Wars and Conflicts permalink
Sophie Scholl, the last days
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
Has anyone seen this film regarding the White Rose resistance group of young students in Munich University during WW2.
As a pacifist and a Christian l have never understood why, from the safety of a political position man so frequently chooses from other men/woman/children the sacrifice of their lives.
Whilst many boys and young men may like the ides of soldiering in theory, l can't imagine that many think much about being killed or maimed in the practice of it.
Most people will have their opinion divided between war is either an evil, or a 'necessary' evil.
If anyone has watched the film in the title, this will become apparant during the interrogation, 'trial' and deaths of Sophie Scoll and her brother and friend (and many others).
This film shows without any sentiment whatsoever that from the moment a war is declared, everyone loses, and some more than is possible to imagine.
I would recommend this world cinema award wining film for anyone who is remotely interested in WW2. -
Message 2
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
sunshineandshowers,
This film shows without any sentiment whatsoever that from the moment a war is declared, everyone loses, and some more than is possible to imagine.
I respect your opinion and Belief but I do not agree, only who lost the war who won has the Power.
e.g. Now we’re writing in English because the UK conquered half of world.
I’m not a pacifist struggle is life and life is struggle.
If you are a Christian you sure remember the good battle of St. Paul’s letters.
bye sunny -
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
Alex. We are also speaking English because in 1940, when many people thought we should, we refused to surrender to Germany, or even strike a deal as suggested by the likes of Lord Halifax.
-
Message 4
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 13th September 2010
sunshineandshowers,
I was intrigued by your post as you made reference to your good self as a pacifist and a Christian and then asked why men in power can accept the 'sacrifice' of others.
Simply the answer is 'sooner you than me'.
The instinct of self-preservation will accept the destruction of an individual in order to protect themselves. Dawkins(that dreaded evolutionary biologist)I think refers expansively to this in 'The Selfish Gene'.
Of course the willingness to accept that death is dependant on a number of factors.
During war it is the conditioning of the subject that is paramount. As an Englishman I would far sooner accept the principal that Germans have to die rather than I because my conditioning tels me that I am moral and that the enemy is the opposite - and of course the converse is true for the German.
In peacetime the process is principally the same. Altruism is best served by a full belly and it is only when the belly is empty that such decisions become harder.
There are five people in on a life raft and food and water are desperately low and rescue seems unlikely. You are accompanied by your five year old daughter; the other occupants are a young man and a elderly man. Who will be sacrificed? Most of us would say the old man and justify this assumption by saying that he has had a life, etcetera. Naturally I have sneakily used an old man as my target which makes the ultimate decision 'morally' more acceptable. But what if we complicate this by changing the men into two small children who are orphans? I suggest that very few of us would willingly sacrifice our own child(see parallels in your Bible)in placement of others. Then I will add the two children are if fact with their biological mother. What ensues the? A fight between the women for dominance?
The sacrifice of the women and children during the last war is regarded by most of us as reprehensible but that morale dilemma is excused as unavoidable given what we faced with as an alternative(see GrumpyFred's very relevant post).
Thus we accept the sacrifice of others by whatever means at our disposal. Of course the more that share our viewpoint the more comforted we are, and, if we receive the enthusiastic approbation of our peers for the act, then the happier and more self-justified we become - which makes the repetition of such acts increasingly more likely.
Thus we can have religious leaders who can accept immoral acts by readily adopting the mitigating circumstances. In those woolly minds 'punishment' is seen as in the province of the Great One. 'No man is beyond redemption' so when the religious is faced with a manipulative criminal he is allowed to escape the law to seek that redemption.
'In the fight for freedom all acts are justified' as shown in the Holy teachings and thus holy men can be complicit in the death of woman and children.
I'm sure you are aware too that some seek self-sacrifice as the extreme form of altruism. Sometimes whether they are punished by the authorities or themselves is purely a matter of chance.
Finally I am likewise intrigued by your third para'. I would be genuinely interested in your opinions as a Christian as to why people join the armed services in peacetime.
