PDA

View Full Version : Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero



Thorburn
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 11:12 AM
Values and Sense of Elitism

"Nothing was perhaps more central to Stauffenberg's outlook on life than his concept nurtured since birth of the German aristocracy's duty to society as protector of the nation, keeper of its laws, and guardian against injustice and despotism. Where he differed from those senior officers of the Wehrmacht like Brauchitsch and Manstein who were content to bury their head in the sand under Hitler's tyranny was in his impassioned belief that the army should aspire not only to defend the state against enemy attack but that it had a sacred duty to protect Germany against tyranny, foreign or domestic.

"Much of that inspiration came from two maternal ancestors, Field Marshal Count Peter Yorck von Wartenburg, and Field Marshal Count von Gneisenau who had both fought in the Napoleonic Wars to liberate Prussia from Napoleon's tyranny. Stauffenberg admired the manner in which military leaders like Yorck von Wartenburg and von Gneisenau could see far beyond the strictly military sphere and become "politically engaged"

"Not only had they acted as instruments of the popular will. They had also tempered, contained, curbed and channelled the potentially anarchic energy that will had unleashed. As always with Stauffenberg, the sense of aristocratic responsibility functioned as a governing principle, a moral imperative. It went hand in hand with a respect for the people, but a mistrust of the mob. As he stated on another occasion: 'Popular guidance is an inescapable and important part of politics, and is not something to be left to any Tom, Dick, or Harry without disastrous consequences.'" (Baigent and Leigh, 138).

"But in Stauffenberg's mind, any effective uprising against tyranny had to come from a responsible and above all capable elite, or as he himself put it: 'Any revolt against the state and its leaders is no business of the irresponsible mass of the people and should not therefore even be discussed in too wide a circle. If the use of force against one's own state is unavoidable, it must be confined to men conscious of their responsiblities and, even more important, capable of meeting them.'" (Baigent, 151).


Repulsion for Nazism's Excesses

"Like Tresckow and a number of other conspirators, Stauffenberg initially favored Hitler's National Socialist program in terms of its promise to restore German strength and prosperity and to free Germany from the humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty and make her once again a great world power. But the increasing violence of the Nazi revolution horrified him.

"He rapidly came to see Nazi rhetoric for the crude racist guttersnipe jargon it was when mouthed by men like Ernst Roehm and the rabid anti-semitic pornographer Julius Streicher. Never one to hide his contempt for the Nazi credo, Stauffenberg made a point of illustrating his feelings early on in the Nazi era.

"On September 16, 1934, he was required to represent his regiment at an official Party Day lecture given by Julius Streicher in Bamberg. As Streicher launched into his usual savage tirade against Jews, Stauffenberg became so insensed that he stood up in full public view amid the seated spectators and defiantly walked out of the hall down the main aisle. Two SS officers intercepted him. After a brief verbal exchange, he elbowed his way past them." (Baigent and Leigh, 144).

"He despised above all the Nazi Party's paramilitary SA legions for their violent bully-tactics. These savages who loved to parade in what Stauffenberg called "shit-brown uniforms" embodied in his opinion the vilest traits of the German national character. But his sense of humor and initiative never failing, Stauffenberg had his own way of keeping the SA in check:

"Stauffenberg accordingly agreed to direct night exercizes by the SA. By forcing the SA to expend energy on night exercizes, he hoped if only on the local level to keep them off the streets and divert them from their customary routine of rioting, drinking, bullying, rowdy carousing, destroying property, and beating up and even murdering political opponents. Reducing fat swaggering and ill-disciplined louts to haggard and panting wrecks by forced marches and rigorous drills was just the sort of thing to appeal to Stauffenberg's sense of humor." (Baigent and Leigh, 138).


About Hitler and Motives For Coup

"It was clear, he said, that 'the fool is bent on war' and was 'prepared to squander the flower of Germany's manhood twice in the same generation.'" (Baigent and Leigh, 158-159).

"Hitler's determination to wage a war of annihilation against the Russians proved to be the watershed in Stauffenberg's change of attitude from one of intense dislike for the Nazi regime to one of an officer burning with resolve to destroy Hitler and his system. Hitler's war of genocide was inevitably turning entire populations into sworn enemies of Germany now attacking the Wehrmacht from behind.

"A general sense of outrage pervaded among many staff officers of the army groups. A December 1941 report from Army Group Center stated that "the officer corps, almost to a man, is against the shooting of Jews, Slavs, prisoners, and commissars" while it characterized the SS-Einsatzgruppen massacres as "a stain on the honor of the German army." (Baigent and Leigh, 172-173).

"All the protests in the world however could have no effect when senior army officers like Army Group Center Commander-in- Chief Field Marshal Feodor von Bock meekly declined to convey such protests in person to Hitler. Perhaps they knew all too well that not even their protests could dissuade Hitler from seeing through his war of annilihation against the Jews and the Slavs. It was clear that this policy could only be reversed with Hitler's physical elimination.

"Throughout 1942 there are numerous instances of Stauffenberg being repeatedly outspoken in wanting to see Hitler killed and vowing to do it himself. On one occasion in August during a morning ride with a fellow officer, Stauffenberg again raged about Hitler's war of genocide exclaiming: "Is there no officer over there in the Fuehrer's headquarters capable of shooting that beast?" (Baigent and Leigh, 173).

"Just how deadly serious Stauffenberg really was in affirming that statement was clear on July 6, 1944 when he had gone to see Colonel Helmuth Stieff at Kleissheim Castle near Salzburg. On that occasion Hitler finally attended the uniform demonstration that he had earlier eluded in December and February when Bussche and Kleist had volunteered to kill him. On July 6, Stauffenberg brought with him the deadly contents within his briefcase that he expected Stieff to use now that they finally had their chance. When Stieff refused, Stauffenberg returned to Berlin exasperated. According to one co-conspirator: "He talked with noticeable emotion and fiery impatience about the situation at Berchtesgaden and declared that now he would have to take care of that as well," exclaiming angrily, "I'll do it myself with my three fingers!" (Baigent and Leigh, 41).


Academic Performance and Personality

"A confidential report filed by his squadron leader in October 1933 described Stauffenberg with forsesight as:

"'A reliable independent character, capable of making up his own mind and taking his own decisions. Highly intelligent and of above average ability, both tactically and technically....Unexceptional in his relationships with others. Shows great interest in social, historical, and religious matters.... He is well aware of his ability and intellectual superiority and is therefore apt at times to adopt a somewhat overbearing attitude towards his fellow officers frequently evidenced by sarcasm which however never leaves hurt feelings.'" (Baigent and Leigh, 122).

"His divisional commander wrote:

"'He was an expert at settling differences, acting as go-between and smoothing out quarrels. He looked for and found the good side to everybody and had an extraordinary knack of making the best out of everything.'" (Baigent and Leigh, 121).

"Already as a young cadet his social graces as well as his deep intellectual curiosity were strikingly apparent to one fellow cadet officer:

"'Summing Stauffenberg up, I would say that he had an extraordinary gift for making others feel naturally and completely at ease. This was all the more remarkable seeing that he was generally recognized as being well above average intellectually. He would raise the intellecual level of any conversation in which he took part; he particularly liked a stimulating discussion, and with his lively extrovert temperament, the more heated it became the better. Everything he took up he studied scientifically. He was not merely satisfied with acquiring information but would go to the root of the matter.'" (Kramarz, 39).

"In September 1936, Stauffenberg was accepted into the General Staff College from which he graduated two years later in the summer of 1938. It is worth noting that the college accepted only 15% of its applicants and of that number only 1 in 3 graduated to the General Staff. Stauffenberg was to do both before the age of 36, becoming in effect one of Hitler's youngest General Staff officers.

"In addition to excelling in his studies, Stauffenberg read voraciously and became a passionate reader of books on military history, general history, political thought, philosophy, psychology, economics, and literary classics. During that time, he also became fluent in English and Russian and learned to speak French with ease." (Baigent and Leigh, 127).


A Brilliant and Tireless Worker With Fair Judgment

"During World War II, the glowing reports from his superiors of Stauffenberg's boundless capacity for work and innovative talent became common knowledge. Before long, his professional aptitude was in demand everywhere. According to General Freiherr von Thuengen, a reserve officer posted to the General Staff in 1942:

"'I never opened Claus's door without finding him on the telephone, mountains of paper in front of him, the receiver in his left hand, turning over the files with his right, a pencil between his fingers. He always looked happy...he could be laughing...or cursing (that happened too), or giving an order, or laying down the law....Claus was one of those men who could do several things at once, all with the same level of concentration.

"'He had an astounding capacity for working through files, in other words, reading them and sifting the important from the unimportant at a glance. Equally astounding and equally striking were his capacity to concentrate, his clarity of expression, and his sudden asides, which invariably hit the nail on the head and frequently took his listeners aback.

"'When I used to visit him he was generally at the end of a twelve, fourteen, or even sixteen-hour work day filled with telephoning, conferences, visits, dictation, working on files, notes on conferences, etc. He worked at an incredible pace, with unyielding concentration, and yet he appeared just as fresh late at night as he did in the morning." (Kramarz, 78-79).

"The extraordinary zeal with which Stauffenberg took on his assignments often led him to take on additional responsibilities which were often beyond his station. As Kramarz relates: "Matters came piling in on him which were not really his responsibility. The fact that he was thereby contravening an order from Hitler did not bother him in the least. He busied himself with anything that interested him, even if outside his official competence." (Kramarz, 79).

"This sense of daring coupled with what Kramarz characterized as "his immense charm and infectious appealing sense of humor" enabled him to confront his superiors in a manner that "they would never have accepted from anyone else." Accordingly, "he never failed to give his opinion, even though doing so might require considerable courage. He was capable of expressing a flatly opposing view in such a way that the impression was neither offensive nor presumptuous." (Kramarz, 79-80).

"Mueller-Hillebrand, Stauffenberg's immediate senior ranking officer from April to October 1942 testified to the high reputation that Stauffenberg earned for himself by his boldness for speaking his mind coupled with his boundless energy:

"His judgement was sound; he appeared sure of himself, and he had a capacity for carrying on sensible negotiations with all sorts of differing authorities. As a result he became far more widely known than would be expected for one of his age, rank, and position. From the first day to the last, Stauffenberg put into his job all his accustomed concentration and energy. Even when the realization began to grow that the war was threatening to end in immeasurable catastrophe for Germany, he continued to work with the same intensity. (Kramarz, 78).

"Not only did Stauffenberg busy himself with matters normally beyond his call of duty, but in addition he somehow managed to always set aside time to help those around him with their own work. According to his divisional commander General von Loeper, after speedily and efficiently completing his own assignments, Stauffenberg always volunteered himself for more tasks: "He never seemed to be able to do enough work," wrote Loeper. (Kramarz, 65). Yet at the same time, Stauffenberg would spend many evenings helping one junior officer prepare for his military district examinations. Over Christmas 1939, he waived his own leave of absence so that a fellow officer could go home for the holidays. (Baigent and Leigh, 162).

Stauffenberg's tasks were many. At the front his duties included monitoring the batte worthiness of front line units, overseeing the state of their equipment and logistical support and evaluating morale. In the rear, his tasks focused on enhancing training programs for the Reserve Army, allocating replacements and tackling the increasingly precarious problem of keeping the army properly supplied as the war destroyed Germany's infrastructure and drained its manpower. Through it all, Stauffenberg's outstanding professionalism in tackling any problem no matter how complex carried his name far and wide throughout the army. According to one witness:

"He was capable of seeing several moves ahead in the chess game and taking account of all the various alternatives. He was quick to grasp a situation, to sort out the important from the unimportant, and could spot the decisive factor with unerring intuition. He was capable of logical abstract thought and possessed a lively imagination which however never led him to overstep the bounds of practicability; both in the operational and organizational fields. (Kramarz, 60).

"Stauffenberg's method of work and how he related to others on the job was perhaps best illustrated by his famous "Q conferences." Erwin Topf, a fellow officer during the May-June 1940 offensive against France described one such conference hosted by Stauffenberg:

"I first came to know Stauffenberg during the French campaign when he was SO (logistics) of the 6th Panzer Division advancing through the Ardennes. The "Q" conferences he held were unforgettable....Stauffenberg, tall, slim, lively, and a man of extraordinary personal charm, would welcome us all with genuine infectious geniality. He would make sure that everyone had something to drink, a cigar or a pipe. He would give us the latest information, ask questions, and take interest in apparently trivial matters, tell the latest stories covering the whole divisional area from the reconnaissance detachment back to the field bakery, jump from one subject to another, listen to or ask questions of the latest arrivals....

Then quite casually and conversationally would come the words, "Well then, I think we'll do it this way." And then in all its detail would come the "Q" order, Stauffenberg with his left hand in his trouser pocket, a glass in his right hand, wandering thoughtfully about the room, stopping at one moment here, at another moment there, and then going back to the map.

He did not issue a formal order as one would have expected from a General Staff officer. He was in no sense hidebound. He did not find it easy to formulate his orders, and what he said was anything but a fluent order ready for typing; but it was the result of hard thinking, and all the necessary dispositions were there. The essentials were all worked out and complete." (Kramarz, 60).


Humanitarian and Fair to Czechs, Poles, Russians, and other Nords

"Stauffenberg's talents as a master organizer and innovator in his duties as a General Staff officer are well known. But far less so are his humanitarian achievements for the welfare and rights of Czechs, Poles, Russians, and Allied prisoners of war. This officer aristocrat who believed to the depths of his soul that it was the aristocracy's sacred task to foster the progress of Man and serve the community carried those core principles with him into the Second World War.

"Stauffenberg's first opportunity to act in that respect came with Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland. Although the majority of the region's population was ethnically German, and in general jubilantly greeted the conquering Wehrmacht, the Czechs of the town of Nurschan were noticeably hostile when the Light Division, in which Stauffenberg served, entered the city. The region was poverty-stricken and its farmers stood by helpessly as all of their horses and vehicles were requisitioned. How Stauffenberg came to the rescue of this beleagured community deserves to be quoted in its entirety:

"'As commander of the Light Division's logistics section, Stauffenberg embarked on a program characteristic less of an invasion than of a relief effort. At the Mies town hall, he called a meeting of divisional officers and local authorities, and forced them to co-operate with each other. There being no yeast available for bread-making, he instructed the division to buy yeast in Germany and deliver it to the local people. He placed a platoon at the disposal of an estate manager to help him bring in the potato harvest and store the wheat harvest - a rather humbling experience for swaggering German soldiers intoxicated by dreams of martial glory.

"He commandeered two trucks from Germany to help breweries in the region distribute beer. For transport vital to the vicinity's economy and population, petrol was supplied at cost price. Stauffenberg also elicited the support of district authorities in taking measures against an outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease. When a shortage of brown coal threatened a glass factory with a work stoppage and the loss of four hundred jobs, he dispatched the factory manager to obtain coal from Army Group Headquarters in Karlsbad; and he again made the division's resources available for moving it.

"In the meantime, butter and mil from the area, destined for Pilsen, were in danger of going bad, and inhabitants of Pilsen were unable to obtain the essentials they required. Here too Stauffenberg took measures to alleviate the situation. He distributed safe-conduct passes for working people, thus effectively and single-handedly opening the frontier for supplies, and he arranged one again for his own troops to distribute supplies to needy areas." (Baigent and Leigh, 154-155).

"Stauffenberg was if anything just as swift to punish injustice wherever he saw it and was in a position to do something about it. When it came to his notice that soldiers and officers within the division had exploited the plight of Czech civilians to force them to sell off their goods for topence, he became outraged and "obtained an order forbidding all large-scale purchases. Commodities already purchased, even by officers of superior rank to himself, had to be returned." (Baigent and Leight, 155).

Stauffenberg again meted out his retribution during the Fall 1939 Polish campaign when a fellow officer and close friend had captured two women for allegedly "signalling to the enemy with flashlights" from the ground floor of their house. The incident had occurred during the capture of the Polish town of Wielun by Stauffenberg's Light Division. It turned out that these women had been crawling about on the floor with their flash lights searching frantically for cover during the barrage of artillery fire. But the officer in question had given one hasty look and snapped at his sargeant-major the words "get rid of them!". The women were then taken away and shot. Outraged, Stauffenberg had the officer in question (who happened to be an old friend) court-martialed. (Baigent and Leigh, 160).


Conclusion

"It is the story of a unique, distinctive, and extraordinary man who mirrored in himself Germany's collective identity crisis, and effected his own reconciliation between the martial nationalism of his ancestor, Gneisenau, and Goethe's ideal of dedication to culture and the spirit. It is the story of a figure who bridges the great modern gulf between 'the man of thought' and 'the man of action.'....A man whose capacity for action is equalled, yet not inhibited, by his capacity for thought. (Baigent and Leigh, 288, 297).

"It is the story, in short, of a heroic figure - and even more, of a specifically 20th century heroic figure. To that extent, his story transcends the historical context of the Third Reich. It applies equally to Germany, and to all of us, today....

He exemplifies what the German people can be at their best - and not just the German people, but all of us, and our civilization as a whole." (ibid.).

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 11:32 AM
Is this text quoting from the same Baigent and Leigh as write about the grail bloodline?

Awar
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 12:28 PM
Sounds like a good role-model for nationalists.
He seems to have genuinely loved his country, in contrast to those
ultra-nationalists who were just acting on impulses and complexes.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 01:25 PM
The problem with Stauffenberg was that most of his ideals had to crash on the riffs and rocks of state politics. The aestheticism of the Stefan George Circle did not quite prepare him for the evil Machiavellism of the NS state. Being a soldier in the Reichswehr still pretty much meant being unpolitical. That is one of the reasons why the officers of the 20th of July were so ridiculously without a concept - in 1944, when half of the world wanted to see Germany and all Germans die.

