Talk:20 July plot

Some thoughts

(: </3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.111.35 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I have always read that it was Goebbles that took charge and that Himmler was out of the picture for a few crucial hours. Goebbles is apprently on record as expressing distrust of the Reichsfuhrer that night and was the one that was able to convince Major Remer who had been sent to arrest him that Hitler was alive, with Hitler's help. Goebbles had a direct line to Hitler and was able to get him on the phone. Hitler promoted Remer to Colonel on the spot, commanded him to crush the uprising and only to obey the orders of Goebbles, Himmler and General Reinecke. Also read that although the conspirators thought Hitler was dead before Stauffenberg left East Prussia (he phoned Berlin before he left Hitler's HQ) they delayed doing anything till he was back in Berlin and finally that Fromm didn't go to Goebbles right away, it was Speer and Major Remer that came to the Bendlerblock and learned that Fromm had shot the ringleaders. Only after that did Fromm ask to be taken to Goebbles so he could call Hitler and clear his name. Goebbles had him placed undr arrest and it was at that time Himmler finally arrived on the scene and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Reserve Army gave the order to stop any further summary executions. It's total speculation but I feel Himmler held back to make sure which way the wind was going to blow. It does make sense. Two books that i can recall off the top of my head with detailed accounts are Inside the Third Reich by Speer and The Devil's Disciples by Anthony Read.

One last point..Kinneyboy90 is right. It was just shy of 5000 who perished in the aftermath of the plot and the executions continued right to the end of the war --Jringer 1:34 am EST

I don't know if there's any reliable information available on why Stauffenberg did not deliver the bomb in a reliable fashion, eg. by activating it manually. I think that is a very critical point here and I'm missing it.

Should he had unpack it with only his 3 remaining fingers of his one hand? In front of hitler and his associates? LOL

Actually the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer has this incident in detail: how he activated the bomb and why it failed to kill Hitler at the critical moment and why the whole plot failed due to lack of co-ordination among the chief conspirators -- Harishan

I just saw the Bonhoeffer documentary

I was wondering if anyone has any information on moles within the plots to kill Hitler. An earlier attempt to kill him failed because the bomb didn't go off

Little or no evidence of informers. AH was rather shocked that such a wide swath of people had come so close to getting rid of him, which is one reason he had 5000 people killed, including a huge proportion of the German aristocracy. Wyss 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Motivation

What, if any, information exists concerning the motives of the conspirators. Was this a power grab, or was it truly a the culmination of a resistance movement? Was it a reaction to a particular act or policy, or a more general protest against Hitler's policy? Did the conspirators only hope to topple Hitler, or did they mean to remove the Nazis from power entirely? --djrobgordon 11:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that there were conspiracies stretching back into the 1930s, and that dozens of conspirators worked in different groupings over the years, I think there isn't one simple answer. My impression (based on more than the article) is that for some, honor was all, for others there was a virulent distaste for Nazism, and for still others they simply feared the cliff that Germany was driving toward. It's probably correct to imagine that had they been united ideologically, they would have made more effective attempts much earlier than they did. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The old officer class of the the Wehrmacht had never been wholly in favour of Hitler, but sometime in the 1930s Hitler had changed the oath of allegiance from being pledged to the German state, to being given to him, personally. That meant that many German officers felt bound by the oath, against many of their better judgments, and so many, albeit unwillingly, went along with the orders given them.

When things had started to seem bad for Germany, after D-Day, and with the setbacks in the East, many of the officer class thought it was time to get rid of Hitler and his regime, as it had by then become obvious that he was dragging Germany into an abyss. Thus the 20 July plot.

The Soviet Union launched Operation Bagration (q.v.) on 22 June, '44, which resulted in the collapse and destruction of Army Group Center over the next 2–3 months, and by mid-July it was apparant to all that the Soviet onslaught couldn't be stopped. At about the same time the allies in the west were winning the battle of Normandy and would not be contained. Germany's and the Nazi's goose was cooked, and the smart money was all on the other side. The Germans desperately needed to get rid of Hitler.

