Stauffenberg and Successful Barbarossa

GlobalHumanism

Do you think in an ASB success in Operation Barbarossa, that Stauffenberg and the other July 20th collaborators would have still enacted a Hilter assassination attempt eventually?

If you think no, should we then view them as closer to opportunistic traitors rather than anti-Nazi heroes?

Before you jump down my throat this is a question ^ not a statement of personal belief
 
Tom Colton

Tom Colton

The July 20th plot was the culmination of half-hearted attempts and plots originating from the Fritsch-Blomberg Affair and the Sudetenland Crisis, with scheming waxing and waning inverse to Hitler's military successes and continually confounded by the Prussians generally refusing to break their personal oath of loyalty to Hitler. So they were "opportunistic" in that Stauffenberg decided, more or less, to do it himself. If Germany continues stringing successes it's unlikely that these coalesce into a single decisive moment, given the imperialist and revanchist attitudes of most of the plotters being in general alignment with the Nazis - up to a point.
 

sloreck

Everybody loves a winner. Most of the plots/plotters became serious as the war began to go badly. They might not have liked Hitler's "low class" actions, attitudes, but as long as they were winning it was tolerable. Certainly what was happening to the untermenschen of all stripes was at worst "distasteful", and looting occupied countries was OK (personal aggrandizement like Goering was "low class"). One of the major motivators behind the plotters was the reality that Germany was going to lose and lose badly. They were concerned about what would happen to Germany that fought to the last ditch, and also what would happen when all Germans were called to account for the Nazi/SS actions.

Assuming Barbarossa works and you get the USSR truncated, maybe as far as the Urals, and probably some disruption either with an internal struggle in the party, a military coup etc in the rump USSR then Germany vs UK and USA can be a stalemate. As long as Hitler/Germany is winning, the plotters won't be serious. Also, it would be hard to gather enough support in the event of a coup against a winning Hitler.
 

Art

But even with Barbarossa . . .

Successful, what about a landing by the Allies in the West?

I do not see Barbarossa being fully a 100% victory, I think that was a pipe dream, unless you have Japan attacking Siberia, which is damn near impossible after 1938 and Khalkin-Gol. How do the Germans get an endgame against the United States and the British Empire? I just do not understand how Germany could win such a conflict.
 

Lost Freeway

Banned
GlobalHumanism said:
Do you think in an ASB success in Operation Barbarossa, that Stauffenberg and the other July 20th collaborators would have still enacted a Hilter assassination attempt eventually?
Click to expand...

...When your idea starts with an admission of ASB involvement, then perhaps it should go in the ASB forum.

If you think no, should we then view them as closer to opportunistic traitors rather than anti-Nazi heroes?
Click to expand...

Of course. While the Valkyrie plotters may not have shared the more repulsive beliefs of the Nazis, they were still hardcore nationalists who thought they could do a better job of holding on to German conquests. If Hitler is successful in curb-stomping the Soviet Union, then there's no reason for them to rebel.
 
AlanJWhite

AlanJWhite

in OTL Stauffenberg was approached before the war to oppose Hitler

... by his own uncle IIRC

and turned him down because he believed in the conquest of Poland and revenge against France.
In these campaigns he served and supported Hitler well

Stauffenberg is quoted as saying,
It is essential that we begin a systemic colonization in Poland
Click to expand...


In Russia, as long as Germany was winning his only protests against the war crimes he saw and participated in were on the grounds of efficiency ... not morality.

One of the survivor Valkyrie members wrote of him
Stauffenberg wanted to retain all the totalitarian, militaristic and socialistic elements of National Socialism.

What he had in mind was the salvation of Germany by military men who could break with corruption and maladministration, who would provide an orderly military government and would inspire the people to make one last great effort. Reduced to a formula, he wanted the nation to remain soldierly and become socialistic

Stauffenberg was motivated by the impulsive passions of the disillusioned military man whose eyes had been opened by the defeat of German arms
Click to expand...

So I doubt if he at least would be part of any plot against the Fuhrer following a successful Barbarossa
 
Last edited:

GlobalHumanism

AlanJWhite said:
... by his own uncle IIRC

and turned him down because he believed in the conquest of Poland and revenge against France.

Stauffenberg is quoted as saying, "It is essential that we begin a systemic colonization in Poland"

In these campaigns he served and supported Hitler well
and as long as Germany was winning is only protests against the war crimes he saw and participated in were on the grounds of efficiency ... not morality.

So I doubt if he at least would be part of any plot against the Fuhrer following a successful Barbarossa
Click to expand...

Then is fair to just see him as a traitor? Was his fate just?
 

Snaut

GlobalHumanism said:
If you think no, should we then view them as closer to opportunistic traitors rather than anti-Nazi heroes?

Before you jump down my throat this is a question ^ not a statement of personal belief
Click to expand...

We have no reason to consider him anything close to a "hero" unless we're trying to whitewash Germany's past. And even then, portraying someone who thought that the "mongrel rabble" in the east which "only felt well under the whip" just needed to be enslaved but not necessarily exterminated a hero is grasping at straws. Opportunistic traitor sounds right.

(If we are to praise Stauffenberg for trying to kill Hitler, then what about Hitler, the man who actually succeeded in killing Hitler?)
 
