Remembering Claus von Stauffenberg

Primary version of this post at Barry Stocker’s Weblog, includes picture not just link to picture!

Picture shows Stauffenberg and his wife Nina on the day of their marriage

The reason for selecting this picture is explained at the bottom.

Today (July 20th) is the anniversary of Claus von Stauffenberg’s failed attempt in 1944 to assassinate Adolf Hitler, overthrow the Nazi regime, empty the concentration camps, and seek a negotiated peace with the Allies, particularly the western democracies. The putsch was probably too late to end the war through negotiation, and certainly too late to rescue the traditional civil and military élites of Germany from our condemnation for allowing the Nazis into power and then failing to overthrow them in their career of increasing internal and external criminality. Stauffenberg, however, did rise above the limitations of his class in a sacrifice which deserves to be remembered.

These reservations apply to Stauffenberg, but then so do some significant redemptive issues: he gave his life in the attempt, he made the attempt despite equivocation among the conspirators and is own war wounds which left him blind one eye, and with the use of only one hand, and only three fingers on that hand.

Any attention paid to Stauffenbery always leads to reactions from some to minimise his act. I will list some familiar points of that kind, and other possible reservations, and my reaction.

Stauffenberg was motivated by Germany’s impending defeat rather than by Hitler’s crimes including those against Jews.

Stauffenberg’s letters and the arguments he used to gather support for the conspiracy show that he was horrified by the slaughter of Jews, and by other Nazi crimes. It’s true that the realisation that Hitler had led Germany into an unwinnable war was key in leading Stauffenberg to plot Hitler’s death. As an office, from an old aristocratic family, related to great generals in German history, like Gneisenau and Scharnhorst who revived Prussia’s military fortunes after defeat by Napolean, the sense of duty and obedience to the commander-in-chief was immensely strong in Stauffenberg. It took Hitler’s suicidal attitude to conducting the war with the USSR to allow Stauffenberg to give himself permission to rebel. Hitler’s conduct of the war on the Eastern front was suicidal from an early stage, generals know even in the first few weeks of the invasion (Autumn 1941) that German armies could not supply and hold the vast territories that had been overrun, and Hitler was still trying to expand that territory in the Autumn of 1942. It was from this time that Stauffenberg decided that Hitler was a madman and a criminal and should be killed and that his regime should be overthrown. None of this is incompatible with rejection of Hitler’s crimes against Jews and other supposed inferior peoples and supposed enemies of Germany. The madness of Hitler’s criminality, beyond the rational interests of even a totalitarian regime, and the madness of his conduct of the war are of a piece. What piece of this anyone might react to most strongly at that time was going to depend on their place in the society, it’s absurd to condemn Stauffenberg for reacting as an aristocratic army officer would. With regard to moral theory, I believe it is important to make the point that acting against evil with great courage is not something to be minimised because we think that the person concerned did not focus enough in inner motives on the most evil part of that evil. I suggest that we consider this from the moral point of view that a tendency to resist injustice use of power is a good thing and a sign of admirable character. Anyway if we condemn Stauffenbery for not making the holocaust of Jews the overriding motive for his anti-Hitler activities, we should equally condemn Churchill, Roosevelt, De Gaulle, Jean Moulin, and just about every other hero of the struggle against Naziism.

Stauffenberg had a racist German chauvinist attitudes, and was a Nazi supporter for a timr

The above claims are correct, to some degree, but it is important to see that we cannot condemn Stauffenberg on the first point without condemning the democratic and progressive leaders of the time. We cannot consistently condemn Stauffenberg on the second point without condemning Stalinists and Maoists, but strangely intellectuals who have been Stalinists and Maoist, even in those countries where Stalin and Mao were committing massive crimes have never been criticised as Stauffenberg was. For an example of ex-Stalinist intellectuals I merely mention the well known Czech novelist Milan Kundera, who was a Communist Party member when Stalinists came to power in Czechoslovakia.

On the first claim above, it’s true that Stauffenberg had some chauvinist racist attitudes, a letter referring to Poles in derogatory terms can be found on page 114 of the standard biography (Stauffenberg by Peter Hoffmann, Cambridge University Press, 1995) which makes very unpleasant reading and has been quoted by Stauffenberg denigrators. When contemplating that letter, we should also contemplate the story Hoffman gives in page 113, the story of how Stauffenberg insisted on the court martial and demotion of an officer who had been Stauffenberg’s friend for having two Polish women shot. We can safely say that Stauffenberg can in no way be placed on a level with SS criminals, or anyone in the main German military of the time who was guilty of war crimes. Stauffenberg’s private correspondence contains some bad ideas but not always, his actions show a man who fought against injustice and immorality as much as he could, and who would look good if someone combed through all their private letters (or now mostly emails) and looked for the nasty bits?

On racism in general, let us remember that this was the time of legalised racial segregation in the southern states of the US, accompanied by unrestrained acts of illegal violence against African-Americans deemed to have offended whites and less formalised racism in the rest of the union. Let us remember that left progressive icon F.D. Roosevelt did not act against those gross abuses, indeed in the southern states the Democratic Party was the white supremacist party.

Let us remember than in the most notorious legal case of the New Deal period, the ‘Sick Chickens’ case of 1935, the federal government just happened to prosecute owners of a small chicken business in Brooklyn who just happened to be Jewish immigrants with poor English, who had never sold a sick chicken but did under undercut price controls, to the benefit of poor immigrant consumers in Brooklyn. The case was inevitably covered with Jew baiting comments in some parts of the press. Fortunately the government lost the case and FDR pulled back from the most excessive parts of the New Deal. He still managed to intern all Japanese-Americans for the duration of World War Two. I certainly do not suggest that we judge Roosevelt purely on those actions, but neither should we judge Stauffenberg on that letter.

Let us also remember the vast colonial empires operated by France and Britain at that time, and the racist assumptions and actions that inevitably accompanied colonialism. On Hitler and Nazism, it should be remembered that Winston Churchill himself initially welcomed the ‘New Germany’.

Stauffenberg was a supporter of the Nazi regime and Adolf Hitler up to the Crystal Night of November 1938, when Nazi thugs attacked German Jews and businesses, and it became clear that the Nazi regime stood outside any idea that the state can be restrained even by its own laws or morality as normally understood by most people, even in Nazi Germany. Before then he had maintained an idealised view of the Nazis as following the best cultural and community standards of German tradition. Before Crystal Night, Jews suffered scandalous discrimination (lack of political rights, exclusion from state employment, restricted entry into universities), but not systematic violence, and could still live in a precarious kind of decency. From the point of view of Stauffenberg, and other moderate pro-Nazis, this just seemed like a return to a normal situation in which pure ethnic Germans had the leading role in the society, but where there was no question of complete exclusion of Jews and certainly not annihilation.

Stauffenberg’s attitude of that time cannot be condoned, but by the standards of the Nazi regime he was not much of a Nazi, just a conservative ethnic-nationalist who was deeply disturbed when the Nazi attitude became completely explicit. Stauffenberg’s support for the regime and Hitler went into decline after this happened. He had thought that a moral and legal order could exist where communal values and solidarity are promoted by means which include ethnic solidarity stopping short of eliminationism of minorities. It was the wrong ideology, but not a very extreme one even by the standards of the leading democracies of the time. He was always opposed to, and disturbed by, the more vulgar and explicit aspects of Nazi ideology but believed it to be just one extremist strand, a belief that Hitler worked very hard to foster himself up to 1938. Staiffenberg’s attitude was wrong, and may seem like absurd self-deception and evasion in retrospect, but it is not appropriate to engage in extreme retrospective condemnation. Many of the current left critics of Stauffenberg would have been Stalinists at that time. The left was largely Stalinist in Italy and France after World War Two, and many prominent intellectuals in these countries and others were Stalinists, and some are still unrepentant like the British historian E.J. Hobsbawm.

Certainly, no one can deny that Stauffenberg died (on the night of 20th July) for an attempt to kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazi regime, and free Jews along with all other inmates of concentration camps.

Stauffenberg was not willing to work with the left.

This is the most absurd claim of all, but some German left-wingers seem quite addicted to it, even when evidence to the contrary is presented to them. The anti-Hitler conspirators behind the July 20th Plot, were largely very conservative and did not adjust easily to the idea of co-operating with social democrats, and certainly not with communists. Nevertheless, Stauffenberg had meetings with social democrats and communists, and declared that the conspirators were willing to work with social democrats and independent communists, that is communists who were more than instruments of Moscow.

The claim is really puzzling. It must be partly rooted in Stauffenberg’s own inclinations to organicist nationalist aristocratic conservatism. Stauffenberg was an organicist in the sense that he believed in the community as a living thing to which individuals are obliged are as a higher moral entity. He was a nationalist in that he believed that the nation was that community, and that the nation was based on ethnicity, though not the elimination of those outside the majority ethnicity.

He was an aristocratic conservative in the sense of his origin and in his sense of natural hierarchy. He came from a very old aristocratic family. Though the German aristocracy is often referred to as if it was all Prussian (from Berlin-Brandenburg, and lands conquered by the rulers of Brandenburg, in what is now Poland and Kaliningrad), it should be obvious that most German aristocrats are not Prussian and that German conservatives looked back to traditions preceding the 18th Century rise of the Prussian monarchy. Stauffenberg was from Swabia in south-west Germany, and his family had been aristocrats there going back to the Hohenstaufen Emperors of the 12th and 13 Centuries, who themselves were Dukes of Swabia. The Stauffenbergs had been servants of the Hohenstaufens as Stauffenberg was deeply aware. Not only was Stauffenberg aware of this family history, he was deeply aware of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II as a symbol of high German culture and spirit. Frederick was a Crusader, but also had a positive attitude to the Muslim presence in Sicily, which was part of his domains and where he was brought up, and was a promoter of science and culture.

Friedrich had a cultic status for German conservative nationalists in the 1920s, leading to a famous biography by Ersnt Kantorowicz, a German Jew of mystic German ultra-nationalist orientation. Kantorowicz belong to a mystic cultural nationalist circle round the poet Stefan George, which Stauffenberg also belonged to as as did two of his brothers. George claimed to be the ruler of a secret Germany of poetry, culture and spirit, which referred back to Friedrich Hohenstaufen, Hölderlin, Nietzsche and others. George was a cultural anti-semite happy to include assimilated German Jews in his circle, but also willing to co-operate with the Nazis. Kantorowicz was a particular enthusiast for the Nazis in the circle, but realised when they came to power that they would follow a racial definition of semitism and discriminate against all Jew however assimilated, so he fled to the United States and had a distinguished career as an academic historian, most famously writing The Two Bodies of the King. The ‘secret Germany’ idea fitted in with Stauffenberg’s belief in natural hierarchy. He never doubted that he was born to rule, he never doubted that ruling should be a burden and an obligation. That might sound like self-serving upper class ideology, and it often is, but no one can deny that Stauffenberg sacrificed himself and was willing to take responsibility for enforcing morality and justice at all times. As we have seen, he did not hesitate to have a fellow officer punished for injustice against Poles , not the attitude of a die hard Nazi or even a complacent self-serving aristocratic conservative. The manifesto he drew up for the July 20th conspiracy was for a constitution based on equal rights before the law, democracy and individual freedoms. Like 19th Century democrats and liberals, e.g. William Ewart Gladstone in Britain, Stauffenberg came to join legal-political ideas of equality with inner moral beliefs in natural aristocracy and the duty to serve the community.

On this issue of the supposed unwillingness of Stauffenberg to work with the left, the relevant context I am told is that in Germany school children learn about Stauffenberg; and about the White Rose group of Munich student, and a professor, who carried out a campaign of leaflet and graffiti protests against Nazi criminality during the Second World War until their arrest and execution. Apparently right wing students gravitate to Stauffenberg and left wing students to the White Rose. This all seems very artificial to me. The White Rose group were inspired by various religious positions, and were not connected with the left. Stauffenberg himself was deeply Catholic. The spiritual idealism of the White Rose and Stauffenberg has common origins in early 20th Century German culture, particularly in the German Youth Movement. In any case, it is absurd for anyone to only see the good in their national history as coming purely from one part of the political spectrum. What a nation achieves must come from people of many beliefs, including the achievements of those who carry out some redemptive self-sacrificing protest against the triumph of evil at one point in national history.

The Picture

Stauffenberg wears an army helmet at his wedding because he believed that marriage was an act of duty. Stauffenberg’s military-aristocratic belief in duty and self-sacrifice is illustrated in a way which I find both absurd and touching. The definition of marriage as duty might seem cold and unkind to his wife, but the evidence is that he was a warm husband and father. I don’t believe that he could have achieved what he did out of a passionless belief that duty is its own motivation and its own reward, and as I argue above some of the criticisms of Stauffenberg themselves draw on this kind of one sided abstract attitude to moral duty.

7 thoughts on “Remembering Claus von Stauffenberg

  1. Dear Sir,

    Thank you for your brilliant and outstanding defense of Graf von Stauffenberg. I was deeply dissapointed to see that our Belgian broadcasting companies totally neglected the 65th anniversary of Von Stauffenberg's heroic act. German broadcasting companies neglected it as well. This is a shame.

    Respectful greetings from Belgium,

    Marc van Rooij
    Latin teacher

  2. Marc van Rooij

    Thanks very much for your kind comments, I'm delighted that you find my defence to be successful.

    Good luck with keeping knowledge of the Latin language alive.



  3. Thank you for the defense. I found the criticism toward Stauffenberg can be extremely malicious. I’d like to add some more stuffs.

    1. Stauffenberg was motivated by Germany’s impending defeat rather than by Hitler’s crimes including those against Jews.

    Regarding his motive, in my opinion, impending defeat was not the only motivation. Danny Orbach explained this very nicely in his book, there were many cases in which army generals thought the head of state made stupid military decisions, but they didn’t provide the army enough motivation to stage a coup. Stauffenberg’s case is even more complicated, because, to him, military success was so closely related to humanitarian motive, they are quite simply inseparable. To him, military success required the local population to side with the Wehrmacht and Hitler’s murderous policy had ruined this.

    2. Stauffenberg had a racist German chauvinist attitudes, and was a Nazi supporter for a timr

    Stauffenberg’s sister in law was a half Jewish women eligible for a concentration camp. She later took care of his family after the failed coup. Forget about FDR or Churchill whom I don’t really consider as a hero, dare I say he was no more of a racist than Lincoln who didn’t believe in mixed marriage or giving blacks the right to vote. If Lincoln is considered as a hero regardless of this, why Stauffenberg is regarded as an evil Nazi?

    I’m from racial minority whose condition is similar with those of the Jews around 1935 and I can absolutely understand Stauffenberg inaction during the early period, because I see my own countrymen’s own struggle. What Stauffenberg did was going against his own countrymen. He needed a justification to do this. Believe it or not, defending some unwanted minorities couldn’t provide enough justification to risk disintegration within the nation. I can’t accept that, but I do understand this position. Personally, I can give my counter argument, but I can’t bring myself to condemn them for their failure to do so because I don’t really want a civil war either.

    That doesn’t mean Stauffenberg didn’t believe in Nazi racial ideology, but it should tell us something about the nature of racism. I meet this kind of people very often. When you know them as a minority, you can only appreciate them and understand that they are the product of their environment.

    3. Stauffenberg was not willing to work with the left.

    This is indeed very absurd. Stauffenberg was not only willing to work with the left, he was actually quite left leaning! Goerdeler & co. even accused Stauffenberg of being a communist. Stauffenberg personally picked Julius Leber, a social democrat, as his top choice for chancellery. There were even times when the GDR portrayed Stauffenberg being persecuted by the “greedy aristocrats”.

    Stauffenberg’s support for Leber is truly a revelation for me because he is always being portrayed as a right wing conservative junker. He was put into contact with Leber through his cousin, Wartenburg. Wartenburg realized there were to many aristocrats within their group. He told Stauffenberg, “If you wanted to destroy the Nazi, you need the support of the working class, because it’s not us whom Hitler promised the most benefits.” Stauffenberg was reluctant at first, he thought he was not the right man, but he quickly got along with Leber. They got along really well, to the point that I think Stauffenberg was so anxious to execute Valkyrie because Leber had been arrested (He personally pointed this fact to Leber’s wife). To Stauffenberg, the new government could not be without Leber.

    4. Stauffenberg was not democrat.

    He was obviously not a socialist democrat. Surprisingly, not a reactionary conservative either.

    I think that the western world has been living in a comfortable liberal democracy for a long time that they can’t position themselves in Stauffenberg’s shoes. I think he lived in a period in which liberal democracy failed. It was simply not popular. So, their pick fell on something popular, which was something like Nazi.

    Until now, democracy has failed many of us. Even I scorned democracy until very recently. To this day, I still think that democracy should be allowed to protect itself through authoritarian means. So, it’s not surprising at all that an aristocrat from half a decade ago didn’t support democracy. It’s not always out of greed. It’s simply because not wanting to be ruled by one’s inferior who would lead the country toward destruction. After all, his choice for the head of states fell on an illegitimate child from a poor family instead of his fellow junker.

    At the end, I want to say that I’m pissed with the left wing SJWs. Contrary to popular belief, they didn’t care about minorities. They only care about their own image. Thanks to them, my city is now ruled by some fucking racists. These guys have put my well-being on the line for the sake of political correctness! No, thanks! I take Stauffenberg any days!

    Here is a good criticism regarding the leftist attitude towards the 20 July plot:

      • The story of German resistance is really fascinating to me. I got so much to learn from it. It’s truly a shame that some people dismiss it as having no moral significant and even go as far as trying to erase it from Germans’ collective memory. To me, 20 July 1944 is very significant because it might hold the key to fight extremism. In particular, islamist extremism. When I read about Nazi Germany, I couldn’t help but notice the similarity between the Germans during the WW2 period with today’s muslims.

        The biggest misconception about the third reich is thinking that the majority of Germans at that time were evil while, in fact, the majority didn’t approve Kristallnacht. However, this majorities had allowed the insane minorities to rule over them and commit atrocities in their name. Only a small number of them decided to resist. So, I was curious what separated the resistance and the rest.

        I thought I had some specimens of upstanding human beings here, but it turned out between the resistance, the bystanders and the perpetrators there was only a thin line. However, this thin line made such a huge difference.

        One episode that is actually very important, but often got ignored by historian is when Stauffenberg ordered his subordinate to find out the truth about the rumor regarding the Jews massacre. The Germans failed to prevent the Holocaust because they didn’t know that Jews were being murdered in large scale. However, they didn’t know not because of there was no way for them to know. It was because they didn’t want to. They didn’t want to know because it might destroy their worldview.

        The same can be said for muslims. Let’s take for example, the Democrat’s icon of “feminist moderates” muslim, Linda Sarsour, when she was confronted with Saudi Arabia’s violation of women’s right. She responded in the most cringe-worthy manner that women in Saudi Arabia got 10 weeks paid maternity leave.


        To me, the biggest sin of muslims was not the suicide bombs. It is the fact that the majority of them decided to turn blind eye to the human right violation done in their name in the place where muslims are majority. To avoid acknowledging this crime, they often avoid mainstream media which they consider anti-islam because they feature news about terrorists shouting Allahu Akbar. They choose to isolate themselves with islamic media which often contribute to radicalization.

        The process of acknowledging such crimes actually takes place in your name can be very painful and it turned out to be not something that the majorities can do. For the men of 20 July to actually acknowledged it was not a small deal. This was a knowledge which if you knew, you would never be able to sleep well at night unless you do something. In the testimonies of many resistance fighters, I notice their guilt and shame. Tresckow, the architect of Valkyrie even went as far as saying, “Every day, WE are assassinating nearly 16,000 additional victims.”. He later compared their act of resistance to wearing the clothes of Nessus, a torture so painful that they would rather suffered Hitler’s wrath (Claus’ brother echoed this sentiment).

        I feel really bad for them, because most of them had not been involved directly in the massacre and many who were involved were not willing. Even more irony, the perpetrators denied their involvement in the massacre in front of the court. I’m pretty sure they did this not just to save their life, but they truly believed it. The low rank officers blamed their superiors who gave orders. Meanwhile, the high rank officers claimed they knew nothing and blamed their subordinates for the terrible executions of the orders.

        The 20 July men’s willingness to take responsibility on the crime they had never approved is truly worthy of admiration. Interestingly, the same behaviour is also exist among the most upright muslims I know. They were a good protector of minorities’ right. Not someone who campaign for diversity only when they were minorities. Unlike Saudi’s apologist such as Sarsour, these men are fierce to the point one might think they are islamophobic. However, from a discussion with friends, these group seems to be almost non-existent in the west.

        When others complain about media portrayal of bad guy screaming Allahu Akbar, these muslims are always like, “Well, it’s true. What’s your problem? I’m ashamed of it.” I can’t help but think the our world is so messed up. The righteous men suffer the shame, while the rest who should don’t.

    • Regarding the heroization of Stauffenberg, his son responded, “For me, my father and his colleagues are fellow human beings who looked when others looked away.” I can only agree with him.

      I read about Otto Wächter who was responsible for the massacre of Jews in Poland. His son refused to acknowledge that his father was a bad man, but rather a victim of the system. He insisted that his father was not anti-semitic and really against Hitler’s policy. He stayed in the regime hoping to change it from inside. While this is another case of responsibility denial, what if what he said was true?

      On the other side, there was also Tresckow who worked really hard to stop the murders, but also had his signature on an order of deportation. How 20 July had made such a big difference between these 2 men? It wasn’t racism that separates the resistance and the perpetrators. Strangely, some perpetrators were even less racist than the resistance fighters. However, it really didn’t matter.

      In his trial, Adolf Eichmann said he was a zionist and worked his best to find a solution, but his rank was too low to influence the decision made by his superiors. He found what happened to be truly regrettable. That he found it to be truly regrettable couldn’t change the fact that Eichmann was responsible for 5 millions deaths.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s