Of course it is extremely funny to see all these mediocre system politicians claim Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators as their own, as Bundesrepublikaner. People like Joschka Fischer and Gerhard Schröder back in these days would have been shot immediately. Stauffenberg wasn't a National Socialist, but he sure wasn't an egalitarian and corrupt "democrat" either.

ogenoct
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 08:43 PM
http://pcn-ncp.com/PIH/pih-040720en.htm


NCP-Info of July 20, 2004

60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE JULY 20, 1944 ANTI-NAZI COUP :
STAUFFENBERG AND TRESCKOW WERE OURS !

"Nationalism of liberation and anti-Fascism cannot nor should not be opposite"
(Wolfgang VENOHR)

July 20, 1944, colonel Von Stauffenberg had tried to kill the Führer. Five people were killed in the attack, Hitler escaped from it and the conspirators were executed. They had tried to topple the “fascist regime” by a Coup d’Etat, failed in Berlin, but succeeded – in vain – in Paris and Vienna.

Since then, “20 July 1944” is the purpose of an ashamed revisionism in the Federal German Republic. After having a time qualified the conspirators of “traitors”, one honours them officially, but by disguising or concealing their anti-liberal and anti-Western ideology. One keeps going confusions on the “Stauffenberg/Tresckow group” and its national-revolutionary ideology.

This group was in the Prussian tradition of state socialism and Russian friendship. The “national-conservative” marshals and generals gave up the putsch on July 20, after having made it fail by starting Walkyrie 3 hours too late in Berlin (the putsch was successful in Vienna and Paris, the SS imprisoned !). The Anglo-Saxons wanted in 1944 the destruction of Germany and proclaimed it. Stalin not !

There were also in the USSR a group of officers and Communists, “Nationalkommittee Freies Deutschland”, founded in 1942, and of which several organizers were close to the Stauffenberg group. Their action of antifascist resistance had as background the “orientation to the East”, typical of the national-Bolshevik and national-revolutionary circles.

The adversaries of Hitler in the body of the officers, followed in September 1943, when the “UNION OF THE GERMAN OFFICERS” was founded. Then, marshal PAULUS, the defeated man of Stalingrad, several generous Generals and officers joined the National Committee.

One found there old adversaries of HITLER, like Ottomar PECH, future general of the NVA, who belonged to the Berliner network of the “RED ORCHESTRA”, directed by the national-Bolsheviks ARNACK and Schulze-Boysen. Or General Otto KORFES, member of the national-revolutionary group of STAUFFENBERG (his brother-in-law was executed for having taken part in the heroic uprising of July 20, 1944).

The propaganda actions of the “National Committee”, with its million leaflets, newspapers and the daily appeals of Radio Moscow “to the German people and the German Wehrmacht”, contributed to the disintegration of the Nazi machine of war.

From the “National Committee” will come out the revival of the KPD in Eastern Germany and, in front of the failure of STALIN’s plans, who is germanophile, one is unaware of it too often, aiming at a democratic, neutral and socialist unified Germany, the birth of GDR.

The SS called the Stauffenberg group “Schwarze Kapelle” for their proximity with “Rotte Kapelle”, the great resistance network of the National-Bolsheviks Schulze-Boysen and Arnack.

The propaganda of the FRG, mentioned in our media liars occults all that. Particularly films and reports broadcasted at the time of this 60th anniversary of “July 20, 1944” by ARD, ZDF or ARTE.

One cannot speak about Stauffenberg without inevitably leading to the “Circle of Kreissau”, from the name of this small village of Silesia where certain numbers of militants from the “CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION”, of whom the count Helmuth James VON MOLKTE, one of the great names of the Prussian State, and the brothers VON STAUFFENBERG and many others, led an anti-nazi resistance network which prepared and carried out the attack of July 20, 1944 and the abortive anti-hitlerian putsch which followed it. Among the members of the “CIRCLE OF KREISSAU”, great names of anti-Nazi resistance who sacrificed their lives in the fight against hitlerism, such as count YORK VON WARTENBURG, executed on August 8, 1944 or ambassador VON HASSEL.

In the circle of Kreissau, these men from the “conservative Revolution” and close to the national-revolutionary circles, had offered former social democrat leaders, trade unionists, members of the KPD a helping hand.

And besides, the proclamations of the authors of the July 20, 1944 Coup d’Etat do not leave any doubt about their adherence to the “nationalism of liberation” which the national-revolutionary circles proposed.

Let us come to colonel Klaus Von STAUFFENBERG and his brother Berthold, both executed after July 20, 1944. SANDOZ also locates without ambiguity the membership of the count of STAUFFENBERG in the national-revolutionary circles. Speaking about Ernst JÜNGER, the head of the German NR of the 20-30ies, he says that it was a “man also very appreciated by Von STAUFFENBERG”.

SANDOZ speaks in connection with STAUFFENBERG about the ideas about “revolution”, “nation”, and “socialism” as the “incarnation of his hopes” and he adds that “the leader of the conspiracy was, in his manner, a "revolutionary””. His brother, Berthold, he, will say to the Gestapo : “Put into practice by the regime, the essential ideas of National-socialism were transformed into their opposite. People of modest means who exerted a power without control replaced at the top the predestined heads”.

One understands better why official historiography passed over in silence this aspect of the conspiracy of July 20, 1944.

In West German society, the reserves, even the hostility, to the anti-nazi resistance members seem to endure a long time. In parallel took shape an opposite movement of takeover in the German conservative high society, and in the military circles of Bundeswehr and NATO (where one carries IIIrd Reich Nazi decorations), of which some tend to adapt the heroism of the officers of July 20 to erase the memory of their rallying with Hitler at the time of his coming to power in 1933. It is also a means of minimizing the role of the left-wing resistance, since 1933, the Communist, social democrat and trade unionist militants being the first to get to know the concentration camps, the role of clerics, students as the Munich group of the white Rose or that of isolated individuals. The national-Bolsheviks and the national-revolutionaries - whom Tresckow and Stauffenberg belonged to, purely and simply passed to the trap door of the West German revisionism.

Even today, and even if they do not pass any more for traitors, the merit from the some 200 conspirators of July 20, for the majority executed by the Nazis, does not achieve the unanimity : “can one be proud of these men?” dares still question the STERN magazine !

In the GDR, the treatment of the antinazi Resistance heroes was very different. The will of the GDR, the “socialist nation” (which was also the name of the national-Bolshevik group of PAETEL, decimated by the Nazis for facts of resistance in 1933-34) as the SED defines it, was to base its identity on historical roots. Those are the Lutheran past, the popular traditions of the wars of the peasants of the Middle Ages and the war of liberation of 1812-1813 against NAPOLEON, but also antifascism, true ideological base of the GDR, and, slowly but surely, the past of Prussia, this other ideological State.

What was incontestably more legitimate than the takeover of STAUFFENBERG by the liberal republic of Bonn, whereas the colonel, disciple of the national-revolutionary ideas, vomitted liberalism and was in favour of an agreement with the USSR.

In East Germany, in the old GDR, as we saw, German Resistance on the contrary was exalted for ideological reasons quite as obvious, antifascism being one of the pillars of the national-Communist regime of Berlin.
Whereas one was unaware of and even sometimes that one taxed with treason in the FRG the national-Bolshevik militants of the “Red Orchestra”, those were praised to the skies in East Germany. The same applied to the many resistance fighters of communist origin.

With the disappearance of the GDR, one quasi officially attended an attempt of the German bourgeois regime to make disappear this aspect from Resistance. In East Germany, since the reunification, the monuments, the museums, the memory even of antifascist Resistance were destroyed, cunningly systematically eliminated.

The role of the German National-revolutionaries and National-Bolsheviks, who were as of 1932 the first to resist against Hitlerism and who were the driving force in the most serious and most effective attempts in the fight against the IIIrd Reich, was most of the time passed over in silence. There too the ideological reasons prevail.

The most spectacular aspect of German Resistance under the IIIrd Reich was the durable organization of resistance networks which carried frightening blows to the hitlerian beast. It is symptomatic that one finds at the head of these networks, National-revolutionaries or National-Bolsheviks who sometimes carried out until the end of the war their struggle inside even the military, economic and administrative structures of Nazism. In the foreground of these networks appears the Ernst NIEKISCH’s “WIDERSTAND Organization” between 1933 and 1937, which the Germans call “HARNACK - Schulze-Boysen Organization”, i.e. the German branch of the network known under the name of “Red Orchestra”, the “Treskow-Stauffenberg group” of the conspirators of July 20, 1944, whose action begins, one is unaware of it generally, from 1937, and finally, the most ignored of all, the “HIELSCHER group”, which from 1933 to 1945 undertook a tireless sap against National-socialism inside even of its bodies of management.

German Resistance does not have anything to envy the other European groups of resistance. It does not have demerity, far from it, because its members risked even more than many in other European countries. Whereas “some” would like to be unaware of their sacrifice, we, their ideological heirs, we have the duty to keep their memory vis-a-vis the assassins of the memory ! It is this anti-hitlerian heritage which our Party, the PCN, which today embodies alone legitimately the national-Bolshevik and national-revolutionary heritage and tradition, assumes in its fight against the neo-Nazi and neo-liberal far right, that we call the “blue-brown far right”. Our political current does not have any lesson to receive from anybody. And today, like its predecessors of yesterday, in the fight against the disgusting beast, it is in the first line and most effective.

The German national-Bolsheviks and national-revolutionaries of the Twenties and Thirties paid the price of blood. They fought, they fought for their ideas, their dignity, the freedom and the independence of their Nation, for the socialist values in which they believed and which we share. Their fight is today indissociable of ours.

Whereas all lay down, they refused to abdicate.
They stood up, fought and fell upright and free.
Faced with people on their knees, they embodied alone the honour of their Nation.
We have not forgotten! We have not forgiven ! The fight continues !

Luc MICHEL

FadeTheButcher
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 07:29 PM
Stauffenberg was a good European. I salute him.

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 07:35 PM
Von Stauffenberg was no doubt a gifted individual but unfortunately like many of the nobility and middle to upper classes they allow their talent and well-meaning to be exploited for false ideals. A man who seeks to kill the leader of his nation in wartime is a traitor by any mans standards.
Regardless of what he felt about National Socialism Germany was fighting for its very survival in 1944. He had no right to seek to impose his ideals/politische Weltanschauung on the rest of his fellow Germans.

Awar
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 08:58 PM
If I was a German, I'd have shot Hitler immediately when he ordered an invasion on Russia.
Not because of some moralizing or whatever, but, because it was an insane thing to do.

It's a duty to remove the traitorous or insane leader.
If it was in my power, I'd have sniped Milosevic out of existence during the NATO bombardment of Serbia, for his crimes against his own people.

Milosevic is a great example of how a leader can be so extremely corrupt that he actually knowingly did everything to bring on the NATO aggression.
For example, during the peace-talks before the assault, the negotiation team sent by
the Serbian government was consisted of friends and family who wanted to go shopping in a foreign country. At times they didn't even appear on the meetings, etc.

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 09:31 PM
If I was a German, I'd have shot Hitler immediately when he ordered an invasion on Russia.
Not because of some moralizing or whatever, but, because it was an insane thing to do.

It's a duty to remove the traitorous or insane leader.
If it was in my power, I'd have sniped Milosevic out of existence during the NATO bombardment of Serbia, for his crimes against his own people.

Milosevic is a great example of how a leader can be so extremely corrupt that he actually knowingly did everything to bring on the NATO aggression.
For example, during the peace-talks before the assault, the negotiation team sent by
the Serbian government was consisted of friends and family who wanted to go shopping in a foreign country. At times they didn't even appear on the meetings, etc.

I see so you advocate treason purely on the basie that you disagree with the leaders views? Doesnt that strike you as the height of arrogance?

Awar
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 10:44 PM
I see so you advocate treason purely on the basie that you disagree with the leaders views? Doesnt that strike you as the height of arrogance?

It's not treason if you rebel against a traitor, or a lunatic.
In any case, choosing to conform with a wrong strategy strikes me as dumb.

It's better to be arrogant than dumb.

I really don't understand where is the Aryan spirit in you people?
If you need to conform so much with 'the Leader's' views, you can always move to North Korea.

Would you rebel against a leader for whom you know will turn your country into an Orwellian nightmare, or (un)consciously slaughter his own people?

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 10:50 PM
It's not treason if you rebel against a traitor, or a lunatic.
In any case, choosing to conform with a wrong strategy strikes me as dumb.

It's better to be arrogant than dumb.

I really don't understand where is the Aryan spirit in you people?
If you need to conform so much with 'the Leader's' views, you can always move to North Korea.

Would you rebel against a leader for whom you know will turn your country into an Orwellian nightmare, or (un)consciously slaughter his own people?
There is no evidence that Hitler was a "lunatic" and certainly not that he was a "traitor". How could he be? He was the living embodiment of the state. All oaths were sworn to him as Fuhrer and Kanzler.
It is contrary to the Ario-Germanic spirit of Teutons to forsake their leader in the field of battle. A cursory reading of Germanic literature of the first millenium will confirm this. To forsake ones leader is infamy and would result in such a person being an outcast for the rest of his days.This is our Aryan spirit.

Zyklop
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 05:30 AM
If I was a German, I'd have shot Hitler immediately when he ordered an invasion on Russia. Unfortunately you are no German...;)
It says a lot about the "nobility" of those so called aristocrats if you consider that Stauffenberg was shot by one of his co-conspirers who unsuccessfully tried to save his own ass.

Awar
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 09:30 AM
There is no evidence that Hitler was a "lunatic" and certainly not that he was a "traitor". How could he be? He was the living embodiment of the state.

Quite so. Like king Louis.


All oaths were sworn to him as Fuhrer and Kanzler.

Interesting. Did Hitler swear an oath that he won't send millions of Germans into a senseless war? Or, at least stop the war, when it was clear that the continuation will cause more German deaths and suffering?


It is contrary to the Ario-Germanic spirit of Teutons to forsake their leader in the field of battle. A cursory reading of Germanic literature of the first millenium will confirm this. To forsake ones leader is infamy and would result in such a person being an outcast for the rest of his days.This is our Aryan spirit.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/korea/story/southview/link.kim.il.sung.jpg

Stríbog
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 09:41 AM
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/korea/story/southview/link.kim.il.sung.jpg

Hey, Kim Jong Il is a Nordic Aryan superhero descended from the Tarim mummies, you race trader! If Genghis Khan was Nordic, then Kim Jong Il can be, too!

Awar
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 09:47 AM
Unfortunately you are no German...;)

:D


It says a lot about the "nobility" of those so called aristocrats if you consider that Stauffenberg was shot by one of his co-conspirers who unsuccessfully tried to save his own ass.It's not an uncommon thing when it comes to conspiracies,
especially when they are unsuccesful.

In any case, this doesn't speak of Stauffenberg's 'nobility',
as he has a whole life of great achievments before that.

If such a person went against the fuhrer, then, I'd at least
think a bit more about all his motives.

Just because someone is a leader doesn't mean he's infallible,
or that he has good intentions toward his own people.

Aryan Krieger's 'Aryan Spirit ©' is exactly what every tyrant and
dictator from Stalin to Mao to Fidel to Kim Jong Il would
like his entire people to be.

I suppose it's in 'Aryan Spirit ©' to be an informant of the secret police,
or to become cannon fodder.


Hey, Kim Jong Il is a Nordic Aryan superhero descended from the Tarim mummies, you race trader! If Genghis Khan was Nordic, then Kim Jong Il can be, too!

:lmao

Honouwabble Stwibog. The Nowdic Awyan supewhewo on the magnificent painting above is our Glowious Fuhwew, the guawdian of Awyan peopwe,
ouw fathew KIM IL SUNG! Pwaise! :D

Zyklop
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 10:13 AM
It's not an uncommon thing when it comes to conspiracies,
especially when they are unsuccesful.

In any case, this doesn't speak of Stauffenberg's 'nobility',
as he has a whole life of great achievments before that.
So had Hitler, Göring, Heß...


If such a person went against the fuhrer, then, I'd at least
think a bit more about all his motives.
It was not one person against the Führer but a conspiracy involving very different characters with very different motives. Many of them were Officers disappointed with Hitler´s military decisions but who still wanted to continue fighting against the Soviet Union. Others were reactionary and "aristocratic" Reichswehr officiers who always feared the anti-monarchy course of the NSDAP (that´s why the SA was disempowered in 1934 btw.).
In the mid 1930´s when the first conspirors established contacts with foreign states and told them about their goals they were morally rejected on grounds of breaking their oath as soldiers.

Stauffenberg had no backing from the German population and, even more important, absolutely no backing from the enemy countries. They only accepted unconditional surrender.
This war wasn´t led against Hitler, it was a war against Germany and many allied leaders (including Churchill) confirmed this after the war.
Anyway, would Stauffenberg have seen what became out of Germany after the war and what kind of characters nowadays embrace him as a role model (Jews and traitorous democrats) he probably wouldn´t have attempted anything.

Just because someone is a leader doesn't mean he's infallible,
or that he has good intentions toward his own people.
Hitler´s popularity increased after the failed coup. The moral of the Germans was nowhere anti-Hitler at this time.


Aryan Krieger's 'Aryan Spirit ©' is exactly what every tyrant and
dictator from Stalin to Mao to Fidel to Kim Jong Il would
like his entire people to be.

Loyalty is a virtue and especially for Germans. Ever heard of Nibelungentreue?

btw, did you know that Stauffenberg was one-eyed? :cyclops

Awar
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 10:35 AM
In the mid 1930´s when the first conspirors established contacts with foreign states and told them about their goals they were morally rejected on grounds of breaking their oath as soldiers.

