other point: The FAZ article, and even more the two studies of the case mentioned in it, would be good for further elaborating.

But whatever digging in the sources is done, some essential points will always remain a subjective judgement (of F.'s motive's etc), and different people will tend to different judgements.

Pjacobi 19:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lars, provide a reasoning for the POV tag or don't add it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your white-washing of Filbinger by only quoting right-wing sources, for one. Esp. compared to the German article de:Hans Filbinger Lars T. 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Define right-wing sources?

The German article is right now in a state of POV - not surprisingly given the current hysteria in the media after the Oettinger speech. But if you have concerns be specific: where does the article violate NPOV? Are there any facts missing or wrong? I see that both views are presented. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from those you keep deleting? Lars T. 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weikersheim article on en: could need some expansion. I won't do it. But the de: article names names of neo-Nazis associated with Filbinger and his buddies. Dysmorodrepanis 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me break it down for you again. You add the POV tag which says

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."

But this talk page contains no concerns by you or anyone regarding NPOV. Sure, you said a lot of things but you didn't address the contents of the article and in what way they violating NPOV. Until you can come up with something you shouldn't be tagging the article, let alone repeatedly. In addition to that, you have also shown some trollish behaviour (adding invisible notes about "lying" and a ridiculous "autobiography" tag) and insulted other editors. Which, quite frankly, hurts your credibility. Come back when you are souber. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dysmo, please provide your objections regarding NPOV if you want to tag the article. I explained this immediately above to Lars but the same goes for you. The tags say:

• The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
• The neutrality of this article is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page.

The tags point to this talk page and you have not provided a factual inaccuracy or a POV violation (one in existence you immediately fixed, before you placed the tag). Note also, these are two distinct issues and if you can't come up with a reasoning for both, the tags will be removed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dysmo, let me show you an instant of real POV pushing. You changed the discussion of the "Was damals Unrecht war ..." quote from a comprehensive treatment to a mere online showcasing your preferred conclusion (that he was an unrepentant Nazi) and buried the facts into a footnote. Even worse, you used a supposed translation issue to obfuscate the fact that Filbinger was not talking about Nazi law and wrongly claimed wrongly that the second translation was more accurate.

You're shooting yourself into the foot here. "Dysmo, let me show you an instant of real POV pushing. You changed the discussion of the "Was damals Unrecht war ..." - several points:

• Original quote is not given
• Translation of "Recht" is ambigusous (sure, so you believe Filbinger's claim. He would,wouldn't he?). The Recht-Gesetz dichotomy parallels justice-law in English. Not exactly IIRC, but close. "What was justice then can't be injustice now" is not good though. BUT it might actually be the version a non-German-speaker could best comprehend. "Justice" in vernacular use carries the same ambiguity as does "Recht" I think.
• In consequence, don't try to accuse me of POV pushing when you're:
  • deleting an explanatory comment (I agree to deleting the last piece, that was mean)
  • deleting an alternative and equally possible translation, and, worst of all,
  • deleting the original quote: removing an original source and replacing it with a subjective interpretation is WP:VAN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

the noun "Recht", as it has been published by the Spiegel and repeated countless times, clearly means law and not "right" - "Unrecht" is more difficult and indeed it is closer to "injustice" (which however would also cover Ungerechtigkeit, which Filbinger did not use) - unfortunately the stylistic paralellism breaks down in the transaltion unless one uses "legal" and "illegal", which covers what Filbinger said and meant. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the German term for "morally just", then? The Filbinger quote has IIRC been always understood to be ambiguous by native speakers. Unambigously, he would have used "Gesetz" or "gerechtfertigt" for a purely legal/purely moral meaning.

The point is, he was not talking about a piece of legal code, but about its application under a certain set of circumstances, to justify his decision to follow said piece of legal code even though he realized that it was inhuman.

In addition, has Filbinger ever denounced NS or publicly broken with his past? I don't think so. Weasel words is all one got from him. Please read the Nuremberg protocols (not the main proceedings, the legal system files) for details on the Nazi legal system and how the Gleichschaltung of civil courts affected military courts.

Belief in that one's actions are legally justified is not a Persilschein. The argument used to exonerate Filbinger doesn't need much twisting to exonerate basically any Nazi. Filbinger never discussed the issue. His stance was, until the end, "I was right in what I did, and I see no moral problem whatoever in my aiding to enforce the continuation of Nazism til the very end - even though I realized there was something about it that was deeply wrong." Either he was a Nazi, or he was a traitor to his people and country. The injustice was clearly visible to him, according to his own statements. He was an intelligent man, he must have been aware that he had a choice. He chose to support and uphold a system of mass murder and a war of extermination. He turned a blind eye when he, morally, should have seen, and looked closer than he needed to when he schould have looked as far away as possible. He realized the system was an "Unrechtsstaat" and yet felt bound by its legal trappings. A piece of legal code never comes without a context; it gets only defined by the context.

What is the international opinion about him BTW? The article is slanted towards an inter-German dispute. Dysmorodrepanis 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See for example here (though a piece by Ha'aretz is obviously highly critical of F.). Still a bit of international wisdom would be in order. Dysmorodrepanis 17:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dysmo,

"morally just" would be (moralisch) gerecht. All these terms are related and have overlap but what we cannot do is claim that there is any translation issue regarding the meaning of what he said. Of course there are always difficulties in translating. On the other hand, there is a debate what he meant but it is not a matter of the actual words but a matter of which "Recht" Filbinger referred to. Obviously the Spiegel and his critics took/take this as referring to "Nazi laws" (in quotes because it is an ambiguous term), while Filbinger and his aide (present at the interview) stated that it unambiguously referred to the Naval code. We cannot of course know who is right in this. I cannot follow your "the point is" at all. This all would have to be seen combined with his actual record and, frankly, his actual record does not at all justify all this demonisation.

You ask for a denouncing his Nazi past - again, that's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife" - the Nazi past is a past as a German soldier (of which some were Nazis while others weren't). Of course, the Nazi regime pervaded into every fibre of German bureaucracy, military etc. But they are not quite the same. And as for for denouncing: does it need a public renouncment? He helped building up Western Germany as a democracy after the war and that is what was required back then.

"Belief in that one's actions are legally justified is not a Persilschein. The argument used to exonerate Filbinger doesn't need much twisting to exonerate basically any Nazi." - well nobody claimed that and again you are assuming that he was a Nazi. That depends what you mean by the term: a party member? That he was. A devoted follower of the ideology? Evidence speaks against this. A German soldier following order? Indeed, but that doesn't make one a Nazi. Would a Nazi have saved a Möbius or a Forstmeier. The issue is not whether Filbinger believed that his actions were legal but whether they were not only legal under nazified law but whether his actions can be deemed justifiable under the non-nazified law of his time. And indeed it can. His actions were not "aiding to enforce the continuation of Nazism til the very end" (that is your onsided view on things) but simply the keeping up of military discipline which is all the more needed in such situations to prevent wars from turning even worse. You may not understand this but that's the way it goes.

Even worse, some try to paint him as a war criminal which he clearly is not. Criminals should be prosecuted and punished. Filbinger was not (not even in 1978) and one of his verdicts (of the so-called "phantom verdicts") was even held up by the Federal court.

