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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

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

Post by Duncan_M » 05 Aug 2019 19:45

Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 06:40
Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 05:29
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 20:44
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 19:50
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:34

You are inverting the argument.You would be hard put to come up with proof of your statement that German commanders backed out or only continued after being bribed. And the long list of German commanders sacked by Hitler is part of Well established history of WW2.
Dr. Robert Citino has a lot of thoughts on that:

https://www.amazon.com/Wehrmachts-Last- ... 0700624945
Or: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UI72BLrwqR0

Or Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery ... t_officers

Also, please read my comments above.

Now please support your statement that German officiers had no need of rewards to serve.
Awards to commanders to do the jobs they are supposed to do are never bribes.A bonus given to a manager in a Company is not a bribe either.They are rewards.There is a historical tradition for awarding military commanders rewards for services rendered.That goes back very far in human history.Hitler did not do anything original there.Professional soldiers who are not mercenaries do not need to be given money to make them loyal.And An award given after a commander is sacked would certainly not be very useful if that would be the intent.

Obviously you didn't care to read / hear any of my sources.
In late June-early July 1941 Leeb, as the commander of Army Group North, had witnessed first-hand the massacres committed by the Einsatzgruppen, Lithuanian auxiliaries, and the men of the 16th Army, outside Kaunas.[34] As a Roman Catholic, Leeb was described as being "moderately disturbed" after seeing the killing fields, and sent in mildly critical reports about the massacres.[34] Leeb approved of the killing of Lithuanian Jewish men, claiming that this was justified by the crimes that they were supposed to have committed during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania; but the killing of women and children might have been taking things too far.[35] In response, Hitler's aide General Rudolf Schmundt told Leeb that he was completely out of line for criticizing the massacres at Kaunas, and should co-operate fully with the SS in "special tasks" in future.[34]

Schmundt asked if Leeb really appreciated his monthly payments from Konto 5, and reminded him that his birthday was coming up in September; the Führer was planning to give him a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque as a present to reward his loyalty. Leeb never said a word in protest of the "Final Solution" again, and duly received a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque in September 1941.[36]
It wasn't a bonus. It was the price of their servitude for nazism.
Wrong..Professional soldiers served their country under different political regimes.The older ones had served under the Kaiser,the Weimar Republic and the Thiird Reich.They are loyal to their country,not a particular political system.They did take their oath seriously.Nothing you wrote here contradicts that.You are simply interpreting and making connections that do not exist.Rewards do not become bribes solely when German officers get them.
Which oath? When we're talking about senior Heer officers in WW2, they took three different oaths in their military career. The first was to the Kaiser, who they allowed to be overthrown. The second was to the Weimar Republic, which they allowed to be overthrown. So third time the charm?

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1330
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 05 Aug 2019 20:13

Duncan_M wrote:
05 Aug 2019 19:45
Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 06:40
Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 05:29
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 20:44
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 19:50


Dr. Robert Citino has a lot of thoughts on that:

https://www.amazon.com/Wehrmachts-Last- ... 0700624945
Or: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UI72BLrwqR0

Or Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery ... t_officers

Also, please read my comments above.

Now please support your statement that German officiers had no need of rewards to serve.
Awards to commanders to do the jobs they are supposed to do are never bribes.A bonus given to a manager in a Company is not a bribe either.They are rewards.There is a historical tradition for awarding military commanders rewards for services rendered.That goes back very far in human history.Hitler did not do anything original there.Professional soldiers who are not mercenaries do not need to be given money to make them loyal.And An award given after a commander is sacked would certainly not be very useful if that would be the intent.

Obviously you didn't care to read / hear any of my sources.
In late June-early July 1941 Leeb, as the commander of Army Group North, had witnessed first-hand the massacres committed by the Einsatzgruppen, Lithuanian auxiliaries, and the men of the 16th Army, outside Kaunas.[34] As a Roman Catholic, Leeb was described as being "moderately disturbed" after seeing the killing fields, and sent in mildly critical reports about the massacres.[34] Leeb approved of the killing of Lithuanian Jewish men, claiming that this was justified by the crimes that they were supposed to have committed during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania; but the killing of women and children might have been taking things too far.[35] In response, Hitler's aide General Rudolf Schmundt told Leeb that he was completely out of line for criticizing the massacres at Kaunas, and should co-operate fully with the SS in "special tasks" in future.[34]

