numerous guides through the labyrinth of the literature and moral debates on resistance are Gerd R. Ueberschar (ed.), Der zo.Juli 1944. Bewertung und Rezeption des deutschen Widerstandes gegen das NS- Regime, Cologne, 1994; Ulrich Heinemann, ‘Arbeit am Mythos. Neuere Literatur zum burgerlich- aristokratischen Widerstand gegen Hitler und zum 2oJuli 1944 (Teil I)’, GG, 21 (1995), 111–39; and Ulrich Heinemann and Michael Kruger-Charle, ‘Arbeit am Mythos. Der 2oJuli 1944 in Publizistik und wissenschaftlicher Literatur des Jubilaumsjahres 1994 (Teil II)’, GG, 23 (1997), 475–501. The most detailed and thoroughly researched description of the conspiracies against Hitler remains that of Hoffmann, Widerstand, on which this chapter frequently relies. A shorter, stylish account is that of Fest, Staatsstreich. Short descriptions of the personnel can be found in Peter Steinbach and Johannes Tuchel, Lexikon des Widerstandes 1933–1945. Munich, 1994. Problems of concepts and terminology, not entered into here, can be followed in the entries in Benz and Pehle; also in Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship. Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th edn, London, 2000, ch.8.
2. For reflections on the role of Prussian ideals — seen as a ‘determining motive (bestimmendes Motiv)’ within the resistance to Hitler — see Hans Mommsen, ‘Preu?entum und Nationalsozialismus’, in Wolfgang Benz, Hans Buchheim, and Hans Mommsen (eds.), Der Nationalsozialismus. Studien zur Ideologie und Herrschaft, Frankfurt am Main, 1993, 29–41, here 37, 41.
3. The mixture of motives within the wartime conspiracy is briefly surveyed by Peter Hoffmann, ‘Motive’, in Schmadeke und Steinbach, 1089–96; and more extensively in Theodore S. Hamerow, On the Road to the Wolf’s Lair. German Resistance to Hitler, Cambridge, Mass./London, 1997. The moral dimension is assessed by Robert Weldon Whaley, Assassinating Hitler: Ethics and Resistance in Nazi Germany, London/Ontario, 1993. See also the compilation put together in the 1950s by Annedore Leber, Conscience in Revolt, London, 1957, and the more recent collection of texts: Peter Steinbach and Johannes Tuchel, Widerstand in Deutschland, Munich, 1994.
4. Joachim Kramarz, Claus Graf Stauffenberg. 15. November, 1907– 20. Juli 1944: Das Leben eines Offiziers, Frankfurt am Main, 1965, 131; Hoffmann, Stauffenberg, 183.
5. See Hans Mommsen, ‘Social Views and Constitutional Plans of the Resistance’, in Hermann Graml et al., The German Resistance to Hitler, (1966), London, 1970, 55–147, here 59, for perceptions by Pater Alfred Delp and Adam von Trott of lack of popular support for a putsch. Over seven years after the events, General Klaus Uebe was adamant that the mass of the rank-and-file troops rejected any notion of a move by officers against Hitler (IfZ, ZS 164, Klaus Uebe, 3 January 1952).
6. Kramarz, 201.
7. Fabian von Schlabrendorff, Offiziere gegen Hitler, (1946), revised edn, Berlin, 1984, 109.
8. Scheurig, Tresckow, especially ch.4; also Fest, Staatsstreich, 177; Whaley, 48–9, 54, 56.
9. Scheurig, Tresckow, 111–12.
10. Scheurig, Treskow, noff.; Fest, Staatsstreich, 177–80.
11. Fest, Staatsstreich, 193–4.
12. Hassell, 307 (28 March 1942).
13. Helena P. Page, General Friedrich Olbricht. Ein Mann des 20.Juli, Bonn/Berlin, 1992, 206.
14. Fest, Staatsstreich, 194; quotation, Spiegelbild einer Verschworung. Die Kaltenbrunner-Berichte an Bormann und Hitler uber das Attentat vom zo.]uli 1944. Geheime Dokumente aus dem ehemaligen Reischssicherheitshauptamt, ed. Archiv Peter fur historische und zeitgeschichtliche Dokumentation, Stuttgart, 1961, 368.