I don't understand "Either he was a Nazi, or he was a traitor to his people and country." - who is speaking here: is it you supposing Filbinger or what? Filbinger never prosecuted or condemned anyone for not being a Nazi, in fact he did the opposite in the Forstmeier case.

International opinion is just opinion. Opinion is covered as opinion. The article is already doing this. International (as opposed to German) opinion adds nothing to what is already discussed in Germany. Skimming through the linked article I see all the problematic bits present in German discussions e.g. "a Nazi proscecutor".

"Opponent of the regime" is indeed a vague term covering resisters to external and internal emigrants as well as those opposed to Nazism but still working in the system. But the term is more Mr Oettinger's problem and not Filbinger's. It is a bit hilarious to hear complaints about rewriting history when the biggest faker of history of them all is the one that started the whole affair. Still opinion must be covered in NPOV.

However, I am asking again: where does the article get a fact wrong? Where does the article violate NPOV? It cannot be a lack of international coverage. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding only the translation of "Was damals Recht war, kann heute nicht Unrecht sein!"

To say that the sentence can be unambigously translated into English as "What was legal back then, cannot be illegal now" is incorrect. Regardless of what Filbinger refered to when he uttered the words, the sentence is ambigous in German and can mean both "What was legal back then, cannot be illegal now" and "What was just then, cannot be unjust now." Even the capitalisation does not change that fact, because Recht has a meaning that goes beyond positive law. That is why positive law is Positives Recht and Natural law is Naturrecht, for instance. Until reading the article, it never came to my mind that anyone could seriously dispute that fact. If you don't believe me, look up the words Recht and Unrecht in a dictionary. So instead of presenting just one possible English translation, the article should include the original German phrase with both possible interpretations.

• I. e.: Change "Another issue revolves around the sentence "What was legal back then, cannot be illegal now"." To "Another issue revolves around the sentence "Was damals Recht war, kann heute nicht Unrecht sein!" (which can mean either "What was legal back then, cannot be illegal now!" or "What was just then, cannot be unjust now!""

Now go ahead and stone me. Blur4760 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can accept using the German in the text, but not the inaccurate claim about the translation ambiguity. I could be convinced to a footnote noting that Recht and Unrecht have a just/unjust ring to them or that Recht contains more than just positive law. But no more.

Your example with positives Recht vs. Naturrecht doesn't change a thing because here you have Recht modified by postiv and Natur - to clarify the meaning. That is why in English it is positive law vs. natural law.

That brings to mind a possible alternative - lawful - unlawful - is not restricted to any implied mere legality but neither does it invent an ambiguity.

I don't need to look up anything, I am a native speaker. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Native speaker of what? English? Or German? Or even both? Anyway, if someone were to make the effort and look in a dictionary (let's say dict.leo.org) for both "Recht" and "Unrecht", he would find for instance "justice" and "law" for Recht and "injustice", and "unjustness" for Unrecht (among others). Furthermore, the statement is ambigous, because there exists the proposition that something can be lawful and legal and yet it is Unrecht (gesetzliches Unrecht). I suppose you have heard of the Radbruchsche Formel (Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht, SJZ 1946, 105 (107)(? Here Radbruch admits that one cannot make a clear distinction between "gesetzliches Unrecht" and a borderline acceptable law. He assumes however that such "gesetzliches Unrecht" exists. Yet if you accept only a legal-illegal or lawful-unlawful dichotomy to translate Filbinger's statement, you are no longer able to convey this appearent paradox between "Gesetzlichkeit" and "Unrecht". Or, as Hart has put it, "this doctrine can be appreciated fully only if the nuances imported by the German word Recht are grasped." (Hart, HLR 71, 593 (617)). Blur4760 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Native speaker of German, of course. Anything else would be irrelevant, wouldn't it. (But a lawyer I am not.) I already confirmed that there is a certain incongruity between the English and the German words but not that there is an ambiguity in Filbinger's statement. The translation need not convey the issue of "gesetzliches Unrecht" as it was not addressed in the actual statement. But tell, what about the "(un)lawful" suggestion - IMHO this is the term closest to the extent of the German. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

IONO. I'm still in favor of footnoting it. That's what footnotes are for. And I still think there should be 2 translations, to the effect that the phrase can mean anything from "What was according to law back then, can't be against the law now" - as Filbinger said he meant it - to "What was right back then, cannot be wrong now" - as the Spiegel said he meant it. (The more I read the quote, the less sense does it make to me. What in the name of G. is this guy talking about? It's 1978, not 1923; he's discussing the Kaiser's laws as if nothing had changed in the meantime?!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

1. @Str1977: Your knowledge of English might be relevant as well.

2. Of course the translation does not need to address the fundaments of legal philosophy.

3. However, I still stand by that Recht and Unrecht are ambigous terms. I mentioned Radbruch because the quotation is an example of a combination of injustice and legality. If one translates the pair "Recht - Unrecht" as either "legal - illegal" or "lawful - unlawful", it implies that "Recht" is respectively what is legal or lawful or "Unrecht" is what is respectively illegal or unlawful. However, it is a legitimate legal theory to say something can be lawful in the sense that it is based on positive law and yet it is still "Unrecht". And while Radbruch for example says that such cases are not easily identifiable, he does concede that they may exist.

4. To me, Filbinger's statement is ambigous at the least for anyone who is familiar with Radbruch's formula because it may be considered as the antithesis to it. When Radbruch says "daß der Widerspruch des positiven Gesetzes zur Gerechtigkeit ein so unerträgliches Maß erreicht, daß das Gesetz als ”unrichtiges Recht” der Gerechtigkeit zu weichen hat." (that when the contradiction between positive law and justice has reached such an insufferable extent that the law as "unrichtiges Recht" has to concede to justice) he uses Recht as a synonyme for positive law and at the same time says that Recht can be unrichtig. In the next sentence, ("Es ist unmöglich, eine schärfere Linie zu ziehen zwischen den Fällen des gesetzlichen Unrechts und den trotz unrichtigen Inhalts dennoch geltenden Gesetzen") gesetzliches Unrecht is used as a synonyme for what was unrichtiges Recht before. So Radbruch says basically "What can be Recht (in the sense of positive law) can still be Unrecht". Do you see why Filbinger's statement can be seen as direct antithesis to Radbruch? I am not saying that Filbinger meant this sentence to be a replique to Radbruch, even though Radbruch's formula is quite famous. I am just saying that it is one valid interpretation of his statement, that he wanted to say what was positive law once cannot be injustice now. And your proposed translation does not carry this ambiguity.

