HISTORY EXTENSION

Major Essay: Account for the changing attitudes of historians towards Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg over time in evaluating him as a “heroic historical figure”.

Synopsis

When we cast our minds back to the totalitarian nature of the Nazi regime that was present in Germany prior to and during the Second World War, the layman can be forgiven for believing that the German population all advocated the policies of the National Socialists. Upon a little more research, however, one can find that this was not in fact the case. Large factions of the German populace at this time in fact condemned the Nazi rule, in one form or another. Whether this be through political or passive resistance, religious or moral resistance, or stronger, military resistance as demonstrated by groups such as the Kreisau circle and those involved in the 1944 July Plot, resistance to Hitler was always there and at the forefront of German societal issues at this time. As we are aware, the Gestapo was swift to eliminate all forms of active resistance to Hitler through the use of shear force, and so the for the activity of military resistance of Stauffenberg and company to go unnoticed up until the bomb plot in July 1944 is something of a minor miracle.

In this essay, ongoing diffidence between the attitudes of historians towards Colonel Stauffenberg and his actions on July 20 1944 shall be accounted for, in evaluating Stauffenberg as a “heroic historical figure”. Concepts such as residual Nazism and Prussian militarism, post war mentalities, and more modern, media, entertainment and financially driven perspectives shall be used to account for the shift in opinion not only over time, but also across international perspectives.

This will lead to the casting of an evaluative judgement based on research of primary and secondary knowledge, made throughout the investigative process.

Account for the changing attitudes of historians towards Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg over time in evaluating him as a “heroic historical figure.

As with any event that holds cultural, national, or indeed emotional significance in the minds of those that follow, the historical view of Colonel Stauffenberg leading up to and including the infamous July plot of 1944i, and particularly the attitudes of those historians studying it, is one filled with intrigue, ongoing debate and relative historical ambiguity. Historians debate whether Stauffenberg can legitimately be described as a “heroic historical figure” for his actions leading up to the attempted assassination attempt on Hitler and whether the “failed” assassination attempt in July 1944 was a success or not. This disparity in opinion has, following observation of a range of sources, generally varied depending on a number of factors such as the nationality and political perspective of the historian, and in the case of German historians, civil boundaries including those of East and West Germany, the period in which they are writing and recording, and the general aim of the historian. All of these factors, we can see, are an amalgamation of the historians perspective and context, which is by and large what comes to shape, and in doing so, account for the changing attitudes of historians over time towards Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators.

If we consider the conspirators primary aim to be the assassination of Hitler, the plot and ensuing coup de etatii was indeed, a direct failure. This seems to be a popular view among a number of key resistance commentators. This denigration of the military resistance and Operation Valkyrieiii stems mainly from early West German intelligentsiaiv, from which emerged a strand of residual Nazism following the end of the war. This attitude also tends to take into account that, by July 1944, the war for Germany was lost effectively and as a result, the Resistance should be viewed as serving no particular purpose. Ernst Graml noted in his 1970 account of the resistance:

“German resistance to Hitler and National Socialism is still a highly controversial subject … marred by political controversy between the two Germanies which have emerged from the war – West German historians … and prominent British historians…consider the whole German opposition to Hitler highly overrated.”1

It is through this early impression of the resistance, and in particular the actions of the Valkyrie plot, that we can begin to observe, and make tentative links between this disparaging attitude, and the maintenance of Prussian militarism in Germany following the war. Preserved by the public nature of Adolf Hitler, many Germans, particularly industrialist, business orientated Junkersv still held the traditional priority of a military state. This in turn, granted substance to the nationalist belief that regardless of moral nature, such resistance, particularly of the scale of the July Plot, constitutes high treason, and is therefore fundamentally wrong, and in turn to be considered a highly punishable offense. This attitude is echoed in the writing of the German historian Joachim Fest, who in 1996 wrote:

“Foremost among the many reasons for this diffidence is the feeling – one deeply rooted in Germany’s authoritarian heritage –that the opposition committed treason by abandoning the German people to its collective fate at a critical moment.”2

And thus we can maintain that in this way, many of those who hold this attitude judged Stauffenberg not as a hero, but in fact a villain, particularly because of his “…abandoning the German people to its collective fate at a critical moment”. As a result, we can see that the maintenance of “Germany’s authoritarian heritage” and indeed, strands of Prussian militarismvi in German society can be deemed accountable in shaping the attitudes of early commentators and writers of resistance literature, particularly in West Germany.

