heroes or traitors?

[Alecci]

Von Stauffenberg supported the nazi regime in its beginning -as some members of the German resistance did-, but he became an anti-nazi after he saw the horrors of the "Crystal Nacht" in 1938

Graf Stauffenberg was never a supporter of the Nazi regime, but he was a supporter of the national resurgence. He additionally supported some points of the National Socialist politcal programme, for example revocation of the Treaty of Versailles and the call for a great national army, but that went without saying for every career officer in the Reichswehr.

Graf Stauffenberg had spoken out in favour of a removal of Hitler and his regime long before the war started going bad for Germany. As a professional he was naturally proud and impressed with the success of his nation's armed forces, but the fact that he supported the manner in which some military operations were carried out doesn't mean he supported their purpouse or consequences, the grand strategy or its purpouse and consequences.

Graf Stauffenberg throughout the war tooks appropriate steps and measures to do what he could to resist criminal orders and actions of comrades, superiors and the government or its associated agencies and departments, while at the same time pursuing the meaning of his profession.

No matter where or when during the war he did the best he could to oppose criminal actions and orders with regard to the powers associated to his current posting, starting from his posting as a quartermaster (Ib) with the 1st Light Division in Poland in September 1939 right up to his final posting as Chief of the General Staff of the Reserve Army in Germany in July 1944. That's more than most men of those days can say, without any offence intended towards veterans of similar views as those of Graf Stauffenberg which may be frequenting this forum.

Earlier during the war his rank and positions did not provide him with a good opportunities to act directly against the criminal Führer.

Most people seem to think that he objected to the rule of Hitler and the Nazi government on base of his religious beliefs alone. Nothing could be more wrong. While he considered his beliefs to be somewhat like a part of his business principles, they hardly governed all actions and thoughts of his life, albeit that they added a certain touch.

Graf Stauffenberg opposed the Nazis and their aims also because of his upbringing, his moral and intellectual outlook on life and his environment, his professional competence, his nationalism, etc. You simply cannot explain his resistance to the regime by one word or one phrase. There's more to a man than that.

Technically he was, of course, a traitor. Not much more can be said about that. In his own words he labeled himself a traitor to his government but not to his country. I don't think he was a traitor in a moral sense. He put the needs of his country and its people first and those of its reprehensible regime second.

Being a military officer by profession you are obligated to defend your country, its laws, its people, its culture and so on against anything that threatens to destroy or ruin it, regardless of whether the enemies are foreign or domestic.

On a side note, if resistance towards the 'lawful' government of a nation is always treason and a coup d'etat/uprising/rebellion/revolution is always an unlawful act, the whole American constitution is illegal since the citizens of what now makes up the United States rebelled against their lawful head of state, which at that time was the British king if I'm not mistaken. The same applies to the French constitution, as they once made a revolution against their lawful head of tate, which at that time was the French king.

Face the facts, resistance towards your government is not always treason. If you still think it is, go ahead and consider the ancestors of many a million Americans and French to be traitors. I on the other hand choose not to. To most of those people their ancestors are heroes.

Here's a thread that might be of some interest.

[Kurt_Steiner]

Von Stauffenberg supported the nazi regime in its beginning -as some members of the German resistance did-, but he became an anti-nazi after he saw the horrors of the "Crystal Nacht" in 1938

Graf Stauffenberg was never a supporter of the Nazi regime, but he was a supporter of the national resurgence. He additionally supported some points of the National Socialist politcal programme, for example revocation of the Treaty of Versailles and the call for a great national army, but that went without saying for every career officer in the Reichswehr..

Thank you very much for the correction, Alecci. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg is one of the persons that I most admire in the world, so I really regret that this stupid mistake has appeared in my post. Shame on me. Also, your answer is going to help me to correct this mistake that I have also made in an article that I'm writing for a Spanish forum. I must check my sources.

At least this mistake has a good point: I have had the pleasure of reading you again.

Technically he was, of course, a traitor. Not much more can be said about that. In his own words he labeled himself a traitor to his government but not to his country. I don't think he was a traitor in a moral sense. He put the needs of his country and its people first and those of its reprehensible regime second.