PS: I am not using Radbruch's essay to form elaborate theories about Recht and Unrecht but rather to give an example of where these terms are used in a sense that are inconsistent with a "legal - illegal" or "lawful - unlawful" dichotomy. Blur4760 23:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Blur, I think we now understand each other better. As I said, "Recht"/"Unrecht" has a certain breadth which is not easily translated. However, I don't see a translation ambiguity - only the trouble inherent in translations. Also, I see no trouble making out what Filbinger meant, especially given his own elaborations. Also, remember that the famous wording is the the one by the Spiegel. As far as Filbinger and Radbruch, a contradiction between the two would only occur when you slip from one implication to the other while reading the sentence, e.g. reading it as "what was legal then cannot be unjust now". However, such a reading is IMHO not tenable in good faith. Not to mention that the supposed injustice of his acts rests basically on no ground. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article itself. Using the German is okay, but we should provide a translation for those unacquainted with the German tongue. That is, we should have one translation and not two, a translation that best covers the German. Not two, supposing that there are two truths (while sneaking in an endorsement of the more suitable version, as we had before). Any remaining for the breadth of the German term can be covered in the footnote but not via an alternative translation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply disagree that the German sentence is unambiguous. Whatever Filbinger later said does not change the fact that the sentence in itself can be read differently. Furthermore, as I said, I chose the excerpt from Radbruch because it is the easiest thing one can find at this time of the day that shows that the words Recht and Unrecht are ambigous, it is not the only essay that uses the words in that sense (for what it's worth, I have Radbruch/ Zweigert, Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaft, edited by Zweigert that uses them in the same way (where Recht is also clearly more than just positive law). The ambiguity of Recht-Unrecht is furthermore shown by the fact that a dictionary gives you several meanings for each word. Frankly, I wonder why you are so sure that there is nothing but a positivist interpretation of the sentence per se. So in a first step, consider the sentence detached from whatever Filbinger may have meant; it cannot be but ambigous, because, as I have shown, Recht and Unrecht are ambigous. And if the sentence in itself is ambigous, the translation must carry that ambiguity. If that means there must be two translations, so be it. Because frankly, Str1977, sometimes life isn't easy, sometimes words have two meanings and sometimes there is not one truth to a word. In a second step, nothing hinders you to add Filbinger's claim as to the "real" meaning of the sentence.Blur4760 00:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then do you think "(un)lawful" does not carry the broader extent of the German term? How would you put a explanatory footnote. I know that things are not always easy - but neither is is it all right to simply put two translations. I am not resisting your push towards complexity but the push towards sneaking in POV pushing by others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly F. was a lawyer — to them "Recht" can mean "legal", but "Unrecht" can not mean "illegal". That's the whole deal about lawyers, to use words in a way that they are not disambigous — unless they want to trick somebody. What does that say about F.? Lars T. 07:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of you having condemned him before looking at the evidence. The sentence a) was not said in a law court (because apparently before this "Tribunal" defense was forbidden) b) the sentence in this form was formed by the Spiegel picking from a longer interview. We do not know the original context of all this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of revisionist history. Thanks for clearing that up why the article you so heavily edited is clearly POV. Lars T. 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You can either look at the historical facts and then draw your conclusion or you can come with your preconceived conclusion and transfer it back to any evidence that comes along - IMHO you have taken the second path.

Revisionist history, in its pejorative sense, is denying/changing clearly demonstrated facts of history - the only one I see doing this is Mr Hochhuth in his recent blunder at the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Most of Filbinger's critics nowadays don't do that but use vague language like "participated in death sentences".

Also, of course you are free to think all death sentences wrong, deserters heroes etc. but that is no basis for a universally binding condemnation of Filbinger. You are free to take that view - but others are free to disagree. That is actually the terrible thing about the whole Oettinger affaire. It was all: "Confess and recant, thou bloody heretic." Unfortunately, Oettinger did just that (that's not to say that one cannot criticize him in detail or in general). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Says no one less than the guy who keeps ignoring even the law he keeps quoting. Lars T. 09:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What law are you talking about? Thus far we still lack on relevant sensible utterance on the whole subject. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The law you keep telling us F. supposedly was following. Can't remember? One more thing in common with F. Lars T. 17:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The military penal code of 1872? Do you mean that? I have no link to that code as a) my military days are behind me, b) the code is no longer in force. So, in sooth I cannot tell what you want unless it is to troll around. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you not able to use Google? I found it in 10 secs. Or are you afraid of what's written there? Lars T. 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Google what? Either spell it out clearly or shut up and stop wasting my time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search here, and if you browse through the results, you see that anything ranging from "What was lawful then cannot be unlawful today" to "What was just then, can’t be unjust now" pops up. Just thought I'd let you know. Blur4760 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Blur, but which way shall we go? Would you accept "un/lawful" with a note about the broader extent of "Recht" in German? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have both possible translations in the maintext, I really can't. Choosing one of the possible translations in the main text over the other is making an interpretation of the statement itself that should be left to the reader. To me, that is POV-pushing, while having both possibilites in the maintext is neutral. Blur4760 15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we provide multiple translations in all the other many quotes included in WP articles? Why single out this one? Translating is always difficult. And indeed, if do this, why only two if there are so many around, especially since we already give the German quote as well. Also, IMHO "unlawful" covers both aspects of Recht, the positive as well as the natural LAW. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Because in most cases the original German phrase is not ambigous in itself, and thus one translation does not favour one interpretation over another. Secondly, as I have said, something can be lawful and still be Unrecht. Filbinger did not say "Was damals rechtlich war, kann heute nicht widerrechtlich sein." That would have been clear, and could easily be translated with lawful-unlawful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blur4760 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC). Damn, he's fast! Sorry! Blur4760 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From near-native English speaker to near-native English speaker: I see how "legal" can be considered that way. But lawful is not legal - I don't think that a thing can be "lawful" (as opposed to legal) and "Unrecht". And no, I don't see the German phrase as ambiguous ... there is just a incongruity between German and Enlish. But, and this I why I asked "why this one", such a one exists in other instances as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I consider the sentence to be ambigous in German, because Recht and Unrecht are terms that lack a clear cut definition in German (see for instance Kaufmann, Problemgeschichte der Rechtsphilosophie, p. 109, in: Kaufmann/ Hassemer, Einführung in Rechtsphilosophie und Rechtstheorie der Gegenwart, 1994; Zippelius, Rechtsphilosophie, pp. 4-5, 2003). And while you might say that the English word "law" carries the same ambiguity, Hart himself admitted that Recht is a term with nuances that cannot be fully represented in English. Furthermore, as you may find in any dictionary, Unrecht can mean "injustice", while unlawful and unjust are different words (or as Billy Bragg once sang "this ain't a court of justice, 'tis a court of law"). By the way, I'm shooting for longest debate ever between two people on WP without resorting to personal animosity ;-). Blur4760 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"And while you might say that the English word "law" carries the same ambiguity, Hart himself admitted that Recht is a term with nuances that cannot be fully represented in English." Indeed, and this is why I would suggest a footnote explaining this issue. I think this works better than putting two translations side by side. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alleged "Weed" comments

Dysmo has added a link and a line about Filbinger using fould language on Gröger's lover and that she was deported into a concentration camp. First of all, I have attributed this to the woman as it is solely her testimony on which this is based (supposedly, if the narrative in the link holds true).

I have also tagged both, as they seem very fishy to me. Filbinger was involved in the second trial of Gröger - right now I have no knowledge of a second trial against her - her verdict was not protested against. Also, she was conmdemned to prison, not to concentration camp. Anyway, I will look this up tomorrow.

I am also suspicious because of a testimony by Gröger's attourney, quoted by Noth (one of the external links). Attourney Schön said about Filbinger in the Zeit if 4 August 1978: "An den Anklagevertreter (Filbinger) habe ich überhaupt keine Erinnerung. Wahrscheinlich, weil ich den wiederholten Antrag auf Todesstrafe nicht anders erwartet hatte, und der Ankläger, da die Fakten des Falles bereits in der ersten Verhandlung geklärt waren, wohl nur die Rolle eines Statisten hatte."

