In Memoriam Stauffenberg

[ogenoct]

IN MEMORIAM STAUFFENBERG

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg: 100 years
(born November 15, 1907)

off to slay the dragon
across green meadows turned grey
fields of white and endless horizon
full of smoke
like Odin, one-eyed and brave
(his eye lost in a battle on tribal lands)
the Knight presses on
through a thick dark forest
trees and fog obscure the summer
bright flowers in shadows dipped
the Castle of the Wolf
rising above the tree line
his lance festooned
with the flag of the Holy Empire
the Knight presses on
the Evil Lord
in the Castle of the Wolf plotting
to kill the joy of summer
armies of lads
became fodder for rats
knowledge of betrayal
knowledge of defeat
the Knight presses on
a rebirth must be forced
before the downfall hits home
fire upon fire
consuming all and everything
dear and loved
in summer like bright flowers
the Holy Empire must live!
the Evil Lord must die!
the Knight enters the Castle of the Wolf
masquerading as a minion
he is unmolested
a hero in wolf's clothing!
to set the trap
he talks the talk
alas! it fails!
the Evil Lord lives
the Knight
in an honorable fight
against too numerous an enemy
succumbs
his sword drops on the wet ground
the rain drowns the bright flowers
before being murdered in cold blood
by the treacherous minions of the Evil Lord
the Knight catches a glimpse
a small one
of the rising sun
"Long live our Holy Empire!"


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l130/fritzmaster18/200px-Stauffenberg.jpg

[ogenoct]

Stauffenberg had noble reasons to assassinate Hitler. Stauffenberg was at first in favor of Hitler's military moves. Stauffenberg especially lauded the invasion of Poland. Stauffenberg appreciated what Hitler did to restore German honor (by taking back the territories that were stolen from it after World War II - revising the shameful Versailles mandate). But Stauffenberg was sent to the Eastern Front where he saw how the Nazi beasts treated the Jews and Russian prisoners of war. He was throughly disgusted. His Prussian code of honor could not allow him to sit idle by and do nothing. The main reason for his planned coup d'etat was to restore the German dignity that Hitler and his cronies had soiled through their actions in the East. The world should see that good men did not do nothing! Stauffenberg was a good European. People who dismiss Stauffenberg as a traitor or opportunist do not see the big picture. They are usually the anti-European Nazi types who still believe that what Hitler did in Russia was somehow justified. HEIL Stauffenberg!

Constantin

[ogenoct]

from: http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/stauffenberg.html

1941 - Germany invades the Soviet Union on 22 June. The Germans advance swiftly but are halted on 6 December by a Russian counterattack just short of Moscow. The 'Eastern Front' will become the locus of a new resistance cell led by Colonel Henning von Tresckow. The chief-of-staff of the army group centre on the front, von Tresckow is connected to the larger resistance movement through Colonel-general Beck.

During the first 18 months of the Russian campaign Von Stauffenberg serves as a supply officer in the army group assigned to advance towards Stalingrad (now Volgograd). He meets von Tresckow and becomes exposed to the plans of the resistance. His observations of the Nazi extermination campaign against the Eastern European and Russian Slavs and Jews further entrenches his disillusionment with the regime.

In an attempt to ameliorate the brutality of the occupation, von Stauffenberg works to establish a Russian army volunteer corps to fight alongside the Germans. Officially called the Russian Liberation Army (RLA), the corps is largely made up of former Red Army soldiers. By 1943 it numbers 130,000 to 150,000 troops serving in 176 battalions and 38 companies.

Von Stauffenberg comes to envisage the RLA as a Soviet national force fighting for the liberation of the country from the communist regime of dictator Joseph Stalin, and the German invasion as an armed intervention on behalf of the Soviet people. He advocates an operational policy that wins over the occupied peoples by encouraging "freedom, independence, and collaboration", and openly criticises the Nazi's war of annihilation, saying it "would sow such hatred in the East which will one day be revisited on our children."

Convinced that Hitler is mad, von Stauffenberg begins to think that only the death of the Führer can retrieve the situation. "Is there no officer over there in the Führer's headquarters capable of shooting that beast!" he says to a fellow officer in August 1942. "The point is ... to kill him, and I am prepared to do that," von Stauffenberg says to another fellow officer later the same year.

[cerberus]

He was a German , acting for Germany at a time when Germany could not act for herself , he was not a traitor.
Certainly after Munich Hitler was not acting in the interests of the nation but was on his own voyage , Germany for better or worse was being taken along for the ride , serving both as a cause and the means of fulfilling what Hitler saw as his destiny without any regard or thought for Germany.

Stauffenberg did not act for himself only for his country which was in the last stages of being destroyed by a man who simply did not care - "we may go down but we will take the world with us" not exact but pretty much how Hitler saw the end.

[ironweed]

Stauffenberg was appparently quite a devout Catholic, not sure what he'd make of that Odin business in the poem.

Anyhow, perhaps somebody can shed some light on this, dispelling my ignorance:

The poet Stefan George, whose dream of a purified community of peasants and artists led by a cultivated elite was attractive to Nazis, refused their offer of the presiency of the German Academy. Horrified by the coarse violence of the Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilungen, or SA), George went into voluntary exile in Zurich, where died in December 1933. One of his former disciples, Colonel Count Klaus von Stauffenberg, tried to assasinate Hitler in July 1944.

The Anatomy of Fascism (http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-O-Paxton/dp/1400033918/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198782067&sr=1-1), Robert O. Paxton, 2004, p. 38-39




It sure sounds like what Stefan George believed in was some sort of folkish philosophy, and given how Paxton is claiming Stauffenberg was his "former disciple," I'm led to think Stauffenberg also believed in something along these lines. I'd originally have classed Stauffenberg as a "conservative authoritarian", but if he had some sort of interest in folkish groups, is it possible his quarrel with Hitler was more one of methods than of goals?

Of course, given that he was a practicing Christian he'd probably have been kept from some of the loonier volkisch stuff, but I'm curious about Stefan George and what influence (if any) he may have had on Stauffenberg.

Like I noted earlier, my ignorance here is just about total. So I'm not so much interested in debate as I am in getting my facts straight about Stauffenberg's motivations.

[Mike Jahn]

Stauffenberg was ignorant of the knowledge that even the death of Hitler would not have removed the Allies demand for the Unconditional Surrender of Germany.

[ogenoct]

Stauffenberg was ignorant of the knowledge that even the death of Hitler would not have removed the Allies demand for the Unconditional Surrender of Germany.

No, he was not. You are the one who is ignorant.

[Mike Jahn]

No, he was not. You are the one who is ignorant.

