"Germany: anti-Hitler plotters a model for today’s military" Topic

"Faced with growing concern over right-wing extremism in Germany's military, the country's defense minister on Monday marked the anniversary of a failed plot to kill Adolf Hitler by urging today's soldiers to take their inspiration from those who tried to assassinate the Nazi dictator.

Speaking at a ceremony in Berlin swearing in new recruits on the 76th anniversary of the July 20, 1944, plot, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said right-wing soldiers who admire the Nazi-era Wehrmacht military have no place in today's military.

"The simple Wehrmacht soldier may have fought bravely, but if his bravery served an ideology of conquest, occupation and annihilation, then it was for nothing," she said, the dpa news agency reported. "I very well recognize the individual tragedy that lies in this truth.".."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

It's a pity that the July bomb plot didn't succeed in killing Hitler. I think it would have saved a lot of lives, since I don't think Himmler or Goring would have fought on as long if left in charge.

Do left wing soldiers have a place in the military? Could the US share secrets with Red Orchestra?

Let them try and fight a war without the "right wing" soldiers… whatever that really means.

Not sure you want to tell any troops that it's OK to topple the existing government of they think it's a good idea. The folks that could actually pull it off may not be inclined to leave you in power.

Never send Tom Cruise to complete a difficult mission – only if it is Impossible

Hmmmm, while the WWII plot was admirable, and very brave, it might be best to not tread too far in second-guessing leadership, since that can be pretty dangerous too, especially when you only got 33% of the vote.

The Valkyrie group's error was in going to the British, who gave them a traditional European approach to taking out a dictator: a bomb, like Alexander II. A small bomb, it turned out, and one that didn't work very well.

If they'd gone to the Americans, they would have been advised to use a large caliber pistol at close range (like President Garfield, killed with a .442 cal. Bulldog revolver).

Stauffenberg would have given up his issue sidearm when entering the conference room, but if he could smuggle two bombs in his briefcase he could damned well have smuggled in a loaded Model 1911. Boom-boom, job done.

Or maybe amputee Stauffenberg would be better employed in creating a diversion, allowing a more able-bodied conspirator to do the actual shooting.

Even Franz Ferdinand survived the grenade attack, and was killed by Princip with a pistol hours later.

A mistake often made is that a successful assassination would have led to a Nazi surrender. I don't think that is a given.

The German General staff were more interested in a coherent strategy rather than an unconditional surrender. They would not have surrendered to the Soviets in any case and Stalin would not have accepted 'conditions'.

In many ways – Hitler dying from the 20th July plot may have made it harder for the allies to win.

Stauffenberg would have given up his issue sidearm when entering the conference room, but if he could smuggle two bombs in his briefcase he could damned well have smuggled in a loaded Model 1911. Boom-boom, job done.

As shown by the events of that day Stauffenberg clearly wanted to live and be a part of whatever government structure followed the assassination of Hitler. Shooting Hitler in the conference room of the well staffed and defended HQ would more or less guarantee Stauffenberg's life expectancy after the act to be measured in minutes at best.

The plotters had to stay free and unsuspected long enough to remove those loyal to Hitler.

I don't think it was actually feasible even if they had been able to kill Hitler outright and escape.

Killing Hitler and getting caught in the act would accomplish nothing. A suicide bomb might have been tried I suppose, but not many want to die like that.

Eternal "What ifs?" But history is written only once… :)

Do left wing soldiers have a place in the military? Could the US share secrets with Red Orchestra?

From my experiences in the Infantry and Combat Arms back in the '80s. Never really think I ran into "Left wing soldiers". Generally those with those type of leanings don't join the Military, AKAIK. And there is no Draft in the US since '72-'73. So …

Let them try and fight a war without the "right wing" soldiers… whatever that really means.

Very true … again the left, libs, SJWs, etc., generally don't fit in. Especially in Combat Arms units.

+1 Legionarius

Stauffenberg managed to leave half his explosives and was a bit unlucky with his bag being moved and the wooden hut.

This wasn't the firs attempt. Shooting was one of the plans , i think in 1942.

Over the six decades since I read my first book about the July 20 plot, my attitude has changed somewhat--and I'm not completely comfortable where it's taken me.

That is, blowing that evil little meth-head to Kingdom Come, and possibly ending WW II in Europe almost a year earlier, had to be a good thing, right? More people died in the last year of the war than in the previous couple, and the chaos and starvation of postwar Europe might have been mitigated.

The immediate issues about HOW the war might have ended, such as what Russia wanted and how the map of Europe might have looked, etc, aside, I've come round to thinking that perhaps it is just as well that the Devil spared "Uncle Adi" again that day.

Others here of my generation will certainly remember how in the mid-60's a major issue was the perceived return of far right, Neo-Nazi political movements in Germany. For a while, that seemed like a serious risk, which fortunately came to nought.