I agree with you in most of this passage, but, I'm afraid, I'm quite reluctant to call him -or Marheim or von Boeselager or any member of the Widerstand- a traitor. I admit, anyway, you're right, from a technical point of view. So, nothing to complain about. I'm just a bit stuborn

[Helly Angel]

Sorry but you are wrong.

Stauffenberg was one of the most enthusiasts by the nazis since the beginning like all the members of the army that were nationalists.

He was the leader - as a young leutnant- of a march in Bamberg to celebrate the triumph of Hitler on january 30, 1933 and he rejected their comandants in the Army with the allegation that "just a militar as Hitler could understand the rise of a people as the german people."

Source: "Grandes guerras de nuestro tiempo" by Dr. Kurt Zentner, vol 1, page 143. ISBN: 84-02-04547-2

[valkyrie]

The Stauffenberg leading the march myth was exploded by Peter Hoffmann in his biography, as was the saluting the flag myth - in the latter case the "offending" officer was actually Hasso von Manteuffel.

Colin

[Alecci]

Please excuse me for picking up an old thread. I've not had the pleasure to frequent this forum much recently because of my workload as well as other personal reasons.

As for the march in Bamberg, Graf Stauffenberg was at that time a mere Second Lieutenant. Additionally, he was not the leader of the march, he simply walked at the front of it. He was on his way to a social function in Bamberg when he ran into a demonstration celebrating the Nazis (and if my memory serves me right, their ascension to power). As it were, the demonstration was heading the same way as himself. Thus he came to walk on at the head of the demonstration.

When he arrived at his destination, some of the elders remarked that he was late, and upon his explanation to why he was late, critized him sharply for walking along with the demonstration. After all, meddling in politics - at any level whatsoever - was unlawful at that time if you were a soldier on active duty (not to say the least if you were in uniform). Graf Stauffenberg subsequently objected that the demonstration was more of a demonstration of national resurgance than a demonstration of Nazi support, and that people would not have understood if an officer in uniform would have side-stepped the demonstration.

This explanation is given by Peter Hoffmann in Stauffenberg, 1905-1944 - A family history. As sources for this statement he mentions, among others, Graf Stauffenberg's Regiment Commander, Colonel Gustav von Perfall.

In either case, there's plenty of events illustrating Graf Stauffenberg's scepticism towards Hitler and the Nazis long before the war even started, and I'll be happy to provide you with descriptions of some of them if need should be. If that would be the case, I humbly ask you to be somewhat forgiving since it may take me quite some time before I get a chance to reply, once again because of my workload (3 jobs, 1 including my own enterprise) and other personal reasons.

Kurt Steiner:

Many thanks for your kind words. If I am in some way helpful to correct any mistakes, I assure, the pleasure's all mine.

[Semper Talis]

Here's something to think about, from that non-communist, Germany-loving, old-school Prussian officer, Count Hellmuth von Moltke (aka von Moltke the Elder):

"Obedience is the principle. But the man stands above the principle."

[brittap03]

Those men were depicted as being traitors in the media it is without doubt there are many who thought it that way. However some may think them as martyrs.

You're right. I especially remember learning about Graf von Stauffenberg. He was always depicted as a hero for me since he gave his life to the cause.

[Eddy Marz]

In my view, Stauffenberg was a hero because he tried to kill AH, failed and was executed for it, but at the same time not a hero, in the fuller meaning of the word, precisely because the attempt failed due to Stauffenberg's refusal to stay by his bomb (it was moved away from AH while Stauffenberg was out). I think that Stauffenberg wanted to be a hero but wanted to survive as well...

Another one that seems a hero/traitor to me, albeit in a very complicated way, is Kurt Gerstein.

Regards
Eddy Marz

[phylo_roadking]

Coming late to this, but want to throw in a couple of points.....

Someone mentioned about a number of plots on AH's life - actually, between January 1933 and May 1945, I've read a figure of some TWO HUNDRED PLUS plots, schemes or attempts on his life. He led a remarkably charmed life. Even the July 20th attempt was fraught with bad luck - almost as bad as NASA's Mars missions LMAO - Stauffenberg and his co-conspiractor stopped a hour's drive away from Hitler's HQ to arm the bombs they BOTH had, both men were carrying primed briefcases....but the second one wouldn't arm! Hence the explosive in Stauffenberg's not being enough to kill everyone in the room; it wasn't originally planned that it be used on its own...