Or, they were rejected on the grounds that the west actually wanted Germany to go to war with Russia, so the USA and Britain could knock both out of existence and feed on the remains.

If Hitler and Stalin actually made true NS or Communist states, then, chances are that the other great powers of the world would fail.



Stauffenberg had no backing from the German population and, even more important, absolutely no backing from the enemy countries. They only accepted unconditional surrender.

Regardless, it would've saved millions of lives in a war already lost.


This war wasn´t led against Hitler, it was a war against Germany and many allied leaders (including Churchill) confirmed this after the war.

I think WW2 was a much deeper conflict than just that.


Anyway, would Stauffenberg have seen what became out of Germany after the war and what kind of characters nowadays embrace him as a role model (Jews and traitorous democrats) he probably wouldn´t have attempted anything.

IMO, if he could foresee what became of Germany after the war, he'd have killed Hitler back in the 1920's.
Hitler gave the biggest excuse for creating this anomaly we all live in.



Hitler´s popularity increased after the failed coup. The moral of the Germans was nowhere anti-Hitler at this time.

Since when are you a democrat? The 'popularity among the people' is such a concept. Milosevic was extremely popular among Serbs, while, at the same time he was pumping billions of dollars out of our economy and into his accounts.


Loyalty is a virtue and especially for Germans. Ever heard of Nibelungentreue?

Yes, it's a character from 'Hansel und Gretel' :D


btw, did you know that Stauffenberg was one-eyed? :cyclops

He was a Zyklop?! :D

Aristotle
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 01:37 PM
ΕΥΤΥΧΕΙΤΕ!
Dear Fellows,
I'm very surprised reading this thread! I never expected to read from such important and gentle Persons to admire a pure criminal activity!
Adolf Hitler was the legally ellected Kanzler of Germans! Any attempt against Him was an attempt against German Fatherland and Germans!
Especially, during war-time this criminal activity is considering much heavier even according International Law ( except if there are intelligent persons believing that Law is valid only for Others...)
You have a very bad Idea if you believe that "Nobility" is a good excuse for criminal activity... Stauffenberg attempting to murder the legal Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler was a simply shit! The real Noble doesn't attempt to murder in the dark, in dirty anonimity a National-Leader as Adolf Hitler was, especially during those epic days of Germany. A real Noble present himself before the "Enemy" bearing his armors, emblems, coats etc and starts openly his fight! Stauffenberg was for another time a shit because he violated the basic rules of Nobility! He was near Reichskanzler, he was able to act like a Noble, he didn't, because he was a simple shit, a cow with a "title" because of his financial-level not because of his Heroism something that grades the bravery of the real Noble!
sorry to add, dear Gentlemen: some of us is necessary to restart studying the Chivalry's rules before to decide admiring common criminals!Kindest Regards!

Zyklop
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 02:32 PM
Or, they were rejected on the grounds that the west actually wanted Germany to go to war with Russia, so the USA and Britain could knock both out of existence and feed on the remains.

If Hitler and Stalin actually made true NS or Communist states, then, chances are that the other great powers of the world would fail.
True, and there also were attempts to make peace with the West and to fight against bolshevism with joined forces. Hitler´s deputy Rudolf Heß flew to Great Britain in May 1941 on his own account to make peace with Churchill. He was imprisoned for 46 years, spent the last 20 years in solitary confinement and finally was murdered in 1987 by the British Secret Service shortly before his release (so much about the peace-loving allied forces).
Today the annual Rudolf Heß memorial marches in Wunsiedel are the largest nationalist demonstrations in Germany with up to 7000 participants from all over Europe.


I think WW2 was a much deeper conflict than just that.

Interesting that this comes from you. Most of the time I only read about "German Imperialism" in your posts.

Churchill stated after the war:

Germany´s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an own exchange system from which the world-finance couldn´t profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig.

I´m gonna provide some more quotes later.


IMO, if he could foresee what became of Germany after the war, he'd have killed Hitler back in the 1920's.
Hitler gave the biggest excuse for creating this anomaly we all live in.
In such a case the Treaty of Versailles would have starved to death more Germans than WW2 had killed and we would have Kolchose from Siberia to Brittany.


Since when are you a democrat? The 'popularity among the people' is such a concept. Milosevic was extremely popular among Serbs, while, at the same time he was pumping billions of dollars out of our economy and into his accounts.

I wanted to refuse your accusation that Hitler acted against the will of his people. Anyway, Hitler wasn´t corrupt. Even anti-German writers confirmed this, for example Joachim Fest.


Yes, it's a character from 'Hansel und Gretel' :D
No, it´s out of German folk mythology (Nibelungenlied) and means more or less loyalty to the death.


He was a Zyklop?! :D
But no award for him!

Marius
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 03:56 PM
It is contrary to the Ario-Germanic spirit of Teutons to forsake their leader in the field of battle. A cursory reading of Germanic literature of the first millenium will confirm this. To forsake ones leader is infamy and would result in such a person being an outcast for the rest of his days.This is our Aryan spirit.

This is so very true.

Where I think you are being misleading is that there was no field of battle, especially at the beginning of Hitler in power. And rebeling against a disturbed person, should have been done before even arriving to the vote. But it happens that many disturbed persons to have had a power to submit and to enchant masses of people.

I think WWII started because the kind like Hitler were able to inflate the tribal and subhuman part of each individual. Persons able to get and inflate the worst in someone, always existed. Don't you agree?

So I am not advocating the idea of murdering leaders. But I am advocating the idea of not chosing dement leaders. The curse of Germans bears the name Adolf Hitler. They had only troubles consequently the arrisal of such a man.

The problems of those times could surely have been solved differently than by killing millions of people, especially Germans, in war.

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:24 PM
This is so very true.

Where I think you are being misleading is that there was no field of battle, especially at the beginning of Hitler in power. And rebeling against a disturbed person, should have been done before even arriving to the vote. But it happens that many disturbed persons to have had a power to submit and to enchant masses of people.

ARYAN KRIEGER:"When the traitor Von Stauffenberg attempted to murder his Fuehrer Germany was fighting a desperate battle of survival[1944].Therefore I am "misleading" no-one."

I think WWII started because the kind like Hitler were able to inflate the tribal and subhuman part of each individual. Persons able to get and inflate the worst in someone, always existed. Don't you agree?

ARYAN KRIEGER:"I would argue that Hitler salvaged and brought out the best in Germany.His economic and military revival are examples of this."

So I am not advocating the idea of murdering leaders. But I am advocating the idea of not chosing dement leaders. The curse of Germans bears the name Adolf Hitler. They had only troubles consequently the arrisal of such a man.

ARYAN KRIEGER: "Show me the evidence that Hitler was "demented"! Are you qualified to make such a diagnosis?"

The problems of those times could surely have been solved differently than by killing millions of people, especially Germans, in war.
ARYAN KRIEGER: "How did you expect Germany to fight? With cap guns?"

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:27 PM
Quite so. Like king Louis.



Interesting. Did Hitler swear an oath that he won't send millions of Germans into a senseless war? Or, at least stop the war, when it was clear that the continuation will cause more German deaths and suffering?

It is better to die with honour than to live in infamy. It is a Teutonic thing. Perhaps you dont understand?



http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/korea/story/southview/link.kim.il.sung.jpg

Marius
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 10:25 PM
ARYAN KRIEGER: "How did you expect Germany to fight? With cap guns?"

You are again misleading. I did not advocate the action of gen. von Stauffenberg, even if I understand it. I even condamn him for a fact: why didn't he see from the beginning what kind of human being Hitler was. The beginning means the 1920s-1930s. If Hitler would have been executed and those times, the mankind would have been a better place nowadays.

Second, you are trying to say Germany defended itself during WWII. Excuse me, but provocations and next the aggression over Poland is not exactly what I understand by the word "defense". Then, the aggression against Czechoslovakia, France and Russia. And also, agression againt The Netherlands, at that time, non-beligerant and neutral.

I agree that some countries allied in order to get supremacy in the world, but this is by no means "defense", or you have a very deformed perception of this word.

Third, does it seem to you the innocent German children and women dying under the Napalm and Phosphore bombs of the Allies, had such a honorable life? Do you at least know how the German life was during the war? Have you read any books on that, or you were just fascinated by power and the fairytales of the NS books?

AryanKrieger
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 07:32 PM
You are again misleading. I did not advocate the action of gen. von Stauffenberg, even if I understand it. I even condamn him for a fact: why didn't he see from the beginning what kind of human being Hitler was. The beginning means the 1920s-1930s. If Hitler would have been executed and those times, the mankind would have been a better place nowadays.

Second, you are trying to say Germany defended itself during WWII. Excuse me, but provocations and next the aggression over Poland is not exactly what I understand by the word "defense". Then, the aggression against Czechoslovakia, France and Russia. And also, agression againt The Netherlands, at that time, non-beligerant and neutral.

I agree that some countries allied in order to get supremacy in the world, but this is by no means "defense", or you have a very deformed perception of this word.

Third, does it seem to you the innocent German children and women dying under the Napalm and Phosphore bombs of the Allies, had such a honorable life? Do you at least know how the German life was during the war? Have you read any books on that, or you were just fascinated by power and the fairytales of the NS books?
Marius are you advocating the murder of politicians just because you do not agree with their policies?
As far as Poland is concerned Germany was protecting the rights and welfare of millions of Volksdeutschen from Polish agression. There were of course other outstanding factors going back to WWI and the unjust Versailles Diktat.
I dont need lessons from you about what it was like during WWII for Germans: my mother was an SS wife.

Marius
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 09:05 PM
Marius are you advocating the murder of politicians just because you do not agree with their policies?
As far as Poland is concerned Germany was protecting the rights and welfare of millions of Volksdeutschen from Polish agression. There were of course other outstanding factors going back to WWI and the unjust Versailles Diktat.
I dont need lessons from you about what it was like during WWII for Germans: my mother was an SS wife.

And? Was it so nice during WWII? No, I think not.

AryanKrieger
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 06:32 PM
And? Was it so nice during WWII? No, I think not.
Sorry Marius but what exactly is your point? You do have one?

Prince Eugen
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 08:06 PM
In my oppinion he was nothing more than a traitor!He betrayed his Leader at the most difficult time.Like other "aristocrats'' who snobbed the N.S. Stauffenberg followed Hitler at victory and betrayed him in defeat!

AryanKrieger
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 08:28 PM
In my oppinion he was nothing more than a traitor!He betrayed his Leader at the most difficult time.Like other "aristocrats'' who snobbed the N.S. Stauffenberg followed Hitler at victory and betrayed him in defeat!
Very true:he was nothing more than a back-stabbing traitor and that is why his name will live in infamy for betraying his Fuehrer.

Thorburn
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 01:59 PM
The meaning ist: Lönneberga would have very much liked to belong to the "Stauffenberga". :D The assassination and takeover attempt of July 1944 was totally legitimate. One doesn't continue a war that can no longer be won -- at least not if non-volunteers (recruits) and civilians will be affected.

Only a fool could have missed that in 1944 Germany was outnumbered at ratios between 1:4 and 1:20, as far as important factors such as strength of the army, navy, and airforce; production of supplies; population size; gross domestic product; production of oil and minerals; and war industries were concerned. In addition, the geopolitical position of Germany in the heart of Europe, fighting a three front war against foes whose production and industries partly couldn't even been attacked was disastrous.

Close to 90% of all German casualities and destruction of German property occured between 1944 and 1945. Hitler, by refusing to capitulate in time, thus earned himself the status of having being the German leader that is responsible for the death of more Germans than any leader before and after him -- more than 3,000,000 German soldiers and more than 1,000,000 German civilians.

Everybody could notice already in December 1941 that he had totally lost it by declaring war on the United States (and no, Germany was not obliged by the Tripartite Treaty to do this; Japan didn't declare war on the USSR either). Nothing can justify this, not the United States' clandestine support for Great Britain either. It was clear for everybody with a sane mind that drawing the United States officially into the war would mean Germany's defeat.

And leaders that lost it and that turn against the fundamental interests of the people have to be removed. By force if necessary. It's a pity that nationalists left Stauffenberg to the FRG antifascists and leftists, none of whom deserve him, as he was a conservative nationalist that sacrificed his life, so that Germany can live. There should be a Stauffenberg march next to the Hess march.

Spjabork
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 02:15 PM
The assassination and takeover attempt of July 1944 was totally legitimate. One doesn't continue a war that can no longer be won -- at least not if non-volunteers (recruits) and civilians will be affected.First of all, an assassination is always and everyhwere in the world considered as being against the law.

That's why, bin Laden is not accepted as regular combattant in a regular war, but is considered a terrorist.

The very word 'assassin', being taken over into English from Arabic, means 'suicide terrorist'.

What do you think would George Bush - or any US-President - think, and what would he do, if he found out that some US-Army officers are plotting against him?

Loki
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 02:35 PM
Stauffenberg was indeed a German hero. German nationalists should remember and honour him. :)

Pervitinist
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 02:40 PM
@Thorburn

I don't quite agree with your view on Stauffenberg. The failed attempt to assassinate Hitler showed the allies that Germany was internally divided and that Hitler could not even trust his own officers. The effect was that allied confidence was raised and the demand of unconditional surrender remained standing until the bitter end.

Besides, I seriously doubt that the allies would have agreed to any proposals made by another German government - Nazi, Conservative or whatever. From the Anglo-British and Russian point of view the complete destruction of Germany made sense after all. Only by bombing Germany into pieces and significantly reducing her territory and population could another third world war "out of Germany" be prevented. As we all know, this ‘Morgenthauoid‘ strategy worked out very nicely; and it would have been rational - especially for the US - to pursue it in any case - with or without Hitler.

In the actual case Germany at least went down with all flags flying and the Wehrmacht regained its honor by defending her to the end.

Loki
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 02:47 PM
It's a pity that nationalists left Stauffenberg to the FRG antifascists and leftists, none of whom deserve him, as he was a conservative nationalist that sacrificed his life, so that Germany can live. There should be a Stauffenberg march next to the Hess march.

Absolutely, I understand better now what you previously tried to bring across (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15304). We should break with dead-end Nazi fascism and embrace true patriotism, which is not self-destructing. Germany has learned from the errors of Nazism, I'm sure ... but unfortunately a small handful still don't see it.

Spjabork
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 02:49 PM
One doesn't continue a war that can no longer be won -- at least not if non-volunteers (recruits) and civilians will be affected.Every country taking part in WWII had a draft force, there were no pure volunteer-armies. As is reasonable, for it isn't possible for any "system" to build up a military force of ten millions only consisting of voluteers.

Aren't the US talking about a draft even now?

So what's the point of "recruits being affected"? All soldiers are recruits when they enter the army.

Civilians? The blockade of the German coast and the seizure of German freighters was a violation of the Geneva Convention, which stipulated that war must not be directed against civilians. But any blockade of Germany would result inevitably in the starvation of hundreds of thousands, as it did in WWI, and was hoped to do so in WWII.

In WWII, however, there was no starvation, even no famine in Germany, for Hitler had taken appropriate precautions. These precautions were not taken by the reactionary Prussian military clique in WWI. So, one can only say, that Hitler was far more careful and had deeper insight into the nature of war than all those Barons of... , Dukes of... , and Kings of ... together.

Only a fool could have missed that in 1944 Germany was outnumbered at ratios between 1:4 and 1:20,Yes. The USA had some 40 Aircraft carrier-vessels, and Germany had none. But the US had to deploy most of these ships in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese.

And the Japanese began to attack these very ships from October 1944 on (so three months after the Stauffenberg putch) by Kamikaze. The Americans were frightened and enraged by these Kamikaze. They called them 'Bakas' ('idiots').

Today, it is always claimed, that the Kamikaze achieved nothing, it was only criminal by the Japanese leaders to resort to this etc.

But, dear Thorburn, I have seen an American war-movie made during the war, with Spencer Tracy playing the main role: a US-bomber pilot.

In this film, the US pilot finally is carrying out a Kamikaze attack onto a German aircraft carrier!

Dear Thorburn: the Germans had no aircraft carrier - not a single one -, and there are no reports whatsoever that any American Kamikaze attacks ever took place...

It was the fear of Kamikaze attacks en masse after the invasion of the Japanese main islands, that led to the decision of the atomic bomb drops.

At least this is the reason, Churchill gives for them.

The atomic bombs were so heavy, that they had to be transported by ship from the USA to a Pacific island air base. But the US Navy cruiser transporting the bombs was sunk by a Japanese submarine.

On the way back. Had it been sunk on the way to, the US had lost all their atomic bombs at that time available. For they had only two.

And it would have taken them more than one year to produce one or two new bombs.

During that time, the Wunderwaffen in Germany and in Japan could have been completed.

What you do, Thorburn, is telling history ex post.

Pervitinist
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 02:58 PM
Absolutely, I understand better now what you previously tried to bring across (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15304). We should break with dead-end Nazi fascism and embrace true patriotism, which is not self-destructing. Germany has learned from the errors of Nazism, I'm sure ... but unfortunately a small handful still don't see it.

If Germany - and with her Europe as a whole - is to remain a US dominion, you are right.

Such a sterilized type of would-be-"patriotism" (in German we have the ugly word "Verfassungspatriotismus") is after all an integral part of the FRG's self-definition under the de-facto occupation statute that is its 'constitution' (or rather "basic law"/"Grundgesetz").

Apart from that there are many ways of being a nationalist. Not all of them are "dead-end Nazi fascism" (whatever that may mean).

Lönebergar
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 03:06 PM
In the actual case Germany at least went down with all flags flying and the Wehrmacht regained its honor by defending her to the end.


What price did we pay for "going down with all flags flying"?
Life is no opera! WWII was not "Götterdämmerung". A responsible leader would have stopped a war without any hope of victory and a leader who cares for his people wouldn't have started a war in the first place! Thus Hitler was neither responsible nor did he care for our German people in the end [because the Russian people had shown they were stronger].

