Jump to content

Talk:Claus von Stauffenberg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk 2003-2006

"...leading figures of anti-Nazi resistance movements during the WW II. "
This is a misleading statement. Stauffenberg was never inside a "movement", especially not in a dedicated anti-Nazi movement. He took part in a plot against Hitler, at a time when it was obvious that Germany will lose the war.
--zeno 04:33 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Another historical error: many of the conspirators were actually killed slowly--according to some accounts, hanged with piano wire. Some accounts, which are a little difficult to corroborate, describe Hitler watching films of the executions repeatedly. Furthermore, Rommel, who was implicated in the plot, was allowed to commit suicide. What is teh source of them all being shot immediately (though many indeed were). Danny

The four "main" conspirators (Stauffenberg Olbricht von Haeften and von Quirnheim) were shot immediately, the article is correct. Source for me is documentation I saw yesterday ;)
In the days after that, almost 200 conspirators were executed in Berlin-Plötzensee
Pacifier

Any idea how Hitler escaped the assassination attempt ? Jay 10:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to the History Channel, the bomb was under an enormously thick oak table, that was just strong enough to deflect the blast. Hitler survived just by chance, while others around him were killed. I'm unsure how many others survived... (Someone please correct this if you know the details.)
--AmoebaMan 17:33 Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
The bomb was at 1st just under hitlers feet but was moved by one of the other generals to another side of the table, the table leg did deflect some of the blast but there is also other factors to consider. At the time of the explosion hitler stood up a few seconds before to look at an area of a map one of his generals was pointing out. If hitler had remained seated he would've been killed. Also the meeting usually took place in a bunker which it didnt on this day, if it had everyone in the room would've died instantly, but on this day it took place in a house with open windows which allowed some of the force to escape the room. Also some more info the plan was to set off two bombs but only one was armed in time and stupidly not put back in the briefcase with the armed one, if it had been hitler would've been killed!!!!

Does anyone know what happened to Stauffenberg's wife and children??

Nina Countess Schenk von Stauffenberg died on April 2nd 2006, aged 92. She is survived by four of her five children. Her eldest son, Berthold, once held the rank of General in the Bundeswehr. Detmold 17.04.2006 01:20


Cassandra - 27/10/04 - 23.09 GMT

Read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. He explains the plot and the assassination attempt in detail in that book.
see July 20 Plot. --High on a tree 23:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I removed the link to Berthold in the "Family" section because it links to a Wikipedia biography about Claus von Stauffenberg's brother, who was also named Berthold. The section in question refers to Berthold as the SON of Claus von Stauffenberg. It was all a simple name mix-up, in other words. --Cormac Canales 04:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CGSvS was born in Jettingen castle (now Jettingen-Scheppach), Guenzburg district, Kingdom of Bavaria then and State of Bavaria now - Best regards, WernerE (german-wiki) 16.2.05

Views

I think von Stauffenberg's views (except for his obvious opposition to Hitler) need to be mentioned in the article. I don't know too much about it except for the fact that he was an anti-Semite.--Carabinieri 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read many books on Von Stauffenberg & I have never read naything about him being an anti-semite ("""")

Me neither (Khan 22:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

Yes Stauffenberg was a an-semite and racists. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr12.htm Housden pulls no punches when he points to Stauffenberg's view of Poles as "an unbelievable rabble," their country occupied by "a lot of Jews and a lot of cross-breeds" (p. 100). Similarly, Housden shows how General Beck's opposition to Hitler resulted from a disagreement over Hitler's tactics in annexing the Sudetenland, not Hitler's goals. Moltke is really the only one among the July 1944 conspirators to appear unambiguously opposed to Nazism on ideological grounds.

He also believed that Poles are slaves, that feel at best under the whip, I will add in time this information. --Molobo 12:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Daniel Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners (pg. 146 in the German translation; i don't know what page in the English version). There is a quotation by Berthold von Stauffenberg, Claus's brother, who collaborated with him. Here is a rough translation: "We agreed to the basic ideas of the National Socialists concerning inner policy...The racialist idea...appeared healthy and promising to us."--Carabinieri 14:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst Stauffenberg may have had good intentions in trying to end the life of Adolf Hitler, for the benefit of Germany and (possibly) bring an end to the war, his method was disgusting. Why didn't this man, who had access to Hitler, draw his pistol and shoot him point blank. Instead, he chooses to plant a bomb. No guarantees that it will hit his target, no guarantees that it will even detonate. Now you can turn this method of murder upside down and sideways but it's still the act of a terrorist. He not only failed in killing Hitler, he murdered four innocent men, including a stenographer. He had no quarrel with those men but chose to take their lives anyway. A terrorist tried to blow up the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984, failed, killed two innocent people and he's a monster. Stauffenberg does the same act, trying to murder the head of state, failed, killed four other men in the process and he's a hero. Sorry, I don't quite see the reasoning behind that. You choose to plant a bomb, for whatever cause and there will be a fair chance that you will murder innocent people who just happen to be standing by. It's terrorism, period. It's cowardly, period. He had access to Hitler, should have shot him and taken the consequences alone. End of story. Detmold 17 April 2006 01:49

I've only ever fired a pistol in my right hand (I'm right-handed) and then it was a modern fire-arm. I don't know whether Stauffenberg was right-handed or not but if so firing a pistol with only three fingers remaining on your off-hand would be a difficult task at best. --Brother William 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

-Why didn't he shoot him? Because killing Hitler would have meant Goring taking over and nothing changing. The conspirators needed to seize control of the entire government, not just kill Hitler. As the article says, Stauffenberg was on the phone to various units ordering them to arrest political officers. None of the other conspirators were willing to step up and be the one to start ordering the military to take control and de-nazify the government. So, in a nutshell, Stauffenberg was too important to the coup to get shot immediately for killing Hitler. Rob 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've extensively researched Claus Stauffenberg and I would suggest the definitive biography by Hoffman, Stauffenberg: A Family History. Contrary to what others posting here say - Stauffenberg was not known as a racist or anti-Semite. Many of his friends growing up were Jewish; during his time in Stefan George's Circle, he spent time with members of that circle, who were Jewish. And his sister in law, Melitta Schiller, came from a Jewish background. In Poland, where he served, a fellow officer executed two young women, claiming that they were trying to "signal." Turns out they were simple minded and scared, using torches to get around. Stauffenberg, disgusted by the act, immediately ordered a court martial for the officer in question. As well, Stauffenberg, as a young officer, was required to attend a lecture by a well-known publisher who was an anti-Semite. When the speaker got into a pornographic rant about Jews, Stauffenberg got up from his seat and walked out in disgust. He was horrified at the carnage of Kristallnacht and started initiating thoughts of conspiracy and assassination as far back as 1938. As a German nationalist he initially supported Hitler but was quickly disgusted by him, the SA and the SS in particular. In 1942 he found out about the Final Solution and cried out, "They're murdering Jews in the thousands! This must stop!" Stauffenberg was never a member of the Nazi Party; he kept bringing his concerns to others for years but wasn't successful. He even approached Erich von Manstein, but the latter threatened to have Stauffenberg arrested. I recently contacted an Israeli Jewish friend - he says Stauffenberg is well respected in Israel and there are even streets named after him there. I feel that the fiery and "strikingly handsome" (in William Shirer's words; Claus was a real looker and noted for it by his peers) young officer is certainly deserving of status as a German hero. He wasn't perfect, neither are the rest of us. He entertained views earlier in his life that I don't support, but changed them, influenced by his faith, mysticism and a desire to eliminate the dictator.

Terrorism? Good grief. I hardly think trying to kill one of history's greatest despots and mass murderers counts as terrorism, regardless of what method you employ. There are several logistical reasons why trying to shoot Hitler was not a good idea, however. First, have you actually read the entire article? Stauffenberg had only one hand, and a maimed hand with a thumb and two fingers remaining at that. He had difficulty buttoning a shirt, let along holding and firing a pistol with any accuracy. Second, sidearms were not allowed at Fuher conferences and had not been for some time before the July 20 plot. In addition to the great difficulty of simply holding a pistol, Stauffenberg would have had to have secreted it to get it into the room and then retrieved it quickly and smoothly enough to get a shot off before others stopped him (and remember, there were armed guards in the room. Extremely unlikely. Third, gunshots are an unreliable means of assasination. For every Kennedy or Lincoln there's a Reagan or Ford. You may shoot your intended target, but there's no gurantee the wound will be fatal. The bomb was intended to obliterate the room and kill almost everyone in it to make absolutely sure Hitler was dead. That this failed was due to a tragic series of coincidences; but it still probably had a better chance at success than trying to shoot Hitler during a conference. 169.253.4.21 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Texxasfinn

I also find it strange no-one has pointed out to Detmold that Thatcher wasn't killing millions of Jews. One could argue that killing one or two 'innocent' (I'm not convinced aiding Hitler in any capacity should be counted as 'innocent') people is an allowable price to pay for saving millions upon millions of people from excruciating death. But what this has to do with anything is anyone's guess--this is an encyclopedia article, not a moral treatise. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Execution Method

Yesterday I watched a video which said the conspriators were executed by 'being hung by the ribs on meat hooks'. But they were actually shot? Does anyone know for sure? I'd say there is quite a difference. ((shiver))

The ones rounded up immediately afterwards, including Stauffenberg, were shot, and later on the rest who were involved were arrested and placed on trial, after which they were hanged from meat hooks.