Kind Regards,
Spruggs. -
Message 5
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 13th September 2010
Spruggles
I understand what you are saying, but of course am in complete disagreement with it.
Altruism is best served by a full belly and it is only when the belly is empty that such decisions become harder.Â
For eg; as a Christian l believe man does not live by 'bread alone' the Spirit requires to be fed and fulfilled oftimes more than the stomach.
And that is what is understood in the film I mention.
The politician believes all can be accomplished through political power (at any cost), the Christian or the pacifist believes that there are some things that are never worth the cost expected to be paid because we do not fight against flesh and blood, as the film also conveys.
Blood is indeed shod, but it is given freely for the right reasons, as l know it, and Sophie Scholl and others knew it during these dreaful times.
There are five people in on a life raft and food and water are desperately low and rescue seems unlikely. You are accompanied by your five year old daughter; the other occupants are a young man and a elderly man. Who will be sacrificed? Most of us would say the old man and justify this assumption by saying that he has had a life, etceteraÂ
You have obviously not seen this film, or read the history of the resistance group. Change the above scenario for young people fighting an evil regime with everything against them, the probable loss of all their families, and yet they did not waver once, even when having the chance to 'save their own skin'.
This is the crux of the film l talk of
Finally I am likewise intrigued by your third para'. I would be genuinely interested in your opinions as a Christian as to why people join the armed services in peacetime.
Kind RegardsÂ
I covered that question in the OP as in the 'theory' as against that which can so quickly become the practice of 'dying for ones country'
Boys will be boys, and most of them are when making the sacrifice that l desire no one make for me or mine, and l speak as a great-grandmother.
We can not have a full discussion because of my faith which is discouraged on these boards as l have experienced.
If you are intersetd in the ' human condition' and war and its reasons and the powers behind it, i implore you to watch this film. you will not, l am sure be dissapointed. -
Message 6
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 13th September 2010
AlexanderiLiberty
I respect your opinion and Belief but I do not agree, only who lost the war who won has the Power.
e.g. Now we’re writing in English because the UK conquered half of world.Â
What profits a man if he conquers the whole world and yet loses his soul?
War diminishes, it solves nothing.
I’m not a pacifist struggle is life and life is struggle.Â
Of course it is a struggle ordinarily and every day, however who having wisdom would desire to make it more of a struggle with murders of millions added to the agenda to?
If you are a Christian you sure remember the good battle of St. Paul’s letters.Â
Pauls letters were to other Christians reminding us of the fight between good and evil, living Gods word. His letters are testament to this. And remain as real today as they were over two thousand years ago. -
Message 7
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Monday, 13th September 2010
Grumpy, you refused to surrender to Germany because you have the military power to beat them (built in many years of battle against every civilization in the world) and you can’t tolerate a France or Germany supremacy on Europe. It’s a fact you’re a civilization of warriors and you fight better that the others with few resources.
sunshineandshowers (U13926964),
1)What profits a man if he conquers the whole world and yet loses his soul?
It’s the military board not the religious one. Make an Empire, The message of Christ became a religion thanks to the Roman empire remember it.
2)however who having wisdom would desire to make it more of a struggle with murders of millions added to the agenda to?
The independence of UK was paid with a millions of death in WWII and you are free because that high cost was piad. That’s the same for me.
3) Pauls letters were to other Christians reminding us of the fight between good and evil, living Gods word. His letters are testament to this. And remain as real today as they were over two thousand years ago.
Like Luther said on the Romans letter we have to respect the authority because his power comes from God. So if your Kingdom call you to duty you’ll have to fight for it because is a moral duty. e.g. HM Elizabeth II is the Queen for God will. She isn’t ?
Bye and good week to all -
Message 8
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
SaS,
Thanks for your reply. I understand now that your question did not really seek an answer but was intended as Christian propaganda and I might even suggest that it was necessary to confirm your own belief.
First, if you remember we have already covered much of this in our posts of last year but to reiterate;
Altruism is not a gift of Christianity. It has its origins in the very nurturing of the human mind. There is evidence that many thousands of years before the invention of Christianity that we cared for our sick and maimed and buried our dead with some reverence. It is understood however that altruism has to be tempered with pragmatism. Indeed some anthropologists would consider that altruism unchecked would result in the eventual collapse of the society.
