Re: What makes you a kasinofaehiger Widerstandskaempfer?

["Heidelbauer Andreas" <andreas.heidelbauer@student.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Two things:
1. Hitler was only a monster, nothing else!
2. Whom to besides perhaps his family did EJ show resistance?
Andreas

http://www.ernstjuenger.virtualpage.de/

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Rebing <Rebing@compuserve.com>
An: Ernst Juenger List <ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
Datum: Mittwoch, 10. Februar 1999 08:30
Betreff: What makes you a kasinofaehiger Widerstandskaempfer?


>
>Ironically under the subject "List Discipline" there were of late some
>strangely shrill notes in this discussion. Good tidings indeed to encounter
>now the subject "Amical Proposal".
>
>However, I have my problems signing the truce. Point 2 stipulates never to
>call EJ a resistance fighter any more. I never did - who on the List did in
>the first place?
>
>If we left the discussion at that we would leave some confusion unresolved.
>For the question remains who can legitimately be called a
>Widerstandskämpfer according to Roberto Haab's high moral standards?
>
>Stauffenberg not only risked his life but gave it after the failed attempt
>to assassinate Hitler on 20 July 1944. But for Roberto Haab he does not
>qualify because prior to his joining the conspiracy he had been loyal to
>Hitler, who was not just a monster, but also the supreme commander of the
>Wehrmacht in which Stauffenberg served as an officer.
>
>On the other hand, Sophie and Hans Scholl were students at the University
>of Munich when they distributed there their homemade anti-Hitler leaflets
>and  were arrested and executed. If they qualify for the honourable title
>of Widerstandskämpfer it must be, according to that logic I am trying to
>grasp, not because they were more idealistic or courageous but because they
>were civilians. Theirs was not the dilemma of having to decide whether to
>obey, sabotage or defy the orders of their military superiors. Before he
>obeyed the dictate of his moral conscience Stauffenberg had tried to live
>according to a code which is also Roberto Haab's: a soldier's honour is to
>obey orders. A soldier who becomes a resistance fighter within an army
>commits treason. Only when an attempted coup has succeeded, under a new
>regime or in other countries the traitor may be glorified retroactively as
>a hero of resistance.
>
>So can a soldier, who does sabotage or defy orders, be his commander
>Hitler, Eisenhower or some Swedish or Swiss general, qualify as a
>Widerstandskämpfer in the eyes of any old troupier of any army? And if
>civilians like the Scholls might qualify because for them there was not any
>military honour to be tainted with treason -- what army's officers would
>care about declaring such civilians kasinofähig?
>
>This is why I cannot believe that there is such thing as a kasinofähiger
>Widerstandskämpfer.
>
>Admittedly, this is a civilian's view. I belong to an age group (Weisser
>Jahrgang) that was never drafted. Infantrymen, put me right if I
>misunderstood the military and its logic here!
>Having thus explained why  I cannot follow Roberto Haab's reasoning at all,
>I join him nevertheless in his amicable proposal: Let us not make the
>mistake to  label EJ with that patently inappropriate and even confusing
>idea of Widerstandskämpfer.
>
>I add a proposal of my own.  Bertil Häggman, who with admirable patience
>has put forward in the course of this discussion the facts which
>corroborate his judgment, has found, to my mind, the formula which we all
>might subscribe to: EJ leistete Widerstand, he showed resistance.
>
>Günter Rebing
>