Von Stauffenberg and the putch generals (1 Viewer)

[Mitch]

Poppo...

I think a fair point is made about what could happen in those countries at that time but, you only pick the USSR and nazi germany. They were both bad regimes but, all the things you say could and did happen equally applied to the other countries at that time in relation to subversives or seen as similar persons. We always seem to mirror these possibly because at one time they were both seen as the common enemy. However, we look on aghast at the methods they used or some do. The British did not control an empire without quashing sections that caused trouble. One just has to pick up any book on british history to see how ruthlessly we put down any hint of uprising or dissent. Equally the US (just one example) used horrendous treatment of the japanese during WWII with agencies acting as a law onto themselves in how they dealt with these people. torture deportations dissapearances rendition are not things that happened in germany and russian alone in the past are they?

Its an interesting topic but, I doubt many will want to go down the road of catagorising who was the worst or best (dependant on view) at keeping what they saw as order in their country or area of control. Of course people will say well, the germans were bad!!! the russians were bad!! but, there is two sides to this coin. It just depends on where you are looking in from to what one sees as bad.
Mitch

 

[Poppo]

Poppo...

I think a fair point is made about what could happen in those countries at that time but, you only pick the USSR and nazi germany. They were both bad regimes but, all the things you say could and did happen equally applied to the other countries at that time in relation to subversives or seen as similar persons. We always seem to mirror these possibly because at one time they were both seen as the common enemy. However, we look on aghast at the methods they used or some do. The British did not control an empire without quashing sections that caused trouble. One just has to pick up any book on british history to see how ruthlessly we put down any hint of uprising or dissent. Equally the US (just one example) used horrendous treatment of the japanese during WWII with agencies acting as a law onto themselves in how they dealt with these people. torture deportations dissapearances rendition are not things that happened in germany and russian alone in the past are they?

Its an interesting topic but, I doubt many will want to go down the road of catagorising who was the worst or best (dependant on view) at keeping what they saw as order in their country or area of control. Of course people will say well, the germans were bad!!! the russians were bad!! but, there is two sides to this coin. It just depends on where you are looking in from to what one sees as bad.
Mitch

Mitch,
I agree that almost all nations committed crimes even in modern times..Also France in their colonies(even in the 60ies in Algeria), Italy in Africa and Jugoslavia. But it is also a quastion of quantity; in 20th century Russia and Germany killed by far the hugest number of innocents in their camps, with an industrial and systematic will to destroy different categories of people, we speak of several millions by each of them...Ex.Stalin killed with a programmed famine 6 millions ukrainians in the 30ies...( And also Mao in China Have some milllions killed after ww2)

 

[Scott]

Poppo...

I think a fair point is made about what could happen in those countries at that time but, you only pick the USSR and nazi germany. They were both bad regimes but, all the things you say could and did happen equally applied to the other countries at that time in relation to subversives or seen as similar persons. We always seem to mirror these possibly because at one time they were both seen as the common enemy. However, we look on aghast at the methods they used or some do. The British did not control an empire without quashing sections that caused trouble. One just has to pick up any book on british history to see how ruthlessly we put down any hint of uprising or dissent. Equally the US (just one example) used horrendous treatment of the japanese during WWII with agencies acting as a law onto themselves in how they dealt with these people. torture deportations dissapearances rendition are not things that happened in germany and russian alone in the past are they?

Its an interesting topic but, I doubt many will want to go down the road of catagorising who was the worst or best (dependant on view) at keeping what they saw as order in their country or area of control. Of course people will say well, the germans were bad!!! the russians were bad!! but, there is two sides to this coin. It just depends on where you are looking in from to what one sees as bad.
Mitch

Mitch I think the "evil" part comes in when it's the stated policy top down. The "down" folks carrying it out think that it's Ok legally or because of some religious or political doctrine. The "top" folks think that they can get away with it. They don't plan on losing. The Soviets, even at the end of the CCCP, in effect got away with it without the physical destruction (post WW II of course) that ended the Third Reich.

 

[Larry Allen]

An interesting topic and good historical discussion.

But it brought up a thought.

When (or where) does one transition between being a “Moral and Brave” individual acting in support of a “just and noble cause” and become a Traitor to his country.

Not picking out any one of the German personalities (mentioned here) that acted in an attempt to remove Hitler and his cronies, but what makes one a “Freedom fighter” and the other a despicable traitor to his country and laws?

If one of the German officers attempted to kill Hitler in 1939, would that make him a Hero or Villain; or how about 1933 at the Putsch? How would we view the person if they assassinated (or maybe use the word Murder) Hitler then?

Also, in the same vain what is the difference between a noble goal and a self serving goal if they both achieve the same objective? As has been pointed out here, many nations have had “freedom fighters” who strove to change a government that they did not agree with. Does that make them moral and just or a self serving traitor?

Close to home, the Hancock’s, Adams ’ and Franklin’s, Hamilton’s, Jefferson’s and other are considered the Founding Fathers and held in the highest regard and respect. But look at their initial goal. Was it truly FREEDOM for ALL or for something a little more personal?History (and I) think the latter.

How can it be argued that an attempt on Hitler in 1939 was right when he hadn’t really done anything atrocious at that time? We have the luxury of looking back in time and justifying our logic on facts. (at least as History records them)

As, I said a great topic which I have learned a lot – thanks
Larry

 

[Mitch]

Larry...

Very good post. I find the noble cause of acts very fascinating and one I spent many years researching with police recruits. Totally different scenarios but, the crux of the issue is the same I believe. I would have thought the only words that would have come to mind in your scenario would have been traitor and murderer of a duly elected person serving his country in 1939. In 1944 he was seen by some in his own country but, more so worldwide as a hero and someone doing a service to the world.

The line between traitor and hero is very blurred and, I have spoken to many german veterans who universally feel he was wrong to act in the way he did. Many have stated that they took their oath very seriously and, as soldiers it was not their right or duty to debate what their superiors or leaders were doing. Thats a very similar doctrine to many countries at that time. They believe a soldiers duty is and was obediance.

Now the following orders defence which was not allowed in some cases but, was in others in the trials at the end of the second world war allows us to say what we should have done with hindsight but, not in the situations these people found themselves in. I still think much of what was done was not the selfless act for the greater good of germany but, thats a controversial topic. I suppose its why Stauffenburg to this day is controversial
Mitch

An interesting topic and good historical discussion.

But it brought up a thought.

When (or where) does one transition between being a “Moral and Brave” individual acting in support of a “just and noble cause” and become a Traitor to his country.

Not picking out any one of the German personalities (mentioned here) that acted in an attempt to remove Hitler and his cronies, but what makes one a “Freedom fighter” and the other a despicable traitor to his country and laws?

If one of the German officers attempted to kill Hitler in 1939, would that make him a Hero or Villain; or how about 1933 at the Putsch? How would we view the person if they assassinated (or maybe use the word Murder) Hitler then?

Also, in the same vain what is the difference between a noble goal and a self serving goal if they both achieve the same objective? As has been pointed out here, many nations have had “freedom fighters” who strove to change a government that they did not agree with. Does that make them moral and just or a self serving traitor?

Close to home, the Hancock’s, Adams ’ and Franklin’s, Hamilton’s, Jefferson’s and other are considered the Founding Fathers and held in the highest regard and respect. But look at their initial goal. Was it truly FREEDOM for ALL or for something a little more personal?History (and I) think the latter.

How can it be argued that an attempt on Hitler in 1939 was right when he hadn’t really done anything atrocious at that time? We have the luxury of looking back in time and justifying our logic on facts. (at least as History records them)

As, I said a great topic which I have learned a lot – thanks
Larry

 

[PanzerAce1944]

You have to really stand back and wonder what the conspirators attitudes would have been like if Germany was winning the war and all was going well.
I think the plot to kill Hitler was partially an attempt to save their own skin before it was too late and possibly spare what remained of Germany.If Germany had
not been bombed and on the verge of collapse I would bet their outlook would have been much different.

 

[Mitch]

I think the notion that germany had been bombed to the verge of submission and the verge of collapse is slightly wrong. Germany was being bombed etc but, was still a formidable armed force. she was still holding back massive allied armies with virtual air supremacy and, blooding opponents heavily. Production peaked in these latter years for materials for war so, she was far from being beaten. I think, it was more the selfish attitudes of a few who did not like the way the war was being progressed that pushed them to the acts they took part in. Look at the deliberations that rommel went through meeting the fuhrer on several occasions to see if they could withdraw and strengthen their line in france.

As I said the gretaer good of germany was for me, way down the line in what these conspirators were trying to do regime change and their way of running the show was paramount. Had they killed Hitler I would have inagined they would have held power for a very short time and that an internal civil war would have ensued whereupon the SS gestapo etc would have prevailed. The outcome would have not really been different for germany just different players in the hot seat
Mitch

You have to really stand back and wonder what the conspirators attitudes would have been like if Germany was winning the war and all was going well.
I think the plot to kill Hitler was partially an attempt to save their own skin before it was too late and possibly spare what remained of Germany.If Germany had
not been bombed and on the verge of collapse I would bet their outlook would have been much different.

 

[Jack]

An interesting topic and good historical discussion.

But it brought up a thought.

When (or where) does one transition between being a “Moral and Brave” individual acting in support of a “just and noble cause” and become a Traitor to his country.


I think that it was Saint Thomas More who observed that as soon as a person starts to think for himself he is close to being a traitor.