For example, a man rushes into a building to rescue a trapped person without waiting for professional help. The balance of probability would indicate that the man and the person trapped would both die. Thus we have a fire service. But even the professional is trained to use logic and training in rescue rather than instinct.
The defence of the nation or indeed institutions throughout history have examples of this pragmatism. Even in recent history we have examples of institutions which have chosen pragmatism over altruism. Where justice and truth towards individuals have been ignored in order to protect the institution. Why? - because it is regarded by those in power that the survival of the edifice is more important than the protection of the abused. Is that a fair assessment?
The same of course is true of the rules that society make to protect itself. Protect the weak but insist that the law first protect the rich and powerful.
You are correct in your assumption that I have not been exposed to the film you quote. I would say that there is no need for me so to do. It is obvious that we cannot individually experience or absorb even a fraction of the history of the human condition. I have only just recently seen the the details of the courage of Irena Sendler. Are you familiar with this lady? I am really surprised that she is not widely known, or is it only me that remained in ignorance for so long?
As altruism so is it true of pacifism. I respect your position but I would again suspect that your position is from one of comfort and strength rather one of extreme stress. The concept that war is wasteful and non-productive is a luxury afforded to the victor.
There is little doubt that had Hitler been successful in his invasion plans his concept of society would have been impressed on ours and his was far removed from ours. Please remember that his society was one imbued with eugenics. Here is a regime which gassed its own children. There is little doubt that those of Jewish origin would also have been subject to their Nuremberg 'laws'. Would you as a Christian be content to stand to one side while such crimes were committed? Or would you as an alternative marched to Berlin wearing your hair shirt and carrying the Holy cross before you to protest? Would you be willing to sacrifice your children to the authorities if you had married a Jew?
I think you should remember too that the vast majority of the British armed forces in the 1939-45 War were in fact conscripted. They, to quote John Le Carry '... live in a democracy - you have no choice.' And how important was their sacrifice to the defence of freedom!
As GrumpyFred indicated ... the alternatives are too ghastly to contemplate.
The image of the life raft was deliberately chosen because it is a microcosm of society and I notice that you fail to answer the questions posited by it.
As I indicated another strong influence in the human psyche is for mutual protection. Thus we have crowds of people who are willing to fill holy places every day - to genuflect and bow and scrape before their deities for support. They follow in ritual procession behind piles of bones, to kiss the stone feet of statues and to subject the unfortunate to the visitations of 'holy' places in the hope that they will be cured. They gather in their thousands to visit the shrines of the dearly departed. There is little logic in this but there is comfort for some in mutual congregations of this kind.
Have you questioned the morality of leaders who profess themselves as Chistian can readily invade another country which results in the death of thousands? Have you marxched in protest against them?
Regards,
Spruggs. -
Message 9
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
Spruggles
Thanks for your reply. I understand now that your question did not really seek an answer but was intended as Christian propaganda and I might even suggest that it was necessary to confirm your own belief.Â
You presume to know more of me and the faith of Christianity than you actually do.
Altruism is not a gift of Christianity. It has its origins in the very nurturing of the human mind. There is evidence that many thousands of years before the invention of Christianity that we cared for our sick and maimed and buried our dead with some reverence.Â
It is little good having altruism towards the dead isn't it? ~I am not so sure the millions of war dead would be happy to know they were regarded more in their death than their lives.
Where justice and truth towards individuals have been ignored in order to protect the institution. Why? - because it is regarded by those in power that the survival of the edifice is more important than the protection of the abused. Is that a fair assessment? Â
Yes it is exact.
The same of course is true of the rules that society make to protect itself. Protect the weak but insist that the law first protect the rich and powerful.Â
Which is in complete contraditionto what we agree on. Perhaps life is not as simple as many attempt to make it.
So what is that telling you about war the reasons wars are fought, and why we will never see and end to them.
