Death of Nina von Stauffenberg (wife of Hitler plotter) (1 Viewer)

[Combat]

An interesting historical note in the news today:

BERLIN — Nina von Stauffenberg, widow of the aristocratic Nazi army officer who tried to kill Adolf Hitler with a briefcase bomb, has died, an official said Monday. She was 92.

Peter Kirchner, mayor of Kirchlauter in the southern state of Bavaria where von Stauffenberg lived, said the widow of Col. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg died Sunday morning, but he gave no further details.

 

[TLP]

I guess no replys means its a dead subject! (Yes a very poor joke!)


In any case I wonder how diferent it would be had he, the Col, been able to arm the other half of the bomb? Had it worked Rommel would most likely would have obtained control of German Forces??? Peace in the West? War in the east? Where and what?

 

[Njja]

Dead Subject

& "Arm" bomb

you crack me up!

Njja

 

[Joey]

I've just recently recorded a documentary about the life of the man who played a very big role in the plot too: Major Von Boeselager, the officer that delivered the explosives. And he's still alive and kicking (88 now!).

He said that, though Stauffenberg was not the most apropiate man for the mission because he only had one eye and , most importantly, an arm, he was the only one who a) had the guts to do it and b) was one of the only plotters that had so close contact to the Führer.

 

[Combat]

I've just recently recorded a documentary about the life of the man who played a very big role in the plot too: Major Von Boeselager, the officer that delivered the explosives. And he's still alive and kicking (88 now!).

He said that, though Stauffenberg was not the most apropiate man for the mission because he only had one eye and , most importantly, an arm, he was the only one who a) had the guts to do it and b) was one of the only plotters that had so close contact to the Führer.

I recently saw a show that recreated the attempt to kill Hitler. Used an identical table, explosives etc. They concluded that Hitler would almost certainly have been killed if the briefcase had not been moved behind the leg of the table after von Stauffenberg left the room.

 

[Njja]

I have always believed everything happens for a reason. So I seldom worry

about things that occur beyond my realm of influence.

In this case who knows what might have happen if the attack had been

successful. If Germany managed to end the war they might have developed

the bomb and started WWIII which might have sent us back to the stoneage.

Not that we are far from that today, the current situation in the middle east

Iran, you have to wonder what people think. It is scary to understand that

the future of mankind may rest in the hands of a group of idiots??

I just finished "Vengence: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist

Team" is was very interesting. It should be mandatory reading for the U.N.

delegates. If you understand your ENEMIES ( and what is an enemie?

someone exactly like you and me with simply a different point of view)

You may realize their resolve.

In the case of Israel what ever your opinion of them your must respect

their resolve. After WWII and their experience they will tolerate no more, and

the attitude expressed by Iran is pointless.


Njja

 

[Joey]

Yes, Iran is a big case indeed, but I think that Ahmudineyad ( hope I spelled that one right) is just trying to be the thoughest guy on the block. Imho, by harrassing and threatening Israel, he's just trying to distract his people from the economical crisis that threatens Iran. Also, by doing this he's hoping to get more support in the Islamic world for his policies.( Muslims and Jews are not what we call best friends...)

They just believe that owning an A-bomb is their godgiven right, and that they need it to be a local superpower in the Middle East. My only concern is that when they create the bomb, other countries will be trying to make them too. (When nobody has prohibited Iran from doing this)

When it comes to the acusation that " Iran is led by Muslim fundamentalists", just remember that Israel too is a Theocratic country...

Anyways, I didn't want to turn this into a political discussion, so if anyone feels this way about this post, I apologize already...

 

[nmrocks]

As for Iran, Hitler told the world, wrote books and was very clear were he stood on the future of Germany and the jews and no one listened.
It was easier to say "OH it's all bluster" and to cut a deal. The result are now history.
WE should take Iran and it's leadership at its word and deal with them as what they say is true, no deals.
Ray

 

[Njja]

Joey:

I do not doubt that your observation in this issue is correct, it makes

sense. And I hope everyone realizes we are not taking sides in this issue,

simply expressing the view that this is heading in a very dangerious direction.

