Talk:20 July plot/Archives/2012/April

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)

Execution implies a process of the state legal system, while murder by definition is illegal. Using execution in this context is not taking a side on the legality of the killings, but more desribing the manner of death.71.191.247.254 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Allied Response

The article states:

"The Army plotters and their civilian allies became convinced that Hitler must be assassinated so that a government acceptable to the western Allies could be formed and a separate peace negotiated in time to prevent a Soviet invasion of Germany."

Can any experts expand on whether the allies would have been willing to accept anything less than total surrender? I recall the British captured a German senior officer in their airspace who claimed to be on a peace mission, and they kept him prisoner for quite some time. Could Stalin have propped up Hitler to assure that the Red Army would have a chance to invade? Funny that the collapsing Reich suddenly required that Hitler be protected from his own countrymen. The decision to meet in the conference hut rather than the bunker seems fortuitous, but there's no data available on the weather conditions that day.

The entire subject of American and Allied intelligence on coup d'etat plans and attempts within Germany seems overlooked. The history on the subject of postwar Germany says the Allies imposed few hardships after the war, but the role of American and Allied intelligence in facilitating an early end to the fighting is less clear. One intelligence report I read indicated that Germans captured after D-Day wanted to know when the war would end. That could either mean that they felt the Allies were in control of the schedule, or they were estimating the length of their capitivity. 71.191.247.254 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the film this afternoon, it looks kind of chilly in Berlin, which is west and south of the Wolf's Lair where Hiter was bombed. No open windows, no one sweating, everyone wearing gloves, full uniforms, and three piece suits. Just after von Staffenburg gives the order to seal off the government quarter, a few civilians are shown on the street for a split second and the woman is wearing a hat and overcoat. How can we know it was too hot for the bunker?71.191.247.254 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The picture of the conference room after the explosion at the top of the article shows some officers wearing warm coats.71.191.247.254 (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)