Graml also seems to indicate certain scepticism of Stauffenberg between British historians. While Graml was writing in the 1970’s, an exemplar of his indication is Richard Evans, who is currently working as a history professor at Cambridge University. Evans is a known source of resistance criticism, and so holds the view that Stauffenberg was ultimately a historical failure. In an article written for a German newsletter Der Zeit, Evans writes:

“In failing, he (Stauffenberg) failed comprehensively…Anti-democratic, elitist and nationalist, he had nothing to offer the politics of the coming generations, still less the politics of today…Germany’s honour was not rescued…As a moral gesture, Stauffenberg’s bomb was wholly inadequate to balance out the crimes that had been committed in Germany’s name.”3

While seemingly in agreement with the aforementioned West German intelligentsia that emerged from the war, Evans tends to move away from Stauffenberg’s act as one of treason (as a result of his international perspectivevii which lacks German nationalism), and instead has moved the issue forward in its complexity. A common standpoint for pro-resistance writers is one that considers the plot to be a moral gesture; determined to point out that the bomb was more than just simply to kill Adolf Hitler, but rather one that would (as Evan’s points out) “balance out the crimes that had been committed in Germany’s name”. Commentators move to demonstrate that what Stauffenberg did, was inform people on an international stage, that not all German’s were willing to follow the disastrous actions of war on Hitler’s terms. Evans denies Stauffenberg of his “moral gesture”, under the pretence that not only did the plot fail to kill Hitler, but the mass liquidationviii of Jews, partisans, and other societal groups was not able to be stabilised in the minds of internationals by one single bomb. For the most part, this assumption proved true for many internationals, most likely as a result of remaining stigmas surrounding Germany following the war. In a similar way to the Prussian militarists, the international commentary emerging from the war regarding Stauffenberg and the

1 The German Resistance to Hitler, Hermann Graml, Introduction page vii 2 Plotting Hitler’s Death, Joachim Fest, Preface page 3 3 Richard Evans – ‘Why did Stauffenberg plant the bomb? Die Zeit 2009 resistance was one of scepticism and militaristic amateurism. Regardless of personal values, Stauffenberg was an officer in the Wehrmachtix alongside many of his co-conspirators such as Henning von Tresckow, Ludwig Beck, Philipp von Boeselager, Hans Oster, Freidrich Goerdeler and Ulrich von Hassell and the other members of the July Plot. As a result, Stauffenberg was to be held accountable for his actions which, as aforementioned, constituted high treason, and demonstrated a lack of military discipline.

Despite this, we can observe a gradual shift in beliefs, as a result of movement away from war mentality over the years since Stauffenberg’s actions. He now has a memorial in Berlinx, in the square in which his summary execution was held, has been the subject of a Hollywood film, as well as countless documentaries. Because the world moves into somewhat of a media and film driven ‘neo-romantic’ period, what has resulted is the glorification of historical figures, with emphasis on the positive, dramatic, and courageous actions of subjects, in order to facilitate entertainment of the masses and drive financial gain. In response to Richard Evan’s claims in the mentioned article, a German historian by the name of Karl Heinz Bohrer made a scathing attack on the words of Evans. He countered Evan’s work with this:

“Unclear in his argumentation, Evans continues to play off "military" against "moral" motivation until he collapses into self-contradiction. While, on the one hand, he talks about Stauffenberg being "motivated more by military than by moral considerations" in the next paragraph he talks about his "moral conviction" so as to distinguish him from the other conspirators.”4

A number of present day historians also follow this mentality, of which a certain Peter Hoffmann has become somewhat of a canon on the subject. An example of Hoffmann’s attitude towards Stauffenberg can be found in the epilogue of his Stauffenberg: A family history, 1905-1944xi. He states:

“Claus sacrificed his life, his soul, his honour, his family. The conspirator’s self-sacrifice presents a continuing existential challenge to contemporaries and successors alike. That is the historical significance of the uprising. Ultimately, the manifest act determines historical understanding and effect. All acts of resistance to the criminal regime participate in the legitimacy that Stauffenberg’s act created. There is no indication that anyone else would have achieved it. And without Stauffenberg’s manifest act there would never have been the host of individual martyrdoms which demonstrated the ethical foundations of the resistance, its existential response to inhumanity. Alexander Stauffenberg wrote that a nation’s secret destinies are revealed in its poetry, and that Poetry itself was the nation’s destiny when through the Poet the man of action was moved to act, or to sacrifice himself if he failed.”5

Hoffmann’s words sum up the basic argument put forward by resistance advocates, that regardless of the outcome of the bomb, Stauffenberg can be perceived as a hero for demonstrating the courage and willingness to demonstrate that anti-Nazi mentality was present in Germany, and that not all Germans could be held accountable for the actions of Hitler and German war crimes. He is a hero for sacrificing himself for his cause.

In a similar manner, Joachim Fest in his book Plotting Hitler’s Death, defends Stauffenberg as:

“Sacrificial, providing ethical foundations of the resistance … an existential response to inhumanity and of historical significance”. 6And that, “The fact that the subjects failed in the end, after many attempts, does not in any way detract from their memory or from the example that they set.”7

4 Karl Heinz Bohrer – Unmasking the July 20 Plot, Der Zeit 2009 5 Stauffenberg, Peter Hoffmann, page 185 6 Plotting Hitler’s Death, Joachim Fest, ‘Stauffenberg’ – Page 232 7 Plotting Hitler’s Death, Joachim Fest, Preface page 1 This forms the basis of both Hoffmann and Fest’s arguments, through concentrating on the ethical significance of Stauffenberg’s actions. This significance is highlighted and granted legitimacy by the very words of Henning von Tresckow when Stauffenberg questioned whether the plot was a practical undertaking. Tresckow replied:

“The assassination attempt must take place at whatever cost. Even if it does not succeed we must still act. For it is no longer a question of whether it has a practical purpose; what counts is the fact that in the eyes of the world and of history the German Resistance dared to act. Compared with that nothing else is important.”8

Not only does this extract discount Richard Evan’s emphasis as the plot being circled around military aims (as also mentioned by Bohrer), we can also see that the resistors themselves (Stauffenberg included) in the end wished for the ethical basis of the plot to be fulfilled, regardless of possible failure and practical illegitimacy of the plan. We know that the war was effectively lost by Germany at this stage, particularly the war in the Soviet Union, which was met by direct imbalance of resources, manpower, as well as deteriorating natural environments met by the soldiers in the harsh Russian winters. Stauffenberg was himself, according to Hans Mommsen, “convinced that there was no chance of winning the war against the Soviet Union, especially because of the imbalance between the manpower resources of both countries”9.

This shifted mentality can be deemed a direct result of natural historical progression and fluctuating social values. As with any historical event, as time goes on such events are seen through the eyes of the modern interpretation. As with the resistance, posthumous condescension towards the methods of previous commentators can be viewed as partially accountable as well. However, the argument behind the intense moral inclination of the conspirators is what the modern debate is down to. In this respect, Stauffenberg can be deemed to have successfully reached his goal of proving that not all Germans were Nazi supporters, despite the apparent failure of his bomb. This plays a major role in directing the commonly held view of him as a hero. As Mommsen describes:

“The importance of this plot did not lie in its immediate success, but in the attempt to save Germany’s reputation in the world as a starting point to overcoming Nazism.”10