How was he not ignorant? He thought the western Allies would make peace once Hitler was dead....

[Jake Featherston]

Stauffenberg was ignorant of the knowledge that even the death of Hitler would not have removed the Allies demand for the Unconditional Surrender of Germany.

We'll never know how that really would have played out. FDR was a bit of a nut on the subject of unconditional surrender, but Churchill and Stalin (not to mention the U.S. military establishment) might well have had other ideas that would become the dominant ones, in the event of an anti-Nazi coup. I suspect had von Stauffenberg been successful, Germany would have retained Austria, East Prussia, about the western third of Poland (including Danzig), the Sudentenland, and that portion of Schleswig-Holstein which is now part of southern Denmark (and obviously, no East Germany would have been created by the USSR). It seems likely that Hungary and Czechoslovakia would have also evaded the Bolshevist yoke. So considering how things turned out, I'd be happy to see history revised with a von Stauffenberg coup (on the other hand, maybe in that timeline, there would have been a global thermonuclear war in 1967; who can say?).

[Rogerius Josephus Boscovich]

Stauffenberg had noble reasons to assassinate Hitler. Stauffenberg was at first in favor of Hitler's military moves. Stauffenberg especially lauded the invasion of Poland. Stauffenberg appreciated what Hitler did to restore German honor (by taking back the territories that were stolen from it after World War II - revising the shameful Versailles mandate). But Stauffenberg was sent to the Eastern Front where he saw how the Nazi beasts treated the Jews and Russian prisoners of war. He was throughly disgusted. His Prussian code of honor could not allow him to sit idle by and do nothing. The main reason for his planned coup d'etat was to restore the German dignity that Hitler and his cronies had soiled through their actions in the East. The world should see that good men did not do nothing! Stauffenberg was a good European. People who dismiss Stauffenberg as a traitor or opportunist do not see the big picture. They are usually the anti-European Nazi types who still believe that what Hitler did in Russia was somehow justified. HEIL Stauffenberg!

Constantin

Stauffenberg was a German aristocrat, an elitist. What he did, he did for Germany, not because he thought that Hitler mistreated jews or god knows what. Infact Stauffenberg, just like the majority of Germans in that time, had a low opinion on Jews and Slavs. He made a few comments on Jews and Slavs which by todays standards would be labeled as racist and anti-semitic.

Stauffenberg was pro-Nazi in the beggining. The only reason he and the group which was involved in the assasination attempt wanted to kill Hitler was because they saw Hitler was loosing the war. That was the only thing they held against Hitler. Not to mention that in case of a succesful coup, they had no intentions of returning the territories gained till 1939.

[MartinLindstedt]

We'll never know how that really would have played out. FDR was a bit of a nut on the subject of unconditional surrender, but Churchill and Stalin (not to mention the U.S. military establishment) might well have had other ideas that would become the dominant ones, in the event of an anti-Nazi coup. I suspect had von Stauffenberg been successful, Germany would have retained Austria, East Prussia, about the western third of Poland (including Danzig), the Sudentenland, and that portion of Schleswig-Holstein which is now part of southern Denmark (and obviously, no East Germany would have been created by the USSR). It seems likely that Hungary and Czechoslovakia would have also evaded the Bolshevist yoke. So considering how things turned out, I'd be happy to see history revised with a von Stauffenberg coup (on the other hand, maybe in that timeline, there would have been a global thermonuclear war in 1967; who can say?).

Jake, by 1944 Germany had lost the war. The Russians were not going to forswear revenge and an empire in Eastern Europe and ZOG wasn't going to keep them from it. After all, the Russian Revolution was funded and manned by AmeriKwan jews.

Stauffenberg was indeed a traitor who went against his oath to Hitler as his personal commander. If Stauffenberg had a problem with Hitler's methods, then he should have resigned as an officer and been drafted as a private or NCO. Stauffenburg didn't have a problem with Hitler's methods, but rather that Hitler was losing the war. Lt. Colonels don't get to determine war policy. (Although I wouldn't mind a white Lt. Colonel blowing up Obongo for the stupid nigger 'president' losing the Afghanistan/Pakistan War for Isn'tReal, under your interpretation of what is, and what is not treason.)

Listening to deranged kikeophilic faggots with dreams of putting ants up their anus and killing 27 young White girls rewriting history and wretched poetry doesn't cut it, Jake. The Allies wouldn't have honored anything put forward by a cabal of assassins and traitors and neither would the Wehrmacht and certainly not the SS. This coup hadn't a chance of succeeding. The Nazis were not some Latin American or French dictator and the Germans were not a pack of wogs who would let themselves be led by assassins against their duly elected leader of the past dozen years who had led them to victory at the first sign of reverse. The only honorable course was to fight off the Russian mong[r]ollian whordes until their civilians could make it to American liines. Patton could have walked into Berlin free of charge, but was refused to be allowed to do so by Kikenhower and Rosenfelt.

Staffenberg's treason was for nothing but the vanity of treasonous panicky generals. Nothing more. It is easy to look upon the fiction promoted by Tom Cruise and jews, but they are as valid as Scientology.

By the way, in the jew Harry Turtledove's alternate history, Confedrut President Jake Featherston isn't done in by a coup by Generals Potter and Forrest, but rather shot by a nigger. No need to rewrite alternative history either, Jake.

Pastor Martin LD Lindstedt CJCC/AN

[Jake Featherston]

Staffenberg's treason was for nothing but the vanity of treasonous panicky generals. Nothing more.

Considering how disastrously the war ended, I'm not sure "nothing more" is a fair characterization of von Stauffenberg's concerns regarding Hitler's failure to win the war (like you said, by July of '44, it was all over but the dying). A coup in '43 might have actually been worthwhile, although I doubt the leaders of that coup would have remained in power long; their successors, however, might have had a shot at negotiating a peace less Carthaginian in character than the one imposed in 1945. Maybe.

[Aryan Imperium]

He was a German , acting for Germany at a time when Germany could not act for herself , he was not a traitor.
Certainly after Munich Hitler was not acting in the interests of the nation but was on his own voyage , Germany for better or worse was being taken along for the ride , serving both as a cause and the means of fulfilling what Hitler saw as his destiny without any regard or thought for Germany.

Stauffenberg did not act for himself only for his country which was in the last stages of being destroyed by a man who simply did not care - "we may go down but we will take the world with us" not exact but pretty much how Hitler saw the end.

Stauffenberg WAS a traitor. He sought to murder Germany`s head of state at a time when Germany was facing her greatest peril.
The people chose Hitler to be their Fuehrer. It is not for one self-righteous and self-appointed man to remove the man whom the people chose, served and loved.
He took an oath of loyalty to Hitler as an officer which makes his perfidy doubly treasonous. May he rot in hel along with the race-traitor author of this thread! Sieg Heil!