However, there were earlier assassination plots including one in, I think, 1938, prior to the outbreak of war, and there was also an attempt in the same year by the German High Command to get Britain to make a firm stand at Munich, which, if that had occurred, the High Command would then have used to take steps to depose Hitler and remove the Nazis from power, however, as history knows, this didn't happen.

There was also an attempt on 13 March 1943 using a bomb disguised as two bottles of brandy taken by Colonel Heinz Brandt onto Hitler's personal Focke Wulf Condor aircraft that was to be flying Hitler from Smolensk to the Wolf's Lair, but the cold temperature at the altitude the aircraft was flying at the time stopped the bomb from exploding - after thirty minutes, roughly when it should have been over Minsk. This bomb was also of British manufacture, having been taken from captured SOE stocks, like the 20 July 1944 one. A British bomb was used as, unlike German time fuzes, which made a loud hissing sound after being activated and which would have been noticed before the bomb reached the aircraft, the British fuzes were silent in operation. The unexploded bomb was recovered after the flight without anyone noticing, and discovered to have failed because the detonator itself had not functioned in the low temperatures of the aircraft's hold.

BTW, the German 'resistance movement' was unable to get any assistance from Britain and the SOE as earlier in the war the British Government and Intelligence community had decided to have no dealings with any such movement or political party in Germany. Hence the need to use captured SOE explosives.

200 executed?

200 executed? Come on, Hitler had over 4,900 executed, so reports Shirer and several other sources. I think Kershaw was either incorrect, or I'm missing something. Could someone please clear this up. Aaрон Кинни (t) 05:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the numbers according to List_of_members_of_the_20_July_plot which holds sourced information. Maybe someone can verify this? --Kotu Kubin (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is still a discrepancy between the opening paragraph (4980 executed) and the aftermath section (about 200 executed). Ketone16 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency is still there and detracts from authority of the article. 78.86.170.44 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning a coup

In this section, both "Goerdeler" and "Canaris" are referenced without any prior mention of who or what they are. Statalyzer (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

War unwinnable?

"It is possible that Himmler, who by late 1943 knew that the war was unwinnable..." I'd like to see a source for that statement. 80.169.138.156 09:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation Walküre

Why does Operation Walküre redirect *back* to the July 20 Plot page?? From what I can tell, it was a separate contingency plan that had nothing to do with the July 20 Plot.--Davidwiz 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's true. It should have its own article. Adam 10:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Noting that Operation Walküre still redirects back to here. Mathmo ^Talk 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Now its a stub. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this bit should be removed?

"In retrospect, it is surprising that these months of plotting by the resistance groups in the Army and the state apparatus, in which dozens of people were involved and of which many more, including very senior Army officers, were aware, apparently totally escaped the attention of the Gestapo. In fact the Gestapo had known since February 1943 of both the Abwehr resistance group under the patronage of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris and of the civilian resistance circle around former Leipzig mayor Carl Goerdeler. If all these people had been arrested and interrogated, the Gestapo might well have uncovered the group based in Army Group Centre as well and the July 20 assassination attempt would never have happened. This raises the possibility that Himmler knew about the plot and, for reasons of his own, allowed it to go ahead. Himmler had at least one conversation with a known oppositionist when, in August 1943, the Prussian Finance Minister Johannes Popitz, who was involved in Goerdeler's network, came to see him and offered him the support of the opposition if he would make a move to displace Hitler and secure a negotiated end to the war.[2] Nothing came of this meeting, but Popitz was not arrested and Himmler apparently did nothing to track down the resistance network which he knew was operating within the state bureaucracy. It is possible that Himmler, who by late 1943 knew that the war was unwinnable, allowed the July 20 plot to go ahead in the knowledge that if it succeeded he would be Hitler's successor, and could then bring about a peace settlement. Popitz was not alone in seeing in Himmler a potential ally. General von Bock advised Tresckow to seek his support, but there is no evidence that he did so. Goerdeler was apparently also in indirect contact with Himmler via a mutual acquaintance Carl Langbehn. Canaris's biographer Heinz Höhne suggests that Canaris and Himmler were working together to bring about a change of regime. All of this remains speculation.[3]"

All of this is pure conjecture. Let's stick to what we know is true, OK?

