Stauffenberg: A Noble and Hero

[Theunissen]

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?

Stauffenberg was def. no democrat nor egalitarian. The seems to celebrate anything that is somehow "Anti-Nazi". Seems you got no clue on who Stauffenberg.
In fact the only policy critic the Stauffenberg circle would have of NS, was that it was to egalitarian. It doesn't really sound like the Stauffenberg circle did take the "genocide" allegations seriously (Otherwise he would have mentioned them, that part in the beginning of Valkyrie is def. fiction). Their actually idea was that the continuation of the war was "due to Hitler" and that with Hitler dead and another gov. in place there would be some form of separate peace at least with the Western Allies. They were completely mistaken, since the war wasn't continued, because Hitler wanted this, but because the Allied demand was "unconditional surrender" already quite early in the war. This war did start, because some rather influential circles with assets, influence and political connection wanted to destroy a sovereign Germany and wouldn't tolerate a successful model besides from Communism and Liberal party democracy. Hitler and NS would have settled for a restored, sovereign Germany that is on equal footing with other nations internationally. The whole Lebensraum idea is completely distorted nowadays and with some work that can actually be shown pretty easily from the sources.

Well, if officers and officials disagreed with Hitler, why didn't they remonstrate to him? This was even something expected from German officers. By having sworn allegiance to a leader and while under that oath to him plotting to kill him one commits Treason. High Treason, because he's the head of government. Common treason against the country, because that assists the enemy during war. Seems those guys were a bit confused as well.

Oh and on the Holocaust issue, why didn't Dietrich Bonhoeffer never mention it, although he was quite critical of the NS attitude towards Jews?!
Even the NS-leadership states that they only "Found out about an 'extermination program' after the war has ended.

Even Heinrich Himmler disputed it, when he was interviewed about it by a WJC representative:
https://archive.org/details/NorbertM...einrichHimmler

And so on. Stauffenberg, a tragic figure. Definitely. A hero? I don't think so, although I believe him to have been a courageous soldier, who has earned his medals.

[Astragoth]

And so on. Stauffenberg, a tragic figure.

Not really. He was just a traitor. He's like Rommel the only reason anyone even knows his name is he was involved in the plot to kill Hitler. He was nothing more than a traitor. One of many that doomed Germany.

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

Von Stauffenberg could have saved Germany and Austria the humiliation of partitions, except the loss of East Prussia and rights to Danzig as well as the Anschluß being undone. I don't think France would've gotten the Saarland in this situation beyond temporary leasing for as long as Austria in our time was nor would disarmament have been pursued, if Germany could be counted upon to keep Russia at bay on a defensive basis.

[Astragoth]

Von Stauffenberg could have saved Germany and Austria the humiliation of partitions, except the loss of East Prussia and rights to Danzig as well as the Anschluß being undone. I don't think France would've gotten the Saarland in this situation beyond temporary leasing for as long as Austria in our time was nor would disarmament have been pursued, if Germany could be counted upon to keep Russia at bay on a defensive basis.

Lol. He was betraying his own people for the jews. They would've simply let him kill Hitler then do what they wanted anyway.
These are the people that doomed Germany in the first place they took every opportunity to sell out Hitler.
Divisions yanked off the line at Critical moments armies surrendered and so on.
Hitler should've had everyone of them shot.
Germany lost WW2 not on the battlefield but was betrayed by traitors from within.

[Chlodovech]

Von Stauffenberg is no ordinary traitor though - I think he was wrong too, but because he and the other conspirators misjudged the international situation - and were even willing, more than willing, to risk their attempt being futile. If the allies had the intention to negotiate with the new government on the basis of a return to the 1937 borders, despite Germany becoming a liberal democracy again, today's anti-Stauffenberg camp may see him in a more positive light. He would've saved the Germans from the horrible fate that befell the nation six months later as well. Stauffenberg's error is that he was blind to the fact that a settlement between the allies and Germany was not going to happen, and that in that case, he could only continue the war or surrender. I suppose the German capitulation would've still come quicker with people at the head of the new government who want to end the war anyway - and at least more German lives could've been saved. Ironically, the conspirator government could theoretically also have done a better job at defending the Reich and extend the war into 1946 by going on the defensive in the West and use the last reserves to slow down the Soviets in the East instead of committing them to an Ardennes offensive or something similar, but that not being what the plotters wanted, I guess they would've surrendered to the western allies as they reached the Rhine.

The coup attempt came after D-Day in July 1944: at that point the war was lost and national socialism and Hitler were going to disappear anyway. To overthrow the NS-government was not noble or heroic as mass media sometimes portray Operation Valkyrie, we wouldn't call French generals overthrowing their own government after the Battle of Dunkirk heroes either despite having about as many reasons to do so as von Stauffenberg, but it was rational and logical.

Von Stauffenberg could have saved Germany and Austria the humiliation of partitions, except the loss of East Prussia and rights to Danzig as well as the Anschluß being undone.

That ship left the harbor in January 1943. The allies' demand for unconditional surrender excludes the possibility of this counterfactual. The allies agreeing on principally not making peace with Germany is probably one of the most far-reaching political decisions of the 20th century and certainly the most important diplomatic development of WWII.

Germany lost WW2 not on the battlefield but was betrayed by traitors from within.

Germany lost this war unlike WW1 militarily and economically, despite treason.

[Astragoth]

Germany lost this war unlike WW1 militarily and economically, despite treason.