Of course, this is no proof either way but wouldn't foul language as the one quoted be remembered. Or, if it would not, is it relly telling. But I will surely get back with better information tomorrow. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I have added the "Fact" tag. It sounded like something that requires verification. I have no access to the cited source unfortunately. Dysmorodrepanis 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you should have told your reasons long ago. As I said, I will look things up tomorrow. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the book I was after (Neubauer) is out on loan. I will try to get the information elsewhere or, if that fails, get back to this when the book returns. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't got hold of the Neubauer book but I think I now can see clear enough. For the "weed" comments, three sources are of importance:

• The article Während Jünglinge und Greise zu den Fahnen eilen, wird er fahnenflüchtig'. Deserteure, deutsche Wehrmachtjustiz und die unendliche Geschichte der Rehabilitation. by Marcus Stortz, 2002 [from now on Stortz]
• The book Kampfanzug unter der Robe. Kriegsgerichtsbarkeit des zweiten und dritten Weltkrieges (Hamburg, 1984) by Ulrich Vultejus [from now on Vultejus]
• The article Erschießen, Sargen, Abtransportieren from Die Zeit 12.05.1978, written by various authors. [from now on Zeit78]

I have stated my doubts about this all above. I will analyse the three pieces one by one. I will start with Stortz as he is the newest of these articles and the first one to be used here. Another reason will become apparent as I go along.

• Stortz mentions Filbinger twice: once referring to the "Was damals Recht war" as supposedly being the motto of the judifciary after 1945. This only touches on our subject, Filbinger is only mentioned in the footnote. Needless to say that it shows that the author is lacking grasp of both history (only Filbinger supposedly - see separate discussion - said this, there is no basis to assign the phrase to others) or the nature of jurisprudence. Anyway, relevant is the other occurence of Filbinger. Stortz writes: Eine wegen Beihilfe zur Fahnenflucht angeklagte Norwegerin mußte sich im Januar -45 von Militärrichter Filbinger vorhalten lassen: "Du bist schlimmer als ein Tier. Zu einer Ratte müßtest du Sie sagen. Du bist nicht einmal Wert, daß man dir Unkraut zu Essen gibt"69. This is the phrase quoted here (no further translation needed), clearly attributed to Filbinger. Footnote 69 gives as source Zit. nach: Vultejus, U., Kampfanzug unter der Robe. Kriegsgerichtsbarkeit des zweiten und dritten Weltkrieges, Hamburg 1984, 100. and compares it to the language used by Roland Freisler and the Volksgerichtshof.
• So let's have a look that source, the book by Vultejus. The book bears the strange title "military judiciary in the Second and Third World War". The author, writing in 1984, argues that the German bureacracy has secret plans for a renewed military judiciary in case World War III breaks out. He claims to have confidential files to make his case. His book contains 7 chapters, the 1st dealing with these confidential files, the 2nd with the military judiciary in World War II in general, the 3rd with how the German judiciary dealt with it, the 4th gives few biographie of military judges from World War II, th 5th compares the old military judiciary with the supposed new plans, the 6th with military judiciary in fiction, the 7th is a documentation of the supposedly found confidential files.
  I will not concern myself with his overall thesis, which history has rendered pointless, or with whether his allegations are correct. I will only cover his dealing with Filbinger, who is covered among the biographies contained in the 4th chapter.
  Stortz pointed me to page 100 and indeed pages 98-102 deal with Filbinger. Vultejus first covers the beginnings of the affaire, quotes Hochhuth and then addresses the cases of Gröger (with a long quote from Gröger's lover Miss Lindgren) and Petzold (with a long quote from the verdict written by Filbinger). The section ends with the note that Filbinger had to resign in 1978. Overall, the section contains little commentary. What concerns me here is the passage from Miss Lindgren which contains the "weed" quote. What is important is that Vultejus does NOT clearly say: This is what Filbinger said. Nor does he say: Miss Lindgren said that Filbinger said - he simply quotes her account of the case, in which only Gröger is mentioned by name. Miss Lindgren merely talks about "the judge" and "the prosecutor". However, Vultjeus implies that these things are relevant to Filbinger, otherwise he would not include them in this chapter. But he doesn't actually explicitely attribute the quote to Filbinger - it is only Stortz that draws this conclusion, using Vultejus as a reference for something he did not say. Vultejus gives as the sole source for quoting Miss Lindgren the above mentioned article in Die Zeit.
• So let's have a look at that article too. I will spare myself giving a summary as anyone can follow the link given above, and proceed to the passage quoting Miss Lindgren, which in its entierity was quoted by Vultejus.
  She talks bout her meeting Gröger, his feelings, their arrest by the Gestapo and then talks about the trial:
  Walter sah ich erst bei der Verhandlung wieder. Ich hatte noch nie vor einem Richter gestanden. Dieser hier schrie mich gleich an. ,Du bist schlimmer als ein Tier. Zu einer Ratte müßtest du Sie sagen. Du bist nicht einmal wert, daß man dir Unkraut zu essen gibt. Du bist ein nichtsnutziger Teufel, ein Schmarotzer der Menschheit. Deine Verbrechen am deutschen Volk sind so schwer, daß wir dich sofort erschießen sollten. Du hast einem deutschen Soldaten geholfen, Fahnenflucht zu begehen. Du wirst dem Erdboden gleichgemacht werden. Du bist eine nichtsnutzige Hure, die es mit jedem treibt. Der gesunde deutsche Geist wird sich an deiner Tätigkeit rächen.' Ich fühlte mich nicht länger als Mensch. Der Ankläger sah gut aus. Seine Worte waren Gift. Hilflos, eingekeilt von den Wachen war ich auf die Hilfe des Übersetzers angewiesen. Die meisten Worte, die er sagte, hatte ich in meinem Leben nie gehört. Aber ich konnte nicht antworten. Immer, wenn ich sagte: ,Ich habe Walter gern. Ich fragte nicht nach dem, was er gemacht hat. Ich will ihm helfen', brüllte er mich an: ,Schwein, Nutte, Spion!' Am Ende sollte ich für zwei Jahre ins Zuchthaus.
  Here she talks about the first tril, first about "the judge" and then bout "the prosecutor", whose looks were good and whose words were poison. The word "judge" is ambiguous and may refer to the presiding judge or to the prosecutor. So she might be talking about two or about single man. I tend to go for the latter option (my reasons are that she doesn't indicate any switch of person, that the judge, Adolf Harms, is also mentioned in the article without any link, that it was the judge that had issued the more lenient verdict, in fact Harms called Filbinger's predecessor as prosecutor "a sharp dog"). But remember: in the first trial Filbinger was not involved at all, neither as presiding judge nor as prosecutor. So Miss Lindgren cannot actually have heard any foul language by him at the time (and she doesn't claim that she did, giving no names).
  After this, she continues: Ich blieb noch in Oslo. Dann wurde ich plötzlich noch einmal dem Gericht vorgeführt. Der Ton änderte sich nicht: .Drecksau, Tier.' Walter war wieder da. Er sah noch schwermutiger aus. Wir waren getrennt. Mein Urteil änderte sich nicht: Zwei Jahre.
  This now deals with the second trial, in which her verdict was confirmed and Gröger was sentenced to death. She again comments on the foul language used in court, but again she does not say who actually used that language. It is not even clear whether she talks about the actual court session (in which Filbinger was the prosecutor now) or any preliminary proceedings (first conducted by the initial prosecutor).
  Her account is indeed strong stuff, affecting one's emotion, feeling disgust at the judge/prosecutor and sympathy for her (and Gröger). However, what it does not do is give us anything about Filbinger's conduct ... only about the environment he worked in.

