Valkyrie, a 2008 film, directed by Bryan Singer, depicted the failed assassination attempt of Adolf Hitler on July 20, 1944. The lead role of Colonel von Stauffenberg, played by Tom Cruise, was the leader of the conspiracy and was involved in much of the planning. The movie seemed historically accurate in regards to how the events took place and the individuals involved with the planning. However, the movie seemed misleading in the true motives of the plot, and I wish the movie show more emotional effects. I feel as if the movie was lacking in the emotions and internal dilemmas that actually occurred. The movie also lacked an important event leading up to the assassination attempt: Stauffenberg going home to visit his family on July 19, 1944 to celebrate his wife’s birthday early and say his final goodbyes.
The movie portrayed that the goal of the assassination attempt was to save Germany from further Nazi violence and to save the Jews from further persecution. However, in learning about the 20th of July assassination attempts in this course and through texts, saving the Jews did not seem like a high priority. I felt that the main goal of the plot was a way to save Germany from total defeat by the Allies. They thought the situation of the government and Nazis could be manageable, if not fixed, if they were able to knock out Adolf Hitler. The group did not want to risk what would happen to Germany if the Allies forced an absolute surrender because then Germany could become a mere satellite state to the Allies.
The movie depicted Stauffenberg going home and saying goodbye to his wife before his family left for refuge during the war. However, the movie would have been more effective in showing the sacrifices that the Resistance members were willing to make if the scene had been portrayed the way Nina von Stauffenberg had portrayed it in The Restless Conscience. She said that her husband had come home to celebrate her birthday early and be with the family on July 19, 1944 and then promptly left to return to his duties. This would have been more historically accurate, but would have also illustrated how Stauffenberg knew that he probably was not going to survive. He knew that it would be a miracle if he walked away from a successful attempt and be able to see his family after July 20, 1944. It showed that the Resistance members were not trying to assassinate Hitler for personal gain whether it is in politics, military promotions, or freedom. They worked for the future of Germany, and they were okay if they did not get to see that future.
Finally, Tom Cruise should have depicted Stauffenberg’s personality more effectively. He may have a physical resemblance, but he lacked the happiness, humor, and smile that texts and documentaries have described Stauffenberg to have. It may not have made a difference to the understanding and overall meaning of the film, but it would have been interesting to see that even though Stauffenberg showed discontent with the direction of Germany, he was still happy. He had found a purpose in his life, and I feel that he was happy to go through with the mission.
Overall, the movie was mostly accurate with the events that occurred on July 20, 1944. The movie conveyed the sacrifices that happened for what Resistance members believed to be morally right.

Breaking News: Nina von Stauffenberg, widow of Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, visits the set of Bryan Singer’s ‘Valkyrie.’ It was remarkable for her travel all this way so that we can get her opinion on producing Valkyrie. It has been a hot topic of conversation in Germany over whether Valkyrie should be made because many believe that it will make Stauffenberg look bad where as others believe it will sensationalize the military hero. We all know the opinion of their son who believes that his father should just be left alone because Hollywood would not do him justice in a film.

Nina seemed supportive of the movie. She believed her husband’s story should be heard and that he could inspire international youth on moral courage and doing what is right for society rather than oneself. “I want my husband to be remembered for his contributions to saving Germany, not as a failed assassin,” said the widow. Some view Stauffenberg’s actions as treason and he should not be praised by the public or memorialized.

However, now that Singer has the widow’s seal of approval for the movie, he should feel more confident in the direction of vision. Her comments should also help him get a better idea of who this war hero was to further enhance the movie.

In what circumstances, if at all, does an individual have a right – or even a duty – to seek to overthrow by violence the government of his or her country?

I think it is the duty for citizens to act against the government using non-violent methods. Even if the government was committing violent atrocities against its own people, the people should not respond back in a violent fashion. If the goal is to overthrow the government in hope for a better and more just system, it shouldn’t be built upon violence. By revolting back violently, it would just create more problems. There are so many international resources that can help those oppressed by national governments that it would be senseless not to utilize them. Ex. Rwanda 1994 Genocide: Paul Rusesabagina sheltered roughly a thousand people, saving the lives of many, until outside help was received.

Jessica Northcott

Interview Notes with Hitler’s responses

Topic 1: Foreign Policy
1. What would you do to improve international relations with the United States, France, and Britain?
I would have a conference or meeting to discuss peace treaties and agreements that could benefit the Third Reich.
2. If relations are improved with those nations, where would you go from there in regards to bringing Germany back into international politics?
Germany will be at the forefront and lead the world. Germany is not a power that can be underestimated militaristically and economically.
3. Do you plan on trying to establish a relationship with communist Russia?
Yes. I will need their alliances and they will provide as an essential resource in the future.
4. How do you feel about the position that the League of Nations has taken over in international relations between nations?
The League of Nations is not necessary in order to keep international issues contained. All that is needed is a strong military power to keep other smaller nations in line.
5. Do you agree with the policies that the League of Nations is enforcing?
I do not agree with the racial and religious equality. Germany is meant for Aryans, and should not have to deal with other bloods.

Topic 2: Domestic Policy
1. What are you going to do in order to increase the citizen morale of Germany?
Provide more jobs by taking them away from those who stole the jobs from true Germans. The jobs and money will finally be in the hands of Germans.
2. Would you start public programs to help rebuild the German economy?
I would find ways to create more jobs and help Germany improve as a whole. We plan on creating work camps for the bottom percentages of the population that need jobs in order to contribute.
3. What is your position on how successful the Weimer Republic is during this post-war time?
The Republic is still very weak in my opinion, and I plan on promoting plans and ideas to create a stronger government system.
4. How do you plan on dealing with the current socialist revolutions?
Military force might be necessary to prevent any violence. I am interested to see how far they get in their political aspirations.
5. Would the socialist revolution threaten the success of the Weimer Republic?

Topic 3: Military
1. With the current military restrictions, will the limit of 100000 men in the military cause job losses and thus further causing economic distress?
No. I will find ways around this restriction because I will not let international laws and punishments of past generations affect the people today.
2. Will the restrictions on manufacturing weapons further hit the German industry?
No. We do not plan on halting the industry. We may have to use other nation’s territories as resource.
3. Do you have a plan if Germany were to be attacked due to the limited number of forces?
I do. *chuckle*
4. Would you consider building structures along the German border to defend Germany from foreign invaders?
Yes because now that Germany is becoming a force to be reckoned with, I must protect the people and supplies.
5. What do you see for the future of the German military?
I see us being the best military group in the world.
Topic 4: Human and Civil Rights
1. What is your policy on immigration?
Only true Germans should be in Germany. I do not want foreigners taking away resources and land from rightful Germans.
2. Would it be a hit to Germany if significant portions of the population were to emigrate due to the condition Germany is currently in?
If they are not true Germans, then it will be good that they leave. I will know who is truly loyal to the motherland.
3. What would your policy be for requirements to be elected to government?
I would want final approval because Jews might try to skew the votes and someone unfit to represent Germany could ruin the progress of the nation.
4. Would you change requirements on German citizenship?
The would be required to take an oath the Germany and it’s leader. I also feel that there should be an intensive background check into the heritage of immigrants. Germany doesn’t need to let in bad seeds.
5. What would your policy be on granting asylum to refugees?
It would depend on what they have to offer to our nation. I am a very generous man, but I cannot just let anyone in.

