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

[ljadw]

After the campaign in the West, Hitler said the following to his army adjudant,Engel :
Einem General werde blinder Gehorsam leichter fallen," wen er entsprechende Ehrungen durch den Staatsführer erhalten hat und sich diesem dadurch verpflichtet fühlen muss . ''
Unconditional obedience will be easier for a general,when he will have received honours from the head of state and thus must feel obliged to him .
Source : Der Spiegel .
Hitler gambled that he could ensure obedience and fidelity by giving money . If he had looked to Napoleon,and farther in the past , he would have known that this did not and would not happen .

You are again making blanket accusations against Napoleons commanders which are historically incorrect.Hitler certainly did not succeed in making his generals blindly obedient to him .They mostly kept loyal but without giving up the right to disagree in military matters.

When Napoleon escaped from Elba, Ney received the order from Louis XVIII to take him prisonner, but he joined Napoleon and after Waterloo he was court-martialed and shot .
Reaction from Napoleon who was writing his memoirs at St Helene : Ney got what he deserved : he was immoral and stupid .

So you admit Ney was loyal and he was not the only one.

NO : in 1814 Ney abandoned Napoleon and did swear obedience to the King . A year later, he abandoned the King and rejoined Napoleon .

[MarkN]

Seems to me Hitler decided to invade the SU,not Guderian.And Guderian will generally get a more favourable judgment than yours.

I see again you quote another poster followed by an agenda-laden comment that is barely tangental...

[Aida1]

After the campaign in the West, Hitler said the following to his army adjudant,Engel :
Einem General werde blinder Gehorsam leichter fallen," wen er entsprechende Ehrungen durch den Staatsführer erhalten hat und sich diesem dadurch verpflichtet fühlen muss . ''
Unconditional obedience will be easier for a general,when he will have received honours from the head of state and thus must feel obliged to him .
Source : Der Spiegel .
Hitler gambled that he could ensure obedience and fidelity by giving money . If he had looked to Napoleon,and farther in the past , he would have known that this did not and would not happen .

You are again making blanket accusations against Napoleons commanders which are historically incorrect.Hitler certainly did not succeed in making his generals blindly obedient to him .They mostly kept loyal but without giving up the right to disagree in military matters.

When Napoleon escaped from Elba, Ney received the order from Louis XVIII to take him prisonner, but he joined Napoleon and after Waterloo he was court-martialed and shot .
Reaction from Napoleon who was writing his memoirs at St Helene : Ney got what he deserved : he was immoral and stupid .

So you admit Ney was loyal and he was not the only one.

NO : in 1814 Ney abandoned Napoleon and did swear obedience to the King . A year later, he abandoned the King and rejoined Napoleon .

Napoleon had abdicated so he could swear allegiance to the new head of state without being disloyal.It was to the King he was disloyal and paid with his life.

[Duncan_M]

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.

So your way of show casing that bribery needs to include illegal payments is to repost a definition that says it doesn't need to be?

If you say that the sky is blue, and I can provide proof its occasionally black, I don't need to then provide proof its never blue. This method of debate is maddening, but since we're discussing the German general officers of WW2, who themselves lived outside of reality, I guess its appropriate and can be seen as an effective method, similar to how the Heer officer corps acted in WW2.

[Max Payload]

So your way of show casing that bribery needs to include illegal payments is to repost a definition that says it doesn't need to be?

1. persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally
2. Bribery constitutes a crime
3. The crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally
Your posted definitions.

4. Money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.
No illegality in this definition but requires the breaking of trust, so in the absence of illegality, bribery must involve an injured third party. Sid’s Mars Bar example (post #1057) is at best ambiguous. If the edit he wants me to make is the insertion of a punctuation mark that should have been there in the first place, that is simply a transactional arrangement between two parties. If, on the other hand, he wants me to edit the post in order to deliberately deceive or mislead other forum members thereby acting in contravention of forum rules, something that I would not normally do or want to do, but for the enticing consideration of a Mars Bar I was prepared to do, I guess that would constitute a bribe.
Getting back to the generals and Konto 5 - Where was the illegality? Where was the breaking of trust? Where was the injured third party? Absent, hence no bribery.
It could be argued that these payments don’t even rise to the level of a transactional arrangement between two parties, at least not one that involved any quid pro quo because, so far as I can see, no specific action was required of the generals in exchange for the payments.

[Duncan_M]

So your way of show casing that bribery needs to include illegal payments is to repost a definition that says it doesn't need to be?

1. persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally
2. Bribery constitutes a crime
3. The crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally
Your posted definitions.

4. Money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.
No illegality in this definition but requires the breaking of trust, so in the absence of illegality, bribery must involve an injured third party. Sid’s Mars Bar example (post #1057) is at best ambiguous. If the edit he wants me to make is the insertion of a punctuation mark that should have been there in the first place, that is simply a transactional arrangement between two parties. If, on the other hand, he wants me to edit the post in order to deliberately deceive or mislead other forum members thereby acting in contravention of forum rules, something that I would not normally do or want to do, but for the enticing consideration of a Mars Bar I was prepared to do, I guess that would constitute a bribe.
Getting back to the generals and Konto 5 - Where was the illegality? Where was the breaking of trust? Where was the injured third party? Absent, hence no bribery.

Again you provided a definition that says "often illegally" which means not always.

It could be argued that these payments don’t even rise to the level of a transactional arrangement between two parties, at least not one that involved any quid pro quo because, so far as I can see, no specific action was required of the generals in exchange for the payments.

You're kidding right? You don't see a connection between gigantic "gifts" far beyond anything normal, and steadfast loyalty to Hitler for the duration of the war?

Do you understand the power of money and what it does?

For instance, Guderian gets RM 1.25 million in cash (equivalent to 50 years salary at his rank), he gets an estate worth RM 1.24 million. But what does that even mean in 2019?

RM 1.25 million in early 1940s was equal to USD 500,000 at the time, which in today's inflation equals USD 7.4 million. That is just that one time cash payout, not all of them given out before or after. The estate he was given, at the time valued at RM 1.5 million, was equal to USD 600,000 at the time, which means USD 8.9 million in today's dollars.

Where I come from, even where you come from, that is called "Fuck You Money." It buys someone a life where they and their family never want for nothing, ever again. It means servants to do EVERYTHING, with so much money that even your servants get their own servants.

And it wasn't based on performance (given to Guderian after he'd been relieved for cause). It was based on what? What motive could Hitler have had for giving him that "gift"? We're not talking about a watch or a car, we're talking about turning someone who already made a pretty damn fine living into someone who is now RICH.

But we're all idiots that are supposed to believe that the individuals who carelessly disobeyed previous oaths to C-in-C and constitutions in the past stayed loyal to Hitler because of that oath? Or that they directly committed war crimes or assisted in crimes that were in gross violation of not only existing rules of war that Germany was a signatory of, but also basic morality, because of their high honor? Or that they remained in Hitler's inner circle, many of these individuals (like Guderian) rising and rising and rising throughout the war and yet in your mind it had absolutely nothing to do with being made rich well beyond their wildest dreams?

Its absolutely blatant they were bribed to remain loyal. Blatant.

[Aida1]

So your way of show casing that bribery needs to include illegal payments is to repost a definition that says it doesn't need to be?

1. persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally
2. Bribery constitutes a crime
3. The crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally
Your posted definitions.

4. Money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.
No illegality in this definition but requires the breaking of trust, so in the absence of illegality, bribery must involve an injured third party. Sid’s Mars Bar example (post #1057) is at best ambiguous. If the edit he wants me to make is the insertion of a punctuation mark that should have been there in the first place, that is simply a transactional arrangement between two parties. If, on the other hand, he wants me to edit the post in order to deliberately deceive or mislead other forum members thereby acting in contravention of forum rules, something that I would not normally do or want to do, but for the enticing consideration of a Mars Bar I was prepared to do, I guess that would constitute a bribe.
Getting back to the generals and Konto 5 - Where was the illegality? Where was the breaking of trust? Where was the injured third party? Absent, hence no bribery.

Again you provided a definition that says "often illegally" which means not always.

It could be argued that these payments don’t even rise to the level of a transactional arrangement between two parties, at least not one that involved any quid pro quo because, so far as I can see, no specific action was required of the generals in exchange for the payments.

You're kidding right? You don't see a connection between gigantic "gifts" far beyond anything normal, and steadfast loyalty to Hitler for the duration of the war?

Do you understand the power of money and what it does?

For instance, Guderian gets RM 1.25 million in cash (equivalent to 50 years salary at his rank), he gets an estate worth RM 1.24 million. But what does that even mean in 2019?

RM 1.25 million in early 1940s was equal to USD 500,000 at the time, which in today's inflation equals USD 7.4 million. That is just that one time cash payout, not all of them given out before or after. The estate he was given, at the time valued at RM 1.5 million, was equal to USD 600,000 at the time, which means USD 8.9 million in today's dollars.

Where I come from, even where you come from, that is called "Fuck You Money." It buys someone a life where they and their family never want for nothing, ever again. It means servants to do EVERYTHING, with so much money that even your servants get their own servants.

And it wasn't based on performance (given to Guderian after he'd been relieved for cause). It was based on what? What motive could Hitler have had for giving him that "gift"? We're not talking about a watch or a car, we're talking about turning someone who already made a pretty damn fine living into someone who is now RICH.

But we're all idiots that are supposed to believe that the individuals who carelessly disobeyed previous oaths to C-in-C and constitutions in the past stayed loyal to Hitler because of that oath? Or that they directly committed war crimes or assisted in crimes that were in gross violation of not only existing rules of war that Germany was a signatory of, but also basic morality, because of their high honor? Or that they remained in Hitler's inner circle, many of these individuals (like Guderian) rising and rising and rising throughout the war and yet in your mind it had absolutely nothing to do with being made rich well beyond their wildest dreams?

Its absolutely blatant they were bribed to remain loyal. Blatant.

You are continuing to ignore the blatant fact that most German officers never received anything and still remained loyal to the oath.And those senior ones that did receive bonuses would not have had a different attitude without these.Certainly did not prevent them from strong disagreements with Hitler.The allegations about socalled disloyalty to the Kaiser and the Weimar constitution have been refuted before.

[Duncan_M]

So your way of show casing that bribery needs to include illegal payments is to repost a definition that says it doesn't need to be?

1. persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally
2. Bribery constitutes a crime
3. The crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally
Your posted definitions.

4. Money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.
No illegality in this definition but requires the breaking of trust, so in the absence of illegality, bribery must involve an injured third party. Sid’s Mars Bar example (post #1057) is at best ambiguous. If the edit he wants me to make is the insertion of a punctuation mark that should have been there in the first place, that is simply a transactional arrangement between two parties. If, on the other hand, he wants me to edit the post in order to deliberately deceive or mislead other forum members thereby acting in contravention of forum rules, something that I would not normally do or want to do, but for the enticing consideration of a Mars Bar I was prepared to do, I guess that would constitute a bribe.
Getting back to the generals and Konto 5 - Where was the illegality? Where was the breaking of trust? Where was the injured third party? Absent, hence no bribery.

Again you provided a definition that says "often illegally" which means not always.

It could be argued that these payments don’t even rise to the level of a transactional arrangement between two parties, at least not one that involved any quid pro quo because, so far as I can see, no specific action was required of the generals in exchange for the payments.

You're kidding right? You don't see a connection between gigantic "gifts" far beyond anything normal, and steadfast loyalty to Hitler for the duration of the war?

Do you understand the power of money and what it does?

For instance, Guderian gets RM 1.25 million in cash (equivalent to 50 years salary at his rank), he gets an estate worth RM 1.24 million. But what does that even mean in 2019?

RM 1.25 million in early 1940s was equal to USD 500,000 at the time, which in today's inflation equals USD 7.4 million. That is just that one time cash payout, not all of them given out before or after. The estate he was given, at the time valued at RM 1.5 million, was equal to USD 600,000 at the time, which means USD 8.9 million in today's dollars.

