Graf von Stauffenberg - Evil?

[Roberto]

Or a lot more people could have died. Hard to say. It could have led to Soviet hegemony in Western Europe and even a nuclear WWIII. Hard to say...

But if today we are not sure that the communists would attain control over Western Europe or a nuclear war would be waged, it's crystal clear that in the case of Hitler's death much lifes would be conserved.

The recent study Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, by Rüdiger Overmans, confirms that German military losses alone were higher between 20 July 1944 and the end of the war than in all the previous war years. As to German civilian losses, the overwhelming majority thereof occurred in the last ten months of the war and the immediate postwar period.

This presumes that there would have been no collapse without Hitler, which simply isn't true. The Allies would have stuck to Unconditional
Surrender in any case and the Red Army wasn't going home.

With the object of their "Unconditional Surrender" policy - the Nazi government - removed?

I'm not so sure about that.

At the Casablanca Conference, after all, they had stated the following:

[...]In an attempt to ward off the inevitable disaster, the Axis propagandist are trying all of their old tricks in order to divide the United Nations. They seek to create the idea that if we win this war, Russia, England, China, and the United States are going to get into a cat-and-dog fight.

This is their final effort to turn one nation against another, in the vain hope that they may settle with one or two at a time-that any of us may be so gullible and so forgetful as to be duped into making "deals" at the expense of our Allies.

To these panicky attempts to escape the consequences of their crimes we say-all the United Nations say-that the only terms on which we shall deal with an Axis government or any Axis factions are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: "Unconditional Surrender." In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders[my emphasis]...[...]

Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/casablan.htm

No, it is simply not logical to conclude that everything would have been all smiles from no more Heils.

Smith's criteria as to what is logical and what is not are highly pertinent, of course.

[Roberto]

This presumes that there would have been no collapse without Hitler, which simply isn't true.

The collapse of the regime was inevitable, but the useless sacrifice of lifes (german lifes included) could be prevented with Hitler's heavenly life sacrifice. :roll:

You still haven't shown how Hitler's death on July 20, 1944 would have changed this:

As to German civilian losses, the overwhelming majority thereof occurred in the last ten months of the war and the immediate postwar period.

That's because the government was breaking down and collapse was occurring.

And what if that collapse had been converted into surrender, unconditional or not? Considering their proclamations that the "barbaric leaders" and not the countries themselves were the object of their demand for unconditional surrender, negotiating with a non-Nazi German government would have been a matter of credibility for the Allies, if nothing else.

As far as military losses, Roberto's figure obviously includes POWs as losses.

It was not supposed to, but the statement must be corrected in that German military fatalities after the end of July 1944 exceeded those before that date in relative terms considering the period involved, but not in absolute terms. Still, Overmans' figures transcribed by Marcus under

http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/statistics.htm

are telling enough. My calculations based on these figures:

Theater/Period; Dead; % of theater; % of total

Eastern front
1941; 302.495; 11,03%; 6,23%
1942; 506.815; 18,48%; 10,43%
1943; 700.653; 25,54%; 14,42%
1944; 1.232.946; 44,95%; 25,37%;
Total; 2.742.909; 100,00%; 56,45%
Thereof August to December 1944,
according to Overmans' breakdown; 571.170; 20,82%; 11,75%

Germany
1945; 1.230.045; 100,00%; 25,31%
Total; 1.230.045; 100,00%; 25,31%

West
1939 – 1940; 61.033; 17,95%; 1,26%
1941; 11.033; 3,25%; 0,23%
1942; 12.000; 3,53%; 0,25%
1943; 11.000; 3,24%; 0,23%
1944 244.891; 72,04%; 5,04%
Total 339.957; 100,00%; 7,00%
Thereof August to December 1944,
assuming same percentage as Eastern Front; 113.447; 33,37%; 2,33%

Various
1939 – 1940; 41.000; 7,51%; 0,84%
1941; 43.000; 7,87%; 0,88%
1942; 48.132; 8,81%; 0,99%
1943; 78.099; 14,30%; 1,61%
1944; 278.419; 50,98%; 5,73%
1945; 57.495; 10,53%; 1,18%
Total; 546.145; 100,00%; 11,24%
Thereof August to December 1944,
assuming same percentage as Eastern Front; 128.979; 23,62%; 2,65%

Total
Until 31 July 1944; 2.757.919; -; 56,76%
After 1 August 1944; 2.101.137; -; 43,24%
Total; 4.859.056; -; 100,00 %

According to Overmans, each of the last ten months of the war cost the lives of more than 200,000 German soldiers.