Theudiskaz
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 03:14 PM
What price did we pay for "going down with all flags flying"?
Life is no opera! WWII was not "Götterdämmerung". A responsible leader would have stopped a war without any hope of victory and a leader who cares for his people wouldn't have started a war in the first place! Thus Hitler was neither responsible nor did he care for our German people in the end [because the Russian people had shown they were stronger].As ironic as it is, by fighting to the bitter end, the Germans affirmed their dignity and purpose of their lives. Something which even an American buffoon can understand.

Pervitinist
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 03:16 PM
What price did we pay for "going down with all flags flying"?
Life is no opera! WWII was not "Götterdämmerung". A responsible leader would have stopped a war without any hope of victory and a leader who cares for his people wouldn't have started a war in the first place! Thus Hitler was neither responsible nor did he care for our German people.

The end of WWII has nothing to do with an opera. The rationale behind the Anglo-british style of warfare in WWII included the reduction of Germany's population and territory, just as the German strategy included the reduction of Polish and Russian populations.

This is no Wagnerian tragedy but the dry logic of warfare.

Read the McNamara quote in my signature and you will find the same spirit. The Vietnam war is (from the US perspective) another good example of how to deal with enemy populations in mathematical rather than humanistic terms.

Loki
Saturday, October 7th, 2006, 04:52 PM
If Germany - and with her Europe as a whole - is to remain a US dominion, you are right.


It is time people woke up and smell the coffee. In the modern reality of the 21st century, America and Europe need each other like never before. If the USA will not come to our help in Europe, we will soon be completely swamped by Islamism. Add to that the undoubted, but silent, rise of China and India, Europe and the USA will need to form an ever closer alliance against the Asian hordes.

Jäger
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Heros should know self-sacrifice, he was too much of a coward.

He could have just used his gun, the chances he had, but he was too scared as it seems, therefor he paid, the NS "Führerprinzip" (leaders principle) worked perfectly :)

Keltiberer
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 04:19 PM
German hero.

Why a hero?

Spjabork
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 05:11 PM
German hero.In Tunisia, he lost one arm and one eye. And seemingly for nothing, as the Afrika-campaign was a failure. So bitterness sank in his heart. He used to be attractive to women before...

A typical representative of the reactionary Prussian military clique.

Nothing less than an idol for democrats.

symmakhos
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 05:28 PM
He could have just used his gun

Surely he could not have been armed in the presence of the führer?

Nor is he an "idol for democrats", Spabjork; they usually never tire of pointing out his non-democratic, aristocratic ideals.

Jäger
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Surely he could not have been armed in the presence of the führer?
As far as I know, he could have been. Even if not, if he can smuggle in a bomb, he could have done the same to a gun.

Another handicap might have been that he only had 3 fingers left, then again the reason why Stauffenberg left was mainly due to that fact that tha assassination of Hitler would have followed an uprising which was supposed to be coordinated by him.
The best way to have killed Hitler would have been to send another officer willing to risk his life more directly (e.g. suicied bombing) and he stays in Berlin to manage things from there.

I am not sure if one should call him hero just because he "tried".

Additionally, WS names him a hero because of a) provocation and b) lack of historical understanding.
Stauffenberg and his gang were quite loyal at first, and what many of them did on the eastern front most likely would not please most "white power" fetishists.
They mostly didn't attack Hitler because of his policies, but simply because they were loosing the war. Stauffenberg might have kept NS in place if could.

sheriff skullface
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 07:14 PM
Heros should know self-sacrifice, he was too much of a coward.

He could have just used his gun, the chances he had, but he was too scared as it seems, therefor he paid, the NS "Führerprinzip" (leaders principle) worked perfectly :)

I can see where you're coming from, it was the guys job to assassinate Hitler and he doesn't even bring a gun and take the chance that he had, sounds pretty pansish to me.

Berliners Remember
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 08:04 PM
I think it was Pervitinist(could be wrong here) who best summed it up in a different thread. Basically he said that the July Plotters only turned against Hitler when the tide of the war had turned against Germany. For example, Tresckow never objected to the harsh treatment of partisans in the occupied areas. General Hoepner never made an objection to the Commisar Order, and only joined the anti-Hitler conspiracy when Hitler had him sacked after he pulled his unit back during the Moscow enemy counter-offensive. Just don't always be so quick to call them heroes.

symmakhos
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 08:07 PM
As far as I know, he could have been. Even if not, if he can smuggle in a bomb, he could have done the same to a gun.

Another handicap might have been that he only had 3 fingers left, then again the reason why Stauffenberg left was mainly due to that fact that tha assassination of Hitler would have followed an uprising which was supposed to be coordinated by him.
The best way to have killed Hitler would have been to send another officer willing to risk his life more directly (e.g. suicied bombing) and he stays in Berlin to manage things from there.

I am not sure if one should call him hero just because he "tried".

Additionally, WS names him a hero because of a) provocation and b) lack of historical understanding.
Stauffenberg and his gang were quite loyal at first, and what many of them did on the eastern front most likely would not please most "white power" fetishists.
They mostly didn't attack Hitler because of his policies, but simply because they were loosing the war. Stauffenberg might have kept NS in place if could.

Notwithstanding allied propaganda from the 1930's to now, Hitler was a maniac and a loser that should not have been allowed to take over the government of Germany. In 1944, the sensible thing was to get rid of him and negotiate a bearable peace with the allies: this is what Stauffenberg and the men of July 20 attempted. Hitler, on the other hand, insisted that the Germans should fight until the last man was fallen. And they did.

Jäger
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 08:21 PM
In 1944, the sensible thing was to get rid of him [Hitler] and negotiate a bearable peace with the allies: this is what Stauffenberg and the men of July 20 attempted. Hitler, on the other hand, insisted that the Germans should fight until the last man was fallen.
Yes, still, if Hitler would have not kept loosing Stauffenwichs and his gang would still have screamed "Sieg Heil".
This is just something to be considered before some Anti-NS call him a hero.

hagall
Sunday, October 8th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Just don't always be so quick to call them heroes.
The plotters against Hitler knew very well that allied peace terms were rigid "unconditional surrender". Churchills statement, in which he said that the allies do not fight Hitlers Nazism but Germany, that means the German people, tells us the reason why. If the plot had succeeded, after a short but bloody civil war, the result would have been much the same. I doubt, that the world would be a better place today, like somebody stated in this thread. Concerning Stauffenberg, I would not call him a hero, but he certainly was no coward, either. From what I have read about him, I am quite sure he had the guts to kill Hitler "with his own three fingers", but he and the other conspirators believed that he was indispensable for carrying on the plot in Berlin. He knew that he threw in his life, as he had done before, when he was badly wounded. So you may call him a traitor, but never a coward! hagall

Aeric
Monday, October 9th, 2006, 12:32 AM
Stauffenberg was not a coward - his previous military career and his willingness to face danger during the attempt on Hitler's life amply demonstrate his personal courage - yet I believe that he was ultimately a traitor. He turned on the legitimately-elected leader of his nation at a time when German was fighting for its life and he was (at least partly) motivated by outdated and meaningless notions of social elitism.

In 1066, when the Normans defeated a Saxon Army that had already marched the length of England twice and fought a pitched battle against other invaders in the north, the household troops of Harold, the slain English King, gathered around his body and refused to save their lives by surrendering. Like all Germanic soldiers, they swore to either bring their lord victory or die with him.

Was this a senseless waste of life or a shining example of selfless loyalty that should inspire us down the generations? I am sure that we could choose sides and debate that point for a long time...but let's imagine, just for a moment, that one of Harold's soldiers - maybe a man of proven courage with a long record of valour to his name - saw that the battle was likely to be lost and then decided to stab his King in the back, hoping that he might negotiate with the enemy...would we think of him as a hero who had 'the wider European picture' in mind at the moment of his treachery?

It is a great mistake to trust the 'historians' who depict Hitler as a raving madman. At the height of National Socialist Germany's pre-war economic boom, a man approached a publisher with a book he had written. He claimed (probably falsely) that he had known Hitler when he was a struggling art student in Vienna. The book - "Hitler: The Young Genuis I Knew" - was such a grovelling, sycophantic expression of adoration for the Fuhrer that Hitler felt bound to ask the publisher to suppress it.

3 days after Germany surrendered, the same author presented himself to the occupying American forces and offered his book again. He had thoughtfully provided it with a new title - "Hitler: The Young Monster I Knew". The Americans loved it so much that it was rushed into publication and widely distributed. This is admittedly an extreme example of one writer's eagerness to mangle the truth, but you might be surprised at how many 'historians' base their analyses of Hitler on this kind of 'eye-witness' material.

Aeric

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, October 10th, 2006, 08:04 AM
Stauffenberg was indeed a German hero. German nationalists should remember and honour him. :)

Oh, ok, then why didn't Stauffenberg act in 1939? As a matter of fact, why didn't he act in 1933? Stauffenberg and his group attempted to kill Hitler when the war went badly. One wonders if they would have ever done anything if the war had been won by Germany. By their hesitation, Stauffenberg cheapens himself and his motives.

On the otherhand, I will rely on Otto Skorzeny who was rarely wrong about moral issues. Skorzeny's position was: I fought for Hitler while he was winning and times were good. With honor, how could I do otherwise when times went bad?

But, Wolf Slayer, you and Stauffenberg may have a niche in this world. Forget Hitler and think Tony Blair and George W. Bush.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, October 11th, 2006, 06:00 PM
...
Was this a senseless waste of life or a shining example of selfless loyalty that should inspire us down the generations? I am sure that we could choose sides and debate that point for a long time...but let's imagine, just for a moment, that one of Harold's soldiers - maybe a man of proven courage with a long record of valour to his name - saw that the battle was likely to be lost and then decided to stab his King in the back, hoping that he might negotiate with the enemy...would we think of him as a hero who had 'the wider European picture' in mind at the moment of his treachery?...

The comparision is misleading. King Harold was not responsible for the death of millions and did not betray his own troops, that's the difference. He also was on the defending side and not responsible for this war. Stauffenberg's reaction was logic for a Germanic having been humbugged.



Oh, ok, then why didn't Stauffenberg act in 1939?
At that time there have been no reports of massmurder and criminal acts committed by German troops. During that time very most German conservative nationalists/reactionaires supported Hitler's policy as they wanted revenge for the lost WWI and the Versailles Treaty.


As a matter of fact, why didn't he act in 1933?
At that time he was a young lieutenant and supported Hitler as he belived, like very most Germans did, he will bring back a strong and souvereign Germany.


Stauffenberg and his group attempted to kill Hitler when the war went badly.
One wonders if they would have ever done anything if the war had been won by Germany. By their hesitation, Stauffenberg cheapens himself and his motives.
At that time war already was lost, no matter what "Wunderwaffen" etc. were brought to action. At that time also credible evidence of massmurder committed by German troops was yielded, that was another reason urging for action.


On the otherhand, I will rely on Otto Skorzeny who was rarely wrong about moral issues. Skorzeny's position was: I fought for Hitler while he was winning and times were good. With honor, how could I do otherwise when times went bad?
And how do you rely on NS generals that ordered children and elderly to fire at enemy tanks with carbins and fled with civilian clothes afterwards? How do you rely on "Faithful" Heinrich Himmler who wanted to make a seperate peace treaty with the western allies without having had Hitler's permission to do so? [/quote]

Aeric
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 12:23 AM
My comparison was based on the hypothetical soldier and the concept of loyalty to his oath. Though Stauffenberg had no scruples about following Hitler in victory he conveniently decided that his oath was no longer binding when Germany was losing the war.

The great philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian state and he was offered chances to escape but he declined for several reasons - one of them being that it would be inconsistent and dishonourable to accept all the benefits offered by the State (education, safety from enemies, protection from lawbreakers, culture and fellowship etc.) and yet start complaining when the same State made a decision that did not suit him personally.

You mentioned that Stauffenberg initially supported Hitler because he believed that the Nazis would restore Germany's pride and sovereignty. Of course, Hitler actually attained those goals; he also did much more for his people - full employment, a strong, vibrant economy and social equality for all Germans (for the first time working class people could enjoy real vacations, afford their own vehicles and aspire to life-enriching possessions such as radios). Hitler had the sense to stand aside and allow men of genius to run the financial structure of the nation. Under National Socialism, Germany became a genuine meritocracy - the only people who disliked the transformation were Jews, left-wingers and backwards-looking aristocrats. Stauffenberg, who belonged to the latter group, never really gave up his elitist views; when he decided to break his oath to Fuhrer and Fatherland, he was influenced by this selfish brand of dissatisfaction.

No matter how you dress it up, he was a traitor. He violated the trust of his leader and he did so because he was (at least partly) motivated by the belief that the old ruling elite were the best people to take charge of the nation.

Incidentally, there is evidence which suggests that Himmler was literally beaten to death by his British captors. He was offered the chance to 'save his own skin' (though it was probably a false offer) and he declined. In the words of one British soldier, he was 'beaten to a pulp' - yet he remained defiant and succeeded in taking cyanide. The British were so afraid that his example would rub off on other Germans that they wrapped his body in barbed wire and buried it in a secret location.

The victors of 1945 wrote the 'official history'. The real reasons for Germany's military intervention in Poland were brushed under the carpet. Churchill was particularly eager to reinvent the facts - for example, did he really see the 'evil' of Hitler long before other British politicians?...errrr, no - in reality, he made many comments that praised Hitler and consistently commented that he wished a man like him was running Britain. Only after he became almost bankrupt and was bailed out by his own Jewish people - Churchill's mother was a Jewess - did 'good old Winston' begin damning Hitler and agitating for war against Germany. Many Germans were wrongfully hanged for administering 'Death Camps' as the victors handed out vengeful 'justice' (often aided by Jewish advisers)...but notice how it is now admitted, even by Holohoaxers, that facilities like Dachau were only detention centres.

In short, Stauffenberg's treachery is commonly seen through a distorting glass by those who blindly trust the 'official history'. At the time, the German people had no doubts about what he had done - in the wake of the attempted assassination there was a wave of revulsion against his actions and massively renewed support for Hitler.

Aeric

Aptrgangr
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 07:12 AM
My comparison was based on the hypothetical soldier and the concept of loyalty to his oath.
And I explained why this comparision is misleading. The oath Stauffenberg made did not include the backing of massmurder.


Though Stauffenberg had no scruples about following Hitler in victory he conveniently decided that his oath was no longer binding when Germany was losing the war.
Again, at the early stage of WWII for many it was not clear Hitler did not attempt the reconquering lost soil only, but to invade almost every single European state under committing serious warcrimes.
Indeed, the oath was made under another legal framework under other prevailing cicumstances.


You mentioned that Stauffenberg initially supported Hitler because he believed that the Nazis would restore Germany's pride and sovereignty. Of course, Hitler actually attained those goals; he also did much more for his people - full employment, a strong, vibrant economy and social equality for all Germans (for the first time working class people could enjoy real vacations, afford their own vehicles and aspire to life-enriching possessions such as radios). Hitler had the sense to stand aside and allow men of genius to run the financial structure of the nation.
Of course he did much, and that's why people followed him in masses. But where is bright light there is dark shadow is a saying overhere. State's budget was alost ruined due to high depts for example. One of the geniuses of Hitlers economical policy, Hjalmar Schacht, was sent to a concentration camp later..


Under National Socialism, Germany became a genuine meritocracy - the only people who disliked the transformation were Jews, left-wingers and backwards-looking aristocrats.
Many were expropriated, especially Jews. Many left-wingers, and many NS just were left-wingers, profited from this arbitrariness.
Well, the NS regime would not have had to kill some German right-wing generals when they all had complied.


Stauffenberg, who belonged to the latter group, never really gave up his elitist views; when he decided to break his oath to Fuhrer and Fatherland, he was influenced by this selfish brand of dissatisfaction.
Don't NS have (had) elitist views either? Did the Führer keep his oath he gave to his fatherland? Was the corrupt NS regime not influencened by selfishness?


No matter how you dress it up, he was a traitor. He violated the trust of his leader and he did so because he was (at least partly) motivated by the belief that the old ruling elite were the best people to take charge of the nation.
No matter how you dress it up NS is morally bankrupt and dead.
I am convinced Germany would have been better off with the old ruling elite.


Incidentally, there is evidence which suggests that Himmler was literally beaten to death by his British captors. He was offered the chance to 'save his own skin' (though it was probably a false offer) and he declined. In the words of one British soldier, he was 'beaten to a pulp' - yet he remained defiant and succeeded in taking cyanide. The British were so afraid that his example would rub off on other Germans that they wrapped his body in barbed wire and buried it in a secret location.
He tried to escape in disguise, what a heroic act to save one's life. Do you think there was a warrant of arrest because Himmler was loyal to the oath he gave? Have you thought about why Himmler was fired? It seems betrayal for you is just a matter of time.
He should have taken cyanide earlier.


The victors of 1945 wrote the 'official history'.
And of course a small elite where you belong to know what realy happened in history?
I am aware, history is written by victors. I allow myself to criticize both sides.


The real reasons for Germany's military intervention in Poland were brushed under the carpet.
And what were the real reasons? The supression of Germans in Poland did not start right after WWI but right after the German-Polish non-aggression treaty was broken in april 28th 1939?