Having the bomb is certainly not the answer. We were most fortunate that

the USSR for all their posturing realized that even a tie in a nuclear war was

a loss, so the world survived. Even North Korea seems to realize that to

threaten may bring a payday to act disaster.

Our little inturlude with Kadafi showed that the only person in a hurry to

meet Allah is the other guy, the one you can send out. The fellows at the

top will wait just a little longer and say order the mercedes with the zebra

interior and satellite radio.

I just hope they realize that any action taken against Israel, Kuwait or our

local pizza parlour will result in the cancellation of that Mercedes order and

lead to an immdeiate one way ticket to Hell.

Njja

 

[jazzeum]

Folks,

We're straying into politics here. Let's see if we can pull back from that a bit.

 

[Njja]

No intention to offend anyone, just discussing futility of anyone using a

nuclear confrontation to resolve an issue.

Njja

 

[nmrocks]

I don't think there's anything offensive about this thread, we are in the Historical discussion catagory and are discussing history, and history's relivence to the present. The confrontation with a mad man trying to aquire the most up to date technology and spouting off endlessly about wiping jews off the map and the holocaust never happen is a direct parellel to the Second world war.
Many would and have said we are living in the time equivilent to our parents living in the 30's. the menace was there, but things were turning around economically and no one could believe that any rational leader would plunge the world into war intentionally. That was the flaw in there thinking, mistakeing Hitlers intelligence for rationality, and so we see the same today in the middle east. The Soviet Union I have heard said never used the nuclear option because they were athiest's and if your an athiest, once your gone thats it, that was a serious deterent. Unfortunately the menace we see today embraces death and would happily exchange there life for others, thus no deterent to the use of Nuclear weapons. do you really think we shouldn't discuss these events and there similarity to the main subject of all our interests (WWII) in an historical discussion?
Ray

 

[Njja]

I don't really believe for one minute that the heads of these terrorists groups

or states are in any kind of a hurry to see Aliah. I also do not believe that

they are as dedicated as the Japanese were in WWII.

Having twice attacked Israel with superior forces, and twice been defeated

their true dedication has been displayed. They seem to enjoy sending out the

underprivileged and misinformed to do their dirty work. That is the real shame.

Leaders that preach war & violence instead of tolerance.

Wouldn't it be nice if the next time one of these "Leaders" ordered someone

out on a suicide mission the reply was "After You"

Njja

 

[sceic2]

I don't really believe for one minute that the heads of these terrorists groups or states are in any kind of a hurry to see Aliah. I also do not believe that they are as dedicated as the Japanese were in WWII. Having twice attacked Israel with superior forces, and twice been defeated their true dedication has been displayed. They seem to enjoy sending out the underprivileged and misinformed to do their dirty work. That is the real shame. Leaders that preach war & violence instead of tolerance. Wouldn't it be nice if the next time one of these "Leaders" ordered someone out on a suicide mission the reply was "After You" Njja

Distraction is the greatest political tool that a leader can use to move a mass of people away from the real problems that confront them. If a leader in any Anti-Israel state can keep the population focused on Israel and the “Jews,” they can use that distraction to remain in power. Power is the key. Power is everything and a leader has the opportunity to use power for either their own personal purpose or for the common good. It’s not the leaders that are strapping C4 to them selves and going on a bus to become a fine mist among the destruction they leave behind. It’s not the leaders that go running into a group of people with an AK47 shooting anyone who they can target. It’s not the leaders who are attempting to get all those virgins (at least not in the after life).

It was Klauswich who said that war is politics by another means. Hitler used the “Jewish Situation” as one of the means to unite the country under the Nazi banner. He used other issues to distract the masses so that he could gain power. His use of the Treaty of Versailles to revisit the issue and gain back the Germany of old; using grand marches with ten of thousands of touches lighting the Munich night; his use of ancient ceremonies and symbols; and his propaganda machine that convinced the Germans that is truly was Deutschland Uber Alles. History is full of distracting leaders. We have plenty of them in today’s world.

Von Stauffenberg and the group attempting to kill Hitler were not doing it out of some great need to do the correct or “right” thing, instead they wanted to end the reign of Nazism and keep living. Some thought, and I believe wrongly, that the Allies would take their surrender and either allow them to continue the fight on the Eastern Front or to even have the Allies join them in fighting the Soviets. They were just as delusional as was Hitler.

 

[Combat]

If Hitler had died as a result of the bomb, I think the war in Europe would have concluded with the unconditional surrender of Germany at the end of 1944. The post war situation would have been largely unchanged as the allies had made determinations about the division of Germany. There was absolutely no possibility of a separate peace with the western allies and continuation of the war in the east. That was a pipe dream of a few nazi's holding out hope against reality. The americans had great admiration for the achievements of the russians at that time and the cold war situation was a post war development that has been used inaccurately as the basis of a few fanciful what if scenarios.

 

[Joey]

Von Stauffenberg and the group attempting to kill Hitler were not doing it out of some great need to do the correct or “right” thing, instead they wanted to end the reign of Nazism and keep living. Some thought, and I believe wrongly, that the Allies would take their surrender and either allow them to continue the fight on the Eastern Front or to even have the Allies join them in fighting the Soviets. They were just as delusional as was Hitler.

Well, I don't agree completely. Based on the documentary of the life of Philipp von Boeselager, I believe that they were trying to do the right thing. The officers that plotted against Hitler were all strongly religious, very thourough Catholics. Von Boeselager himself said that he saw the spirit of "the evil one" in Hitler. These officers strongly believed that they could overthrough the Nazi regime and so stop the spilling of human life. After all, being Catholic, they saw the human above the soldier. All the officers were willing to sacrifice their life for the greater good: in their case, ending the war...

Also, there was another plan to kill Hitler, involving the Von Boeselager brothers. Hitler would visit the Eastern Front in 1943 to boost the moral and to overlook the situation on the front. Von Boeselager, who was Von Kluges communications officer, would shoot Hitler and Himmler (who would accompagny the Führer) together with a few other officers, whilst they would the sitting in the mess, in a circle around Hitler. Von Kluge was told, and he agreed.

But when Hitler arrived, Himmler apperently didn't come along. Von Kluge, who feared a civil war between Heer and Waffen-SS when Himmler was not killed, cancelled the plan...

 

[CannonFodder1971]

I don't think there's anything offensive about this thread, we are in the Historical discussion catagory and are discussing history, and history's relivence to the present. The confrontation with a mad man trying to aquire the most up to date technology and spouting off endlessly about wiping jews off the map and the holocaust never happen is a direct parellel to the Second world war.
Many would and have said we are living in the time equivilent to our parents living in the 30's. the menace was there, but things were turning around economically and no one could believe that any rational leader would plunge the world into war intentionally. That was the flaw in there thinking, mistakeing Hitlers intelligence for rationality, and so we see the same today in the middle east. The Soviet Union I have heard said never used the nuclear option because they were athiest's and if your an athiest, once your gone thats it, that was a serious deterent. Unfortunately the menace we see today embraces death and would happily exchange there life for others, thus no deterent to the use of Nuclear weapons. do you really think we shouldn't discuss these events and there similarity to the main subject of all our interests (WWII) in an historical discussion?
Ray

Ray, It should be remembered that it was General Zahedi who had the Hitler portraits and other Nazi ephemera. It was the exiled shah and the pahlavi cronies who kept this Nazi psychopath revved up, and it was eventually an unwise intervention by Western powers that put the Nazis fellow-traveller into power in Iran in 1953 when they overthrew the democratic government of Dr Mossadegh.

