Valkyrie, 12/28/'08

[selewis]

The History Channel is currently airing a program that outlines the history of German attitudes, since the end of WWII to the present, towards the July 20th conspirators. The bits that I caught this evening were interesting. It is called Valkyrie and will undoubtedly be re-aired many times.

[dimarcol]

Saw the movie today with a group of 20+ professional military historians. I'll start by saying I am NOT a Tom Cruise fan. But....Pretty much the unanimous view was that it was well made, authentic, and enjoyable. Well worth your movie $. A word of caution however, this movie is history, so we were inclined to love it.

Having said that, we also brought along a dozen or more teenagers and spouses --ie. non-historians. All agreed its a quality production, well acted, and good story well told. Also had a German officer with us (a member of the German general staff corps). He found the movie very true to the history as taught in Germany and as honored in the German army. He enjoyed the movie immensley.

Four personal observations from me:

1. Overall very little action of the Saving Private Ryan variety. Not really expected so not a big deal.

2. Given that we all know how it ends, the director, acting, and screenplay manage to keep the tension high, the suspense active, and movie moving at a crisp pace.

3. No major short-coming in terms of accuracy of the story or the on-screen details. Uniforms, equipment, and locations are particularly well done. The opening scene in N. Africa was the only "battle" scene and was well done. Among our group, the uniform collectors (and we had several experts with us) were very impressed.

4. Alot of information is crammed into a short movie with no loss of the essentials. However, it would have been nice if they could have developed the Stauffenberg character more thoroughly. They made the attempt by introducing his family and the potential effects of his actions on them. However, they were unable to develop the moral dilemma of German officers between loyalty to country, conscience, and the oath they took to Hitler.

I would give it 4 stars out of 5.

[Pat Holscher]

Saw the movie today with a group of 20+ professional military historians. I'll start by saying I am NOT a Tom Cruise fan. But....Pretty much the unanimous view was that it was well made, authentic, and enjoyable. Well worth your movie $. A word of caution however, this movie is history, so we were inclined to love it.

Having said that, we also brought along a dozen or more teenagers and spouses --ie. non-historians. All agreed its a quality production, well acted, and good story well told. Also had a German officer with us (a member of the German general staff corps). He found the movie very true to the history as taught in Germany and as honored in the German army. He enjoyed the movie immensley.

Four personal observations from me:

1. Overall very little action of the Saving Private Ryan variety. Not really expected so not a big deal.

2. Given that we all know how it ends, the director, acting, and screenplay manage to keep the tension high, the suspense active, and movie moving at a crisp pace.

3. No major short-coming in terms of accuracy of the story or the on-screen details. Uniforms, equipment, and locations are particularly well done. The opening scene in N. Africa was the only "battle" scene and was well done. Among our group, the uniform collectors (and we had several experts with us) were very impressed.

4. Alot of information is crammed into a short movie with no loss of the essentials. However, it would have been nice if they could have developed the Stauffenberg character more thoroughly. They made the attempt by introducing his family and the potential effects of his actions on them. However, they were unable to develop the moral dilemma of German officers between loyalty to country, conscience, and the oath they took to Hitler.

I would give it 4 stars out of 5.

Thanks Lou, that's very interesting.

I'm not a Cruise fan either, and for that reason I was inclined to skip the movie. But, my son wants to see it, and the report you give here is very much like that I'm seeing on the WWII list, where I occasionally lurk. The folks who have posted on it over there were nearly all inclined to dislike the movie before seeing it, and were pleasantly surprised.

On uniform details, one of the commentators there noted that "Lots of little details that were dead on such as officers not wearing their ribbon bars when performing office duty and the many varied shades of officers' tailored uniforms." to which someone replied Yes, I noticed that --particularly the stitching above the left breast wear the ribbons would have been worn" with the original commentator replying "Yes, the ribbon loops were permanently sewn on service uniforms, but not field uniforms." That's really in the category of minutia, so I'm quite surprised that they added these sorts of details.

On Von Stauffenberg, I recently read a review of Mark Mazower's book Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe which stated that "Particularly eager to use the services of Russians and other eastern peoples were such eastern specialists as Georg von der Ropp, Wilfried Strik-Strykfeldt, and Count Claus von Stauffenberg, later a resistance hero." This was stated as an example of that "German policy was a bundle of contradictions", as it countered the otherwise brutal Nazi policies towards Eastern peoples. I don't think that suffices for such an example, as what it really is, it seems to me, is an example of a desire within certain sections of the Heer to make use of Russian peoples that ran contrary to the Nazi policies, but it didn't rise to a policy an official Heer policy of any type. Be that as it may, I was surprised to find Von Stauffenberg's name used in this fashion, as I wasn't aware that he was an "eastern specialist", or that he had been an advocate of using the Russians in Russia, if he was.