Let's sum up: We have Stortz who claims Filbinger used that foul languge, giving as a source Vultjeus who does not attribute that language to Filbinger, merely quoting Miss Lindgren from Die Zeit, who does name Filbinger either and mostly talks about the first trial in which Filbinger positively was not involved. Which leaves us with an allegation with any source.

Also of interest is the following quote from the Zeit article. Harms says:
„Filbinger war kein scharfer Hund", wie sein Vorgänger, dessen Versetzung Harm Ende 1944 erfolgreich betrieb: „Ich war damals froh, daß Filbinger kam." Dem 31jährigen Juristen ging schon damals der Ruf voraus, intelligent, ehrlich, ehrgeizig, eloquent zu sein und Zivilcourage zu besitzen. Heute wie damals schätzt Harms ihn als „streng katholisch und konservativ" ein, „ganz bestimmt kein Nazi". [...]
„Wir haben so ziemlich täglich miteinander gesprochen. Aus diesen Gesprächen weiß ich, daß der Kläger (Filbinger) zu der damaligen politischen Führung eine ausgesprochen negative Einstellung gehabt hat. Ich habe nicht gehört, daß der Kläger vom geliebten Führer gesprochen hat, sondern kann bestätigen, daß er sich nicht nur über Hitler, sondern auch über das nationalsozialistische Regime negativ geäußert hat. Ob er allerdings den Namen Hitler erwähnt hat, weiß ich nicht mehr."
This testimony was also given by Harms in court in 1978.

Conclusion: I was unaware of these comments before they popped up here. When I enquired into the matter I did not know what would come up, but my suspicions from the start were confirmed. Once again we have allegations based on hearsay.

As for the article, we have two options: either we simply remove this whole quote stuff from the article (this would be the most straightforward thing to do), or we report the allegation that Filbinger used foul language and also note that the source doesn't talk about Filbinger. The second option has the advantage of addressing the needs of curious minds who heard about this, but it also smacks a bit of original research. (The Stortz article should definitely be removed however, as it has proved unreliable, and hardly concerns itself with Filbinger anyway.)

I am awaiting suggestions.

(And sorry bout the lengthy German quotes. If anyone has trouble understanding something, feel free to ask.)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Weikersheim and New Right

About the Weikersheim/New Right issue - well check out the Neue Rechte article. I tweaked it a bit because it allied the NR with the Nouvelle Droite, which is wrong in the way it was presented. But there are vast differences between the NR and the ND (I think the ND is closest to the Thule Seminar in stance). The NR article seems to be basically outline what Weikersheim is about - I have added the Christian bit because I felt this is necessary to distinctuish it from the ND.

I find it odd to call it simply "conservative". I have asked some German conservatives in the last days, and their opinion was that they wouldn't be seen as associated with it (they are more in the Catholic/anti-communist worker's movement tradition). So it's technically correct, but it's about as informative as calling a goldfish a "lifeform".

Maybe you have judged from your perception that Neue Rechte - used in an impermissibly loose sense - is a tainted term because of the accusations of the ties to the extreme Right, as a catchall term for New Right, Neue Rechte Nouvelle Droite etc? But the linked article was striclty about the German phenomenon. Dysmorodrepanis 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dysmo, just for the principle: I will not look up any WP article just because you say - because they are not useful as references anyway. WP cannot cite WP. But I already had a look at the German Studienzentrum article (to which you referred me earlier) and, in contrast to your claim, it didn't say this but that its critics classified it as New Right. Quite a different thing. All this is relevant in the article of the Studienzentrum (currently a stub - how about translating it?) but not here, where we cannot do justice to this issue.

That some conservatives distance themselves from it is of no consequence: conservative is a very broad spectrum. In any case, it belongs into the Studienzentrum article, not here. If the c-word really hurts we could always remove it and leave this all to the other article. But IMHO it is acceptable to use it here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to cite the article (Of course not). But since I had linked "Neue Rechte" directly, readers unfamiliar with the term would have clicked there for an explanation, and have arrived at the article as to get an explanation of a foreign-language concept. (I clarified the Neue Rechte article as regards the Nouvelle Droite exactly for that reason. I get the impression from Filbinger's bio that he would have considered a neo-pagan, Gramscian, anti-Western outfit like the ND to be mauvais gout at the very least, for whatever that's worth. In any case, the NR has strong Christian (usually Protestant, according to the folks I asked, but they're Caths so what do I know?) leanings which make it somewhat sui generis in the field they play.

"conservative is a very broad spectrum" - exactly! That's why I wanted to make it more precise. (I think it should be more precise, because the Studienzentrum is a matter of contention even among German conservatives I get the impression. It's like the neocon/paleocon distinction in the States: most people rather use either term, reserving "conservatives" only when issues are concerned on which both agree) Dysmorodrepanis 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have split the section - I hope you don't mind.

But Dysmo, we cannot do justice to this issue in this article. "He also founded the conservative think tank Studienzentrum Weikersheim, which critics have classified as belonging to the New Right and which he chaired until 1997." is just unwieldy. And a simple "factual" statement would violate NPOV. So I respect all of your arguments (on this point) but think that the place to address this is the article on the Studienzentrum. This article is about Filbinger and can only paint a very broad picture of the Studienzentrum.

If I had the time I would translate the German article into English. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

About the source "Günther Gillessen"

Quote from "Shaping a New Identity, and Trying to Come to Terms With the Past" By Marc Fisher International Herald Tribune, Thursday, April 21, 1994

Last month in Jerusalem, Günther Gillessen, a leading editor at the Frankfurter Allgemeine daily, Germany's most important establishment voice, addressed a gathering of Germans, Israelis and American Jews with a plea for the creation of "a new taboo" against photographic or film representations of the Holocaust. "Memory should be permitted to sink in the sediment of time," he said. "The Shoah is a closed event. The second and third generations should be spared."

More proof of the quality of the one-sided whitewas sources. Lars T. 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So, and how is this relevant to this article? Not at all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Code of military justice for the German Reich from 1872

[3] Third section. Bad distance and desertion.

§. 64. Who departs from its troop or from its utility position arbitrarily or remains deliberately far, or who it ertheilten vacation arbitrarily exceeds, because of bad distance with imprisonment up to six months one punishes.

§. 65. 1] Directly to the bad distance one respects, if a person of the soldier conditions in the field omits it,

1) of the troop to follow, off which it got, or which next troop again, or to announce itself 2) after finished war shank immediately to a Truppentheile. 2]The same applies, if a person of the navy, which got outside of domestic waters off ships, omits it, announcing itself to the same or another German warships or next German consulates immediately.

§. 66. If the absence lasts longer as seven days, in the field longer than three days by being to blame for the absent one, then Gefängniss or fortress detention occurs up to two years.