[Beppo Schmidt]

Klaus von Stauffenberg was always opposed to the anti-Semitic views of the Nazi Party. He walked out in disgust on Julius Streicher during one of his anti-Semitic speeches. During the German invasion of Russia he supplied food to starving Russian villages. He helped smuggle Jews out of Germany. He ultimately died for his resistance to Hitler and the Nazi regime. Some people on here say he was cowardly because he didn't blow himself up as well. What would have been the point of that? If he and Hitler both died in the explosion, who would have taken charge of Germany?

[R.M. Schultz]

Bravo Beppo Schmidt!

Three cheers for human decency!

[R.M. Schultz]

Let's see if we can refine this argument a bit by changing some of the variables. I find the career of "Beppo" Römer to be somewhat parallel to that of Stauffenberg — can we count Römer as a hero?

Born in 1892, he was an officer in the Great War, was a founding leader of Freikorps Oberland. As a hugely popular Freikorps commander he served in suppressing the Munich Soviet and in the repulsion of the Polish "Korfanty" invasion of Silesia. After this he studied law and political science. In 1932 he joined the KPD and served as editor of Aufbruch. As early as 1934 Römer planned an assassination attempt on Hitler, but he was arrested and held at Dachau 1939. After his release, he again began plotting and created a network of opposition workplace cells. His network was infiltrated by the Gestapo and he was arrested in 1942. He was executed 22 September 1944 in the wake of the Bomb Plot.

I count him as a hero. Or is he just another "Madman" atempting to "assasinate a head of state in time of war?"
 

[steelballs]

one thing is certain; the man had courage; hat's off to his attempt!

[Scott Smith]

one thing is certain; the man had courage; hat's off to his attempt!

Stauffenberg? No, he scooted away and left his fellow officers in mortal danger.

[Johnny]

Actually he knew that he was puttting himself, his family and friends in danger and still risked it for the sake of his country. I think he was brave. Had he succeeded many german cities might had been spared from further bombing, the holocaust might had been halted and the executions, pillage and rape by the red army in eastern and western europe could have been prevented.

[British Free Corps]

I agree that July 1944 was not an adequate time to attempt an assassination on the Fuehrer...as the war had long been turning against Germany, both in the West and the East...that factor must be considered. As far as atrocities go, I do not know whether the conspirators were actively involved, apathetic or opposed to them, but if common texts are reliable, then many claim to have been repulsed by the conduct of the Gestapo and the Einsatzgruppen...

As far as I know, Stauffenberg and his associates were committed Christians, raised in nationalistic East Prussia. Their families were supporters of the Hohenzollern throne, and the Imperial German system...but in no way ardent democrats...
Many were opposed to the co-ordination of Protestant churches into one, national church (the Reich faith)...another possible reason for their opposition...

To say that all of the conspirators were motivated by their repulsion of Gestapo/SS conduct would be naive, in my view...but I am open to the opinion that some, undoubtedly were.

[Marcus]

Several nonsense posts by Scott Smith & witness were removed.

/Marcus

[michael mills]

Beppo Schmidt wrote:

Klaus von Stauffenberg was always opposed to the anti-Semitic views of the Nazi Party. He walked out in disgust on Julius Streicher during one of his anti-Semitic speeches. During the German invasion of Russia he supplied food to starving Russian villages. He helped smuggle Jews out of Germany. He ultimately died for his resistance to Hitler and the Nazi regime. Some people on here say he was cowardly because he didn't blow himself up as well. What would have been the point of that? If he and Hitler both died in the explosion, who would have taken charge of Germany?

What is the source for the above claims made about Stauffenberg?

If he indeed felt disgust for Julius Streicher, that is not conclusive prrof as to his attitude toward National Socialism in general, particularly when Germany was winning. Probably most of the top National Socialists regarded Streicher as a disreputable figure, and he was in fact removed from all government positions before the war even began. Even Eichmann rejected Streicher's sexually-based anti-Jewish propaganda.

What is true about Stauffenberg's activities in the occupied Soviet Union is that he was one of those who was most active in organising auxiliary forces from among the minority nationalities, particularly the caucasian peoples. Those auxiliary forces were employed particularly in anti-partisan warfare, in the course of which many atrocities were committed. Is there any credible evidence that Stauffenberg opposed, or was even disturbed by, atrocities committed by the auxiliary forces he had recruited.

It is certainly true that a very large number of the officers of Army Group Centre who participated in the 1944 plot to overthrow Hitler had been fully involved in the anti-partisan campaign and its accompanying atrocities.

As for helping Jews to escape from Germany, I would like to see the evidence.

