In the first place, discount the fact that Stauffenberg was a Catholic.  Catholicism was not his motivation for taking part in his betrayal of his oaths and countymen. His was a case of disloyalty and the attempted reckless murder of his fellow officers.
I think that precludes any partisan hero worship that might be coming his way.

The fact of the matter is, that Germany was at war with the Bolshevik communists inside and outside of its borders and was at war with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the тαℓмυdic Jews as represented by the "allies". These facts were germane to what was transpiring at the time.  At such a moment and in such a context, I believe that it is clear where Von Stauffenberg's loyalties should have been as his actions and those of other contributed to both Germany's and Christendom's defeat at the hands of these Satanic enemies and  we and the Church are now enslaved by them. No, he was not a Catholic hero,  Leon Degrelle was a Catholic hero who fought for justice, his Faith, and his folk.

JPaul,
I would argue that Christendom was already HIGHLY under attack and impaired WELL before Hitler even came into power and before WWI.  You seem to be arguing of the "lesser of 2 evils" being the nαzιs, therefore Stauffenberg should have supported them.  As a german noble, before the nobility's lands and titles were stripped from them, they were responsible for the economic and social welfare of their counties, in which hundreds of germans lived.  The nobles were like mini-kings, who took care of their citizens and had a responsibility in running the overall govt of united germany. 

Stauffenberg, based on his letters and stories from his sister in law, was very catholic and his love of country was based on christian ideals, and his duty to his citizens.  I find it hard to fathom that he was trying to help the communists by killing hitler, as you insinuate.  You are assuming that he knew the full evils and dangers of russia at the time and also that he had the luxury to know what was going on during the war, at a macro level.  My perception is that his loyalties were to his faith and country, first, which is why he tried to restore the monarchy multiple times. 

Making the argument that trying to overthrow hitler was bad because it helped russia is an argument one can only make AFTER the war is over.  Hindsight is 20/20. 

JPaul,
I would argue that Christendom was already HIGHLY under attack and impaired WELL before Hitler even came into power and before WWI.  You seem to be arguing of the "lesser of 2 evils" being the nαzιs, therefore Stauffenberg should have supported them.  As a german noble, before the nobility's lands and titles were stripped from them, they were responsible for the economic and social welfare of their counties, in which hundreds of germans lived.  The nobles were like mini-kings, who took care of their citizens and had a responsibility in running the overall govt of united germany.

Stauffenberg, based on his letters and stories from his sister in law, was very catholic and his love of country was based on christian ideals, and his duty to his citizens.  I find it hard to fathom that he was trying to help the communists by killing hitler, as you insinuate.  You are assuming that he knew the full evils and dangers of russia at the time and also that he had the luxury to know what was going on during the war, at a macro level.  My perception is that his loyalties were to his faith and country, first, which is why he tried to restore the monarchy multiple times.

Making the argument that trying to overthrow hitler was bad because it helped russia is an argument one can only make AFTER the war is over.  Hindsight is 20/20.

WWII was indeed a Holy War between Christian Europe and Jews, Masonry, and Communism. Even though Christian Europe was already compromised this war was decisive in what shape the future would take.
Which was the greater threat and the greater evil is self evident. Christendom was surely suffering before the war. It was evident in how political the Church and the popes had become, for example the abandonment of the Christeros by the pope and the Bishops. We never did see a like encyclical against the Masonic regime and Callas. The Church and Catholic Mexico is still under their yoke today.
Hitler knew the dangers of the Bolshevik threat and was very public in his warnings about it.  No officer in the NS military could have been unaware.  Many many volunteers in the Waffen SS from many countries saw the danger and fought for Germany on the Eastern front. The Jєωιѕн press hid this information as did the allies but it was an unavoidable reality to anyone in the military.
If Von Stauffenberg helped these dark forces it would have been by default not by intent. I do not know if he was involved with the allies or not as has been alleged but will research that further. He was indeed interested in restoring the position and influence of the Aristocracy which had slipped under the NS govt.
Hindsight, is what we are living under today, but that reality was clear to predict if one experienced pre-war Wiemar Germany. There was no way to save Germany, its fate had already been decided. Read the earlier book by the Jєωιѕн author name "Germany Must Perish" .  there was no doubt to the outcome if Germany was defeated.

Betrayal of what oath?  His oath to the SS?  His countrymen were the peasants of Germany, not the nαzιs, who were an extreme political faction who hijacked the elections.  He owed no loyalty to those who destroyed the catholic way of life, who subverted morality, who stole lands from the nobles, who dethroned the king and who eventually imprisoned him.