[dimarcol]

Totally agree Pat. Everyone remarked on the uniforms. Another note was the very obvious differences in quality of the custom made officer uniforms from those of the other ranks in every scene. Anyone who has seen the real thing knows this, but it is one of the many details, like the ribbon loops, and the ribbons and medals themselves when they are worn, that made it obvious that attention to detail was important. The aircraft used, JU52s, Me109s, and P-40s, are all actual (not computer inserted) and very visually impressive. The good thing tho, was that they didn't sacrifice the quality of the story to bask in the minutia of historical detail. I wasn't bored at all and I expected to be.

[Pat Holscher]

Totally agree Pat. Everyone remarked on the uniforms. Another note was the very obvious differences in quality of the custom made officer uniforms from those of the other ranks in every scene. Anyone who has seen the real thing knows this, but it is one of the many details, like the ribbon loops, and the ribbons and medals themselves when they are worn, that made it obvious that attention to detail was important. The aircraft used, JU52s, Me109s, and P-40s, are all actual (not computer inserted) and very visually impressive. The good thing tho, was that they didn't sacrifice the quality of the story to bask in the minutia of historical detail. I wasn't bored at all and I expected to be.

Someone also mentioned that a JU 52 scene was neat.

The use of actual, rather than computer inserted, aircraft makes a world of difference, in my view. For that reason, the old film "The Blue Max" comes across much better than the newer film, "Flyboys" (and not just because Flyboys has a hokey plot. The computerized aircraft are simply too slick. I've only seen snippets of the flying scense in the newer film "Pearl Harbor", but they looked pretty darned hokey also. Tora, Tora, Tora, comes across much better. Even substitute aircraft, such as the Spanish HE111s used in Patton, come across much better than computer generated substitutes.

[Pat Holscher]

I just saw the film yesterday, and I'll fully join in and adopt Lou's review.

I am not a Cruise fan, but I was thoroughly impressed. And I was impressed in ways I didn't expect to be. I think this film is a basic "must see" for fans of WWII films, and perhaps for fans of military movies in general.

To start with what's been noticed the most about this film, Cruise, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that this film might actually prove that he can act. He wasn't a prefect Von Stauffenberg, to be sure, but most of the time I wasn't consciously thinking that I was watching Cruise playing a role. He's acting sort of against type in the film, and I thought he did it fairly well.

Rather than repeat Lou's review, let me just add a few things about the film that impressed me, in no particular order.

1. The air ground attack in the opening portion of the film is, in my view, the best cinematic portrayal of fighter aircraft strafing a position ever filmed. Filmed entirely from the ground prospective, it was brilliantly done. I've seen modern aircraft practice ground runs on a couple of occasions, which is hardly comparable, but the one thing about that which really leaves an impression is the speed and surprise which it entails. The movie scene brought that across in a way that I do not think any other cinematic portrayal has. Filmed using actual P-40s, it really gives an excellent idea of what the low level capability of fighter aircraft of that vintage was. The film is worth seeing, in my view, for this scene alone, although there's plenty of other reasons to see it.

2. The opening sequence of the film, to my surprise, started off with an English language translation of the German military oath used during WWII, in which German soldiers pledged loyalty to Hitler. I've read a lot about that over the years, but never really appreciated the importance of it. I don't think I had ever read the oath before. The scene placed the written translation of the oath on the screen, while you could hear it spoken by a large group of individuals in German. Without being certain, I think that the recording of the Germans speaking the oath was a contemporary recording of German soldiers giving it. Anyhow, the printing of the oath on the screen in that fashion, to be followed by the opening scene of the movie, puts that element of the story in context in a way that is quite effective.

3. The use of cigarette smoking as a foreshadowing device, if you're familiar with Hitler's dislike of smoking, was really clever (and Hitler's vegetarianism is even tossed in, in a film reference). A person would have to be quite well versed on Hitler's peculiarities to notice that, but whoever wrote the screenplay obviously was. To go to such an extent shows some really in depth thought on the portrayal. As already noted, uniform details are accurate to the nth degree. This is the first film I've ever seen depicting Germans in which the quality difference between em and officer uniforms is depicted.

4. The film of JU52s, escorted by ME109s, near the start of the film is one of the single most sinister portrayals of anything in a film I think I've seen. Again, really well done.

If I have any criticisms of the film at all, they'd be mild. To the extent I have any, they'd be this:

1. The flim has to condense some items that took place over a period of years into a shortened time. That's inevitable, so that's not really a criticism.

2. The film references the religious motivation of Von Stauffenberg in determining to act against Hitler, on his own personal level, but probably underplays it. As Micheal Burleigh notes in his book on the Third Reich, this particular element of the Anti Nazi Resistance has been very much underplayed in post war histories, but actually formed a very significant element of the conservative and aristocratic resistance to the Nazis, for those who were part of that movement. The film does reference it, however. That probably isn't a criticism either, as the film, being a contemporary film, and needing to be presented in a reasonable amount of time (the film is two hours long) probably does as much in this area as it can.

Anyhow, well worth seeing.

[Philip S]

2. The film references the religious motivation of Von Stauffenberg in determining to act against Hitler, on his own personal level, but probably underplays it. As Micheal Burleigh notes in his book on the Third Reich, this particular element of the Anti Nazi Resistance has been very much underplayed in post war histories, but actually formed a very significant element of the conservative and aristocratic resistance to the Nazis, for those who were part of that movement. The film does reference it, however. That probably isn't a criticism either, as the film, being a contemporary film, and needing to be presented in a reasonable amount of time (the film is two hours long) probably does as much in this area as it can.

Can you elaborate on the religious aspect of the resistance? I am not familiar with this.

[Pat Holscher]

2. The film references the religious motivation of Von Stauffenberg in determining to act against Hitler, on his own personal level, but probably underplays it. As Micheal Burleigh notes in his book on the Third Reich, this particular element of the Anti Nazi Resistance has been very much underplayed in post war histories, but actually formed a very significant element of the conservative and aristocratic resistance to the Nazis, for those who were part of that movement. The film does reference it, however. That probably isn't a criticism either, as the film, being a contemporary film, and needing to be presented in a reasonable amount of time (the film is two hours long) probably does as much in this area as it can.

Can you elaborate on the religious aspect of the resistance? I am not familiar with this.

I'll try to do that, although I might not be able to do it justice.

Being inspired to refresh myself on the details of the July 20 plot, and the plotters, I went back this afternoon and evening and re-read part of Burleigh's book on the topic of the resistance. I would have re-read it all, but I didn't go quite back far enough in the book to do that, and I unfortunately didn't read the chapter following the one on the July 20 plot, which actually is on the very topic of your question. I'll go back and read that chapter.

I'll note here that Burleigh notes that "The earliest organized resistance to National Socialism came from the left", and for most of those anti-Nazis (although not all) religion was not an element.

Having said that, the anti-Nazi resistances most significant efforts at removing Hitler came from other circles. These came to an anti-Nazi position, for the most part (and again with exceptions) somewhat later than the political left did, but when they did, these individuals (never extensive in number) were better placed to act, and placed to act in a different fashion. There was a strong conservative element in these groups, although their conservatism varied greatly. The military conspirators fit into this group. And many in this group, while late in coming to their opinions in some instances, often were strongly driven by their conscience.

Burleigh notes this in his book, starting off his examination of their motives with a quote by Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin, who lost his life following the July 1944 coup attempt. Kleist, a Pomeranian nobleman and lawyer, and son of a German cavalry officer, was an opponent of Hitler even prior to 1933 and authored an anti Nazi publication fairly early which stated "It is the attitude to religion which separates and must always separate Conservative thinking from National Socialism. the basis of Conservative politics is that obedience to God and faith in him must also determine the whole of public life, Hitler and National Socialism adopt a fundamentally different position. . . It is a fact that Hitler. . .only acknowledge race and its demands as the highest law governing state activity. That is a materialism irreconcilable with faith and Christianity. According to Hitler, it is the task of the state not to develop talents, but only to nature racial characteristics."

Kleist, by the way, was implicated in the July 20 plot, and did figure in it. It was amazing that he actually lived until 1944, as he'd been an extremely vocal opponent of the Nazis consistently, and refused to fly the Nazi flag over his Pomeranian castle. He urged his son to undertake a January 1944 suicide assassination attempt after he'd been recruited by Von Stauffenberg, but that plot was one of the several undertaken by this group which fell through. The younger Kleist is still living. The elder Kleist was one of the July 20 plotters who engaged in verbal barbs with Nazi jurist Freisler at his trial (as did Moltke) stating "I made no secret of my struggle against Hitler and National Socialism. I regard this struggle as a commandment from God. God alone will be my judge." The proceedings were adjourned immediately thereafter when an American air raid hit, and Freisler was killed in the raid.

Another civilian lawyer who was involved due to his religious beliefs was Reinhold Frank. Frank was connected with one of the plotting circles, and had agreed to accept an administrative post should the coup succeed. Frank was an active Catholic and had defended defendants of various religious faiths who were in trouble with the Nazis. He was executed in January 1945, due to his role in the plot.