Churchill was particularly eager to reinvent the facts - for example, did he really see the 'evil' of Hitler long before other British politicians?...errrr, no - in reality, he made many comments that praised Hitler and consistently commented that he wished a man like him was running Britain. Only after he became almost bankrupt and was bailed out by his own Jewish people - Churchill's mother was a Jewess - did 'good old Winston' begin damning Hitler and agitating for war against Germany. Many Germans were wrongfully hanged for administering 'Death Camps' as the victors handed out vengeful 'justice' (often aided by Jewish advisers)...but notice how it is now admitted, even by Holohoaxers, that facilities like Dachau were only detention centres.
Have you read Churchills "Hitler has the choice" written in 1937? He clearly stated it's in Hitler's hand there will be a thriving German yor a devastating new war. The one praising Hitler was Lloyd George.
Detention centers in Germany had the particular feature people were killed inside. That's the problem. If those Germans having run concentration camps been hanged by German troops things would be better now.


In short, Stauffenberg's treachery is commonly seen through a distorting glass by those who blindly trust the 'official history'. At the time, the German people had no doubts about what he had done - in the wake of the attempted assassination there was a wave of revulsion against his actions and massively renewed support for Hitler.

Aeric
In short NS policy is seen by your kind who blindly follow a wordview instead of viewing world though a distorting glass. Of course there was a wave of revulvion against Stauffenberg's action, no wonder since NS controlled 100% of the media, but this wave of revulvion was small compared to that wave coming right after concentration camps and the death of millions became public after war.

Aeric
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 11:52 AM
Brother, I respect your views and your intelligence; you have argued courteously and logically - though it seems that we must agree to disagee over many things (largely because our perspectives are very different).

There were certainly many flaws in the structure and chain of command that existed in National Socialist Germany, but I believe that (at least during its period of relative stability before World War 2), the state had the potential to develop into something more than a rough-edged revolutionary movement. When I referred to Nazi Germany as a meritocracy, it was not a statement which blindly ignored the mass arrests of Hitler's opponents and the suppression of other political creeds (after all, Hitler - speaking before large crowds - openly admitted to being intolerant of other parties).

It should be remembered that the imprisonment of large numbers of citizens (I will not insult socialists and communists by mentioning them in the same breath as the professional criminals and perverts who were taken out of circulation) was not undertaken lightly. The concentration camps were intended to be geared towards changing the attitudes of loafers, idlers and political opponents so that they could be returned to the general population. The SS even paid the prisoners' insurance contributions during their 're-education' and took steps to ensure that any children who were left without a parent or guardian at home were given proper care. After the war, one particularly candid Jewish author wrote that the camps were, to a large extent, worthy of being considered a form of protection for inmates who would have suffered much worse ordeals if they had been left outside the wire.

I hope you forgive me for providing the obvious advice about 'victor's justice' and 'victors' history' as that kind of basic hint is intended for those new to such considerations - not for an old hand such as yourself (somebody who could evidently teach me a thing or two about 20th Century History).

With regret, I remain unconvinced of Stauffenberg's heroic/saintly status. His oath didn't say: "I promise to obey my lawfully-elected leader unto death or until I change my mind (whichever comes sooner)". As I have said elsewhere, Stauffenberg's personal courage should never be called into question; I am even willing to accept that concern for his own family was one of the motivating factors that prompted him to break his oath. However, soldiers are expected to obey rigid, unbending codes for good reasons.

Himmler's private chats with the enemy (and Jewish Organisations) were misguided and often instigated by disloyal and manipulative people who were secretly working for the enemy. I completely agree with you that Himmler should have killed himself before he stained his honour in pursuit of advantages which were never really 'on the table'.

He was not wanted in the short-lived Nazi government that followed Hitler's death and would probably have been arrested by colleagues who were eager to score points with the Allies. His flight in disguise (a very inept disguise) was yet another act of poor judgement - like Stauffenberg, he should have learned from Socrates. Though Himmler declined to die with dignity by his own hand at that point, it could be argued that he regained some claim to our respect by refusing to comply with the British security service. Though we well remember him as a rather frail hyperchondriac, Himmler actually resisted the brutal methods of his questioners rather better than Hoess - the Commandant Of Auswitz - who was completely broken and persuaded to sign a bizarre document (written in English, a language he did not understand) which 'confessed' to the killing of two and a half million Jews.

Aeric

Lusitano
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Again, at the early stage of WWII for many it was not clear Hitler did not attempt the reconquering lost soil only, but to invade almost every single European state under committing serious warcrimes.

Aptrganga you are an inteligent guy and I use to agree with you in most cases. However your comments about the TRAITOR Stauffenberg and especially the above remark lead me to write that you seem to allign with the historical version of the facts of the Allied, the victors of a conflict and as so the ones who wrote history as they most liked.

First off, Stauffenberg, as most of the german military aristocracy never liked Hitler and the NS State and his action in 1944 cannot be seen otherwise but as a despicable and treacherous act, especially due to the fact that he well known Germany was already defeated and that the Allied powers would never accpet other type of surrender than unconditional capitulation.

You write "The oath Stauffenberg made did not include the backing of massmurder." Correct, especially when that massmurder implies its own people, who faced the terrible and most criminal treatment a entire people ever have...

As for Hitler wish to invade all european nations, give me a break, that's bullshit. Why Hitler never tried to invade Switzerland? Spain, Portugal?
It is well know that Hitler never intended to invade Yugoslavia, but was forced to that in order to help Germany ally, Italy.

Many true historians today say the German attack to USSR was a preventive war.

I am not one of those NS fanaticas who dream about bringing back III Reich back to life, in fact I would like to see that, but I know to make the distinction between "like" and "reality", and reality shoul have priority of course, however, I do not allign by the victors version of the facts.

Aptrgangr
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 11:05 AM
However your comments about the TRAITOR Stauffenberg and especially the above remark lead me to write that you seem to allign with the historical version of the facts of the Allied, the victors of a conflict and as so the ones who wrote history as they most liked.
I was not betrayed by Stauffenberg so I am relaxed about this matter.
The Allied did not suppport Stauffenberg in any way, and the last thing he wanted to introduce was a liberal democracy.


First off, Stauffenberg, as most of the german military aristocracy never liked Hitler and the NS State and his action in 1944 cannot be seen otherwise but as a despicable and treacherous act, especially due to the fact that he well known Germany was already defeated and that the Allied powers would never accpet other type of surrender than unconditional capitulation.
In general German right-wingers distrusted Hitler, even after he decapitated the leaders of the strong left-wing NS (Röhm, Strasser). Stauffenberg supported Hitler's candidature for Reichpräsident against Hindenburg, many younger officers of the military (and civilian) aristocracy did so as they believed it would be better for Germany.
Germany was defeated before 1944, the plot was to stop further senseless killing. Would the troops have been brought back on German soil defence could have been better organized.


You write "The oath Stauffenberg made did not include the backing of massmurder." Correct, especially when that massmurder implies its own people, who faced the terrible and most criminal treatment a entire people ever have...
That's one of the reasons why the plot was effected - to stop the killing of own people in a war already lost.


As for Hitler wish to invade all european nations, give me a break, that's bullshit. Why Hitler never tried to invade Switzerland? Spain, Portugal?
It is well know that Hitler never intended to invade Yugoslavia, but was forced to that in order to help Germany ally, Italy.
I wrote "almost" every single European state. Almost means not all.
Under "Operation Tannenbaum" an invasion of Switzerland was planned, but never carried out, a cooperative neutral Switzerland was of more use. Spain was ruled by Caudillo Franco, no need to invade a friend, same with Portugal.
Hitler never intended to invade Yugoslavia, but he did, that's the point. After the German-friendly government was plotted away and Italy attacked Greece he decided to invade instead of demanding Mussolini to stop his lunatic actions.


Many true historians today say the German attack to USSR was a preventive war.
Of course Stalin wanted to wait until Germany is armed up to the teeth before invading it, makes the whole thing more thrilling. I know there were plans to attack Germany - especially those being informed about Hitler's plans to conquer new Lebensraum in the east and the breadbasket Ukraine were in favour of this.
If Stalin really would have intended to invade, why didn't he do so in the late 20s or early 30s? His army was drilled by German instructors and weapons were constructed and tested in the USSR by German technicians, why annoying an ally?
On German side no defensive measures were taken, no massive line bunkers were built at the easten border, like it was at the western border "Westwall" and later at the Atlantic coast "Altlantikwall". Also defensive weapons construction was unattended in favour of offensive weapons.


I am not one of those NS fanaticas who dream about bringing back III Reich back to life, in fact I would like to see that, but I know to make the distinction between "like" and "reality", and reality shoul have priority of course, however, I do not allign by the victors version of the facts.
NS is over. When a victor tells you 2+2=4 then you consider it as wrong occupier's maths? As soon as NS start to investigate the truth they will find out much of what they believe in simply is wrong - that's why they do not have a closer look I suppose...

Dagna
Sunday, March 30th, 2008, 08:59 PM
I believe there is some very interesting information about a member of the German resistance movement to National Socialism:


Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg

From autumn 1943 on, Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg became a decisive factor in the struggle against Hitler. In 1933, he initially felt that National Socialist policy offered Germany favorable opportunities but was soon alienated by the regime's racial ideology. Yet Stauffenberg only assumed an active role in opposing the regime once he realized the consequences of German policy in eastern Europe and was able to estimate the full extent of the damage that Hitler's war had brought upon Germany and Europe.

Under the influence of Henning von Tresckow, General Friedrich Olbricht, and First Lieutenant Fritz-Dietlof Graf von der Schulenburg of the army reserve, Stauffenberg became a focal point of the military conspiracy. He established important links to civilian resistance groups and coordinated his assassination plans with Carl Friedrich Goerdeler and Ludwig Beck, and with the conspirators waiting in readiness in Paris, Vienna, Berlin, and at Army Group Center.

Stauffenberg's Way to the Assassination Attempt of July 20, 1944

In early April 1943, Stauffenberg was severely wounded in Tunisia, barely escaping death. During the months of his convalescence, he gradually came to realize he had to take an active part in resistance.

Even in earlier years, the church's struggle, the persecution of the Jews, and the crimes in eastern Europe had alienated Stauffenberg from the National Socialist state. His closest confidant was his brother Berthold, who had had contacts to the opposition for a long time. After an extended period of convalescence, Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg was appointed to the post of chief of staff of the General Army Office in October 1943. From June 1944 on, he also served as chief of staff for the commanding officer of the Ersatzheer (Reserve Army), General Friedrich Olbricht, at Olbricht's request. In this position he had clearance to attend briefings at Hitler's headquarters in the so-called "Wolf's Lair" near Rastenburg in East Prussia. Olbricht informed Stauffenberg of his plans for a coup and introduced him to members of the resistance groups around Ludwig Beck and Carl Friedrich Goerdeler.

Stauffenberg had a great deal of charisma and was valued for his professional expertise. He brought many opponents of the regime together and made close friends among them * not only military officers but also Social Democrats like Julius Leber, members of the Kreisau Circle like Adam von Trott zu Solz, and representatives of the labor union movement like Jakob Kaiser and Wilhelm Leuschner.

The Planning of Operation "Valkyrie"

The conspirators from the civilian and military resistance groups realized that the military leadership could not be induced to act in concert. They concentrated their efforts on eliminating Hitler, gaining control of the military chain of command, and assuming the responsibilities of government in Germany.

They made use of plans developed for putting down civil disturbances and insurrections by the foreign slave laborers. These plans provided for entrusting executive power and military authority to the commander of the Reserve Army in such cases.

The second step in launching Operation "Valkyrie."

The conspirators altered these plans, code-named "Valkyrie," several times, adapting them to the respective applicable conditions. With the aid of the "Valkyrie" orders, they intended to gain control of key government, Party, and Wehrmacht offices in Berlin so they could pave the way for the coup throughout Germany and at the front.

Hitler's Headquarters "Wolf's Lair" near Rastenburg in East Prussia

In the winter of 1940-41 immediately before the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Hitler established his new headquarters near Rastenburg. During the following years, extensive bunker systems were built, which were sealed off from the rest of the world by restricted areas. The extensive forests of East Prussia, the moors of the surrounding countryside, and the location of the headquarters beyond the range of Allied bombers appeared to offer the greatest possible measure of protection.

As German troops advanced far into the Soviet Union, a second Führer's headquarters was established at Vinnitsa in the Ukraine. The importance of the "Wolf's Lair" in Prussia increased as the Wehrmacht retreated, and the site became Hitler's preferred location. When several attempts to eliminate Hitler by assassination failed in 1943, the conspirators decided to kill him here in the central bastion of his power.

Assassination Attempt of July 20, 1944

Despite great difficulties, Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg succeeded in arming a bomb and planting it under a map table in Hitler's vicinity a few minutes before a briefing in the "Wolf's Lair." Stauffenberg was able to leave the room without being noticed and observed the detonation from a safe distance. Unfortunate coincidences prevented the attempt from succeeding, and Hitler survived. The heavy oak table he was leaning over when the bomb exploded shielded his body.

Yet Stauffenberg was convinced that his assassination attempt had been successful. Together with his adjutant and fellow conspirator Werner von Haeften, he succeeded in leaving the headquarters for Berlin within minutes of the explosion, immediately before the area was sealed off.

July 20, 1944, in the Bendler Block

After the assassination attempt, valuable hours were lost in Berlin before the "Valkyrie" orders could be issued. Executive power was to be transferred to the commander of the Reserve Army. Key command centers and communication facilities had to be occupied, and the SS units stationed in Berlin had to be kept away from the center of the conspiracy on Bendlerstrasse.

The conspirators relied on Berlin's city commandant, a few friends in important positions, and Berlin's chief of police. A few members of civilian resistance groups came to the Bendler Block. Even a few younger officers stationed in Potsdam assumed functions here. They were joined by some other officers who had purposely not been informed about the coup during its initial phases but who followed the orders of the conspirators.

The Failure of the Coup

The conspirators hoped to be able to mobilize formations in Berlin and throughout Germany against the National Socialist leaders through normal command channels. To do so, they required intact lines of communication.

Since Hitler had survived the bombing, the conspirators' helpers at Hitler's headquarters were not able to interrupt telephone and radio communications with the outside world for long. This put Hitler, Himmler, Bormann, and Keitel in a position to issue countermanding orders late in the afternoon that frustrated all the conspirators' efforts. Many officers in key positions on Bendlerstrasse and in the military districts now cited their oath of allegiance and remained loyal to Hitler.

Friedrich Fromm, commander of the Reserve Army, refused to join the conspirators. Late that evening he ordered the execution of the four main conspirators by a firing squad.

After the Assassination Attempt

After the unsuccessful assassination attempt, Hitler addressed the German public in a radio speech. He depicted himself as an instrument of "providence," accusing "a small clique" of ambitious officers of having committed treason in their hunger for power.

The following days brought with them a profusion of speeches avowing loyalty. Appeals, newspaper articles, and speeches were staged to stir up public sentiment throughout Germany. The aim was to irreversibly transform the Wehrmacht into a mainstay of National Socialist ideology while neutralizing the influence of the officer corps.

The propaganda soon began to take effect. Accounts of public morale gave the impression that Hitler was again able to kindle renewed enthusiasm among the German people. While many bulletins were exaggerated, many Germans undoubtedly disapproved of the assassination attempt.


http://www.gdw-berlin.de/b12/images/b12-bex-2li.jpg

http://www.gdw-berlin.de/b12/b12-1-e.php
http://www.gdw-berlin.de/b12/b12-2-e.php
http://www.gdw-berlin.de/b12/b12-3-e.php
http://www.gdw-berlin.de/b12/b12-4-e.php

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, March 30th, 2008, 11:39 PM
It seems to me I have read varying opinions on him including some by Loki and Thorburn at Skadi. This is a complex issue since it involves loyality, assassination, treason, the Army, oaths, and so on so I will leave this debate to the Germans.

It should be mentioned that there is another school of thought which has surfaced recently being put forth by Ralf Ettl who says that this plot was backed by much "higher ups", such as Speer and Kammler who wanted another Nazi government but without Hitler at its head. According to Ettl, they went so far as to print new stationary "4th Reich". This was said to be Projket Avalon.

Dagna
Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 03:14 PM
I do not really believe Stauffenber committed treason to Germany. He did not want to act against Germany, but against Hitler. I believe loyalty has limits and if the leadership goes insane and abuses the nation, there should be no obligation to hold true to him anymore. Stauffenberg was a hero and he died for Germany. Hitler wanted a personality cult. Stauffenberg's last words were "Es lebe unser heiliges Deutschland!" ("Long live our holy Germany!").

I believe Stauffenberg was a good example of a man who put his nation first and foremost.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Bendler_Block_Memorial.jpg/491px-Bendler_Block_Memorial.jpg

Bärin
Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 03:28 PM
I endorse Stauffenberg. I think NS started out ok, people benefiting from economic and social changes but then Hitler turned into a madman and started making unfitting decisions about the people and his generals. When a dictator makes bad decisions and abuses his role, it's time for him to be removed from power. Dictatorship should serve the country; a dictator must take care of his country as if the citizens were his children, so not hurt them or anything like that. Not to mention he was better looking than Hitler. :-O

Nachtengel
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 07:13 AM
How can he be "noble and hero"? He was a traitor!

Dagna
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 12:31 PM
How can he be "noble and hero"? He was a traitor!
A traitor to what? Worshipping Adolf Hitler? Hitler was going insane and pushed Germany into continuing a futile war which destroyed a big part of Germany and its people.

"We shall not capitulate... no never. We may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us... a world in flames." - Adolf Hitler

Stauffenberg cared for his people and for Germany. Hitler did not. He was a madman with too much pride.

Boche
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 12:38 PM
I'm already looking forward to the american Movie about this.

But Stauffenberg is not a Hero. He and the Others tried something good and heroic for Germany, but failed and even killed Innocents.
He would be a Hero if he would have shot Hitler, then no innocents would have died and Hitler would have been dead.




Gruß,
Boche

Aeternitas
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 12:56 PM
I think his intentions were heroic. He was sensible enough to realize Germany was losing the war and the excesses of National Socialism and Hitler needed to be removed, he was sensible enough to realize that a revolt from the masses was not doable. But yes one could say that he committed treason because he broke his oath of loyalty to Hitler. That raises the question though, what is the validity and value of such oaths of loyalty. I generally find oaths of loyalty to persons embodying the nation instead of simply the nation to be dubious. Humans are flawed, and unconditional support for a leader can turn out to be detrimental should he lose sense of reality. There is a saying "all is fair in love and war", and sometimes it takes treason towards something/someone in order to achieve a higher cause. IMO, betraying Hitler was not what is reproachable about his acts, but the assassination method he chose. Planting bombs which could (and actually did) hurt other parties is not the most appropriate way to eliminate someone without causing third party victims. Stauffenberg himself couldn't have shot Hitler of course, given his handicap, but he could have assigned someone else who was capable of doing it. So a hero he would have been, IMO, if the plot had been successful without other victims and the unconditional surrender of Germany had been avoided. But of course he deserves credit for his intentions.

As for his idolization in the FRG, that the FRG endorses him is not a reason to dismiss him immediately. The FRG will obviously praise anyone who opposed Hitler, however Stauffenberg had little to do with the principles the FRG is preaching. Stauffenberg was a conservative nationalist.

John Wolf
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 02:40 AM
Hello, I am wondering what the German members of the forum think of Von Stauffenberg. The new government he and others tried to create and his attempted move to kill Hitler and then get rid of the Nazi government. Do you Germans support his group's actions or are they condemned?

Link to the upcoming movie and vague description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valkyrie_(film)

Jäger
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 01:14 PM
Traitor, yet, due to his failure, the actions of his gang did more damage to Germany, and maybe even prevented victory.

Hauke Haien
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 03:45 PM
Stauffenberg would have to be considered a hero if he had succeeded in his goals, which went well beyond the assassination as such. He apparently did not realise that our enemies were not interested in removing Hitler rather than destroying and subjugating Germany herself as a potential competitor and an independent centre of power.

As it stands, Stauffenberg is a breaker of oaths and a traitor while Hitler merely failed to fulfil his duties as the leader of the German people in a successful manner.

Corvin
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 05:02 PM
Hello
Most of the Germans today consider Stauffenberg as a true hero of the Patriotic Movement of Germans which of course has nothing to do with National Socialism. In addition, there is a growing amount of books in support of this theory due to the attempt to ensure that the Germans should fight any National Socialist movement in favour of a simple Bourgois patriotism.
Definetely, Stauffenberg was a traitor not because he tried to assasinate Hitler, but because he tried to do that during a situation of War. Stauffenberg gains from history, not only the title of the traitor, but also the title of the first bourgois German. This type of German was the reason that Germany falled, simple because the Germans failed to defend Germany until death. It comes as no surpise that Stauffenberg-sort of personality is much adored today.
C.v.A.

Grimm
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 05:42 PM
Since another non-German responded, I'll take that as carte blanche to give my opinion. I'm going to look beyond the question of whether attempting to assassinate Hitler was a good thing or a bad thing, to give my take on whether his modus operandi was that of a hero.

A real hero would've sacrificed his own life in order to make sure the job was done. Does a hero just leave a bomb and sneak away to save himself? And what about the lesser-knowns that he killed that day? I guess in his mind they were expendable but he wasn't? What kind of hero is that? He was a coward.

beowulf wodenson
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 06:03 PM
I find the whole story of Stauffenberg's assassination plot fascinating especially in how "charmed" Hitler's life seemed to be even with a bomb at his feet.
I look forward to seeing Hymiewood's portrayal of it, despite its no doubt usual level of anti-German content.
As for the appraisal of Stauffenberg as a "hero" or "traitor", that's a question best left to the Germans in my opinion. I ain't no German and "don't have any dogs in that fight".
The idea of functionaries of the present Bundes-regime in any way appropriating as a symbol a man that would likely have despised them and their degenerate socialist "democracy" is highly amusing,though.

John Wolf
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 06:20 PM
A traitor to what? Worshipping Adolf Hitler? Hitler was going insane and pushed Germany into continuing a futile war which destroyed a big part of Germany and its people.

"We shall not capitulate... no never. We may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us... a world in flames." - Adolf Hitler

Stauffenberg cared for his people and for Germany. Hitler did not. He was a madman with too much pride.

Thank God there are sane German people on here like you. :)


Hello
Most of the Germans today consider Stauffenberg as a true hero of the Patriotic Movement of Germans which of course has nothing to do with National Socialism. In addition, there is a growing amount of books in support of this theory due to the attempt to ensure that the Germans should fight any National Socialist movement in favour of a simple Bourgois patriotism.
Definetely, Stauffenberg was a traitor not because he tried to assasinate Hitler, but because he tried to do that during a situation of War. Stauffenberg gains from history, not only the title of the traitor, but also the title of the first bourgois German. This type of German was the reason that Germany falled, simple because the Germans failed to defend Germany until death. It comes as no surpise that Stauffenberg-sort of personality is much adored today.
C.v.A.

Yeah I've noticed that from bbc news interviews with Modern Day German's and whilst killing someone you've sworn loyalty to, is not something you should really do paticularly in wartime. It certainly was neccesary to try and remove the Nazi's scourge which condemmed anyone who opposed it in the Countries it occupied in Civilian clothing to the Concentration Camps, German or anyone else. :D

Hauke Haien
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 08:36 PM
A real hero would've sacrificed his own life in order to make sure the job was done. Does a hero just leave a bomb and sneak away to save himself?
As I said, his plans went far beyond the assassination and he would not have been able to carry them out after a suicide attack. He only made the attempt at all because all others had already lost their opportunities to take over that part of the operation.


And what about the lesser-knowns that he killed that day? I guess in his mind they were expendable but he wasn't?
Of course.


What kind of hero is that? He was a coward.
Stauffenberg tried to be a heroic leader, not a heroic martyr. He knew about the consequences of a failed attempt and suffered them. His plans for Germany were flawed, but he was not aware of that.

Chlodovech
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 11:15 PM
I noticed in this thread that a reoccuring motivation for deeming Von Stauffenberg a hero, at the very least because of his intentions, is the predicament Germany was in - but was the UK doing any better on the day of the assination attempt on Hitler, four years earlier, july the 20th 1940? In fact, German troops were much closer to London back then, than the allies in regards to Berlin on july the 20th '44. It would've made sense from British perspective to make peace with Germany then and there, as the German government offered favorable terms, and suggested to retreat from Norway, Danmark, the Low Countries and France. Within the British elite there were several proponents of this idea.

Churchill however, vowed to fight to the death and to make his personal last stance in London, just as Hitler did in Berlin. What eventually happened to Germany was more likely to become of Britain in those early summer days of 1940 - so, should somebody have considered murdering Churchill?

The ground battle for the UK would've been a fight to the death, and the so-called home guard - the elderly - would've participated in that battle too, not unlike how Germany committed its own population to the defence of the Reich. The Brits had not enough modern weaponry to equip even two divisions, defeating a full scale invasion was impossible, any resistance once the Germans gained a foothold on English soil would've proved pointless.

This invasion of Britain seemed emminent after the fall of France. When the summer of 1940 ended, Hitler shifted his attention to Russia, and it's mainly that factor, combined with Hitler showing no desire to destruct the superpower Britain, that saved the UK from the apocalyptic fate of Germany in '45 - perhaps more so than the brave fighter pilots of the RAF, however heroic their defense of their island.

So, Van Stauffenberg - hero, traitor, who will tell?

Hauke Haien said it best, and I would add: If Von Stauffenberg had a more realistic view of the world he might have never detonated the bomb in the first place. It would never have resulted in Germany retreating on its borders from '37, or any other daydream one might entertain.

rainman
Friday, January 2nd, 2009, 11:34 PM
Seems goofy. Communism's goal was to take over the world and Germany wasthe U.S.S.R.'s next target. Yeah in hindsight if Hitler had known that the Soviets were as strong as they were he wouldn't have attacked. But the only way Germany would be safe in the long run was to take out the Soviet Union. If it wasn't for the Nazis the west would have lost the cold war.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, January 3rd, 2009, 01:21 AM
In Germanic terms, a leader without Heil is not a leader and the conspirators were right to challenge Hitler when the ability to win battles was no longer felt. Only when he defeated the conspiracy did he prove his right to leadership anew and also passed judgment on the validity of the attempt.

Koenigsberg
Saturday, January 3rd, 2009, 04:45 AM
I will start off by admitting that I have not read any biographies on Stauffenberg, but I have read a few, lenthy articles.

If his beliefs were correct, that by killing Hitler and following up on his plans, he could secure peace with either the West or the Soviets, or both, than I think he had a good enough reason to act.

However, I would have thought it would have been rather obvious that neither accepted peace deals when they were losing and they wouldn't when they were winning.

For me, the fact that Hitler did not die - as in the numerous other assassination attempts - is testimate that he was meant to rule until his death.


I noticed in this thread that a reoccuring motivation for deeming Von Stauffenberg a hero, at the very least because of his intentions, is the predicament Germany was in - but was the UK doing any better on the day of the assination attempt on Hitler, four years earlier, july the 20th 1940? In fact, German troops were much closer to London back then, than the allies in regards to Berlin on july the 20th '44. It would've made sense from British perspective to make peace with Germany then and there, as the German government offered favorable terms, and suggested to retreat from Norway, Danmark, the Low Countries and France. Within the British elite there were several proponents of this idea.

Churchill however, vowed to fight to the death and to make his personal last stance in London, just as Hitler did in Berlin. What eventually happened to Germany was more likely to become of Britain in those early summer days of 1940 - so, should somebody have considered murdering Churchill?

The ground battle for the UK would've been a fight to the death, and the so-called home guard - the elderly - would've participated in that battle too, not unlike how Germany committed its own population to the defence of the Reich. The Brits had not enough modern weaponry to equip even two divisions, defeating a full scale invasion was impossible, any resistance once the Germans gained a foothold on English soil would've proved pointless.

This invasion of Britain seemed emminent after the fall of France. When the summer of 1940 ended, Hitler shifted his attention to Russia, and it's mainly that factor, combined with Hitler showing no desire to destruct the superpower Britain, that saved the UK from the apocalyptic fate of Germany in '45 - perhaps more so than the brave fighter pilots of the RAF, however heroic their defense of their island.

So, Van Stauffenberg - hero, traitor, who will tell?

Hauke Haien said it best, and I would add: If Von Stauffenberg had a more realistic view of the world he might have never detonated the bomb in the first place. It would never have resulted in Germany retreating on its borders from '37, or any other daydream one might entertain.

Judging by the actions of the Allies, particularly Britain, if they did take the return to 1939 or even 1937 borders, they would have used this to rearm and invade Germany.

One can make scenarios up as much as one would like as to whether this or that would have happened if Hitler did not invade this or that country. In the end, every country he invaded, he invaded for a good reason; and yes, even Denmark and Norway.

Jäger
Saturday, January 3rd, 2009, 11:22 AM
Thank God there are sane German people on here like you. :)
She is not German.


In Germanic terms, a leader without Heil is not a leader and the conspirators were right to challenge Hitler when the ability to win battles was no longer felt.
Staufenberg chose the wrong allies, most of his gang did everything to harm the German war effort. If you sabotage the war effort, you shouldn't wonder about the lack of Heil.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Staufenberg chose the wrong allies, most of his gang did everything to harm the German war effort. If you sabotage the war effort, you shouldn't wonder about the lack of Heil.

The corrupt NS-regime was the one who has spoilt the war effords and sabotaged peace effords - not to mention it was them havings started the war. I am convinced if Germany had liberated herself, we today would be better off.

Jäger
Thursday, January 15th, 2009, 08:17 AM
The corrupt NS-regime was the one who has spoilt the war effords and sabotaged peace effords - not to mention it was them havings started the war.
That's not the point, just your rumblings, the one who has "Heil" will find it in war as in peace.

Aptrgangr
Thursday, January 15th, 2009, 08:07 PM
That's not the point, just your rumblings, the one who has "Heil" will find it in war as in peace.
But that exactly is the point - you said "most of his gang did everything to harm the German war effort. If you sabotage the war effort, you shouldn't wonder about the lack of Heil". Unfortunately the right-wing/national-conservatives, this gang, did way too much to support the aggressions of the Ns-gangsters. Too late they noticed they were hijacked by a monstrous regime that only claimed to serve Germany but in reality did not. And Hitler found his "Heil" in a bullet, nothing bad with that, but unfortunately way too late.

Hauke Haien
Thursday, January 15th, 2009, 09:49 PM
- not to mention it was them havings started the war.
They started a war, not the war. The failure to control the situation and emerge victorious from it, that is what can be meaningfully criticised.


I am convinced if Germany had liberated herself, we today would be better off.
How would self-liberation (= voluntary foreign domination) have improved our situation? Would we find ourselves looking forward to a bright future, similar to the one England has now?

Aptrgangr
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 06:46 PM
They started a war, not the war.
A war, not the war? Makes no difference, war is a war.


The failure to control the situation and emerge victorious from it, that is what can be meaningfully criticised.
Apparely exactly this drives Nutzees around the wall - it was never them and always the otherside which is to be blamed for any mistake.


How would self-liberation (= voluntary foreign domination) have improved our situation? Would we find ourselves looking forward to a bright future, similar to the one England has now?
The substance of the German folk and nation would have remained intact, similar to the post-WW1 era. Taking the German people hostage until the bitter end did not only cost millions of lifes, destroy the nation butalso has destroyed any trust into any national-orientated policy for generations, and since we come a step closer to the point of no return every day passing, maybe for ever.

Hauke Haien
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 07:35 PM
A war, not the war? Makes no difference, war is a war.
Various powers meddled on their own accord, which escalated the war. It is the inability to either prevent this or to destroy all enemy powers that constitutes the only moral failure here. There is nothing wrong with starting a victorious war.


The substance of the German folk and nation would have remained intact, similar to the post-WW1 era. Taking the German people hostage until the bitter end did not only cost millions of lifes, destroy the nation butalso has destroyed any trust into any national-orientated policy for generations, and since we come a step closer to the point of no return every day passing, maybe for ever.
The difference between Weimar and FRG is that the former was centered on self-determination through positive law, while the latter is a self-sustaining liberal democracy. It would not be legally possible to have a folkish policy even if the people wanted it, and great care is taken that they do not. This system was designed to keep us part of the American sphere of influence, much like the GDR system was designed to keep it in the Soviet sphere of influence.

Now: Do you think that the US and the SU would not have divided Europe among themselves if "Germany had liberated itself" during the war?

Aptrgangr
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 09:50 PM
Various powers meddled on their own accord, which escalated the war. It is the inability to either prevent this or to destroy all enemy powers that constitutes the only moral failure here.
Germany did nothing to prevent this catastrophe, it fuelled it instead of considering a clear balanced and anti-imperialist policy which suits to a central European power.


There is nothing wrong with starting a victorious war.
So Stalin was right invading Finland?


The difference between Weimar and FRG is that the former was centered on self-determination through positive law, while the latter is a self-sustaining liberal democracy. It would not be legally possible to have a folkish policy even if the people wanted it, and great care is taken that they do not. This system was designed to keep us part of the American sphere of influence, much like the GDR system was designed to keep it in the Soviet sphere of influence.
That is obvious, the point is the resistance against this has failed as NS did much to alienate Germans from Germany by claiming their policy was pro-German. As soon as there is no clear distance to the past NS regime, there will be no advancement.


Now: Do you think that the US and the SU would not have divided Europe among themselves if "Germany had liberated itself" during the war?
They would have, but Germans would not loath themselves as much as they do now. It is possible to maintain a national pride, even under centuries long occupation.
- it would spared Germans cheering the "Rosinenbombers" of1948/49 which had thrown bombs on them a few years before as liberators.

Hauke Haien
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 10:26 PM
Germany did nothing to prevent this catastrophe, it fuelled it instead of considering a clear balanced and anti-imperialist policy which suits to a central European power.
There is no advantage to such a policy. It allows other powers to grow and attack us at their own convenience, or simply dominate us like the US does with its European stooges, termed friends and allies.


So Stalin was right invading Finland?
The success of the competition is always immoral.


That is obvious, the point is the resistance against this has failed as NS did much to alienate Germans from Germany by claiming their policy was pro-German.
The West and its social model alienated Germans from Germany, much like it has alienated all other peoples within it from their roots. Slandering NS is just a way to facilitate this.


As soon as there is no clear distance to the past NS regime, there will be no advancement.
The people are mostly interested in what can work and what can benefit them, and perhaps inspires them on top of it. Anti-NS tirades certainly do not create distance, they invite comparisons and give the impression that there is in fact not enough distance.


They would have, but Germans would not loath themselves as much as they do now. It is possible to maintain a national pride, even under centuries long occupation.
They would still be forced to feel sorry for not folding sooner. The narrative can always be changed to suit the needs of the dominating power and its collaborators on our soil.

Aptrgangr
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 11:15 PM
There is no advantage to such a policy. It allows other powers to grow and attack us at their own convenience, or simply dominate us like the US does with its European stooges, termed friends and allies.
According to you it is always the stonger that dominates - why your lament? That s what Germanics (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=111394) have become, that´s the natural order, no? Why bother?
Noone would have found a reason to attack a neutral Germany that cares about the own prosperity instead of expanding into their countries and spheres of interest.


The success of the competition is always immoral.
Depends on the player, there is no need to compete with unjust aggressors on who is the best in subjugating weaker ones.


The West and its social model alienated Germans from Germany, much like it has alienated all other peoples within it from their roots. Slandering NS is just a way to facilitate this.
Have you ever thought about why the "West" has such a tremendous succuess? Simply because the terms "folk and nation" are toxic and are not seen as desirable alternative as it is equalled with war, hunger, concentration camps and arbitrariness. And who is it we have we owe this?