However, consider this: If "Moustache Man" had been hoist to join the Hadean Choir, what do you think a lot of people would have said 20 years later?

"Hitler was a genius. If he hadn't been killed, he would have come up with a way to turn the war around!" And, "Just like in the First War, Germany was stabbed in the back!"

Sure, that's all nonsense, but people believe what they want to believe, and if a relatively small number of
next-gen Germans wanted to believe their own myths in the face of Germany's absolute defeat, how many more would have signed on with those much more persuasive arguments left on the table?

No, it's almost as if Something really wanted Germany beaten flat, left with absolutely no doubt that they were beaten, and serve as a lesson to the rest of the world. On that basis, I'm satisfied with the results of July 20.

BUT… if you ask me to look into the faces of the millions who would die after July 20, and tell them that….

History is never easy….

TVAG

Well put, Patrick!

TVAG's analysis is just great. More than one book presented an alternative WWII after the bomb plot worked. Rarely works out well. Splits the Soviet/Western Allied Alliance. Especially if Lindbergh succeeds FDR.

But the fictional result was a bunch of aristocratic Germans, trying to strike a deal with the Soviet Russian "steamroller". However Christian and liberal they were (and I accept there were some true heroes), many (eg Rommel) were only converted to such views by the pure fact that they were losing the war…and badly. Even Tom Cruise was only convinced after being strafed by those Kittyhawks. OK probably his best ever role and I have to grudgingly admit, he can actually act, given the chance.

OK probably his best ever role and I have to grudgingly admit, he can actually act, given the chance.

Tom Cruise appears to be simultaneously one of the laziest and best actors of his generation. He usually accepts roles where he just has to act like a version of Tom Cruise, but when he gets into something that requires range, he brings it.

Actually, I enjoy watching both kinds of Tom Cruise movies.

Very true … again the left, libs, SJWs, etc., generally don't fit in. Especially in Combat Arms units.

It's an interesting perspective, given that the military is in many ways a huge welfare system, with subsidized food, housing, and health care, and a built-in expectation of job security.

All of the veterans and active-duty personnel I've ever known (officers and other ranks; maybe 50 people over a lifetime of having several school friends who spent their careers in the various services) were pretty far to the left politically and socially.

Especially the ones in combat arms units.

Americans are actually quite left wing if you talk to them without labelling the various policies as Socialist or Communist.

It's just the 2 flavours of the 'Business' party do not listen to the American voters – only their donors.

I contend that a national [as opposed to a private] military force is an example of socialism in action. So agree there with Oberlindes.

I suspect within the US military, anyone to the left of centre does not speak up but keeps under the radar for a quiet life. Probably the same in the UK armed forces.

@ Skarper Wow! you really don't know much about Americans.

Most Americans I meet are quite left of centre politically.

Also – there are numerous surveys of US opinion asking about issues and – mostly – the average American is much more left wing than either political party.

The notion that Americans are naturally right wing, support capitalism or massive military spending and intervention overseas just does not stand up under investigation.

But if you just watch cable TV news you'd never know it.

The Americans you meet might be some kind of subgroup. We all tend to associate with the people we like and this is especially true of right wingers.

It's an interesting perspective, given that the military is in many ways a huge welfare system, with subsidized food, housing, and health care, and a built-in expectation of job security.

Well there has to be some incentives to join, without a draft. And I am totally against a draft. We saw the problems with that during Vietnam. And obviously we have to have a military, and for whatever reasons people need to join.

All of the veterans and active-duty personnel I've ever known (officers and other ranks; maybe 50 people over a lifetime of having several school friends who spent their careers in the various services) were pretty far to the left politically and socially.

WOW !!! That was not my experience when I was in the Army. '75-'79 ROTC Cadet, '79-'90 Active Duty Infantry, '91 USAR MI …

Especially the ones in combat arms units.

Again that was not my experience on Active Duty. Serving in 4 Inf Bns [1 Air Asslt, 3 Mech], attached frequently to Armored units, + 1 CBT SPT Bn/Mech Hvy Bde HQ. Things may have changed since I left. But most of my friends/comrades/troops were pretty "Hung Ho" generally …

Again being in Infantry units and frequently operating with Tank units, we were all pretty "motivated" when it came to soldiering and defending the nation. Infantry, Tanks, FA, CEs, Chopper pilots, etc., are pretty tough jobs at times[many times]. Can't see someone joining those ranks and not believing in what they are doing and why.

Found the same with most of the USMC I know or worked with. I graduated from BAT at Norfolk as well. Seems we in the 101 and those Marines were pretty much "warriors".

Along with the 82, Rangers and SF I operated with. As well as the troopers in Mech and Tank units. The types of troops you need to fight & win a war, AFAIK.

Wow! you really don't know much about Americans.

I have to agree with that from my POV… Don't know who Oberlindes or Skarper talk too. But of course my friends
are generally older at 60 +, many Vets, especially in the Military Officers Assoc. of America. Which I am not only a member but was asked to be on the staff.

Even my friends that were enlisted or blue collar workers see many/most things as I do … Again many are older at 60+. But maybe that is why we are friends.

As Skarper posted,

The Americans you meet might be some kind of subgroup. We all tend to associate with the people we like and this is especially true of right wingers.

Birds of a feather flock together … so to speak.🦅
And yes Active Duty/Res/NG/Vets are a subgroup … being only about 1% or so of the entire US population.

I think Orwell got it right:

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Skarper's experience with the politics of ordinary Americans matches mine over 40+ years of living in various places in the USA and paying attention to people.

Legion 4 is probably about my age (early 60s), and certainly has a wider experience of the military, having actually been a member.

I would respond with my experience to this point, though:

Again being in Infantry units and frequently operating with Tank units, we were all pretty "motivated" when it came to soldiering and defending the nation. Infantry, Tanks, FA, CEs, Chopper pilots, etc., are pretty tough jobs at times[many times]. Can't see someone joining those ranks and not believing in what they are doing and why.

Every member of the military that I have ever met, regardless of political persuasion, believed passionately in what they were doing -- protecting the nation, people, and values that they loved and cherished.

Many of them have said things like, "this is the greatest country in the world, because there is nowhere else that my parents/grandparents/great-grandparents could have run to to escape the gangsters/communists/nazis/dictators/just plain grinding dirt poverty of the old country, and then, despite their accent/skin color/religion/politics/whatever, have been able to just work hard and keep what they earned."

Those military lefties were all tough people, up for whatever challenges were thrown at them, in the service and out.

And I am totally against a draft. We saw the problems with that during Vietnam. And obviously we have to have a military, and for whatever reasons people need to join.

Draftees and enlistees beat Hitler, Tojo, and Mao (in Korea). So it may be that the problems with the draft during the Vietnam war had more to do with the war than with the draft.

I'm in favor of universal service, along the European models: Everybody is in for a couple of years after high school. It bonds the entire nation. It would be fantastic for a nation as diverse as ours.

Legion 4 is probably about my age (early 60s), and certainly has a wider experience of the military, having actually been a member.

I am 63 myself …

Every member of the military that I have ever met, regardless of political persuasion, believed passionately in what they were doing -- protecting the nation, people, and values that they loved and cherished.

Many of them have said things like, "this is the greatest country in the world, because there is nowhere else that my parents/grandparents/great-grandparents could have run to to escape the gangsters/communists/nazis/dictators/just plain grinding dirt poverty of the old country, and then, despite their accent/skin color/religion/politics/whatever, have been able to just work hard and keep what they earned."

That has been my experience as well …

Draftees and enlistees beat Hitler, Tojo, and Mao (in Korea). So it may be that the problems with the draft during the Vietnam war had more to do with the war than with the draft.

Very true, of course we are all well aware of that fact. But many did volunteer as my Father did. But those were different times.

As I have said before, during Vietnam had there been no draft … I believe the anti-war movement would have been very small.

I'm in favor of universal service, along the European models: Everybody is in for a couple of years after high school. It bonds the entire nation. It would be fantastic for a nation as diverse as ours.

Statistics today show about 70% of draft age individuals could not pass the basic aptitude or fitness tests. The members of my Military Officers of America chapter clearly demonstrated this. As the former officers involved with a local Jr. Army ROTC, trying to assist in getting these individuals ready for those entrance tests. Very few could do it.

But IMO a draft if started again, would probably do more to divide us than bond us. Based on everything that has been occurring in the US over the past few decades. As I said those were different times in WWII, etc.

Plus today with the past leadership in DC pushing to open up combat arms to females. The question has been going around in the Congress for some time now. With this opening up the combat branches, should females sign up for the Draft as males do when they turn 18 ?

I'm pretty sure many in Congress would not want their daughters to be drafted. If the draft was restarted.

It does make me look at the back during Vietnam, I'm sure many drafted did not want to go in the Infantry or Tanks. But now for some reason females can join combat arms today. As I said different times …

"an ideology of conquest, occupation and annihilation"

Sounds like the EU…

The German army has already been thoroughly demolished by her predecessor though.

She better worries about what the German people are going to do, because

Good information … thanks …

You're making the same mistake they made in the thirties my dear "snip".
Sweeping problems under the carpet isn't going to make them go away.
Looking away isn't going to stop the brown stuff from hitting the fan.

Too bad the BW is not as powerful as an ally as before. But many Euro nations are downsizing their militaries for economic, ideological, etc., reasons.

Something we must [try to]learn from history, is having a weak military then trying to catch up when the 💩 hits the fan. Is not a good idea/plan. When playing catch up you lose a lot of blood & treasure, etc.,. However, those making these types of decisions will not be on the frontlines or will their sons & daughters, etc.