§. 67. Imprisonment from six months to five years occurs, if the absence in the field lasts longer than seven days.

§. 68. Resembles punishment (§. ) a person of the giving time off conditions, which do not admit of made war readiness consequence after or after arranged mobilization their summoning to the service or a public request to the position within three days at expiration of the certain period carry out, meets 67.

§. 69. Who itself a bad distance (§§. 64, 65, 68) with the intention of extracting itself from his legal or of it taken over obligation the service continuously makes guilty, is because of desertion (desertion) to be punished.

§. 70. 1] The desertion is punished with Gefängniss the back case repeated from one year to five years, in with penintentiary from five to ten years. 2] The attempt is punishable.

§. 71. The desertion in the field is punished with Gefängniss from five to ten years; in the back case, if the earlier desertion is not committed in the field, penintentiary does not occur under five years and, if the earlier desertion is committed in the field, death penalty.

§. 72. 1] If several arranged a desertion and jointly implemented, then the actually incurred the loss penal servitude becomes or prison punishment by the duration from one year to five years increases. 2] If the action is committed in the field, then penintentiary of same duration, against the ringleader and against the Anstifter death penalty occurs instead of the prison.

§. 73. 1] The desertion of the post before the enemy or from one besieged fortress with death one punishes. 2] The same punishment meets the deserter, who turns into to the enemy.

§. 74. Beside the Gefängniss incurred the loss because of desertion is to be recognized on transfer into the second class of the soldier conditions [1].

§. 75. If a deserter places itself within six weeks after desertion, then, if the same is not committed in the field, the actually incurred the loss penal servitude or prison punishment up to half can reduced, also can be refrained, if no relapse is present, from the transfer into the second class of the soldier conditions [1]. Against NCOs must be recognized however on degradation.

§. 76. The Verjährung of the prosecution because of desertion begins with the day, on which the deserter, if he had not committed the action, would have fulfilled his legal or obligation taken over by him to the service.

§. 77. Who at a time from the project of a desertion, in which their preventing is possible, know-eats convincing receives and it omits making of it for its superior in time announcement is, if the desertion committed, with imprisonment up to six months and, if the desertion in the field committed to punish with imprisonment from one year to three years.

§. 78. 1] Who another to the desertion deliberately tempted or which carries desertion of the same deliberately, if the desertion took place, with Gefängniss from six months to two years, in the field with Gefängniss by five to ten years one punishes; at the same time can be recognized on transfer into the second class of the soldier conditions [1]. 2] The attempt is punishable.

§. 79. A prisoner, who frees itself, is punished, if not the harder punishment of the desertion is incurred the loss, with imprisonment up to six months.

§. 80. 1] An officer, who leaves room fool width unit during the completion arbitrarily its dwelling, is punished with imprisonment up to six months; at the same time is to be recognized on service dismissal. 2] An officer, who during the completion room fool width unit the prohibition §. 23 contrary attendance accepts, with imprisonment up to six months one punishes; in heavy cases is to be recognized at the same time on service dismissal.

I can hear you already: "What does this have to do with my hero Filbinger?" Lars T. 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Firstly, Filbinger is not my hero. I was very very young when he resigned. What he is IMHO is a man unjustly (no pun intended) vilified, slandered and driven from office by a no-good author and a few witchhunting papers. Actually, until two years ago I would have agreed with your stance on him, but that was before I have looked at the facts.

Now, to your quote from the penal code. My take is that you say that Gröger would not have "deserved" the death penalty under the provisions of the code and that Filbinger therefore is too blame for such a verdict contrary to the law. Do I get it right?

To which I can only reply:

• I am no lawyer and cannot clearly say how the code related to Gröger's case (having not all details at hand, let alone in mind), but I will take your conclusion that the law didn't say death for Gröger at face value. Since my last reply to you I have read this elsewhere. Having said that, I give you that the law didn't demand that.
• However, what were the circumstances of the trials: Gröger was prosecuted and the court condemned him to imprisonment (which, I take it, was in line with the penal code). The commanding officer rejected this verdict and ordered a second trial. The prosecutor for this court (not yet Filbinger) tried to justify the earlier verdict but the new facts he found rather worsened Gröger's situation (the Iron Cross that had impressed the first court was stolen etc.) At the last minute, this prosecutor could not attend the trial and Filbinger was sent as a replacement: so, in a very short time Filbinger was confronted with this second trial, the findings that weakened Gröger's case, the order of the commanding officer to plead for the death penalty and thus the knowledge that Gröger would be executed in the end, no matter what he would do. That is the point: Filbinger was ordered to pleade for the death penalty, theoretically could have refused the order but had no reason to do this for Gröger's sake as such a action would not have saved him. You can argue that he should have refused anyway - this would earned him the ire of his superior, but saved him a lot of trouble in the seventies. From the perspective of "Gesinnungsethik", that is. You can well argue that point and I have no objection. I can relate to that thought. But, I can also understand why Filbinger didn't do that (being a minor player and acting on short notice). One must also take into account the two cases in which Filbinger saved Möbius and Forstmeier. "Disobedience" (in the colloquial sense) could have endangered his work in these cases. So much for the perspective of "Verantwortungsethik". Now, I do not believe in "doing evil so that good may come of it" - but even if Filbinger was wrong not to refuse (which cannot stated that clearly) it will not turn him into a "dreadful lawyer".
• Also, may I point you to this statement, posted on the Filbinger homepage: "Filbinger hat sich schon 1978 der Beurteilung des Gerichtspräsidenten Dr. Otto Rappenecker angeschlossen, der erklärt hat: Das Urteil gegen Gröger ist zu bedauern und nur erklärlich durch das eine Wort: Krieg. Jeder Krieg ist grausam!" [4]

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if his own homepage claims that, it must be true. Oddly enough, he (or rather, his lawyer) said nothing of the kind in the letter of 1995 already mentioned. Instead he blames Gröger to have endangered the evacuation of civilians in Spring 1945 by his desertion. “Der Matrose G. war in Norwegen fahnenflüchtig geworden, nachdem die Marine im Frühjahr 1945 die Rettungsaktion über die Ostsee durchführte, bei der 2,5 Millionen Menschen, Männer, Frauen und Kinder, gerettet wurden. Fahnenflucht gefährdete diese größte humane Rettungsaktion über See der Geschichte, weshalb der Befehlshaber, der zugleich Gerichtsherr war, die Höchststrafe forderte. Jede Armee der Welt bedroht Fahnenflucht mit der Höchststrafe.” Yeah, obviously F. and his lawer were already pretty demented in 1995 to claim something absurd like that. The rest of the letter is ripe with ambigous phrases lawyers use when they want to blur the facts. What was unjust then can't be just now. Lars T. 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't believe it to be accurate? Than go and disprove it! Even if there were a contradiction to the letter - people often say things contradictory and I am not sure that Filbinger is answerable for every word by his lawyer. But apart from the talk about Höchststrafe, the letter does address a notable fact: these rescues did exist and a breaking down of military discipline would have rendered them impossible. IMHO that doesn't do much in Gröger's case, where the issue is not punishment or not but death or imprisonment. Filbinger (agreeing with the judge) talks about the verdict, not about the issue of whether he was guilty (I don't think anyone doubts that).