The people are mostly interested in what can work and what can benefit them, and perhaps inspires them on top of it. Anti-NS tirades certainly do not create distance, they invite comparisons and give the impression that there is in fact not enough distance.
There is not enough distance - that´s why people shun any form of nationalism, no matter how outrageous the situation has become.


They would still be forced to feel sorry for not folding sooner. The narrative can always be changed to suit the needs of the dominating power and its collaborators on our soil.
Sure, I just said we´d been better off, I did not say it would have been perfect. The result of the moral bankruptcy of NS and collaborating nationalism is plain to see.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, January 17th, 2009, 12:10 AM
According to you it is always the stonger that dominates - why your lament? That s what Germanics (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=111394) have become, that´s the natural order, no? Why bother?
We can complain that gravity drags us down, and we can also try to stand up straight. That the stronger force dominates a weaker one is just a fact, it is not a moral judgment we have to follow. On the contrary, it implies that we have to become stronger and weaken our enemy in order to destroy him.


Noone would have found a reason to attack a neutral Germany that cares about the own prosperity instead of expanding into their countries and spheres of interest.
The SU fired at its own positions in order to attack Finland, the US attacked countless countries under lame pretexts.


Depends on the player, there is no need to compete with unjust aggressors on who is the best in subjugating weaker ones.
If your spirit is broken and you have accepted the death of your folk, then there is really no need for anything anymore. Until then, there is no higher authority on what is just and unjust. As a rule of thumb, aggression against us is unjust and aggression against others must be judged by how it relates to us.


Have you ever thought about why the "West" has such a tremendous succuess?
Unrestrained economic strength coupled with nuclear deterrence and the strong ability to convert followers to its perverted cause.


Simply because the terms "folk and nation" are toxic and are not seen as desirable alternative as it is equalled with war, hunger, concentration camps and arbitraryness. And who is it we have we owe this?
Reality, I assume. The folkish way is not always pleasant, but it has meaning and it has purpose. The West offers us a pointless life centered around lifeless things, with little joy and little pain, because none of it reaches the profound meaning that being part of a community and contributing to its higher purpose entails. It is in fact the experience of a common struggle as a people that energised our ancestors the most and many still miss it.


There is not enough distance - that´s why people shun any form of nationalism, no matter how outrageous the situation has become.
When you distance yourself, they will just throw the mud further in your direction. It is better to stay on message in a way that reaches people where they stand now and helps them change perspective.


Sure, I just said we´d been better off, I did not say it would have been perfect. The result of the moral bankruptcy of NS and collaborating nationalism is plain to see.
If liberal values act as a benchmark for non-liberal ideologies, then they will of course fail this test, because they do not try to conform to liberal values in the first place. In short: "Apples are bad, because they are not oranges."

Aptrgangr
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 04:07 PM
We can complain that gravity drags us down, and we can also try to stand up straight. That the stronger force dominates a weaker one is just a fact, it is not a moral judgment we have to follow. On the contrary, it implies that we have to become stronger and weaken our enemy in order to destroy him.
There lies the problem, so far the national side completely failed in becoming stronger due to the adherence of ideologial fallacies and pipe-dreams.


The SU fired at its own positions in order to attack Finland, the US attacked countless countries under lame pretexts.
That means we may propagate the same? Nay thanks.


If your spirit is broken and you have accepted the death of your folk, then there is really no need for anything anymore. Until then, there is no higher authority on what is just and unjust. As a rule of thumb, aggression against us is unjust and aggression against others must be judged by how it relates to us.
I am all for self-defence - but propagating the same errors made during the 3rd Reich will not lead to any sort of awakening.


Unrestrained economic strength coupled with nuclear deterrence and the strong ability to convert followers to its perverted cause.
Counter-measures?


Reality, I assume. The folkish way is not always pleasant, but it has meaning and it has purpose. The West offers us a pointless life centered around lifeless things, with little joy and little pain, because none of it reaches the profound meaning that being part of a community and contributing to its higher purpose entails. It is in fact the experience of a common struggle as a people that energised our ancestors the most and many still miss it.
So you admit yourself folkish policy is just a certain minority/fringe group these days. Agreed, and it likely remains this way as the German nation as such will go down. The only interesting point is whether there will be German communities living or not.


When you distance yourself, they will just throw the mud further in your direction. It is better to stay on message in a way that reaches people where they stand now and helps them change perspective.
The message we need to attack Poland etc.pp. reaches only a fringe group.


If liberal values act as a benchmark for non-liberal ideologies, then they will of course fail this test, because they do not try to conform to liberal values in the first place. In short: "Apples are bad, because they are not oranges."
...and the result is plain to see. It is about making a change into a positive direction, something NS obviously can´t offer.

Jäger
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 05:55 PM
... due to the adherence of ideologial fallacies ...
What are ideological fallacies?


That means we may propagate the same? Nay thanks.
No, that means both the SU and the US might have found enough reasons, contrary to your claim they wouldn't.
You do that very often, make a claim, and when a response disproves you, you talk like you wouldn't have said anything before.

Aptrgangr
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 06:17 PM
What are ideological fallacies?
Idologocally motivated claims and pipe-dreams that do not become true even after having repeated a thousand times. For example people wake up to the immigration problem after immigrants commit more and more crimes, or people re-detect their heritage in times of an economic crisis.


No, that means both the SU and the US might have found enough reasons, contrary to your claim they wouldn't.
What reason would the US have had to go to war with a peaceful self-orientated Germany? And again, there is no doubt the SU was an aggressive empire, still this sort of policy can´t be a model. I´s a typical NS sham to point with the finger at Stalin for having invaded the Baltics, and GB for having conquered many people world wide, but ignore the fact the invasions of neighbouring European countries also is an inacceptable aggression.


You do that very often, make a claim, and when a response disproves you, you talk like you wouldn't have said anything before.
Noone has disproven me - I just made clear the classic NS promoted here overall is no improvement to the current FRG. It was said " iIf liberal values act as a benchmark for non-liberal ideologies.." if, but it is not. The liberal democracy, communism and national-socialism altogether are all the coffin nails for traditionalism and German/European heritage, not just one of these examples.

Hauke Haien
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 06:40 PM
I am all for self-defence - but propagating the same errors made during the 3rd Reich will not lead to any sort of awakening.
No, let's just propagate that we are facing destruction, but that we are not allowed to work towards our continuation, because of the liberal system of morality that is causing it in the first place.


Counter-measures?
There are examples of conflicts that did not trigger a nuclear response and there are also communities that have proven greater resilience against the West. I suppose one could get some ideas this way and build on that.


The message we need to attack Poland etc.pp. reaches only a fringe group.
It is more about the attitude that this is permissible if it is both feasible and helpful to us.


...and the result is plain to see. It is about making a change into a positive direction, something NS obviously can´t offer.
Ideas can be abstracted and re-employed if they fit, but historical reenactment is not a goal as such, if that is what you mean.


What reason would the US have had to go to war with a peaceful self-orientated Germany?
None, just like the US has no interest in going to war with England, which is happily debasing and killing itself, calling that victory.

Verðandi
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 11:10 PM
Source: Deutsche Welle (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4500927,00.html) (7-20-09)
Ceremonies to mark the failed asssassination attempt of July 20, 1944, will be held at the Berlin Resistance Memorial Centers at Bendlerblock, seat of the Defense Ministry and a major memorial for the assassination plot, and at Ploetzensee, the former prison where many hundreds of people were executed between 1933 and 1945.

In addition, German conscripts take their traditional solemn oath at a swearing-in ceremony in front of the Reichstag building on Monday. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung are expected to address the roughly 400 Bundeswehr soldiers of the 3rd and 7th company of the guard, who will then pledge to "faithfully serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to bravely defend the German people's rights and freedom."

The ceremonial oath is taken annually on July 20th in commemoration of the conspirators of the failed assassination of Adolf Hitler on that date in 1944.



More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/hnn/zxkz/~3/OpLbgncRzhg/103817.html)

Sigurd
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 01:48 PM
Strangely enough, this has to be the first year I did not see much of commemoration of Stauffenberg on the news: Obama The Messiah has been in office for half a year, and it's been 40 years since the first Moon Landing.

In the light of the two great achievements of contemporate history - wasting several billions of taxpayers' money to put a man on the moon; and getting a mulatto into office that has thus far only talked and talked but not acted particularly much (apart from dissolving Guantanamo Bay and subsequentlycheekily asking Europe if we can take some prisoners in, of course! :thumbdown) - this "greatest hero of German history" has been utterly forgotten in commemoration.

Such a shame, really... ;)

StormjaerKommando
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 03:17 PM
It remains a failed attempt. :D
Guess this is all they could muster seeing as he denied them the sick pleasure of Nuremberg.:P

Curleycc
Friday, July 30th, 2010, 01:48 PM
Staufenberg was a worthless traitor who's actions severely crippled the third Reich and he is no hero,by any standards.Planting a bomb and running is a cowardly and traiterous act that the German people must stop glorifying.Hitler was the Fuhrer and was by far the fgreater man,perhaps the greatest German ever,.

Rächer
Wednesday, August 4th, 2010, 12:52 PM
Staufenberg was a worthless traitor who's actions severely crippled the third Reich and he is no hero,by any standards.Planting a bomb and running is a cowardly and traiterous act that the German people must stop glorifying.Hitler was the Fuhrer and was by far the fgreater man,perhaps the greatest German ever,.

I 100% agree with you !

What those idiot traitors didn't even realise then(or their glorifiers now), was that the enemy would not settle for peace even with them: the total destruction of Deutschland and of the German spirit was their goal!

arcticdoctor
Thursday, August 5th, 2010, 05:26 PM
For what it's worth. From TBR News.Dec 10, 2007

" After the 20. Juli attentat, Hitler had Heinrich Müller, Chef of Amt IV (Gestapo) of the RSHA set up a Sonderkommission to investigate the ramifications of the plot.

According to Müller's microfilmed official files, Claus Schenck Graf von Stauffenberg, and his brother, Brethold, were both practicing homosexuals and earlier had been active and participating members of the 'Stefan George Kreise' which was entirely homosexual in nature.

Claus and his brother, who was in the Kreigsmarine as a Richter, lived in Berlin and after the failed attentat, the Gestapo raided their house. It was stuffed with blackmarket goods, all forbidden, many photo albums of naked young men and women's clothing and many photographs also found in the house, showed clearly that Claus was a 175er without question.

The Müller files also contain pictures of Claus in women's underwear which, I assure you, is not appetizing.

Since Claus has been elevated to the political sainthood in Germany, any records concerning his perversions that might be in the Bundesarchiv are closed to pubic inspection.

It is fortunate for objective history that a full copy of Müller Sonderkommission papers survived the war although Müller ordered all Gestapo records destroyed before the war's end.

As you might not know, Heinrich Müller survived the war by going to Switzerland under the name of Schwartzer and in 1948, was recruited by his standing deputy, SS-Oberführer Willi Krichbaum (later head of the Geheime Feldpolizei) who was working down at Bad Reichenhall for U.S. Colonel James Critchfield's Gehlen Org, then located at Pullach.

I have boxes of documentation, and rolls of microfilms, that both the current German government, the CIA and members of the Stauffenberg family, not to mention the motion picture company now preparing a film on Stauffenberg's role in the attentat, would dearly like to redact, if not destroy.

Fortunately for objective truth, I do not agree with them and in the months to come, intend to publish some of the more interesting documents...and especially photographs...for the edification and education of the public.

As an antidote to Tom Cruise strutting around the sound stage (and I suspect he was type-cast for the role) we can see Claus in his step-ins and engaged in homoerotic activity with handsome young soldiers.

The brief mention of Claus' deviant activities in the last issue of tbrnews is the opening shot and I assure you, with great pleasure, there will be much more to come.

The really gratifying aspect of this entire scenario is that there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to prevent this.

Hochachtungsvoll!

Walter Storch"

Stimme
Thursday, August 5th, 2010, 05:35 PM
I assume some of you might want to kill me for that (as we have a lot of 'ALL FAGGITZ MUST DIE!!!11oneone' guys on this board) but this doesn't make me think less of him. As Sigurd sometimes mentions: It is none of our business what people do inside their own 4 walls. Stauffenberg still had a wife and 3(4?) children. So if he was gay, he still did his part to the preservation of the German people.

wittwer
Thursday, August 5th, 2010, 11:02 PM
Stauffenberg was the last triggerman in a long line of political assassins or patriots (depending on which side of the fence one stands) who were out to eliminate Hitler (the crazy man) the Nazis and the Third Reich. Like all the others, he failed, was taken prisoner, tortured and executed.

As for all of this forthcoming "evidence" about his sexual pecadillios and the like, has anyone even stopped and thought that it all may have been "planted" simply to assassinate Stauffenberg's character at the time of his execution and in the future? A common practice by the SS, Gestapo and Courts at the time to "doctor up" the files before closing them.

Thorburn
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 03:20 AM
I assume some of you might want to kill me for that (as we have a lot of 'ALL FAGGITZ MUST DIE!!!11oneone' guys on this board) but this doesn't make me think less of him. As Sigurd sometimes mentions: It is none of our business what people do inside their own 4 walls. Stauffenberg still had a wife and 3(4?) children. So if he was gay, he still did his part to the preservation of the German people.Isn't it always fascinating what kind of despicable, decadent and malicious "facts" and "evidence" totalitarian regimes manage to uncover and reveal about formerly highly decorated and appreciated associates, once they, frequently commanded by their conscience, begin to criticize or even turn openly against the regime, its dictator and its gorged leadership? It's as fascinating as that their secret ser..., er, the neutral and objective investigation committees, of course, never manage to find anything exculpating or positive. :P

I can really imagine Stauffenberg dancing half-naked in women's underwear in front of a mirror to jazz music. As much as I can imagine Hitler chewing on carpets. Not.

Everyone enjoys the liberty to form his own opinion about Stauffenberg, but two facts cannot be disputed:

Firstly, attempting to spare the lives of millions of German recruits and civilians during a war which unarguably was already lost at this time (summer 1944) isn't treacherous but a patriot's duty.

And secondly, whatever Stauffenberg stood for, it wasn't even remotely the pseudo-democratic, anti-fascist, multi-cultural, socialist nonsense today's cowardly governing "elite" of the FRG embraces: anti-German marionettes which really have the impertinence to claim him as one of theirs.

If Stauffenberg lived today, he would look at today's governing prostitutes with utmost disgust and would be considered a "right-wing extremist" and "enemy of the state" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

ohrdruf
Thursday, August 12th, 2010, 05:36 PM
There was far more to Hitler than simply a dictator. Stauffenberg, Witzleben, Canaris, von Hassell, Goerdeler and the other conspirators opposed him without seeing from where his mission originated.

I quote from August Kubizek's "Adolf Hitler - Mein Jugendfreund" (Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz, 1953: special edition 2002, page 111 et seq. Chapter Eleven "In That Hour It Began..."). Here is my free translation:

"...What remains most enduring, clear and potent in the memory of my youthful friendship with Adolf Hitler is not his speeches or even his political ideas, but that night on the Freinberg mountain which decided his future...His decision to follow the path of politician was taken in November 1906 in that lonely hour above the heights of the town of Linz.

"Perhaps the word 'decision' is not the right one, for it was not a decision of choice, but more a visionary recognition, fully outside his Will, of the road he was being obliged to take.

"We had attended a performance of 'Rienzi'. We left the concert hall at midnight and walked along the road which led out of town...it was damp, and a cold mist lay over the streets. The path led through meadowlands above the mist. An unseen energy drove Adolf to the peak of the Freinberg mountain.

"Once there, Adolf stood before me, grasped my hands and held them fast. I had never known him do this before. I felt by the pressure of his hands how deeply emotional he was. His eyes were fevered with excitement.

"Gradually he began to orate freely in a most robust manner. Never before or later did I hear him hold forth as he did that night under the stars. I find it impossible to repeat the words he spoke. I saw in him something quite astounding. It was as if another Ego was speaking from within him, moving him with the same feverish emotion as it did me. It was not an orator becoming enraptured by his own words. On the contrary! I had the impression that Adolf Hitler was amazed as he watched, deeply affected, what was pouring from his mouth with primaeval force...The words broke forth from him like when flood waters pour through a burst dam. In wide-ranging, electrifying images he described his own future and that of the German peoples.

"Until than I had been convinced that my friend wanted to be an artist, a painter, an architect. There was no longer any talk of this. For him something higher existed which I could not understand. It surprised me, because I thought that in his opinion the calling of artist was the highest goal worth aiming for. But now he spoke of a mission which he would receive from the Volk, to lead them from slavery into the uplands of freedom...

"...When on 3 August 1939 I was received as a guest of Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler at Bayreuth for the first time, I believe it gave him much pleasure to be reminded of that nocturnal hour on the Freinberg. I recalled for Adolf Hitler those memories I retained of our friendship, thinking that his achievements over the intervening thirty-three years would have forced into the background our own common experiences as 17-year olds. As soon as I began speaking I sensed at once that he remembered that hour on the Freinberg very clearly, all details remaining razor-sharp in his mind. It gave him visible pleasure to have his own recollection confirmed.

I was also present when he recounted the Freinberg incident to Frau Wagner, our hostess. I will never forget how he concluded with the grave phrase: "In that hour it began..."


What is suggested here is possession, as a medium is possessed, by some exterior spiritual force. This idea of a mission is reinforced by such things as the study window allowing Hitler to gaze upon the mystical Untersberg mountain with its Templar-Grail history, and Hitler secretly calling the Berghof "Gralsburg" - the fortress of the Grail - insinuating that Hitler himself was the Grail, the cup which held knowledge.

