Talk:Karl Fiehler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Munich, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Munich on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. | |
 |
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the imageneeded parameter from the {{WikiProject Germany}} template call on this page to remove this image request. | |
|
Germany To-do:
|
||
I had a very instructive discussion with a grandchild (born in 1960) of Karl Fiehler, documented as an appendix of the German Wikipedia article which I started. I think his attitude towards his grandfather's behaviour and actions during the "Third Reich" are quite typical for some direct descendants of high-ranking Nazi officials. Some of them (not all!) use - deliberately or not - the arguments of the so called "Geschichtsrevisionismus" (English: "history revisionism") which became popular among conservative historians in Germany during the late 1980s and early 1990s (see Historikerstreit): National Socialism and Holocaust are described as a kind of "operating accident" of German history. The people is alleged to have been - with few exceptions - moral and a big part of Großdeutschland's leading personnel is regarded as "idealists" who just wanted the best. Even more critical children or grandchildren - like the Fiehler descendant asserts to be - are sometimes insistent that their fathers or grandfathers - although influential Nazis of the first hour who were in close contact with the "Führer" - are "not guilty" just because no criminal offense could be proven directly against them; a peculiar formalistic view. --Bogart99 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
On January 23, 2006 the anonymous Arcor client IP 84.63.50.241 writes (I translate as literally as possible):
- "The article contains unfortunately some statements which are not alright that way. I don't want to correct it nevertheless, for I am a close relative of Karl Fiehler in the first place and because I have no written sources for my knowledge in the second. My concern is not 'to clear' somebody, how you could guess possibly. And less than ever it's about minimizing then malpractices, but we should have learned from history that truth and veracity are necessary.
- Some facts:
- It is shown correctly that Munich surrendered without a struggle to the Americans. It is also described correctly that Karl Fiehler was no longer in Munich at that very time. He walked on foot to his wife and his three daughters getting throug to them after days. One of his daughters married an American soldier in 1948, by the way, who had been quartered in the house of family Fiehler as a member of the occupying forces.
- It is not mentioned in the article that Karl Fiehler enforced the surrender of Munich towards German generals during a marathon negotiation. The generals intended to blast the Isar bridges as a last action of defence. But the gas and power supply of the city run through these bridges. Fiehler wanted to save - besides the human lives - the infrastuctre for the postwar period. The article evokes the impression that Fiehler marooned the city. Sorry, but quite the opposite applies! He wanted to back his family, in whose house on Lake Starnberg soldiers had been quartered as members of the occupying forces in the meanwhile. Moreover
- Fiehler is depicted as a leading anti-Semite. This is not at all correct. The article describes correctly - that must be said in a fair way - excesses and atrocities against Jews in Munich. I don't want to play down these at all, but it's about the role of Fiehler. I know that he tried at least partially to screen Jews. The realtionship to Göring, Himmler and Göbbels [Note: misspelling with a umlaut by Fiehler's grandchild!] was eminently tense apart from that. In the domestic circle, where politics had been talked about rarely, he said once about the end of war that he must watch out for not meeting the fate of Goerdeler, with whom he had cooperated closely. Besides, he was about the end of war - despite his high position in the NSDAP - no longer admitted to Hitler, thus had no contact to him.
- He was sentenced to a comparatively mild penalty in the Spruchkammerverfahren [Note: proceedings before a denazification tribunal). The then reasons given for the judgment explicate in essence that he abetted National Socialism by his irreproachable behaviour [Note: This is no inaccurate translation. Fiehler's grandchild uses exactly this strange phrasing.]. With other words: He was charged with no single direct crime."
- In the article is to be found a reference to Fiehler's predecessor and successor at the same time Karl Scharnagl [Note: born January 17, 1881 in Munich, died April 6, 1963. The catholic-conservative politician was associated with the collapsed July 20 Plot erroneously and was interned in the notorious Dachau concentration camp for political prisoners for some time.]. In the article about Scharnagl it is mentioned that he was arrested innocently after the failed assassination attempt on July 20, 1944, and imprisoned in the KZ Dachau. [Note: It's meant the biographical article about Scharnagl in the German wikipedia.] I know from narratives by Fiehler's youngest daughter that Scharnagl's wife phoned Fiehler immediately after the detention in his private flat and asked for help. Fiehler was extremely annoyed about the imprisonment and initiated the short-term discharge of Scharnagl.
- Karl Fiehler died when I was 9 years old and knew nothing about his political past. I would have liked to ask him many questions personally. Thus I had to settle for those answers I got from his daughters. None of them ever defined something down in conversations, by the way, or tried to justify something. Just Fiehler's person was their and my principal concern - and truth and veracity. Also somebody who has incurred guilt is entitled to this. Not just in his lifetime."
[edit] Some Notes from Fiehlers grandson
1. The translation is as far - as I can see - correct. 2. I never said or wrote a word, that my Grandfather was not guilty. I wrote (what was transleted to):
The then reasons given for the judgment explicate in essence that he abetted National Socialism by his irreproachable behaviour [Note: This is no inaccurate translation. Fiehler's grandchild uses exactly this strange phrasing.]. With other words: He was charged with no single direct crime.
The document must be somewhere (I don´t have it) and I think the exact phrase can be proved. I´m very interessted in it. But this was not written as my opinion! It is what I know about the judgement. It was their result.
To put me in the corner of revisionism is absolutly absurd. The auther of the article about my grandfather doesn´t know anything about me.
I wrote some other statements in the german wikipedia. Maybe someone with better knowledge in English will translate it.
195.243.129.130 15:37, 26 January 2006
- I had a very extensive discussion with Fiehler's grandson on the German Wikipedia discussion site. Unfortunately I haven't got the time to translate every contribution of mine and of Mr. 195.243.129.130. I just translate some of my last sentences: "I can live quite well with the fact that I'm not able to 'coerce' you into seeing things my way. And you have to live with the fact that I don't believe in your words. Somebody who tells me constantly in a few paragraphs that he doesn't want 'to belittle' something, that he doesn't want 'to define down' something, that he doesn't want 'to clear someone' is right in the middle of doing so in my eyes. I don't even allege that you have an uncritical attitude. Far from it! I'm positive about your striving for answers. But a continuation of this dialogue is futile for me because you insist on looking for 'a good button on a bad coat' with a kind of inveteracy of which I have no appreciation." --Bogart99 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