- To be precise: Stauffenberg, General Olbricht, Oberst Merz von Quirnheim and Oberleutnant von Haeften were shot emediately (perhaps to prevent them from telling anyone about Generaloberst Fromm's knowledge of the plot), Generaloberst Beck was allowed to shoot himself (and didn't succeed), Generaloberst Hoeppner was arrested and transfered to Plötzensee prison. He was one of the first to be condemned to death by the infamous Volksgerichtshof--Vully 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

- By the way: As source you just have to visit the "Bendler-Block" where a bronze plate tells about the killings there--Vully 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiederstand

Saying this was a soley conservative movement is highly inaccurate. -- max rspct 11.54 am GMT 03 april 2006

With all due respect: It is “Widerstand”. A word like Wiederstand does not exist German language.

To clear the main objective, have a look at German Resistance --Dionysos 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the conspirators were hanged by a hemp rope, not piano wire.But unlike with traditional hanging methods by gallows where the drop usually breaks the neck resulting in a quick death (we hope!) Stauffenberg's comrades dangled from the meat hooks. Brother Berthold would have taken at least 20 minutes to die by strangulation. Claus was "fortunate" in that he was dispatched relatively quickly. An interesting fictional description of the executions is in Paul West's wonderful "The Very Rich Hours of Count von Stauffenberg," where the tale is narrated in first person by the ghost of the young count who watches helplessly and sees that he has inadvertently condemned his brother and colleagues to gruesome deaths. - kyrie

Title

This article should be titled Claus Graf von Stauffenberg to be in conformity with other articles about German nobility. Adam 11:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have any kind of general policy on German nobility naming. See Otto von Bismarck, for instance. We ought to be clear on what the general policy is before we go moving around articles - especially if, as in this case, we'd be moving them to a less familiar version. Also, to be pedantic, wouldn't it technically be Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg? john k 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think Bismarck is wrong too. It should presumably be Otto Furst von Bismarck. We lots of articles with "Graf" and "Freiherr" etc in the titles. I agree we should do one thing or the other consistently.
  • I have always assumed that Schenk was a given name. Was his surname actually Schenk von Stauffenberg? Adam 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Otto Fürst von Bismarck, surely? But does that mean Metternich has to be at Klemens Fürst von Metternich-Winneburg? This seems to get us further from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), at least in some cases. It would, of course, be simpler to do it this way, but perhaps it would be better to take this up over at the useless mess that nobody will ever respond to that is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 17:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I will leave the larger question to you - I tend to lose patience with that kind of meta-debate. Specifically on Stauffenberg, we now seem to have three possibilities:

  • That his surname was von Stauffenberg, his given names were Claus Schenk and his title was Graf.
  • That his surname was Schenk von Stauffenberg, his given name was Claus and his title was Graf.
  • That his surname was von Stauffenberg, his given name was Claus and his title was Graf Schenk.

Can anyone give a firm answer (not more speculation) on which was the case? Adam 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

His surname was Schenk von Stauffenberg. His forenames were Claus Philipp Maria. His name would ordinarily be given as Claus Philipp Maria Schenck Graf von Stauffenberg. He'd be alphabetized under "Schenk v. Stauffenberg" (and so would the other members of his family). See the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels: Gräfliche Häuser A Band II, von Ehrenkrook, Hans Friedrich, C. A. Starke Verlag, Glücksburg/Ostsee, 1955, Band II. - Nunh-huh 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that.
Titles tend to be appended onto surnames and become part of the surname, which seems to be what happened here. And when English speakers pick them up, the tendency is to hang on only to part of it. (I think he's best known as Claus von Stauffenberg in English). Of course, since Germany outlawed titles in 1919, and they became part of the surname, you could equally well say his surname was "Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg" and he had no title. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but the article should be named for the full name that the subject is known for. Stauffenberg is an known for much more than his german nobility. Check Prince Peter Kropotkin. -- max rspct leave a message 02:00, 7 June 2006

2 cents/euros/etc: My impression of the consensus over this kind of issue is to keep the article title in the "straightforward" form (which I believe for (von) Stauffenberg is as at present) and roll out the full works within the first one or two sentences of the article. Cf Wernher von Braun for another example. Regards, David Kernow 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Schenk is a title, not part of the name (von Stauffenberg). dewiki uses "Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg", since that is apparently most common in German academic literature. One possible reason might be that "Schenk" (Cupbearer) is a lower title than "Graf" (Count). Kusma (討論) 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nunh-huh: Yes, I understand how the title/name Graf works in German names. The issue is the status of Schenk - is it a name or a title? Adam 03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a name. If it originated as a title (and it seems it did), it's no less a name now. Just like in "Opie Tailor", "tailor" no longer indicates a profession, but a name. As far as I know, Schenk has not been used as a title since the Middle Ages. It's certainly treated as part of the surname in the GHdA. There's no ambiguity there: they put surnames in bold, and titles in plain text, and it's Schenk Gf v. Stauffenberg, C l a u s Philipp Maria. (The letter spacing, or sperren, of "C l a u s" indicating it's the name he went by.) - Nunh-huh 04:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. It seems therefore than in post-1918 times the family's surname has been Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, with the old noble titles Schenk and Graf incorporated into the name. Our hero's name is therefore Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, and that is what the article should be called, with all the other variants as redirects. Can anyone fault this logic? Adam 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that seems right. We're sure it's "Schenk Graf" and not "Graf Schenk"? john k 10:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg gets 41,400 googles (including de.wikipedia), Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg gets 23,100 (inluding Britannica). Take your pick. Adam 11:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nunh-huh has access to the GHdA, which apparently has "Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg," so I suppose we should stick with that. john k 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, alle stimmen wir zu. Adam 12:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since appear to have consensus, can someone move the article to Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg? Adam 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, now fixing all those double redirects. Kusma (討論) 02:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. His redirects include Stauffenberg, which perhaps should be a dab page rather than a redirect? Kusma (討論) 02:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a whole family of them. His widow, who died this year, merits an article in her own right, and his son was also a general. Adam 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

According to de:Stauffenberg, which also clears up the "Schenk" question (it calls it a title that was turned into a name in 1918), there are also some older Stauffenbergs that could have articles. Probably worth translating... Kusma (討論) 03:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done a Stauffenberg dab page. Adam 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have moved the other two Stauffenbergs. Note that we also have a Category:Stauffenberg. Kusma (討論) 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Berthold Jr should have his own article. Also, the category seems pretty redundant to me. Adam 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To come back to the name problem: Look up the german atricle about the family, where you can learn that the family's name used to be only "von Stauffenberg" before the title "Schenk" was added. Later a branch of the family got the additional title of "Graf" (count), another that of "Freiherr" (Baron). So correctly the "Graf" should stand before the "Schenk" - "Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg". By the way: Since the end of World War I all former german titles have become parts of the surname. --Vully 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Short addition: The family members themselves pronounce their surname "Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg" - so that's it.--Vully 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stupid move

Why change the name of the article.. Probably because there are wikipedians obsessed with titles of nobility, This is not a who's who.. Claus is usually known by the original name of the article. -- max rspct leave a message 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't exactly neutral

While it reflects the rather average view of him in public, historians have researched this person more in detail, he wasn't a saint and had both anti-polish and anti-semitic beliefs which he expressed. He was more a old-Guard German nationalist that didn't like the new breed of politics introduced by Hitler then fighter for democracy. This can be sourced quite easly by various historic research. --Molobo 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well go and do that then. Put your suggestions on this page. -- max rspct leave a message 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, Molobo, virtually everyone those days had some anti-this or anti-that beliefs. That's not relevant at all. Additionally, I don't see what could be wrong about being a German nationalist. 217.85.110.56 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
All nazis were german nationalists. And german nationalism lead the world in two world wars. Theres everything wrong with german nationalists. believe me, I'm german.

88.68.220.228 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong...NOT virtually everybody in these days had anti-this or anti-that beliefs in germany...there were for example the group "weiße rose"(white rose). They were resistance fighters fighting hitler for the sake of democracy and because they were against anti-semitism, which is historically proven. So if you compare them to von Stauffenberg you will see that there is a whole different quality. Therefor,I agree with Molobo, reading this article one might be mislead to think that von Stauffenberg was a hero, but he served under hitler for many years and therefor witnessed, maybe participated but at least agreed silently with too many cruel acts of unhumanity to deserve to be portrayed like a hero.

