where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Aug 2019 09:51

Duncan_M wrote:
12 Aug 2019 22:08
Aida1 wrote:
09 Aug 2019 22:06
Duncan_M wrote:
09 Aug 2019 19:53
Aida1 wrote:
08 Aug 2019 09:08
The civilian leadership had decided the Kaiser should go and even announced his abdication.You have a very fertile imagination when you think that the German army of 1918 could violently march into Germany and keep the old order in place.The Kaiser needed to face facts.
LOL. I love how you're utterly skipping that the Kaiser, the LEADER OF GERMANY, who all German officers and enlisted HAD SWORN AN OATH TO OBEY, had gone to Hindenburg and Groener, asked if the army would support him in a revolution, and they told him to pound sand.

"Facing the unrealistic ideas of the Kaiser Groener called an emergency meeting of 50 senior commanders of which 39 arrived in time to take part in the council. In answer to Groener’s questions as to whether the Army would stand beside the Kaiser only one commander “guaranteed that the soldiers stood squarely behind the Kaiser." - Holger Herwig, The First World War

Either you're ignorant of this, or lying by ommission. Either way, this happened. Groener called a bunch of senior German officers to see if they would support the man they had sworn an oath to and the answer was NO!

German oaths means NOTHING. Stop using it as an excuse to why they continued to support Hitler, it was their excuse used after the war to try to provide reason for staying loyal, but it was all nonsense. All those general officers, all WW1 era veterans, could have fought and died for their Kaiser, as their oath demanded, but they let him and the monarchy be overthrow, just like they allowed the Weimar Republic to be overthrown. But suddenly, in the 1940s, when they commit war crime after warcrime, and Germany is losing the war, they decide to be honorable men? No, they fought on because losing meant war crime trials, loss of pensions, loss of positions, loss of property.
You are playing fast and loose with the truth here.Germany's constitution had changed so violently imposing the Kaiser against the will of the elected representatives would have been treason.No oath binds to obediance against the constitution.And the rank and file of the German army could not be trusted anymore.Senior commanders knew that.Soldiers would not march for the Kaiser.And these senior commanders were not the ones in charge in 1933,contrary to what you are implying.You have also omitted that Hitler's coalition government had a majority in the Reichstag and he became head of state legally.
You're attempting to excuse German general officers of WW2 for staying loyal to Hitler to the very end of the war, for assisting in committing major war crimes, by appealing to their honor. What honor?

Why didn't these officers fight to defend the Kaiser? It was their duty, part of their oath. But they didn't. No matter how you attempt to frame this new information that you only in the last few days even knew about (its plain you had no clue it happened), when Groener called those 39 senior officers from the front for their opinion on whether to support the Kaiser or not, ONLY A SINGLE OFFICER WAS WILLING TO FULFILL HIS OATH.

In any mind besides that of an ardent Wehraboo, they disobeyed their oath, allowing the Kaiser, who they swore to defend, to be forced to abdicate because the very organization that had sworn to defend him refused to do it.

As for your claim that Hitler didn't violate the Weimar Constitution, check out the writing of their own law. Article 2 of the Enabling Act:

The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the position of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The powers of the President remain undisturbed.

That right there is proof they violated the Weimar Constitution, which the officers of the Reichswehr had sworn to defend.

Proving, again, that you have no clue what you're even debating about because you're simply repeatgists' myth. Stop defending dishonorable people. If you do decide to defend them, at least pick your battles better than you are, and try doing at least the most minimal research beforehand.
You do not prové a thing.Reading the German constitution is not your strong point either.The German government could change the constitution and did so in a way that was not contrary to the enacting law.The positions of Reichspresident and Reichskanzler simply became one.Hitler was the legal president of Germany and soldiers owed him their allegiance.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by MarkN » 13 Aug 2019 15:47

Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:36
You cannot be 'bribed' to do wat you are supposed to do .....
On the contrary, when it comes to state employees, taking (illegal) payments to do the job you are already doing is the most prevalent form of corruption going.

Mind you, in some countries today, that form of corruption is considered a quite normal and acceptable way to enhance your earnings. In Serbia, for example, it has got so bad that a few months ago the government enacted a new law saying that doctors could accept bribes of up to €425 per patient per visit!!!!

It seems you and Duncan_M have different perceptions of where the line between corrupt and normal is drawn.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Aug 2019 16:15

MarkN wrote:
13 Aug 2019 15:47
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:36
You cannot be 'bribed' to do wat you are supposed to do .....
On the contrary, when it comes to state employees, taking (illegal) payments to do the job you are already doing is the most prevalent form of corruption going.

Mind you, in some countries today, that form of corruption is considered a quite normal and acceptable way to enhance your earnings. In Serbia, for example, it has got so bad that a few months ago the government enacted a new law saying that doctors could accept bribes of up to €425 per patient per visit!!!!

It seems you and Duncan_M have different perceptions of where the line between corrupt and normal is drawn.
When your employer gives you an extra for doing your job well,we are talking about rewards.Cannot be compared to a citizen having to pay a civil servant extra for simply doing his job.Hitler as head of state could perfectly decide to keep his senior commanders happy by giving them perks.Had been done before.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Duncan_M » 13 Aug 2019 19:34

Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 16:15
MarkN wrote:
13 Aug 2019 15:47
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:36
You cannot be 'bribed' to do wat you are supposed to do .....
On the contrary, when it comes to state employees, taking (illegal) payments to do the job you are already doing is the most prevalent form of corruption going.

Mind you, in some countries today, that form of corruption is considered a quite normal and acceptable way to enhance your earnings. In Serbia, for example, it has got so bad that a few months ago the government enacted a new law saying that doctors could accept bribes of up to €425 per patient per visit!!!!

It seems you and Duncan_M have different perceptions of where the line between corrupt and normal is drawn.
When your employer gives you an extra for doing your job well,we are talking about rewards.Cannot be compared to a citizen having to pay a civil servant extra for simply doing his job.Hitler as head of state could perfectly decide to keep his senior commanders happy by giving them perks.Had been done before.
Bribery Definitions:

"Money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe

"Refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery


"The crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally, to persuade that person to do something you want"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... sh/bribery

Those monetary/financial perks, designed to keep senior generals loyal, who might otherwise not be (based off their previous dishonorable behavior of breaking oaths), constitute bribes.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Duncan_M » 13 Aug 2019 19:36

Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:51
You do not prové a thing.Reading the German constitution is not your strong point either.The German government could change the constitution and did so in a way that was not contrary to the enacting law.The positions of Reichspresident and Reichskanzler simply became one.Hitler was the legal president of Germany and soldiers owed him their allegiance.
That's it? That's the best you got? That I don't know how to read words? LOL, the Nazis passed a law that flat out stated in its articles that it would disregard the Weimar Constitution, which the Reichswehr officers had sworn to defend, and to you that is just fine.

Why is it fine? Because in your mind the German generals did nothing wrong. Ever. Because you believe in the Clean Wehrmacht Myth.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Duncan_M » 13 Aug 2019 19:38

Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:41
You are conveniently ignoring that those in charge in 1918 were not around anymore by WW2.Also no oath to the Kaiser was broken as the constitution was changed and an officer is bound by the constitution.You also ignore that the Kaiser could not be maintained.You do not even try to refute that Hitler came to power legally.You limit yourself to overblown retoric.
It doesn't matter if they were running things or not. If a German lieutenant swears an oath to defend the Kaiser, and the chief of the general staff says the army isn't going to defend the Kaiser, then that individual gave an unlawful order, and its the lieutenant's job to disobey it and follow his oath.

But they weren't going to. When Groener called all those commanders from the front, none of them were going to support him. Because they were done with their oath to the Kaiser and weren't going to obey it. And notice none of their subordinates rebelled?

Of course you don't notice. Because Muh Clean Wehrmacht!

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Aida1 » 14 Aug 2019 02:37

Duncan_M wrote:
13 Aug 2019 19:36
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:51
You do not prové a thing.Reading the German constitution is not your strong point either.The German government could change the constitution and did so in a way that was not contrary to the enacting law.The positions of Reichspresident and Reichskanzler simply became one.Hitler was the legal president of Germany and soldiers owed him their allegiance.
That's it? That's the best you got? That I don't know how to read words? LOL, the Nazis passed a law that flat out stated in its articles that it would disregard the Weimar Constitution, which the Reichswehr officers had sworn to defend, and to you that is just fine.

Why is it fine? Because in your mind the German generals did nothing wrong. Ever. Because you believe in the Clean Wehrmacht Myth.
You clearly disregard that the enabling law allowed the changing of the constitution by law so nothing illegal was done..The enabling law was passend by the required twothirds majority

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Aida1 » 14 Aug 2019 02:46

Duncan_M wrote:
13 Aug 2019 19:38
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:41
You are conveniently ignoring that those in charge in 1918 were not around anymore by WW2.Also no oath to the Kaiser was broken as the constitution was changed and an officer is bound by the constitution.You also ignore that the Kaiser could not be maintained.You do not even try to refute that Hitler came to power legally.You limit yourself to overblown retoric.
It doesn't matter if they were running things or not. If a German lieutenant swears an oath to defend the Kaiser, and the chief of the general staff says the army isn't going to defend the Kaiser, then that individual gave an unlawful order, and its the lieutenant's job to disobey it and follow his oath.