Going back to the very original question of what GERMANS today think of them, I was suprised to hear that the event was taught but not the meaning; I know OMGUS made this event and the motivation behind it one of the main political re-eduction planks in the German school curriculum from 1946-7 onwards, and it was THEY who demanded that July 20th be commemorated every year as a public holiday - so when did the German authorities change this???

The plotters were more than aware that the Allies "had" stated that only Unconditional Surrender was offered - but they hoped this position would change...as unalterable political positions change daily in the world LOL BUT first and foremost the military men in the plot wanted to remove AH because they were now more than aware that it was AH's quasi-military decisions in the East that were loosing and probably HAD lost the war for Germany. So yes they DID want to save lives by removing the non-military non-genius from his position as head of the Wehrmacht and very quickly chaning the direction of events on the Eastern Front

[Alecci]

phylo_roadking:

You're wrong in some points.

1: Graf Stauffenberg and his "co-conspirator" did not stop an hour's drive away from the HQ to arm the charges, because Rastenburg airfield was only about 30-40 minutes drive away from the HQ.

2: The arming of the charges took place some 10 minutes prior to the explosion inside the office or ante-room of Keitel's adjutant, Major Ernst John von Freyend (some sources says he was a Lieutenant-Colonel).

3: They had two charges with four fuses in one briefcase, the one Haeften was carrying. They moved the charge over to Graf Stauffenberg's briefcase after it had been set, please see the above point.

4: It's unknow if the second charge wouldn't arm, because they never attempted to do it. While arming the first one on location described above, they were disturbed by John's special missions officer, Staff Sergeant Werner Vogel, and this interrupted them before they had any chance to attempt at arming the second one.

5: The one explosive would have been enough to kill Hitler if the briefcase had remained where Graf Stauffenberg first put it, that is, prior to it being moved by Brandt.

6: You're right, however, that the plan was to use both bombs, as Graf Stauffeberg had to aim at killing everyone in the room, since he could not be sure of Hitler's position in relation to the briefcase at time of the explosion.

I'm no real expert on the motives of conspirators other than Graf Stauffenberg himself, so at this particular time I choose not to comment on the last part of your post.

[Kurt_Steiner]

I bet that Alecci remembers the following quote. As soon I saw this topic I remembered it at once

from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=44974

Was Colonel von Stauffenberg a traitor? Let's see what the experts say:

State authority as an end to itself cannot exist, since in that case every tyranny on this earth would be sacred and unassailable. If a racial entity is being led towards its doom by means of governmental power, then the rebellion of every single member of such a Volk is not only a right but a duty.

So, according to der Führer, Stauffenberg was doing his duty.

[Michate]

Going back to the very original question of what GERMANS today think of them, I was suprised to hear that the event was taught but not the meaning; I know OMGUS made this event and the motivation behind it one of the main political re-eduction planks in the German school curriculum from 1946-7 onwards, and it was THEY who demanded that July 20th be commemorated every year as a public holiday - so when did the German authorities change this???

Actually never.

The German minister of defense has chosen the Bendlerblock as his official residence, and each year at 20 July he commemorates the failed atempt to kill Hitler in a ritualized ceremony with flowers and so on.

As to the question what is taught at school, the attempt is of course part of the curricula, the meaning, as with many other attempts, depnds on the teacher.

Now consider the typical German Gymnasium teacher is a lefty 50+something, who had his biggest time during the '68 "revolution" movement and willingly subscribes to "Soldaten sind Mörder" parols (at least this is my personal experience from my own school time) and then think about what he wil tell of the plot.

[KASHANKA]

I find it curious that the titles is "heroes or traitors?" like one cannot be both a hero and a traitor at the same time.
This is how I see von Stauffenberg and co. They were traitors to both an evil and a lost cause. Germany could only benefit if their plot prevailed, hence I see them also as heroes.

[red devil]

I am not so sure that the German people knew all that much about it at all. It would be counter productive to blast it all over the media that they had dissidents in the High Command. I thin kthe whole plot was a botch up, not worked out properly and even had the wrong fuses.

[ML-fin]

It depends on which side win in the end.