tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post3551752423221298545..comments2023-10-29T11:50:25.742+02:00Comments on My Obiter Dicta: Herschel Grynszpan was Innocent!!!!Jeffrey R. Woolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11315625918870195028noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post-8986760123136634072011-02-23T18:04:25.249+02:002011-02-23T18:04:25.249+02:00I was just doing some reading on Herschel Grynszpa...I was just doing some reading on Herschel Grynszpan when I came upon your page. I have seen no evidence suggesting that Grynspan did not kill vom Rath. He freely confessed to it at the time and afterwards.<br /><br />You are absolutely correct, however, that it was convenient timing for the Nazis, but if it had not been this event, they would have found something else as a pretext.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00375997375422455327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8030144.post-63243260603007221292008-07-21T15:47:00.000+03:002008-07-21T15:47:00.000+03:00And if he had been guilty, would it have been so b...And if he had been guilty, would it have been so bad? By making arguments like this, aren't we conceding, a bit, some important ground, namely that there's nothing so wrong in killing Nazis?<BR/><BR/>(Leaving aside the claims that there was something other than revenge for anti-Semitic actions as his motive.)<BR/><BR/>Listening to news about trials for Guantanamo terrorists this week, I was reminded of the fact that after the war, Churchill wanted simply to line the Nazi leaders up against a wall and have them shot. He was overruled, because we're "civilized." Thus Nuremberg, for good or bad. But at least that was after the war. This wasn't.Nachumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11292162031685942549noreply@blogger.com