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: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 06:51

MarkN wrote:
15 Aug 2019 21:01
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:17
There was nothing improper about giving him one as a reward for his victories.

There is nothing improper about giving stolen property to one of your acolytes? Really?
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:17
How the specific estate was obtained by the German government is another matter.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
A Victory to a victorious
Do you really expect amybody to take you seriously from now on?

The Nazi regime was morally and socially corrupt. Senior military officers of the Wehrmacht were morally and socially corrupt.
Your retoric betrays your bias which is the motivation for your bribery accusation.Giving an estate to a victorious commander has a long tradition in history.If the government steals the estate,that is a problem for the government .But the notion of giving as a reward an estate is not wrong.Given that most officers never got anything,you are massively overstating again.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 08:22

Duncan_M wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:55
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:07
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that an employer cannot bribe his own staff?Giving bonuses is the most normal thing in the world.
Why is it so difficult for you to provide a shred of proof to back up your opinion?

Provide a legit definition of bribery that supports your statement that one can't bribe an employee for the purposes of increased loyalty, to include committing war crimes, looking the other way on war crimes, etc.

You previously made claims that bribery had to be illegal, and I already provided legit definitions provided by others that stated it didn't. You dug deeper now, so you need to prove your opinion is correct, and not just more Clean Wehrmacht Myth.
You have not proved a thing.In order to prove bribery you need to prove that the recipient directly alters his behaviour.That is why campaign donations are not bribery.An indirect influencing is not enough.And German officers did not alter their behaviour,not even indirectly.Most never got anything and behaved exactly the same as those that did.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 08:31

Duncan_M wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:57
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:11
The oath never includes obeying illegal orders.It seems to me that after the war German officers could not invoke the oath to escape prosecution.
So when they obeyed illegal orders, that was just icing on the cake? Like when Guderian ruthlessly followed the Commissar Order?

They tried to invoke their loyalty to their oath as justification after the war during the trials. "I'm innocent! I was just obeying orders and my oath." It just wasn't accepted,as it was largely complete bullshit, especially by the senior officers. Those same officers claiming they had to obey their oath had previously violated two of them in their professional career.

Also noticed you completely dodged your previous claim that it was "unlawful" and "unconstitution" for those WW1 officers to defend their Kaiser during a revolution,which is absolutely absurd. You then claim when the Weimar Constitution was illegally abolished, because it was voted on, that made it constitutional for Reichswehr officers to not defend the Constitution. You're all over the place, making no sense. Which isn't surprising, since you're just regurgitating the Clean Wehrmacht Myth that has been absolutely destroyed.
I think you are all over the place.You are again ignoring that the Kaiser cannot order the army to overthrow the legal government of Germany.You continue ignoring that the enacting law ,being approved,by a twothirds majority of the Reichstag, allowed the government to change the constitution.which it did.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

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

Post by Peter89 » 16 Aug 2019 08:43

Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
MarkN wrote:
15 Aug 2019 21:01
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:17
There was nothing improper about giving him one as a reward for his victories.

There is nothing improper about giving stolen property to one of your acolytes? Really?
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:17
How the specific estate was obtained by the German government is another matter.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
A Victory to a victorious
Do you really expect amybody to take you seriously from now on?

The Nazi regime was morally and socially corrupt. Senior military officers of the Wehrmacht were morally and socially corrupt.
Your retoric betrays your bias which is the motivation for your bribery accusation.Giving an estate to a victorious commander has a long tradition in history.If the government steals the estate,that is a problem for the government .But the notion of giving as a reward an estate is not wrong.Given that most officers never got anything,you are massively overstating again.
Once again, I recommend you to read Norman Goda's book (2005): "Black Marks: Hitler's Bribery of his Senior Officers During World War II". You wouldn't write such nonsense:
Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
Given that most officers never got anything,you are massively overstating again.
Let me remind you of Konto 5:

EVERY Field Marshals and Grand Admirals received 48,000 RM yearly (their base salary was 26,000 RM), and EVERY Colonel Generals and General Admirals received 24,000 RM yearly (their base salary was 24,000 RM).

Furthermore, these tax-free (!!) moneys started to pour in 1933. So yes, this was related to the Nazi regime, not to the military achievements. Btw the Konto 5 fund raised from 150,000 RM in 1933 to 40,000,000 RM in 1945.

(For compraison: a combat-ready Panther tank costed 176,100 RM.)

And countless other remunerations were made to ensure their loyality, which destroys your "employer-employee" theory. It was obviously money of "dubious background": Hans Lammers warned a recipient not to talk about it, and keep as few written records as possible.

If your age or experience is not that much yet, I tell you something. If your employer says such a thing, you should either quit or sue immediately.

This bribery has a much wider consequence though. You don't respect he person whom you can bribe for nasty work. (Just think of the prostitutes.) No wonder Hitler could be less and less influenced by senior officiers. And no wonder they stood beside him up to his downfall.

Regarding the legal background, you lack the basic understanding of law, and constitutional law in particular.

There is an election held everywhere, even in North Korea. The last one was held in March this year, with a convincing result (almost 90% voted in favor of Kim Jong-un, with a 99.99% voter turnout). There were even multiple parties in East Germany and Poland during the communist era.

How do we know these systems are dictatures? What do we consider a constitutionally justifiable violence? What does a constitution defend? What is the legal basis of a military, a police, or any armed organizations?

What happens if the constitution is changed in a way that it no longer protects the rights stated in the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen?

An armed organization is not tasked with "serving the country", or "keeping the peace". It is tasked with defending the constitutional apparat. There are of course specific laws for the police and the military, but they cannot violate the constitution (see Constitutional Courts). And the constitution is the representing the citizens; minorities and minority opinions as well, even those who do no want to participate and will form a resistance.

If you are a military professional, and you see that a party in your state creates a private army (SS), and you do nothing, you have lost your legal basis to wield weapons.

If you have taken an oath to the Weimar constitution, and you see your country transformed into a one-party state, with suspended basic civil rights (Reichstag Fire Decree), there is no legal basis for your further actions.

If you see that the legislative power is in the PM's office alone (Enabling Law, March 23, 1933), the further laws are null and void as a legal basis for your actions.

Long story short, if you take a secret tax-free money from a government which acts against the principles of the constitution you swore to protect, a government which fields a private army, a government which kills its own citizens... then yes, you are an immoral jerk who is being bribed.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 09:05

Peter89 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 08:43
Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
MarkN wrote:
15 Aug 2019 21:01
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:17
There was nothing improper about giving him one as a reward for his victories.

There is nothing improper about giving stolen property to one of your acolytes? Really?
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:17
How the specific estate was obtained by the German government is another matter.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
A Victory to a victorious
Do you really expect amybody to take you seriously from now on?

The Nazi regime was morally and socially corrupt. Senior military officers of the Wehrmacht were morally and socially corrupt.
Your retoric betrays your bias which is the motivation for your bribery accusation.Giving an estate to a victorious commander has a long tradition in history.If the government steals the estate,that is a problem for the government .But the notion of giving as a reward an estate is not wrong.Given that most officers never got anything,you are massively overstating again.
Once again, I recommend you to read Norman Goda's book (2005): "Black Marks: Hitler's Bribery of his Senior Officers During World War II". You wouldn't write such nonsense:
Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
Given that most officers never got anything,you are massively overstating again.
Let me remind you of Konto 5:

EVERY Field Marshals and Grand Admirals received 48,000 RM yearly (their base salary was 26,000 RM), and EVERY Colonel Generals and General Admirals received 24,000 RM yearly (their base salary was 24,000 RM).

Furthermore, these tax-free (!!) moneys started to pour in 1933. So yes, this was related to the Nazi regime, not to the military achievements. Btw the Konto 5 fund raised from 150,000 RM in 1933 to 40,000,000 RM in 1945.

(For compraison: a combat-ready Panther tank costed 176,100 RM.)

And countless other remunerations were made to ensure their loyality, which destroys your "employer-employee" theory. It was obviously money of "dubious background": Hans Lammers warned a recipient not to talk about it, and keep as few written records as possible.

If your age or experience is not that much yet, I tell you something. If your employer says such a thing, you should either quit or sue immediately.

This bribery has a much wider consequence though. You don't respect he person whom you can bribe for nasty work. (Just think of the prostitutes.) No wonder Hitler could be less and less influenced by senior officiers. And no wonder they stood beside him up to his downfall.

Regarding the legal background, you lack the basic understanding of law, and constitutional law in particular.

There is an election held everywhere, even in North Korea. The last one was held in March this year, with a convincing result (almost 90% voted in favor of Kim Jong-un, with a 99.99% voter turnout). There were even multiple parties in East Germany and Poland during the communist era.

How do we know these systems are dictatures? What do we consider a constitutionally justifiable violence? What does a constitution defend? What is the legal basis of a military, a police, or any armed organizations?

What happens if the constitution is changed in a way that it no longer protects the rights stated in the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen?

An armed organization is not tasked with "serving the country", or "keeping the peace". It is tasked with defending the constitutional apparat. There are of course specific laws for the police and the military, but they cannot violate the constitution (see Constitutional Courts). And the constitution is the representing the citizens; minorities and minority opinions as well, even those who do no want to participate and will form a resistance.

If you are a military professional, and you see that a party in your state creates a private army (SS), and you do nothing, you have lost your legal basis to wield weapons.

If you have taken an oath to the Weimar constitution, and you see your country transformed into a one-party state, with suspended basic civil rights (Reichstag Fire Decree), there is no legal basis for your further actions.

If you see that the legislative power is in the PM's office alone (Enabling Law, March 23, 1933), the further laws are null and void as a legal basis for your actions.

Long story short, if you take a secret tax-free money from a government which acts against the principles of the constitution you swore to protect, a government which fields a private army, a government which kills its own citizens... then yes, you are an immoral jerk who is being bribed.
You are conveniently ignoring what the meaning of the word 'bribery' is.None of the monies given to senior people fall under that definition.And Hitler came to power and became head of state perfectly legally so no officer had a duty to act against him.None of them would have done so with or without bonuses which most of them never got anyway.
You clearly have strange opinions about what armies are supposed to do.They do generally not Intervene in politics and if they it do it is mostly not in the Sense you would like .
Last edited by Aida1 on 16 Aug 2019 11:58, edited 1 time in total.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 16 Aug 2019 10:14

Duncan_M wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:55
Aida1 wrote:
15 Aug 2019 20:07
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that an employer cannot bribe his own staff?Giving bonuses is the most normal thing in the world.
Why is it so difficult for you to provide a shred of proof to back up your opinion?

Provide a legit definition of bribery that supports your statement that one can't bribe an employee for the purposes of increased loyalty, to include committing war crimes, looking the other way on war crimes, etc.

You previously made claims that bribery had to be illegal, and I already provided legit definitions provided by others that stated it didn't. You dug deeper now, so you need to prove your opinion is correct, and not just more Clean Wehrmacht Myth.
Unless I have missed something, you only provided five definitions :-
Bribery: persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.
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
Bribe: persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

The last of which is a repetition of the first, and only one of which does not link bribery to illegality.
I think that rather than others being required to prove that “one can't bribe an employee for the purposes of increased loyalty”, it is for you to prove that the loyalty bonus payments being discussed were illegal, and hence bribes.


Peter89 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 08:43
Once again, I recommend you to read Norman Goda's book (2005): "Black Marks: Hitler's Bribery of his Senior Officers During World War II". You wouldn't write such nonsense:
Let me remind you of Konto 5:

EVERY Field Marshals and Grand Admirals received 48,000 RM yearly (their base salary was 26,000 RM), and EVERY Colonel Generals and General Admirals received 24,000 RM yearly (their base salary was 24,000 RM).

Furthermore, these tax-free (!!) moneys started to pour in 1933. So yes, this was related to the Nazi regime, not to the military achievements. Btw the Konto 5 fund raised from 150,000 RM in 1933 to 40,000,000 RM in 1945.

....

Regarding the legal background, you lack the basic understanding of law, and constitutional law in particular.
I’m sure a book with a subtitle of Hitler's Bribery of his Senior Officers ...
is more marketable than one subtitled, Hitler’s Surreptitious Loyalty Payments to his Senior Officers ...
But was the Konto 5 fund illegal? No. (In those days pretty much anything a dictatorial regime did within its own borders would have been, by definition and under the prevailing constitution, legal.)
Were the recipients of the payments (immoral jerks or not) under any apprehension that they could be subject to prosecution for accepting the money? No.
Were the payments linked to any specific actions that they were expected to take that would not have been expected of them in the normal execution of their duties? In general no, though Goda may have cited some specific exceptions.
Were the payments made to cause any general or admiral to think twice before doing anything that the regime may deem to be disloyal? Of course.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7693
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 16 Aug 2019 10:42

Hi Maxpayload,

You post that only one of the five definitions you offer ".....does not link bribery to illegality."

However, if you read them again, you will see that none of them say that "bribery" is always, by definition, illegal. If I offer you a Mars Bar to edit your previous post, I would not be acting illegally in offering you the bribe, nor you acting illegally in accepting it. Yet a bribe it would be.

Personally I would describe these payments as inducements to conformity rather than bribes. In my mind a bribe is offered in return for a specific reciprocal action, which does not seem to apply in this case. Hitler was trying to bolster loyalty and conformity he might have had reason to expect anyway.

I would be interested to know if such "inducements" existed under the previous Weimar regime.

If not, one has to wonder why Hitler found them necessary under Nazism? Was he less certain of the Army's loyalty than the Weimar politicians had been?

And why did he think German generals were manipulatable in this way? Did he think they more influenceable through the expenditure of public money and property than the senior officers of many other modern countries not eligible for such goodies? Successful British generals seemed content with post facto titles (i.e. Viscount Montgomery). US generals seem to have got no more than their normal pay and pension.

It strikes me that Hitler was over insuring himself with these payments, because I rather doubt many, or even any, German officers would have acted differently without them.

Another question is who suggested them? Do we know?

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 16 Aug 2019 10:47, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 16 Aug 2019 10:47

Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
Your retoric betrays your bias which is the motivation for your bribery accusation.
Clearly it doesn't as l haven't made a bribery accusation. Still, it's good to see that you are taking the time and effort to read and understand what others are saying and not just automatically defending te indefensible.... :roll:
Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
Giving an estate to a victorious commander has a long tradition in history.If the government steals the estate,that is a problem for the government .But the notion of giving as a reward an estate is not wrong.Given that most officers never got anything,you are massively overstating again.
The estate given to Guderian was stolen specifically to give to him. It was the plot of land that he had gone out and demanded as payment.

You really are tedious with your efforts to defend the morally and socially corrupt.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 16 Aug 2019 11:50

Sid Guttridge wrote:
16 Aug 2019 10:42
Personally I would describe these payments as inducements to conformity rather than bribes. In my mind a bribe is offered in return for a specific reciprocal action, which does not seem to apply in this case. Hitler was trying to bolster loyalty and conformity he might have had reason to expect anyway.
I would concur broadly with that. Though a financial inducement might also be considered as something ‘offered in return for a reciprocal action’. Perhaps we could agree on, ‘Financial incentives to loyalty and conformity’?

Sid Guttridge wrote:
16 Aug 2019 10:42
It strikes me that Hitler was over insuring himself with these payments, because I rather doubt many, or even any, German officers would have acted differently without them.
Which tends to underscore that they were not bribes.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

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

Post by Peter89 » 16 Aug 2019 12:01

Sid Guttridge wrote:
16 Aug 2019 10:42
Hi Maxpayload,

You post that only one of the five definitions you offer ".....does not link bribery to illegality."

However, if you read them again, you will see that none of them say that "bribery" is always, by definition, illegal. If I offer you a Mars Bar to edit your previous post, I would not be acting illegally in offering you the bribe, nor you acting illegally in accepting it. Yet a bribe it would be.

Personally I would describe these payments as inducements to conformity rather than bribes. In my mind a bribe is offered in return for a specific reciprocal action, which does not seem to apply in this case. Hitler was trying to bolster loyalty and conformity he might have had reason to expect anyway.

I would be interested to know if such "inducements" existed under the previous Weimar regime.

If not, one has to wonder why Hitler found them necessary under Nazism? Was he less certain of the Army's loyalty than the Weimar politicians had been?

And why did he think German generals were manipulatable in this way? Did he think they more influenceable through the expenditure of public money and property than the senior officers of many other modern countries not eligible for such goodies? Successful British generals seemed content with post facto titles (i.e. Viscount Montgomery). US generals seem to have got no more than their normal pay and pension.

It strikes me that Hitler was over insuring himself with these payments, because I rather doubt many, or even any, German officers would have acted differently without them.

Another question is who suggested them? Do we know?

Cheers,

Sid.
Hitler built up a system that was designed to demand loyality to his person. He brought down every independent and autonomous organizations and institutions, which is, by the way, against the very nature of German traditions (the German culture prize autonomy and independence).

The military leadership was one of those organizations, a Prussian-dominated, cca 300 years old social class with family ties, traditions, etc. And Hitler needed their cooperation more than any other social class' cooperation.

Therefore, he instituted a "party army" full loyal to himself (SS), and filled up the ranks of new army branches with his men (most notably the Luftwaffe, but also the U-Boats and Panzers to some degree), and named Rommel (a swäbisch) his personal bodyguard.

The Nazi regime did everything to subjugate the staff. Just recall the Blomberg-Fritsch affair, which led to the appointments of many Nazi loyalists.

So indeed Hitler thought it is necessary to keep the senior staff in his pocket, because they contradicted him a lot. The Anglo-Saxon staffs' interests aligned with their respective empires, and the Soviet commanders had their own story.

A specific thing was required of them to do: give up their independency and obey the Führer unconditionally. We can follow this through a lot of cases.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 12:03

Sid Guttridge wrote:
16 Aug 2019 10:42
Hi Maxpayload,

You post that only one of the five definitions you offer ".....does not link bribery to illegality."

However, if you read them again, you will see that none of them say that "bribery" is always, by definition, illegal. If I offer you a Mars Bar to edit your previous post, I would not be acting illegally in offering you the bribe, nor you acting illegally in accepting it. Yet a bribe it would be.

Personally I would describe these payments as inducements to conformity rather than bribes. In my mind a bribe is offered in return for a specific reciprocal action, which does not seem to apply in this case. Hitler was trying to bolster loyalty and conformity he might have had reason to expect anyway.

I would be interested to know if such "inducements" existed under the previous Weimar regime.

If not, one has to wonder why Hitler found them necessary under Nazism? Was he less certain of the Army's loyalty than the Weimar politicians had been?

And why did he think German generals were manipulatable in this way? Did he think they more influenceable through the expenditure of public money and property than the senior officers of many other modern countries not eligible for such goodies? Successful British generals seemed content with post facto titles (i.e. Viscount Montgomery). US generals seem to have got no more than their normal pay and pension.

It strikes me that Hitler was over insuring himself with these payments, because I rather doubt many, or even any, German officers would have acted differently without them.

Another question is who suggested them? Do we know?

Cheers,

Sid.
This is very true.Hitler wanted to keep the army happy which was not even necessary as one cannot see senior officers that got bonuses having acted differently without them.It certainly did not not prevent them from strong disagreements with Hitler and getting fired.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 12:10

Peter89 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 12:01
Sid Guttridge wrote:
16 Aug 2019 10:42
Hi Maxpayload,

You post that only one of the five definitions you offer ".....does not link bribery to illegality."

However, if you read them again, you will see that none of them say that "bribery" is always, by definition, illegal. If I offer you a Mars Bar to edit your previous post, I would not be acting illegally in offering you the bribe, nor you acting illegally in accepting it. Yet a bribe it would be.

Personally I would describe these payments as inducements to conformity rather than bribes. In my mind a bribe is offered in return for a specific reciprocal action, which does not seem to apply in this case. Hitler was trying to bolster loyalty and conformity he might have had reason to expect anyway.

I would be interested to know if such "inducements" existed under the previous Weimar regime.

If not, one has to wonder why Hitler found them necessary under Nazism? Was he less certain of the Army's loyalty than the Weimar politicians had been?

And why did he think German generals were manipulatable in this way? Did he think they more influenceable through the expenditure of public money and property than the senior officers of many other modern countries not eligible for such goodies? Successful British generals seemed content with post facto titles (i.e. Viscount Montgomery). US generals seem to have got no more than their normal pay and pension.

It strikes me that Hitler was over insuring himself with these payments, because I rather doubt many, or even any, German officers would have acted differently without them.

Another question is who suggested them? Do we know?

Cheers,

Sid.
Hitler built up a system that was designed to demand loyality to his person. He brought down every independent and autonomous organizations and institutions, which is, by the way, against the very nature of German traditions (the German culture prize autonomy and independence).

The military leadership was one of those organizations, a Prussian-dominated, cca 300 years old social class with family ties, traditions, etc. And Hitler needed their cooperation more than any other social class' cooperation.

Therefore, he instituted a "party army" full loyal to himself (SS), and filled up the ranks of new army branches with his men (most notably the Luftwaffe, but also the U-Boats and Panzers to some degree), and named Rommel (a swäbisch) his personal bodyguard.

The Nazi regime did everything to subjugate the staff. Just recall the Blomberg-Fritsch affair, which led to the appointments of many Nazi loyalists.

So indeed Hitler thought it is necessary to keep the senior staff in his pocket, because they contradicted him a lot. The Anglo-Saxon staffs' interests aligned with their respective empires, and the Soviet commanders had their own story.

A specific thing was required of them to do: give up their independency and obey the Führer unconditionally. We can follow this through a lot of cases.
You are massively overstating and contradicting yourself.Why would Hitler need to remove officers if he could buy them.And even these that got payments from him,still disagreed with him.
The truth is that Hitler did not need to buy the loyalty of officers and even the money that he gave did not stop them from voicing their opinions.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10532
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 16 Aug 2019 12:12

Napoleon tried to ensure the loyalty of his generals by giving them titles as Prince, Duke , etc and by giving them money .This was bribery and it failed . After Waterloo they abandoned him, but not his money, while hen said that they were responsible for his defeats and that they were morally very low : He said : Massena a bien volé= Massena is a big thief .
Hitler did the same: money, but no titles . And after the capitulation the generals abandoned him by saying : HE only is responsible for Auschwitz, we were not involved,and he is responsible for the defeat ( see the lies from Halder ) . But Adolf's money ? that was of course not abandoned .
If Hitler had survived the war,he would have done as Napoleon = blaming the generals for the defeat .
Morality : there is no honour in the mob .
Massena was a thief, Guderian also .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 12:15

MarkN wrote:
16 Aug 2019 10:47
Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
Your retoric betrays your bias which is the motivation for your bribery accusation.
Clearly it doesn't as l haven't made a bribery accusation. Still, it's good to see that you are taking the time and effort to read and understand what others are saying and not just automatically defending te indefensible.... :roll:
Aida1 wrote:
16 Aug 2019 06:51
Giving an estate to a victorious commander has a long tradition in history.If the government steals the estate,that is a problem for the government .But the notion of giving as a reward an estate is not wrong.Given that most officers never got anything,you are massively overstating again.
The estate given to Guderian was stolen specifically to give to him. It was the plot of land that he had gone out and demanded as payment.

You really are tedious with your efforts to defend the morally and socially corrupt.
There was no bribery as has been clearly proven.And Guderian merited his reward.How the government decided to procure the reward is the responsability of the government.I have no problem with the principle of giving him land.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 16 Aug 2019 12:21

ljadw wrote:
16 Aug 2019 12:12
Napoleon tried to ensure the loyalty of his generals by giving them titles as Prince, Duke , etc and by giving them money .This was bribery and it failed . After Waterloo they abandoned him, but not his money, while hen said that they were responsible for his defeats and that they were morally very low : He said : Massena a bien volé= Massena is a big thief .
Hitler did the same: money, but no titles . And after the capitulation the generals abandoned him by saying : HE only is responsible for Auschwitz, we were not involved,and he is responsible for the defeat ( see the lies from Halder ) . But Adolf's money ? that was of course not abandoned .
If Hitler had survived the war,he would have done as Napoleon = blaming the generals for the defeat .
Morality : there is no honour in the mob .
Massena was a thief, Guderian also .
That is historical nonsense.Napoleon did not bribe his officers.He rewarded them.And it is a serious overstatement that they all abandoned him.Receiving a reward for victories on the battlefield does not require unconditional loyalty anyway. And German officers getting rewards does not require them to agree with Hitler on military matters.They can perfectly disagree with him during and after the war.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”