Beppo Schmidt's piece reads like the post-war idealisation of Stauffenberg and the other military conspirators as martyrs for democracy, which they were not. They were conservative German nationalists who were quite prepared to support Hitler wheole he was winning, but turned against him when it became obvious that he was leading Germany to a catastrophic defeat, which they vainly tried to avert. The true nature of the political stance of the conspirators is shown by the proposals they had prepared for presentation to the Western Allies after the overthrow of the national Socialist regime; these suggested aa german evacuation of Western Europe, but retention of Germany's conquests in the East, and a continuation of the war against the Soviet Union.

[British Free Corps]

Stauffenberg and his followers were not democrats, no, but they were of aristocratic ancestry, and very nationalistic. Their party of choice would most probably have been the DNVP, but fear of communism may have promoted allegiance to the NSDAP. The DNVP declined rapidly after 1929...leaving little option for members but to defect to the NSDAP, or retire from politics. Many chose the former, as the Nazis were seen as a buffer against the threat of communism from the KPD/USPD.

That's my view, on how Stauffenberg and his associates remained in the Nazi State.

As far as wartime atrocities go, like I said before, I do not know...but many conservatives and nationalists saw Hitler as a "reckless upstart" or a "peasant corporal".

[LilliMarlene]

I saw this topic, and wished to add my opinion....
First of all, I do not subscribe entirely to the "Cult of Stauffenberg." Yes, I agree that, from reading his words to his wife, that he had a bigoted, imperialistic view of the Polish, for example. However, I cannot logically see him as the stereotypical villain often suggested in this thread. He was complex and imperfect, like all of us. He was very nationalistic, true, but condemned the atrocity of Kristallnacht, and tried to work for better treatment of Russian POWs. What do I believe about him? My personal interpretation of his behavior is that he was basically decent. You must consider factors like culture and upbringing when judging the character of a person. I believe he did have a very strong Catholic faith, and perhaps when he witnessed the horrors of Russia, he saw the evil being done, and tried to stop it in the only way he saw feasible.
You may say that my opinion of Stauffenberg is rooted in speculation...but then, this thread is chock-full of assumptions about his motives. None of us honestly know what went through his head, and I think it's arrogant of some of you to condemn him when we really don't know.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Beppo Schmidt wrote:

Klaus von Stauffenberg was always opposed to the anti-Semitic views of the Nazi Party. He walked out in disgust on Julius Streicher during one of his anti-Semitic speeches. During the German invasion of Russia he supplied food to starving Russian villages. He helped smuggle Jews out of Germany. He ultimately died for his resistance to Hitler and the Nazi regime. Some people on here say he was cowardly because he didn't blow himself up as well. What would have been the point of that? If he and Hitler both died in the explosion, who would have taken charge of Germany?

What is the source for the above claims made about Stauffenberg?

If he indeed felt disgust for Julius Streicher, that is not conclusive prrof as to his attitude toward National Socialism in general, particularly when Germany was winning. Probably most of the top National Socialists regarded Streicher as a disreputable figure, and he was in fact removed from all government positions before the war even began. Even Eichmann rejected Streicher's sexually-based anti-Jewish propaganda.

What is true about Stauffenberg's activities in the occupied Soviet Union is that he was one of those who was most active in organising auxiliary forces from among the minority nationalities, particularly the caucasian peoples. Those auxiliary forces were employed particularly in anti-partisan warfare, in the course of which many atrocities were committed. Is there any credible evidence that Stauffenberg opposed, or was even disturbed by, atrocities committed by the auxiliary forces he had recruited.

It is certainly true that a very large number of the officers of Army Group Centre who participated in the 1944 plot to overthrow Hitler had been fully involved in the anti-partisan campaign and its accompanying atrocities.

As for helping Jews to escape from Germany, I would like to see the evidence.

Beppo Schmidt's piece reads like the post-war idealisation of Stauffenberg and the other military conspirators as martyrs for democracy, which they were not. They were conservative German nationalists who were quite prepared to support Hitler wheole he was winning, but turned against him when it became obvious that he was leading Germany to a catastrophic defeat, which they vainly tried to avert. The true nature of the political stance of the conspirators is shown by the proposals they had prepared for presentation to the Western Allies after the overthrow of the national Socialist regime; these suggested aa german evacuation of Western Europe, but retention of Germany's conquests in the East, and a continuation of the war against the Soviet Union.

Hi...

I agree with most of the points raised here.

I would also like to add that Stauffenberg was dictatorial and a thorough egotist. He often overrode the wisdom provided by the senior members of the clique of traitors (excuse me !). The result was disaster. No German gained anything out of his petty heroics. The other serious conspirators who had painstakingly built up the movement, were pressganged into his foolhardy scheme and their long sustaining movement was kaput in one day !

The only people who gained out of it were the enemies of Germany in this mortal existential struggle.

Cheers
Sandeep

[antfreire]

In what ways did the enemies of Nazi Germany gain out of this tragedy? Did it change a bit the actual end of the war?