[Tellurocrat]

The people chose Hitler to be their Fuehrer. It is not for one self-righteous and self-appointed man to remove the man whom the people chose, served and loved.
As Hitler himself said: Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be "discovered" by an election.

[Aryan Imperium]

As Hitler himself said: Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be "discovered" by an election.

Hitler was never "discovered by an election". He rose to national prominence following the formation of the NSDAP, the creation of the SA, their stirring parades, party days and then his attempt at armed revolution in 1923.

[Tellurocrat]

Hitler was never "discovered by an election". He rose to national prominence following the formation of the NSDAP, the creation of the SA, their stirring parades, party days and then his attempt at armed revolution in 1923.
The armed revolution failed.

The stirring parades and the speeches count with the election, I think.

That was in any case your only justification of the man - that he was chosen by the people, and Staffenberg was not.

[Kodos]

Stauffenberg was pro-Nazi in the beggining.

Only because he was anti communist, he was never really pro nazi. He was a reactionary monarchist like much of the rest of the "Black Orchestra" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarze_Kapelle).

[Tellurocrat]

Stauffenberg was pro-Nazi in the beggining.

Only because he was anti communist, he was never really pro nazi. He was a reactionary monarchist like much of the rest of the "Black Orchestra" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarze_Kapelle).
Yes, the fact is that his mentor, Stefan George was a vocal anti-Nazi, even though, like Nietzsche, he was co-opted by the Nazis for his high political ideals. Stefan George and his group, Secret Germany, were Revolutionary Conservatives, and Revolutionary Conservatives's expectations and reactions to the Nazi party and regime ranged from the hopeful to the disgusted - no matter how much Nazi apologists try to make RCs to be failed Nazis embittered by Nazi success.

[Kodos]

Jake, by 1944 Germany had lost the war. The Russians were not going to forswear revenge and an empire in Eastern Europe and ZOG wasn't going to keep them from it.

Churchill would have strongly wanted to make peace with a more reactionary government and aid them in waging war against the communists (churchill hated communism his whole life), FDR wouldn't have wanted to but public opinion would likely have been overwhelming...

Stauffenberg's personal views on nazi racial policy were that while he approved of the forced Germanization of Poland (which even most social democrat Germans viewed the way the British viewed Ireland in the 18th century) he thought nazi methods went too far, and he did not approve of the anti semitic policy.

The Nazis were not some Latin American or French dictator and the Germans were not a pack of wogs who would let themselves be led by assassins against their duly elected leader of the past dozen years who had led them to victory at the first sign of reverse.

Who would they coalesce around with Hitler dead, the wehrmarcht would not support Himmler and Hitler's annointed successor in 1944 was still Goering (and both Himmler and Goering thought the war was hopelessly lost anyway). Goering's top priority would be to agree to anything that would save his own skin.

[Kodos]

Jake, by 1944 Germany had lost the war. The Russians were not going to forswear revenge and an empire in Eastern Europe and ZOG wasn't going to keep them from it.

Churchill would have strongly wanted to make peace with a more reactionary government and aid them in waging war against the communists (churchill hated communism his whole life), FDR wouldn't have wanted to but public opinion would likely have been overwhelming...

Stauffenberg's personal views on nazi racial policy were that while he approved of the forced Germanization of Poland (which even most social democrat Germans viewed the way the British viewed Ireland in the 18th century) he thought nazi methods went too far, and he did not approve of the anti semitic policy.

The Nazis were not some Latin American or French dictator and the Germans were not a pack of wogs who would let themselves be led by assassins against their duly elected leader of the past dozen years who had led them to victory at the first sign of reverse.

Who would they coalesce around with Hitler dead, the wehrmarcht would not support Himmler and Hitler's annointed successor in 1944 was still Goering (and both Himmler and Goering thought the war was hopelessly lost anyway). Goering's top priority would be to agree to anything that would save his own skin.

In addition Germany did accept a government takeover by traitor criminals and socialist at the end of the 1st world war.

[cerberus]

Aryan Imperium
Stauffenberg WAS a traitor. He sought to murder Germany`s head of state at a time when Germany was facing her greatest peril.
The people chose Hitler to be their Fuehrer. It is not for one self-righteous and self-appointed man to remove the man whom the people chose, served and loved.
He took an oath of loyalty to Hitler as an officer which makes his perfidy doubly treasonous. May he rot in hel along with the race-traitor author of this thread! Sieg Heil!

A traitor to hwom ?
The Fuhrer who was never elected to officer the man who had cemented himself into power and them abolished all oter parties and political choice ?
The man who had led Germany to the brink of ruin and who by his orders had destroyed the honour of the German Army ?
A man who was a murderer ?
You exhalt Hitler beyond his ability and seem to have been misled , who was not chosen -by the people he was chosen by politicians.

May he rot in hel along with the race-traitor author of this thread! Sieg Heil!
Hitler had also taken an oath of office - wheich he had broken time out of number.
The oath set Hitler before the German people - the Army is a servant of the people , not the dictatorship , it was to the people which the Army owed itself - not Hitler.

Hitler wa snever a servant of the people ,Adolf Hilter served only one man , Adolf Hitler.

[Jake Featherston]

Germany did accept a government takeover by traitor criminals and socialist at the end of the 1st world war.

And the 2nd one as well....

[ogenoct]

he accepted fate
found the title as leader
and with a bouquet of flowers
walked up to the lady in black
and embraced her and kissed her
and made love to her
in a thunderstorm at night in a field
outside the city there were no lights
and in the city the lights were bright
his hand was missing and one eye was missing too
his few fingers gripped the pistol in his belt
in africa he lost his hand and his eye
now he was determined to follow
the one course he was destined to follow
the sun crept behind the mountains
and a suitcase full of explosives was carried
along the path of power

[ogenoct]

Tom Cruise channelled the spirit of von Stauffenberg
in the movie von Stauffenberg was a brave man
in real life von Stauffenberg was a hero and a mystic
Holy Germany recited every day five times
while the door ajar let light in
bit by bit in intervals
some people believe they are the reincarnation
of von Stauffenberg
some people beleive they are the reincarnation
of Hitler
once enemies now friends
reconciliation is the key
we need to make amends
hitler can now shake von Stauffenberg's hand
in Pittsburgh
they can drink tea or wine together
smile at each other
and watch the river flow gently outside

[Kodos]

And the 2nd one as well....

No Germany was an absolutely conquered country at the end of the 2nd world war. At the end of the 1st world war Germany wasn't conquered (though unless the US gave up it was almost certainly to lose) but a gang of socialist traitors did end up in power back home.

[Lud]

He was a German , acting for Germany at a time when Germany could not act for herself , he was not a traitor.
Certainly after Munich Hitler was not acting in the interests of the nation but was on his own voyage , Germany for better or worse was being taken along for the ride , serving both as a cause and the means of fulfilling what Hitler saw as his destiny without any regard or thought for Germany.

Stauffenberg did not act for himself only for his country which was in the last stages of being destroyed by a man who simply did not care - "we may go down but we will take the world with us" not exact but pretty much how Hitler saw the end.

1. Stauffenberg broke every oath he took. These oaths were not compulsory, but voluntary. He could have resigned from service at any time.

2. Hilter was a democratically elected leader. The augmented powers he enjoyed as "Fuhrer" were accorded to him under the German Constitution and in full accordance with the rule of law.

a. In contrast, Stauffenberg was a military officer elected by no one. His claims to speak for Germany were at best delusional and at worst the most naked of despotic power grabs.

i) That Stauffenberg was a rank traitor is a fact and not in dispute. Stauffenberg himself acknowledged that he was a traitor when he said "ich betreibe mit allen mir zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln den Hochverrat."

2. Although Stauffenberg had regular access to Hitler, while armed, he opted not to shoot him at any of these times. Instead he opted to bomb a staff meeting, killing not Hitler but murdering four fellow officers.

a. Stauffenberg did not attempt to kill Hitler personally, because then Stauffenberg would have surely died in the attempt, successful or not. Apparently the likelihood of killing other officers, which occurred, did not outweigh Stauffenberg's precious hide in his opinion. This is not "bravery."

b. Stauffenberg planted a bomb and ran off to Berlin, ostensibly to organize the military coup. Of course, what this meant was that he would try to seize power for himself and his cronies from a legitimate elected leader.

3. At best, Stauffenberg's apologists claim he comitted treason to prevent Germany's total defeat. Apparently therefore when nations are losing a war, their leaders are not only legitimate targets for murder, but this is the "moral" thing to do.

a. Stauffenberg did not find the NS government truly "evil" or treason necessary until July 20, 1944- a month after the American landing, which in addition to the defeats in the east heralded near certain defeat for Germany.

b. However, killing Hitler and the NS hierarchy (which amounted, apparently, to any officer who would not join in Stauffenberg's treason) would have, and of course, did not appease any of Germany's enemies. Something any non-deluded fool in Stauffenberg's position would have known, as

i) Several peace overtures had been made to Britain throughout the course of the war, and all were summarily rejected. There is no rational reason to believe that with the Allies now completely in the driver's seat they accept anything less than unconditional surrender.

ii) Apparently CHurchill or his govt. had been contacted by Stauffenberg or his co-conspirators and Churchill rejected them. (I am fuzzy on this.)


4. There was nothing Catholic in Stauffenberg's attempt at murder. Again, Hitler was democratically elected in full accord with German law. Catholics have no prerogative to assasinate legitimate rulers or those in authority "for the greater good," much less acting sua sponte without direction from any Church authority. Stauffenberg's rationale is emphatically not Catholic, in fact it is the essence of illegitimate rebellion and can best be described as Satanic. One can only imagine the history of 16th century Europe if this was in fact Catholic teaching.


5. Ogenoct is one of the more bizarre NS/ not NS/ Commie/ self-appointed nobleman characters I've ever seen on the internet. His pretentiousness is comical and leads me to believe its a well practised routine.

[Kodos]

Lud (Gustav Vasa?) your opinion that Stauffenberg was not willing to sacrifice himself is valid but stop prattling about elected (which Hitler was not he was appointed by Hindenburg he never had a majority in the Reichstag) as if it means anything, Hitler had to die if there was to be any chance of surrendering seperately to the West. The war was hopelessly lost in 1944, even if the conspirators were acting selfishly to gain power their interests coincided with that of Germany.

[ogenoct]

"Treason to Hitler is loyalty to the Reich."
-- Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg - August 26, 1943

"Long live our holy Germany!"
-- Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg - July 21, 1944

[MartinLindstedt]

Lud (Gustav Vasa?) your opinion that Stauffenberg was not willing to sacrifice himself is valid but stop prattling about elected (which Hitler was not he was appointed by Hindenburg he never had a majority in the Reichstag) as if it means anything, Hitler had to die if there was to be any chance of surrendering seperately to the West. The war was hopelessly lost in 1944, even if the conspirators were acting selfishly to gain power their interests coincided with that of Germany.

Actually, at 44% of the vote in 1932, Hitler had seven percent more vote than the mass-murderer and tyrant DisHonest Ape Lincoon received in 1860 and six percent more than Bubba Caligula did in 1992. So even in the ZOGland it has never been a condition that any regime criminal reach 51% of the vote, those who do vote.

In a parliamentary dem[on]ocracy like the judenrepublic Weimar Republic in which you had both the Social Democrats and the Communists running candidates the National Socialists (Nazis) and their right-wing allies had the right to establish the new Chancellor working in coalition. The Social Democrats thought that they could pull a fast one and Hitler simply ended up using political savvy and knowing what he wanted to eventually make himself the one in power. This is nothing more than Julius and Augustus Caesar and the mass-murderer and tyrant Lincoon did in getting their own way.

That Germany might be faced with going to war in order to undo the verdict of WWI when Germany was stabbed in the back by Socialist whiggers and jews was a given. The Germans decided that they had no choice but to bite first as the weaker party much like the Confederate States did when they were maneuvered by the mightier powers into a corner.

Now Lud concisely points out this logic which whiggers who don't wish to be called 'nazis' ignore and which the phorafags/feebs which are essentially mamzers and jews take exception to. They will not understand the truth and logic of the matter because truth and logic means that they have no place in the White Man's world. The whiggers disagree because they are pussies.


5. Ogenoct is one of the more bizarre NS/ not NS/ Commie/ self-appointed nobleman characters I've ever seen on the internet. His pretentiousness is comical and leads me to believe its a well practised routine.


Octjewfagnut/Constipation von Kikenmeister isn't putting on an act. Read some of its deranged drivel on its National Futurist and you will see either some deracinated whigger/mamzer or more likely a jew simply acting like these schidzoid jew mamzers act. In one of these threads on Octjewfagnut's page, you read about Octjewfagnut's putting ants in its anus and wanting to kill 27 little White girls with a shotgun. Since nobody can vouch for Octjewfagnut's/Constipation's actual person, I think it is just another Internut jew.