Speculation in July 20 plot

In the July 20 Plot article, these two lines are unsourced, and pure speculation.

"Conspirators who had long resisted the idea of killing Hitler on moral grounds now changed their minds—partly because they were hearing reports of the mass murder at Auschwitz of up to 250,000 Hungarian Jews, the culmination of the Nazi Holocaust."

This is unsourced, because it can't be sourced. Since the end of the war not a single Third Reich document has ever actually been discovered mentioning the supposed events known as the Holocaust. It doesn't even provide names, simply "conspirators", there are no dates and/or links to any proof of these "reports" even if they are true or exist.

The above is not a strong objection. The holocaust is not "supposed," it is a fact. Millions of people were killed and we all know that. There are films. mass graves, and other direct pieces of evidence. Further, the Germans knew about the holocaust for the simple reason that the germans committed the holocaust. You can't run that many trains and have that level of operation without it being known by thousands of people. The above unsigned comment smells of holocaust denial. Of course this was part of the reason some Germans wanted to kill Hitler. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. (Dustin)97.99.105.137 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are gaping over a subject too big to be discussed here and stating too many claims that are completely unsupported. For example, multiple documents and interviews exists from holocaust survivors (e.g. the 9 hour Claude Lanzmann documentary) claiming that the majority of Germans was completely unaware of what was going on in the camps. I think that both your comment and the above unsigned comment is borderlining, unsubstantiated flamebait. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Program

What was the program of the group? Borders (1914 ones in Poland), punishment of Nazi criminals, reparations? Xx236 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Piano wire myth

They were hanged using thin, possibly hemp, nooses tied in slip knots, from iron hooks attached to an overhead steel beam. The beam and some hooks are still in place today. The "piano wire noose" is a myth. Piano wire would cut the neck.90.241.129.175 21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's possible you're right, but I doubt the rope hung there today was left from the actual execution. It's not as thought he Nazis would make a memorial out of a military building to honor those trying to stop Nazism. Piano Wire makes for a poor display. It's hard to see and it probably moves around. Rope gets the point across at the memorial. And yeah, piano wire cuts the neck - that was the point. The piano wire claim is cited to research and witness statements in the wiki. Unless you have more, I think it should stay in place. 97.99.105.137 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any real evidence substantiating details of this entire thing? In particular, is it really known that Hitler watched it over and over? I am not saying he didn't, but is just the sort of thing propagandists would come up with.--Jrm2007 09:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Gitta Sereny's book "Albert Speer- his battle with truth", the story about Hitler watching the filmed executions over and over again is a myth. Speer says in Sereny's book that this myth comes from an missunderstanding in a interview with Speer in Playboy Magazine from 1971. To Sereny Speer claims that: "As far as I know, Hitler never watched the film, and that's something I always said. It wasn't in his nature to do something like that. And I doubt he watched the photographs more than I did." Speer's view is later verified by von Below: "He [Hitler] closed his eyes when forced to see the consequences of his orders." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.231.203.141 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph on goals and vision of Germany post-Hitler

A paragraph on goals and vision of Germany post-Hitler would be welcomed as well as historical assesment of political ideology the plotters subscribed to.--Molobo 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who might write this: Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt pretty much said that the conspirators were still Nazi's at heart but could see that Germany was losing the war.

So they pretty much wanted to topple the present dictator and replace him with a more amicable Nazi. The new government then would look to the US and the UK to draw up the terms for surrender, that is without having to deal with Russia. --24.2.158.114 10:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It can't just be grabbed from Arendt at face value, she had her own axes to grind here and had reasons to want to dismiss the plot; it was central to her to infer that everyone who stayed in Germany at the height of the Reich and supported the regime by practical effort, even if they might not be in full sympathy with the Nazis, were also part of the regime and couldn't have been of the resistance. The July 20 group (in a side sense) were conservative, but that doesn't mean they were going to keep up dictatorship.

In fact, up until 1990, when a unified Germany was in place again, the plot was distinctly avoided both by historians, by writers and in the public memory. That a group of military officers and conservative noblemen had pitched the single most dedicated and well-planned attempt on Hitler from within Germany during all of his reign didn't fit the prevalent post-WW2 world view, There was really no powerful nation or group around that wished to invoke this as a legacy.. West Germany saw itself as a non-military state and as the heir of the German emigration to the West and of allied victory, while the GDR drew its credentials from the Communist party, persecuted by the Nazis, and the assistance of the Red Army. Neither of the two states felt really at home with a right-wing, but generally democratic, plot to bring down Hitler and end the war, nor did the Allies, and it didn't fit in the accepted picture of the war. It's only after 1990 that Stauffenberg and the others have come into their own as national heroes. Strausszek (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Second bomb?

In the Alternative possibilities section there is mention of 'the second bomb', however multiple explosive devices aren't mentioned anywhere else. What's the story behind this, assuming of course it's a sourced fact in the first place? -- MiG (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there as a second bomb which could not be armed in time. If the article doesn't explain this fully, it probably needs to be updated. Unfortunately, I'm too busy working on other articles to give this one much attention. But yes, it is a fact that there was a second bomb. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stauffenberg failed to arm the second bomb, which therefore did not detonate with the first. Had both bombs done so without dysfunction then everyone in the room would have been killed outright, possibly with one or two fatally or seriously injured exceptions. History hangs on such minor oversights.Aforandy (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

This article should probably be at 20 July plot rather than using an American-style date. --John (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article in accordance with WP:MOSDATE. --John (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDATE also allows American-style dates. Just FYI. ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For sure, but this seems more naturally to use a German-style date, as a German subject. --John (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters too much as long as its internally consistent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of this article seems to be copied directly out of My Father's Land

Unfortunately I do not have the book in front of me, but almost the entire page appears to be copied nearly word-for-word out of Wibke Bruhns' book My Father's Land, if someone has a copy and can verify, this article needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.205.105 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "executed"

I find the use of the word inappropriate. It implies the legitimate taking of life. The Nazi state was not legal; therefore these "executions" were murders. Any thoughts? Dapi89 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A number of German sources speak of murder and not of executions now days, they didn't always. The implications of this are manifold. To my knowledge the widow of Roland Freisler, Marion Freisler for instance received her husbands full pension while some of the relatives of convicted plotters received little to nothing from the German state. This was the German law until 1997. I think it is best described by "murder by the German state by means of executions". MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is better. Dapi89 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This phrase immediately caught my eye as inappropriate. Any such killing by a government is an execution, whether it is morally justified in any way or not. Its use here implies that other mentions of execution, for example, were not "murder" (which is highly arguable). This article would seem more neutral and authoritative if it did not include this contorted phrase. Mkcmkc (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. That is not the point we are discussing. The Nazi state was not legal, therefore these "executions" were not lawful. This = murder. I can cite if you like. Dapi89 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that many government executions are tantamount to murder. But this phrase is essentially a mini-editorial on the subject, and as such is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Aside from the fact that it's against Wikipedia rules, it undermines the credibility of the entire article, because it's grinding an axe. Mkcmkc (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not important. Taylor and Kurtz refer to their "executions" as murder. Historians do not accept that the Nazi State was legal. Above all you removed "murder" from the passage this was cited. Cited material does not undermine wikipedia, utter nonsense. I suggest you familiarise yourself with what actually constitutes "NPOV violation" before making such absurd statements. Dapi89 (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the word "murder" this is an NPOV violation. I think "execution" is a better than "murder, by execution". Also, some of those executed were brought to trial and were found guilty. One can argue quite easily that the trials weren't fair, but it was the legal system of Germany at the time. I did a quick search and the BBC uses the term "execution", not "murder". [1] [2] [3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was legally elected, and the people that tried to murder him were executed. That some historians don't like it is irrelevant. "Executed" is the proper way to say it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't can't you people read or understand logic properly?