But they weren't going to. When Groener called all those commanders from the front, none of them were going to support him. Because they were done with their oath to the Kaiser and weren't going to obey it. And notice none of their subordinates rebelled?

Of course you don't notice. Because Muh Clean Wehrmacht!
So you would actually require German officers to violently overthrow the legal government of Germany to keep the Kaiser in power.You clearly have strange ideas about the extent of an oath to the head of state.The head of state cannot legally order the army to overthrow the government.And there was no possibility of keeping the Kaiser in power anyway..

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Aida1 » 14 Aug 2019 02:56

Duncan_M wrote:
13 Aug 2019 19:34
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 16:15
MarkN wrote:
13 Aug 2019 15:47
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:36
You cannot be 'bribed' to do wat you are supposed to do .....
On the contrary, when it comes to state employees, taking (illegal) payments to do the job you are already doing is the most prevalent form of corruption going.

Mind you, in some countries today, that form of corruption is considered a quite normal and acceptable way to enhance your earnings. In Serbia, for example, it has got so bad that a few months ago the government enacted a new law saying that doctors could accept bribes of up to €425 per patient per visit!!!!

It seems you and Duncan_M have different perceptions of where the line between corrupt and normal is drawn.
When your employer gives you an extra for doing your job well,we are talking about rewards.Cannot be compared to a citizen having to pay a civil servant extra for simply doing his job.Hitler as head of state could perfectly decide to keep his senior commanders happy by giving them perks.Had been done before.
Bribery Definitions:

"Money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe

"Refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery


"The crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally, to persuade that person to do something you want"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... sh/bribery

Those monetary/financial perks, designed to keep senior generals loyal, who might otherwise not be (based off their previous dishonorable behavior of breaking oaths), constitute bribes.
You are clearly in denial of the fact that you cannot be 'bribed' by your employer to do the job you are supposed to do.Your employer gives you rewards.Any employer has the perfect right to stimulate his staff.Nothing special in giving bonuses.to staff.You do not understand what a bribe actually is.And the large majority of officers did not receive anything and still remained loyal.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Max Payload » 14 Aug 2019 09:36

Duncan_M wrote:
13 Aug 2019 19:34
Those monetary/financial perks, designed to keep senior generals loyal, who might otherwise not be ... constitute bribes.
A loyalty bonus payment, whether made overtly or otherwise, is not a bribe. Not all financial incentives are illegal, and by two of your three cited definitions, bribery is related to criminality.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by MarkN » 14 Aug 2019 18:13

Max Payload wrote:
14 Aug 2019 09:36
Duncan_M wrote:
13 Aug 2019 19:34
Those monetary/financial perks, designed to keep senior generals loyal, who might otherwise not be ... constitute bribes.
A loyalty bonus payment, whether made overtly or otherwise, is not a bribe. Not all financial incentives are illegal, and by two of your three cited definitions, bribery is related to criminality.
Different states have different laws. The exact same exchange of money or equivalent in one state can be legal in one state and illegal in another.

Similarly, the transfer of a 'payment' between two parties can be turned from illegal to legal by the 'adminisrtion' of that payment. For example, in many 'enlightened, advanced' states, if you put used bank notes in a brown envelope and give them to somebody as payment for securing a contract and both parties tell nobody of the exchange - it is generally considered illegal. However, the same banknotes in the same brown envelope can make the very same exchange and be quite legal if both parties account for the transaction properly in their financial records. Consultancy and brokarage are often legal forms of bribary and corruption. In otherwords, the legality is very often down to whether tax is being paid on the earnings.
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 16:15
MarkN wrote:
13 Aug 2019 15:47
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:36
You cannot be 'bribed' to do wat you are supposed to do .....
On the contrary, when it comes to state employees, taking (illegal) payments to do the job you are already doing is the most prevalent form of corruption going.

Mind you, in some countries today, that form of corruption is considered a quite normal and acceptable way to enhance your earnings. In Serbia, for example, it has got so bad that a few months ago the government enacted a new law saying that doctors could accept bribes of up to €425 per patient per visit!!!!

It seems you and Duncan_M have different perceptions of where the line between corrupt and normal is drawn.
When your employer gives you an extra for doing your job well,we are talking about rewards.Cannot be compared to a citizen having to pay a civil servant extra for simply doing his job.Hitler as head of state could perfectly decide to keep his senior commanders happy by giving them perks.Had been done before.
Hitler was not the employer.
Hitler was not offering rewards that were his to give.
Of course, those two statements are based on a modern democratic understanding of society not one of autocratic dictatorship.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Duncan_M » 14 Aug 2019 20:50

Max Payload wrote:
14 Aug 2019 09:36
Duncan_M wrote:
13 Aug 2019 19:34
Those monetary/financial perks, designed to keep senior generals loyal, who might otherwise not be ... constitute bribes.
A loyalty bonus payment, whether made overtly or otherwise, is not a bribe. Not all financial incentives are illegal, and by two of your three cited definitions, bribery is related to criminality.
I guess if illegal is part of the definition:

Bribe: persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

Also, I'm curious, in Nazi Germany, who tells Der Fuehrer if something is legal or not?

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Duncan_M » 14 Aug 2019 20:51

Aida1 wrote:
14 Aug 2019 02:37
You clearly disregard that the enabling law allowed the changing of the constitution by law so nothing illegal was done..The enabling law was passend by the required twothirds majority
LOL. If any law is made that flies in the face of the constitution, what type of law is that? It doesn't matter if 100% voted yes. Its illegal.

You're bad at this. Stop.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Duncan_M » 14 Aug 2019 20:54

Aida1 wrote:
14 Aug 2019 02:46
[So you would actually require German officers to violently overthrow the legal government of Germany to keep the Kaiser in power.You clearly have strange ideas about the extent of an oath to the head of state.The head of state cannot legally order the army to overthrow the government.And there was no possibility of keeping the Kaiser in power anyway..
LOL. I'm not trying to change history. You're the one claiming that they followed their oaths, which I proved they didn't. Now your only recourse is to try to play an alternate reality scenario where had they actually followed their oaths, something bad might have happened.

Bad like what? May 1945 bad? ROFL

Also, the commander-in-chief of the army can legally order his army to support him during a revolution. Something something martial law something something. Something something oath something something.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Aida1 » 14 Aug 2019 21:13

MarkN wrote:
14 Aug 2019 18:13
Max Payload wrote:
14 Aug 2019 09:36
Duncan_M wrote:
13 Aug 2019 19:34
Those monetary/financial perks, designed to keep senior generals loyal, who might otherwise not be ... constitute bribes.
A loyalty bonus payment, whether made overtly or otherwise, is not a bribe. Not all financial incentives are illegal, and by two of your three cited definitions, bribery is related to criminality.
Different states have different laws. The exact same exchange of money or equivalent in one state can be legal in one state and illegal in another.

Similarly, the transfer of a 'payment' between two parties can be turned from illegal to legal by the 'adminisrtion' of that payment. For example, in many 'enlightened, advanced' states, if you put used bank notes in a brown envelope and give them to somebody as payment for securing a contract and both parties tell nobody of the exchange - it is generally considered illegal. However, the same banknotes in the same brown envelope can make the very same exchange and be quite legal if both parties account for the transaction properly in their financial records. Consultancy and brokarage are often legal forms of bribary and corruption. In otherwords, the legality is very often down to whether tax is being paid on the earnings.
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 16:15
MarkN wrote:
13 Aug 2019 15:47
Aida1 wrote:
13 Aug 2019 09:36
You cannot be 'bribed' to do wat you are supposed to do .....
On the contrary, when it comes to state employees, taking (illegal) payments to do the job you are already doing is the most prevalent form of corruption going.

Mind you, in some countries today, that form of corruption is considered a quite normal and acceptable way to enhance your earnings. In Serbia, for example, it has got so bad that a few months ago the government enacted a new law saying that doctors could accept bribes of up to €425 per patient per visit!!!!

It seems you and Duncan_M have different perceptions of where the line between corrupt and normal is drawn.
When your employer gives you an extra for doing your job well,we are talking about rewards.Cannot be compared to a citizen having to pay a civil servant extra for simply doing his job.Hitler as head of state could perfectly decide to keep his senior commanders happy by giving them perks.Had been done before.
Hitler was not the employer.
Hitler was not offering rewards that were his to give.
Of course, those two statements are based on a modern democratic understanding of society not one of autocratic dictatorship.
Hitler was head of state and commander in chief and could perfectly decide to give perks to his senior commanders.Fundamentally you cannot 'bribe'those that are your subordinates for doing their job.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”