Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 128

Thread: Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

  1. #51

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Aptrgangr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, June 26th, 2020 @ 09:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Ancestry
    Alemanni-Suebi/Irish
    Subrace
    Dalophælid-Nordid
    State
    Hessen-Darmstadt Hessen-Darmstadt
    Location
    Starkenburg
    Gender
    Family
    Hagestolz
    Politics
    reactionary ancap
    Posts
    1,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    102
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    185
    Thanked in
    93 Posts

    AW: Re: Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    ...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    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]
    When men cease to fight — they cease to be — Men.
    “Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.” Brendan Behan

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Aptrgangr For This Useful Post:


  4. #53
    Senior Member
    Aeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, November 27th, 2006 @ 03:48 PM
    Subrace
    Nordic Aryan
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    South West
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

    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

  5. #54
    Senior Member
    Aptrgangr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, June 26th, 2020 @ 09:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Ancestry
    Alemanni-Suebi/Irish
    Subrace
    Dalophælid-Nordid
    State
    Hessen-Darmstadt Hessen-Darmstadt
    Location
    Starkenburg
    Gender
    Family
    Hagestolz
    Politics
    reactionary ancap
    Posts
    1,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    102
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    185
    Thanked in
    93 Posts

    AW: Re: Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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..
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeric
    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.
    Last edited by Aptrgangr; Thursday, October 12th, 2006 at 02:41 PM.
    When men cease to fight — they cease to be — Men.
    “Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.” Brendan Behan

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Aptrgangr For This Useful Post:


  7. #55
    Senior Member
    Aeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, November 27th, 2006 @ 03:48 PM
    Subrace
    Nordic Aryan
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    South West
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

    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

  8. #56
    Account Inactive
    Lusitano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 04:41 PM
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Location
    Lisboa
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Politics
    NS/Identitarian/archeofuturistic
    Religion
    Atheistic
    Posts
    133
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

    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.

  9. #57
    Senior Member
    Aptrgangr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, June 26th, 2020 @ 09:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Ancestry
    Alemanni-Suebi/Irish
    Subrace
    Dalophælid-Nordid
    State
    Hessen-Darmstadt Hessen-Darmstadt
    Location
    Starkenburg
    Gender
    Family
    Hagestolz
    Politics
    reactionary ancap
    Posts
    1,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    102
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    185
    Thanked in
    93 Posts

    AW: Re: Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitano
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitano
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitano
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitano
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitano
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitano
    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...
    Last edited by Aptrgangr; Friday, October 13th, 2006 at 01:42 PM.
    When men cease to fight — they cease to be — Men.
    “Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.” Brendan Behan

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Aptrgangr For This Useful Post:


  11. #58
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Friday, July 31st, 2020 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,097
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    24
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    156
    Thanked in
    113 Posts

    Claus Schenk Graf Von Stauffenberg

    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/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


    Die Sonne scheint noch.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Dagna For This Useful Post:


  13. #59

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Dr. Solar Wolff For This Useful Post:


  15. #60
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Friday, July 31st, 2020 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,097
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    24
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    156
    Thanked in
    113 Posts
    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.



    Die Sonne scheint noch.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Dagna For This Useful Post:


Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. For a Genuine and Noble Nakedness
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, August 19th, 2019, 09:35 PM
  2. The Nine Noble Virtues
    By Ewergrin in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Thursday, June 27th, 2019, 03:38 AM
  3. The Noble Nine
    By Sigurd in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Friday, November 23rd, 2007, 08:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •