Luftwaffe War Resisters ~ British Assets

[Broncazonk]

It is a well known fact that Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (1 January 1887 – 9 April 1945 ~ Chief of the Abwehr (German military-intelligence service: 1935-1944) was an active war resister and British intelligence asset. As was Canaris' Deputy Chief, General Hans Oster.

The 20 July, 1944 plot to assassinate AH implicated three Field Marshals (Erwin von Witzleben, Erwin Rommel and Günther von Kluge) and twenty-five (25) Generals resulting in their execution or suicide. Some 4,980 people were executed subsequent to the plot.

I have often wondered who the Luftwaffe resisters were. Who were the British assets in the Luftwaffe? There had to be some.

For example, in my estimation, the whole of the RLM organization was a resistance/sabotage operation. It had to be. No organization in the history of organizations could be so incompetent accidentally. It had to be on purpose.

Does anyone have their suspicions?

Thanks!

Bronc

[Nick Beale]

No organization in the history of organizations could be so incompetent accidentally. It had to be on purpose.

Does anyone have their suspicions?

Bronc

(a) I think you’re underestimating the sheer amount of incompetence regularly present in human affairs. In modern terms Nazism was a “disruptive” ideology and with a bunch of violent, irrational fanatics in charge, things were comprehensively disrupted and duly fell apart.

(b) No. If you were right then where is the paper trail? Anything on the scale you suggest would inevitably leave traces in official records in Britain and the USA.

[VtwinVince]

Yes, irrational fanatics tend to disrupt things, as we are seeing today. As for Luftwaffe conspirators, the name Caesar von Hofacker comes to mind.

[Broncazonk]

Yes, Luftwaffe Lieutenant Colonel Caesar von Hofacker was a member of the 20 July plot and he paid the ultimate price for it. As did his fanatical, war criminal cousin, General (RK-holder) Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel.

But also, there must have been resisters and British agents in the Luftwaffe high command/RLM who were morally and psychologically opposed to AH and the Nazi ethos from the very beginning--they were everywhere else in the German war effort.

As to records, "From the 1960s through the 1990s, the U.S. Government declassified the majority of its security-classified records relating to World War II. Yet, 60 years after the war, millions of pages of wartime and postwar records remained classified." https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/coll...disclosure-act

As for the British, we won't know the true story about Hess until 2040!!

Bronc

[VtwinVince]

I'm not sure that bandying about such hyperbolic terms as 'fanatical, war criminal' serve any purpose on this forum, which was established to engage in neutral studies of historical figures.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by VtwinVince

I'm not sure that bandying about such hyperbolic terms as 'fanatical, war criminal' serve any purpose on this forum, which was established to engage in neutral studies of historical figures.

Point taken, but bear in mind that "fanatical" and "fanaticism" were terms frequently used by the Germans themsleves in exhorting their people to ever-greater effort while many of them were indeed convcited of war crimes.

[VtwinVince]

I think concepts such as 'war crime' have little meaning in this day and age, and the passing of such judgements belies a political agenda every time. I don't think I need to quote George Patton, do I? But I don't want to completely hijack this thread, I merely call out the use of overheated terminology which I don't think belongs in a serious study of history.

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by VtwinVince

I think concepts such as 'war crime' have little meaning in this day and age, and the passing of such judgements belies a political agenda every time. [...] I merely call out the use of overheated terminology which I don't think belongs in a serious study of history.

War crimes are war crimes. And war crimes are easy to define. Silence, in the face of war crimes, implies consent and neutrality favors the aggressor.

Historians who remain "neutral" are shamefully complicit. Full stop.

Bronc

[Nick Beale]

Thread closed. Anyone wishing to continue this fight, please do so off-board.