The Mound Builders of the Ohio Valley: The Hopewell and Medina

The Ohio Valley has numerous burial mounds from the Hopewell and the Medina Tribes.  The Hopewell was the presiding culture spread throughout the Ohio valley.  Governor Thomas Worthington found a large burial mound on his estate near Chillicothe, Ohio.  Mills excavated the mound then named it Adena after the estate it was found, which was built in the classical style.  The Hopewell site was found near Paint Creek and west of Chillicothe, Ohio.  It was surrounded by walls made of earth.  Unfortunately, the contact with the Old Word in the late eighteenth century, the reciprocity of cultural traditions, and the Natives who still travelled due to weather conditions and trading created an easy exchange of cultural traditions.  Since the Natives did not have a writing system when the Europeans settled the New World most of the evidence we have of who began the tradition of burial mounds comes from the oral story telling traditions of the Natives.  The oral tradition passed down through the generations and generations points to the Alligewi, or Talligewi as being the owners of the cultural tradition of using mounds to bury their dead.

 

This knowledge was passed on through the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware, which were one of the several eastern groups in the late eighteenth century who pushed westward due to the expansion of European immigration into the colonies.  When the two groups; the Lenni Lenape and the Delaware crossed the Mississippi River. They ran into a mighty group called the Alligewi or the Talligewi who they fought with and vanquished forever from the area.  These Native Indians called the Alligewi or the Talligewi fought the Lenni Lenape or the Delaware Tribes then passed down the oral tradition that it was the Alligewi and the Talligewi who began the tradition of burying their dead in the burial mounds.

 

When the French and British colonists first arrived in the colonies, they asked the Native Americans of the Ohio region about the burial mounds but were said to have no knowledge of where the burial mounds came from.  The first given descriptions of the Ohio Valley and the mounds were described as being mounds that were abandoned with centuries of tree growth on top of them by the time the colonists arrived in the New World.  And it would not be until the colonizers expanded in more on the North American Continent to meet up with the Lenni Lenape or the Delaware Natives to be told the orally passed down tradition of the burial mounds.  And the mere fact, that there were forests on top of the burial mounds gave credit to the fact that the ones who buried their dead there had long since died, many moons ago, and many stratified layers of dirt had fallen on top of the burial mounds.

 

There were many different suggestions from the colonists and even armchair theorists who would give suggestions as to who built the mounds.   Armchair theorists were wealthy elites who never went out to the mounds on digs or read about the Natives by those who wrote on the mounds they excavated.  Armchair theorists just sat around guessing and conjecturing on the Natives with heaps and heaps of racism thrown into their theories.  At the time, those more serious in their path to learn about the Natives suggested the Eastern Woodland Indians built the mounds, while armchair theorists suggested the mounds were too sophisticated in their architecture to have built by the Natives.  These racists theorists placed the credit for the mounds being built by some other group of Europeans, Asians, or mayhap even South American group that landed on the east coast and wandered inland.  American archeologists consisted of well-known people in the colonies such as Thomas Jefferson, Edwin Davis, Ephraim Davis, and Cyrus Thomas.  It is to these scholars we turn to for the answers of who were, the first mound builders?  And from their research we can definitely be give credit to more than one of the Eastern Woodland’s ancestors.

 

Today there are two groups who are recognized as the mound builders and they are the Medina and Hopewell Indians.  And although they have distinctively different names, it does not mean the people in these two groups are different.  These two names distinguish the difference in the newly changed art, architecture, and ceremony during a sudden cultural fluorescence in these areas.  The Hopewell and Medina tribes came from the same ancestors.  They are the same people categorized under different names due to a difference in how they changed during the cultural fluorescence.  There were two villages in the Ohio Country where these cultural changes took place.  One village was located in the valleys of Ross County on the Scioto River, while the other was located in Licking County, Ohio on Raccoon Creek.  One scholar named N’omi Greber, a foremost archeologists studying the Hopewell referred to this, “florescence as a cultural explosion.” (p. 5.)  It is impossible to tell to what highs these mound builders could have reached had they not become extinct.

 

Bradley T. Lepper, People of the Mounds: Ohio’s Hopewell Culture.

Remembering and Supporting “Darkhorse” 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines

On facebook last night one of my friends posted this as their status,

 

“‎! At the request of a friend -We are asking everyone to say a prayer for the US “Darkhorse” 3rd Battalion 5th Marines and their families. They are fighting it out in Afghanistan and have lost 9 Marines in 4 days. IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE IT ON EVERYONE’S PAGE…Even if it’s only for an hour, come on guys… show your support! I am HONORED to re-post this! Thank you to “OUR” Service men and women. God Bless America!!!‎! At the request of a friend -We are asking everyone to say a prayer for the US “Darkhorse” 3rd Battalion 5th Marines and their families. They are fighting it out in Afghanistan and have lost 9 Marines in 4 days. IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE IT ON EVERYONE’S PAGE…Even if it’s only for an hour, come on guys… show your support! I am HONORED to re-post this! Thank you to “OUR” Service men and women. God Bless America!!!”

 

And it is the reason why I posted the previous post dealing with Afghanistan.  It takes me a long time to come up with an opinion on any topic that is as important as the current war in Afghanistan.  So far I am of the opinion we should pull our men out of Afghanistan with the caveat that we keep a close eye on the Taliban with our intelligence.  And I also believe the US should keep a base either in Afghanistan or within Central Asia.  The main reason for us to keep an eye on the Taliban is the culture of extremists Islam, which permeates their whole country and culture. 

 

Barfield was in Kabul the day zahir Shah resigned.  He had reigned in Afghanistan from 1933-1973.  The country was in a mess with Kabul held by the Russians and Mujahideens  or the Holy Warriors party in Peshawar.  When the Soviets pulled out in 1989 it was not as much of a relief as country and it’s inhabitants had believed at first thought it would be. None of the Great Powers, which came from the Cold War Era were willing to negotiate the exiting deal between Russia and Afghanistan.  So it just ended with the Russians leaving the country much as it had been when they entered into it. 
 

In taking into account the culture of Afghanistan, one has to realize that Islam is a part of every moment of their life.  It penetrates their every waking hour.  And it is the basis for every decision they make.  Thomas Barfield who wrote, Afghanistan: A Cultural And Political HistoryI, which used to write the “Afghanistan: Where Geography and Culture are Killers” spent many years living with the Northern Nomads doing ethnographic work in the mid 1970’s.  During the 70′s Barfield said, it was a rare occasion for him to get over to Pakistan to speak to Refugees who were living in Pakistan at the time.  Pakistan refugee’s would go back in and out of their country so they would give him whatever insider information they could when he visited.  The country had been in on going wars even before the Russian – Afghanistan War and eventual occupation by the Russians.  

 Barfield was in Kabul the day zahir Shah resigned.  He had reigned in Afghanistan from 1933-1973.  The country was in a mess with Kabul held by the Russians and Mujahideens  or the Holy Warriors party in Peshawar.  When the Soviets pulled out in 1989 it was not as much of a relief as country and it’s inhabitants had believed at first thought it would be. None of the Great Powers, which came from the Cold War Era were willing to negotiate the exiting deal between Russia and Afghanistan.  So it just ended with the Russians leaving the country much as it had been when they entered into it. 

