Talk:Ernst Jünger

Stauffenberg bomb plot

"Jünger was involved in the fringes of the Stauffenberg bomb plot - not directly but as a figure of intellectual inspiration. "

If this is the case, a citation that supports this statement should be given. Otherwise this is really really vague and should be deleted.

--zeno 04:27 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

His Children?

Can anyone find any printed info on the names of his two children and their birth/(death) dates?

DELETED -- found it...

On the Bomb Plot

ERNST JUNGER, CONTRADICTORY GERMAN AUTHOR WHO WROTE ABOUT WAR, IS DEAD AT 102 David Binder The New York Times, February 18, 1998

...

"In Paris he was close to German officers who participated in the July 20, 1944, plot to kill Hitler, but he was not involved in the conspiracy. His punishment was summary dismissal from the Wehrmacht."

...

Hauptmann

This article says, he was promoted to Hauptmann during WW1. I cannot find any prove for this statement. 78.191.173.238 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Righteous Among the Nations status

Righteous Among the Nations: conferred, never proposed, or rejected? Arminden (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. In what way exactly would you like to modify the article? Why? Based on which WP:RS? — Chrisahn (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chrisahn. You got me totally wrong.

• I have no intention to modify the article. I only came with a question that arose most naturally from the current article's very content: While in occupied France, it is stated, Jünger saved the life of several Jews. That's the precise definition used by Yad Vashem when conferring the title of Righteous Among the Nations. Jünger though is not an uncontroversial character, and for some reason, it seems that he was not offered the title, which is, in itself, quite interesting - why not? It would enrich the portrait and its discussion here.
• I have placed the R.A.t.N. link at "See also", with a short definition. I'm not aware of "See also" entries needing sources. In my understanding and in common practice, they need to fit the topic but not come up in the text, period. It fits perfectly with the spirit of Wikipedia. If a topic is notable and a search for reliable sources looks promising, introducing the challenge to fellow editors is fundamentally welcome, even through red links, let alone "See also" items. On the contrary, removing a legitimate nudge, especially w/o first presenting arguments to the contrary, not just stating one's lack of understanding or even of plain disagreement, is not. The current text led in a logical way to my edit, the connection is obvious, I placed a comment on the talk-page - that should suffice for a start, and if a discussion does evolve and people decide against, bad luck, my proposal has lost out until someone finds better arguments or good RS to support the same arguments. But not before that.

That is my honest attitude and this revert leaves me stunned. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If I understand your question "conferred, never proposed, or rejected?" correctly, you're wondering what causes someone to be called "Righteous Among the Nations". The answer appears to be "recognised by Yad Vashem". See e.g. List of German Righteous Among the Nations.

Adding a See also link to Righteous Among the Nations might be justified if some WP:RS said that Jünger should have been recognised, or that Yad Vashem had seriously considered doing so. (But then it would be much better to include that fact – and the link – in the main text.) Otherwise, it's WP:OR, as it insinuates a connection where there is none.

Please don't add the link again. Thanks. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion.

I thought to be quite straightforward: we're talking about Jünger, we know what this title is given for, according to the article text he fits the profile (non-Jew who saved Jews from being killed, and doing so for no personal gain), so my question "conferred, never proposed, or rejected?" can only mean:

1. Was he awarded the title?
2. Was he never proposed?
3. Or was he proposed, but rejected?

If 1. is true, it needs to be added.

If 2., it would be interesting to know why.

If 3., then even more so.

For a Prussian patriot and militarist who defended the rights of fellow war veterans who happened to be Jewish, at least according to the Nazi racial laws; who saved French Jews from deportation and felt true empathy toward yellow star-wearing children in occupied Paris; and opposed Nazi racism as well as other fundamental Nazi principles, he's quite a rara avis, not just a "regular Prussian anti-Semite" who, however, opposed genocide like, say, von Falkenhayn in WWI, but a true humanist, be it a war-loving one, which is a contradiction in terms no matter how one twists it. Yad Vashem, while taking upon itself a seemingly simple task, sometimes ends up facing moral dilemmas relevant in far larger contexts than each individual case or its institutional attributions. Taking the job of 'judge of morality' is a very tough and tricky one, and I wonder what they might have had to comment on Jünger. I don't know much about Jünger, and had hoped that people who obviously do would know the answer, or at least where to dig beyond just googling for it. I do know quite a bit more about R.A.t.N., and based on the Wiki article I'm honestly surprised that he doesn't come up in a prominent manner in relevant discussions. Arminden (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, so I'll try to keep it short: Jünger wasn't a humanist. He openly and publicly supported and even praised Hitler and the Nazis until about 1929. The German version of the article has a lot more details. As far as I can tell, the claims that he empathized with or even helped persecuted Jews in the 1940s are solely based on his diaries. (I'm not saying he's lying, but is there any evidence that he actually saved anyone?) During the 1920s, some of his writings expressed the "usual" antisemitism that was common among conservative Germans at the time. See e.g. [1]. He never apologized for his nationalist activities, never acknowledged that his views may have been mistaken. Regarding the question whether he might deserve recognition as Righteous Among the Nations, I don't see a dilemma for Yad Vashem – it's a clear no. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere! Either you are right, and the article must be rewritten in its parts dealing with his attitude and actions toward Jews; or you are not. It can't be both! Either the text is correct as it is, and Jünger fully deserves recognition as Righteous Among the Nations, or not, and the current text is unacceptably misleading.