The "White Rose" are to be commended for their non-violent approach. But this was a group of six people, and you using it as an example sort of confirms the statement of the fellow you're replying to: back then anti-this or anti-that views were exceedingly common, and anti-semitism and anti-bolsjevism especially. Even if someone didn't like the Jews or the Polish (or whomever) however, that is NOT the same as to say they condoned poor treatment of them. I don't like religious/ideological fanatics, but that doesn't mean I wish them harm, and I would be opposed to maltreatment of them. Tsuka 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No this is higly incorrect as well. Most of those accusations towards Stauffenberg were mainly politically motivated to deny ( or to discredit ) the existence of a sincere "conservative opposition" and to strength the historical role of the communist ( and certain ethnical ) resistance. A very common political strategy in the times of the cold war. --82.83.143.167 04:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To 217.85.110.56 and Tsuka:
1) I don't see how everybody being anti-something would mean that Stauffenberg's anit-semetism (et al) is irrelevant. It's still a fact about him; he was still anti-semetic, right? And as for what's wrong with being a German nationalist, why would anything need to be wrong with it? This is meant to be an encyclopedia page that is neutral on points of view. If he was a German nationalist, then saying there was nothing wrong with German nationalism shows in no way whatsoever that his German nationalism shouldn't be reported.
2) Molobo never suggested that Stuaffenberg wanted to harm or maltreat the Jews or the Polish. Why do you think Molobo was suggesting otherwise? It is because it is you who in fact equate anti-semetism with wanting to harm a semite? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote? What do you think this sentence means: "Even if someone didn't like the Jews or the Polish (or whomever) however, that is NOT the same as to say they condoned poor treatment of them." --Tsuka (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact the White Rose was decidedly (!) not democratical: "We do not want to judge on the different forms of government possible: democracy, constitutional monarchy, royalty etc. One thing only needs to be exalted in clearness and without need of interpretation: each single man [Mensch, i. e. incl. woman. In my view "human being" does not fit into the somewhat poetic language they used] has the right to claim a state that is useful and just, a state that ensures freedom of the individual as well as the welfare of the whole." Third Leaflet.
Stauffenberg's political views on the other hand are described thus by his own words: "We confess in spirit and in deed to the great traditions of our People, who by melting Hellenic and Christian roots into the Germanic being created the mankind ("Menschentum") of the occident. We want a New Order that makes all Germans upholders ("Träger") of the state and ensures to them order or right; ("Recht") and justice, but we despise the lie of equality and call for the acknowledgement of the distinct ranks as given by Nature. We want a People that, rooted in the soul of our homeland ("Heimat") remains close to the natural Powers, seeks its happiness and satisfaction in operating within the given circles of life, and overcomes in proud freedom ("freiem Stolze"; "free pride" somewhat doesn't fit the rhythm) the inferior instincts of envy and misgiving."
I don't know whether Stauffenberg was decided in such practical questions such as, whether the Crown Prince was to be put into power after a successful putsch, or the like. The plot was an anti-Hitler conspiration; it would have gained even wider support within the generality if some generals had not taken primarily into custody what they judged best for the state under the given circumstances (according to their view, a defeat made things worse and replacing Hitler meant defeat - for psychological reasons of course, not because of his military abilities which they knew to be not the greatest - and the Western Allied would not be willing to grant an honorful defeat and peace, which it is a pity that it is not improbable.), while Stauffenberg said that even without chance of success, and at least some chance he did have, there had to be action on account of the simple malice of Nazidom. The putsch was anti-Hitler and in so far, such easy a thing as anti-evil; there is however an opinion which equals good and democratic, and that's the whole problem of the issue. Even if we state that democracy be the least bad government existing, we must under any circumstances honor the man (if there are reasons to honor him) who in good conscience and free judgment has taken another opinion on the matter, and that's the problem with statements "Stauffenberg was not a democrat" because, though true (to an extent; stating that all people are to be upholders of the state is democratic in essence, but it is admittedly not the only thing Stauffenberg said about the state), they are practically always meant in the way of criticism for which there is no reason.--84.154.105.177 (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with stating that he was a German nationalist is a problem with contemporary German language usage. Since Germans despise nationalism for obvious reasons, much stress in Germany is put on the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. Thus, a feeling of this kind will be called nationalism if it is bad in some respect, and it will possibly be called nationalism even if it doesn't include bad intentions, in case the multitude believes it to be exaggerated according to their measure of what is exaggerated. Patriotism is the rest. Hence the problem with calling him nationalist; that he was either nationalist or a patriot is most clear. --84.154.105.177 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Stauffenberg was not a saint but he did not support what was transpiring at the time. He was also, by whatever anyone else wants to call it (or not), anti-Semitic, anti-Polish, and anti-anyone that did not fit his ideas. He was not for democracy but he believed the direction Germany was being led was detrimental. I am certainly not a fan of Nazi Germany but what he did, for whatever reasons, was to take a stand and try to rid the world (not just Germany) of someone considered evil to many. He reasoning might very well be strange to us today but the facts are history. He was recruited into an organization that was formed early in the Hitler era. Too little or too late would be an unimaginable statement. Did it atone for what happened? Of course not. He was shot for what he did. Well he was shot as a cover up but he would have been shot or hanged or would have met his demise in some fashion anyway. He was trying to do something to salvage what he could of Germany.
A web search of German nationalism (nationalist) brings up over 100,000 (yes many are probably ads for underwear) results. Whatever one person or group may call it he was still loyal to the "old" Germany and the word does exist. Was he a hero? In my opinion the answer is no. Did he attempt a heroic deed? Yes he did even if his motives were questionable. This is my POV but there is history to back much of it. All the "quotes" given above should have been cited for possible inclusion in the article or at least so others could "check it out". Otr500 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why he shouldn't be called a hero, given that he did (not just attempted) an (unsuccessful) heroic deed. In which far his motives to this deed, i. e. the assassination of Hitler, were questionable, I don't know either. He wanted to free his Fatherland at war from the military commandment of a private first class without prudence for his job, out of patriotism? That is a valuable and honorful motive in itself (though in my opinion it wouldn't itself justify tyrannicide from a moral point of view), and it is unjust that he is accused of it; something to accuse him of, separately, would be that he at the same time had neglected the crimes and malice of Nazidom, but as a matter of fact, he didn't, but according to all sources, these were a decisive point throughout the conservative resistance. Was he anti-Semite and anti-Polish? In a certain sense, it seems so; but I think though we justly despise all kinds of antisemitism, we owe to the deceased persons whenever we feel forced to judge them morally, that we distinguish between an antisemitism that was murderous and self-acclaimedly scientific and an antisemitism that was but a form of the unfortunately quite widespread epidemy of xenophoby (including the very perception of Jews as foreigners, of course). Was he an anti-Polish racist? Possibly, but we likewise must differ between a racist who but believes his race be superior, and a racist who believes that his race must struggle for power by exterminating the others. It is a big mistake to forget that the malice of Nazidom lies in the second point (and theoretically, even someone could take this view who himself holds his own race to be inferior), while the first is scientific error. [And a somewhat middle thing, i. e. a racist who wants to enslave other peoples for the misconception - and this misconception I cannot imagine without guilt, too much has it all appearances of a self-serving declaration - that the peoples want so. Which Stauffenberg can be accused of, but:] Did any of these motives motivate the assassination itself? No. Was he a democrat? Simplifyingly speaking, no, but who are we to decree that only democrats may be heroic? There are aspects of his life, and attitudes he held but apparently not at the moment of his death which we not only disagree, but have to despise as morally bad? All right, but to pass to some quite higher examples of heroism, Paul of Tarsus is honoured as a Saint notwithstanding the fact that some time he even tried to exterminate the very body that honours him now.
The first quote is the Third Leaflet of the White Rose. The second quote is translated from the German wikipedia, which itself cites 17.↑ Eberhard Zeller: Geist der Freiheit. Der 20. Juli. München 1963, S. 489 f. --84.154.81.1 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Facts need to be checked

A few facts would need a checkup.

