Talk:Claus von Stauffenberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeClaus von Stauffenberg was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
May 25, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 8, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 15, 2020, and November 15, 2022.
Current status: Former good article nominee

On Poland[edit]

I'm curious about the citation that "He was endorsing both the tyrannical occupation of Poland and the use of its people as slave labourers". I don't have a copy of Housden's "Resistance and Conformity in the Third Reich", did von Stauffenberg explicitly state that he supported the use of Poles as slave workers, or is this another case of guilt by association? (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does anyone know what year it was taken? I'd like to add that in caption. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stauffenberg's motive[edit]

Chumchum7 has added in this edit that Stauffenberg was "undertaking [the Nazi] atrocities that he found dishonorable and unchristian" without any source to support the statement. This in fact does not seem to fit the motive as described in the "Assessment" section: "[He was] driven by reasons which had little to do with Christian ideals or repugnance of Nazi ideology." Thus, it contradicts the sourced statement. If there is any reliable source for the former statement, then, the second needs to be justified accordingly; if not, it should be be deleted. Further, explanation in the text explicitly states that the motive was mostly militaristic and administrative reasons; religion or ethics do not appear even remotely, as his action (bombing) directly indicates – brutal in ethical sense. Chhandama (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chhandama, thank you for taking this to the Talk page. I would be glad to work with you to find WP:CONS on a line that can be added to the lede which contains elements of assessment, without which there is a misrepresentation of Stauffenberg as a pure 'anti-Nazi' which he wasn't. The wording I chose was an amalgam of what I understood the assessment of Stauffenberg is lower down the article, which per WP:LEDE the intro must summarize; and I concede it can be worded better.
In summararizing for the lede I also had in mind our Early Life section which says: Moreover, Stauffenberg remained a practicing Catholic. Stauffenberg vacillated between a strong dislike of Hitler's policies and a respect for what he perceived to be Hitler's military acumen. Stauffenberg became even more disassociated with the party after The Night of the Long Knives and Kristallnacht proved Hitler had no intentions to pursue justice.[18] On top of this, the growing systematic ill-treatment of Jews and suppression of religion had offended Stauffenberg's strong sense of Catholic morality and justice.[19][20]
Let's note that you are not quoting Wikipedia's voice in the assessment section itself, but Gisevius who was a German WP:PRIMARY source who knew Stauffenberg and is discredited in that section by a later historian Hoffman who is a WP:SECONDARY source (and so there is a strong case for us to delete Gisevius instead of doing a WP:HOWEVER).
In turn Hoffman is followed by Evans, the source of which states of Stauffenberg: "He found moral guidance in a complex mixture of Catholic religious precepts, an aristocratic sense of honour, Ancient Greek ethics, and German Romantic poetry."[1] It also says: "The over-ambitious military strategy adopted by Hitler in 1941, which led to disaster at Moscow in January 1942, was repeated on an even greater scale in the following year, and it became clear to Stauffenberg that it was overstretching Germany's resources to such an extent that failure was becoming inevitable. Even more important, the mass killings of Soviet civilians behind the Eastern Front, the murder of three and a half million Soviet prisoners of war, the looting and destruction of Soviet property, above all, the shooting of hundreds of thousands of Jews, convinced Stauffenberg that the National Socialist regime was recklessly squandering the goodwill that it had initially met among the peoples it had freed from Stalin's yoke. It was betraying his idea of a new Europe under the benevolent rule of the Reich. Indeed, Stauffenberg thought it was betraying the ideals of National Socialism itself."[2]
Then we have a classic breach of WP:HOWEVER with Karl Heinz Bohrer poistioned to contradict Evans. This suggest to me the whole Assessment section needs a re-write.
In the meantime I am happy to cut the line down to a more universally applicable form: Despite agreeing with the Nazi Party's racist and nationalistic aspects, he wanted to remove the Nazi Party from power because it was losing the war and undertaking atrocities that he found dishonorable and unchristian. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Footnote 44[edit]

Footnote 44 is attributed to "Tyson" but there is not Tyson in the bibliography. RZ999 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same with footnote 46. RZ999 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorted. Dormskirk (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]