15. Thun-Hohenstein, 224, citing Hermann Kaiser, Tagebuch v.3 February 1943. The entry was not included in the extracts from Kaiser’s diary published in ‘Neue Mitteilungen zur Vorgeschichte des 2o.Juli’, Die Wandlung, 1 (1945/46), 530–34. But see also Kaiser’s diary entry for 31 March 1943 in Annedore Leber and Freya Grafin von Moltke, Fur und wider Entscheidungen in Deutschland 1918– 1945, Frankfurt, 1961,203: ‘A discussion arises about discipline and obedience of the leadership and Fromm says, in a hundred cases one must be 100 per cent obedient. Olbricht opposes this: one must be able to say no once in 99 cases. Fromm retorts vehemently in favour of unconditional obedience…’ (‘Es kommt Gesprach uber Disziplin und Gehorsam der Fuhrung auf und Fromm sagt, in hundert Fallen musse man Iooig gehorsam sein. Olbricht dagegen: Man musse bei 99 Fallen einmal nein sagen konnen. Fromm erwidert heftig, fur unbedingten Gehorsam ...’) Kaiser’s involvement in the opposition is thoroughly dealt with by Ger van Roon, ‘Hermann Kaiser und der deutsche Widerstand’, VfZ, 24 (1976), 259–86.
16. For use of the term, see, e.g., Hoffmann, Widerstand, 350.
17. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 341–2.
18. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 343–6, 350; Fest, Staatsstreich, 194–5.
19. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 348–9.
20. See Hoffmann, Hitler’s Personal Security, 1 11ff.
21. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 351; Hoffman, Hitler’s Personal Security, ch.5–9.
22. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 347.
23. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 347, 351.
24. Schlabrendorff, 67–75; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 352–3; Fest, Staatsstreich, 196–7.
25. Rudolf-Christoph Frhr. v. Gersdorff, Soldat im Untergang. Lebensbilder, Frankfurt etc., 1979, 128–32; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 353–60.
26. Meehan, 337; and see Klemperer, 287. Henry II had allegedly used the words, ‘Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?’ at which four knights from his entourage rode to Canterbury to murder the Archbishop, Thomas Becket. The formation of Bishop Bell’s attitude towards the Nazi regime during the 1930s can be traced in Andrew Chandler (ed.), Brethren in Adversity. Bishop George Bell, the Church of England, and the Crisis of German Protestantism, 1933–1939, Woodbridge, 1997.
27. In Lothar Kettenacker (ed.), Das ‘Andere Deutschland’ im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Emigration und Widerstand in internationaler Perspektive, Stuttgart, 1977, 203.
28. British attitudes are critically explored in Lothar Kettenacker, ‘Die britische Haltung zum deutschen Widerstand wahrend des Zweiten Weltkriegs’, in Kettenacker, 49–76 (and see the documentation in the same volume, 164–217); and Richard Lamb, ‘Das Foreign Office und der deutsche Widerstand 1938–1944’, in Klaus- Jurgen Muller and David N. Dilks (eds.), Gro?britannien und der deutsche Widerstand 1933– 1944, Paderborn etc., 1994, 53–81. For differing evaluations of the Allies’ uncompromising stance, see Fest, Staatsstreich, 212–13; and Heinemann/Kruger-Charle, 492–3. The variety of ideas on foreign policy within the resistance is explored by Hermann Graml, ‘Resistance Thinking on Foreign Policy’, in Graml et al., German Resistance, 1–54.
29. For brief surveys of the ‘Goerdeler Group’, see Ger van Roon, Widerstand im Dritten Reich. Ein Uberblick, Munich, (1979), 7th revised edn, 1998, ch.8; and Benz/Pehle, Lexikon des deutschen Widerstandes, 217–22.
30. Graml, ‘Resistance Thinking’, 27. And see Goerdeler’s foreign policy plans put forward in 1941 in Germans against Hitler: July 20, 1944, 5th edn, ed. Bundeszentrale fur politische Bildung, Bonn, 1969, 55–60.
31. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 372–3; Goerdeler put forward a similar programme in May 1944 (Christian Muller, Stauffenberg, Dusseldorf, 1970, 393).
32. Mommsen, ‘Social Views’, 60; Mommsen, ‘Der Widerstand gegen Hitler und die deutsche Gesellschaft’, 9, 11; and Hans Mommsen, ‘Verfassungs — und Verwaltungsreformplane der Wider-standsgruppen des 20.Juli 1944’, in Schmadeke and Steinbach, 570–97; Roon, Widerstand, 135–9; Fest, Staatsstreich, 147–57.
33. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 373.