Listen you idiot (don't whine, you called me a troll), Gröger deserted in 1943, not in 1945, by that time he had been rotting in Jail for over a year. Anyway, by that time most soldiers were glad to rescue people because that got them away from the Russian front. Lars T. 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Those whetting their knives now would have used them back in the day. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what Filbinger did, using his Hitler Youth dagger to kill people. Figuratively. Lars T. 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's what he did? Maybe you should ask Lieutenant Forstmeier about this. Filbinger has no link to the Hitler Youth (except that he opposed it in 1933) - whereas his "critic" Hochhuth ... "to kill people" sound like Filbinger had actually killed a couple of people, when in fact Gröger is the only one (in how far Filbinger is to blame i exactly the discussion). Having "participated" in three death sentences (one involving murder) does not fit with your description. The tribunal condemning Filbinger indeed is a very quick one, going by "in dubio contra reo", without any mercy or appeal. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are, calling me a troll and later deleting my comments because I state a fact (that you are an idiot)? Lars T. 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a common WP editor whom you showered with personal attacks. That you think these are facts don't make them so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is possibly the wrong code

The military code of 1872 was abolished in 1920 (Weimar constitution § 106: "Die Militärgerichtsbarkeit ist aufzuheben..."). The code of May 12, 1933, was essentially based on this, but there were some changes and numerous more in the following years. The last major change to the relevant parts of the code as regards Filbinger was apparently Oct 10, 1940 (RGBl I 1940:1347). Maybe someone can dig the post-10/10/1940 version up so it can be compared.
BUT: §106 exempts "situations in wartime and aboard warships" (...aufzuheben, außer für Kriegszeiten und an Bord der Kriegsschiffe...) from the abolishment of the 1872 code, pointing to a Reich law for details. This law should also be dug up.
The entire thing makes no sense to me at all. Considering that Filbinger wasn't bound by the code of 1872 but by the code of 1940 which was similar but not identical, what was he talking about? I remember hearing there are some civil laws in Germany nowadays, IIRC regarding hunting and/or agriculture, that were introduced by the Nazis. Of course, they subsequently were adapted to the new constitution, political system etc. According to Filbinger's logic - if he used the code of 1872 in his discussion of his wartime activities -, one would have to call these modern pieces of code "Nazi laws" (because that's the origin of the original code). But nobody does: the patent absurdity is obvious. Dysmorodrepanis 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, he was referring to the law in place that was, as you said, similar to the code of 1872. Don't split hairs. In 1933 the code of 1872 was revived. What you call Filbinger's logic is indeed other people's logic - other people use the term "Nazi laws" to laws introduced 1933 to 1945 (and in the case of the military penal code that is not actually correct) - I for my part would use this term according to the content of the law: the Nuremberg laws for instance are clearly Nazi laws ... not because they were passed 1935 but because of their content. BTW, all you said this is original research. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I could discuss at length what's wrong with your statement. But two points should suffice: "[S]imilar to the code of 1872"; I'd love to see you try this argument in court. Second, you might want to learn the difference betwen OR and a primary source some day. It helps. Dysmorodrepanis 11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have to argue this in court. I am not sure whether Filbinger said that he was "referring to the code of 1872" (ambiguous) or "to the code originating in 1872" (correct) or "to the code in its version of 1872" (certainly incorrect) or just "to the military penal code". I am not sure whether he referred to the Nazis in this context. Of course, I could look this up but I don't see a point in it (especially since Neubauer is currently out of the library). I don't see a point because even if F. referred to the code of 1872 and even if this gets it wrong this will not make him into the monster you would like him to be. He would simply got a fact here wrong. It doesn't change a thing about the fact that the military penal code in existance in 1945 was, according to the content, not a Nazi law. In the passages relevant to our cases it pretty much agrees with what other nations did at the time (and what Germany had done before, under the code of 1872). So you cannot actually blame Filbinger to applying this law code in his work. Neither can you blame him for endorsing specifically Nazi laws when he said "Was damals Recht war ..." (a phrase, lest we forget, worded by the Spiegel). 13:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd really love to see the original Spiegel material; need to check my library for this. I fear they'll not have it, but who knows. Dysmorodrepanis 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would be interesting but I concurr that such old material will probably be hard to get by.

However, clarifying my statement above: Filbinger gave an interview to the Spiegel. Present were Spiegel reports (I don't know whether it was one or more, Filbinger and his spokesman Goll - no tape was running) The Spiegel edited the material collected (the Q & A between F. and the reporters) and and published an article (indeed I do not know right now, whether they published a report on the talk or an edited Q & A). Either way the piece contained the quote and suggested that Filbinger was endorsing Nazi injustice as justice. Filbinger immediately rejected this interpretation, saying he was taken out of context. His spokesman has supported this (not surprisingly perhabs, but remember that all we have is Filbinger's word, the spokesman's words, and the Spiegel's words). According to the Noth article, Filbinger stated that he had said this in regard to the accusation that his behaviour according to the law of that time was "Rechtsbeugung" (illegal subversion of the law). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

About what I heard. Only difference, I read sth that seemed to imply that the print version was a Q&A, and another article that seemed quite clear that the quote was given not in the Q&A, but during a chat.

I have collected some material, but the entire thing makes still no sense to me. It's like the quote thing happened in a parallel universe. IANAL, but I'm pretty good on "digging" formal law/law theory. Not as good as F. tho, that's why I have to check some more refs. Guess I'll be leaving this debate. Note I have outcommented a bit in the 1872 code thing. I did that because what I left is the only thing my current courses (and the article's sources) to validate. I also would like to see a source for when F. confirmed the "that's war for you" thing (his HP says he jumped in it immediately, so this should be sourceable). It makes a significant difference, so the primary source would be cool. Dysmorodrepanis 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a better source for this.

I have reverted the outquoting because it is in no way disputed that Filbinger referred to the code in force throughout the war - even if he were wrong (see above) about identification with the 1872 code, that's what he talked about.

Re. the rat quote I am unto something and will get back to you when I have looked up the source currently given. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rehabilitated

I have found a reference for the fact that the CDU BW considers Filbinger as rehabilitated. Then prime minister Erwin Teufel wrote in the preface of the book "Filbinger - aus neun Jahrzehnten":

"(...) Der überzeugte Demokrat und erfolgreiche Landespolitiker wurde gegen Ende seiner Amtszeit wegen seiner Tätigkeit in der Wehrmacht des Zweiten Weltkriegs angegriffen, eine Tätigkeit, in die er zwangsweise kam wie alle Altersgenossen seiner Generation. Filbinger, das können wir heute sagen, ist damals das Opfer einer Kampagne geworden. Seit der Wiedervereinigung wissen wir, in welchem Maße die Stasi der DDR mitverantwortlich war für diese Kampagne. Filbinger musste lange auf seine Rehabilitierung warten. Aber sie ist längst erfolgt."