I have the answer that makes sense to me, but you are apparantly still trying to find an answer that dots the i's and crosses the t's?
only just recently seen the the details of the courage of Irena Sendler. Are you familiar with this ladyÂ
A Polish woman of faith who saved many Jewish children in WW2. Why is it pertinant to refer to yet another heroine, whilst saying that you 'have not been exposed' to the woman l speak of? Is there a difference, aprt from your understanding of what sacrifice is really all about? War, after all, knows all about sacrifice, as long as it remains anothers not your own.
Would you as a Christian be content to stand to one side while such crimes were committed?Â
No because l have no fear of what it is possible for mankind to inflict on me.
Or would you as an alternative marched to Berlin wearing your hair shirt and carrying the Holy cross before you to protest?Â
I will not dignify the above with any response except you do not know what you talk of.
crowds of people who are willing to fill holy places every day - to genuflect and bow and scrape before their deities for support. They follow in ritual procession behind piles of bones, to kiss the stone feet of statuesÂ
What you describe is idolatory and nothing to do with the message of Christianity, possibly with the war against the truth of it.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your children to the authorities if you had married a Jew?Â
Your question is contemtable; what do you think the German Nation was intending when blind-eyes were turned against what was in fact happening in peace time with the Jewish race.
You are neither a Mother or a person of faith, so you would not understand any answer given to you.
Have you questioned the morality of leaders who profess themselves as ChistianÂ
Profess being the operative word of course.
God is doing that as we speak. You can not get a higher authority.
can readily invade another country which results in the death of thousands? Have you marxched in protest against them?Â
Yes, You?
I am sure it would be from totally different standpoints.
I believe you are being contentious because it is easy against a pacifist and a Christian, when you may understand to a degree regarding pacifism but not as it seems Christianity and the truth of all wars and the destruction they bring down the centuries.
You can claim correctness that this is a board for war and conflicts with the PC standards of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ,that has little or no referen ce to Christianity in its purest sense and its prophesies. However history teaches us that it is and will remain part of the bigger picture as yet unseen in any theatre of war experienced before. -
Message 10
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
sunshineandshowers
I´ve seen that film twice and before that film, there has been made another, in the 1980s with the title "Die Weiße Rose" (The White Rose).
Although I can understand your post, it doesn´t says anything whether you´ve understood the meaning of that film and further more, the meaning of that German Resistance Group.
None of them "chooses from other man/woman/children the sacrifice of their lives". In the contrary they wanted to stop the war and encourage others to resist the Nazi regime.
They all had knew the risk they were taken by their activities, but they all volounteered to being part of the German Resistance.
In their leavelets, the Weiße Rose has there set up some principles on which the post-war German State has been re-founded under the directives of the Western Allied Powers.
The whole theme is more complex as that it would be easy to depict it in one or various films. While the film "Sophie Scholl, the last days" focusses on the time from her last action in the Hall of the Munich University, the film "Die Weiße Rose" has its focus on the the other members of that group and their activities and their attempts, to extend their activities by winning other members to join them. They are both good films. Each one for his part, but as I´ve noticed for several times, the film "Die Weiße Rose" might not be available in English Language. This because it is now 30 years old and a German production, not sure of whether it has been now modernised for international screening.
Thanks for bringing up the topic anyway.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 11
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
Thomas_B
You have not said wether you considered this film an anti-war film, or just a record of history, l would be interested in your view.
It was only on hindsight that these young people understood fully, albeit too late the horror and implications of the war and it's increasingly horrific consequences to Germany and the Germans.
As l saw the film this particualr young person Sophie did have the chance to make her charge lesser, but declined. I understood that, because it would have been defeating the object.
I am waiting delivery of some books to do with the White Rose resistance group.
I believe this film showed implicitly that we all should regard very carefully that which we wish for when considering being a part of any war, wether it be within indivisuals or in Nations.
I was deeply moved by the film as it showed me something l am unable to discuss on this board (or any other).
Of course when people resist they know of the dangers, but people so young and so important to the future of another generation coming up, denied.
The trial shows particular regard to how evil can overtake sense and reason and education(Judge Fresiler) because it is easier and safer to remain indoctrinated in the lies, than to speak out against them.
