Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My view about Stauffenberg is that first of all, I have some pride in him as a fellow Swabian. He personified many elements of the traditional ethos of our Schwaben, the values and humanistic-intellectual tradition of such great Swabians as Schiller and Hölderlin. And also because he was a man of great courage, conviction and action. This can be seen not only in the boldness of his action, but even when he knew it had failed he still accepted the consequences. He faced the consequences of his action with courage and accepting his fate.

    I am repulsed that the anti-German elites have co-opted his name and legacy for their own. Yet, the reality is that he was a national conservative - a nationalist and held social traditionalist views. Indeed, the primary reason for his action was to save Germany from collapse and salvage what it could of the war situation from the jaws of defeat. His last words "Es lebe das heilige Deutschland!" would be anathema in today's "democratic" BRD and no doubt he would be made a pariah.

    Its telling that the American and British press - read: the Jewish media - actually condemned his action and preferred Hitler. This is because they already insisted on nothing but the "unconditional surrender" - read: complete and utter subjugation - of Germany. Stauffenberg may have found some sympathy within certain military circles that knew the threat of Communism, but certainly not the political and financial elites of the Allied countries which were deeply in bed with the Soviets. Perhaps they were also fearful that, if successful, it could halt the westward spread of Bolshevism?

    All of that being said, at the very least Stauffenberg was naïve as to the reality that nothing but the complete defeat and destruction of Germany was desired by those behind the Allied policies. Churchill said as much when he said he would've gone to war against Germany even if a priest would hold power instead of Hitler, it didn't matter who was controlling it but it was because of what Germany represented. His coup was doomed to failure even if it would've been successful, but nevertheless its admirable he took action regardless.

    Comment


    • Some examples of the Jewish/Allied press opposing Stauffenberg's coup: The New York Times called the bomb "an instrument typical of criminals." On 1 August 1944, The New York Herald Tribune stated: "Let the generals kill the corporal or vice-versa - both would suit us." American and British newspapers adopted Hitler's own description of the conspirators as "a clique of ambitious officers."

      Either way, the coup wouldn't have ended the war because all the Allied Powers waned nothing less than the complete devastation and subjugation of Germany; they wanted to allow the Soviets to spread across most of east and central Europe, and they wanted to occupy Germany and set up a new regime. This fit the dialectic they had already prepared for the post-war world, and the Stauffenberg coup's success would've upset that apple cart. Proofs:

      "In 1939 we didn't enter the war to save Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the continent from Fascism. Just as in 1914 we entered the war for the no less noble reason, that we could not accept a German predominance in Europe." (The Sunday Correspondent, London, 16 Sept. 1989)

      "This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill, in an Autumn 1939 broadcast.

      "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." - Churchill (quoted in Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill in War and Peace, 1955, p. 145)

      "Germany would give no quarter. They would be reduced to the status of vassals and slaves forever." - Churchill (quoted in John Charmley, Churchill: The End of Glory, p. 410)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
        Some examples of the Jewish/Allied press opposing Stauffenberg's coup: The New York Times called the bomb "an instrument typical of criminals." On 1 August 1944, The New York Herald Tribune stated: "Let the generals kill the corporal or vice-versa - both would suit us." American and British newspapers adopted Hitler's own description of the conspirators as "a clique of ambitious officers."
        ....
        I recall the Brits/Allies publishing the names and details of people supposedly part of the "German resistance" as a means to get rid of people that may oppose them after the war. However I don't recall what the source of that may be. Maybe you know this source, since you seem to know quite some.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
          Some examples of the Jewish/Allied press opposing Stauffenberg's coup: The New York Times called the bomb "an instrument typical of criminals." On 1 August 1944, The New York Herald Tribune stated: "Let the generals kill the corporal or vice-versa - both would suit us." American and British newspapers adopted Hitler's own description of the conspirators as "a clique of ambitious officers."

          Either way, the coup wouldn't have ended the war because all the Allied Powers waned nothing less than the complete devastation and subjugation of Germany; they wanted to allow the Soviets to spread across most of east and central Europe, and they wanted to occupy Germany and set up a new regime. This fit the dialectic they had already prepared for the post-war world, and the Stauffenberg coup's success would've upset that apple cart. Proofs:

          "In 1939 we didn't enter the war to save Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the continent from Fascism. Just as in 1914 we entered the war for the no less noble reason, that we could not accept a German predominance in Europe." (The Sunday Correspondent, London, 16 Sept. 1989)

          "This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill, in an Autumn 1939 broadcast.