If anything is to be learned from history is it that when you inject such poison into the political bloodstream it can have serious side effects. Think about it: a democratic government was overthrown, all democratic opposition was liquidated. What passed as rational disscussion could only take place in very limited contexts, one of those being through the mosque. Result: political debate became a retarded form of religious debate, and when the shah fell it was to religious fundamentalists, ie the only medium through which people could associate, debate and mobilise.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a populist opportunist, and was elected on a protest vote. His domestic political agenda is non-sensical, and there is always a need to have scapegoats at hand and out-groups for him to target. But he's no Nazi, and the Iranians have had plenty of those in their recent history. A further Western intervention into Iranian politics would be a disaster, worse than any Bay of Pigs, as there are 300 strike targets and over 150,000 sitting ducks in Iraq as retalitory targets.

It will be difficult to bring him to heel but an external threat allows him to portray domestic opposition as being anti-Iranian collaborators and traitors, in effect he gets to wrap the national flag around himself. He's a passing phase, elected because of his anti-establishment posturing when mayor of Tehran, and he would lose support if he ever had to face the problems of his country rather than be entertained through all his side-shows being facilitated.

The history lesson would be more one on how not to manage a situation, as we are playing into his hands through militarising what is still a political situation within a soverign state and voluntary signatory to international treaties.

 

[Combat]

Ray, It should be remembered that it was General Zahedi who had the Hitler portraits and other Nazi ephemera. It was the exiled shah and the pahlavi cronies who kept this Nazi psychopath revved up, and it was eventually an unwise intervention by Western powers that put the Nazis fellow-traveller into power in Iran in 1953 when they overthrew the democratic government of Dr Mossadegh.

If anything is to be learned from history is it that when you inject such poison into the political bloodstream it can have serious side effects. Think about it: a democratic government was overthrown, all democratic opposition was liquidated. What passed as rational disscussion could only take place in very limited contexts, one of those being through the mosque. Result: political debate became a retarded form of religious debate, and when the shah fell it was to religious fundamentalists, ie the only medium through which people could associate, debate and mobilise.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a populist opportunist, and was elected on a protest vote. His domestic political agenda is non-sensical, and there is always a need to have scapegoats at hand and out-groups for him to target. But he's no Nazi, and the Iranians have had plenty of those in their recent history. A further Western intervention into Iranian politics would be a disaster, worse than any Bay of Pigs, as there are 300 strike targets and over 150,000 sitting ducks in Iraq as retalitory targets.

It will be difficult to bring him to heel but an external threat allows him to portray domestic opposition as being anti-Iranian collaborators and traitors, in effect he gets to wrap the national flag around himself. He's a passing phase, elected because of his anti-establishment posturing when mayor of Tehran, and he would lose support if he ever had to face the problems of his country rather than be entertained through all his side-shows being facilitated.

The history lesson would be more one on how not to manage a situation, as we are playing into his hands through militarising what is still a political situation within a soverign state and voluntary signatory to international treaties.

Sounds like Munich 1938.

 

[CannonFodder1971]

Munich involved the dismemberment of a country to appease various European powers. The current rhetoric about Israel being wiped off the map is exactly the opposite, as it's just bluster to touch base on a key populist issue and thus relieving President Ahmadinejad of actually having to do anything. Further, it should be remembered that at Munich the deal was cut on the basis that it reversed an actual grievance (the Sudeten German issue) which flowed from Versailles. The current situation, on the other hand, involves a potential aggression against a democratically elected government which is acting (albeit foolishly) within it's own territory.

Don't forget that Iran is quite a complex and sophisticated political system - all the smoke and mirrors, the ventroquilism and so forth may be like the Kremlin-watching days of old but at the end of the day the current regime is nowhere near as secure as it will be after any hostile military action. (It was quite funny here in Dublin when the whole cartoon fiasco was being played out in the media: the Chester Beatty library in Dublin contains one of the largest selection of Persian images of the Prophet, many dating back to the 15th century, and mostly show him with a flame-like halo. Indignant Iranians pointed out that denigration of art is an Arab hang-up and that the human form is not disrespectful! And I'm not talking about that reaction from the predictable sources such as the northern Tehran liberals or doctors, but students, workers and a diverse range of others).

This is a toy soldier forum, and also one in which we can discuss aspects of history insofar as they inform the hobby generally but if you want to talk about Munich and its consequences then the Iranian example is on a different ballpark.