"Die Weiße Rose" might not be available in English Language. This because it is now 30 years old and a German production, not sure of whether it has been now modernised for international screening.Â
Wether this film is available or not, l believe the power of the film l mentioned speaks with a great truth that will forward the message that war is always an unecessary evil.
Thank you for your comments.
I will watch the film again when l have read the appropriate books l wait on. -
Message 12
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
sunshineandshowers,
The Sophie Scholl film is more than an anti-war film. It is a film which also tells that it is important to stand ones ground and defend his believes. So to say in an short term in my opinion.
When you´ve read the books about the White Rose, you´ll have then more knowledge about the background of that group and its members.
It was only on hindsight that these young people understood fully, albeit too late the horror and implications of the war and it's increasingly horrific consequences to Germany and the Germans.Â
When they were confronted with the attroctities in the areas of the Eastern Front, it was in 1941/1942 when the recognised that this war was fought on racial reasons as well. It is no surprise that some important persons in the German Resistance came later to them and this by incidents that first confused and in conclusion afterwards changed their mind upon the then German Regime. So it went with Graf Claus von Stauffenberg and his attempt to kill Hitler on the 20th July 1944. There has existed a German Resistance before the war, but the successions of Hitler from 1938 to 1941 left them little chances to overthron him because the majority of the German people stood behind Hitler in that time.
Now I´ve to leave and maybe, we´ll continue on this topic tomorrow.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 13
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
Hi all,
Can everyone please keep this friendly and also to the realm of History. There is always the Religion boards for the more theological elements of this discussion:
Many thanks
Andrew -
Message 14
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
Andrew
Where has the discussion been unfriendly?
There is always the Religion boards for the more theological elements of this discussionÂ
Is it supposed by the Â鶹ԼÅÄ that theological arguments/discussions only stand on that subject alone, and are to be kept detached from war and comflict or any other subject apart from the 'topics' of religion?
War and conflict is an emotive subject as well as an historical one surely.
Or is that too potically incorrect for Â鶹ԼÅÄ?
Am l under the mistaken belief that we are a democracy and that as a licence payer for the Â鶹ԼÅÄ that l may talk of war and conflict as long as religion is not mentioned, even if the two are inseperable? -
Message 15
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
Thomas_B
The Sophie Scholl film is more than an anti-war film. It is a film which also tells that it is important to stand ones ground and defend his believes. So to say in an short term in my opinionÂ
Of course, However, standing ones ground to defend a belief is made virtually impossible for most people in war-time than at any other time.
When they were confronted with the attroctities in the areas of the Eastern Front, it was in 1941/1942 when the recognised that this war was fought on racial reasons as well.Â
But some things that could be called atrocities were taking place in Germany earlier weren't they? Were most people unaware of this.
It is no surprise that some important persons in the German Resistance came later to them and this by incidents that first confused and in conclusion afterwards changed their mind upon the then German Regime. So it went with Graf Claus von Stauffenberg and his attempt to kill Hitler on the 20th July 1944. There has existed a German Resistance before the war, but the successions of Hitler from 1938 to 1941 left them little chances to overthron him because the majority of the German people stood behind Hitler in that time.Â
I am familiar about von Stauffenberg, and to me shows how easy it is for good people to believe that something positive/good can possibly arise from something as flawed as war, and how easily it appears to dehumaise some, and inspires others in the opposite direction against all the apparant odds. -
Message 16
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010
sunshineandshowers,
You presume to know more of me and the faith of Christianity than you actually do;
1) you aren't Christ so I doubt that you can teach us what is Christianity;
2) There're different forms of Christianity: Protestants, Catholics, Orthodoxs that they've different opinion on war and I respect them all;
3) There are different forms of war like in a struggle: you can attack or you can defend your life (I remember you that is a gift of God you have to defend it because it isn't yours);
4)Thanks Andrew.
This is a wars and conflicts message boards so I care to know your opinion about war not religion;
5)you said: l may talk of war and conflict as long as religion is not mentioned, even if the two are inseparable?