          "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." - Churchill (quoted in Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill in War and Peace, 1955, p. 145)

          "Germany would give no quarter. They would be reduced to the status of vassals and slaves forever." - Churchill (quoted in John Charmley, Churchill: The End of Glory, p. 410)
          And how many of these quotes have you actually verified for yourself? There are a lot of invented or misquoted quotes going around in circulation these days. For instance, the last quote is talking about Germany not sparing her enemies, not the other way around.

          As for Stauffenberg, Hitler looked upon him as a "miserable coward", hardly a revolutionary, while Bormann dismissed the conspirators as reactionaries, despairing Christians.

          Yet there is an aspect to Hitler which has been badly neglected by mainstream and revisionist historians. It's well-known that he had praise for Stalin, and apparently he also looked upon a former German Communist leader (Thälmann) and a failed assassin (Elser) as "men of character". He remarked how he might have seen Stauffenberg in a better light if he had simply walked up to him with a pistol in hand and gunned him down. To Hitler, an admirable man was not someone who was prating on with empty words or lurking in the shadows, but coming out into the open and doing something really significant. In a December 1944 speech to his division commanders, he told them that victory goes to "not just the more capable one, but, most importantly-and I want to emphasize this-the boldest." There has only been one other person in German history who has embodied this mentality: Adam Weishaupt.

          “"One of my tests of character is what a man says about principle. A weak man is always talking of acting on principle. An able man does always the right thing at the right moment, and therein he shows himself to be able.”"

          It's quite clear that only a man who emancipates himself from a thorough Catholic upbringing can become a Hitler type. That is who we want to look out for, should he appear in Germany.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Theunissen View Post
            I recall the Brits/Allies publishing the names and details of people supposedly part of the "German resistance" as a means to get rid of people that may oppose them after the war. However I don't recall what the source of that may be. Maybe you know this source, since you seem to know quite some.
            I recall the same thing, so we've probably heard it from the same source. But I also don't know the details. I just know there was this long-standing view of "militarism" being inherent to Germans, with often unnamed "junkers" and other industrialists allegedly standing behind the military. The official Allied position against the conspirators reflected that they mistrusted the German military far more than any civilian politicians. So it would definitely fit into that which we know.

            Originally posted by Icarus View Post
            And how many of these quotes have you actually verified for yourself? There are a lot of invented or misquoted quotes going around in circulation these days. For instance, the last quote is talking about Germany not sparing her enemies, not the other way around.
            I'm aware of spurious quotes. For example, the famous one about Churchill allegedly saying he would have gone to war against Germany even if a "priest" was at power, is not even in the reference often cited but is widespread in revisionist works: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7259

            Its unfortunate that some well-meaning people feel the need to do so, when there's plenty of actual evidence we can rely on instead. As for the quotes I cited, actually the last one was indeed said by Churchill, in much the same vein that American leaders said about the expected resistance from Japan; so he said "Germany would give no quarter," after which he clearly said what this would result in through his own policy against them.

            It is confirmed by the mainstream Jewish historian Martin Gilbert's biography Churchill: A Life (page 654): https://books.google.com/books?id=gF...rever.&f=false

            Gilbert cites it in another book, The Second World War (page 81): https://books.google.com/books?id=Rz...rever.&f=false

            For the sake of honesty, I admit that the second quote - "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." - I got through several second-hand pro-revisionist sources and not directly. It was allegedly said in 1936 by Churchill to one General Wood. Unlike the "priest" quote, I was unable to find any evidence that it wasn't in the work. The jury is still out as to the authenticity, so you have a point.

            The first quote from The Sunday Correspondent is an authentic one, but was stated from a British veteran of World War II who since then wrote against that war and this quote was reflective of his skepticism about why his country entered the war. So it can be either accepted or rejected, since its someone's later opinion.