Captn Mattoid-Mamzer, Goat Pizzle Procurement Oreficer of the Slovak Navvy is a crazoid schidzoid slavic mong[r]ollian spam-mamzer whose only function is as a forum pigeon shitting over the threads, especially those created by White men. Unless you have a falcon or a twelve-gauge and are willing to use it, this pigeon will shit. It's its nature.

The jews put on at least one Holohoax picture which they make a big deal about, and this year's piece of tripe is 'Valkurie.' A traitor and sneak and oath-breaker like Stauffenberg never would have been taken to Valhalla but rather left to be eaten by the dogs and crows. But trying telling that to whiggers, mamzers, and jews running wild on phorafags/feebs. It's a waste of time at best.

Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum

[Kodos]

Actually, at 44% of the vote in 1932, Hitler had seven percent more vote than the mass-murderer and tyrant DisHonest Ape Lincoon received in 1860 and six percent more than Bubba Caligula did in 1992. So even in the ZOGland it has never been a condition that any regime criminal reach 51% of the vote, those who do vote.

Im a monarchist mad Marty. The western (or white world if you want to put it at that) did far better under that system. What happened at the end of WWI in Germany refutes the idea that the Germans would never accept a coup (and unlike the respectable monarchist and nationalist reactionaries who tried to overthrow Hitler, in WWI the monarchy was really overthrown by socialist and communist traitors), and im sure a lot more Germans felt a loyalty to the crown then were attached to national socialism (especially when it was losing).

[Lud]

Lud (Gustav Vasa?) your opinion that Stauffenberg was not willing to sacrifice himself is valid but stop prattling about elected (which Hitler was not he was appointed by Hindenburg he never had a majority in the Reichstag) as if it means anything, Hitler had to die if there was to be any chance of surrendering seperately to the West. The war was hopelessly lost in 1944, even if the conspirators were acting selfishly to gain power their interests coincided with that of Germany.

Prattling? I have made one post in this thread.

As to your argument, it is without any merit. We are talking of a modified parlimentary republic not an American winner take all presidential election. Absolute majorities are irrelevant. Employing your logic, most Presidents / Prime Ministers in Europe are not democratically elected. Hitler was a constitutionally legitimate elected leader. His attempted murder was high treason and warranted summary execution.

[ogenoct]

http://northcorner.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/valkyrie-cast.jpg

[cerberus]

Lud
Hitler was a constitutionally legitimate elected leader. His attempted murder was high treason and warranted summary execution.
LOL - what election did he win and whom did he stand against ?
The man broke his oath of office and he acted in his interests - or at least what his own gandiose ego led him to believe was his destiny.

The men who attempted to kill him acted for Germany and not for a dictator who had led Germany down the road to Predition.

[Vessper]

Brilliant poem. You have a gift with the words, Constantin.


Stauffenberg was a German aristocrat, an elitist. What he did, he did for Germany, not because he thought that Hitler mistreated jews or god knows what. Infact Stauffenberg, just like the majority of Germans in that time, had a low opinion on Jews and Slavs. He made a few comments on Jews and Slavs which by todays standards would be labeled as racist and anti-semitic.

Stauffenberg was pro-Nazi in the beggining. The only reason he and the group which was involved in the assasination attempt wanted to kill Hitler was because they saw Hitler was loosing the war. That was the only thing they held against Hitler. Not to mention that in case of a succesful coup, they had no intentions of returning the territories gained till 1939.

"Although Stauffenberg agreed with some of the Nazi Party's nationalistic aspects, he found many aspects of its ideology repugnant and never became a member of the party. Moreover, Stauffenberg remained a practicing Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church had signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933, the year Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power. Stauffenberg vacillated between a strong personal dislike of Hitler's policies and a respect for what he perceived to be Hitler's military acumen. On top of this, the growing systematic ill-treatment of Jews and suppression of religion had offended Stauffenberg's strong personal sense of religious morality and justice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Schenk_Graf_von_Stauffenberg




Stauffenberg is one of the greatest Europeans of history, and his name shall be remembered forever.
If Stauffenberg would've killed Hitler and Himmler and come to power along with the rest of the resistance, just imagine how Germany would be now. They could've negotiated with the Allies and the Soviet Union to stop atacking each other, and Europe would now be in it's absolute glory.

Heil the fallen heroes of Germany!

HEIL STAUFFENBERG!


Long live our sacred Germany!

[Hans Westmar]

A worthless traitor to his state, to his race, to his people and to his nation. Adolf Hitler is the greatest man in recorded history, while this is simply an individual who was used by the jews in an unsuccesful attempt to rid themselves of the champion of mankind, a bullwark against world Jewry - Adolf Hitler.

[Lud]

LOL - what election did he win and whom did he stand against ?


:stan:

I thought you were the board's resident anti-fascist nazi fetishist?

Do we have to go through the 1932 and '33 election results, which I'm sure you're already aware of? Or can we shortcut through the BS and have you make a direct claim that the results were "illegitimate" or somesuch?

The man broke his oath of office and he acted in his interests - or at least what his own gandiose ego led him to believe was his destiny.

The Cerebus / McVeigh Test for execution of politicians? :rolleyes:

[Boleslaw]

He was a good German, a patriot and an honourable soldier. http://www.kampfgruppe.us/images/smilies/salute%5b1%5d.gif

[Mike Jahn]

He was a good German, a patriot and an honourable soldier. http://www.kampfgruppe.us/images/smilies/salute%5b1%5d.gif

He was a fool. :nopity: Churchill and FDR's policy of unconditional surrender meant that not even killing Hitler would stop the Allies from conquering Germany and imposing a new government on them which meant that Stauffenberg and the other men involved in his plot wasted both their time and their lives for nothing.

[Boleslaw]

He was a fool. :nopity: Churchill and FDR's policy of unconditional surrender meant that not even killing Hitler would stop the Allies from conquering Germany and imposing a new government on them which meant that Stauffenberg and the other men involved in his plot wasted both their time and their lives for nothing.
Stauffenberg and his colleagues actually knew about the Allies insistence on unconditional surrender, and they still went forward with their plan in order to archieve a moral victory for Germany in the eyes of the world.

[Boleslaw]

He was a reactionary monarchist like much of the rest of the "Black Orchestra" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarze_Kapelle).

He was also involved with the Kresiau Circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreisau_Circle) as well I believe.

[Lud]

Stauffenberg and his colleagues actually knew about the Allies insistence on unconditional surrender, and they still went forward with their plan in order to archieve a moral victory for Germany in the eyes of the world.

Primary source?