Speak about others things. Simple. Big Grin;
If we would a world of peace, we have to do it not to speak about it
Bye Sunny -
Message 17
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 15th September 2010
SaS,
You appear to believe that my last post was disrespectful to you. Nothing was further from my mind. As Andrew has pointed out these boards are not intended as a vehicle for personal attacks. When I referred to 'you' in my post I was using the generic term rather than using Mr. X or such like as 'you' is far easier to type and I thought that 'you on a raft' was sufficient clue to this. It was my clumsy attempt to illustrate how the instinct of self preservation and the instinct to protect the offspring is used by those who ferment war. I deliberately used the war of 1939-45 as it is in my opinion one of the few 'justified' wars. Naturally, once Mr. X accepts the the principle that the enemy is immoral by their actions mentioned in my previous post then anything is possible(with some subtle propaganda manipulation).
My mum survived the Blitz(as I did)by the skin of our collective teeth. I can assure you that normally she displayed great empathy towards humankind. Yet to her dying day, which came far too soon, she never overcame her bitterness towards Germans(losses of family members contributing as well as her experiences during the bombing)and as far as she was concerned the retaliation on of German civilians was justified. Yet I have seen her cry when films of the ruined cities were shown accompanied by statistics of the German death toll. That is part, as I'm sure you know, of the duality of the human condition.
It is the same reasoning that allowed the British public to accept the apparent suicide of our V bomber crews with the tacit understanding that the destruction of Russian cities and countless civilians would somehow keep them safe. Hence too the argument for the Trident replacement.
I was puzzled however when after accusing me of knowing nothing about you that you then proceeded to tell me that I was neither a women nor a mother!
On the idolatry position I always understood that was in fact a cornerstone of Christianity. Hence the great cathedrals, the selling of statues and the phials of holy water, the passion plays, the dressing up in funny clothes, and the thousands who progress yearly along the Via Dolorosa.
Nor, history tells us, does the simple belief in a God either prevent war nor the stockpiling of weapons which ultimately contribute to war. As far as I remember the God which is shared by the three great religions was quite involved with the practicing of warfare. With all due respect I think that war is entirely a human problem which will only be solved by humans and I can't consider the efficacy of kneeling down in front of a piece of wood as part of the effort.
Kind Regards,
Spruggs. -
Message 18
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 15th September 2010
SaS,
I have just read your post No15(never read the latest as I was in a hurry to post mu apology.
Yes the civilians did know some details of Nazi evils. Objections were made by certain German clergy which prevented some children from being exterminated and power to their elbows! Mention of Stauffenberg is rather strange because he used violence in his efforts to remove the greater evil. Is violence ever excusable in this instance?
Spruggles. -
Message 19
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 15th September 2010
No one can be left unaffected by war and its aftermath.
My family and my husbands families lives were deeply affected in two world wars.
However, none of us were left in my experience aggrieved by a people or a nation just a situation that will always remain out of the hands of many and in the power and hands of politicians and their plans that will forever remain unknown as to the truth.
First of all to fight a just war you have to recognise who the true enemy is, and as l have been reminded by yourself and others this is deemed not to be the proper forum for such dialogue, however the loss is not mine.
I'm sure you know, of the duality of the human condition.Â
There is huge sentiment felt and displayed before, during and after wars.
Sentiment however,usually dulls the senses and hides the truth of other things, it traps the energies into a negative web when mixed with anger towards what we are led to believe of a situation.
For eg WW1 was called ' the war to end all wars', l am sure the Germans had had enough of war as we had,
The fact that the sons of those fighting in this war to end all wars (on both sides) 21 years later and the next generation were fighting the 'same enemy'.
Surely a mockery to the lives of millions lost.
I was puzzled however when after accusing me of knowing nothing about you that you then proceeded to tell me that I was neither a women nor a mother!Â
I believe this is true because you would not have asked the question you did.
There may be many religions but there is only one God and both the aliies and the germans believed God was on their side.
If you knew of the film l talk of, and of anything regarding the faith of Christianity you would know that no one wins from war except those who thrive on evil gain with little thought to present or later consequences to the world.