            Originally posted by Icarus View Post
            As for Stauffenberg, Hitler looked upon him as a "miserable coward", hardly a revolutionary, while Bormann dismissed the conspirators as reactionaries, despairing Christians.
            That was indeed their view. I knew that Hitler spoke in such disparaging terms about Stauffenberg.

            Originally posted by Icarus View Post
            He remarked how he might have seen Stauffenberg in a better light if he had simply walked up to him with a pistol in hand and gunned him down.
            Some conspirators had actually tried more direct and bolder means, such as Axel von dem Bussche's earlier attempt to "suicide bomb" Hitler; that only failed after Hitler prematurely left the event. There was another attempt to shoot Hitler, but that failed because a general wavered in his support at the last minute. Certainly the conspirators were indecisive and wavered too much.

            I would say to the Hitler apologists who talk about the conspirators "violating" their oaths that Hitler himself had broken his own word of honor many times and turned shamelessly on comrades. Not to mention that he so often squandered German lives. In any case, as one whose great-grandfather was in the German Wehrmacht (and died in battle against the Soviets), I admire the Wehrmacht more than the Party and that their oaths were foremost to Deutschland and not to Hitler. That being said, the conspiracy was doomed to failure anyway because the powers behind the Allies already made it obvious their problem was with Germany itself and not merely Hitler.

            Originally posted by Icarus View Post
            There has only been one other person in German history who has embodied this mentality: Adam Weishaupt.
            That's interesting. Why do you think Weishaupt embodied this? Because from what I know about him, he certainly lurked behind the shadows more than anybody with his secret society.

            Originally posted by Icarus View Post
            It's quite clear that only a man who emancipates himself from a thorough Catholic upbringing can become a Hitler type. That is who we want to look out for, should he appear in Germany.
            Are you one of those who thinks Catholics are any less "German" than Protestants? Although I rejected my own Catholic upbringing, I still have to defend my own cultural background since we as Southern Germans (and Austrians) have primarily been Catholic, but it never made our people any less "German" than the Protestants of the north. Its unfortunate that a few on this forum seem to have such a bias against southern Germans and for northerners.

            But certainly I can agree that such a leader should reject Christianity altogether in both its Catholic or Protestant form. At the very least, a broader commitment to the German volk itself should override such sectarian loyalties.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              I'm aware of spurious quotes. For example, the famous one about Churchill allegedly saying he would have gone to war against Germany even if a "priest" was at power, is not even in the reference often cited but is widespread in revisionist works: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7259
              Alright.

              Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              Its unfortunate that some well-meaning people feel the need to do so, when there's plenty of actual evidence we can rely on instead. As for the quotes I cited, actually the last one was indeed said by Churchill, in much the same vein that American leaders said about the expected resistance from Japan; so he said "Germany would give no quarter," after which he clearly said what this would result in through his own policy against them.
              The "they" he is referring to is France and Britain, not Germany.

              Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              For the sake of honesty, I admit that the second quote - "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." - I got through several second-hand pro-revisionist sources and not directly. It was allegedly said in 1936 by Churchill to one General Wood. Unlike the "priest" quote, I was unable to find any evidence that it wasn't in the work. The jury is still out as to the authenticity, so you have a point.
              If you want to implicate Churchill, look no further than his 1920 article about Jews. He makes it clear that he was a Zionist.

              Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              The first quote from The Sunday Correspondent is an authentic one, but was stated from a British veteran of World War II who since then wrote against that war and this quote was reflective of his skepticism about why his country entered the war. So it can be either accepted or rejected, since its someone's later opinion.
              Good to know, I'll look into this to confirm it for myself.

              Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              Some conspirators had actually tried more direct and bolder means, such as Axel von dem Bussche's earlier attempt to "suicide bomb" Hitler; that only failed after Hitler prematurely left the event. There was another attempt to shoot Hitler, but that failed because a general wavered in his support at the last minute. Certainly the conspirators were indecisive and wavered too much.
              "[Bussche] planned to detonate this bomb while embracing Hitler, thus killing both Hitler and himself."

              Doesn't sound very direct/bold to me, unless he was going to perform some sort of Judas kiss and let Hitler know that he was armed with a bomb.

              Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              I would say to the Hitler apologists who talk about the conspirators "violating" their oaths that Hitler himself had broken his own word of honor many times and turned shamelessly on comrades. Not to mention that he so often squandered German lives. In any case, as one whose great-grandfather was in the German Wehrmacht (and died in battle against the Soviets), I admire the Wehrmacht more than the Party and that their oaths were foremost to Deutschland and not to Hitler. That being said, the conspiracy was doomed to failure anyway because the powers behind the Allies already made it obvious their problem was with Germany itself and not merely Hitler.
              The Wehrmacht lacked the mental discipline and racial solidarity, their leadership was a product of sentimental times. The reason why the war was prolonged for so long was due to the fanaticism of the Waffen-SS, even mainstream historians are forced to concede to their tenacity.

              Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              That's interesting. Why do you think Weishaupt embodied this? Because from what I know about him, he certainly lurked behind the shadows more than anybody with his secret society.
              He was carrying out a subversion of the Masonic lodges and universities, threatened to undermine the power of the churches, recruiting from both the higher and lower classes, even convening an assembly of many secret societies. That's rather bold.

              It's not like Weishaupt had a choice in the matter. Jefferson points out how things would have been different if Weishaupt had been operating in America, how he would have probably done it in the open.

              Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post
              Are you one of those who thinks Catholics are any less "German" than Protestants? Although I rejected my own Catholic upbringing, I still have to defend my own cultural background since we as Southern Germans (and Austrians) have primarily been Catholic, but it never made our people any less "German" than the Protestants of the north. Its unfortunate that a few on this forum seem to have such a bias against southern Germans and for northerners.

              But certainly I can agree that such a leader should reject Christianity altogether in both its Catholic or Protestant form. At the very least, a broader commitment to the German volk itself should override such sectarian loyalties.
              Far from it, I prefer Catholics. Protestantism was rejuvenated Christianity, that is, of the proto-communist times described by various Roman authors. Steeped in the Old Testament once again (i.e. Puritans). The Catholic Church would have become tolerable if it hadn't been for Luther (who was still a great personality might I add).

              The problem with Christianity is that it presently lacks a basis of knowledge/reality, it lacks genuine content. It's obviously lost it's mind, which explains the inquisitions, persecutions, and burning of witches and heretics. And the only resolution is either it's total dissolution or to resupply it's brain matter. Positive Christianity was at least an attempt to hold fast to what remained of the teachings of Jesus. It's no coincidence that the theologian Johannes Müller, who had previously focused on the sermon on the mount and on the life of Jesus rather than his death, inclined himself towards it. He perceived a genuine attempt at change/reform rather than a reactionary one. Most Christians long for a return to the good old days, where the Church had influence in every aspect of people's lives. Very few long for a return to the moment where Jesus actually lived and taught. They have substituted Jesus for the religion; indeed, an attack on Christianity instantly becomes an attack on Jesus' personality (i.e. their reaction to Alfred Rosenberg, who actually made many concessions to Jesus, in at least two books and in his memoirs).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sean_Jobst View Post

                I recall the same thing, so we've probably heard it from the same source. But I also don't know the details. I just know there was this long-standing view of "militarism" being inherent to Germans, with often unnamed "junkers" and other industrialists allegedly standing behind the military. The official Allied position against the conspirators reflected that they mistrusted the German military far more than any civilian politicians. So it would definitely fit into that which we know.

                .....
                While Hitler was used as the bogeyman, the war effort was definitely directed against Germany as a social, political, cultural and last but not least economical entity.

                Of the former resistance "members" realized only after the war that this was indeed the case. Another issue is of course, if they didn't agree with Hitler, why didn't they remonstrate? Remonstration was generally possible for any officer or official in the German tradition. But virtually none of them chose to do so.

                I must find the texts that describe the dirty tricks of the Allies to get supposed "resistance" people arrested by the Gestapo. From memory they broadcasted names of such people and then arrests were made. Although I think the Gestapo realized after a while that this was a trick.

                There is another more mysterious side to Stauffenberg. He lost an eye and a hand. Just like Wodin gave his eye and Tyr his arm. When they were smith the plot Hitler was 10 years sole ruler of Germany. If I recall it rightly the Germanic custom was that, yes you can be sole ruler, but after 10 years, you need to be sacrificed.


                Comment

                Working...
                X