About Stauffenberg - a cult that has gone (a bit) wrong

[Skybird]

https://translate.google.com/transla...tml&edit-text=

Its not really the first time that the memory of Stauffenberg gets put into question, this has been done - with good and not that much different arguments - before. But usually this is seen as a sacrileg here in Germany and thus such critical reflection is voiced with reducent volume and cautious tone, not to raise to much controversy. But that Stauffenberg was no enthsiastic defender of the democratic idea and indeed wanted to make a peace where Germany could honourably leave the battlefield more or less as an equal amongst equals, is not really a big secret anymore.

I was suspicous about this cult already in my school days, and once had a serious collision with my history teacher about it, askinmg too many questions that were not allowed by the book. It ended with me standing in the bureau of the school director (not for the first time). He talked a lot to me to make me correcting my views, opinions, statements which already back then were quite critical violations of the mainstream, especially religions since always have tripped my wires. I'm proud to say: all the man's preaching and threatening was in vain.

[Eichhörnchen]

I've seen three different movies of the plot and each has seemed to somewhat sanctify Stauffenberg in a simplistic manner, not giving too much attention to the question of his actual motivation (there was mention of the reciprocity of the Hitler oath in one of them, I think). The truth is always much more nuanced and of course movie makers have always to condense the story.

Yes - the truth is often distorted; and Stauffenberg was no hero.
Most "heroes" usually hide in the "small" like General Guderian or Rommel, who had chosen suicide for the good of his family as well as of the nation.
Stauffenberg wanted only political control, he was by no means a hero; he was a beneficiary of the given situation.

[Catfish]

Whatever the 'truth', it is pretty clear that Stauffenberg and those other conspirators did not intend to kill Hitler to install a 'democracy', but imho it does not matter much. They tried to stop him, and unfortunately failed.
If they had managed to kill Hitler, the question remains if the 'Allies' would have positively reacted to an offer of peace of a new german government (the Entente denied german offers for peace three times, in WW1).

@Cat

sehr guter Einwurf als auch präzise formuliert.




Uiiie... Jack erwacht und auch eine Meinung.

[Catfish]

maybe of interest (it is a Google tranlate, so...)
https://translate.google.com/transla...233&edit-text=

A friend of mine has died this year, the son of the aforementioned Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist, who was one of the conspirators, together with Stauffenberg. Like others, his son became a victim of collective punishment (family members of the conspirators receiced a special tretament, or were isolated and imprisoned). For the officers who wanted to stop Hitler, it was not a question of installing a democratic government, but foremost of moral. It is ridiculous to think that Stauffenberg wanted to become the new Fuehrer, after Hitler. Maybe for the time of some transition government, and he certainly had no sweet spot for democracy.
And today, only shining heroes of democracy (how the still strong propaganda tries to perpetrate it) will be supported by the media, any other motivation, reason or truth is not allowed to exist.

[STEED]

Leaving out the aftermath if Hitler was or as the case was not killed and just looking at the events before the fatal day. Some would say Stauffenberg was just trying to save his own skin knowing that the tide of war had turned.

If the war was going well would he have joined the plotters? Don't ask me as that timeline was not to be. Did he join just because the injury left a mark on him like some sort of grudge against Hitler? Again i don't know.

From my point of view what Stauffenberg did and he knew what could happen if he failed clearly did not stop him from trying. And out of all the plots only this one came near to succeeding in killing Hitler. As for the aftermath again we will never know if they would have got control.

He clearly took the decision to stand against Hitler and take direct action which was a big risk. What ever his true motivation was he rolled the dice and lost.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Whatever the 'truth', it is pretty clear that Stauffenberg and those other conspirators did not intend to kill Hitler to install a 'democracy', but imho it does not matter much. They tried to stop him, and unfortunately failed.
If they had managed to kill Hitler, the question remains if the 'Allies' would have positively reacted to an offer of peace of a new german government (the Entente denied german offers for peace three times, in WW1).

Agreed

[STEED]

I think in some way Stauffenberg did succeed in driving Hitler more paranoid making him take even more very bad decisions. You could say he may have shorten the war up to three months but of course that is another maybe.

[Bilge_Rat]

my understanding was that the British had internal discussions on whether to try to actively kill Hitler, but ultimately decided that since he was making so many mistakes, it was better to keep him in place.

[Eichhörnchen]

You're right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

my understanding was that the British had internal discussions on whether to try to actively kill Hitler, but ultimately decided that since he was making so many mistakes, it was better to keep him in place.

Operation Foxley

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/e...sination-plan/


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...eport_01.shtml