And exactly HOW much good did that do them? I have been reading a book called "Intellectuals and Society" and in the very chapter I read this morning, the author suggests that some 'intellectual' types are more interested in "being on the side of the angels" than in actually achieving the ends for which they ostensibly are aimed. As admirable as the White Rose movement might have been in their intentions, as smugly as their enthusiasts might view the tone of voice compared to their antagonists - WHAT THE HELL GOOD DID THEY DO?

Pope Pius XII, equally committed to non-violence by a centuries old tradition, rather than an adolescent whim, is excoriated for not doing enough or more than he did, despite helping to write a condemnation of Nazi ideology at the same time Hitler and Mussolini were winning the accolades of western intelligensia and being named Man of the Year by Time Magazine, and ordering the believers of the world's largest religion to reject Nazism, despite violating the regulations of his own organization in a manner bordering on sacrilege to save thousands of victims from the Nazis and their allies. Miss Scholl, while apparently leading an exemplary life as a model of personal integrity and irreproachable conduct in the face of evil, DID very little good. As the historian Paul Johnson pointed out regarding Ghandi's tactics, non-violence could never succeed in a regime like Hitler's or Stalin's, where people could vanish in the night, and the glorification of the state above the individual was the foundation of monstrous tyranny. Non-violence against an adversary in power only concedes the moral high ground to the enemy, by acknowledging his possession of principles and morals and tempting him to violate those principles or morals.



What value does the verdict of a corrupt and excerable state like Nazi Germany have? Who cares what they think? What I think you are really saying is that you hoped she would survive, but why? Isn't that a repudiation of the choice Scholl and her compatriots made, of principle over life? Rather this sounds like the movie is attempting to manipulate, however skillfully, the viewers into the childish desire to have their cake and eat it too.


And give me a Von Stauffenberg over a Scholl any day. Von Stauffenberg & his comrades sought to make things better for people and put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the line for that end. The White Rose only served that last cause - their own personal honor, even if they made the very credible and heroic sacrifice of the two former abstract possessions.

Maybe it was a better done film, but the substandard subject matter undermines that sort of thing, IMO.

P.S. Following the links of the wikipedia reference, in the biography of Scholl, it states the following:
"...voted Sophie Scholl "the greatest woman of the twentieth century," winning over such figures as Madeleine Albright and Madonna." Like that is supposed to be IMPRESSIVE? Madonna is a serious contender for "greatest woman" in ANY group or category that includes more than one woman? The only abilities she genuinely seems to possess is self-promotion and a complete lack of shame or scruples. A recent episode of Glee even demonstrated her comparative ineptitude at her supposed primary profession of singing (while, of course, attempting to glamorize her as some sort of powerful icon or role model). How pathetic has our culture become that a sentence like that appears in an article purporting to be a serious and objective piece of expository writing?