Where I come from, even where you come from, that is called "Fuck You Money." It buys someone a life where they and their family never want for nothing, ever again. It means servants to do EVERYTHING, with so much money that even your servants get their own servants.

And it wasn't based on performance (given to Guderian after he'd been relieved for cause). It was based on what? What motive could Hitler have had for giving him that "gift"? We're not talking about a watch or a car, we're talking about turning someone who already made a pretty damn fine living into someone who is now RICH.

But we're all idiots that are supposed to believe that the individuals who carelessly disobeyed previous oaths to C-in-C and constitutions in the past stayed loyal to Hitler because of that oath? Or that they directly committed war crimes or assisted in crimes that were in gross violation of not only existing rules of war that Germany was a signatory of, but also basic morality, because of their high honor? Or that they remained in Hitler's inner circle, many of these individuals (like Guderian) rising and rising and rising throughout the war and yet in your mind it had absolutely nothing to do with being made rich well beyond their wildest dreams?

Its absolutely blatant they were bribed to remain loyal. Blatant.

You are continuing to ignore the blatant fact that most German officers never received anything and still remained loyal to the oath.And those senior ones that did receive bonuses would not have had a different attitude without these.Certainly did not prevent them from strong disagreements with Hitler.The allegations about socalled disloyalty to the Kaiser and the Weimar constitution have been refuted before.

You're General G, lossov, steinmetz, guss, berlichingen. All banned from AHF. I didn't ignore that.

[AbollonPolweder]

Peter89 (post # 1054) and Duncan_M (post # 1086). Gentlemen! I enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you very much!

...
You are continuing to ignore the blatant fact that most German officers never received anything and still remained loyal to the oath.And those senior ones that did receive bonuses would not have had a different attitude without these.Certainly did not prevent them from strong disagreements with Hitler.The allegations about socalled disloyalty to the Kaiser and the Weimar constitution have been refuted before.

If all the recipients of Konto 5, as you have repeatedly stated, were ready to fulfill their duties without secret rewards, then why did Hitler pay them? And why did field marshals and generals take this "secret" money? And why were they secret?
Was Hitler and his generals idiots? Did Germany have a huge excess of money? Guderian’s money alone was enough to make a battalion of tanks Pz IV or more than 50 Messerschmitts Bf. 109. But why do "idiots" need tanks and planes if they receive secret rewards and remain loyal to Hitler? Although they would have been loyal to him without any secret payments. And they could build hundreds of tanks and planes, and, for example, win some Battle of Kursk.

[doogal]

Aida 1 wrote - You are continuing to ignore the blatant fact that most German officers never received anything and still remained loyal to the oath.And those senior ones that did receive bonuses would not have had a different attitude without these.Certainly did not prevent them from strong disagreements with Hitler.The allegations about socalled disloyalty to the Kaiser and the Weimar constitution have been refuted before.

I think these payments say more about Hitler and his opinion, concerning the loyalty of senior officers.
That these same officers accepted these "gifts" is hardly surprising. And without doubt they would have continued to operate without such "gifts" but it shows that even after Hitler became supreme commander he still had concerns over the loyalty of the army command .

[AbollonPolweder]

...
And without doubt they would have continued to operate without such "gifts" ...

You can operate in different ways. But there is one pattern: the greater the incentive, the stronger the desire to "operate" energetically, without going into subtleties, how legal your "operations" are.

[Duncan_M]

And without doubt they would have continued to operate without such "gifts"

How do we know that? How is it there is no doubt?

[Aida1]

And without doubt they would have continued to operate without such "gifts"

How do we know that? How is it there is no doubt?

Because all the others did almost to the end.There is no reason why the most senior commanders would have been less loyal.

[Paul Lakowski]

How did the officer corps react to Walkyrie ?

[Duncan_M]

How did the officer corps react to Walkyrie ?

Angry and demanded vengeance against the plotters (honor court was led by Guderian). Happy to swear allegiance directly to Hitler and start doing the Nazi arm salute.