I have included this as a reference into the article, translating the text in bold in the footnote.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The party parameter

The party parameter in Infobox politician is only intended for parties in which the person in question was active as a politician (hence the name of the infobox). Filbinger has never been a politician of NSDAP, never been active in the party, nor held public office as a member of that party, and hence it doesn't belong in the infobox politician. The article explains that he was an inactive member in his youth, like millions of other Germans (including many SPD and FDP politicians, like Hans-Dietrich Genscher), being forced to join it only to finish his education. Adding the Nazi party to party in Infobox politician, which makes it look like he represented that party as Minister President of Baden-Württemberg, is an absurd abuse of the infobox and will be treated as vandalism henceforth. Urban XII (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hans Filbinger was an extremely controversial personality, and his former Nazi Party membership was an important contributing factor. He wasn't "forced" to join the party. Around the time a huge number of people were forced to emigrate, to die in Auschwitz, etc. Nobody was forced to make a career as a navy judge.

I agree that including his NSDAP membership can be misleading. But omitting it is at least as misleading. Once there is a party field, readers expect the list to be reasonably complete. If we omit NSDAP, readers will believe he was not a member, since most read only the first few sentences and skim the infobox. This kind of conflict is due to a general problem with infoboxes. As a temporary compromise I have removed the party field. As a more permanent solution, if appropriate sources can be found I could imagine something like "NSDAP (inactive)". Hans Adler 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Extremely controversial? Hardly. He was smeared by a Stasi campaign in the 1970s. His own party consider him rehabilitated (see above), he was their honorary chairman until his death. The infobox is only used for persons who held some public office, in this case Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg (and interior minister and some other offices). The party parameter clearly refers to the party or parties that a politician represented when he held the offices mentioned in the infobox, or otherwise during his career as a politician. If his inactive and rather involuntary Nazi party membership in his youth was such an important factor, why weren't Hans-Dietrich Genscher or dozens of FDP or SPD politicians "controversial" - having been a Nazi party member in the past was more like the norm than the exception some decades ago, in any event certainly not unusual. Urban XII (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered there is a separate parameter specifically for parties that the person in question did not represent when he held public office: otherparty (other political affiliations). In that case we should add the Catholic and Centre Party-affiliated Jugendbund Neudeutschland as well (he was an active member of that organisation) and indicate his NSDAP membership was not an active affiliation. Urban XII (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your theory about the way this infobox works is wrong. There is a horizontal line between information about the office held and biographic information. The contents of the party parameter is displayed below that line. Should we remove "lawyer" because someone might think he had a second job practising law while he was in office? Certainly not. (Also note that for politicians who had two offices neither of which can be said to be higher than the other, see e.g. Kurt Waldheim, we have two office sections in the infobox, but only one party section.)

Thanks for finding the nice solution with the "other affiliations" parameter. So far as I am concerned the problem is resolved. Hans Adler 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One cannot accuse another user of vandalism simply because one happens to disagree with his opinions. It is hard to say what an "inactive" membership is supposed to mean, other than the fact that his friends are willing to overlook it. As User:Hans Adler has said, Filbinger was not forced to join the Nazi party; he joined it so as to better advance his career as a prosecutor in Nazi Germany. If anybody believes his membership was misleading, all one can say is that that is something Filbinger himself should have thought about before joining. The two parties he was affiliated with at different points in his adult life were the NSDAP and the CDU; the other association mentioned was simply a youth section. Feketekave (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Feketekave has a long history of Germanophobic and inappropriate edits[5] and is likely showing up here because he is following me around. Note that the edit in question was identified as vandalism primarily because of the edit-warring, after it had been pointed out that it was not appropriate. I don't see any reason to continue a discussion on this case, as the problem has been solved. Urban XII (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A sheer case of projection, unless you have suddenly developed an interest in Uruguayan politics. As for the previous charge, I do not believe myself a Germanophobe, though frankly I suspect at least half of all Germans would fit your definition. I would be extremely careful with the claims you make about other editors; you seem to have alienated them by the dozen. Feketekave (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No consensus on whether inactive/more or less involuntary memberships should be included

Per Talk:Horst Ehmke, there currently doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether inactive memberships should be included in infoboxes. Of course we cannot have a different policy for CDU politicians than for SPD politicians, which would be a serious violation of our most important policy. Until an agreement on a general policy has been reached, I'm removing it from the infobox again. Feel free to contribute to a consistent policy on whether to include such information in infoboxes. Urban XII (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I explained at Talk:Horst Ehmke, the two cases are not parallel. My BLP warning against including the membership in the infobox on that article is not intended to prejudice the decision here in any way. The case here at Hans Filbinger is a normal editorial decision that needs to be taken by consensus, and about which I am not expressing any opinion.

Urban XII is warned against making disruptive WP:POINT maneuvres, using an issue with one article as a tool to influence the outcome of a dispute in another. He is also warned against tendentious POV editing, which he has clearly been engaging in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you are the one making tendentious POV edits, clearly demonstrated by politically motivated edits to remove the mention of the well sourced NSDAP membership (the German Wikipedia simply states that that politician was a member) in the biography of one politician, while apparently being aware of the fact that it is included in a biography on a politician from a different party. Making sure we apply the same, consistent standards in two comparable cases, and initiating a discussion on a consistent policy, is not a point maneuvre in any way. I warn you of making further threats to push or enforce your POV, this may easily be interpreted as abuse of admin privileges at this project. Urban XII (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: A discussion on a consistent policy should probably take place at a different place than this talk page. Urban XII (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar / Style terrible

Just wanted to vent my impression that this article is a cesspool of grammatical errors, which on occasion even go as far as to make the content impossible to understand. 91.97.90.29 (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it certainly ain't perfect. But I disagree with 'cesspool' and 'impossible to understand' -- the prose seems clear, if awkward, to me. I cleaned up a few spots in pursuit of verifying the citations where verification was requested.

I removed the "cleanup" tag, because I don't see the article as anywhere close to poor enough to earn a badge of shame. I learned about this guy, I learned about the controversy surrounding his actions in The War, I learned about his postwar professional history. That means, the article has served its purpose. The article suffers a bit from editors with different POV shoehorning pieces in willy-nilly. (The issue isn't the editors' POVs... the issue is tacking on competing information rather than integrating information into a coherent narrative.)

So sure, please, let's keep cleaning this article up. But I don't believe that the tag at the top -- which casts immediate doubt to the reader as to the reliability and usefulness of the article -- belongs.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hans Filbinger. 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/20110719034848/http://www.hans-filbinger.de/images/gaubrief.gif to http://www.hans-filbinger.de/images/gaubrief.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421125116/http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/die_politische_meinung/7_dokument_dok_pdf_3181_1.pdf to http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/die_politische_meinung/7_dokument_dok_pdf_3181_1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fr-online.de/_img/_cnt/_online/070413_1705_filbinger_rede.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421125116/http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/die_politische_meinung/7_dokument_dok_pdf_3181_1.pdf to http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/die_politische_meinung/7_dokument_dok_pdf_3181_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717010540/http://www.hans-filbinger.de/ to http://www.hans-filbinger.de/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421125116/http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/die_politische_meinung/7_dokument_dok_pdf_3181_1.pdf to http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/die_politische_meinung/7_dokument_dok_pdf_3181_1.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Filbinger. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hans-filbinger.de/index.php?kat=DOKUMENTE&ukat=Medien%20I&uukat=Gegendarst.%20Spiegel%201997
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID6618996,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519150122/http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt2m5/deutschland/artikel/286/110176/ to http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt2m5/deutschland/artikel/286/110176/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)