A strong motivational figure in the movement early on, and by inspiration after his passing, was lawyer Edgar Julius Jung, who was a Calvanist, and a conservative politician. Jung was not only motivated by his strong religious believes, but his Calvanist beliefs lead him early to be comfortable with the idea of assassinating Hitler, which many of the other conservative conspirators struggled with on moral grounds. Jung had an influence on Papen, in causing Papen to issue a proclamation that was to figure in early resistance. Papen, with Jung, attempted to appeal to Catholics and the Army as early as 34 to counter Hitler, although Papen proved to be a leaky vessel. Still, the event he was to speak at on that occasion was addressed by Erich Klausener of Catholic Action, in which 60,000 Catholic attended. This resulted in Jungs arrest and execution on The Night of the Long Knives, but some of the Catholic Action figures of this period later figured in the wartime plots against Hitler. Klausener was shot at his desk on The Night of The Long Knives.

Before I move on, I should note that the German Resistance group, The White Rose, actually had a religious inspiration, in that they took their name from a sermon delivered in 1941 by Clemens August Cardinal Graf von Galen, the anti Nazi Bishop (at that time) in Munster. The White Rose's first pamphlet was then Bishop von Galen's' sermon. The White Rose group itself was varied in religious belief, with Willi Graf and Katharina Schueddekopf being devout Catholics, Hans and Sophie Scholl, , Lilo Berndl, and Falk Harnack being devout Lutherans, while Eugen Grimminger claimed to be a Buddhist. Christoph Probst was baptized Catholic shortly before his execution. I've generally left them out of this discussion, however, as they were a pacifistic resistance group.

Later, some of the figures in the later plots who were in the government at first, such as Gen. Beck, began to cite suppression of the churches amongst their growing concern. Beck early on imagined Hitler to be a bit of a lackey to Hitler's own party, and began at first to theorize that the Nazis could be tossed out, without tossing out HItler. Obviously, that was delusional, but even that early Beck cited "peace with the church" as one of the reasons to toss the Nazis out.

As the members of the plotting circles began to attempt more earnestly to act, their focus on faith began to intensify in many instances. Von Moltke noted, in a letter to his wife about his activities in 1940, that "Then I read the Bible a little more, an activity I pursue with more enjoyment now than ever before. It used to be all stories to me, at least the Old Testament, but now it is all contemporary to me. I find it much more gripping than ever before." Von Moltke, another member of the circles involved in the plot, although he himself opposed an assassination attempt, was a dedicated Christian Scientist, who declared during WWII that a person had to be a Christian to oppose the Nazis, and that nobody could fully oppose the Nazis without being a Christian. Ironically, when Moltke was arrested, it contained a charge related to consulting with the Jesuits, which he joked about during his sentencing, noting that his parents would not be pleased.

The Jesuits that Von Moltke were involved with were associated with members of the Kreisau Circle. Moltke was in contact with Augustin Rosch, a Jesuit provincial, who introduced him to Alfred Delp and Lothar Konig, Jesuit priests. Father Delp was arrested on July 28, 1944, while celebrating Mass, and was tried that following January. He was hung on February 2, 1945. The Jesuits operated to create a link, by their presence between the Kreisau Circle and southern German resistors, including a Monarchist Circle surrounded Franz Speer. Delp also bridged the gap between socialist resisters and Prussian monarchists, as he was interested in social questions and his papers appealed to both groups.

Another religious figure to loose his life as a result of the plot was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor and had connections with the plotters in the Abwehr. He was also a founder of the Confessing Church. He was actually in prison at the time of the July 20 plot, having been arrested in 1943, but his connections with the plotters were discovered and so he was executed as a result. Another figure active in the Confessing Church was Maj. Gen Heinrich Graf zu Dohna-Schlobitten, who had left the Army for the first time in 1919 for moral conscious reasons, and then resigned again in 1943. I don't know that his faith provided the basis for his being in the Kreislau Circle, but he clearly took matters on conscience seriously. He was executed as a result of the July 20 plot.

Yet another Confessing Church figure to have a role in the plots, but not the July 20 assassination attempt, was judge Hans-Bernd August Gustav von Haefte. He made up part of the group that was opposed to assassinating Hitler, and talked his brother out of such an attempt, on the basis that it constituted murder. He did not, therefore, have a role in the July 20 plot, even though he believed Hitler should be removed, and was part of the Kreislau Circle. He was arrested anyway, and declared Hitler to be "a great perpetrator of evil" during his trial. Still another Confessing Church jurist involved, although only distantly, was Hans Koch, who had defended Martin Neimoller in his trial. Koch sheltered one of the plotters attempting to escape and ended up forfeiting his life as a result.

Lutheran theologian Eugen Karl Albrecht Gerstenmaier was also involved in the plot, to the extent of having an assigned location at the time it took place in order to support the coup. He was arrested, but was not executed.

Catholic trade unionist Nikolaus Gross was also involved in the plot to the extent that he was a member of one of the circles which contributed to planning a post war government. He was arrested as a result of the July 20 plot and executed in January 1945. I don't know that his membership in the plot can specifically be tied to his conscience, but nearly everything that Gross did was. He was beatified in 2001. Another Catholic trade unionist involved in the plot was Bernhard Letterhaus. Josef Wirmer was a Catholic trade unionist lawyer who had been thrown out of the National Socialist Lawyer's leage for defending those accused of offenses on a racial basis. He also participated in the plot and lost his life as a result.

