Talk:German resistance to Nazism

This is not a military history article. Adam 04:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a "military history" article. It has a lot of German officers in it, but it is about their political activities, not their military roles. Adam 10:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Excellent article over all, Adam. My only serious criticism would be that there's no discussion of the historiography. A lot's been written in recent years on the subject of resistance and opposition in Nazi Germany, and it's tended to take the focus away from the military/government plotters and towards "every day resistance," and such like. While I think that a focus on the Resistance "proper" is probably appropriate here, there should probably be some discussion.

BTW, have you seen July 20 Plot? I think the discussion of it here is actually more detailed. john k 00:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I agree a section on historiography is needed, plus more comments on "everyday resistance" if there was such a phenomenon - I will remain a bit sceptical about that until I see a source. Perhaps you or someone else can contribute some material.
• As for July 20 Plot I made a point of not reading other Wikipedia articles before writing this one, except the Rote Kapelle article which I didn't have another source for. I'm not surprised to hear it is deficient. This area seems to have been surprisingly neglected. Perhaps my text can be copied over to that article, but it would look rather arrogant if I did it (and you know how much I hate to appear arrogant). Adam 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For "everyday resistance" and such like, various historians have written on the subject - I think Detlev Peukert discusses that kind of thing. The aim of a lot of it, I think, is to try to show that, in particular, former members of the German left (Social Democrats and, to a lesser extent, Communists) did not buy into Nazism, but staged their own forms of "resistance" in their everyday lives. I think a lot of people find it to be dubious and straw-grasping, at least if it means characterizing, say, listening to a Mendelssohn or jazz record as "resistance"...but it has been written about. john k 09:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything by Peukert, but a sniff around reveals this and this and this and this. I will see what I can come up with. Adam 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great article, and I can not imagine it would take much to take it to become a Featured Article. Andreas 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Which will attract swarms of cranks and keep us all busy for days. Thanks for your comment nonetheless. As John has noted above, the article needs more work and I will be adding more material to it soon. Adam 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new section as discussed. Adam 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks mostly good, although I'd greatly prefer not to cite Goldhagen. john k 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think his sections on the pervasiveness of German anti-semitism can just be ignored, even if one agrees that he has misunderstood its nature. Adam 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that Goldhagen did any original research on the subject of German anti-semitism, just secondary research, which he frequently mischaracterized. I don't think the actual statement in the article is wrong (that most German were indifferent to the fate of the Jews, and a fair number actively supported anti-semitic policy - although I think it's a bit misleading to imply that this feeling was in respect to the actual gassing of Jews, which I think there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest most Germans didn't specifically know about, if only because they closed their eyes to it), I'd just like to cite someone more reputable than Goldhagen. john k 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to that - Goldhagen's research was mostly about actual perpetrators - he looked at what the guys who were shooting Jews in the east were saying at their trials, and so forth. Citing him on that subject would, I think, be acceptable, although I'd think that one should cite Browning in the same context, as well. But I don't think Goldhagen is an acceptable expert on general German public opinion. IIRC, Kershaw's written a fair amount on the latter subject, and probably others. I don't have much access to books (I'm a continent away from my university library for the next several months), but I figure a better citation could be found. john k 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will cite Johnson & Reuband, and Kershaw. Adam 09:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. My basic problem with Goldhagen is that what's good in his book isn't new, and what's new isn't good, to quote somebody or other talking about something else. As such, it seems like we should probably try to avoid referencing it in wikipedia articles - either a better source is available attesting to the same basic idea, or else the argument is probably tendentious, and shouldn't be cited in anything except a discussion of Goldhagen's views. john k 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the cite. Are you happy with the bibliography? I just copied the one at the Widerstand article. I realise there is an enormous literature, but do we have the most important titles? Adam 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge of the literature on the military conspirators isn't that great. The authors you have listed look good, but I don't know if there's any glaring ommissions. I suppose the answer would have to be "I don't know how to improve the list you have." And also that it looks pretty good, but that I don't have enough confidence in my knowledge of the literature on this particular subject to be certain. Peukert should probably be listed in the references section, though. john k 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweeping Statements

This is a really good article, but I have one reservation. There are a couple of sweeping statements, along the lines of "the great majority of Germans supported the regime". This may well be true, but I think there should be something to back it up. The Nazi party never received more than 33% of the vote in free elections and the majority of German citizens were never members of the Nazi party.

I know it's the sort of thing which is very hard to prove one way or another and is still the subject of much historical debate, but should this be thrown into an article as if it's fact. Did most Germans passively accept the Nazi regime as long as didn't effect them? Does that amount to supporting it? Is that just as bad as supporting it? These are all open for debate.

This can be copiously referenced, and I will do so when I get home to my books. It's true that before 1933 only a minority of Germans supported Hitler. But after his resuscitation of the German economy and easy foreign policy triumphs, all sources (including opposition sources from the time, such as the underground Social Democrats) agreed that Hitler had overwhelming public support. This survived largely intact until Stalingrad, after which it declined steadily. I recommend the first volume of Kershaw's Hitler and its footnotes to anyone interested in pursuing this. Adam 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kershaw also wrote a book on public opinion during the third reich, iirc (it may have just been articles). That's also worth taking a look at. Every source that I've read on the subject agrees with what Adam says here. john k 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

the french resistance as analogue

The french resistance was not unified -particularily at the beginning of the Occupation and not even at the insurrection and liberation of Paris. Can you provide written evidence. I have in front of me ' Soldiers of the night' by Schoenbrun and 'From Munich to the Liberation', 1938-1944 by Azema; both compare the very different structures involved. There was the southern section or the 'maqui', the cells in the occupied France of the north. The communist controlled sections especially in Paris. More often they were independent of each other. They were definitely not all controlled from London by the 'free French'. In fact the communists despised de Gaulle.(and vice versa). The 'resistance' varied from highly and centrally organised to anarchic cells. And most of it consisted of 'everyday resistance'. Please see Maquis (World War II) Joan Gos 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The French resistance was unified by De Gaulle's emissary Jean Moulin in May 1943, under the aegis of the Conseil National de la Resistance (CNR), to which all the organised reistance groups, including those controlled by the PCF, gave their adherance. I agree that in practice the situation was more complicated, but that was the legal situation. (M R D Foot, Resistance, 237-38). This was far in advance of the German reistance, which had no national structure and no political leadership. Adam 05:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The first 30 months of the occupation the 'resistance' was headless but still effective. Yes later the CNR did coordinate from London but in my opinion its true influence was the money it handed out. The communists (PCF) 'remained seperate from the Secret Army' (CNR) (p272 Schoenbrun) and the maquis were well spanish influenced. Perhaps if you wanted to compare german to french resistance you could frame it as less of a strong contrast? Joan Gos 05:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about the complexities of the French resistance. The point is a simple one - the French eventually attained a unified national political leadership, while the Germans never came close to doing so. That is all the article says, and it is a correct statement. You asked me for a source and I gave you one. Adam 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey calm down. Have I said or insisted this was 'an article about the complexities of the french resistance'? No. Youre creating a straw man. And then tearing it to shreds. Ive ammended the text to read more moderately (and accurately). The FR was not a single unified political leadership. Ive provided evidence too. The PCF were not controlled fron London and neither were the macquis. Just tryin' to negociate. Joan Gos 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)