Helmuth James von Moltke was one of the co-founders of the Kreisau Circle during World War II. The Kreisau Circle consisted of individuals who were interested in a better Germany post-Hitler, regardless of current affiliation. The main goal of the group was to develop a plan for a new, but strong government that would be ready to execute once Hitler was defeated. They were ready for German recovery. Their guiding principle was that “man had the right to work and own property…without regard to race, nationality or belief (Hoffman).”
There were a wide variety of members of various backgrounds: land-owning aristocracy, the Foreign Office, Civil Service, the Old Social Democratic Party, and the Church. Members of the Kreisau Circle included Carlo Mierendorff, Julus Leber, Bishop Preysing, Bishop Wurm, Peter Yorck von Wartenburg, Adam von Trott, Adolf Reichwein, Wilhelm Leuschner, Karl Ludwig von Guttenburg, and Fritz-Dietlof von der Schulenburg, all of them providing important contributions to the discussions and ideas of the group. However, one must consider as well that even though there were numerous members, the Kreisau Circle only met a few times and not all the members were present in Moltke’s house or Yorck’s home in Berlin.
Carlo Mierendorff was a journalist who became a politician during the war and was considered the political leader of the group. He mainly focused on social policy and was able to help find middle ground between the socialist and Catholic viewpoints within the Circle. Unfortunately, he died in an Allied bombing of Leipzig in 1943. Julius Leber quickly took over Mierendorff’s role within the group as the political connection the government. The two church contacts were Bishop Preysing and Bishop Wurm. They were involved in the discussions of how church and state would work together, and how much of a separation there would be if any, after the demise of Hitler.
The other co-founder of the Kreisau Circle was Peter Yorck von Wartenburg. He worked in the war office and opposed the Kreisau Circle’s non-violent principles because he was planning assassination attempts with others in the military. Once Moltke was arrested and sentenced to death, Wartenburg participated in the 20th of July assassination attempt and, consequently, was arrested and executed. Adam von Trott was also a member who was a diplomat working for the Foreign Ministry. He used his travels as an opportunity to gain Allied support for the Resistance as well as spreading his own ideas of post-war Germany.
Adolf Reichwein was a philosopher, educator, and intellect that worked at the Folklore Museum since the Nazi’s forced him to leave his teaching job. He had a large network of socialist Resistance contacts, which were significant to the Kreisau Circle. Reichwein worked closely with Julius Leber and he was the connection that brought Carlo Mierendorff and Wilhelm Leuschner to the group. Wilhelm Leuschner was the oldest of the members in the Kreisau Circle and had the experience of already being in the German camps when the German Trade Union Congress was shut down. He dealt mostly with finding understandings between the left and right wing groups when the Kreissau Circle was drafting their constitution.
Karl Ludwig von Guttenburg was a member that joined to oppose the regime and was able to provide important connections to two Munich Jesuits, Augustin Rösch, and Alfred Delp. These two Priests influenced Moltke in his decision not to kill Hitler believing that violence only bred more violence. Moltke was very concerned with doing what was right for humanity and was known for his Christian values. He believed that “how the picture of man can be restored in the hearts of our fellow-citizens (Manvell)” would occur by reducing violence and doing what was morally right. Delp was significant to Moltke because he found out the possibilities of Catholic support for the new, post-Nazi Germany.
Fritz-Dietlof von der Schulenburg belonged to the group, but he was more skeptical of the discussions that occurred. He worked in administrative departments in Berlin, so he was able to provide vital information to the group. He believed that Hitler should be ‘removed’ and a temporary military government would replace Hitler. Then a new government could start being worked on. He didn’t think the Kreissau Circle’s plan for the post-Nazi government would not be strong enough to be implemented right away. He didn’t think they built enough concrete and practical plans as opposed to their more philosophical, idealistic ideas.
Essentially, all the members of the Kreissau Circle served a significant purpose to the political opposition of Nazi Germany. It was a loosely knit group that relied on trust and the common goal of a post-Nazi era in Germany. Moltke did not bring all these members together, but rather he brought members who had additional contacts, and ultimately connected various backgrounds together for the sake of Germany.