This was indeed what happened in Wiemar Germany and after WWI. The Catholic way of life was degraded long before Hitler was a whisper. And Hitler did not do what you charge, it had already been accomplished.
A man's oath is his Honor and the National Socialist were also his countrymen, and the elections were not hijacked. They were soundly elected as the legal government. This has always been disputed by the Communists but the fact remains.
The subversion of Germany's morality and the insertion of gross depravity was almost solely a Jєωιѕн effort, both between the wars and after WWII.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, considering he tried to restore the monarchy, could it not have been that he thought by Hitler's death they could restore the banished king, thereby saving Germany?  That seems to have been his intent, which is a good and catholic one.

If you are arguing that his attempt on Hitler wounded Germany, and caused her to fall to russia, I find that very weak.  Germany's society was an immoral timebomb, waiting to fall.  Their economy was destroyed.  The only attempt at restoring catholicism was through the monarchy.

If you want to argue that the monarchy wouldn't have survived, and Germany still would've fallen to russia, fine.  But, we'll never know...  I'd vote to try to restore catholicism vs defending an immoral govt, which will eventually fail anyway.

PV, the future of any restoration of Monarchy had also been pre-determined. It would not be allowed.
The last decendant of the Christian Roman Imperial Emperors was ritually and satanically carried out in Russia right at the time of Our Lady's dire warnings.
Do you imagine that the тαℓмυdic Bolsheviks would tolerate a restoration in Germany?
The destruction of European Christian monarchies was systematically and sequentially carried out by the same dark forces. These dark principalities and powers were never beholden to the political systems of men. 
As for morality, you need to research and see what an immoral sewer Germany had become.
Under ther NS, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity was outlawed, the Lodges were closed and Masonry banned, decadent art, plays, music, and sculpture were destroyed and thier creators shown the door out of Germany.  Marriage and families were encouraged and subsidized. Usury was banned and Germany was once again in control of its currency and its destiny. This is not exactly as you have described things.
Even accounting for the unsucessful or bad things involved with this regime, that they raised the standard of living, morality, and social order of Germany in a short 3 years, should at least give a reasonable man pause before he condemns the whole thing as evil and a failure.
 

Do you imagine that the тαℓмυdic Bolsheviks would tolerate a restoration in Germany?

You give them too much credit.  The devil can't just do anything he wants.  God can protect anyone He desires.  We can't avoid an idealistic, catholic goal simply because we *think* it won't work.  If that was the attitude, then we might as well have surrendered before the battle of Lepanto...

As far as any good the nαzιs did in Germany, I'm not a WW2 historian by any means.  I'll take your word for it.  Did Hitler double cross political powers, much like Napoleon?  Probably.  Does that make him good?  No.  He was the lesser of 2 evils, I say.

Honest question, because I don't know - Was Hitler involved in the occult?  Seems there's a lot of evidence to say yes.  Did hitler die in argentina?  Seems the answer is yes.  So, if these are both true, even with the "good laws" he passed, at best, he's a hypocrite who played the germans.  At worse, he's a satanist who was involved in "in fighting" between masonic sects, (i.e. germany vs russia) to see who would rule the east.  Again, lesser of 2 evils.

You give them too much credit.  The devil can't just do anything he wants.  God can protect anyone He desires.  We can't avoid an idealistic, catholic goal simply because we *think* it won't work.  If that was the attitude, then we might as well have surrendered before the battle of Lepanto...

As far as any good the nαzιs did in Germany, I'm not a WW2 historian by any means.  I'll take your word for it.  Did Hitler double cross political powers, much like Napoleon?  Probably.  Does that make him good?  No.  He was the lesser of 2 evils, I say.

Honest question, because I don't know - Was Hitler involved in the occult?  Seems there's a lot of evidence to say yes.  Did hitler die in argentina?  Seems the answer is yes.  So, if these are both true, even with the "good laws" he passed, at best, he's a hypocrite who played the germans.  At worse, he's a satanist who was involved in "in fighting" between masonic sects, (i.e. germany vs russia) to see who would rule the east.  Again, lesser of 2 evils.

The 'ol occult canard. I was wondering when this would be rolled out. It's total rubbish. But, as you said, you're no WWII historian, so I don't blame you.

Pius XI wrote an encyclical that said they did persecute the Church.  That carries a lot more weight than anything you could write.

What encyclical are you referring to?