Baron Axel von dem Bussche was the primary figure in a pre July 20 44 plot, in which he was to act as a suicide bomber. Von dem Bussche had been recruited by Von Stauffenberg, and was motivated by the shock he experienced in seeing the SS kill 1,000 to 3,000 Jews at Dubno. At the time, he actually thought of attempting to intervene. A religious Lutheran, he later held a position in the German Evangelical Church's administration, as well as being a lawyer post war, and then a diplomat. After failing to act at Dubno, he later felt that as a Christian he should have stripped off his clothes and joined the Jewish victims of the SS. He felt he could only redress his perceived failure of honor by being killed in battle, or killing Hitler, so he attempted the later in a planned 1943 assassination attempt, which did not come into fruition. He was not part of the July 1944 plot, as he'd been injured in Russian and suffered a leg amputation, and ironically was in a Waffen SS hospital at the time of the July 1944 plot.

Carl Friedrich Goerdeler was a German politician who was to become the Chancellor if the July 20 plot succeeded. He was a devout Lutheran, although I do not think he put his opposition to the Nazis in that context. He did become horrified by the Nazi oppression of the Jews. He told the Gestapo, after being arrested after the July 20 plot, that the Holocaust formed the principal reason for his motivation to overthrow Hitler. In prison, as an already devout Lutheran, he turned more and more to spiritual matters. His dieing declaration was "I ask the world to accept our martyrdom as penance for the German people".

Ulrich-Wilhelm Graf von Schwerin von Schwanenfeld was a German landowner who advocated killing Hitler as early as 1935. During WWII he served in the Wehrmacht, and participated in the July 20 plot from the plotter's headquarters. His opposition to Hitler was based on his Christian beliefs. He was executed in September 1944. He went into the plot believing that its chances of success were very slight, which he had been warning about for weeks prior to the attempt.

Von Stauffenberg is another figure who was motivated by his religious beliefs. Von Stauffenberg had not been an early opponent of the Nazis, but his experiences in the Soviet Union changed his mind. A serious Roman Catholic, he became seriously disturbed by the Nazi atrocities and opposed to Hitler. He was, also, a proponent of incorporating the Russians into the German war effort in the East, and fit into a group of German officers who were essentially arguing that the German war in the East needed to be converted into a type of war of liberation for the Russians, albeit one with German control, a war aim that was completely contrary to that of the Nazi's. Anyhow, Von Stauffenberg struggled with his conscience as he fit into the group of individuals who was opposed to Hitler, but he could not reconcile killing him due to his feeling that this would constitute murder. Ultimately he did come to believe it was morally acceptable, but it is also known that he consulted with a Priest prior to attempting to kill Hitler, and it is believed that this alleviated his concerns over the killing constituting a mortal sin. His brother, Berthold, was also executed as a member of the plot.

[Pat Holscher]

If it seems like there's more text above, on Christian thought in the July 20 coup, there is. I added a bit to it after learning of some of the other plotters.

I'm surprised how many people were actually involved.

[Pat Holscher]

Judging by the documents which hey have left--almost all of these men were hanged before the war's end--which include plans for future government and for the economic, social and spiritual foundations of the new society, what they aimed at was a sort of Christian socialism in which all men would be brothers and the terrible ills of modern times--the perversions of the human spirit--would be cured.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, page 1318.

[dimarcol]

Pat,

You've done the most looking at the history. What books do you recommend?

Note: Philipp Boeslegar has a brand new book out on his experiences in May:

Valkyrie by Philip Freiher Von Boeselager, Florence Fehrenbach, Jerome Fehrenbach, and Steven Rendall (Hardcover - May 12, 2009). http://www.amazon.com/Valkyrie-Philip-F ... 37&sr=1-11

[Pat Holscher]

Pat,

You've done the most looking at the history. What books do you recommend?

Note: Philipp Boeslegar has a brand new book out on his experiences in May:

Valkyrie by Philip Freiher Von Boeselager, Florence Fehrenbach, Jerome Fehrenbach, and Steven Rendall (Hardcover - May 12, 2009). http://www.amazon.com/Valkyrie-Philip-F ... 37&sr=1-11

By far the most commonly cited book is Hoffman's History of the German Resistance, 1933 to 1945. Hoffman's book is apparently pretty exhaustive, and runs 880 pages in length. I have not read it, but now that I've looked into this a bit, I've run across the cite so often that it seems quite accepted as the standard. I think I will pick up the book, as now I'm curious. The Amazon listing for it is here:

http://www.amazon.com/History-German-Re ... gy_b_img_b

Burliegh, in his book, actually states that the account of the July 20 plot is so completely covered by Hoffman, that he (Burleigh) chose not to go into the details in his book.