However, not all commentators come to accept Stauffenberg, and the debate surrounding his historical status is still prevalent. Those such as Evans and even Hans Mommsen are not at all found to be totally uncritical of Stauffenberg. The major reason behind this seems to be the mass popularisation of Colonel Stauffenberg as a result of his portrayal in the media. This of course, culminated in the 2008 Hollywood film ‘Valkyrie’ starring Tom Cruise as Stauffenberg. It is interesting to note that the tagline of the movie was ‘Many saw evil. They dared to stop it’. This may prove the film to be illegitimate based on it being a construct of what the writers of the film have read, which would most likely be those such as Peter Hoffmann, on whose pro-resistance writing the movie was ‘inspired’. They have not developed an informed opinion themselves, but only said what someone else (in this case Hoffmann) has said in the past, and taking it as the whole, objective truth. This spotless portrayal of Stauffenberg as a courageous hero who was fighting for his belief sparked a renewal of the debate at hand. Several prominent resistance writers, all previously noted, re-emerged in order to cast their reaction to such a portrayal; this sparked the debate that was previously alluded to between Richard Evans and Karl Bohrer. Despite this, it is inevitable that such a widely accepted film should be adopted by many viewers as ‘objective history’, even though this may not be the case at all, as a result, the film industry (which moves beyond Valkyrie, and includes a number of documentaries, docu-dramas, and international movies, tend to portray Stauffenberg in a positive light, mainly for entertainment purposes. This is what has begun to shape the popular opinion of such a figure, particularly in recent times.

8 Hans Mommsen – Germans Against Hitler, Introduction page 7 9 Hans Mommsen – Germans Against Hitler, preface page xi 10 Hans Mommsen – Germans Against Hitler, preface page xii In posing a final determination of whether in fact Stauffenberg’s legitimacy as a heroic figure holds true, we must first identify the sorts of issues which affect commentators writing in the first place. Largely it is down to context, and we can observe the influence of Prussian militarism, post war mentality and dwindling war mentality, as well as more modern, media driven ‘neo-romantic’ period of entertainment and financial purpose. All of these shifting social elements have come to shape not only what the historian has come to say, but also the widely accepted view of such figures, including Colonel Stauffenberg. Commentators such as Ernst Graml, writing about the diffidence between East and West German opinions emerging from the war, and early historiographical issues surrounding the resistance, Peter Hoffmann and Hans Mommsen providing the basis of modern knowledge of the resistance, and those such as Richard Evan’s and Karl Heinz Bohrer, questioning what has been said, and carrying forth the idea posed by Colonel Stauffenberg in Tunisia during the war that, ‘You can serve Germany OR the Fuhrer…but not both’11.

In final evaluation of my own assessment, it is important to recognise the importance of my context in relativity to the context of those who have written before me. In assessing Stauffenberg as a ‘hero’, and after analysing a range of perspectives, I would look favourably upon him as a result of my own individual standpoint. The time in which I am writing is a time in which Stauffenberg has been viewed as a positive, courageous figure, decided on pushing for his beliefs. This has been adopted by the majority of modern commentators, and culminating in Tom Cruise’s portrayal in a similar light, I am more willing to view Stauffenberg as a legitimate historical figure, who sets an example for the generations that follow him. That is not to say however, that I do not recognise him as a murderer, as what he aimed to do (regardless of motives and purposes), was to kill Adolf Hitler. He did, we must not fail to remember, kill several other attendants, and wound several more. In conclusion, I think the question may be argued legitimately both ways, however in judgement and analysis of sources and deep investigation; I may safely come to the summation that Stauffenberg can be viewed in a positive frame of mind, as his intended actions have, over time proved that the moral inclination of Stauffenberg and his peers has held solid, and in doing so, granted many the view that what he did was justifiable and existentially correct on an ethical basis, despite demonstrating a willingness to kill.

