„Im April 1932 sprach sich Stauffenberg anlässlich der Reichspräsidentenwahl gegen Paul von Hindenburg und zugunsten von Adolf Hitler aus. Im Mai 1933 wurde er zum Leutnant ernannt.
1938 marschiert er als einer der ersten in die von den Nazis „Sudentenland“ genannte Tschechoslowakei ein.
1939 ist er an vorderster Front am Angriffskrieg gegen Polen beteiligt.
1940 weiterhin als hoher Offizier am Überfall auf Frankreich beteilgt.
1941 hieß Stauffenberg die Vereinheitlichung der Befehlsgewalt des Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres und des Obersten Befehlshabers der Wehrmacht in Hitlers Händen gut.“
Erst 1943, nachdem er in Afrika zum Krüppel geschossen wurde entdeckte Stauffenberg seine Gegnerschaft zu Hitler.
halder wrote:Why does this biography and Peiper in general create such a divided opinion? And if Peiper was ein Brutale, hell say so. I mean, you wouldn't approach a biography of Himmler with anything but contempt for the subject...
Putting a moral hat on for the moment, whatever Peiper's qualities as a soldier, surely these are outweighed by his criminal actions which, to me, are far greater a measure of the man.
Jan-Hendrik wrote:Intersting, I never hear anything similar from the fraction that rants about Jens' Bias" about the bias of the NS-Apologet Agte
Because he still offers the modern Knight of WW2 many seem to look for?
Isn't it clear, that young Peiper had as Adj. of RFSS had more insight in the criminal reality behind the curtain of Himmler's psudo-germanic Propaganda that most others?
Maybe because many are disturbed that Peiper's case is a good example how well, apart from the HIAG's postwar agitation, protectionism worked within the SS? Or does anyone still believes that the high rise of Peiper had no connection to that RFSS "held his hand avove him"?
If you think about those questions with an open mind you might see why Jens' research is so neccessary
Staufenberg was an old school German nationalist, whose vioews on this were pretty strong, but he was no Nazi.
Necessary for what? and for whom? those who enjoy history slanted in the direction they think it occurred? or written for their little group of friends to curry favor with them? sorry, ainy buying it. And if Jens analysis is so chrystal clear, then why did he have to go so over the top in smearing Peiper? wouldnt Peiper's own actions, presented in an even tone, speak for themsleves as to how eeee-vil he was?
aha, so thats it: anger at how good of a job the HIAG did in protecting one of their own is what has you (and Jens) so upset? guess you should direct your anger at them, not cheap character assassination of Peiper. or would everything be ok if the HIAG bungled everything?
whatever Peiper's qualities as a soldier, surely these are outweighed by his criminal actions which, to me, are far greater a measure of the man.
Michael Miller / ABR wrote:...Just "knowing" something is not a crime. Peiper's involvement, minimal as it MAY have been, was complicit. ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests