Doenitz's attitude to the July Bomb Plot.

Individual German officers, soldiers and award holders.

Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Doenitz's attitude to the July Bomb Plot.

Post by sid guttridge » Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:15 am

There have been several discussions on Feldgrau regarding whether the Bomb Plotters were right and honourable or simply wrong and treacherous. Unfortunately I cannot relocate those threads so I am inflicting a new one on Feldgrau.

The opinion of the second Fuhrer, Admiral Donitz, might be of interest in this regard. On p.155 of his "Memoirs" (an abridgement of his "Ten Years and Twenty Days") he writes:

"...if there were German men and women prepared in their opposition to go to the length of committing high treason because they conscientiously and firmly believed that only by so doing could they save their country from Hitler, I do not feel that I can deny them the moral right to do so, particularly as they were already aware of the atrocities which today are known to all of us."

Cheers,

Sid.

Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb » Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:01 am

Sid

You must have a thirst for controversy. :wink:

The only real answer to this must come from individuals - what would you have done? Even then, the answer might differ among people based upon their access to information. Given general order #1 limiting access severely to information required for one's specific duty - that means we can form no group answer - there were too many groups each defined by their access to info.

Anti-Hitler plotters seem to come in two flavors - those who opposed the Nazis based upon the police state aspect of it; and those who felt Hitler was losing the war and must be replaced.

Either was valid, but in the latter case validity rests upon lack of knowledge of Nazi excesses.

Given the philosophical and even theological aspect of raising your hand against the state, I can sympathize with folks who remain ambigious on this issue.

An example - suppose you were to discover that Tony Blair was involved in some outlandishly evil policy that could only be stopped by you - and that if you acted, your countrymen would for ever deem you a traitor and a rascal? I of course, like to think that in a similar situation I would act - but as we say in the south, the proof of the puddin' is in the eatin'.

Or here is a situation closer to home for you and me. General Walls - who in my opinion betrayed the Army in Rhodesia - no doubt acted for reasons he considered valid. Spare the people further conflict or whatever. But he promised the African soldiers in my company, in person, that he would never never surrender and would be as faithful to them as they had been to him. What was his duty in this case?

Mellowed as I am by age I can see where he might have acted in accordance with his conscience. But what about his word? A man's word is his bond - his reputation rests upon keeping it.

And therein lies the rub - the German soldiers had given their word to Hitler as head of state. Short of direct knowledge of what was happening in the camps, I can well imagine they struggled with that little conundrum.

cheers

Reb

User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

Like a Jove he is coming.

Post by behblc » Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:34 pm

Who ...Heinz K. !
Donitz spoke out against them at the time, he with the wisdom of truth and hindsight took a different view in later years.
As before I think the men who acted did so with great courage and with the interests of Germany at heart.
Heinz will when he finds this say different.
" Life , to be sure is nothing much to loose ; But young men think it is , and we were young . "
A.E. Housman.

" The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. " Wilfred Owen (M.C.).

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:47 am

Hi Reb,

The answer probably lies in the identifying the "greater good". Besides that the reputation of responsible individuals is as nothing. Stauffenberg was undoubtedly morally right and until recently Walls also looked correct.

Cheers,

Sid.

heinz kling

Post by heinz kling » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:50 pm

Stauffenberg the war cripple and mental retard is a disgrace to his fellow officers. As are all the jult traitors.

heinz kling

Re: Doenitz's attitude to the July Bomb Plot.

Post by heinz kling » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:51 pm

sid guttridge wrote:There have been several discussions on Feldgrau regarding whether the Bomb Plotters were right and honourable or simply wrong and treacherous. Unfortunately I cannot relocate those threads so I am inflicting a new one on Feldgrau.

The opinion of the second Fuhrer, Admiral Donitz, might be of interest in this regard. On p.155 of his "Memoirs" (an abridgement of his "Ten Years and Twenty Days") he writes:

"...if there were German men and women prepared in their opposition to go to the length of committing high treason because they conscientiously and firmly believed that only by so doing could they save their country from Hitler, I do not feel that I can deny them the moral right to do so, particularly as they were already aware of the atrocities which today are known to all of us."


Cheers,

Sid.
Well, what moral right is there to assasinate your elected leader in the nation's darkest hours so as to kowtow to some barbaric hordes and hioping that some scraps may be left on the floor.

Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:19 pm

That moral right comes when your 'elected leader' is murdering people by the milion. Some might say it is a duty.

The fact that your leader was elected does not give him the right to invade other countries or murder people he doesn't like.

The fact is that the German officers waited too long - Hitler should have been put down before he invaded Russia. Then you wouldn't have had the 'savage hordes' to worry about - at least for a while.

if the Russians had been wise enough to strike down their leader, then the whole "savage hordes" problem would have been nipped in the bud.

If you read my other posts you'll note I don't take a simplistic approach to this and I understand your point. I just don't agree with it.

Loyalty to govts has caused more deaths than the black plague - this whole bit of 'elected leaders' is enough to make one pine for a nice lethargic monarchy! We must hold our leaders to account - I'm net speaking from some moral high horse here - I can't name a country that has done so.

cheers
Reb

User avatar
behblc
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: UK.

Here we go again !

Post by behblc » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:40 am

Reb don't expect anything other than "I see , I obey " from Heinz.
Its the "party line" all the way to defeat , a man who had he been there would have been willing to fight to the last pressed man , woman and child.
" Life , to be sure is nothing much to loose ; But young men think it is , and we were young . "
A.E. Housman.

" The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. " Wilfred Owen (M.C.).

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:05 am

Hi Guys,

Hmmm....... a tough one.

Do we regard the opinion of Heinz Kling or of Fuehrer Doenitz as the greater authority on the rights or wrongs of the Bomb Plot?

I may be being stupid but, even though Doenitz was only Hitler's chosen successor and Heinz Kling is a very widely read and exceptionally well informed and erudite historian of impeccable moderation and good judgement, I am going to be outrageously reckless and support the Doenitz position that;

"...if there were German men and women prepared in their opposition to go to the length of committing high treason because they conscientiously and firmly believed that only by so doing could they save their country from Hitler, I do not feel that I can deny them the moral right to do so, particularly as they were already aware of the atrocities which today are known to all of us."

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Nibelung
Patron
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:37 am
Location: Slovenia, Europe

Post by Nibelung » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:07 am

Stauffenberg the war cripple and mental retard is a disgrace to his fellow officers. As are all the jult traitors
heinz,

a war cripple? Yes, a war cripple which he became after fighting for his country and leadership in Tunisia...he had much more right to assassinate Hitler, than you do to criticise him, since he also kept the hordes away, appart from you...Germany needed help on both fields, the Battlefield and it's homeland.

best,
Nibelung
Last edited by Nibelung on Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --

Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:40 am

I didn't know 'war cripple' was an insult - I'd say rather that wounds taken in war are a badge of honour.

Reb

User avatar
Alecci
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Alecci » Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:14 am

This is how Graf Stauffenberg received his injuries:

On 6 April 1943 the 10th Panzer Division was ordered to retreat from Biar Zelloudja (west of Sidi Mannsour) to Mezzouna. On the morning of 7 April Graf Stauffenberg took his leave of Major-General Friedrich Freiherr von Broich (OC of 10th Panzer Division) to direct the retreat from his Horch jeep, while the latter would follow once the last of the division's troops had passed through the El-Hafay Pass. Freiherr Broich reminded Graf Stauffenberg to look out for enemy fighter-bombers.

Graf Stauffenberg, accompanied by a few armoured radio cars went through the El-Hafay Pass and drove along the northern edge of Sebkhet en Noual. During this time he joined up with the Lieutenant Wilhelm Reile's 5th company the 10th Motorcycle Battalion. When they reached the narrow terrain between Sebhket en Noual and the Chabita-Khetati Pass, they got caught up in an inferno of fighter-bomber attacks. A battery of the 3rd Battalion of the 90th Armoured Artillery Regiment also arrived.

All personnel had to abandon their vehicles, since these presented easy targets for the enemy pilots. Between sorties survivors tried to get hold of usable vehicles in order to try to make their way out. In this mayhem Graf Stauffenberg was driving back and forth between units to direct them, standing in his jeep, when his car came under fire. He threw himself out onto the ground, his face on his hands, and then he was hit.

An ambulance commanded by Second Lieutenant Dr Hans Keysser of the 361st Panzer Grenadier Regiment (subordinated to the 90th Light Division) presently arrived. Graf Stauffenberg was lifted into the ambulance, and the ambulance drove off towards the 200th Field Hospital at Sfax. While Keysser was dressing his wounds inside the ambulance, Graf Stauffenberg, still conscious, asked him his name.

As a burst of fire from one of the enemy fighter-bombers making a strafing run had practically sawed off his right hand just above the wrist, Graf Stauffenberg's right hand was amputated right between the wrist and the elbow. The little finger and the ring finger on his left hand and his left eye had to be removed as well (they had probably been hit by the same bullet or by shrapnel thereof). He had also suffered a minor injury to one of his knees, as well as minor shrapnel in the head.

On 10 April he was transported by ambulance to the 950th Base Hospital at Tunis-Carthage. On 15th April he arrived by boat in Livorno and was put on a hospital train. Graf Stauffenberg was admitted on 21 April to Ward II of the 1st General Military Hospital in Munich, through the intervention of his friend Lieutenant-Colonel (GS) Peter Sauerbruch (a son of the famous physician Dr Ferdinand Sauerbruch).
With kind regards
Alecci Lioncross

User avatar
Alecci
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Alecci » Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:41 am

As for Heinz Kling labeling him as a 'mental retard', I would like to mention that Graf Stauffenberg would probably have outsmarted him any day of the week. The officers who belonged to the German General Staff was an elite when it comes to mental capabilities, and as Graf Stauffenberg was regarded as one of the most efficient and able officers of the whole Armed Forces (even by Hitler himself), this speaks for itself. Him being nicknamed 'the new Schlieffen' by his colleagues also illustrates this. So does the HPA's fitness report of him dated early 1943 (if I remember correctly), where it is established that he was likely to end up with the highest military positions. Those positions being that of either Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Commander-in-Chief of the Army or Chief of the General Staff.

Heinz Kling ought to hold those personal views which could easily be contradicted by facts to himself. If he like to think of Graf Stauffenberg as a traitor, that's fine by me. That's a personal opinion which is not easily decided upon. I myself, to some limited extent, consider him a traitor. But to call him a mental retard only because he disapprove of his actions only serve to reflect that image upon Heinz Kling himself instead.

Perhaps Heinz Kling ought to read more about Graf Stauffenberg the man instead of confining himself to a basic knowledge of his role within the conspiracy before making statements he cannot stand by.
With kind regards
Alecci Lioncross

heinz kling

Post by heinz kling » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:12 pm

Stauffenberg being compared to GFM Alfred Graf von Schlieffen? You must be kidding me!

He's nothing but a cowardly traitor.

heinz kling

Post by heinz kling » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:23 pm

Hope this link helps shed light on that despicable character Stauffenberg

http://www.vho.org/D/Staatsbriefe/Strauss9_7_8_2.html

Post Reply