With all due respect I think that war is entirely a human problem which will only be solved by humans and I can't consider the efficacy of kneeling down in front of a piece of wood as part of the effortÂ
War is part of the human condition because we do not learn that is solves nothing.
You appear to observe the religious and religions but do not observe what God desires for men of all nations and all people.
I do not believe we can go further on this thread. -
Message 20
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Wednesday, 15th September 2010
However the loss is not yours.
Sunny said:
War is part of the human condition because we do not learn that is solves nothing.
You appear to observe the religious and religions but do not observe what God desires for men of all nations and all people.
I do not believe we can go further on this thread.
Today is 15th of September of 2010, one of the ancient battle of history was fought in 1285 BC.
Don’t be afraid. We can go further.
Bye -
Message 21
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 15th September 2010
I can also greatly admire the courage of those who resisted Hitler, but to say that all war is unnecessary is surely flawed. If all men felt that way - great! But there are always evil men who take advantage of the others.
If it had not been for the armies who fought against Hitler, then all those courageous resistance groups would still be struggling and dying in Germany, and all over europe. That war seemed to have 'solved' the Hitler problem, althought of course it threw up many other problems in his place. -
Message 22
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Wednesday, 15th September 2010
giraffe47,
I subscribe your post
.
bye -
Message 23
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 16th September 2010
SaS,
The whole history of mankind is inextricably linked with war. It been used to gain precedence over another tribe or to gain land or to influence others with one's conceit and religion has played its part in the ritual death. Even if one confines their study to social history they cannot ignore the influence on society of warfare, of that I'm sure you will agree.
The Bishop of Munster who was one German who bravely publicly renounced the Nazi programme of euthanasia but that regrettably did not stop the Allies bombing his churches and killing members of his faith. All victims of war.
You are correct in your assumption that I do not understand your God's message. As I see it the practice of Christianity if taken to its illogical conclusion is pacifism in the face of aggression and I am convinced that this attitude in 1939 would have resulted in the prospect for millions of extermination, domination and slavery; something that the Jews, among others, suffered as testament. In the Old Testament they were eventually led from their troubles to freedom by a chap with a magical stick; where was that man in the last century?
It is difficult for me to comprehend how reliance on a Deity who expects pacifism but can continue to allow maniacs to arise and expect us, mere mortals, to defend ourselves without killing each other. I too find it strangely illogcal that this Deity can find the time to create all the wonders of the Earth and then give power to the very animal that can evolve the power to destroy it. But these arguments are usually met with a knowing wink and a sage nod of the head and the comment, 'ah, that's all part of his plan,'
I presume that you lock your doors and windows when you go out or retire for the night? We know that burglars should not exist in our affluent society but the reality is that they do. The same applies in my book for what you would describe as 'evil'.
Regards,
Spruggs. -
Message 24
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 16th September 2010
posted by sunshineandshowers
...
For eg WW1 was called ' the war to end all wars', l am sure the Germans had had enough of war as we had,...Â
Some ordinary people had had enough of war, but even among these ordinary people were those of the political extreme right-radicals, joining the Free Corps and then Hitlers Party, they wanted revange, because in their opinions, the war was not lost for Germany by defeat, but by betrayal. -
Message 25
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Saturday, 18th September 2010
Some ordinary people had had enough of war, but even among these ordinary people were those of the political extreme right-radicals, joining the Free Corps and then Hitlers Party, they wanted revange, because in their opinions, the war was not lost for Germany by defeat, but by betrayal.Â
It is 'ordinary' people that allow the possibility and continuation of war. It is the more extraordinary type of person that will place their belief/knowledge before their more ordinary of opinions.
all people hold opinions, but not all people have a belief that as Dietrich Boenhoeffer said;
'Not in the flight of thought,but in the act alone is there freedom'
And that imo is what makes the difference between the white Rose and the people who believed in it and the 'war' they chose to fight, as against the war that mankind fights in their ignorance on a greater plan for man-kind.
We first have to recognise the meaning of the freedom that Boenhoffer speaks of and Sophie Scholl and others died for.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.