Works Cited

“German Resistance Memorial Center – Biographie.” German Resistance Memorial Center – Biographie. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.
Gill, Anton. An Honorable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-45. New York: H. Holt, 1994. Print.
Hoffmann, Peter. The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1977. Print.
Manvell, Roger, and Heinrich Fraenkel. The Men Who Tried to Kill Hitler. New York: Coward-McCann, 1964. Print.
“The Activities of the Kreisau Circle in Nazi Germany.” By Frances Smith. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.

Adam von Trott was a member of the German Resistance during the time of the Third Reich. He worked tirelessly traveling internationally of behalf of the Resistance working toward the common goal of overthrowing Adolf Hitler while still protecting the German people. Trott’s priorities were clear. His short term goal of protecting the existence of the German state accompanied his long term goal of the creation of an international government organization who’s mission would be the collective protection of individual state sovereignty.
From the spring of 1943 to the fall of 1944, he travelled to various countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, and Italy where he met with Dr. Ivar Anderson, David McEwan, and Schulze-Gaevernitz. The goal of his travels were to meet various contacts, which he could then use to influence the Allied policy of dealing with the eventual terms of German surrender. Trott used these contacts to be a voice for the preservation of the German state as well as a voice for his ideas for an international government organization — not unlike the United Nations.
During Trott’s travels, it was very clear that Trott was opposed to the idea of unconditional surrender. If Germany were to accept this, the Allied forces would take over the country and use it to their own disposal. They would help rebuild the state, but would not preserve the German culture. In other words, it would become a puppet-state of the Allies and Russia. Trott pleaded with his many contacts the importance of negotiations that would benefit the Allies and Russia, but also the German people. In doing so, he pushed to get rid of Hitler, but let the working class leaders in Germany to take charge of rebuilding the government and the people.
Trott commented on the peace programme of the American Churches where he voiced his idea of having an international organization based on basic principles of law rather than who has the biggest army. This organization should “ensure the cultural autonomy and equality of all peoples, (Hoffmann 228)” which would parallel with his goals of protecting German people and culture from the result of an unconditional surrender. By having this organization, a country would be further limited in the use of militaries as a force as well as limiting the national sovereignty from corruptness. Essentially, it is an organization to police nations on unlawful actions. Trott wanted this mainly to keep Russia from taking over a weakened Germany after the war. He feared that if the Allies were not on the same page, Russia would move west and potentially have control of Eastern Europe and Germany. Trott wanted Germany to be a democracy, and with Russia taking over, it would become another dictatorship under the control of Stalin and Communist Russia. When visiting with Schulze-Gaevernitz, he let on to his concerns of the increased Russian influence in Germany as well as all of Stalin’s ideas for post war Germany. It can be speculated that Trott was very concerned with Russia’s great interest and the Allies lack of concern with how to rebuild Germany after the war.
In actuality, Woodrow Wilson came up with the fourteen points to help the world recover from the world war. A United Nations was created, which was very similar to Trott’s idea of an international committee, to keep peace and prevent countries from becoming too powerful and abusive with the power they have. However, Trott’s fears did happen with the build up of the “iron curtain” and the creation of Czechoslovakia, which took six countries and formed one communist state. Essentially Trott envisioned that NATO would have prevented the expansion of Communism into countries that did not want Communism thus preserving a countries right to individual national determination. I agree with Trott that there should be international alliances or committees that are more proactive about protecting a countries right to govern themselves without the imposition of other nations rather than today’s reactive organizations that do not send adequate aid until military violence has already begun i.e. not sending aid until ISIS is beheading people on live TV regularly.
Adam von Trott was a prominent member of the German Resistance who devoted the last years of his life to the preservation of his homeland. He worked not only for the short-term goal of saving his people, culture, and the state of Germany as a whole but also advocated the destruction of Adolf Hitler and the dictatorship. He also expressed ideas of a government organization that would regulate international foreign policy in order to protect individual state sovereignty which one could speculate was realized in the creation of the United Nations.

I pledge my allegiance to the preservation of Germany and the opposition of Adolf Hitler.  I will defend the rights of those who cannot defend themselves, and I will carry out my actions to a standard of moral righteousness. So help me God.