Source Evaluation

Source 1

Title: Stauffenberg: A family history, 1905-1944

Author: Peter Hoffmann

Media: Historical biography

Time of Publication: 1995 (McGill-Queen’s University, Quebec)

This source, in complementation with Hoffmann’s other source The History of the German Resistance, was able to provide an insight into the personality and subject of this essay, Colonel Stauffenberg in particular depth. It was able to provide me with knowledge regarding Stauffenberg’s influences, such as German romantic poetry (often very nationalist), the influence of his family (referred to within the essay), and his activity under the Nazi formative period. Its weaknesses were far less apparent, as it is a detailed, well researched text that proved extremely valuable as an ongoing reference point throughout the investigation.

Its usefulness however, was less found in its ability to help me answer the question directly, but in its use against other sources, in order to gain an insight into causality and reasoning behind

11 “Valkyrie” – Brian Singer (written by Christopher McQuarrie &Nathan Alexander), 2008 historiographical issues and potential points of influence in terms of later commentators. In this way, its usefulness to the central argument of the essay was (while very apparent), not so direct, but used through the other sources that were more directed at the central argument of the essay. Its reliability almost unquestionable, as it is a biographical account, based on statistics, records, as well as primary opinions.

Source 2

Title: Why did Stauffenberg plant the bomb?

Author: Richard J. Evans

Media: Journal article

Time of publication: February 2nd, 2009 (Cambridge University)

My second most ‘valuable’ source is a journal article written by the widely accepted British historian, Richard Evans. Evans is a known source of resistance criticism, and this article is a summation of his opinions on the matter. Its major strength in accordance with my research is the basis it provides for the counter resistance school of thought. It is in direct disagreement with my own judgement, and the response written by Karl Bohrer made up much of my decision to counter Evans’ point of view. This article Evans in fact recommended to me when I enquired to him about his personal opinion on this matter.

In terms of usefulness, this source is extremely valuable, as it not only grants solidity to one side of my debate, but also plants a firm counter argument to the more common standpoint of modern resistance commentators. Its reliability can be deemed to be largely sufficient, as Evans is a credible and widely accepted author of modern German history at Cambridge. He is referred to in Fifty Key Thinkers on History as having ‘wariness about moral judgements and the application of present day values12’ however believes, ‘this does not mean that they have no part to play in history making’13.

12 Marnie Hughes‐Warrington – Fifty Key Thinkers on History, page 95 13 Marnie Hughes‐Warrington – Fifty Key Thinkers on History, page 95 These values, and subsequent opinionated judgement, mean that this source remained key to the project and central argument of the essay.

Hi. See first the account in my book The Third Reich at War. I alsoattach an article I published in German in DIE ZEIT last year.

RJE

This is the response to an email sent to Richard Evans, when requesting an opinion on the subject matter. The article he referred to was the one used.

Source 3

Title: Valkyrie

Author: Brian Singer

Media: Feature Film

Time of Publication: 2009 (United States)

This source, is likely to be the most well-known of all sources used, provided the basis of the modern aspect of the historiography of Colonel Stauffenberg. It was directly influenced by writers such as Peter Hoffmann, and as a result was a construct of what Singer had read, rather than an opinion he had generated himself. In this way, the movie cannot be considered to be a reliable source for a historian studying this aspect of German modern history. However, in determining the change in attitudes, it remains extremely useful in emphasising the success of the moral inclination of Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators. It is for entertainment purposes, and so much of which the film contains is not directed for such a study, however it has (like any historically based film), flaws which denounce the reality that it produces. The drama is emphasized, as well as the courage of the subjects.

Despite this, it remained useful in regards to the central arguments of the essay as it encapsulates much of the attitude that is currently adopted. It answers many relevant questions in collaboration with primary sources, and the research of historians on the subject.