Having said that, I think that Burleigh's book on the Third Reich, which is A New History of The Third Reich, is simply excellent. Those looking for a military history will be disappointed, as it isn't a military history, but rather a study of the Third Reich itself. Very little military history is included in it. Every other aspect of the Third Reich's history is included in it, however. A section of the book, consisting of several chapters, deals with the German resistance and I've so far found it to be the best information of anything I've read.

I have gone back and started to re-read the chapter in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich on this topic. I've read that classic study three times, I think. It's been over twenty years, however, since I last read it. The account in Rise and Fall remains a very good one, but the book pales a little in some ways when comparing it against Burleigh's book. They're of a different character, however, so the Rise and Fall's account is still a good one. Significantly different, however, in their study is their characterizations of the actors involved. Burleigh goes to some length to describe the thoughts and motivations of the plotters and other resistors. Shrirer does this less so. Burleigh, writing much more recently, explores the religious and social thinking of the plotters in detail. Shrirer notes the influence of Christianity in their thinking, and makes a couple of specific references to the Catholic or Lutheran faith of some of the plotters, but he does not explore it in anywhere near as great of detail. Shrirer largely omits the social thinking of the plotters. It may be that Shrier didn't feel he had the space to deal with all that, in a book that was over 1,300 pages long, or he may have felt that it was already known and self evident to the reader. Or perhaps he didn't feel it important to address it.

Shrirer also clearly feels the plotters were brave ditherers. He as much as states this, as he is very critical of their failing to act on their convictions, in his view, until 1943. However, he actually lists more plots than Burleigh, and it seems pretty clear from both accounts that some people began to move towards a coup by 1939, but hadn't fully formulated concrete plans, or they hadn't secured allies for their efforts. They put their endeavors on halt when the war started in 1939, but they were back at it by 1942-43. Their efforts had phenomenally bad luck, as they tried several times before being able to at least set a bomb off in July 1944 (there were at least 15 known attempts). Anyhow, Shrirer feels that the plotters liked to talk more than act, but at least the military plotters did make some serious attempts to kill Hitler in 43, which perhaps undercuts Shrier a bit, although not completely.

Burleigh doesn't accuse them of general dithering, but he does feel that the generals were anemic. Cooper, who I have not yet re-read on this topic, had the same feeling. Burleigh makes an interesting point in noting that the German generals who were aware of the plot largely sat on the sidelines, with the actors being below that grade. He suggests that generals who had served in the Imperial German Army had so formed their world outlook in that Army that they were incapable of acting against the government, even when they disapproved of it. The younger officers however, were no as restrained, in his view. Anyhow, he feels the generals to be anemic, or ditherers, but not the lower grades. He also discusses the struggles the civilian participants in the plot had with their conscience, but he doesn't dismiss those feelings as misplaced. I think he does a better job describing the thinking and culture of the resistors.

[Pat Holscher]

By the way, thanks for the heads up on Philip Freiherr Von Boeselager's book. I'll have to get that.

It's interesting that Von Boeselager came out with a book so late. Indeed, he's now passed on, as we know. He seems to have received some notoriety very late in life for his role, and was in the news just prior to his death. He still had the pistol that he intended to use in one of the failed plots, as he was assigned to shoot Hitler in one of the plots that didn't go through. Anyhow, I wonder if the very late release of this book is because the July 20 plotters are now more celebrated than they once were. Von Boeselager himself noted in one of the interviews he gave that he hadn't spoken much of his role in the plot, as the plotters weren't always held in high esteem. I don't know if he meant in society at large, or amongst the officer class, where that does seem to have been the case, at least to some extent.

That leads back a an item noted in Sandy's original post here, about the documentary (which I have not seen). Sandy notes that the documentary discussed attitudes on the plotters. I'd be curious if any of these issues were discussed in the documentary.

[selewis]

That leads back a an item noted in Sandy's original post here, about the documentary (which I have not seen). Sandy notes that the documentary discussed attitudes on the plotters. I'd be curious if any of these issues were discussed in the documentary.

Can't say with any certainty, Pat. I've seen more of the Discovery show since that first post though I haven't seen the first 10 minutes or so and I've been otherwise engaged when it was airing so my impressions are sketchy. The last 10 minutes turned out to be pretty much a movie trailer. But the entire middle portion is an exploration of changing attitudes towards the plotters. Apparently it was quite some time before they were seen in a better light than that of traitors. There are interviews with widows and some material on the dedication of the monument that was erected in (as I recall) the courtyard of the prison where the plotters were held and executed. I'll keep an eye open for it and post an alert here if I catch when it will be re-airing.

I've been following the comments with interest but have had nothing to add. One question lingers though. What about Rommel? Wasn't he implicated in this plot as well, or was that another affair entirely? I only know that he was killed for plotting against Hitler. I say 'killed' because on moral grounds I don't think that 'suicide' is the proper term. Say rather that he sacrificed himself for the sake of others, at least that is my understanding.

Also, an interesting exploration of the philosophical and moral underpinnings of national socialism can be found in The Road to Serfdom, by F A Hayek. Of course that isn't primarily what his book is known for today, but it does offer insights into how things get to the point that such regimes can flourish, particularly as it applied to Germany, tracing the threads of that fabric back to the middle of the 19th century.

Sandy

[Pat Holscher]

One question lingers though. What about Rommel? Wasn't he implicated in this plot as well, or was that another affair entirely?

I am frankly not all that up to speed on what the situation was with Rommel. Perhaps somebody else here might know the details on that.

It's my impression, and I may well be in error, that Rommel was not really part of the plot. Rather, he may have been informed rather late that a plot might occur, but he didn't really join in on it. Outside the ring of true plotters, there were those who were informed that something would occur at some point, and urged to join it, but didn't. They also didn't inform anyone else that this had occurred. Explaining their conduct is a little more difficult, but it seem to fall into two basic groups. Some either opposed the Nazis or had come to oppose the Nazis (Rommel came to oppose them, he didn't start out opposing them) but their opposition was only intellectual and therefore passive. They didn't act on it at all, but simply kept quiet. Had the plot succeeded, they would have switched loyalty to the new government readily. Rommel fell in to that group. The other group were opportunist, like Fromm, who were aware of the plot, said nothing, and waited to see if was going to succeed. They would have ultimately thrown in with whoever prevailed. In both of these groups, however, a sort of class loyalty was sufficiently strong such that they didn't inform the government that they knew something was going on. Therefore, they were complicit in the plot through their silence, not through their acts.

It should be noted, lest it seem that everyone knew about it, that there were officers who were not informed of the plot at all, and who were appalled by it. Von Rundstedt, who was well known to make very blunt insulting remarks about Hitler, was appalled by the plot, and was very upset that it had occurred.

Von Rundstedt fits in here, in Rommel's story, as Von Rundstedt agreed to be on what amounted to an Army board of inquiry concerning officers suspected of participating in the plot in some fashion. One of the plotters (he's in the July 20 cavalrymen thread, but I've forgotten his name), who was also related to Von Stauffenberg, gave Rommel's name as one of those informed of the plot under Gestapo interrogation. It should be noted here that the July 20 plotters who were arrested were remarkably silent in their interrogations, and there were some plotters with real involvement who went undetected as a result. Anyhow, as Rommel's name came up, he was the subject of a board of inquiry, with Von Rundstedt being one of the two officers involved in that. The board decided that he was guilty of a crime of honor, and therefore he was to be turned over to the Nazi People's Court, which conducted the trials of the plotters. As anyone sent to that plot received a foreordained sentence of death, essentially this meant that he was going to be sentenced to die.

My understanding of his death is a bit different than yours. I think he essentially took his own life in order that the shame of the Court didn't attach to his name and that of his family. I'm not sympathetic with his act, and its notable that some of the July 20 plotters were so bold as to tell the presiding judge of the court (whose name escapes me) off during the trial. Indeed, even at least one of the White Rose female defendants told him off. While not everyone did that, those who did made some remarkably cutting remarks, so much so that the rather anemic oratory skills of the judge really show through. The trials, which were supposed to be show trials, didn't really succeed in that aim, as some of the defendants proved themselves to be equally capable of conducting a show. Anyhow, but his last act, Rommel allowed the Nazi government to continue to use his reputation as a point of national pride, and he was even officially honored after his death by Hitler, so whatever use that death would have provided, on a greater national scale, was lost. While I do not doubt that the Nazis would have tried and executed Rommel, I suspect that the impact of that would have been weakening on the government. As it was, the attempt to show the films of the executions of the July 20 plotters to Army units met with some resistance on their part, with troops sometimes turning their backs and refusing to watch the executions on film.

[selewis]

One question lingers though. What about Rommel? Wasn't he implicated in this plot as well, or was that another affair entirely?

My understanding of his death is a bit different than yours. I think he essentially took his own life in order that the shame of the Court didn't attach to his name and that of his family. Anyhow, but his last act, Rommel allowed the Nazi government to continue to use his reputation as a point of national pride, and he was even officially honored after his death by Hitler, so whatever use that death would have provided, on a greater national scale, was lost. While I do not doubt that the Nazis would have tried and executed Rommel, I suspect that the impact of that would have been weakening on the government. As it was, the attempt to show the films of the executions of the July 20 plotters to Army units met with some resistance on their part, with troops sometimes turning their backs and refusing to watch the executions on film.