In one of his sixaine verses, Nostradamus hints at Hitler as the 'Phoenix' - the mythical bird which is immolated, rising from the ashes of its own destruction by fire to establish a new realm or Reich. Thus the total defeat. Hitler must have known this from the outset. There are indications that the Allies won 98% of the Second World War, and the 2% they did not win - the retention of the advanced technologies of Thulean origin - will eventually lead to their downfall, utter and final, within our lifetime.

It would have been difficult for Stauffenberg and the others to know all this, or to believe it, and so they set out in their hopeless endeavour to confront and overturn the future history of this planet. They did their best, as they saw their duty, as men, and should be credited for their gallant sacrifice, hopeless and erroneous as it was.

Zogbot
Monday, August 16th, 2010, 04:46 PM
Ew, just saw this disgrace of a thread. People idolizing a jewish traitor, disgusting.

Ocko
Monday, August 16th, 2010, 06:07 PM
Adolf Hitler was the elected Reichskanzler and the legitim and legal leader of Germany.

Hitler didn't give preferential treatment to nobles, he was a socialist. He looked who was capable and made them a leader.

Treason in the military at wartime is a tricky thing. What should have Hitler done differently? He restored Germany to his hight. Before the war Germany was brimming with energy, dynamic, strength, and so on.

It was the forces of jewish controlled England, France, later jewish controlled Russia and jewish controlled US who attacked with the will to completely destroy Germany. Like erasing Germany as a people.

Would you advocate that Germany just accept the chains of jewish oppression and hate graciously and become an ox to carry a load?

Hitler tried and was almost successful. A small country with a few allies against the rest of the world. What you can see is the fight Germany put up against overwhelming enemies which show the quality of the people of Germany against mongrelized people.

Hitler was not insane. Read his book Mein Kampf and you see a very clear thinking individual. Somebody who was not impressed by the jew propaganda.

To make treason at that point of the war was an unspeakable crime. To think the jewish controlled allies were interested in peace is stupidity of the highest degree. It only can come from nobles who interbred and diminshed their intelligence.

He didn't like the SA? What was his preference? the communist thugs the SA was fighting? Because they protected the NS movement against evil contenders in a not so noble way?

Stauffenberg was at best a stupid idealist and worst a paid traitor to the german people. That the pc world is laudating him and claiming him as a hero is a telltale sign that he was part of the antigermanic faction of the world.

He was killed for his action and thus righteously so.

Stimme
Saturday, August 21st, 2010, 03:04 PM
Stauffenberg was a coward and a traitor ! Nothing else ... he betrayed the Führer , the Fatherland and the ideals of National Socialism ...

Did he? As far as I remember he wasn't that fond of Hitler but also wished Germany to be the high nation of Europe or even the world. Had he succeeded in assassinating Hitler, he would have caused Germany's capitulation to his enemies. The country's faith would thus have been the same as with his failure but think about the outcome of possible negotiations between the Third Reich and the allies: No bombing of German cities shortly before the end of the war, no 'burned soil', no desperate acts to gain new territories in Russia with high prices (the loss of many German soldiers) to pay.

On Thiazi I once read an user's post about Speer's Germania-Berlin being possible if Germany had negotiated soon enough so that the allies had not destroyed it. German culture would have gained great reputation in the world for such a beautiful city.

Was he a traitor to Hitler? Absolutely. Was he a traitor to National Socialism? I doubt this for he was still a high rank member of the Wehrmacht fighting the allies, Germany's enemies. A traitor would not have done this if he had not believed in the NS ideology.

Ocko
Saturday, August 21st, 2010, 03:23 PM
Germans made so many peace efforts but they were all rejected. The allies had planed the complete destruction of Germany.

To believe a Colonel could make peace were AH himself couldn't was preposterous. To believe that AH was a block to peace doesn't fit facts.

arcticdoctor
Saturday, August 21st, 2010, 04:40 PM
You pro stauffenberg folks are living in a dream world.
The operative phrase is "unconditional surrender". Anyone with even cursory
knowledge of history realizes that the "allies" had no intention of "negotiating"
with Germany in any way, shape, or form.

The jew/communists had already thoroughly demonstrated their bestial
treatment of captured/conquered peoples starting with the Russian people
themselves in 1917 through the genocides in the Ukraine and in Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania.
And the "western" allies i.e. england-france amply demonstrated their
re-lie-ability in negotiations after the "armistice" of 1918.
Can you say "starve the Germans into submission".

Really, you folks need to get real. Or at least get in touch with reality.

Bleyer
Monday, August 23rd, 2010, 07:37 AM
Did he? As far as I remember he wasn't that fond of Hitler but also wished Germany to be the high nation of Europe or even the world. Had he succeeded in assassinating Hitler, he would have caused Germany's capitulation to his enemies. The country's faith would thus have been the same as with his failure but think about the outcome of possible negotiations between the Third Reich and the allies: No bombing of German cities shortly before the end of the war, no 'burned soil', no desperate acts to gain new territories in Russia with high prices (the loss of many German soldiers) to pay.

On Thiazi I once read an user's post about Speer's Germania-Berlin being possible if Germany had negotiated soon enough so that the allies had not destroyed it. German culture would have gained great reputation in the world for such a beautiful city.

Was he a traitor to Hitler? Absolutely. Was he a traitor to National Socialism? I doubt this for he was still a high rank member of the Wehrmacht fighting the allies, Germany's enemies. A traitor would not have done this if he had not believed in the NS ideology.
He was a traitor to the principles of National Socialism because he ignored the leadership principle. Hitler was central to National Socialism. Not as a private person but as a leader. Stauffenberg wanted to kill the incarnation of Germany, the nation National Socialism stood for.

Volk
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010, 12:24 AM
Stauffenberg was only the top of the iceberg !

The traitors of the OKW, OKH and Abwehr have done more damage since 1935.

Zogbot
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010, 11:41 AM
Yes. Hitler should have purged the Prussian general staff, they were a thoroughly recidivist and anti-NS element who were virtually competing for who could stab the Reich in the back the most. Von Below wrote about this in his book At Hitler's Side, quite interesting to see just how backwards and traitorous the Prussian aristocracy was. Hitler was too honorable and it cost him everything. Learn from it, budding Hitlers, and I know you're out there. Always play hard ball with those who are your enemies.

Attached a picture of the "hero" of Germany. Oh my, the Jew really came out in him, didn't it? His papa still could fool the goyim, yes he could...

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=106139&d=1282646346

Nachtengel
Saturday, July 23rd, 2016, 10:07 PM
Mark Weber – Audio recording

In July 1944 a group of German conspirators tried to kill Hitler and violently seize power in Berlin. The conspiracy's most dynamic figure was Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, who set a bomb to kill Hitler. Although it killed three men and seriously injured others, Hitler survived with only minor burns and bruises. In Germany today the anti-Hitler conspirators are honored as exemplary men of courage, conscience and principle. They are similarly portrayed in a major US motion picture, "Valkyrie," starring Tom Cruise and Kenneth Branagh. But this idealized portrayal is a "politically correct" distortion of reality. The attempt to assassinate Hitler and seize power was doomed to fail, and in fact collapsed very quickly, because it was poorly planned and ineptly organized, because it was based on a brazen lie, and because the conspirators did not understand the sentiment in the German military and among the German people. They also totally misunderstood the attitude of the Allied leaders, who sought not merely to destroy the Hitler regime, but Germany as a nation. By today's standards, von Stauffenberg and the other leading conspirators were "Nazis." They supported the policies and principles of the National Socialist government for at least five years, and only belatedly turned against the Hitler regime.
http://ihr.org/audio/archives/reality-and-legacy-1944-valkyrie-conspiracy-kill-hitler

Shadow
Sunday, July 24th, 2016, 10:59 PM
I have tried to keep out of this discussion since this ought to be for Germans, BUT if someone bombed say Obama's car would anyone on the left say that bomber was a hero? This is all an agenda driven discussion. And only by contortions can anyone say that during a war to kill the war-leader by stealth is a heroic act.

On the other hand, if you are writing a book titled: Germany, a Country Defined by Betrayal, well, it just fits right in.

Nordmann
Saturday, August 13th, 2016, 05:33 PM
Staff note: Discussion split and merged from this thread (https://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1197475#post1197475).



I am an new/old member of the Skadi forum. Before the Great Shutdawn I was Wulfaz (the ancient german version of "Wolf"). Henceforth you could call me as Stauffenberg after graf Stauffenberg, the anti-fascist german hero. The traitor Von Stauffenberg wanted an authoritarian, monarchist German state would have certainly had nothing to do with your anti-fascist ideas. That's point one!

Second point: A National Conservative should be formed and information on their own national history. And who as Nationalsozialist so insulted me, like you do here, because I call a Nationalmasochisten!

In this sense, good day!

Wulfaz
Saturday, August 13th, 2016, 06:25 PM
The traitor Von Stauffenberg wanted an authoritarian, monarchist German state would have certainly had nothing to do with your anti-fascist ideas. That's point one!

Second point: A National Conservative should be formed and information on their own national history. And who as Nationalsozialist so insulted me, like you do here, because I call a Nationalmasochisten!

In this sense, good day!

Oberst Claus Schenk graf von Stauffenberg was a democrat, the enemy of the nazis. The flag of his movement, the Wirmer-flag was proposed as a national flag of Germany by the CDU. The high traitors were the nazis, they betrayed Germany with the genocide, the war, the destruction of the country. Stauffenberg had nothing to do with the authoritarian conservatives whos rised the nazis from the political scum.

If Stauffenberg was an authoritarian why the BRD celebrate his movement?

Catterick
Saturday, August 13th, 2016, 09:05 PM
Stauffenberg had very little to do with postwar antifascism. Then the conservatives (aristocrats) thought Hitler was akin to the German left.

Nordmann
Saturday, August 13th, 2016, 09:17 PM
Oberst Claus Schenk graf von Stauffenberg was a democrat, the enemy of the nazis.Stauffenberg was a monarchist who wanted to occupy the offices of state with nobles and wanted to maintain the previous state in coarse whole.

Why do I call him a traitor? Because he tried in times of greatest need his people his leadership to deprive the midst of war of life or death in this world! This is a betrayal of his own people, on land, at home! Given only selfish character cripples are able to think only of themselves and how they could make a career on the side of Germany's enemies!


If Stauffenberg was an authoritarian why the BRD celebrate his movement?Because they do not know exactly how YOU, our German national history and how lemmings parroting everything is pre tells them!

He read my signature. Listen to the own Sagung the people and not the wrong word of the enemy court!

Shadow
Sunday, August 14th, 2016, 06:34 AM
How many times has this argument been heard here? Too many for men, and going back years. What is in a name anyway? So long as that person is for Germanic Preservation I don't care if he is a communist, a Nazi, a Democrat, or whatever.

Nordmann
Sunday, August 14th, 2016, 07:22 AM
Your argument is evidence of historical amnesia. For names and deeds are always accompanied inevitably. And the fact that man was a betrayal of his own people that was in the war. For the enemies of Germany, there was only one goal: the destruction of Germany's power! This was decided the plutocratic oligarchy which then as now still half of whose Jews and can call the number and high finance. A Stauffenberg would have achieved nothing at all would have been except that Germany overpowered leaderless.

Adolf Hitler sat down for obtaining the Germanic world with its peace petitions to England because he knew that in war die first always the best sons of the people. But the whiskey tippler Churchill and the German-hater Roosevelt wanted to Germany off because of its strong economic power. It was all of them, even Stalin, not to Nazism to Hitler, but rather to eliminate the German people as competitors on the world markets. This war was to bring no war for freedom and democracy to Germany. This is post-war propaganda.

Aeternitas
Tuesday, August 16th, 2016, 06:34 AM
Stauffenberg's legacy has been misrepresented by social justice warriors and particularly anti-fascists, who choose to ignore certain facts of the time and present a skewed image of his persona, simply because he tried to assassinate Hitler.

Stauffenberg was hardly an anti-racist/fascist to begin with, not according to his contemporary and certainly not by today's definition and standards; there is in fact little to no evidence to support the modern theory that the plot to assassinate Hitler was planned primarily with the interests of foreign groups or countries in mind. He had also quite vocally objected to the inclusion of the political left in the conspiracy. One only needs to examine his background, upbringing and beliefs more closely in order to question such modern myths.

First Stauffenberg was noble by birth and came from a long line of aristocrats. He was raised and educated in the milieu of Bavarian nobility, with a strong sense of their aristocratic heritage. He learned activities which required a sense of organization and discipline such as fencing and horse riding and developed an anti-egalitarian sentiment and elitist world view. He respected the people but loathed the mob, so I find it hard to believe that nowadays’ social justice “warriors” could have found any favor in him, quite the contrary, he would have probably despised much of their act.

Politically, he was hence more of a monarchist/aristocrat than NS, although he did hold nationalist views as it was customary of the time, and which actually lead him to be supportive of the early NS policies. He felt a sense of loyalty and duty towards his nation and supported the liberation of his folk from the humiliating shackles of Versailles. He was consequently involved in many major military campaigns and risked his life to defend his country and people.

Stauffenberg supported an all-German consciousness as well as the defense /reestablishment of Germanic leitkultur in ethnic German communities (e.g. through his support of the intervention regarding ethnic Germans in Poland); he was not politically correct and could be critical of other groups and elites (actually some of his remarks on Polish Jews could be considered "antisemitic" by today's standards), but at the same time his main focus was his own people, so he drew a fine line between fair criticism and rabid, obsessive anti-Jewish rhetoric. He became repulsed by the later/wartime NS excesses and disliked tyranny carried out in the name of ideology and nation. His feelings were actually shared by hundreds of people from the SS, armed forces and civilians alike: they believed Hitler had succumbed to madness and was destroying the German army, sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their deaths, and slaughtering entire peoples in the process.

He was aware that he would need to commit an act of treason, yet he considered it morally imperative to stand up against not only foreign, but also domestic tyranny. Was treason in this case justified? Well that depends to what degree one accepts state authority as absolute and particularly infallible. Even with folkish ideologies such as NS, there is still room for abuse of authority and unfortunately this is what happened during and characterized much of late NS. This is how this period of NS was characterized by former members of the German resistance who survived the war:

"The government – or rather, the party – controlled everything: the news media, arms, police, the armed forces, the judiciary system, communications, travel, all levels of education from kindergarten to universities, all cultural and religious institutions. Political indoctrination started at a very early age, and continued by means of the Hitler Youth with the ultimate goal of complete mind control. Children were exhorted in school to denounce even their own parents for derogatory remarks about Hitler or Nazi ideology."
-- Wittenstein, George J., M.D., "Memories of the White Rose" (Part 1, Introduction and Background), 1979

One could draw a parallel between the abuses of the NS state and the excesses of other regimes and particularly even today's abuses of power, all carried out of course in the "best interest" of the nation. In fact, take specific, time period-related terms such as "Hitler (Youth)" and "Nazi ideology" out of the quotation and it could as well be mistaken for a description of the current political climate in many countries. Politically incorrect books were confiscated and burned as they are today, state media as well as privately-owned publications were forced to censor critics under "hate speech" pretenses, as they are today. Dissidents had their private lives monitored. Had NS known modern techniques such as wiretapping or keylogging, it would have probably been carried out at even wider levels and abused to snoop on honorable citizens at the slightest suspicion. House searches, criminal prosecutions and convictions due to undesirable opinions, newspapers and books were at the order of the day back then as they are today if one has the misfortune of having their names on "politically suspicious" lists. Non-violently active and non-hostile dissidents have been thrown under both systems into psychiatric hospitals over something as innocent as distributing pamphlets, have been issued preventive firearm bans, not to mention all the politically motivated incarcerations.

The German Resistance saw such acts as abuses of power under NS and saw it fit to react to them. Stauffenberg's actions stemmed from a patriotic sense of duty to his country and people, he reacted to what he perceived to be a domestic threat to his country. His motivations and principles were actually quite similar to those that prompted the actions of the 1848 German revolutionaries, and to a certain degree even those of the American revolutionaries. Such principles have even made it into the constitutions of progressive/enlightened states, e.g. the 1st & 2nd Amendment originated as deterrents for abuse of power and a means for the people to protect themselves from potential tyrants. Surely Stauffenberg was more of a monarchist than libertarian due to his class and upbringing, his ideas and motives however were not that different from e.g. those of the students of the White Rose, who supported a non-violent, intellectual type of resistance based on freedom of information and association, and who were also tried for treason. Stauffenberg had similar goals to those cited in their pamphlets: to spare his people the bloody and humiliating fate of unconditional surrender, which was to follow as a result of Germany losing the war. He saw the fact that Germany would lose inevitable, and desired to avoid precisely what happened after Hitler committed suicide - a mass rape and forced exodus of the German people. Of course Stauffenberg failed in his attempt and his method was influenced by his reluctance and the reluctance of his collaborators to get themselves killed in the process. But the plan wasn't simply to kill Hitler, for in that sense he or anyone in that room or who generally had personal access to Hitler could have just taken out their gun and shot him from a close range, and Hitler would have most certainly died. The plan was rather to declare martial law with the pretext of putting down an alleged SS coup, and to install a government that would negotiate an end to the war with the Allies.

His secret oath embodies his principles and ideology:

"We want a new order which makes all Germans responsible for the state and guarantees them law and justice; but we despise the lie that all are equal and we submit to rank ordained by nature. We want a people with roots in their native land, close to the powers of nature, finding happiness and contentment in the given environment, and overcoming, in freedom and pride, the base instincts of envy and jealousy. We want leaders who are in harmony with the divine powers and set an example to others by their noble spirit, discipline and sacrifice."

His last words, "Long live our sacred Germany!", expressed his love and loyalty towards Germany as a nation and spiritual concept.