  • To my knowledge (and I am german), his common name is Claus Schenk, and Graf von Stauffenberg would be his noble title. In germany, nobles bear a common name consisting of given and family name, and a title, which often is "Graf von", "von", "von und zu" and some others, in combination with the name of a place. So that'd make him Claus Schenk, the Graf von (Count of) Stauffenberg. I do not know about a noble title "Schenk".
  • AFAIR, one of his arms was crippled, a war injury, which contributed to him not being able to arm both bombs.
  • He's not exactly regarded a national hero. He's a symbol of the resistance, but his moral is dubious, as mentioned further down on the page. It is true that there are some streets named after him, and his story is part of the folklore/myth surrounding WW2, but the truth is that he was far too late, even if he'd been effective. He proved loyal to humanity, though, and thus is regarded as somewhat rehabilitated from being a Nazi. The people regarded heroes (or, at least, better symbols of the little resistance that was) like the "Weiße Rose" or the "Edelweißpiraten" had much sadder stories.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.174.16.72 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
For the name stuff, see de:Schenk (Adelstitel) and de:Stauffenberg and the talk page of the German article. Kusma (討論) 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply:

  • The photo of Stauffenberg on page 251 of Fest clearly shows that he had two arms. Fest says (215) that he lost his right hand and the 3rd and 4th fingers of his left hand. The timer of the fuse was designed so that he could trigger it with the remaining fingers of his left hand.
  • Stauffenberg and Haeften took two bombs to Rastenburg. While they were in Keitel's rooms before the conference, they set the fuse to one of them, but they were interrupted by a phone call before they could set the fuse for the second bomb. It is not known for certain that they intended to take both bombs into the conference - the second bomb may have been a reserve. Since Both Stauffenberg and Haeften were shot the next day this can never be known (Fest 255-56).
  • I agree that the statement that "Stauffenberg is a national hero" is much too simple. Up until the 1970s, when the wartime generation was still in charge, and when, particularly, most serving Bundeswehr officers were World War II veterans, this was not the case. Many regarded the July 20 plotters as traitors, even if they acknowledged that the Nazi regime was evil and that it was just as well that Germany lost the war. There was very little public memorialising of the plotters. It is only over the last 25 years, as the wartime generation has faded away,, that the view of them as heroes as been generally and officially promoted - but I am sceptical that the majority of Germans really believe this. People in the former DDR, for one thing, were taught at school that the KPD were the only real resistance and that the July 20 plotters were a clique of disgruntled aristocrats. There is just enough truth in this for this view to have persisted. Adam 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


In reply to the reply:

It is known that things taught in history classes of the German Democratic Republic were not famous for being necessarily always true. There is only little truth in the claim the german comunist party ( KPD ) to have been the only real resistance group against Hitler. Between the date of the signatures of the Hitler-Stalin treaties and the agression of Germany against Russia in June 1941 for example the KPD refrained from any resistance against the Nazis. The resistance of the KPD was later organised from Moscow and coming from outside Germany and only scarcely and exceptionally from within Germany ("Rote Kapelle"). "The clique of disgruntled aristocrats" is probably not true, but corresponds to the wording , that Adolf Hitler had used on the evening of the failed plot.

It was always uncomfortable for the vast majority of Germans to accept Claus von Stauffenberg and the plotters. The war generation of Nazi followers were reminded, to what they should have done, but not even tried to do. And the next generation, after 68 in their majority left wingers were reminded that a group of aristocrates and not members of the working class had tried to remove Hitler.

The second postwar generation, the sons and daughters of the Obersturmbannfuehrers, tried to play down Stauffenberg´s importance, arguing he had acted too late and only in order to save the privileges of his class. They tried to upgrade the "Weisse Rose" and the events in the Buergerbraeukeller in Munich 1938 instead as the genuinely democratic acts of resistance.

Last but not least the people in the former GDR had wrongly learned at school, that the real resistance against the Nazis came exclusively from the KPD.

So the majority of every now grown up German has been confronted for different reasons with twisted versions of perfectly known historic truth about Stauffenberg´. Schenk 20:20, 5 August 2007

GA Nom Failed

Interesting article! Enjoyed it!

  • I'd try and expand your lead to at least two paragraphs if you can (WP:LEAD)
  • Also it needs inline citations
  • Do we know why "one of eight conspirators executed by strangulation" happened as opposed to the firing squad? Intriguing difference....

plange 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Stauffenberg-signature-head.jpg needs a more appropriate tag and source for where it came from. plange 05:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Since none of the above were addressed in the 7 day window, I've moved this from being on hold to failed. Once these have been addressed, please re-nominate! plange 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Claus is a given name. Schenk is a regular surname. If he was to drop his title he would have been simply a Claus Schenk, pretty much like Di would have been a Diana Spencer. Graf von Stauffenberg (meaning Count of Stauffenberg) is the inherited title that indicates the hierarchical rank within aristocracy (Count vs. Earl, Prince or Duke, for example) and von Stauffenberg stands for the aristocratic house that he came from. This is comparable to a Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales. Alone "von" (the equivalent of the English "of" in an aristocratic title)is already a noble title, but of the lowest aristocratic category. Terms like Graf, Herzog, Prinz, or Koenig in fron of "von" indicate higher aritocratic levels.

No, Schenk is not a regular surname. The only way German aristocrats can have regular surnames together with noble ones is by double-naming resulting from recent marriages. In this they differ from British aristocrats. There is indeed a Spencer Churchill, Earl of Marlborough, but to get to the same result with the Archduke Otto of Autria, we arrive in the nowhere. Otto von Habsburg? nonsense in this respect (though he is actually called so), because the whole von Habsburg means gefürsteter Graf von Habsburg. von Lothringen? means Herzog von Lothringen. Likewise there is no way leaving Bavaria out of Duke Francis of Bavaria's name, which is (with the replacement of "Duke" by "Prince") an official acknowledged name; Franz von Wittelsbach is sometimes used inofficially, but even von Wittelsbach means Graf von Wittelsbach. "Schenk" is no level of its own but indeed a function, namely the function of a cupbearer. The Schenken of Stauffenberg were some time exalted to the rank of counts, resulting in the double title Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. --84.154.81.1 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Berthold

The linkage of Berthold, son of Claus (last paragraph, implying the link leads to the wikipedia article of the son) actually links to the wikipedia article of Berthold (brother of Claus). Berthold (son) most probably is still living and a Bundeswehr "General a.D" (or was still living on 2006-11-26 according to [1]). Someone with a deeper understanding how to solve this should look into it. --84.168.3.99 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the old link, and expanded with this one, thanks! -- Matthead discuß!     O       07:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It states in this article that Berthold, the son and his siblings were not told of their father's deed--according to a History News Network interview with Berthold, he and his brother were told of his father's actions--he expressed quite clearly how he felt and then tells what happened to he and his sibs after the assassination attempt-when I am not feeling so lazy, I'll spend some more time editing areas in this article that Berthold has spoken about in the interview--see link below-- as well as in other interviews that refute some of the things that were put into this article. Brattysoul (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC) http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/53530.html

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Claus Schenck Graf von Stauffenberg → Claus von Stauffenberg – This individual is most commonly known in English publications in the shortened form. His full name should remain in the article's introduction, of course. Olessi 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Google Books results. Olessi 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg to Claus von Stauffenberg as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

late vote

Legacy

The "Legacy" section should be renamed "Stauffenberg in the movies". A legacy section about a man like him should focus on the way he is viewed in modern history, by historians as well as the people. It should mention the vast number of streets, places and schools named vor Stauffenberg, not just list the number of films and TV episodes he was seen in. -- Imladros 11:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Execution / Last Words

In the article as of 15th September Stauffenberg's last words are described as being: "Es lebe unser heiliges Deutschland!" ("Long live our sacred Germany!")

I think that this could be wrong. I have just finished translating an interview with Christopher McQuarrie, the author of the script for the new Stauffenberg film "Valkyrie". The article was published in German in the serious German weekly magatine "Focus" (#37/2007, pp 78-82). In the interview, a change in Stauffenberg's last words is discussed:

FOCUS: Stauffenberg's last words were, in fact "For a secret Germany" and not as for a "holy" one as in your version. Is this because one wouldn't understand this without the background information about George?

McQuarrie: It could also have been a reverence to the conspirators. No, to be honest, we haven't yet decided between "holy", "sacred" and "secret" - we will carry on debating until the day we film it. But in the end, that's not existential.

("George" here refers to the poet Stefan George.) This discussion clearly contradicts the current version of this article - in fact, it is almost as if the current text is anticipating the film version.

Whilst the original interview almost certainly took place in English and therefore my translation is a transation of a translation of a translation, I cannot imagine that the terms could have been so altered from the originals so that the content of this part of the interview - which appears to have been well researched in advance - in its original version could back up the current Wikipedia version.

I hope that someone better informed than I am will look into this and provide backup evidence to clear up this question. I find it important that where the media starts to bend history, that the truth remain publicly available. If you want to see the relevant text from the Focus article, get in touch with me via the e-mail address in my profile.