Afghanistan is much the same way it was when the Russians invaded it as it was when the US invaded it after the tragic falling of the twin towers.  In September 11, 2001 when the towers were flown into and the pentagon was devastated as another plane was flew into it.  These events are still just as real to Americans as they were yesterday.  The US government by the use of propaganda on the News, National Remembrance Days which has school children remembering the events of that day and events held though out the US to remember the family members of 911. 

As I see the war, there is a need for us to keep a presence either in Afghanistan or in the area due to the fact that the people in Afghanistan think we are as evil as our government has made us to think Afghanistan is.  There is a difference between the Taliban and the United States though.  Afghanistan will come after the US again if we do not keep an eye on their ability to bring the war to the United States.  The Taliban do believe we are evil consumers and they should rule all of Central Asia and Europe.  The Taliban does believe that the consumers of this world are evil and should die.  Who are the consumers?  The consumers are anyone who purchases for fun and not just need. 

 

The line I want to draw between what the US is doing and what I believe is right is that they are wasting their time with a full out war.  I truly believe Afghanistan with its landscape and culture of Islam will not be crushed.  Instead I think both sides will just keep wracking up the death toll.  I write this post in memory of all the members of Dark Horse who lost their lives last night.  I cry for our soldiers who lost their lives in the battle last night, today, and through out the whole of this war. 

 

I know many want it one way or the other.  Unfortunately I do not believe this is possible.  It is imperative the United States keep an eye on the Taliban.  Why is this our job?  It is our job because our military is their for the purpose of taking care of our country.  It is their to keep our country safe.  It there to make sure the boys and girls who go to elementary school through High School are safe.  And they do a hard job.  And for those that lost their lives yesterday in Afghanistan, I would like to see everyone who is a United States Citizen put up a post on what they think about the war and support our men and women who give their life for the US, whether or not you agree with the war or not.  Let the leaders of this country hear your opinions.  Show support for our military and remember those who died last night and today. 

 

Here are some news articles on yesterday and today concerning what happened in Kabul and Kandahar. 

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/index.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/troops-killed-in-afghanistan-helicopter-crash-remembered-by-family-and-friends-as-heroes/2011/08/07/gIQA7kk10I_story.html

 

 

Afghanistan, Where Geography and Culture are a Killer

Afghanistan the land of rolling steppes, mountains, and barren deserts, covering approximately 250,000 square miles makes it almost the size of Texas.[1]  This country lies to the east of the Iranian Plateau and almost two thirds of the country is higher than 5,000 feet. [2]   Many mountain ranges in Afghanistan are noted for being the highest in the world.[3]  Sir Martin Ewan wrote, “The ranges that bisect the country may be likened to a hand outstretched toward the west, with the wrist lying on the Pashmir knot.”[4]  The Pashmir Knot like a Celtic knot lie outstretched all the way to the Western edge where you run into the Himalayas and Karakoram.[5]  The palm of this imaginary hand holds the Hindu Kush or the “Killer of Indians,” and the memory of their death as they were forced across the passage to the khanates of Central Asia.[6]  Koh-i-Baba, a large complexus of mountain ranges and uplands appear like outstretched fingers that meander in a western direction forming the fingers of the hand of the Band-i-Turkestan, the Safed, Koh, the Siah Koh and the Parapmisus Range each wane as it approaches the Iranian Frontier.[7]  Two more fingers of the hand are the Kirthar Range going into Baluchistan and the Paghman Range, which drop right into the capital of the country, Kabul; follow a route to the south.[8]  The plains are to the North and South.  In the south, there lies the “basin of the Helmand River, enclosing in its semi-circular course the barren expanse of the Dasht-i-Margo, the Desert of Death.”[9]

Afghanistan’s frontiers were mostly established around the end of the nineteenth century.  Its borders ran westward along the side of Uzbekistan, the Republics of Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan for almost thirteen hundred miles.[10]  It stretches into the west “from the Pamirs along the Amu Darya and then across country to the Hari Rud the river that marks the northern end of its frontier with Iran.”[11]  It borders China for fifty miles in the northeast in the Pamirs Mountains.  From this point lies the Durand Line, which separates Afghanistan and Pakistan by a frontier. [12]  This frontier meanders westward for around eight hundred miles then turns around and drives towards the west for another seven hundred miles going around the Helmund Valley extending all the way to the Iranian Frontier, which is to the south of Hamun.[13]  The Hamun drains into a complexus of marshes and lakes that drain into the Helmund.   The border between Afghan and Iran go to the north for almost six hundred miles where it adjoins the Hari Rud.[14]  The Hindu Kush meets the Amu Darya basins as a section of the mountains, which splits Central and South Asia.  The few passages across the mountains are too treacherous to pass six months of the year due to heavy snowfall.  Still many have tamed these mountains in search of conquests and both spiritual and material.  Balkh, the ancient city once sitting on the silk-road now lay in ruins directly in between China and the Mediterranean and is the most accessible of the passes over the Hindu Kush.[15]

The descendents of Bobur’s Mogul held a loose reign and control over the Kabul, Peshawar, the plains in between the Suleiman Range and the Indus River, while the Safavids controlled the lands to the west and Herat during the sixteenth and seventeenth century.[16]  The Moguls and the Safavid’s ruled Afghanistan until the eighteenth century.  The Abdali Pushtoons replaced them.[17]  There was a contention between the Safavids and Babur’s Mogul descendents over Kandahar and was fought over many times with exchanges of power between the “sixteenth century and the middle of the seventeenth century.”[18]  Once in awhile Pushtoon tribal uprising occurred against the Moguls.  Unfortunately, there was too much suppression and bribery inherent in the Pushtoon judiciary system for them to be successful in over throwing the Moguls who retained a precarious hold until the beginning of the eighteenth century. [19]

In 1709, Mir Wais Hokaitai, a skilled leader and chieftain of his tribe the Gilzhai tribe defeated the Safavids.[20]  Mir Wais was intelligent and wealthy.  When he was younger he went to the Persian court enjoying it.[21]  Now that he was older and had gained control, he sought to gain control over Persia and knew its security ws vulnerable.[22]  The tribe and its horsemen soon rode towards Persia killing the vastly unpopular Persian governor who had attempted to force Shi’ism on the people searching for plunder.[23]

The Tribal Chief Wais died in 1715, leaving a contest for the thrown so his son Mir Mahmud led a major campaign all the way to the Persian capital Isfahan in 1722.  On the journey to Isfahan he crossed with a Persian army larger than his own with 24 cannons, which was, “under the direction of an itinerant French artilleryman M Phillipe Columbe, and then, after a long and bloody siege, stormed the city.”[24]  After the sack and massacre in Isfahan, the city never recovered its former glory.  Mir Mahmud ruthlessly set out to trick the nobles into coming to a banquet and then proceeded to send his troops into massacre them.  Mir Mahmud, “degenerated into a homicidal maniac, died or was murdered by his own men and was succeeded in 1725 by his cousin Ashraf.”[25]  In 1729, Ashraf attempted to take advantage of Safavid’s weakness by defeating an Ottoman Army.   In the same year, a resurgent Persian army led by Nadir Quli Khan, “a former camel bandit”[26] defeated Asraf.[27]

In 1716, the Abdalis conquered Harat and went on to take Meshed.  In 1732, Nadir drove back Ghilzai and the Persian Shah to retake Heart.[28]  In 1738, Nadir took the Persian throne, Kandahar, and Kabul.[29]  In 1747, Nadir degenerated into sadism and paranoia to the point that his own Qizibash officers had to kill him.  The body guards had too fights there way out to return to Kandahar after Nadir was killed.