[Boleslaw]

Primary source?
It's a quote from one of the resistance leaders, Olbrecht I believe(though not sure off hand).

[Lud]

I would appreciate a source if you can recall it.

The statement is contrary to the mainstream position, which notes that Stauffenberg attempted to contact Churchill through intermediaries to see if a ceasefire could be reached if Hitler were murdered.

Moreover, his wiki entry notes that:

in late 1943, he had written out demands with which he felt the Allies had to comply in order for Germany to agree to an immediate peace. These demands included Germany retaining its 1914 eastern borders, including the Polish territories of Wielkopolska and Poznań.[18] Other demands included keeping such territorial gains as Austria and the Sudetenland within the Reich, giving autonomy to Alsace-Lorraine, and even expansion of the current wartime borders of Germany in the south by annexing Tyrol as far as Bolzano and Meran. Non-territorial demands included such points as refusal of any occupation of Germany by the Allies, as well as refusal to hand over war criminals by demanding the right of "nations to deal with its own criminals". These proposals were only directed to the Western Allies — Stauffenberg wanted Germany only to retreat from western, southern and northern positions, while demanding the right to continue military occupation of German territorial gains in the east.[19]

Certainly not the effort of someone who thought only an unconditional surrender would appease the Anglo-Americans. Would you have welcomed a Stauffenberg administered Poland? :)

Quite comical though. Here we have this unimportant officer planning assassinations of his country's leaders, mapping out how he would lead a coup and survive to later execute fellow officers, and further writing out, in advance, detailed terms which he would demand of the Anglo-Americans for peace for when he was in control of the government. Seems more of a delusional loon than a "freedom fighter."

I think an earlier poster used a phrase which described Stauffenberg quite well, a "grandiose ego" with delusional beliefs about his own grand destiny.

[Shylock]

What a ridiculous thread! Those traitors could exactly what they deserved. The idea if they killed Hitler they could somehow end the war is ridiculously. The Allies were hell-bent on destroying Germany, the idea that you could negotiate with such people is ridiculous. In fact, the only good thing that could have ever came from Hitler's death is that most likely Goebbels or Himmler would take Hitler's place; and both of whom were not so tender-foot as Hitler in that they had no problem with using chemical weapons against the Bolshevik hordes in the East.

As for Hitler's Government being illegitimate, that is the most ridiculous idea I've ever head. Everything Hitler did from the time of being appointed Chancellor to Reichstag Fire Decree to the Enabling Act was perfectly legal. The so-called 'Anti-Fascists' can cry all they want but everything in the 3rd Riech was done lawfully and orderly.

[Hans Westmar]

What a ridiculous thread! Those traitors could exactly what they deserved. The idea if they killed Hitler they could somehow end the war is ridiculously. The Allies were hell-bent on destroying Germany, the idea that you could negotiate with such people is ridiculous. In fact, the only good thing that could have ever came from Hitler's death is that most likely Goebbels or Himmler would take Hitler's place; and both of whom were not so tender-foot as Hitler in that they had no problem with using chemical weapons against the Bolshevik hordes in the East.

As for Hitler's Government being illegitimate, that is the most ridiculous idea I've ever head. Everything Hitler did from the time of being appointed Chancellor to Reichstag Fire Decree to the Enabling Act was perfectly legal. The so-called 'Anti-Fascists' can cry all they want but everything in the 3rd Riech was done lawfully and orderly.

Thank you for this truthful post. To hell with the "antifa", the cosmopolites, the Jews and all the other subversive trash around!

[cerberus]

Lud
I thought you were the board's resident anti-fascist nazi fetishist?
You thought wrong Lud.
Do we have to go through the 1932 and '33 election results, which I'm sure you're already aware of? Or can we shortcut through the BS and have you make a direct claim that the results were "illegitimate" or somesuch?

In what election running against other parties did the NSDAP win a majority which allowed them to form a goverment ?
The Cerebus / McVeigh Test for execution of politicians? :whip:

Boleslaw
He was a good German, a patriot and an honourable soldier.
I agree , he / they took the only option left open to them.
The statement is contrary to the mainstream position, which notes that Stauffenberg attempted to contact Churchill through intermediaries to see if a ceasefire could be reached if Hitler were murdered.


A source other than Wik. would be good.

Felim
the only good thing that could have ever came from Hitler's death is that most likely Goebbels or Himmler would take Hitler's place; and both of whom were not so tender-foot as Hitler in that they had no problem with using chemical weapons against the Bolshevik hordes in the East.
Pandoras box.

As for Hitler's Government being illegitimate, that is the most ridiculous idea I've ever head. Everything Hitler did from the time of being appointed Chancellor to Reichstag Fire Decree to the Enabling Act was perfectly legal.
Hitler never won an election he combined his office with that of President -the enabling act was an emergency measure which was meant to protect the democratic process he used it to destroy it - once the act was activated it remained so until he put a bullet in his useless skull and bit down on the capsule between his teeth.

The so-called 'Anti-Fascists' can cry all they want but everything in the 3rd Riech was done lawfully and orderly.
The murders of the SA leadership ?
T4 ?
Theft of property from Jews ?
You can make anything legal - public exection for parking on double yellow lines , but it does not make it right .
When you have Hitler telling the Judges that in future the law will serve the State and not the citizen and they had better get used to it , that he will decide what is and what is not legal ,you have little ground to speak of what is or is not legal or right in terms of the law.

[Shylock]

In what election running against other parties did the NSDAP win a majority which allowed them to form a goverment ?


They won 43% in the General Election in March 1933, and along side some smaller nationalist parties they had a small majority. Most Governments in Europe come to power with far small shares of the vote. For example the UK Labour Government won only 35% of the vote in the last elections there. If you hold up the standard that unless the governing party receives less then an absolute majority (50 + 1%) that they are illegitimate, then under your standards most of the Governments in Europe are illegitimate.


Hitler never won an election he combined his office with that of President


This is nonsense. The NSDAP had become the largest party in the Reichstag in the July 1932 elections and remained so in the Nov 1932 elections and the March 1933 elections.


-the enabling act was an emergency measure which was meant to protect the democratic process he used it to destroy it

More twaddle from you, cerbertus. The Enabling Act was a constitutional amendment to the Weimar Constitution. It allowed the the Reich Government to enact laws without the approval of the German Parliament. It was only valid for 4 years unless renewed, which it was. Also, laws enacted by the Enabling Act were not required to confirm to the provisions of the Weimar Constitution. Cry all you want, cerbertus, but the Enabling Act was perfectly legal.

The murders of the SA ?
T4 ?
Theft of property from Jews ?
You can make anything legal - public exection for parking on double yellow lines , but it does not make it right.

