76. Irving, Doctor, 146–8 (where Hitler’s pulse and blood-pressure are said to have risen, but not excessively, following the attack); Below, 381; Schroeder, 148; TBJG, II/13, 139 (23 July 1944); Redlich, 204–5; Schenck, 317–18. Morell told Paul Schmidt, the interpreter, that afternoon that Hitler’s pulse had been quite normal following the explosion (Schmidt, 593).
77. Linge, Bis zum Untergang, 225.
78. Below, 382; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 498–501; Irving, Goring, 430.
79. Schroeder, 148. Hitler asked Christa Schroeder, so she later wrote, to send the tattered coat and trousers to Eva Braun for safe keeping. One of Hitler’s other secretaries, Gerda Christian (Daranowski before her marriage in February 1943), later recalled that Hitler had been calm when he spoke to them on the evening after the attempt on his life. (Library of Congress, Washington, Toland Tapes, C-63B, interview with John Toland, 26 July 1971.)
80. Below, 382; see also Speer, 391; and Reuth, Goebbels, 548.
81. TBJG, II/13, 141 (23 July 1944); Below, 382; Linge, Bis zum Untergang, 229; Schroeder, 148–9; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 597. According to the account compiled by Linge in the 1950s, he heard from a telephonist that Stauffenberg had left the barracks in a direction from which it could be concluded that he was leaving the Fuhrer Headquarters, and had this information conveyed to Hitler (Linge, ‘Kronzeuge’, BI.83). Since Stauffenberg left the barrack-hut without cap and belt, heading in the direction of the adjutants’ building, well away from any exit from the compound and in the opposite direction to the airfield, this seems like a later elaboration by Linge, designed to play up his own role.
82. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 506ff.
83. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 509 and 823 n.88.
84. Gisevius, To the Bitter End, 546.
85. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 506–11; Roon, Widerstand, 192. Himmler had ordered the communications block lifted around 3p.m.. Full clearance was only attained around an hour later. (Hoffmann, Widerstand, 504, 510–11. See also Spiegelbild, 330.)
86. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 511, 823–6 (notes 93, 95).
87. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 519 and 833 n.122. That Stauffenberg had seen a person carried from the briefing hut covered in Hitler’s cloak, presuming that it was the Fuhrer, as he (and later Fellgiebel) claimed (Fest, Staatsstreich, 261; Hoffmann, Stauffenberg, 267), seems, however, unlikely. The adjutancy, where they heard the explosion, was some distance — around 200 metres (Hoffmann, Widerstand, 490) — from the hut. There were other buildings, and trees, which would have obscured the view. And it is doubtful that, following the explosion and when time was of the essence, Stauffenberg and Haeften would have hesitated long enough before hurrying away to await the first casualties being carried from the hut. It is possible that they caught a glimpse of someone being taken from the hut as they drove away. Whether, in the melee, it was feasible to ascertain that he was draped in Hitler’s cloak, seems doubtful.
88. Gisevius, To the Bitter End, 545; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 513–14.
89. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 514; Hoffmann, Stauffenberg, 269.
90. Gisevius, To the Bitter End, 546–7; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 519–20; Hoffmann, Stauffenberg, 270.
91. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 520–24.
92. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 520, 607, 609.
93. A point criticized by Gisevius, To the Bitter End, 545.
94. In the German version, Gisevius has the following account of Beck’s words: ‘Gleichgiiltig, was jetzt verbreitet werde, gleichgultig sogar, was wahr sei, fur ihn, Beck, set die Entscheidung gefalien. Er fordert die Herren auf, sich mit ihm solidarisch zu erklaren. “Fur mich ist dieser Mann tot. Davon lasse ich mein weiteres Handeln bestimmen.”’ (‘Whatever is now being said, whatever is even true, for him, Beck, the decision has been taken. He calls upon the gentlemen to declare in solidarity with him: “For me, this man is dead. I will let my further actions be determined by this.”) (Gisevius, Bis Zum Bittern Ende, 1946, ii.382.) The English version — Gisevius, To the Bitter End, 557 — differs: ‘… It did not matter at all whether Hitler was dead or still living. A “leader” whose immediate entourage included those who opposed him to the extent of attempting assassination must be considered morally dead.’
95. Gisevius, To the Bitter End, 558; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 615.
96. Fest, Staatsstreich, 269.
97. Roon, Widerstand, 194.
98. See Hoffmann, Widerstand, 529ff.; Fest, Staatsstreich, 270–71; Roon, Widerstand, 195.
99. Gisevius, To the Bitter End, 558.
100. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 581 ff.; Fest, Staatsstreich, 283–91.
101. The only way to reconcile the differing accounts of Speer, 391 and Wilfried von Oven, Mit Goebbels bis zum Ende, 2 vols., Buenos Aires, 1950, ii, 59ff., is to presume that there were two phone-calls from Fuhrer Headquarters, the first from Otto Dietrich very soon after the attack, the second between 2 and 3p.m. from Heinz Lorenz. This seems accepted by Oven in his second, later account (after the publication of Speer’s memoirs) (Wilfried von Oven, ‘Der 20.Juli 1944 — erlebt im Hause Goebbels’, in Verrat und Widerstand im Dritten Reich, Nation Europa, 28 (1978), 43–58, here 47ff.). Goebbels referred to a telephone call at midday — mentioning that two of his ministerial colleagues (Funk and Speer) were with him — in his radio address on 26 July about the assassination attempt (Heiber, Goebbels-Reden, ii.342–3; see also Reuth, Goebbels, 548). It seems unlikely that in this telephone-call, minutes after the bomb-blast, as Irving, Goebbels, 471, suggests (placing the call, though without apparent supporting evidence, at 1p.m., and from Lorenz, not Dietrich), a request was passed on from Hitler for an immediate broadcast to make plain that he was alive and well. More probably, this request came in a subsequent call, in mid-afternoon, as Oven states (See Reuth, Goebbels, 550; Irving, Goebbels, 471, 473, for conflicting accounts). Linge, ‘Kronzeuge’, Bl.84, referred to difficulties in reaching Goebbels that afternoon, and that the telephone link was finally established at 4.30p.m.. In his account, this was the telephone-call in which Hitler spoke to Remer. This call, however, was made around 7p.m. (See Hoffmann, Widerstand, 597; Reuth, Goebbels, 550–2. Here, as in other points of detail, Linge is unreliable.)
102. Speer, 391.
103. Hoffmann, Widerstand, 593, 595.
104. Speer, 392–3.
105. Speer, 393–4. The unease about Himmler was not altogether ungrounded. Himmler had been aware since at least autumn 1943 of ‘some sort of dark plans’ brewing and, with Hitler’s permission, had taken up contact with Popitz and, through him, other members of the conspiracy. The intermediary role was played by Himmler’s lawyer, Dr Carl Langbehn, who, as Himmler knew, had sympathized with the opposition since before the war. Himmler was obviously playing a double game. On the one hand, he was careful to demonstrate his loyalty to Hitler, pointing out to the dictator that should any rumours reach him over his contact with the opposition, he should know that his motives were beyond question. Hitler acknowledged that he had complete trust in the Reichsfuhrer. On the other hand, Himmler was well aware that the regime’s days were numbered and that Hitler presented a block on any room for manoeuvre. He wanted to keep his options open, and to maintain a possible escape route should it prove necessary (Speer, 390; Ritter, 360–62; Hoffmann, Widerstand, 367–8; and Hedwig Maier, ‘Die SS und der 20.Juli 1944’, VFZ, 14 (1966), 299–316, here especially 311–14). It seems, nevertheless, doubtful that Himmler had an inkling of specific plans to topple Hitler on 20 July. It has been suggested that he was slow to act, leaving the Wolf’s Lair belatedly, and only appearing around midnight to take