Ahmed Khan, underestimated by those around him was next put in the position of power due to being from one of the least powerful sub-tribes because the elders thought he would be manipulated easily.[30]  He soon obtained Pushtoon loyalty by creating opportunities for plunder and warfare.  Gilhzai, his rivals were beaten down because of their campaign against the Persian Army and submitted quite easily to him. [31] He possessed the best fighting force in the region, was in possession of the Koh-i-Noor diamond, and then overtook a caravan full of Indian treasures, which allowed him to, “pay his army, conciliate political and tribal rivals and finance his campaigns.”[32]  After he gained the title Durr-i-Dauran, the Abdalis were known as Durranis.  By 1748, he was able to take Kabul and Peshwar from Ghazni.  The Mogul Emperor put up no resistance to Nadir so he took Delhi and then on terms of peace the Emperor, “ceded all the territory earlier held by Nadir Shah with the province of Sind.”[33]  In the following, years he would go back and forth between his Indian properties and his homeland due to his love of the hills and their more hospitable climate due to a constant threat from the Marathi Armies.  However, the most conclusive and massive battle that was to ever take place in the Indian sub-continent was in 1761.  The battle left the Marathi Army bereft of enough power to fight off the Punjab and the British, but had this battle not taken place it is very likely that the Marathi Army could have fought off the British colonizers and the Punjab.[34]

At the apex of Ahmed Shah’s power his kingdom extended from Amu Darya to the Arabian Sea, in a westward direction it reached beyond Meshed, to the east it extended all the way to Delhi, and it also contained Kashmir, Sind, and what is now known as Baluchistan.[35]  He was a great military leader, politician, and diplomat.  He understood the region, how to keep the tribal leaders happy, and how to appease the Pushtoon tribes and keep their allegiance.  He was able to retain his composure while at the same time allowing the people access to him.  He appealed to the Pushtoons because of his poetry written in Pushtu, his religious values, and the manner in which he retained his dignity.  His great weakness was in his ineptitude to raise his men above thieves and warriors.  He never was able to turn his men into administrators and governors.  So the advancement of the society under his rule remained at a tribal level with constant warring and freebooting.[36]  He was founder of the Dozai dynasty that lasted till 1818 and the Durrani Dynasty, which remained in place until 1978 under a different sub-tribe.[37]  The Afghans came to know him as, “Father of the Nation.”[38]

Tribal politics, warring, and political gamesmanship would continue well into the twentieth century.  Some reasons given were heavy taxes levied but one leader Amanullah who tried to bring a since of modernization into the country by enacting women’s rights and education was overthrown due to the strict conservative nature of the Islamic fundamentalists.[39]  His representation was further put into disregard when others in power tried to water down his reforms concerning women.[40]  But that which really put him under the most fire was when he used aid from the British in order to utilize two of their planes to be piloted by Germans to attempt to keep him in power.  The Islamic looked to this use of the infidels aid and come to believe he was a traitor to Islam.  Eventually he was forced to abdicate due to his attempt at inducing western reforms.  In 1929, he abdicated, fleeing the country in his Rolls Royce.  Thus all the way up to 1929 Afghanistan still had no measures of modernization.[41]

Afghanistan was one of Asia’s untouched cultural and economic systems.  Since it was land locked it was not as open to trade as other Asian countries.  And with its rugged landscape it was a harsh fight to over take the warring tribal leaders that believed in Islam to the point of dying for it.  Therefore, it existed in a state of existence that did not contain modernization.  It was settled in three basic systems.  There were villages, nomadic encampments, and towns.[42]  All three forms of settlements are closely linked.  Thomas Barfield wrote, “Villages depend on towns to supply them with manufactured goods, and the wealth of the town depends on the surplus that their hinterlands provide.”[43]  This is most apparent on bizarre day, which happens one or two times a week.  The whole of the countryside comes into the towns in order to purchase or sell their goods.  Some of the people just come into, “experience the crowd.”[44]  Towns that usually are devoid of business on bizarre days are swarmed with the people of Afghanistan.[45]  Teahouses are filled to the brim with those who have come to visit, socialize, and gossip.  There are caravans full of goods pulled by teams of donkeys. [46] Nomads tie the economy of this system together since they have, “mobile tents, nomads travel by regular routes, and have close economic connections with towns their in winter areas and rural villages in their summer areas.  In many part of the country they also own land, so the distinction between nomad and villagers is not a strict one.”[47]

In the villages, households work small land plots owned individually.  In low lands that are irrigated they grow rice, cotton, melons, and citrus fruit.  In the mountains they grow wheat and “have groves of trees to produce mulberries, stone fruit and nuts”, while on the plains they grow barley.[48]  They plow large tracts of land in hopes of a high level of snowfall or spring rain.  Mountain villages are smaller than other villages because they have to be able to feel all the inhabitants.  They have huts they move to summer villages called (ailoq) especially in Central Afghanistan so they can feed their livestock well. [49]

Most of the nomads who migrate long distances are Pushtuns and have moveable black goat-haired tents.  They primarily raise livestock and move them from the low lands in the winter to the high lands in the summer.  They raise sheep and camel in order to carry their baggage.[50]  The nomads depend on their ability to sell cheese, dried yogurt, clarified butter, wool, animals, and/or skins in the bizarre or urban markets for cash.[51]  There are over one million nomads in Afghanistan.  These nomads play an important role in the Afghanistan culture and economy still to this day.  They are the ones that bring to market many of the staples of a typical Afghanistan citizen’s diet.  Also in exchange for these goods that many need to purchase at market, the cash received by the nomads give them the ability to turn a profit and to make more goods to sell at the market in the future; therefore, the nomads tie the economy and culture together in many ways which make the towns a very special meeting place for all of these parties.

The towns are trade centers where pastoral and agricultural goods can be traded for manufactured goods.  Local artisans make many goods valuable to those living in villages or who are nomads.  Town life is diversified with many different ethnic groups co-existing together. Those that live in the mountains commonly come to towns to gain employment for the winter and return in the summer to help with the crops.[52]  Migrants from rural areas many times will settle in a town in order to connect the rural family to the center of commerce.  Surrounding both the towns and villages are large walls[53], a product of past days of their past tribal warring and great military leaders who once sacked Isfahan the capital of Persian, to leave it to never recover.