Germany was so riddled with traitors the allies effectively had the cheat codes and they still got hammered by NS Germany.
At Malta they literally knew everything and still lost. One British general scathingly said something like, "Intelligence doesn't matter if we cant do anything about it on the ground!" I listened to a podcast on this a week or two back about a book by Max HastingsThe Secret War – Spies, Codes And Guerrillas 1939-1945”

[Theunissen]

Lol. He was betraying his own people for the jews. They would've simply let him kill Hitler then do what they wanted anyway.
These are the people that doomed Germany in the first place they took every opportunity to sell out Hitler.

What's the evidence that Stauffenberg had any sympathies for the Jews?

I see that sometimes insinuated, that the plot was done, because "muh Holocaust", but I see no evidence of any of the plotters even "knowing" about "the Holocaust. They of course knew of concentration camp. Reprisals against the partisans or the purges against Communist Jews (Commissary Order). But that's it.

Divisions yanked off the line at Critical moments armies surrendered and so on.
Hitler should've had everyone of them shot.
Germany lost WW2 not on the battlefield but was betrayed by traitors from within.

Well, what exactly were the odds then, 1:10. The Axis was short on resources to wage war (and maintain a sufficient standard of living at the same time)

[Chlodovech]

Germany was so riddled with traitors the allies effectively had the cheat codes and they still got hammered by NS Germany. At Malta they literally knew everything and still lost. One British general scathingly said something like, "Intelligence doesn't matter if we cant do anything about it on the ground!" I listened to a podcast on this a week or two back about a book by Max HastingsThe Secret War – Spies, Codes And Guerrillas 1939-1945”

There were cases of insubordinate generals making the Germans miss opportunities for big(ger) victories - on the road to Moscow '41 and in Tunisia '43 - and especially amongst the old guard there were plenty of treasonous tendencies too - some officers were downright traitors like Hans Oster of the Abwehr. Treason is only a minor and not a decisive factor in the demise of NS-Germany though.

Malta never fell despite the Axis having ample opportunity to invade the island; the Axis never came around to doing it despite Malta based R.N./R.A.F forces making life miserable for Germans and Italians in Libya. A mistake, it turns out.

There seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to Germany's defeat in WW2: people who do basic math and arrive at the conclusion that the Axis could never compete with the might of the allies in the long run because in their eyes the side with the most resources, manpower and material is always destined to win war on an industrial scale. From that perspective Germany and company stood no chance against USA/USSR/British Empire/France/China anyway. While this makes sense at first glance, this school of thought doesn't take psychological, political and diplomatic eventualities into account. Germany is not destined to lose when they capture the B.E.F. at Dunkirk, Churchill is forced out of office and the doves make peace with Germany. And that was not out of the question.

The Russians could've collapsed in WW2 as well if half of their population literally starves to death after a successful Fall Blau campaign, perhaps resulting in a coup attempt against Stalin and infighting amongst the Soviets then. Domestic politics/civilian morale are a big unknown during industrial warfare too. The Germans wouldn't have genuinely lost that other industrial war, WW1, were it not for unrest on the homefront - it's the collapse of civilian morale which did them in - and yet the odds of Germany losing the Great War were rather similar to those of losing WW2.

Hitler could've invested in submarines instead of battleships in the Thirties and starved Britain from the start of the war. And the price of a battleship is roughly the equivalent of about 1000 bombers; expanding the Luftwaffe at the expense of a relatively useless surface fleet is an option too.

We have a thread dedicated to the causes of Germany's defeat but a lack of resources and trained reserves (for which Reichswehr commander in chief Hans von Seeckt's lack of foresight is to blame), an outdated logistical system and the absence of a strategy for victory beyond bulldozering France, play a much bigger role in Germany's defeat than the aristocratic von malcontents.

No need to go into the details of Germany's downfall, but consider this: In June 1940, after the Fall of France, German strategic thought is already at the end of its tether. The British Empire refuses to surrender and that's that. The Germans don't really know what to do anymore and find themselves reacting to British moves in Africa and the Balkans, in Syria and Iraq they are outfoxed. The Germans don't fully mobilize and prepare for total war either yet, like the Brits did from September 1939, not until 1943.

There isn't even a German word for "grand strategy" because German military thought has focussed on operational war of movement for centuries, as it served them so well and it makes sense for an 18th or 19th century continental power with Germany's geography. And so the Germans did what they do best in the summer of 1940: they made plans for an endless series of operations, from Gibraltar to Switzerland and Malta, with none of them striking a decisive blow. Arrows on maps as a response to every problem Germany encounters. It's a systemic flaw. There was also Operation Barbarossa, of course, which was arguably the operation which could've improved Germany's strategic position if they had not vastly underestimated the task at hand and hence better prepared for it. But Operation Barbarossa too didn't feature too much as a part of an of elaborate, realistic grand strategy for victory.

The lack of a comprehensive strategy also ties in with the issue of Germany's poor coalition building and diplomacy, never mind the absence of coordination between the Axis powers whom all fought their own wars. The Germans never build a grand alliance like the allies did and failed to enlist Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Spain and Portugal in team Axis. They missed out on Iraq and Iran & Latin-America - perhaps even South-Africa.

The Germans indeed had the army to hammer anyone with yet that wasn't enough to win against three super powers. And when Germany couldn't play its war of movement game anymore in 1943 because of the losses sustained, oil shortage and the allies having upped their game, they didn't truly adapt in turn and Hitler didn't help with that. The army was still besting the allies in tactical engagements after the allied breakout of Normandy in 1944 and beyond, but it could not succeed operationally anymore and you see that for instance at Kursk or in Italy: in 1942 the Germans would've won at Kursk and thrown the allies out of Italy, but by 1943 they can't win campaigns anymore. There was no viable defensive strategy either for the Reich and worthwhile proposals were rejected.