Yes, that was all legal. You seem to be confusing with what is, in your opinion, moral and the law. They are separate from one another.

[cerberus]

Felim
They won 43% in the General Election in March 1933, and along side some smaller nationalist parties they had a small majority.

You fudge the issue here Felim , did they themselves ever win enough votes to secure an election on their own ?
( I think we both know they did not nor did they enter into any goverment with any minor parties).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_March_1933

Governments in Europe come to power with far small shares of the vote.
Did any of these goverments then create a dictatorship ?
Hitler did not - he took the role he was offerred in a power sharing goverment - his party did not win an election.
This is nonsense. The NSDAP had become the largest party in the Reichstag in the July 1932 elections and remained so in the Nov 1932 elections and the March 1933 elections.

Fact is they did not secure enough votes to win and by then they had peaked , when Hitler accepted office they were on the slide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
It lasted more than four years - 33-37 ?

More twaddle from you, cerbertus. The Enabling Act was a constitutional amendment to the Weimar Constitution. It allowed the the Reich Government to enact laws without the approval of the German Parliament. It was only valid for 4 years unless renewed, which it was. Also, laws enacted by the Enabling Act were not required to confirm to the provisions of the Weimar Constitution. Cry all you want, cerbertus, but the Enabling Act was perfectly legal.

It was abused Felim , we both know that it was not meant to deny the German people political choice or freedom , Hitler used it to outlaw other parties and to cement himself in place as a dictator.
I am not crying , simply stating fact, please don't confuse the two.

Yes, that was all legal. You seem to be confusing with what is, in your opinion, moral and the law. They are separate from one another.
I wonder ?
Who gave the SA leadership a fair trial ?
Who settled old scores at this time ?
T4 - who attempted to obtain any dialogue with the next of kin , who attempted to obtain or to assertain the capacity of a single person who was killed ?
What medical or legal ethics governed T4 ?
Why were fake death certificates issued ?
What medical or nursing process provided dignity for those who were killed ?
Why did the medical people involved seek an assurabce that they would be imune from any legal redress ?

AS I said I can pass a law calling for your execution for a simple parking violation but does it make it ethical or morally right.
A laegal system without any moral base will produce law of no quality and certainly won't provide justice.
Hitler and Stalin had much in common.

[Lud]

In what election running against other parties did the NSDAP win a majority which allowed them to form a goverment ?

Oh. This game.

General Refresher - in Parliamentary systems, a party does not have to win an absolute majority to form a government. Political parties can also form governments through coalitions with other like-minded parties to establish a government.

I'm surprised you need to be explained 4th grade civics. I had thought you were English, even though as a "non-fetishist" you list your location as the Third Reich. England also operates under a Parliamentary form. Gordon Brown, Labor Party, is currently Prime Minister in England, even though I believe the last general election in the UK was in 2005 and the Labor Party then won only 40% of the vote- far less than the NSDAP's vote in 1933. Moreover, unlike the NSDAP whose public face was always Hitler, no one voted for Brown. Rather Brown slithered into the PM's office after Blair resigned. Does this mean the Labour party is illegiitmate Cerebus? Gordon Brown as PM?

In Germany, the NSDAP formed a government with the German National People's Party. President Hindenberg, a member of neither party, appointed Hitler Chancellor.


A source other than Wik. would be good.

A History of the German Resistance, p. 240. Hoffman, Peter. McGill-Queen's University Press, 3rd ed., 1996.

German Resistance Against Hitler, fn. 456. Von Klemperer, Klemens. Oxford University Press USA, 1992.

You can make anything legal - public exection for parking on double yellow lines , but it does not make it right.

:D So now you accept he was legitimate? As I suspected, your objections have really nothing to do with process, but with results. How else could speak well of Stauffenberg? In the future coalesce your thoughts before posting. It saves everyone time.

[Boleslaw]

I would appreciate a source if you can recall it.
Here's from Richard Evans' negative attack on Stauffenberg:

In view of the Allied insistence on unconditional surrender, the foreign policy aims of the conspiracy were unrealistic in the extreme. By the time the bomb went off, most of the leading conspirators already recognized this unpalatable fact. After the Normandy landings, Stauffenberg doubted whether killing Hitler would serve any useful political purpose. Surely there was no hope any longer, if there had ever been any, of reaching a negotiated settlement with the Allies and rescuing something of Germany from the ruins. But, his fellow-conspirators persuaded him that practical politics were now irrelevant: what mattered was to show that the German resistance had been prepared to act.

Stauffenberg knew therefore that his bomb was important above all as a moral gesture. His intention in setting it off was to rescue the honour of the German people.

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1824.html


Would you have welcomed a Stauffenberg administered Poland? :)

No actually I wouldn't. I know Stauffenberg was a German nationalist and all that implies. I can't blame him for that, even though I don't agree with him obviously. He was still an honourable man in any case.

[Vessper]

A worthless traitor to his state, to his race, to his people and to his nation. Adolf Hitler is the greatest man in recorded history, while this is simply an individual who was used by the jews in an unsuccesful attempt to rid themselves of the champion of mankind, a bullwark against world Jewry - Adolf Hitler.

By trying to protect his nation and save Europe from total destruction? By trying to stop the death of millions of Europeans maybe?

And Adolf Hitler, being the greatest man when he called for murder of every Polish man, woman and children ?

Please.



Stauffenberg and his colleagues actually knew about the Allies insistence on unconditional surrender, and they still went forward with their plan in order to archieve a moral victory for Germany in the eyes of the world.

They wanted to achieve a moral victory for Germany in the eyes of the world, and they also wanted to negotiate with the Allies. I don't see it as a contradiction.






The murders of the SA leadership ?
T4 ?
Theft of property from Jews ?
You can make anything legal - public exection for parking on double yellow lines , but it does not make it right .
When you have Hitler telling the Judges that in future the law will serve the State and not the citizen and they had better get used to it , that he will decide what is and what is not legal ,you have little ground to speak of what is or is not legal or right in terms of the law.

Yes, that was all legal. You seem to be confusing with what is, in your opinion, moral and the law. They are separate from one another.

So what?
It's still wrong, legal or not. If a law is approved to allow child pornography it is still wrong and it will always be like that. Same thing to the attrocities that the Nazis did.



I know Stauffenberg was a German nationalist and all that implies. I can't blame him for that, even though I don't agree with him obviously. He was still an honourable man in any case.

Of course he still and honourable man, and after all Germany's main objective on World War II was to get back what they've lost before, so some of his views on that subject are understandable.