Many over the years underestimated the role of Islam in Afghanistan due to the secular society in Kabul.[54] Thomas Barfield argues, “Afghanistan is a form of Islamic society in which religion is not an ideology but remains an all-encompassing way of life.”[55]  Today many look at Islam in Afghanistan as a political view but this lessens the importance of the relative role it plays in day-to-day life in Afghanistan because, “When religion is a way of life, it permeates all aspects of everyday social relations, and nothing is separate from it.”[56]  Therefore in Afghanistan Islam permeates every aspect of society from cultural, social, economic, and political.[57]

Afghanistan was never a colony.  So the Islamic identity is fused with a cultural identity.  Barfield wrote, “Issues of identity politics and cultural practice that spark debate in other Islamic countries, which originated in their experience of a colonial past, mass education, urbanization, rapid economic changes, and mass mobilization through explicitly political parties, have had little resonance in Afghanistan.”[58]  Indeed Barfield was in Afghanistan the first time living amongst nomads in the mid 1970’s only to return in 2002 twenty-five years later to find little had changed amongst these villages, nomads, and towns.[59]  There is a very low level of literacy, along with an agrarian economy still in use today.[60]  The very explicitly defined geography and early history of Afghanistan shows how the geography of this country plays a great factor in keeping it like a preserved Islamic portrait of what life was like before many of the Islamic countries were colonized.

Bibliography

Thomas Barfield, Afghanistan: A Cultural And Political History, (Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford, 1950).

Martin Evans, A Short History of Its People and Politics, (Curzon Press: United Kingdom, 2001).


[1] Martin Evans, A Short History of Its People and Politics, (Curzon Press: United Kingdom, 2001), p. 1.

[2] Ibid, p. 1.

[3] Ibid, p. 1.

[4] Ibid, p. 1.

[5] Ibid, p. 1.

[6] Ibid, p.1.

[7] Ibid, p. 1.

[8] Ibid, p. 1.

[9] Ibid, p. 2.

[10] Ibid, p. 2.

[11] Ibid, p. 2.

[12] Ibid, p. 2.

[13]  Ibid, p. 2.

[14] Ibid, p. 2.

[15] Ibid, p. 2-3.

[16] Ibid, p. 29.

[17] Ibid, p. 28.

[18]  Ibid, p. 28.

[19] Ibid, p.30.

[20] Ibid, p. 30.

[21] Ibid, p. 30.

[22] Ibid, p. 30.

[23] Ibid, p. 30.

[24] Ibid, p. 30.

[25] Ibid, p. 30.

[26] Ibid, p. 30.

[27] Ibid, p. 30.

Scholars, Existentialism, and God During WWII in Germany (2nd Edition)

Rarely is the German resistance against the Nazi Party talked about; however, most people do not have a problem bringing up the Holocaust.  The word Holocaust makes many Germans uncomfortable when they should not be.  It was their ancestors who did these crimes against humanity.  Therefore, the question I ask is why the children should pay for what their Mothers, Fathers, and Grandparents did?  And why is the resistance rarely remembered?

(Theodore Haecker)

 Regardless there was a German resistance. Theodore Haecker spoke to those who did not believe in the Nazi’s in an underground, which was connected by one single thought.  They did not believe in the Nazi Party’s crimes against humanity.  Haecker’s main focus in writing was to tie catholic and protestant thoughts into existentialism.  “Existentialism has always been a formidable stream, if not the main current, in modern catholic and protestant reflection.”[i]  Haecker a converted catholic’s, “life goal was to reconcile and harmonize existentialism with catholic thought and dogma.”

Existentialism was the last vestige of the Romantic Era in Germany.  Existentialism says one must take a chance in this world to make a difference.  One must always live morally even if there are repercussions that come with the decisions we make then. we must be prepared to pay the for the transgressions against the current legal codes.  Existentialism was a major thought process held by both those in the Resistance and those in the Nazi Party. [ii]  This thought process gave the individual the ability to live by a moral and higher power that was above the laws of mankind, linked to God with the Christians.  The Nazis used existentialism as if Hitler were there God.

The Nazis believed their existentialism was connected to their demigod Hitler.  “For God turned water into wine,” but, Hitler took them from starvation to being full.  When he did this he became their God.  But, just as God has his rules of what we can and cannot do, ie, “Thou shalt not take the Lords name in Vain.” So, did Hitler, “Thoush shalt not take my mane in vain.” And so Haecker who was not a fan of Hilter received harsh repercussion from the Nazi’s for not loving their God.

Haecker known for his writing and public speeches, did public speeches and talks in the homes of people who were a part of the resistance after 1935 when he was banned from writing and/or doing speeches.  He was not one to remain quiet about his contempt and hatred of the Nazi’s. He still did speeches in people’s homes even after he was banned from doing so.  He did the speeches fully acknowledging that the repercussion would be death for a treasonous crime; therefore, Haecker treaded a fine line between delivering the message he wanted to and delivering a message he thought he could get away with under the current situation.

Haecker’s speeches always created in the minds of the  listener or students freedom of choice.  Literally, Haecker left his speeches open ended to allow the students  chose the path they wanted to follow.  First, he spoke on freedom of choice, but then turned the speech towards resignation.  Literally it was up to the listener to decide if they were to chose to resist or be resigned to what the Nazi dogma preached.

The speeches Haecker gave at the home of Muth in 1941 – 1942, a friend of the Scholls, affected the opinions of many youth.  Hans Scholl and his friends attended Haeckers’ speeches.  Haecker was one of the reason Hans and his friends decided to cross the line and join the resistance.[iii]  Haecker knew if he got caught the repercussion would be death. He tread a fine line between urging the young to resist and just giving his own thought on existentialism, the church, and what is morally right.  He would say for instance, “better for a people to be defeated and to suffer, than to sin and apostasize.”

My analysis of Haeckers’ words based on the information I have read to this point, is that Haecker wanted Germany to lose the war and suffer so they would not apostasize and sin further.  Apostasy means the abandonment of a political or religious belief. So in analysis of Haecker’s words it seems he was literally saying he hoped for Germany to be defeated so the people of Germany would not sin anymore.

Hans Scholl’s direct reply to Haecker’s suggestion was to question why they should be resigned to wait rather than to act now. Haecker however was on a ban from speaking and writing. Hans argued back, “Where’s the Christians.” And went on to say, “Should we stand here empty handed at the end of the war when they ask: ‘And what did you do’   “At this point Hans’ opinion of the Nazi Party was simple; they were committing crimes against humanity.”  In context to the word, “suffer” for Haecker, it is my belief he is talking in direct correlation to when Germany is defeated by the Allies.  This is what the book I am reading and analyzing leads me to believe.  Unfortunately there is very little analysis or information on what the word suffer means to Haecker and when the Germans will Suffer in the book I am reading.  It is this reason why I need to do further research to make sure my analysis is correct.