A good point I hadn't considered. I had thought that he committed suicide to spare his family.

[Pat Holscher]

A good point I hadn't considered. I had thought that he committed suicide to spare his family.

It was the case that the Nazis frequently arrested family members of the accused of this type. In the case of the Von Stauffenbergs, for example nearly all of them were arrested. In the Claus Von Stauffenberg family, the children were seperated from the mother. Nina Von Stauffenberg, Claus' wife was imprisoned in a Nazi maternity ward, as she was pregnant with the couple's unborn child at the time. The children were placed in an orphanage under the name of Meister. Claus' bother Alexander and his wife Melitta were also arrested.

Alexander and Melitta, however, provide an example of how this practice was not absolute. Alexander had not fled following the assassination attempt and successfully defended himself and escaped death, although he was held, with other Von Stauffenberg's, in concentration camps and prisons. Melitta, ironically, was released as she was vital to the war effort as a test pilot, even though she may actually have been in the know about the attempt (that may be uncertain), and she was 1/4 Jewish. In another example Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist-Schmenzin was arrested due to the role of his father, Ewald, in the plot, but the charges against him were dismissed (even though he really had been involved in an earlier plot). He was sent to a concentration camp, and then sent to the front thereafter. So, it certainly could have been expected that Rommel's wife, and his son Manfred, then a 16 year old Luftwaffe anti aircraft gunner (his father had resisted his desire to join the SS) would have been arrested. They likely wouldn't have been prosecuted, but their life would have been rough.

Having said all that, the example of Von Stauffenberg stands in stark contrast. Von Stauffenberg was executed, never asking to spare himself. He knew that his family was being put in jeopardy. Von Stauffenberg was not well known outside of military circles, and his execution in now way threatened to shock the average German. Rommel was in a different situation entirely. He was a Field Marshall, and his trial would have been a terrible blow to the Nazi regime itself. Even the trial of well known generals threatened to not sit well, and there's some suggestion that Beck, a Generaloberst, did not so much commit suicide as was executed. Of course, once again, Von Stauffenberg was a dedicated Roman Catholic and would have regarded suicide as a mortal sin.

At any rate, had Rommel stated "no, I think you'll have to try me", you have to wonder what would have happened. That wouldn't have brought down the Third Reich in and of itself, but it might have served to take the wind out of the sails of a lot of German officers. It was quite clear that the officer class remained tight enough that quite a few high ranking officers (more than were ever tried) were aware that something was up, or had been approached. Even Von Manstein may have been approached early on about deposing Hitler, although he certainly did not join in any plots. It was one thing for colonels and even generals to engage in a plot, but it would have been another for a Field Marshall to have joined in, particularly a celebrated one like Rommel. As it was, his image continued on so that it could be used by the Nazis until the end.

[Pat Holscher]

Sandy,

Having gotten a little further in Shirer's account, Shirer does indeed have Rommel playing a significant role, if not an inner circle role. So, based on Shirer's account, and I'm sure Shirer is correct, Rommel was approached and more than gave his assent to a coup. He was opposed to killing Hitler, but on practical, rather than moral, grounds.

Shirer reports that at least one account also has Rommel informing Von Rundstedt, with Von Rundstedt giving his assent. He also notes that Von Rundstedt had otherwise been approached, but declined to participate. Assuming that's correct, it put's Von Rundstedt's post coup attempt behavior in a bad light, unless a person somehow makes a distinction between attempting a coup, and attempting a coup featuring as assassination.

I don't think that changes the nature of Rommel's end. It might actually emphasize it, as Rommel was approached because he was a Field Marshall, and his status gave weight to the coup.

[bisley45]

Perhaps I've missed it, but who was to be Hitler's replacement in the event of a satisfactory ending to the July 20 plot? I can't say I've read extensively on the subject, but I don't see a clear choice among those in the high command, and most folks know little of the civilian political scene of the time. I tend to think that the new leader would probably have come from the military, if for no better reason than to help ease Germany into an honorable cessation of hostilities.

Oops....upon more careful perusal, I see the name Goerdeler put forth as the pick for post-coup Chancellor. Now I have someone to read up on.

[Pat Holscher]

Perhaps I've missed it, but who was to be Hitler's replacement in the event of a satisfactory ending to the July 20 plot? I can't say I've read extensively on the subject, but I don't see a clear choice among those in the high command, and most folks know little of the civilian political scene of the time. I tend to think that the new leader would probably have come from the military, if for no better reason than to help ease Germany into an honorable cessation of hostilities.

Oops....upon more careful perusal, I see the name Goerdeler put forth as the pick for post-coup Chancellor. Now I have someone to read up on.

That's correct, it was Goerdeler, but Beck was the military head of the coup at least in the sense of being the senior most respected military figure associated with it.