A-Amos 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found, in the German page for Stauffenberg, that his last words were Es lebe das heilige Deutschland (Long live the sacred Germany), or Es lebe das geheime Deutschland (Long live the secret Germany), or Heiliges Deutschland (Sacred Germany), or Es lebe Deutschland (Long live Germany), or Es lebe unser heiliges Deutschland (Long live our sacred Germany). Moreover, I remember a movie (a cross between a movie and a documentarie) about the July 20 Plot, in which the last words told by Stauffenberg were Long live our sacred Germany (Que vive notre sainte Allemagne in French even if, of course, he didn't told it in this language but I need to tell you this documentarie was in French)!! hope it will help you! -- Thomas the french 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult to translate Es lebe das heilige Deutschland correctly. It would be much more common in German to say "Lang lebe..." translating into "long live...". However the "long" part is just missing, which gives the thing a tiny differnet meaning. Pronouncing less the anticipation of a ever lasting empire and more a call for a continuation of the sacret tradtion (that he sees violated by Hitler). Dont know how to get that into english as the non-native speaker i am. Theo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.137.211 (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Es lebe unser heiliges Deutschland" literally means "Our sacred Germany, it lives." This implies the statement "I am going to die, but, our sacred Germany, it lives."Lestrade (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

'It lives' is 'Es lebt'. "Es lebe", however, is the subjunctive, so should be translated as 'May it live'. 'Long live..' is a perfectly accurate translation of 'es lebe'. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ungrammatical sentence

Could someone familiar with the subject correct the above in the article? I'm not familiar with the details of the 1944 negotiations with the conspirators, but shouldn't it be mentioned that such terms for an armistice as listed in this paragraph were unrealistic in the extreme? patsw 12:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I think it is inappropriate to say that his nationality was Nazi Germany. For someone who tried to bring down the Nazi regime and who died to defend his country from the Nazi savages I think it is more appropriate to say that his nationality was simply Germany. It is disrespectful to put Nazi Germany as his nationality. It would be similar to putting Nazi Germany as the nationality for the German Jews who were killed by the Nazis. 70.23.214.116 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Good suggestion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasilo31 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true this should be changed. His nationality should list as just being 'German.' To get fancy with it (if someone wants to) you could even put that he is originally from a Bavarian Aristocratic family...so maybe putting 'German' next to nationality with maybe a flag of Bavaria may be appropriate.MikeDalbey (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exact position

What was exact position of Stauffenberg regarding Jewish people ? Some information I stumbled upon suggests that while he opposed active harassment of Jewish people and mass murder he supported restricting their civil rights and segregation. --Molobo (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

German Cross

The article indicates that Stauffenberg was a recipient of the German Cross in Gold. Is this true? Could this be cited? I have never seen pictures of him wearing this award. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a book that lists all the German Cross in Gold recipients. Would be easy enough to verify.139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ersatzheer

I edited the definition of Ersatzheer in the article, not because it was wrong, but because it was wrong for the period mentioned. The article wikipiped it to "home guard" While in 1945, members of the Replacement Army most certainly found themselves thrown into the battle for Germany, that was not their main intent. As their name implies, they were a force generation formation. They trained reinforcements for the standing divisions at the front. At the time Stauffenberg was assigned to this organization, that's what they did. Their use as a "home guard" was also intended during this period, but definitely not preferred, and not necessary at the time Stauffenberg was alive. It was simply not their primary function and never the way they were intended to operate. They provided trained soldiers, formed into March Companies, and sent them off to the field army. Linking the name to the Home Guard article gives a misconception of their true function. A minor point, but a valid one I think.139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Eye patch

With the Tom Cruise movie out now, I want to know if Stauffenberg really wore an eye patch or if it was added to his character for the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.22.158 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


I just read an interview done by the son of Claus von Stauffenberg, and not only did he wear an eyepatch, but his father recovered from his wounds rather quickly and not slowly as this article states. The interviewer makes note of a picture of Stauffenberg that shows he is wearing an eye patch. You can read this at the below website, as well as Berthold's observations and experiences of his life after his father's attempt to assassinate Hitler Brattysoul (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC) http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/53530.html

Might want to edit-restrict this article now that the movie is out

Now that the movie is out and trolls abound, might want to keep a sharp eye on this article and lock it to block new and unregistered users. Plus, I posted the article link on IMDB (for someone who was wanting to know the true story). So if trolls read that post it may spark vandalism here. I also posted the 20 July plot link too. Just giving you guys a heads up. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the 20 July plot section is suspiciously similar to the movie plot, and is uncited as well. Ribusprissin (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for source

One of leading Polish newspapers quoted Stauffenberg words from 1939, when he entered bombed Wielun (translation mine, shortened a bit): "The people here are terrible rabble. So many Jews and mixlings. These are people, who feel good only under the whip. Thousands of PoWs will serve as good in agriculture". I can't find source for that, maybe some of the editors recognise that quote? Szopen (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) http://www.bundestag.de/dasparlament/2004/26/Panorama/002.html "Die Bevölkerung ist ein unglaublicher Pöbel, sehr viele Juden und sehr viel Mischvolk. Ein Volk, welches sich nur unter der Knute wohlfühlt. Die Tausenden von Gefangenen werden unserer Landwirtschaft recht gut tun." --Gwinndeith (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations Needed in 'World War II' Section

Two claims made about von Stauffenberg's attitudes toward Kristallnacht and the Nazi extermination campaigns were tagged as being in need of citations. Haven't found anything about Kristallnacht yet, but added a citation for von Stauffenberg's disgust at learning of the systematic abuse and murder of Jews. The source (which is available via Google Books) is actually more definitive in its claim than the Wikipedia article. According to Hoffman, it was upon hearing accounts of the Einsatzkommando operations in Ukraine that von Stauffenberg decided that a coup was the best and moral course of action. - Unregistered User, 1 March 2009 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.2.18 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please correct the date of the photo located in the 'Early life' section of page #1 (or, alternatively, the date of the photo on page #2)? The caption reads "Stauffenberg at the Kavallerieregiment 17 during 1936", however, the larger photo page states a date of 1926. I doubt he looked the same ten years apart while riding the same horse! Or am I missing something here?

Page #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

Page #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-C0716-0046-003,_Claus_Schenk_Graf_v._Stauffenberg.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.139.171.174 (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Decorations and Awards

Decorations & Awards

17 August 1929 Sword of Honour 2 October 1936 Distinguished Service Badge, IVth Class 1 April 1938 Distinguished Service Badge, IIIrd Class 31 May 1940 Iron Cross, Ist Class 25 October 1941 Royal Bulgarian Order of Bravery, IVth Class 11 December 1942 Finnish Liberty Cross, IIIrd Class 14 April 1943 Wound Badge in Gold 20 April 1943 Italian-German Remembrance Medal 8 May 1943 German Cross in Gold


There was no Italian-German Remembrance Medal. The actual medal is called "Medaille für den Italienisch-Deutschen Feldzug in Afrika" - "Italo-German Campaign Medal in Africa". This award was not a "remembrance" medal, but was a campaign medal.

von Stauffenberg was also bestowed the following the awards:

Wehrmacht-Dienstauszeichnung - Long Service Awards of the Wehrmacht both 4 and 12 years service

Kriegsverdienst Kreuz (mit schwerten) - War Merit Cross 2nd Class —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.85.101 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Can someone produce the source for the above Decorations and awards to add (references) to the article? There needs to be a source for the promotions also. Otr500 (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section -- not trivial

Someone suggested earlier that this be called "Legacy" and mention the many streets etc. named after Stauffenberg. That might be a good idea, but in any case I want to say that this is a valuable section, and I think the Wikipedia "This article contains too many minor or trivial fictional references" warning should be removed. This is an important aspect of Stauffenberg's significance since the 1944 plot, in a way like listing the biographies that have been written about him, or the books that treat him in depth.Hmarcuse (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any reasonable objections I am going to remove the trivia tag. The listing of movies made of the man, about the man, or some aspect of the man, are not trivia. I think a sub-section on books written should be included. Otr500 (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed the trivia tag as I can not find "trivia" in a list of movies that are based on facts or fiction that are related to aspects of the mans life. His life, actions, and death have been recorded in history so I can not see a problem with listing movies based on aspects of these, especially when there was enough popularity that the list includes more than a few. If someone would care to expound on how this would violate any part of WP: then let us know. Otr500 (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC
I added the "in popular culture" tag, as suggested by SpikeToronto, which is appropriate. Otr500 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rank

What was his final rank when he died? The article says that in 1943, he was Lt. Col. and does not mention further promotion. The data box gives his rank as Col. I've always heard of him as Col. von Stauffenberg until I saw a history channel program that identifies him as Lt. Col. Emperor001 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 

     1 April, 1944 - Oberst i.G

This is the date of his promotion to full Oberst according to the article and it sounds correct because in June 1944 (two months after his promotion to full Colonel), he was appointed to the General Staff of the Reserve Army, working directly under Colonel General Fredreich Fromm. This promotion gave him a better chance than ever to attempt the assassination on Hitler. As one of the senior officers of the General Staff of the Reserve Army, he would be in constant meetings with Hitler regarding strategy on both the Eastern and Western fronts. MikeDalbey (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article neutrality