Meanwhile, Sophie Scholl wrote in her diary, “I want to share the suffering of these days.  Sympathy becomes hollow when no pain is felt.”[viii]  It seems Haenecker made an impression on both Hans and Sophie.  In analysis of Sophie’s words written in her journal if they are taken contextually in response to Haecker’s speech it seems she feels the need to do some kind of action in order to cease the crimes against humanity Germany was committing.  Rather than wait her conscience was calling on her to do something now.

The Nazi Party made it very difficult for any German who disagreed with the Nazi’s say so.  The Nazis gathered books from libraries, homes, and any place they believed books might be kept that would speak against the Nazi thought and burned them.  Professors, teachers, and anyone who wrote and taught the young ideas were under constant scrutiny.  And if those who usually influenced the young went against the Nazi’s would be banned from speaking and writing.  If caught, they would be killed.  So Theodore Haecker took a big chance by speaking in the underground to the young.

I am now researching a blog that should go up next week on the relationship between professors and the resistors in Germany.  After that blog I will do a brief foray over to Romania to do a blog on the Black Hand, who assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, while still looking for more information on Haecker.  I would love to get my hands on what was in his speech he gave that night.  I know the book said he read out of his journal sometimes.  The journal is known as, “The Night Journal.”  I am not sure but perhaps in respect to that he read it often when doing these speeches at night in the underground resistance of Germany during his speeches he did in peoples homes.

Thank-you to all who are reading my blog

[ii] Ibid, 30 % kindle edition

iii. Ibid, 30 % kindle edition

[iv] Ibid, 31 % kindle edition

[v] Ibid, 31 % kindle edition

[vi] Ibid 31 % kindle edition

[vii] Ibid 30% kindle edition

[viii]  Ibid, 31 % kindle edition

Scholars, Existentialism, and God in Germany During World War II

Rarely is the German resistance against the Nazi Party talked about; however, most people do not have a problem bringing up the Holocaust.  The word Holocaust makes many Germans uncomfortable when they should not be.  It was their ancestors who did these crimes against humanity.  Therefore, the question I ask is why the children should pay for what their Mothers, Fathers, and Grandparents did?  And why is the resistance rarely remembered? 

Regardless there was a German resistance. Theodore Haecker spoke to those who did not believe in the Nazi’s in an underground, which was connected by one single thought.  They did not believe in the Nazi Party’s crimes against humanity.  Haenecker’s main focus in writing was to tie catholic and protestant thoughts into existentialism.  “Existentialism has always been a formidable stream, if not the manor current, in modern catholic and protestant reflection.”[i]  Haecker a converted catholic’s, “life goal was to reconcile and harmonize existentialism with catholic thought and dogma.”

Existentialism was the last vestige of the Romantic Era in Germany.  Existentialism says one must take a chance in this world to make a difference.  One must always live morally even if there are repercussions that come with the decisions we make then. we must be prepared to pay the for the transgressions against the current legal codes.  Existentialism was a major thought process held by both those in the Resistance and those in the Nazi Party. [ii]  This thought process gave the individual the ability to live by a moral and higher power that was above the laws of mankind, linked to God with the Christians. The Nazi’s used existentialism as if Hitler were God 

Their existentialism was connected to their demigod Hitler.  “For God turned water into wine,” but, Hitler took them from starvation to being full.  When he did this he became their God.  But, just as God has his rules of what we can and cannot do, ie, “Thou shalt not take the Lords name in Vain.” So, did Hitler, “Thoush shalt not take my mane in vain.” And so Haecker who was not a fan of Hilter received harsh repercussion from the Nazi’s for not loving their God. 

Haecker known for his writing and public speeches, did public speeches and talks in the homes of people who were a part of the resistance after 1935 when he was banned from writing and/or doing speeches.  He was not one to remain quiet about his contempt and hatred of the Nazi’s. He still did speeches in people’s homes even after he was banned from doing so.  He did the speeches fully acknowledging that the repercussion would be death for a treasonous crime.

The speeches Haenecker gave at the home of Muth in 1941 – 1942, a friend of the Scholls, affected the opinions of many youth.  Hans Scholl and his friends attended Haeckers’ speeches.  Haecker was one of the reason Hans and his friends decided to cross the line and join the resistance.[iii]  Haecker knew if he got caught the repercussion would be death. He tread a fine line between urging the young to resist and just giving his own thought on existentialism, the church, and what is morally right.  He would say for instance, “better for a people to be defeated and to suffer, than to sin and apostasize.”[iv]  Sophie and Hans Scholl disagreed with this sentiment.

Haenecker’s speeches always made twp sentiments clear on the freedom of choice.  First he spoke on Freedom of choice, but then turned the speech towards resignation.  Literally it was up to the listener to decide if they were to choose to resist or be resigned to what the Nazi dogma preached. Hans Scholl said, “Where’s the Christians.”[v] He went on to say, “Should we stand here empty handed at the end of the war when they ask: ‘And what did you do’ “ [vi] Meanwhile, Sophie Scholl wrote in her diary, “I want to share the suffering of these [vii]days.  Sympathy becomes hollow when no pain is felt.”[viii]  It seems Haenecker made an impression on both Hans and Sophie. 

Many Germans who were a part of the resistance in Germany.  The Nazi Party made it very difficult for any German who disagreed with the Nazi’s say so.  The Nazis gathered books from libraries, homes, and any place they believed books might be kept that would speak against the Nazi thought and burned them.  Professors, teachers, and anyone who wrote and taught the young ideas were under constant scrutiny.  And if those who usually influenced the young went against the Nazi’s would be banned from speaking and writing.  If caught, they would be killed.  So Theodore Haecker took a big chance by speaking in the underground to the young. 


[i]

Annette Dumbach and Jud Newborn, Sophie Scholl and the White Rose, (ebook edition of Kindle: Oneworld Publications; 2011), % 30 % kindle edition.

[ii] Ibid, 30 % kindle edition

iii. Ibid, 30 % kindle edition

[iv] Ibid, 31 % kindle edition

[v] Ibid, 31 % kindle edition           

[vi] Ibid 31 % kindle edition

[vii] Ibid 30% kindle edition

[viii]  Ibid, 31 % kindle edition

Scholars, Existentialism, and God in Germany During World War II

Rarely is German resistance against the Nazi Party talked about; however, most people do not have a problem bringing up the Holocaust.  The word Holocaust makes many Germans uncomfortable when they should not be.  It was their ancestors who did these crimes against humanity.  Therefore, the question I ask is why the children should pay for what their Mothers, Fathers, and Grandparents did?  And why is the resistance rarely remembered? 

 

Regardless there was a German resistance. Theodore Haecker spoke to those who did not believe in the Nazi’s in an underground, which was connected by one single thought.  They did not believe in the Nazi Party’s crimes against humanity.  Haenecker’s main focus in writing was to tie catholic and protestant thoughts into existentialism.  “Existentialism has always been a formidable stream, if not the manor current, in modern catholic and protestant reflection.”[i]  Haecker a converted catholic’s, “life goal was to reconcile and harmonize existentialism with catholic thought and dogma.”

