Were the plotters really much better than Hitler and his gang?
Because usually history teaches us that they are more about gaining power than actually bettering people's lot.
Just look at Trotsky, Brutus, the Confederacy, etc.
Of course these examples come from people whom failed and their side lost, hence they are deemed today as traitors or at best as losing rival factions, not heroes like these ones (their side wining, and thus able to dictate history).
And while Stauffenberg sure seems to have been not such a bad guy, was he actually a good one? Because what I've read about him is pretty mixed (didn't mind enslaving Poland nor east Russia to benefit Germany), and I highly doubt he would be so highly regarded had Germany won the war.
In fact, seems quite similar to Brutus, whom HBO's Rome pains to portray as complex as possible and explain his reasons, misgivings, and also character flaws others used to their advantage.
Since Cassius and Brutus failed (they killed Caesar but not Anthony, and thus their side lost then and forever), they are regarded not as saviours but as traitors (we all know how when they shouted their victory the streets became dead silent since the common people simply did NOT support them), regardless of what good reasons they may have had.
The plotters here were in pretty much the same situation (they were a minority without any real common people's support, whom themselves seemed to have wanted a more vanilla version of Nazism but still shared several Nazism's key ideas).
Or am I totally off?
Maybe it's my Mexican history that makes me doubt anything the "official" history says (our official heroes and villains changed dramatically when Neoliberalism came in the 80's, showcasing how malleable history is)