It has been posted "The article isn't exactly neutral" with indicators pointing at something previously posted, and nothing else, and this "isn't exactly" fair. If there is an instance where the article isn't exactly neutral it would be better to point it out. If there is reference to source then that needs to be included. Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Claus von Stauffenberg. The common name argument is persuasive. --rgpk (comment) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg → Claus von Stauffenberg — This is a much more common name. It looks like this move was already done at least once in 2007 after gaining consensus, but has since been moved back. I don't see any discussion related to why this was done. –Cwenger (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Opposed: Please refer to the William Jefferson Clinton article redirect for one good reason for the use of the current title. The article is named Bill Clinton. I personally do not see a problem with this as I share his first name. The problem is that his legal name is William, his name as President was William, his name is still William, and using the shorter surname does not elevate notoriety. The presidential center bears the name William J. Clinton Presidential Center, not the Bill Clinton Presidential Center, and the list is extremely long for reasons to use William, yet Wikipedia refers to him as "Bill". Children will be taught in school that his name was William and then at a point WP will have to change the title name.
John F. Kennedy was known as Jack, and there are many records that refer to him as such, but the WP article correctly uses his legal name and supplies "Jack" in the lead.
To change the name of the article to Claus von Stauffenberg would be to use the name he was sometimes referred to as, but not necessarily the more common name, and certainly not his legal name.
I dug into researching his name and supplied references to sway arguments and these have not been refuted. I did not seek a name change because the name listed is credible, used in history, and is common.
He is referred to by the German Resistance Memorial Center as Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (here).
The title conforms to WP:Article titles policy with; 1)- Recognizability; As the part of the legal name the title does not alter search results, nor hinder recognition, 2)- Naturalness; The current title is the natural name used. 3)- Precision; titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, and the current title satisfies this criteria. The shorter suggested name does not provide any relief from the current name nor present any advantages. 4)- Conciseness; The title is not as short as the one suggested, but is not long, and is correct, 5)- Consistency; The current name of the article is consistent with other articles. Any "trade off" to using the shorter suggested name is lost in the fact that this will not actually solve any unambiguity, and is far shorter than "Claus Philipp Maria Justinian (uncommon and unknown) Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg".
In defense of the current name I submit that there is no reason to change the name, have supplied sufficient reasons, and believe that the current name is proper.
I hope that those weighing in will take a careful look before making a decision. Otr500 (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Otr500, thanks for your response. I understand your arguments, except perhaps one: isn't the fact that the article is named Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton in support of a rename to Claus von Stauffenberg? I think the overriding principle for naming articles about people is to use the most common name that has sufficient precision. If you look at the previous move request discussion (above), you will see that Claus von Stauffenberg wins that debate, and it uniquely identifies the man. –Cwenger (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that and I still submit that William Clinton would not only have been more proper, it is just as notable and more precise. I also do not see "any" advantage of seeking a name change. The question would be why change the name? The current name not only is the legal name it is short enough to be precise, nor does it hinder "any" search results. Then there is cause and effect. The articles Alexander Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg and Berthold Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg will also be affected. Otr500 (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the numbers posted at #Discussion which show Claus von Stauffenberg to be the most common name. Using the most common name is important so readers see that at the top of the page and know they are at the right place. Otherwise there is no reason for the requested moves page to exist, everything could be handled with redirects. It is the same reason we use Bill Clinton instead of Bill Clinton (United States president). Additionally, if nobody else weighs in, I think we should stick with the consensus reached during the 2007 requested move since there is no record of a discussion for moving it back to its current name. –Cwenger (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:Commonname. Flamarande (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Continued discussion; Thank you for the laugh. That was funny concerning the twist applied to Bill Clinton and the obvious repeated fact that "I believe" the article really should have been named "William", not Bill, nor Bill the president, but this is covered under WP:Common names and WP:NOT so settled. I was just stating that "Bill Clinton", will be a time limited name, but then apparently all WP titles are anyway right?

Research; Mr. Cwenger has erred on two counts, 1)- The part of the comments, concerning consensus, including the seeking of an agreement to compromise (at this time not needed), is not valid because 1)- WP:Bold supports that a bold move is acceptable if not contested, and 2)-WP:Silence and consensus provides that consensus is considered by a lack of objection, and states, "A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so." This assuredly renders that discussion (and all the reasoning) moot so we can "boldly" move on.

  • Common name and notability: Time line; The quote above, "I was referring to the numbers posted at #Discussion which show "Claus von Stauffenberg" to be the most common name.", show figures from 2007. I performed a search of Google books (2010-12-27) and found;
From the search page; "Books 1 - 100 of 581 on "Claus von Stauffenberg"
From the search page; "Books 1 - 100 of 590 on "Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg""
  • 02:28, 7 June 2006; "(moved Claus von Stauffenberg to Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg: correct name, see consensus on Talk)".
  • 03:34, April 9, 2007; "(moved Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg to Claus von Stauffenberg over redirect:".
  • 16:56, June 19, 2007; "(moved Claus von Stauffenberg to Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg over redirect)".
Unless I made a mistake in calculations the article was only under the suggested name around 2 1/2 months from April 9, 2007, until June 19, 2007, and under the current name over 4 1/2 years since that time. During this time the article as enjoyed worldwide coverage at the top of search engines, has notability, and is common "...the usage of major international organizations..." (The above "German Resistance Memorial Center" per WP:Notability (events)), that adds "enduring historical significance" to the current name, and "...major English-language media outlets." (AP below). The statement, "...so readers see that at the top of the page and know they are at the right place.", has been allowed with no issues.
The Associated Press covered the 2004 anniversary (Press writer HANNAH LOBEL) on June 25, 2004 , using the same name -AP, here to gain access. AP articles are picked up by thousands of media venues worldwide giving the name used in the article international exposure.
A small sampling of other media vehicles using the current name:
I realize that "Claus von Stauffenberg is shorter and I would support the name, or the name change with the rest explained in the lead, if such a length of time had not transpired, if it was more notable, if it could be proven that the current name is detrimental to the article, or considering all the rest, that the suggested name would even provide any advantage of being "more" common or not. I can not find "any" evidence that this has happened, will happen in the future, and the alternative uses can also be explained in the lead.
My concern is that the current title has been in place a long time and has international recognition as a common name. The original reason for the requested "Move without consensus", becoming a non-issue by reason of time thus consensus, is apparently superseded by the "More common name" reason. I believe evidence shows that the requested move for this reason is not warranted, would not benefit the article or readers, and in fact serves no purpose at all. This is why I do not support a name change now and just do not see any advantages in doing so. I did edit the article to reflect the alternative names. Otr500 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I would prefer that the article be named "Claus Schenk Count von Stauffenberg", since that is not a nominated option, I prefer that it stay as it is per NCROY's Other Cases point #1. FactStraight (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, just common name, I don't see why any of the above is relevant. He's not notable for being a nobleman. Let's just call him by the name everyone knows him by.--Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no choice but to comment on the last entry. I can understand the part "just common name" as an argument but the additional comments are appalling. The above information is per WP:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence. The Relevance concerning facts such as WP:Citing sources and WP:VERIFY, are what is part of the discussion. The man had notoriety as "The man who tried to kill Hitler" but that title was not in the options. The comments concerning nobility was solved in 1919 by German law "Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more.", and is a fact with relevance to the use of the current title (WP:NAME) that is part of the mans name. If everyone (this word could mean billions of people) knew the proper name to be used this discussion would be moot and there would actually not be a reason for this article.
Relevance is the fact that "any of the above" includes figures and references, such as the Google book (WP:Reliable source) search. This information was part of the discussion leading to a change of the title at a previous time. The current result was 11 books more using the name in the current title. This is only a slim margin but only one more is need to point out the "more common". The name in the current title has been in use over 4 years (above relevant fact noted) with international exposure to include the listing of use in the Associated Press (worldwide), USA Today (worldwide and US), and the German monument of the same name, and using the current name avoids WP:Systemic bias. This is relevant supported facts that can not be explained away with a comment, "I don't see why any of the above is relevant.". This confusing and unsubstantiated comment can give the appearance of Wikilawyering, unfounded comments to muddy the water, possibly that "facts" are not necessary but just how individuals feel about something, or that information could not be provided to negate "any of the above" comments so just "anything" was added. Assuming good faith I will not question this but only ask that comments be added that does include "relevant facts" as these types of comments will actually be what is used to decide consensus per Wikipedia policy during closing discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
OK if you've got evidence of common use in English, I agree that would be relevant (what German law says, or what his full "official" name was, is not), but my Google book searches (when I add relevant English terms, like "plot", to the search) indicate a clear predominance (like, 10 times more common) for the shorter name. --Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you insist on making an argument that things are not relevant even though they are. You brought up nobility so I replied to it with an explanation as to the mans name. I now maintain that your bringing up such non-existent nobility was not relevant (so a waste of time) because you assert that the reply was not. It would pay to be consistent with words and reasoning.
If your argument had full merit (just the common name) the name of the article could stand with just "Von Stauffenberg". A search of this name returns 66,400 hits (far more than the 10 times you mentioned) and the first 7 pages (I got bored), approximately 70 entries, include about 5 that are not about the man, one of those is related, and the rest are about the man.

Back on track

Here are some problems; A problem arises when a movie comes out to sensationalize a subject. Right, wrong, or indifferent, search results will spike. You argue only "more common" instead of WP:Concise. Criteria for naming a title (when creating) is "Recognizability", "Naturalness", "Precision", Conciseness, and "Consistency". Of these five "Conciseness" and "Precision, because of title longevity, are the only serious arguments. The proposed article is shorter. If this is the only criteria actually needed then change the name ASAP. However, this also includes all similar articles of which there are many, under "Consistency". The article has been under the current name long enough that many other articles have used the same pattern in naming. The current name of the title is recognizable, has naturalness, has consistency, and is common.
Now the discussion should be if the article is short enough to satisfy consensus, precise enough (or not), and changing all other "patterned" articles, of which I will expect a discussion to include, and those involved in this discussion will not bail on just this title name changes. If we "must" demand that it does not matter how long an article is under a specific name WP:Consenus#Consensus can change, then we must agree that consistency (preferred) is of far lessor importance, not important at all, or is important and needs to be examined also when considering change.
If a consensus is that the name should be changed to the suggested title because of conciseness and precision, and that it is also common, over any other reasons then that is understandable. If "more common" is the only argument then I will follow up with a request to go with just Von Stauffenberg since it appears to be far more common, if nothing else matters.
  • I do not have a problem with Clause von Stauffenberg as a title name I just do not see any advantage to change it to a shorter title, that will give benefits, and do see that the trickle down effect will be the other patterned articles. I also believe that some consistency is a good thing and that change is not always for the better. Otr500 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Consistency is one reason why I support Claus von Stauffenberg rather than just (von) Stauffenberg or the longer name. Wikipedia's practice with articles about people is to use the most common forename+surname form of the person's name. Not just the surname (even if the person is more commonly referred to by that alone), and not some rarely used expanded or formal form of the name. By adopting Claus von Stauffenberg as the title, we do provide consistency - with hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles.--Kotniski (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I would argue "recognizability" also support Claus von Stauffenberg. Like it or not, 90% of the views of this page are probably from people who knew little about this man until watching the movie Valkyrie. And as I recall, throughout that whole movie, he is primarily known as Claus von Stauffenberg. I also add that "recognizability" does not support further shortening to simply von Stauffenberg. –CWenger (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Now we have some reasons in support of change that are better than "just common name". The (von) Stauffenberg option started out with if (your argument had full merit) and was witticism to show that it was "more common" according to search hits. I will be more careful to place a "jest" note the next time. I would hope that a movie that is not a documentary, not a true biography, and only "based" on facts but containing many errors, would never be a reason to change a Wikipedia article such as this, however;

Consistency

Of the "hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles" that some editors have had the opportunity to view it seems that many that are of German origin were missed. Since I have not had the opportunity or time to looked at hundreds of thousands and I could only see consistency in the many related articles I explored, I would have no choice but to question a change for what is presented as consistency when I did not see that.

I read; Wikipedia's practice with articles about people is to use the most common forename+surname form of the person's name, and realized that what I perceived as editors actually practicing avoidance of Systemic bias (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective) was simply a mistake on my part. It seemed like a great idea to avoid Wikipedia being predominantly western or U.S. edited and article driven only, or changing, omitting (still bias), or otherwise converting German origin articles, names, and titles.

Examples of articles (German origin) with a consistent title pattern:

This is only a few that I have observed also there is the fact I brought up earlier concerning stability, WP:TITLECHANGES, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."
  • Then, if this was not enough there arises the problem, also mentioned above, concerning Nobility. Those that had a title, that was disposed then deceased, can be referred to by that title.

Naming convention

It appears there has been a consensus, possibly by silence, to allow an unofficial German naming convention. If there is now a move to change this I guess we need to see about an official Wikipedia German naming policy.

Note

1)- There appears to be an error of placing a comma after the given name in some articles presenting it as the surname. 2)- There is an editor or editors that have chosen, presumably from lack of actual knowledge (and on several articles), to list that Graf (or other former titles) is a title and not a surname. 1)- This is not true of any person of German hereditary royal or other nobility born after 1919 (as noted and referenced in this article), and 2)- Any person that died previous to the German law, and therefore not deposed, would have had a title but the law did not give any specifics of restrictions on previous names, so any of these names would, by Germany law, actually become part of the name and this is covered by WP naming conventions any way. 3)- Germans (or others) that were of nobility, that were deposed, can be referred to by the title of nobility after death. The inclusion of Freiherr, Schenk, Graf, or other former titles in a German name are no longer titles but part of the name.

See

  • WP:TIES
  • WP:RETAIN
  • WP:VNE
  • WP:POVTITLE especially, "Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name (common name) as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)", provides that "just common name" is not the only criteria to consider.

Major media outlets

Making sense

Maybe what I have presented can still be claimed as non-relevant but I see reasons why the article name can stand as it is and felt inclusion was important. Maybe there is some relevance that will be of importance. If it hasn't been done I think, for fairness, this should be presented to a larger audience for a more accurate consensus. I saw several of these articles in need of help but I am done for now and will await consensus to determine further actions that might have to include exploring a WikiProject on German naming and the above possible German naming convention. Otr500 (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is, but a simple Google search gives almost twice as many hits for the shorter name (112K versus 65K). Skimming through the results, there does not seem to be a major difference in reliability of the websites. –CWenger (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On leave for a while and maybe permanently.

Thanks to all but I will be on leave thus inactive for a while if not permanently. I have realized through my endeavors with this article that valid reasoning, no matter how presented, are either ignored or simply does not matter. I do feel that ignoring valid points is a detriment to Wikipedia but that is how it goes and I feel more of a loss to Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually surprised to see that the article was moved. There is no overwhelming preponderance of support above. As someone who did not participate in the discussion, and not having a horse in this race, I was unable to glean or discern which way the debate had settled. I didn’t see the formation of a consensus. Without a consensus, wasn’t the move, then, rather unilateral?

As regards your sentiments Otr500, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. There are valid arugments on both sides — hence why I had not weighed in with my opinion, I couldn’t decide. Even with the renaming of the article to just Claus von Stauffenberg, the very first line still provides the previous article name, Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, as well as the full Claus Philipp Maria Justinian Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. Anyone reading the article is instantly met with the information as to his name. Also, his full name is provided in the infobox. You do valuable work here, such as with WP:ORPHAN. Don’t let one “loss” deter you from the work you do here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

contested edit

I reverted the edit that changed the word "secret" (Geheimnis) to "sacred" (heilig). I am not familiar with the German language but the translation of the references, unless faulty, does not support the change. Otr500 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Claus von Stauffenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of Kuhn as source

Interesting article on Kuhn as a source and his writing:

  • Peter Hoffmann. Stauffenbergs Freund: Die tragische Geschichte des Widerstandskämpfers Joachim Kuhn. München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 2007. 246 S. EUR 26.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-3-406-55810-8.
  • Reviewed by Edward N. Snyder (Department of History, University of Minnesota)
  • Published on H-German (February, 2008)
  • Article title: Joachim Kuhn: A Tragic Hero

Web link: http://web.archive.org/web/20151118195122/https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=14222

PDF: http://web.archive.org/web/20151118195618/https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=14222 --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Further, from the wiki article itself, the documents hidden by Kuhn were a "detailed military plan" and "written orders." So it's not apparent that these documents "evinced the idealistic motivation of the resistance group." I added citation needed for now, and if it cannot be backed up, I'd like to remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

German Cross in Gold?

Was Stauffenberg really awarded the German Cross in Gold? If he were awarded it, it would be carried on the right breast pocket, and it would be visible on his picture taken on 15 July 1944 at Wolfsschanze. It is quite large in size and would be very difficult to miss. Perhaps an expert on orders and decoration could shed more light on this. VonSauerhand (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The article on Claus von Stauffenberg on the German Wikipedia page includes a picture of the award certificate for the German Cross - so, it is beyond doubt that he indeed did received the award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonSauerhand (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Rank History: Sixth Panzer Division & OKH

In one section, it says that von Stauffenberg's unit "was reorganized into the 6th Panzer Division, and he served as an officer on its General Staff in the Battle of France". In the very next paragraph, it says: "During the idle months of the so-called Phoney War, preceding the Battle of France (1939–40), he had already been transferred to the organizational department of the Oberkommando des Heeres, the German army high command."

So, which is it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayowolf (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced section

Challenged since 2009 & inconsequential, since key milestones are presented in prose. Preserving the material by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:MILPOP. Preserving the material by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claus von Stauffenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The mystery family

After 20 July 1944, Stauffenberg’s ”family had already fled the country”, yet his children ”were placed in a foster home for the remainder of the war and were forced to use new surnames”.94.191.148.146 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; excellent catch! That unsourced and patently wrong statement had been with us since December 9, 2013. Now it's gone. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Effect of failed plot on family

In the paragraph on "Execution" it says "Stauffenberg's family had already fled the country." But the article on his wife, Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, says she was arrested by the Gestapo, and the article on her daughter Konstanze von Schulthess, says her mother was incarcerated in Ravensbrück concentration camp. I would summarily delete the reference to family's fleeing except presumably an editor deliberately inserted it. Can anyone elucidate? Is it meant to refer to Stauffenberg's siblings rather than his wife & children? (But his brother was also executed). Exbrum (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Exbrum: At long last, after an IP pointed out the same issue, I did some digging and removed the sentence with this rationale. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Background

Sorry for my English, I'm german ....