 

Existentialism was the last vestige of the Romantic Era in Germany.  Existentialism says one must take a chance in this world to make a difference.  One must always live morally even if there are repercussions that come with the decisions we make then. we must be prepared to pay the for the transgressions against the current legal codes.  Existentialism was a major thought process held by both those in the Resistance and those in the Nazi Party. [ii]  This thought process gave the individual the ability to live by a moral and higher power that was above the laws of mankind, linked to God with the Christians. The Nazi’s used existentialism as if Hitler were God 

 

Their existentialism was connected to their demigod Hitler.  “For God turned water into wine,” but, Hitler took them from starvation to being full.  When he did this he became their God.  But, just as God has his rules of what we can and cannot do, ie, “Thou shalt not take the Lords name in Vain.” So, did Hitler, “Thoush shalt not take my mane in vain.” And so Haecker who was not a fan of Hilter received harsh repercussion from the Nazi’s for not loving their God. 

 

Haecker known for his writing and public speeches, did public speeches and talks in the homes of people who were a part of the resistance after 1935 when he was banned from writing and/or doing speeches.  He was not one to remain quiet about his contempt and hatred of the Nazi’s. He still did speeches in people’s homes even after he was banned from doing so.  He did the speeches fully acknowledging that the repercussion would be death for a treasonous crime.

 

The speeches Haenecker gave at the home of Muth in 1941 – 1942, a friend of the Scholls, affected the opinions of many youth.  Hans Scholl and his friends attended Haeckers’ speeches.  Haecker was one of the reason Hans and his friends decided to cross the line and join the resistance.[iii]  Haecker knew if he got caught the repercussion would be death. He tread a fine line between urging the young to resist and just giving his own thought on existentialism, the church, and what is morally right.  He would say for instance, “better for a people to be defeated and to suffer, than to sin and apostasize.”[iv]  Sophie and Hans Scholl disagreed with this sentiment.

 

Haenecker’s speeches always made twp sentiments clear on the freedom of choice.  First he spoke on Freedom of choice, but then turned the speech towards resignation.  Literally it was up to the listener to decide if they were to choose to resist or be resigned to what the Nazi dogma preached. Hans Scholl said, “Where’s the Christians.”[v] He went on to say, “Should we stand here empty handed at the end of the war when they ask: ‘And what did you do’ “ [vi] Meanwhile, Sophie Scholl wrote in her diary, “I want to share the suffering of these [vii]days.  Sympathy becomes hollow when no pain is felt.”[viii]  It seems Haenecker made an impression on both Hans and Sophie. 

 

Many Germans who were a part of the resistance in Germany.  The Nazi Party made it very difficult for any German who disagreed with the Nazi’s say so.  The Nazis gathered books from libraries, homes, and any place they believed books might be kept that would speak against the Nazi thought and burned them.  Professors, teachers, and anyone who wrote and taught the young ideas were under constant scrutiny.  And if those who usually influenced the young went against the Nazi’s would be banned from speaking and writing.  If caught, they would be killed.  So Theodore Haecker took a big chance by speaking in the underground to the young. 

 

 

 

 


[i]

Annette Dumbach and Jud Newborn, Sophie Scholl and the White Rose, (ebook edition of Kindle: Oneworld Publications; 2011), % 30 % kindle edition.

[ii] Ibid, 30 % kindle edition

iii. Ibid, 30 % kindle edition

[iv] Ibid, 31 % kindle edition

[v] Ibid, 31 % kindle edition           

[vi] Ibid 31 % kindle edition

[vii] Ibid 30% kindle edition

[viii]  Ibid, 31 % kindle edition

Imperialistic Germany and Great Britain’s Defensive Naval Response in the Baltic

The Journal of Military History, volume 74, and number 2 inspire this article.  Within in that particular journal was an article entitled “The Baltic and Admiralty War planning, 1906-1907” written by Shawn Grimes. Shawn Grimes argues in December 1906 the secret plans of the admiralty were not a smoke screen in order to bolster First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John A. Fisher’s position against “internal and external” forces that were against his decisions.  Instead his decisions to begin operations in the Baltic were to counter act and act as defense mechanisms. The decision was made to begin defensive naval actions only against the new Germany Bismarck was creating.  The worry was the ever growing naval power in the Baltic area.  Therefore, the following article is about Germany during the Era of Imperialism, it’s tendency towards aggressive foreign policy on the European Continent, and eventually how Fischer would perceive the threat and react to it.

From 1848 -1849 the Frankfurt Assembly failed to achieve German unification. The people of Germany began looking to the Prussians for leadership.  As an authoritarian state, Prussia had become very prosperous and the German people paid very close attention to their achievements.  Count Otto Von Bismarck was appointed to be the new prime minister in 1862.  Under his leadership, Germany would become a unified state, with enough power to bring the British Empire, the land where the sun never sets to fear Bismarck’s newly formed iron and blood policies of political power. Bismarck was the creator of the political philosophy known as Realpolitik.  He said, “Not by speeches and majorities will the great questions of the day be decided —that was the mistake of 1848 – 1849 —-but by iron and blood.”  Germany under Prussian leadership began its road to Empire building, in the age of imperialism with Count Otto Von Bismarck as the leader of a people ready to fight for a more powerful position in the world.  Bismarck carefully planned the rise of Germany as a world power.

Political map of central Europe showing the 26 areas that became part of the united German Empire in 1891. Germany based in the northeast, dominates in size, occupying about 40% of the new empire.

Bismarck’s political goal was to gain control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. He would accomplish this through a series of manipulations of Austria and France.  First, Germany acted as if it wanted Austria to be a part of Germany so they could utilize their military strength to gain control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. After the goal of gaining control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, Bismarck felt Austria was more of a hindrance than an aid to the newly created nation state of Germany.  Bismarck then began a war with Austria in order to separate Austria from the new nation state of Germany.  By separating Austria from Germany, Bismarck gained more power over the German Empire.   Germany was becoming known for it’s manipulative political policies so their part in setting the stage for a war between Austria and France should  serve as no surprise.

File:Siege of Paris.jpg

The fight Germany started between France and Austria led to France declaring war on Austria on July 15, 1870 which would begin the Franco-Prussian War.  Only after France had become weakened from fighting against the Austrians did the Prussian Army march into France.  They realized France’s weakened state from fighting with Austria and took advantage of it.  On September 2, 1870 the Prussian Army captured an entire French Army and Napoleon the III, emperor of France.  Capitulation of Paris the capital of France came on January 28, 1871. The above painting entitled, the Siege of Paris was done by Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier. For Germany this was a great military and accomplishment even if the French Army was beat down from the war with Austria.  Parisians rarely have allowed the taking of the capital city of France. And with the capitulation of Paris Germany now won the land of Alsace and Lorraine.  At this point, Germany had Europe in a state frenzied fear of what Germany would do next.  The southern German states had agreed even before the war to become part of North Germanys confederation.   The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been won with the war against France.  Therefore, it is apparent that Germany had become a very mighty force within Europe.  Symbolic to this and to the defeat and capture of Napoleon the III one of the greatest emperors in the military arena so it happened then that in the Hall of Mirrors on January 18, 1871 in Louis XIV’s palace William I was proclaimed Kaiser of the Second German Empire and German Unification had been achieved.