He was a good German, a patriot and an honourable soldier. http://www.kampfgruppe.us/images/smilies/salute%5b1%5d.gif

Indeed he was.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2623/salutem.gif

[Boleslaw]

They wanted to achieve a moral victory for Germany in the eyes of the world, and they also wanted to negotiate with the Allies. I don't see it as a contradiction.
Where did I say it was? Of course they wanted to negotiate a peace, but they still went ahead in spite of Allied insistence on unconditional surrender.

[Mike Jahn]

I would appreciate a source if you can recall it.

You are right to ask for a source on that but there obviously isn't one. What Dunadan is reciting is post-war mythology invented by the brainwashed Germans to plug themselves into the Jewish narrative of Hitler as a great evil, and thus Stauffenberg's act of attempting to kill Hitler gives the modern guilt-ridden Germans the opportunity to hold a small claim to the righteous gentile heroism in a Jew worshipping western world.

Germans lie a lot about their own history for political reasons. In one of these modern Rommel books endorsed by Rommel's grandchildren the author put the forth the pretend story that Rommel once told Hitler that Germany should have a Jewish gauleiter to prove their tolerance to the world. You know that no such event took place, it is pure fantasy invented by Rommel's descendants to put their family staunchly on the pro-Jewish side. Rommel's family has also lied about Rommel's love for the British, I have a 1944 book Behind The Steel Wall written by Swedish journalist Arvid Fredborg who was in Germany during the Third Reich and in one section he mentions how the British during the war admired Rommel's leadership while Rommel in contrast was making public statements calling the British idiots.

[cerberus]

Mike Jahn
What Dunadan is reciting is post-war mythology invented by the brainwashed Germans to plug themselves into the Jewish narrative of Hitler as a great evil, and thus Stauffenberg's act of attempting to kill Hitler gives the modern guilt-ridden Germans the opportunity to hold a small claim to the righteous gentile heroism in a Jew worshipping western world.


Hitler was a obstacle to ending the war before the Guards Tank Armies parked on the steps of the Reichstag.

The war was lost by 1943 , it was only a matter of pieces coming together and as these pieces merged defeat became and ever more rapidly approaching reality.

There has been no brainwashing - Germans can now see exactly what Hitler was and how he left Germany holding the baby for his various dates with destiny.

Stauffenberg's actions only make sense in the context of the choices open to Germany at that time - they are unrelated to post war " brainwashing".

Germans lie a lot about their own history for political reasons. In one of these modern Rommel books endorsed by Rommel's grandchildren the author put the forth the pretend story that Rommel once told Hitler that Germany should have a Jewish gauleiter to prove their tolerance to the world. You know that no such event took place, it is pure fantasy invented by Rommel's descendants to put their family staunchly on the pro-Jewish side. Rommel's family has also lied about Rommel's love for the British, I have a 1944 book Behind The Steel Wall written by Swedish journalist Arvid Fredborg who was in Germany during the Third Reich and in one section he mentions how the British during the war admired Rommel's leadership while Rommel in contrast was making public statements calling the British idiots.

Rommel would be hardly be expected to make a broadcast stating that the British were smart could he ?

In terms of Rommel's grandchildren - they were not alive or even born when Rommel was killed - with caution I think is how claims like this should be met.

Manfred Rommel knew how his father died , on the orders and under threat of the man who sent a huge wreath to his funneral and used the dead officer for a last propaganda call.

It is noit a case of being pro Jewish - the Jews have npothing to do with the writing of history - I have a bookacse full of books by pro German authors which will attest to this.

[Lud]

Stauffenberg's actions only make sense in the context of the choices open to Germany at that time - they are unrelated to post war " brainwashing".


So then, excluding trivial matters such as murder, mutiny, treason, due process, and the breaking of oaths, you are saying it is the duty of the honorable soldier to kill a leader / general who loses a war/battle?

[Vessper]

So then, excluding trivial matters such as murder, mutiny, treason, due process, and the breaking of oaths, you are saying it is the duty of the honorable soldier to kill a leader / general who loses a war/battle?

It is the duty of a soldier to serve his nation, but Stauffenberg was a German, and Nazi Germany was not his Germany.
Nazi Germany is known for massive genocide and murder.
Germany is NOT, and was never a nation of murderers but a nation of philosophers, as Herder said. Nazi Germany is not the autentic and honourable Germany that Stauffenberg loved.

[ogenoct]

the shocking truth: dada king announces marriage of heaven and hell: the meeting of stauffenberg and hitler took place a week before noon and stauffenberg shook hitler's hand and smiled and hitler invited stauffenberg to eat breakfast with him and stauffenberg agreed and sat down at the oak table opposite hitler - hitler peeled oranges and offered a slice to stauffenberg - stauffenberg took it and ate it - vitamin c animates! - stauffenberg looked across the room and saw hitler's butler holding hitler's bathrobe and stauffenberg then realized that hitler was naked!

[Apocales]

the shocking truth: dada king announces marriage of heaven and hell: the meeting of stauffenberg and hitler took place a week before noon and stauffenberg shook hitler's hand and smiled and hitler invited stauffenberg to eat breakfast with him and stauffenberg agreed and sat down at the oak table opposite hitler - hitler peeled oranges and offered a slice to stauffenberg - stauffenberg took it and ate it - vitamin c animates! - stauffenberg looked across the room and saw hitler's butler holding hitler's bathrobe and stauffenberg then realized that hitler was naked!

http://i30.tinypic.com/nv1m6w.jpg

[Kodos]

In fact, the only good thing that could have ever came from Hitler's death is that most likely Goebbels or Himmler would take Hitler's place

Hitler's designated successor at the time was still officially Goering. Hitler had to die if there was any hope of reaching a seperate peace with the western allies.

[ogenoct]

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l130/fritzmaster18/original_image.png

[Flying Drumhead Court-Martial]

By trying to protect his nation and save Europe from total destruction? By trying to stop the death of millions of Europeans maybe?

And Adolf Hitler, being the greatest man when he called for murder of every Polish man, woman and children ?

Please.

Haha. How delusional would one have to be not to see that the allies never had any intention of not destroying Germany? This wasn't a war against Nazi Germany but a war against German militarism. Roosevelt and Churchill were more than happy to have East Prussia be erased.

Also, do you think Stauffenberg was pro-Poland or something? Stauffenberg favored the invasion and subjugation of Poland, so that's that.

Anyhow, here is a propaganda video that demonizes every German citizen from 1871 to 1945 and beyond. This was made AFTER the war, so you really think these were people you could negotiate with?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1v5QCGqDYGo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1v5QCGqDYGo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[ogenoct]

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l130/fritzmaster18/stauffi-popart.jpg