Here are the points:

• You're stating that "During the 1920s, some of his writings expressed the "usual" antisemitism that was common among conservative Germans at the time.", with a ref. Nothing about that in the article!

Here are ALL passages about his relation with Jews from the article:

• "...22 October 1932... Völkischer Beobachter...attacked Jünger for his rejection of the "blood and soil" doctrine...". Blood means "Aryan" doctrine.
• "He and his brother Friedrich Georg quit the "Traditionsverein der 73er" (veteran's organization of the Hanoverian regiment they had served during World War I) when its Jewish members were expelled." Ref: Barr, not his diary or memoir.
• "He noted in his Parisian diary (Strahlungen) that Céline on that occasion "spoke of his consternation, his astonishment, at the fact that we soldiers were not shooting, hanging, and exterminating the Jews". He passed on information about upcoming transports "at an acceptable level of risk" which saved Jewish lives."

Yes, diary (n.b.: the first part quotes Céline, not Jünger's own observations), but A. it is left unchallenged and unqualified, and B. the 2nd part is left without any mention within the text that this is from the diaries, one must check the ref, which few do and must not be expected. Misleading!

• "Jünger found his countrymen's discriminatory treatment of French Jews unacceptable. In his Parisian diaries, the writer wrote on 7 June 1942 that he had encountered for the first time the yellow star carried by three little girls who were passing by in the Rue Royale, and that he considered that day as fundamental in his personal history, because he said he was ashamed at that moment of wearing a German officer's uniform."

The 1st sentence, "Jünger found his countrymen's discriminatory treatment of French Jews unacceptable", is presented in Wiki's own voice, as a fact and summary of what's known. You say that's wrong and post-war whitewashing. THAT is my point: it's either - or.

What we have is the exact opposite of what you're saying - and I'm happy to accept your claim, but then the article MUST be corrected.

The ball is thoroughly back in your court :) Arminden (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

​At this point, I'm happy to see that my reflex, based on my understanding of Wiki's fundamental principles (rather than some obscure "rules"), was correct and this aspect of the article must be rewritten, as it's stating the opposite of truth. Q.e.d. Arminden (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"It can't be both!": That's too simplistic. The article has gaps and should be improved, but concluding from the current article content that Jünger "fully deserves recognition as Righteous Among the Nations" is rather a stretch. – "You say that's wrong and post-war whitewashing": No, that's not what I said. – "The ball is thoroughly back in your court": No, the ball is in everyone's court, including yours. Everyone can improve the article, including you. – "my reflex was correct": I don't think it was. You didn't know much about Jünger (as you said above), but based on this somewhat lacking Wikipedia article you jumped to the conclusion that he deserves recognition as Righteous Among the Nations, and without checking any other sources you introduced (an insinuation of) that idea into the article. – "it's stating the opposite of truth": No, it isn't. The article is mostly correct, but incomplete. – But I agree that parts of the article may be somewhat misleading (e.g. quoting the diary as fact, omitting important information), and if this discussion leads to improvements in the article, then it was worth it. Thanks for starting the debate! — Chrisahn (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You acted as a person in the know; I'm not, nor am I particularly interested. I did NEITHER introduce, NOR insinuated "that idea": I added under "See also" the item Righteous Among the Nations, because it fitted 100% several detailed paragraphs from the article. Such additions can act, much like red links, as incentives for reviewing the text, which now it hopefully did. I can only hope that those who worked a lot on the article and brought it to a quite instructive level in many regards, will pick it up from here. Given the times Jünger lived through, his own history, and even the massive presence of material regarding his attitude & actions toward Jews within this very article, this topic, which as of now isn't just "somewhat lacking", but is indeed stating the opposite of truth, this topic I say, must be thoroughly rewritten. I came here open-mindedly, and my honest and far from functionally illiterate take from the text was, that he deserved being proposed for the Righteous Among the Nations title. 100% due to the impression left by the article, there's no two ways about it. It was probably him who tried to self-whitewash, but adopting it 1:1, commentless, makes the editors guilty of lack of due care. POV cannot be stated, but lack of due care can. We're all voluntary contributors, so absolutely no offense intended, but the fact remains. And no, I won't have the time & patience to research it from scrap; I'll leave it to those who are most obviously very knowledgeable about Jünger. I think I'll step out at this point. Happy Christmas und einen guten Rutsch! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Danke gleichfalls! I guess translating chunks of the German article would be a great improvement. Maybe I'll do that when I have time... — Chrisahn (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)