Germany was well on its way to gaining the same notoriety of the Empire of Great Britain; therefore, wanted its piece of the land where the sun never sets.  Moreover, William II continued the new Imperial Germany that was begun by Otto Von Bismarck’s ideas of Realpolitik.  Great Britain had been able to escape the iron hand of Germany, as it was not on the continent itself; however, the new build up of Germany’s Naval Fleet and interest in the Baltic would serve as a direct threat against Great Britain.  Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was further exhibited by the Moroccan Crisis of 1905-1906, just adding to their reputation as an aggressive, imperialistic nation that would become a watched foe of Great Britain’s.  Germany at that time was beginning to place heavy amounts of “mines, torpedoes, and submarines” in the Baltic Sea.   While simultaneous events would lead to Norway’s independence from Sweden in June 1905 and the “Scandinavian neutrality exigency” which was in place from 1905 to 1908.

The before mentioned actions of Germany on the European continent and their new naval interest in the Baltic Sea would be enough for Great Britain to fear Germany’s intentions.  Great Britain would begin at this time to fear that Germany would block the entrance of the Baltic Sea.  Great Britain would, therefore, be at a great detriment if they would ever confront Germany in a war.  Also, the fact that Great Britain did not want the Baltic blocked off from their entrance for trade and economic reason’s, should be enough evidence for any Naval leadership to make the same logical decisions that the British Naval admiralty did at the time. The end result would be that Britain would reorganize and arrange differently her flotilla’s of her east coast for observations of “Germany’s North Sea littoral” so that they would have the option of a “possible push into the Baltic sea” in order to attack Germany, if the need arose.  This was really the smartest possible move on the part of Great Britain as far as how to best position her naval forces at the time.

Fischer was simply placing the naval flotillas as best to ready for a defensive position up to 1909.  Next he begins to build small coastal destroyers, such as the River Class Vessel’s.  In 1904, continuing with this same plan he built Vessels of the same sort that were faster.  These new vessel’s such as the HMS Swift were capable of reaching up to 36 knots; however, the design was faulty and never quite reached the speeds it was suppose to.  This design also had extremely inefficient and high fuel consumption.  Furthermore, it was really just a continuation of their policy that occurred under NID from 1880-1890 in which they did maneuvers as test in case they went to war against their then feared enemies of France and Russia.  In conclusion, it seems that Fischer’s plans were not as some historian’s have theorized a smoke screen rather they were instead very logical plans in watching Germany’s behavior in the Baltic Sea combined with her past history of aggressive military tendency in the European Continent.

Why Hitler’s Indoctrination Failed on Sophie Scholl

Sophie Scholl had not yet turned twelve when the Nazi take over occurred in Germany.  During her youth, girls and boys joined the Hitlerjugend or the Hitler Youth.  Coming out of the Weimar Republic, Germany had hyperinflation and extremists on the left and right with their paramilitaries.  Adolf Hitler was charismatic with a sense of a mission to provide the Germans jobs and food was appealing to a generation that had been handed a bleak future form the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles and WWI. His unconventional manner, along with his ability to speak passionately in front of crowds seemed to portray the anguish and anger the German people were feeling at the time.  Adolf Hitler appeared as a great leader to the Germans as a veteran of WWI who had a mission to reinstate Germany to its former prestige amongst the European nations and create a Germany for Germans.    

Hitler knew the youth were the future of Germany.  He wanted to make them strong, hard, and to always put Germany first.  First, the Nazi Party would start the Hitlerjugend.  These camps of just girls and boys without adult participation were very popular with the youth during the rise of the Nazi Party.  The leader of the cells was always chosen from the youth that had been hand-picked due to leadership skills.  These youth groups did activities that would make them into strong adults such as hiking and camping.  They did activities that would brainwash them like singing Nazi Party songs or songs that were nationalistic in nature.  They read books off the list that was approved by the Nazi Party.  In a sense, they spent the majority of their time as they were growing up being brainwashed by the Adolf Hitler’s indoctrination plan.  They were brain washed. 

The Jews were excluded from the Hitlerjugend.   Sophie had not turned twelve years old when she began questioning the rational of the youth groups, which refused to admit Jews into their ranks.  Her first question to this logic was, “Why isn’t Louise Nathan allowed to be a member, with her blond hair and blue eyes, but I am with my dark hair and dark eyes”?  (17% Kindle edition)  Sophie was a thoughtful and reflective girl even throughout her youth.  She was already aware of the contradictions in the Nazi Party, which were extended into the Hitlerjugend. 

Sophie’s Father Robert Scholl spoke fondly of her saying, “Sophie is the wisest of my women.”  From the beginning, her father had been against both Sophie and her brother Hans joining the Hitlerjugend.  Robert Scholl spoke against Hitler to his children.  In many ways, Robert Scholl would be the beginning sparks of thoughts to all of his children’s resistance to the Nazi Party whether outright or silently to Hitler’s crimes against humanity.  The Father’s courage to remain in contact and friends with the Jews he knew, keep speaking against Hitler in their home to his children, and keep up the battle against what he saw as an indoctrination of his children set a president for the Scholl children. 

Robert Scholl also kept the families bookshelves stocked with books that had been banned by the Nationalists Socialist Party.  In fact, by all rights the books should have been burned but he had been able to save them.  One night in 1933, one of the Hitlerjugend ideological leaders had stopped by for a meeting, Sophie had suggested that he read one of her favorite writers, “Heinrich Heine.”  The leader was mortified by Sophie’s suggestion.  Sophie’s suggestion told the leader the Scholl’s family still had on their shelves what the Nazi Party now considered to be, “degenerate Jewish Writings.” This particular book had been banned by Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Germany.  Still Sophie persisted by telling the propagandist, “Whoever does not know Heine, does not know German literature.”

The Scholl’s household was different.  At a time when dead silence permeated many households, due to the split between the younger generation that had been brain washed by the Nazi Party propagandists, the Scholl family was alive with debate and even arguments over Hitler’s atrocities.  In the beginning years, it was hard due to Hans and Sophie’s participation in the Hitlerjugend.  And within many households the parents would remain silent due to their fear of their own children turning them in for speaking negatively against Hitler and the Nationalist Socialist Party.   Robert Scholl was different.   He would continue to battle for his children’s minds.  Regardless that he knew that one word spoken by either of his children to a teacher or the wrong person and he and his wife would disappear into the night like many others had taken to a concentration camp to be executed for high treason.    

Robert Scholl was different.  Although he would eventually win the battle of teaching his children what was wrong and right, he would pay the ultimate price by losing Sophie and Hans when they were convicted for crimes of high treason when handing out the leaflets against the Nationalist Socialist Party at the University of Munich.  Robert School once told his children, “All I want is for you to walk straight and free though life, even when it’s hard.”  (17%)  The conclusion you can get through this is the youth who were indoctrinated to become Nazi’s and disregard the value of life, perhaps could have been avoided if the parents in the earlier years would have fought back as Robert Scholl did. 

Instead the parents of the children of Germany seemed to let the situation go too far then not have any way to reign their children back in.  In retrospect, the children became the eyes of the Nazi Party on the older generation of Germany.  The German elders instead of leading Germany became prisoners of their own minds and homes, unable to speak the truth, with their children who were effectively turned against them by a mad man.  By 1934 Hitler was a meth addict due to suffering late stage symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and Syphilis.  The Meth was the only way his doctor’s could keep him together enough for public appearances.  Therefore, a madman raised a generation of Germans to become the war machine,  which would become the SS and the fierce fighters in WWII.

Annette Dumbach and Jud Newborn, Sophie Scholl and the White Rose, (ebook edition of Kindle: Oneworld Publications; 2011).

The White Rose Society: Through Resistace there is Freedom

(Hans and Sophie Scholl, with Christopher Probst to the right from historical documents.  I am still looking for more information on this picture.  If someone knows more please leave a comment.  Thank-you.)

The White Rose Resistance was a group of courageous individuals, mostly adolescents attending the university that, “in many ways transcended their time, place, and social class.”  (3%)  In fact, there was nothing predictable about the beginning of their resistance theorized, Annette Dumbach and Jud Newborn who wrote Sophie Scholl and the White Rose Society.  (3%)  One million Germans walked through the gates of concentration camps, while a low estimate of the number of Germans killed during the Nazi terror was 40,000.  And 15,000 Germans civilians alone were “executed for political crimes.”  (2%) 

Many might comment this does not compare to the many other groups who were killed by Germans; however, there needs to be taken under consideration the amount of courage the few would have needed to stand up against a society and cult of personality surrounding Hitler and the Gestapo when they knew the punishment for political crimes and that their chances of getting caught were high.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer while awaiting execution in prison wrote,

“Not in flight of thought

But in the act alone is ther freedom.”  (2%)

Dietrich was, “executed by hanging in Flossenburg.” (2%)  And while perhaps these young adolescents worked in secret, their opinions were not the majority, still further research needs to done on those that, “Sang with vibrant clarity while the world around them was shouting shared an energy, grace, and courage unsurpassed anywhere.”  (2%)  Germany and the world should remember, retell, and understand this example of a moral conscience that extended past all environmental factors that horrified most individuals into being silent, subservient followers.  Perhaps India’s idea of the third eye, or the unniversal conscience should be considered when phenomena occur at a cultural level that is so outside of the norm.  Is there a universal conscience that taps into the consceince of a few to remind the whole of the universal good?

mommy's eye for blog 

When researchers began asking questions concerning the White Rose Society, they were met with a resistance to those outside the German culture.  The researchers  were at first met with a “silence and a bristling resentment.”  There were three broad reasons why many Germans did not want to discuss the White Rose Society.

1)      They were “traitors to their country in a time of war.”

2)      “The students were spoiled adolescents who showed no concern for their unknowing friends and families who ended up paying for their suicidal acts.”

3)      “They were university-bred romantics who enjoyed the daring and danger of playing games with the Gestapo.”

(4%)

When looking at each of these reasons one can easily hear the echoes of the third Reich in the Germans of today.  The question remaining to be answered is how much of that mentality still lives on underneath the façade that we see as outsiders looking into the pristine houses and fast driving cars on the auto ban?  When you think of the families and keepers of archives for the White Rose Society one would think they should be proud of their loved ones that stood up for the morally correct road to walk down by resisting the Nazi’s campaign of genocide against the Jews, the homosexuals, the disabled, and towards the end the Nazi’s even considered the elderly.

In the movie, Sophie Scholl’s: The Final Days” the parents were proud of their children who were soon to be beheaded for what the Gestapo considered a treasonous act.  In my research into the White Rose Society I plan on going deeper into the reactions to these courageous young university students who stood out against the group mentality.  Especially within a society where fitting into the group is so very ingrained into their culture.  I plan on doing a review of the movie of Sophie Scholl’s: The Final Days as soon as I get a chance to read more of this book and watch the movie again.  My plan is to compare parts of the movie and the research from many different books concerning Germany and the Jews in Germany in an attempt to help others understand the Germans stratified relations with the Jews, along with how it is remembered and portrayed to this day. 

Annette Dumbach and Jud Newborn, Sophie Scholl and the White Rose, (ebook edition of Kindle: Oneworld Publications; 2011).

Sophie Scholl’s: The Final Days (movie)  available through netflix

This is an introduction to a series I wish to do on this topic.  Thank-you for reading  and I hope to hear your thoughts on this topic.

Raising the SS

Many of the men that joined the SS were first members of the Freicorp.   They were essentially raised guided by the hand of Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler.  In fact, the October before the Nazi Party would come into power found the Freicorp in Germany sent out to kill almost 400 of Hitler and Himmler’s political enemies.

Nationalism brings in an element that most people do not realize, until it is combined with socialism and that is, it switches all problems from many complex issues within a society to the idea that all individuals in a single national state are all for one and all against one.

The question is always who are they going to be against?   In the question of the Final Solution, Adolf Hitler knew exactly who he was going to be against from his days spent homeless in Vienna after he was denied access to an architecture school because he believed the Jews had prevented him from gaining admission there.  He was quoted saying, “I learned to hate the Jews in Vienna.”

Hitler would pass this hate along to the children of Germany.  He came to blame the Weimar Republic, which was established after World War I on the Jews of Germany.  Hitler would call the Weimar Republic the worst thing that ever happened to Germany.  In the Weimar Republic, the soldiers and many individuals were not able to eat like those in the modern world in Western Europe were accustomed to.  In pictures and movies, gaunt faces amongst the population of Germany were many.  From old to young, the people of Germany were starving due to the depression, inflation, and lack of resources.

There were no jobs and the hospitals were filled with patients infected with tuberculosis.  The Nazi Party would take many of these individuals who were not eating and make their lives better.  The party itself would foster these young individuals through training camps and group meetings instilling a hate of the Jews at a very young age.  Then they would be sent to another school as the nation prepared for the War to initiate them into extreme acts of violence.

So the seeds of hate were planted and the scapegoat was secured in the vice of the Jews.  These young men were primed and ready for the many horrendous acts of violence they would commit as they went ahead of the Regular troops and in the Final Solution.  Their hearts were hardened.  One archeologist even said that what Hitler created in the midst of the Nazi Party was equivalent to a religion.

Therefore with hate of the Jews in their hearts they would march to the East of Germany digging mass graves and killing the Jews in mass executions.  They would tear babies limb from limb, make individuals dance for pleasure in town squares and then beat them to death with a club, set on fire the beards of Rabbi’s, and watch as those in the ditches begged to die.  The soldiers would watch them die in agonizing pain, enjoying it as if they were less than human.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.