Here some background about Stauffenberg and his society (the german establishment at this time) and Hitler. The society of people like the Stauffenbergs and the Hindenburgs normal don't like Hitler in the beginning. Hitler for them was just a little soldier coming form a little society (dem Kleinbürgertum). Stauffenberg should have been an exception, because he should have liked the Nazis from the beginning. A least the establishment supported the Nazis, because they don't like democracy and they thoued, that the Nazis don't know how to govern and will make only half a year in the government. Than the planed to overtake the dictatorship. But, as everybody know, the Nazis rest in power. Many people from the old establishment have been against the war, but just because they thougt they could not win it. After the successes against France and GB they chance their mind, and become nearly all fan of Hitler. Specially in the east they committed a lot of crimes.

A the end of the war, they see, that the will loose the war, suddenly the got conscience. But the main reason, to try to kill Hitler was, that they want to rescue the old Germany and their positions. Stauffenberg don't like democracy, he want to have a dictatorship like the GDR but right. So we can be lucky, that he did not arrive to kill Hitler. Roy Batty (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Where are the facts? What are the scientific foundations of your statements? Which recognized scientific literature can you cite to your statements? We need verifiable facts in Wikipedia, no private exegesis. If you can prove something, write it in the article. Mediatus (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a simple generalization of the 20 July resistance. The truth is more complicated.

Politically, the 20 July resistance can be divided into 2 major group. The Kreisau circle around Moltke and the Conservative around Goerdeler. I would try to summarize the the position of these 2 groups.

Kreisau Circle: - Consist of many young men - Christian socialist. Pro workers - They don't want monarchy, but rather an alternative political model. Moltke, himself, saw it as a way to prepare Germany for democracy, because obviously Germans didn't want democracy at that time. Even Social Democrats such as Julius Leber from SPD didn't support multi-party democracy. - Sort of "Pro EU"

Conservative: - Consist of older men - Pro bourgeois - Prefer constitutional monarchy. - "Pro Germany" nationalist

In term of domestic policy, Stauffenberg was closer to Kreisau Circle while, in term of foreign policy, he was closer to the nationalist conservative. He viewed the conservative's stance to be too reactionary by describing it as 'the revolution of the greybeards'. He didn't want Germany to return to monarchy, only to be overthrown by democrats and later being taken over by fascist. His cousin, Peter Yorck von Wartenburg, had reminded him, that in order to succeed, they needed the support of the workers because it was they to whom Hitler promised everything, not the aristocrats.

Stauffenberg didn't want democracy not because he wanted the monarchy back. He didn't want democracy because it was simply not popular. "They thought the pre-1933 system of political parties which were geographically and socially rootless, with their leaders coming up through the ranks, had produced not true popular representation but only self-serving corruption."[1] . This is absolutely true if one pays attention to countries in which democracy has yet reached its mature state. The rejection of democracy here is not to curb freedom, but to ensure it, because democratic platform can be easily exploited by a demagogue such as Hitler.

It is also not true that they didn't care to the plight of the Jews. Their main motive was patriotism, but this was very closely related to the plight of the Jews. Many people pointed their participation in the Eastern Front as the proof of their complicity. In fact, it was exactly these crimes they witnessed on the Eastern Front that became their reason to join the resistance. The officers in the Army Group Center were apparently so mad at the massacre of the Jews to the point that they drove their colleague, whom they viewed as responsible for doing nothing to prevent it, to suicide. They saw the persecution of the Jews as a stain on Germany's honor. Stauffenberg, for example, was a staunch opponent of the commissar order. He saw it not only as a humanitarian disaster, but also a military disaster. In his opinion, the war could only be won by the help of the local population and this barbaric action had turned the locals against them. It is also important to remember, at this point, they didn't know about Auschwitz. Stauffenberg probably had only found out about Auschwitz in 1943. What he knew was the mass shooting of the Jews on the Eastern Front.

To understand Stauffenberg's view about the Jews, Poles or Slavs, is not enough just to cite his words, one needs to see at his action. For example in Poland, he made sure that the officers who shot 2 Polish women got court-martialed. Or when he gave a recommendation for a Jewish friend to enter the army since that friend was discriminated. However, the most powerful evidence that he wasn't an anti-semite like many people believe is the fact that his sister in law was actually a half Jewish of the first degree, which means she was supposed to be deported. She was welcomed into the family after the Nuremberg laws were passed, which means the marriage was supposed to be illegal. Yes, there were still some prejudice in the family. Yes, they might believe in the Nazi racial principle. However, when you see his action, all those things seem like a complete nonsense.

It also has to be understood that when Stauffenberg talked about colonization, he positioned the Germans as a liberator from the communists that starved the population. As naive as it seems, what he had in mind was indeed benevolent colonization. Because it was in Germany's interest to treat the locals as nice as they could, so that they would be allies against USSR. Samyaza.morningstar (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hoffmann, Peter (2003). Stauffenberg : a family history, 1905-1944 (2nd ed.). Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0773525955.

Stieff

Why not spell his first name correctly?94.191.128.125 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

the subterranean Führerbunker

It was hardly subterranean in the Wolfsschanze. Someone is confusing it with the 1945 underground Führerbunker in Berlin.94.191.128.125 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorted. Dormskirk (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Footnote 51

Footnote 51 is attributed to Hoffman 1994. The bibliography however, three sources are attributed to Hoffmann, none of them dated 1994. On the other hand, two other sources are dated 1994. What is the correct source for Footnote 51? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4070:6240:1C4D:7C2A:14D7:AF5B (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It was actually the work originally published 1992 and put online in 2013. Hoffmann, P. (2013) [1992]. "The Second World War, German Society, and Internal Resistance to Hitler". In Large, D.C. (ed.). Contending with Hitler. Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich. Cambridge University Press. pp. 119–128. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139052597.009. ISBN 9781139052597.
I have fixed it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Leadimage

Does anyone know what year it was taken? I'd like to add that in caption. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Stauffenberg's motive

Chumchum7 has added in this edit that Stauffenberg was "undertaking [the Nazi] atrocities that he found dishonorable and unchristian" without any source to support the statement. This in fact does not seem to fit the motive as described in the "Assessment" section: "[He was] driven by reasons which had little to do with Christian ideals or repugnance of Nazi ideology." Thus, it contradicts the sourced statement. If there is any reliable source for the former statement, then, the second needs to be justified accordingly; if not, it should be be deleted. Further, explanation in the text explicitly states that the motive was mostly militaristic and administrative reasons; religion or ethics do not appear even remotely, as his action (bombing) directly indicates – brutal in ethical sense. Chhandama (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Chhandama, thank you for taking this to the Talk page. I would be glad to work with you to find WP:CONS on a line that can be added to the lede which contains elements of assessment, without which there is a misrepresentation of Stauffenberg as a pure 'anti-Nazi' which he wasn't. The wording I chose was an amalgam of what I understood the assessment of Stauffenberg is lower down the article, which per WP:LEDE the intro must summarize; and I concede it can be worded better.
In summararizing for the lede I also had in mind our Early Life section which says: Moreover, Stauffenberg remained a practicing Catholic. Stauffenberg vacillated between a strong dislike of Hitler's policies and a respect for what he perceived to be Hitler's military acumen. Stauffenberg became even more disassociated with the party after The Night of the Long Knives and Kristallnacht proved Hitler had no intentions to pursue justice.[18] On top of this, the growing systematic ill-treatment of Jews and suppression of religion had offended Stauffenberg's strong sense of Catholic morality and justice.[19][20]
Let's note that you are not quoting Wikipedia's voice in the assessment section itself, but Gisevius who was a German WP:PRIMARY source who knew Stauffenberg and is discredited in that section by a later historian Hoffman who is a WP:SECONDARY source (and so there is a strong case for us to delete Gisevius instead of doing a WP:HOWEVER).
In turn Hoffman is followed by Evans, the source of which states of Stauffenberg: "He found moral guidance in a complex mixture of Catholic religious precepts, an aristocratic sense of honour, Ancient Greek ethics, and German Romantic poetry."[1] It also says: "The over-ambitious military strategy adopted by Hitler in 1941, which led to disaster at Moscow in January 1942, was repeated on an even greater scale in the following year, and it became clear to Stauffenberg that it was overstretching Germany's resources to such an extent that failure was becoming inevitable. Even more important, the mass killings of Soviet civilians behind the Eastern Front, the murder of three and a half million Soviet prisoners of war, the looting and destruction of Soviet property, above all, the shooting of hundreds of thousands of Jews, convinced Stauffenberg that the National Socialist regime was recklessly squandering the goodwill that it had initially met among the peoples it had freed from Stalin's yoke. It was betraying his idea of a new Europe under the benevolent rule of the Reich. Indeed, Stauffenberg thought it was betraying the ideals of National Socialism itself."[2]
Then we have a classic breach of WP:HOWEVER with Karl Heinz Bohrer poistioned to contradict Evans. This suggest to me the whole Assessment section needs a re-write.
In the meantime I am happy to cut the line down to a more universally applicable form: Despite agreeing with the Nazi Party's racist and nationalistic aspects, he wanted to remove the Nazi Party from power because it was losing the war and undertaking atrocities that he found dishonorable and unchristian. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.signandsight.com/features/1824.html
  2. ^ http://www.signandsight.com/features/1824.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claus_von_Stauffenberg/Archive_1&oldid=1235830233"