Last edited:
Tom Colton

Tom Colton

GlobalHumanism said:
Then is fair to just see him as a traitor? Was his fate just?
Click to expand...
Well, his actions were motivated by a desire to help his country rather than just himself and his friends, but said desires weren't much less morally repugnant than those of the Nazis, so...

..ehh? I dunno.
 

HIM Dogson

As a monarchist, I view von Stauffenburg, like the majority of the German officers who sided with the Nazis, as traitors to their rightful sovereign. I can somewhat admire people like von Bock, Canaris, and Beck, who quit when the Nazis were very much winning and because they didn't like the warcrimes they were seeing, but Stauffenburg? He was an opportunist, and he was a traitor to his Kaiser, but not to Hitler, as that implies he owed any form of loyalty to Hitler.
 
Ferreti

Ferreti

HIM Dogson said:
As a monarchist, I view von Stauffenburg, like the majority of the German officers who sided with the Nazis, as traitors to their rightful sovereign. I can somewhat admire people like von Bock, Canaris, and Beck, who quit when the Nazis were very much winning and because they didn't like the warcrimes they were seeing, but Stauffenburg? He was an opportunist, and he was a traitor to his Kaiser, but not to Hitler, as that implies he owed any form of loyalty to Hitler.
Click to expand...


From a historical and nationalistic standpoint, well said sir, well said.

Back to topic.

Forgett Stauffenberg and focus on the other people in the Wiederstand.

As the poster before me said, Canaris, von Bock and Beck were the ones who wanted to get rid of Hitler for idealistic purposes. I am sure you can get a lot of other people from the monarchistic or left leaning circles on board.
The problem with them is, that they were to cautious. They wanted to make sure it succeeds and if not that there would be a next time.

You need somebody to take up the initiative or who has nothing to lose or is a fanatic.
Maybe someone who had loyalities with Röhm/the SA and who wasn't purged.
 

Napoleon IV

Strategos' Risk said:
There were a lot of people involved in anti-Hitler plots. I'm sure there were others who were more admirable.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Stauffenburg for instance wanted to make Poland a German colony and on the military side several of the Valkyrie plotters were involved in some way with the crimes of Hitler.
HIM Dogson said:
As a monarchist, I view von Stauffenburg, like the majority of the German officers who sided with the Nazis, as traitors to their rightful sovereign. I can somewhat admire people like von Bock, Canaris, and Beck, who quit when the Nazis were very much winning and because they didn't like the warcrimes they were seeing, but Stauffenburg? He was an opportunist, and he was a traitor to his Kaiser, but not to Hitler, as that implies he owed any form of loyalty to Hitler.
Click to expand...
Except both Wilhelm II and the Crown Prince abdicated and released all soldiers from their oaths to the crown. As Wilhelm's abdication notice put it:

"I expect of them that until the re-establishment of order in the German Empire they shall render assistance to those in actual power in Germany, in protecting the German people from the threatening dangers of anarchy, famine, and foreign rule."
So as evil as Hitler was the oath to him was entirely legitimate.
 
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

Napoleon IV said:
Agreed. Stauffenburg for instance wanted to make Poland a German colony and on the military side several of the Valkyrie plotters were involved in some way with the crimes of Hitler.

Except both Wilhelm II and the Crown Prince abdicated and released all soldiers from their oaths to the crown. As Wilhelm's abdication notice put it:

"I expect of them that until the re-establishment of order in the German Empire they shall render assistance to those in actual power in Germany, in protecting the German people from the threatening dangers of anarchy, famine, and foreign rule."
So as evil as Hitler was the oath to him was entirely legitimate.
Click to expand...

True loyalty,sir,is beyond any words.
 

David668

Barbarossa isn't really the question, it's more how he deals with Moscow. You see, it was the extra time that marshal Zhukov had to organise the first counter attacks using eastern troops and rally civilian morale with Moscow as the centre of this which led to the devastating soviet winter offensives- this and German lack of preparation.
If the German economy had been more streamlined, so more efficient supply lines thus hopefully no delay at Kiev in 1941, along with sufficient winter preparation and equipment, the Germans may have kept the soviets in chaos and the counter attacks would have remained disorganised and poor.
as for the question, I doubt that a july plot would have happened had this been the case.
 

ObssesedNuker

David668 said:
If the German economy had been more streamlined, so more efficient supply lines thus hopefully no delay at Kiev in 1941, along with sufficient winter preparation and equipment, the Germans may have kept the soviets in chaos and the counter attacks would have remained disorganised and poor.
Click to expand...

The German economy was as streamlined and Barbarossa was as well prepared as it was ever going to get. No delay at Kiev results in the advance crashing and burning even worse then it did IOTL since the logistical support for Operation Typhoon doesn't even exist in late-August/early-September. This would be followed by a even more massive Soviet winter counter-offensive against the even more exposed German strength, destroying large parts of Army Group Center. Foregoing Kiev for an early-advance on Moscow, contrary to popular belief, would not have resulted in a German victory but instead in a tide-turning Soviet victory (as opposed to the indecisive Soviet victory that the OTL battle of Moscow achieved).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top