The Movie poster for Singers 2008 film Valkyrie. This poster alone demonstrates a number of pieces of information that (directed by the purpose of the film) effect the reliability of such a source.

i Assassination attempt made by a band of Wehrmacht officers, including Colonel Stauffenberg, Henning von Tresckow, and Ludwig Beck in order to kill Adolf Hitler. They planned to plant explosives next to Hitler in his Eastern Front military headquarters in Poland, named Wolfsschanze, or ‘Wolf’s Lair’. ii Once it had been proclaimed that Hitler was dead, the following coup planned to establish a new government to take office. Most planned appointed personnel were executed following the failure of the bomb plot. iii Operation Valkyrie (Walküre) was the name given to the military Putsch and assassination attempt made by this particular arm of the resistance. iv Those that held positions of intellectual authority, were often those that had been raised during the unification of Germany, and the turn of the century, when Kaiser Wilhelm II was re-establishing ‘blood and iron’ as the method of German progression – stemming from residual Prussian militarism. v Junkers were significant industrialists, and wealthy land owners, who had widespread political influence at this time. They were very much in favour of National Socialism, largely as a result of the failed attempt at democracy in Germany with the Weimar Republic. vi Prussian national militaristic attitude stemmed from expansionist beliefs that were inherently adopted by the National Socialists and their supporters. vii Evan’s British heritage very much shapes the way he observes such events. This is evident in the lack of national pride or shame he maintains with regards to this subject. viii Stauffenberg and his associates were stationed on the Eastern Front, fighting in Smolensk with Army Group Centre. Many of his co-conspirators only became part of the resistance after bearing witness to such liquidation and human extermination while serving in Russia, as well as forced labour and murder of Russian commissars. ix An officer alongside Tresckow, in Army Group Centre (as mentioned) on the Eastern Front, and while supporting the Nazi party during their formative years, his opinion quickly deteriorated through what he saw while serving the Nazis. x Located in Bendlerstrasse, Berlin, and attributed to Stauffenberg and those who participated in the plot. This demonstrates a significant shift in opinion. xi This book was a large part of the inspiration for the 2008 Hollywood film. This accounts for the consistency of opinion across the two.

References + Bibliography

Assassination Attempts on Hitler’s Life (Internet) (2008) Available from: http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/assassination_attempts.html (Accessed 13 November, 2009) Boeselager, Philipp Von, Valkyrie, The Plot to Kill Hitler – The Memoirs of the conspiracy’s last survivor, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2009

Claus von Stauffenberg (Internet) (2008) Available from: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Stauffenberg.html (Accessed 13 November, 2009)

Fest, Joachim, Plotting Hitler’s Death, London, Weidensfield & Nicolson: 1996

GDW - Biographies - Henning von Tresckow (Internet) (2008) Available from: http://www.gdw- berlin.de/bio/ausgabe_mit-e.php?id=13 Accessed 13 November, 2009

GDW - Biographies - Ludwig Beck (Internet) (2008) Available from: http://www.gdw- berlin.de/bio/ausgabe_mit-e.php?id=19 Accessed 13 November, 2009

Graml, Mommsen, Reichardt, Wolf, The German Resistance to Hitler, London: B.T. Batsford LTD, 1970

Hoffmann, Peter, The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945, Quebec, McGill-Queen’s University Press: 1996

H-Net Discussion Networks - Snyder on Zeidler, _Der 20. Juli 1944_ (Internet) (2008) Available from: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h- review&month=0807&week=e&msg=P17jBVHe0vmo2ZCQhvDy7A&user=&pw (Accessed 3 December, 2009)

Hoffmann, Peter, Stauffenberg: A family history, 1905-1944, Quebec, McGill-Queen’s University Press: 1995

Hughes-Warrington, Marnie, Fifty Key Thinkers on History (Second Edition), London & New York, Routledge: 2008

Karl Heinz Bohrer: Unmasking the July 20 plot (13/02/2009) - signandsight (Internet) (2008) Available from: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1825.html (Accessed 2 February, 2010)

Mommsen, Hans, Germans against Hitler, London: I.B. Tauris & Co, 2000

Richard J. Evans: Why did Stauffenberg plant the bomb? (10/02/2009) - signandsight (Internet) (2008) Available from: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1824.html (Accessed 2 February, 2010)

Valkyrie, Dir. Brian Singer, United States, MGM, 2008 (Accessed throughout)