1) It is sourced

2)Hitler was not "legally elected".

3)The state was not legal therefore its laws were not either

4)The only thing that is irrelevent here Bugs your misinformed opinion - which it totally wrong. Why don't you ask some og the prominent historians like Joachim Fest whether the Nazi state was legal? You will find the consensus is totally the opposite.

5)The BBC is not a reliable historical source. It refers to hostage murders in Iraq as "executions". Dapi89 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cease the POV-pushing. Hitler was elected by the people, whether you or historians like it or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, he wasn't? Where do you get your history from? The back of a cereals box? --84.46.25.14 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no other option but to report you. You obviously don't have a clue about this period in hsitory. We rely on historians and not the words of know nothings like you. Dapi89 (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. You're engaged in POV-pushing, which is against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. You have a poor grasp of the facts. Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dapi89, please refrain from personal attacks. If you disagree with a fellow editor on an issue, address the issue, not the editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have, he won't. Dapi89 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Historians have no jurisdiction in determining whether murder was committed. That's strictly an opinion on their part, not a fact. Hence, it's POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on. Technically they had committed high treason even before the bomb went off, just by planning it, and there is no doubt they knew that if the coup failed many of them would be killed. They were cold-blooded enough to face this, which is highly admirable, but the fact is Hitler and the Nazis were (legally) in possession of the state ever since 1933, and that's what any historians has to admit in order to unravel the events. Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternate theories

I've removed the following paragraph for discussion here:

"Also, researchers say that the two people inbetween the bomb and Hitler actually saved his life. Contrary also to the first paragraph, the bomb might have been placed away from the very thick leg of the oak table since the blast did not create such a drastic impact. The bomb positioned at the said spot would do more damage since the leg of the table would multiply the blast because of the so-called shock-wave bounced. A bomb placed at a closed space does more damage than a bomb placed in an open space, that is why the bomb might have been placed some where but not beside the leg of the table."

Although it might be accurate, it doesn't seem to be sourced and it refers to the article itself "Contrary also to the first paragraph..." which seems a bit unencyclopedic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler knew and direct this project predict?

I always think it.

D-Day made Hitler should and want know who betrayed him inner Nazi, right? in fact, this trick look like Hitler want to suicide--if it failure..... (talk) 8:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

British Radio

Eventually some 5,000 people were arrested[21] and about 200 were executed. Not all of them were connected with the 20 July plot, since the Gestapo used the occasion to settle scores with many other people suspected of opposition sympathies. [b]The British radio also named possible suspects who had not yet been implicated but then were arrested.[/b] I know this is citated, but its got to be worth explaining the intent behind this? 80.44.169.0 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heard that widows of military men involved in 20th july plot denied pensions

Heard that even after the war. Military oficers involved in this plot.The widows and families were denied military pensions.Is this so?SESUTOYOU (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

EXPERTS: 4980 executed ... or 200 ???

Both claims are made in the article today. Twang (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Six months have passed; the lead still states that 7000 were arrested, 4980 were executed; Aftermath says that 5000 were arrested, 200 executed. In six months there've been well over 100 edits to the article - but this glaring difference remains.Is Shirer to be trusted... or Kershaw?? Twang (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Execution film: what's the truth?

"The trials and executions were reportedly filmed and later reviewed by Hitler and his entourage. These films were later edited by Goebbels into a 30-minute movie and shown to cadets at the Lichterfelde cadet school, but viewers supposedly walked out of the screening in disgust.[35]"

The citation for these two sentences appear to be a mere "anecdote" quote by Shirer. Is this enough to establish something as fact? According to David Irving, he was told by Otto Guensche that Hitler refused to watch a film of the perpetrators being executed and supposedly became visibly angry upon seeing pictures of the corpses. So basically this comes down to Irving's word versus the guy whose "anecdote" Shirer was quoting. Until undeniable proof can be obtained one way or the other, I think it's best to remove these sentences from the article. --71.8.192.89 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)