 

[lancer]

I think the bottom line is this: Had everything been going Hitler's and Germany's way, there is no attempt to kill Hitler or remove him from power. The military went along with Hitler when things were working out, even if some were a bit uneasy about the course things were taking. Hitler had been viewed with much skepticism by the military, early on, but his decisions on the Ruhr, Czechoslavakia, Poland, had all turned out in Germany's favor. The decision to invade France was a big breath-holder for the military, and when that worked out, I think the last real doubt was dispelled. I'm sure there were still some of the officer corps that felt Hitler was a little too aggressive, but things were going great, so why rock the boat? Only when things had gone badly against Germany did any real resistance within the military begin to surface. As has been said in this thread by several people, if Germany is winning in '44, there would have been a much different feeling amongst the military. Hitler would have remained the leader who had made the right decisions all along and was leading Germany to victory and world domination. Instead, Hitler was leading Germany to complete and utter disaster, so some officers decided, (quite a bit too late), to remove him in the forlorn hope of a negotiated peace that might have been somewhat favorable to Germany. Even had they succeeded, it was much too late to stop the Allies, Russia in particular. Germany was going down to crushing defeat by mid 1944, regardless of who was running things. At least this is what I have gathered from everything I have read over the years. -- Al

 

[PanzerAce1944]

I think the bottom line is this: Had everything been going Hitler's and Germany's way, there is no attempt to kill Hitler or remove him from power. The military went along with Hitler when things were working out, even if some were a bit uneasy about the course things were taking. Hitler had been viewed with much skepticism by the military, early on, but his decisions on the Ruhr, Czechoslavakia, Poland, had all turned out in Germany's favor. The decision to invade France was a big breath-holder for the military, and when that worked out, I think the last real doubt was dispelled. I'm sure there were still some of the officer corps that felt Hitler was a little too aggressive, but things were going great, so why rock the boat? Only when things had gone badly against Germany did any real resistance within the military begin to surface. As has been said in this thread by several people, if Germany is winning in '44, there would have been a much different feeling amongst the military. Hitler would have remained the leader who had made the right decisions all along and was leading Germany to victory and world domination. Instead, Hitler was leading Germany to complete and utter disaster, so some officers decided, (quite a bit too late), to remove him in the forlorn hope of a negotiated peace that might have been somewhat favorable to Germany. Even had they succeeded, it was much too late to stop the Allies, Russia in particular. Germany was going down to crushing defeat by mid 1944, regardless of who was running things. At least this is what I have gathered from everything I have read over the years. -- Al

Lancer, Pretty much the same opinion I have :salute:: The failed bomb plot occured 20 July 1944 at a time when the regime's power was slipping day by day. Defeat
was very clear !

 

[Larry Allen]

So from reading all the posts and the opinions and conjecture stated here, the moral and civilly conscious person is really up (censor aware) ship's creek without a paddle on what to do when he is faced with a (evil leader) coming to power.



** If he sees the potential danger in an evil leader and actsto kill him before any atrocities have occurred, he is accused of assignation and murder.

** If he waits to see the acts of the evil leader then acts he is tagged as being self serving and only did it for personal gain

** If he sees the danger and does nothing then he has fail himself and the world.

So, sadly there seems no “good” solution to the issue of evil government. Given that, the evil leader will prevail … AND this is proven time and time again.

B]In just recent history we see[/B]
Adolf Hitler (Germany);
Joseph Stalin (Russia);
Benito Mussolini (Italy);
Fidel Castro (Cuba);
Saddam Hussein (Iraq);
Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran);
Taliban (Afghanistan);
Kim (North Korea);
Moammar Gaddafi (Libya);
Jim Jones (The crazy religious idiot);
Idi Amin (Uganda) ....
I could go on for pages (sadly)

So what is there to do????????:redface2:
Larry

 

[Mitch]

Larry...

That always depends on who is calling the regime evil. many of the ones you mention are not considered then or even now as ''evil'' by many thousands. We describe things as evil IMO at our peril as we seem to set an example that states western democracy or parts of it are the best way to live. Many of the nations we say are evil view others as equally pernicious and problematic.

It is a difficult question and some of the examples you use raise many questions about whether its better to leave a regime in situ than depose it. Recent history has shown us that taking such action often leaves country in a worse state than it was before.

Stauffenburg et al will remain a traitor to many and a failed saviour to others
Mitch

So from reading all the posts and the opinions and conjecture stated here, the moral and civilly conscious person is really up (censor aware) ship's creek without a paddle on what to do when he is faced with a (evil leader) coming to power.



** If he sees the potential danger in an evil leader and actsto kill him before any atrocities have occurred, he is accused of assignation and murder.

** If he waits to see the acts of the evil leader then acts he is tagged as being self serving and only did it for personal gain

** If he sees the danger and does nothing then he has fail himself and the world.

So, sadly there seems no “good” solution to the issue of evil government. Given that, the evil leader will prevail … AND this is proven time and time again.

B]In just recent history we see[/B]
Adolf Hitler (Germany);
Joseph Stalin (Russia);
Benito Mussolini (Italy);
Fidel Castro (Cuba);
Saddam Hussein (Iraq);
Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran);
Taliban (Afghanistan);
Kim (North Korea);
Moammar Gaddafi (Libya);
Jim Jones (The crazy religious idiot);
Idi Amin (Uganda) ....
I could go on for pages (sadly)

So what is there to do????????:redface2:
Larry