Was Claus von Stauffenberg a traitor to Germany, as many Nazis would claim and continue to do so even after the end of the war?  Or instead, was Stauffenberg really a traitor to National Socialism and a hero to Germany?  It would be correct to assume that Stauffenberg’s actions on July 20^th would more than likely have done nothing to stem the tide against the Allied onslaught against Germany.  Some have argued that in light of that information it would have been wiser to wait for the inevitable collapse of the German armies in which case Hitler would have been removed regardless.  As far as Stauffenberg was concerned, there was a more pressing need to rid the world of Hitler now rather than later.  Since Hitler took office, he had basically burned every political, economic, and social bridge that Germany had to the outside world.  If Germany was led to ruin by his hand, the shame and embarrassment of every German who could not or would not voice a concern over Hitler’s atrocities both at home and in the occupied lands would have been magnified thousands of times over.  Someone had to step up to restore Germany’s honor before it was too late.  Stauffenberg’s early influences on his life coupled with what he witnessed as a member of Hitler’s Germany spurred him to action because Hitler's policies ultimately ran anathema to Stauffenberg’s views of what the nation should be to its citizens.  In the end, he was a hero who was definitely not alone in his views. 

On the 50^th anniversary of the uprising German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, while giving a speech in the courtyard of the old Bendler Block where Stauffenberg met his end, remarked that what the conspirators had done was, “an act of moral self assertion.  They had proclaimed to the world that the dignity of each individual human being is more important than any political power and is superior to it.  The resistance had united Germans of the most diverse political convictions in a common struggle against the rule of criminality."[34]  As Professor Theodore Hammerow would conclude, “Admittedly, most of the members of the resistance, fallible, gullible, sometimes culpable, had at first accepted and served the Third Reich.  Then, gradually, almost in spite of themselves, they began to rise above the limitations of their age, their class, and their ideology.  They began to see, hesitantly, intermittently, reluctantly, and often dimly, the terrible evil in the Nazi Regime.  And having seen it, they eventually decided to oppose it."[35] 

Stauffenberg realized that no matter what Germany’s situation any would be preferable without Hitler than with him.  His character and sense of duty to the nation, not the leader, he loved and served compelled him to act.  His was not one of political ambition or even rule but it was instead a sincere affection for the place he called home.  Ultimately, he would prove this by giving his life fighting a tyrant and his barbaric lust for war, death, pain and suffering.  Posterity can hardly ask for more from those it labels heroes.


 

Home          To References


Site designed and maintained by Bill Jeffers
KING124@aol.com
Copyright 2005

Public History at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte