Now that over fifty years has passed since the July Plot was hatched a fresh examination of the motivations and ultimate aspirations of the primary conspirator is necessary to understand the true reasons for this audacious attempt to seize power. Some of the conclusions drawn from this re-evaluation may not fit the 'official' historical interpretation of the events surrounding the July Plot. Some may even be offended by the conclusions proffered.

The primary thesis of this examination contends that the July Plot was not in any way, shape or form an attempt to restore democracy to the German people as it is often portrayed. Neither was it a concerted effort to stop the horrors of the Holocaust and to save the various Jews, Gypsies, Gays and political dissidents who so greatly suffered in the concentration camps. Nor was it an attempt to bring freedom to the many occupied countries that endured German control on a daily basis.

The July Plot was an attempt to restore monarchy to Germany and to continue the domination of Europe by the German people. In order to explain this hypothesis it will be necessary to examine the background of the principal conspirator Count Claus von Stauffenberg. What motivated von Stauffenberg to plant a bomb as a means to kill Hitler on that hot July day is far more complex than historians have acknowledged. It involves his own family history, the mentors of his youth and his opinions concerning the social class and standing of the leaders of the Third Reich. It is a lot to unravel and it would be best to begin with Stauffenberg's family history.

Claus Philipp von Stauffenberg was born on November 15, 1907 to Alfred and Koraline Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg in Swabia Germany. His father could trace his ancestry back to medieval times. It is believed that the Stauffenbergs emerged from the House of Staufen who ruled Germany as Holy Roman Emperors form the early 800 rds until 1273 AD when the Habsburg Dynasty took the imperial crown. The Stauffenbergs were most likely Staufen princes who became warriors as a means to defend the German Empire.

The first traceable ancestor of the von Stauffenbergs is one Werner Schenk von Zollern who is mentioned in a legal document written in 1257. Schenk means 'cup bearer' or steward in Old German and this title suggests that the Werner in question was a courtier. A script dated in 1317 mentions the name Stauffenberg for the first time. The signature of Hannes Schenk von Stauffenberg appears on this document and it is from this figure that Claus von Stauffenberg could trace his direct lineage. 

The von Stauffenbergs held the title 'Free Knights of the Empire' meaning that they answered only to the Emperor in matters of law and personal honor. This imperial designation was of equal status to that of a baron. The difference being that a baron was bound to a particular region while a Free Knight was allowed to roam unreservedly throughout the Empire. This family produced a number of notable military figures. Three von Stauffenbergs were listed as members of Teutonic Knights and two others were known to be members of the Knights of Saint John - one of them becoming a leader of this illustrious order.

Another von Stauffenberg served with the Habsburg Emperor Charles V when he defeated the King of France in 1519 and then continued on with the Holy Roman Emperor when he seized Vatican City and held the Pope captive. Some von Stauffenbergs converted to Protestantism after Luther but many remained within the Church of Rome. By the seventieth century the Stauffenbergs boasted a Jesuit priest, two prince-bishops and a Field Marshall of the Swabian Order of Saint John. The famous poet and playwright Friedrich von Schiller was a Stauffenberg on his mother's side.

By 1874 General Konrad von Stauffenberg was raised to the rank of Count [Graf] by King Ludwigg II of Bavaria.  His grandson Alfred Schrenk Graf Von Stauffenberg married Karoline von ÜxKüll and to them were born Alexander, Berthold and Claus von Stauffenberg.

Claus von Stauffenberg's mother Karoline von ÜxKüll was of Prussian descent and her family boasted a great many important military figures among their ancestors. Among these were Field Martial Peter von Wartenburg who began his career as a soldier of fortune and eventually found himself upgrading the Prussian Army as an advisor. Another famous scion of the von ÜxKüll family was Field Marshall August von Gneisenau. He served as an advisor to General George Washington at the end of the American Revolutionary War. Both men were instrumental in the defeat of Napoleon.

The von Stauffenberg brothers were raised with a strong sense of their noble heritage. They lived in a castle owned by the Wittelsbach King of Wütteremberg. Alfred von Stauffenberg served as Senior Marshal [special advisor] to the King and counselled the Bavarian Monarch on matters of foreign relations and diplomacy. His wife Karoline served as 'Lady in Waiting' to the Queen. Her duties included organizing cotillions and other formal social occasions. It was in this fairy-tale milieu of Bavarian aristocracy that Claus von Stauffenberg took his first steps, learned to talk and eventually to dance, fence and ride a horse. 

When the Württenburg Monarchy was dissolved in 1918 as a condition of the Armistice the von Stauffenbergs moved to their country estate which had been their ancestral home for over 300 years. The village of Lautingen lies in the Swabian Alps just south of Stuttgart and the Schloss Stauffenberg, with its high roof and lily-white exterior, dominates the small town. The rolling Alpine foothills dotted the countryside the three brothers revelled in exploring the glorious landscape.

Non-Germans can never fully appreciate the significance of the countryside in the make up of the German soul. For the German, and especially the Bavarian, the land and the people merge and fuse in an enigmatic mystical union. Unlike other nations which speak of national spirit, the Germans have always spoken in terms of blood and land. It can be seen everywhere in 19th and early 20th century literature and even propaganda - Blood and Iron, Blood and Soil, Blood and Honor. In effect, the German worldview may be described as a sort of spiritual materialism the likes of which non-Germanic peoples can only grasp a slight understanding.

It is in this context that the young Claus von Stauffenberg and his two older twin brothers roamed and explored the Swabian countryside. They saw themselves as being physically and metaphysically merged the environment. This mystical communion with the land combined with the high culture and respect for tradition and family history they received at home made them aristocrats in the highest sense of the term.

As the brothers grew into their teen years their parents recognized the need for them to be tutored and mentored in life and art by an outside party. The standard gymnasium education was limited in its scope and the elder von Stauffenbergs understood their children required more than the regular instruction offered in the German school system.

In this regard they sought out the help and advice of German poet Stefan George [pronounced Gee-org-ah]. George was the definitive German language poet of his era outshining even Rilke in reputation and status. In his early years George roamed the vineyards owned by his parents and soon became aloof and somewhat detached from his contemporaries. During his teens and early 20's George traveled Europe and began to explore poetry and various forms of esoteria. He flirted with Ariosophy - a German form of theosophy which accented German identity but soon found it overly anti Semitic for his tastes. 

Eventually he settled back in Germany and formed the 'George Circle' around 1892. This group comprised an esoteric brotherhood which sought to explore poetry, spiritualism, arcane rites and spiritual doctrines. This group eventually merged with a pre-existing fraternity known as the 'Cosmics' - a fellowship which centered around George when he relocated to Heidelberg. There is much speculation concerning George and his followers. One overriding observation concerning this group was its total domination by George.

There was absolutely no room for individual opinion besides that of George himself. Followers even had to take a 'loyalty oath' to Meister George promising to following him unconditionally and agreeing never to reveal his inner teachings to outsiders. 

Sometime in the early 1900's George began to don what looked very much like a curate's cassock and soon his followers began to copy his dress and mannerisms. There were rumors centering around George's use of secret ceremonies in which he wore ornate robes and regalia, burnt incense and performed occult rituals while uttering incantations. Some unfounded rumors surfaced which spoke of homosexual initiation ceremonies. It seems that George formed a Golden Dawn type organization in pre WWI Germany. 

At this point George began to publish volumes of poetry which were to capture the imagination of an entire generation of young German intellectuals. His poetry was to German literature what Nietzsche was to German philosophy. Nietzsche captured the essence of German identity while George's poetry explored the Germanic soul. As his poetic star rose George himself became more and more reclusive insisting that he only wanted to be surrounded by spiritual aristocrats.

George proffered a mystical/poetic purview in which a sort of priest king would emerge to lead the German people into a spiritual utopia. [Many Nazis saw this personified in Hitler] This is best reflected in his masterpiece The New Kingdom [1928]. In this work George expresses his hopes and aspirations for the German people and the mystic imperium he hoped would imbibe and revive his nation.

When Karoline von Stauffenberg approached Stefan George concerning tutoring her three sons the famous poet could not be more pleased. He saw in the three youths the very embodiment of his spiritual and aristocratic leanings. The Stauffenberg brothers saw in George a mentor who understood their background and desires. Soon the three took George's 'loyalty oath' and entered the inner circle of his esoteric secret society. 

During his frequent visits to the Stauffenberg home George had the boys learn poetry by heart and even had them compose some of their own poems. He also tutored them in classical civilization and literature with an emphasis on Plato and the Greek dramatists. George had the brothers explore occult philosophy which most likely included the works of Rudolf Steiner and Thule Society literature. Although a neo-pagan at this juncture in his life, George encouraged the three boys to explore the numinous temper of Roman Catholicism with its stress on sacrifice and the mystical nature of divine kingship. 

In essence George taught the boys that their duty as aristocrats was to promote a new divine monarchy and to ensure that, within the limits if their circumstance, that they should always act with duty and honor as their watchwords. Nothing less would be befitting those of their high social station.

The two older von Stauffenberg brothers eventually went off to university and were to gain doctorates in the humanities. However, Claus was so infatuated by George's philosophy that he chose a military career over university. Claus von Stauffenberg saw this as his only opportunity to put into practice what his mentor had taught him.

After rising through the ranks to Lieutenant in the German Army von Stauffenberg was surprised when an Austrian named Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933.

At first von Stauffenberg celebrated the rise of the National Socialist Workers Party. He saw in their symbols and their dedication the very essence of the New Kingdom he had envisaged for his entire life. However, his taste for the Führer soon soured. For one thing Stefan George hated Hitler and refused to meet with the new Chancellor. George declined Hitler's invitation to head the Germany Poetry Academy. As a final smear to the 'Leader' George denounced the Führer stating that Hitler was a mere vulgarian who would lead Germany to ruination.

To demonstrate his complete and utter contempt for the Third Reich George left Germany in protest of the new regime and exiled himself to Switzerland. There he died not long after his expatriation in 1933. The Stauffenberg brothers acted as pole bearers at George's funeral.

As the military prowess of the Third Reich grew Claus von Stauffenberg remained as an officer in the regular German Army although his distrust of Hitler grew as the years moved on. When war broke out in 1939 Stauffenberg held a number of combat assignments. He served in all of Hitler's major campaigns from the Sudetenland, to Poland, to France, to Russia and finally North Africa.

On April 7, 1943 Claus Von Stauffenberg was seriously wounded along the Kasserine Pass in the North African desert when Allied fighters strafed his convoy and vehicle. In a hail of machine gun fire Stauffenberg lost his left eye, right hand, two fingers of his left hand and a kneecap.

It was during his recovery that von Stauffenberg, by then a lieutenant colonel, began to plot against the life of Adolf Hitler. Stefan George's opinions concerning Hitler all rang true. He led Germany into the greatest military disaster in modern history. In his initial plan von Stauffenberg knew that any cogent overthrow of the Third Reich would mean the deaths of Hitler and his two closet power sharers - Himmler and Göring.

Upon reflecting on the lives and careers of the three prominent leaders of the Third Reich von Stauffenberg felt nothing but loathing for these commoners who were as far away from George's vision of Divine Kings as one could get. Considering Stauffenberg's aristocratic upbringing - dancing with the Queen of Bavaria as a boy, exploring the Swabian countryside, listening to his parents speak of their lineage and especially studying the mystical poetry and teachings of Stefan George - Hitler, Himmler and Goering were nothing more than mere plebeians.

In Stauffenberg's reckoning Adolf Hitler was an Austrian prole whose military record did not even involve participating in a charge. Upon leaving the armed services Hitler was a failed artist, paper hanger and one time vagabond. Given his chance this ruff-hewn peasant ran Germany into the ground.

Heindrich Himmler, head of the SS, was not even physically-fit enough to pass a basic medical exam for entry into the army. He worked raising and selling chickens for a time but he even failed at this inane employment. Himmler's greatest claim to fame was that he once received a government grant to study the nature of dung in the production of manure but even this study was never completed. Yet on the death of Hitler this ex-chicken farmer possessed the manpower to seize the government as his dreaded SS followed him blindly.

Herman Göring may have had some merit in Stauffenberg's reckoning as he was a WWI flying ace. However, he was a throw back to earlier age and made his living as a stunt pilot and barn stormer after the Great War. He was even an insignificant wine salesman at one time. However, Göring controlled the entire Prussian interior police consequently making him a threat after Hitler's death.

From the Fall of 1943 to the Summer 1944 Claus von Stauffenberg became the leader of a conspiracy to kill Hitler, Göring and Himmler and overthrow the Third Reich in one decisive action. In June 1944 he was promoted to full colonel and appointed Chief of Staff to Home Army Commander General Friedrich Fromm. Now von Stauffenberg had direct access to Hitler's briefing sessions and he made his final move against the man he referred to as 'The Anti Christ'.

On July 20 after returning to Berlin after the bombing von Stauffenberg soon discovered that Hitler had miraculously survived the blast and that his co conspirators had failed to launch the coup. The plot quickly collapsed and Count Claus von Stauffenberg was subsequently shot for sedition.

If the coup had succeeded it is doubtful von Stauffenberg would have restored democracy. Although his provisional government would have placed General Ludwig Beck as Head of State von Stauffenberg would have had full control of all armed forces as Secretary of War. Most likely he would have sued for a negotiated peace with the allies and retained most of the new Reich.

In this regard it can be plausibly argued that von Stauffenberg would have eventually restored some form of monarchy in Germany with either himself or one of his brothers appointed as King or Holy Roman Emperor of Germania. Considering Stauffenberg's aristocratic background, the monarchical influence of Stefan George, and his overall disdain for the lower class types who gained political power in democratic regimes, this theory constitutes a reasonable conclusion.

It is unclear what Stauffenberg's opinions were concerning the Holocaust but it is certain that he hoped to bring diehard Nazis, like Albert Speer, into the new provisional government. 

Stauffenberg also recruited the German commander of France into the plot and, consequently, did not seem to plan to give up any segment of the Greater Reich if the coup had been successful.

It is very unlikely that von Stauffenberg would have bought back some scion of the Kaiser's family to act as king. In his the reckoning the Hohenzollern dynasty was too quick to jump on the National Socialist bandwagon in hopes of regaining power. Nor were the Kaiser's heirs raised with the same mythical concept of kingship and sacrifice as were the Stauffenberg children.

Count Claus von Stauffenberg was only 37 at the time of the plot and thus required an older and respected leader like General Beck to smooth over the transition of government after the coup. It is clear that Stauffenberg would retain control of the military and even went as far as to form an alliance with Field Marshal Erwin Rommel as a means to consolidate his hold on the armed forces after the Third Reich was deposed. Consequently, Stauffenberg would control the military and could eventually impose any form of government onto the Greater German Reich. 

In the final analysis Count Claus von Stauffenberg would have inaugurated the New Kingdom that Stephan George had conceived and would have coronated himself or some scion of his family as Monarch of the New Reich.

In the years following WWII, three main "myths" surfaced regarding these atrocities of the Third Reich: the myth of ignorance, the myth of resistance, and the myth of victimization The presence of these myths is undeniable and taken together, the myths weave themselves into a net of sorts that separates modern Germany from fully acknowledging and examining the legacy that was left by the Third Reich.   A further explanation of the exact nature of the three myths is required. Germans who ascribed to the myth of ignorance took the stance that they weren’t aware of exactly what was happening during WWII, and that when the war came to an end and the truth was brought to light, they were horrified to learn of the death camps and the suffering. Over time this mentality transformed into a desire to move on and to remain unaware of the atrocities. The myth of resistance, on the other hand, was held by those individuals who felt that, while they did not know everything, they resisted as much as they could based on the knowledge that they had. Over time this myth developed into the mindset that enough is known about WWII, that the physical markers of the war should be swept away, and that the survivors of the war should not be emphasized so much. Those who believed the myth of victimization held that WWII and the Holocaust were not the fault of the entire German people, but rather that the "good Germans" were victims of "bad Nazis," which with time became the conceptualization of the Germans as victims of the.   Myth of Resistance   The Soviet War Memorial at Berlin-Treptow is an example of how the legacy of communist struggle against the Third Reich was clung to as a cornerstone of the East German myth of resistance. The myth of resistance, while present in both states, took on a distinctly different flavor in East Germany than it did in West Germany. In East Germany, those who glorified this myth clung to the resistance of the Communists who fought against the Nazi party both before and after 1933, such that this formed the cornerstone of the German Democratic Republic’s identity as the antifascist German state, and allowed East Germans to reside in a land of "conquering heroes".  In turn, this worked to create the illusion of a break from the legacy of the Third Reich. One East German monument that clearly attempted to further the myth of resistance was the Ernst Thälmann memorial, the biggest monument in East Berlin, which honored the chairman of the German Communist Party from 1925 to 1933 who was murdered at Buchenwald in 1944. Another example of this mentality could be seen in Treptow at the main Soviet memorial that depicted an oversized soldier stomping on a swastika, such that the monument formed a grand expression of heroism and triumph – a style the GDR’s leaders embraced in the name of the anti-fascist German state, born of the alliance with Soviet antifascism. Here the connection being drawn between Communism and the struggle against the Nazis served the GDR’s attempt to illustrate that resistance to the fascist regime existed on the part of citizens of the GDR and their Nazi-era predecessors, thus aiding to ameliorate post-WWII guilt.   In West Berlin, the concept of resistance as a myth is tinged with multiple layers of irony. To begin with, the main heroes of the resistance that the West had to place on a pedestal were those individuals involved in the failed attempt to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. This is ironic in one sense because these people were high-ranking conservatives in the government and military, who supported the Third Reich until it began to lose the war. Their positions and late action do not make most of them resisters so much as opportunists who were with Hitler while it benefited them, and then wanted him out of power at least in part because he was losing.   The myth of resistance is also ironic in that the response of the populace to the early attempts to spread and solidify this myth largely negated the myth itself. For example, a statue that was dedicated in 1953 to the attempted assassins at Bendlerblock, where some of the conspirators were executed, was only given the status of a national memorial to resistance in 1967. Clearly the delay in widespread recognition and adoption of the statue as a national memorial reflected that many Germans considered them [the would be assassins] to have been what Göbbels’ media had portrayed them as -  traitors. If the indoctrination was so strong among Germans that they continued to view those who attempted to assassinate Hitler as traitors, how could the people claim to have resisted? Regardless of the lack of consistency, the statue erected as a resistance memorial came to serve the myth well, with a 1972 visitors’ brochure at the memorial stating that, "The German resistance proves that the entire German people was not stricken with the disease of totalitarianism and that, in Germany, too, the tradition of inalienable human rights could not be destroyed". This clearly demonstrates the way in which the myth of resistance helped to ease the minds and clear the consciences of those who ascribed to it.   Myth of Ignorance The site of Hitler's bunker, is a clear illustration of the myth of ignorance with its lack of documentation about its significance during the Nazi era.   The reactions of many people, particularly conservatives, to proposals of preservation and other such markers of the Nazi legacy show how the myth of resistance transformed from the notion that the German people resisted as much as they could based on their awareness of Nazi atrocities, to the mindset that the sites of Nazism and Nazi crimes should be swept away and that enough is known about the era. This, in turn, works in conjunction with the development of the myth of ignorance into the mindset that it is not desirable to know more about the Third Reich. The developments of these forces clearly come into play in a common reaction to the unearthing of the bunker in 1990. Many people, especially conservatives, wished to destroy the bunker or cover it up and forget about it. As can be seen with what ended up happening to the Führerbunker, "Typical German treatment of a historically burdened site”, Kerndl [the head of the municipal archaeology office] observed sardonically, “is either to plant it with greenery or to use it for parking, and here we have both". These conscious attempts to ignore or gloss over the Nazi influence on the city are clear extensions of these highly influential myths.   Another way in which it is possible to construe that these myths were and are present in the mindset of Berliners is in the repeatedly expressed desire and multiple attempts to restore or renovate city architecture in order to regain the appearance of the pre-Nazi era, typically going back to before 1914 and the First World War. Examples of this can be seen in the rebirth, "critical reconstruction," and accompanying rewriting of the history of the Mietkaserne (the five story tenement buildings inhabited by all but the richest Berliners by the 1900s, the preeminent symbol of Berlin as industrial metropolis, and Friedrichstadt (the old commercial center of Berlin). What had been the troubling specter of modernity and upheaval is now a comforting link back to an idealized past.. Undoubtedly the urge to move away from the Nazi legacy points to these myths and the way in which they capture the mindset of a segment of the German population.   Sites that have not received memorial status also serve as examples of the myth of ignorance at work. Particularly interesting instances of this are the office buildings previously inhabited by Nazis that simply rolled over into use during the post-WWII era. Two of the most striking examples of this ignorance at work can be seen in the fates of the sites of the Third Reich’s Ministry of Aviation and Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. The building that housed the Ministry of Aviation during the Nazi era, having survived WWII fairly unscathed, was renamed the "House of Ministries" by the GDR. In addition to being a main center of the East German government throughout the GDR’s existence, the building housed the ceremony that officially established the GDR in 1949. While both a mural and a plaque commemorated significant GDR events in the building, no reference was made to the Nazi planning that occurred within its walls. Just as troublesome, if not more so, was the smooth transition that occurred in the buildings of Göbbels’ Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. The GDR decided to use these existing buildings to house the Government Press Office and Ministry of Media. The clear dismissal of the Nazi legacies of these buildings speaks volumes about the degree to which the myth of ignorance played a role in the East German consciousness during the post-Nazi era.   Myth of Victimization   The myth of victimization is certainly no less important in the history of Berlin’s attempts to come to terms with the legacy of the Third Reich, and in some cases this myth even works in conjunction with the myths of resistance and ignorance. For example, victimization and resistance work simultaneously in the irony of the Western myth of resistance. This use can be construed as an example of how "bad Nazis" thoroughly indoctrinated "good Germans," such that the influence of the "bad Nazis" was what caused the delayed the acceptance of the memorial to the resisters. More concrete ways in which the myth of victimization can be seen influencing the architectural decisions of the post-Nazi era include the transition into identifying with the broader category of Nazi victims that began to occur in West Berlin with the 1952 establishment of a memorial to victims of the Hitler dictatorship at the Plötzensee prison in north-western Berlin" and its dedication to all the millions who had been persecuted or killed because of their ‘political convictions, religious beliefs, or racial heritage’. This tendency to lump all victims together is also evident in the slow build up of plaques and sculptures that marked where Jews were persecuted.   While the decisions show an orientation towards the plight of victims and subtly highlight the ways in Germans saw themselves as victims as opposed to perpetrators, the most blatant example of the myth of victimization can be seen in the debate over a national Holocaust memorial. Lea Rosh, a television talk-show host, spearheaded the push for a national Holocaust memorial to honor Jewish victims, stating that Germany needed to do what other nations had already done in establishing the memorial. However, in looking at the need for a memorial from this perspective, Rosh failed to acknowledge that Germany is not like "other nations" particularly when it comes to the legacy of the Holocaust. In ignoring this she demonstrated her unwillingness to see the complex issues involved. Her complete attachment to the myth of victimization became most apparent in her rejection of placing a memorial in front of the Reichstag (on which the inscription reads DEM DEUTSCHEN VOLKE, "To the German People"), stating, "Did the ‘German people’ murder the Jews? Hardly". This statement exposes her belief that it was "bad Nazis" as opposed to "good Germans" who were the perpetrators of the horrors of the Third Reich.   The memorial was officially opened in May of 2005, so the impact of the memorial on the psyche of Berliners and the ways in which Berliners chose to interpret the memorial can now be studied. However, from the point of view of those examining the issues before resolution, the argument was made by individuals such as Kerndl, the head of the municipal archaeology office, and those involved in the Active Museum, the group behind "The Topography of Terror" exhibition, that the memorial was an "alibi" and that placing the memorial on the site proposed by Rosh that was so closely linked to Hitler would in effect shift the blame onto his shoulders alone and thus remove the burden from common. These arguments were seemingly not a problem in the eyes of Rosh. Clearly the criticism of the concept of a national Holocaust memorial brings to light the concern of some Germans regarding the application of the myth of victimization. Beginning in the 1970s, more and more individuals began to advocate the preservation and examination of Nazi sites that were not consistent with the tenets of the three myths. A particularly significant example of this departure is "The Topography of Terror." This exhibition, established on the site of the Gestapo and SS headquarters by the Active Museum during the 1980s, is perhaps the most self-conscious attempt to uncover the historical legacy of a particular place in Berlin. The combination that was achieved by the Active Museum of preserving Nazi sites and documenting their use in order to allow for an open and nuanced look at the Third Reich‘s geographical links to history in Berlin moved beyond the myth-motivated memorials of its predecessors and showed the changing consciousness of younger generations of Germans. It is clear that the three predominant myths regarding the atrocities of the Third Reich come to the surface in a variety of ways in the architecture of Berlin and the stories behind the physical aspects. However, these three myths do not tell the whole story, as evidenced by the push by some like those involved with the Active Museum who are dedicated to documentation and preservation. The interweaving of the myths with other perspectives and opinions demonstrate the difficulty of coming to a consensus about such a troubled past. What is clear, however, is that the physical aspects of Berlin and the debates that they inspire are intimately tied not only the past of the city and the German people, but to what will become of them as well.