Schmundt asked if Leeb really appreciated his monthly payments from Konto 5, and reminded him that his birthday was coming up in September; the Führer was planning to give him a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque as a present to reward his loyalty. Leeb never said a word in protest of the "Final Solution" again, and duly received a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque in September 1941.[36]
It wasn't a bonus. It was the price of their servitude for nazism.
Wrong..Professional soldiers served their country under different political regimes.The older ones had served under the Kaiser,the Weimar Republic and the Thiird Reich.They are loyal to their country,not a particular political system.They did take their oath seriously.Nothing you wrote here contradicts that.You are simply interpreting and making connections that do not exist.Rewards do not become bribes solely when German officers get them.
Which oath? When we're talking about senior Heer officers in WW2, they took three different oaths in their military career. The first was to the Kaiser, who they allowed to be overthrown. The second was to the Weimar Republic, which they allowed to be overthrown. So third time the charm?
The Kaiser abdicated and Hitler came to power legally.There was no overthrowing.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 05 Aug 2019 21:09

Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 06:23
jesk wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:45
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:30
jesk wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:05
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 16:03
That Germany was defeated because of the ratio of forces in all aspects which includes industrial capacity is pretty obvious.
Your opinion is completely contrary to the annals of the forum. Here, for example, was discussed. There could be at least 35 more divisions on the Vistula and East Prussia. 30 or 60. What's the difference?

viewtopic.php?p=2213639#p2213639
How can you even think that Germany would not be outnumbered in Manpower,industrial resources etc.. That more divisions couldbe concentrated on a given front does not change that.Obviously forces we're too spread out and should have been more concentrated but it does not change the outcome of the war.
In February 1945, Guderian insisted on the evacuation of troops from Norway, Latvia, Italy, Yugoslavia. To go to the counteroffensive against the Soviet forces. And he thought it would help. Hitler said no ...
Correct but does not change the global ratio of forces.Obviously the one poorer in resources needs to concentrate them.Will make the situation better.So Guderian was right.
2 German divisions against 4 Soviet. Or 10 versus 20. The ratio is the same, but the difference is big. In the second case, war becomes combinationally more difficult. More options for interaction divisions.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

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

Post by Duncan_M » 05 Aug 2019 22:40

Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 20:13
Duncan_M wrote:
05 Aug 2019 19:45
Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 06:40
Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 05:29
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 20:44

Awards to commanders to do the jobs they are supposed to do are never bribes.A bonus given to a manager in a Company is not a bribe either.They are rewards.There is a historical tradition for awarding military commanders rewards for services rendered.That goes back very far in human history.Hitler did not do anything original there.Professional soldiers who are not mercenaries do not need to be given money to make them loyal.And An award given after a commander is sacked would certainly not be very useful if that would be the intent.

Obviously you didn't care to read / hear any of my sources.
In late June-early July 1941 Leeb, as the commander of Army Group North, had witnessed first-hand the massacres committed by the Einsatzgruppen, Lithuanian auxiliaries, and the men of the 16th Army, outside Kaunas.[34] As a Roman Catholic, Leeb was described as being "moderately disturbed" after seeing the killing fields, and sent in mildly critical reports about the massacres.[34] Leeb approved of the killing of Lithuanian Jewish men, claiming that this was justified by the crimes that they were supposed to have committed during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania; but the killing of women and children might have been taking things too far.[35] In response, Hitler's aide General Rudolf Schmundt told Leeb that he was completely out of line for criticizing the massacres at Kaunas, and should co-operate fully with the SS in "special tasks" in future.[34]

Schmundt asked if Leeb really appreciated his monthly payments from Konto 5, and reminded him that his birthday was coming up in September; the Führer was planning to give him a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque as a present to reward his loyalty. Leeb never said a word in protest of the "Final Solution" again, and duly received a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque in September 1941.[36]
It wasn't a bonus. It was the price of their servitude for nazism.
Wrong..Professional soldiers served their country under different political regimes.The older ones had served under the Kaiser,the Weimar Republic and the Thiird Reich.They are loyal to their country,not a particular political system.They did take their oath seriously.Nothing you wrote here contradicts that.You are simply interpreting and making connections that do not exist.Rewards do not become bribes solely when German officers get them.
Which oath? When we're talking about senior Heer officers in WW2, they took three different oaths in their military career. The first was to the Kaiser, who they allowed to be overthrown. The second was to the Weimar Republic, which they allowed to be overthrown. So third time the charm?
The Kaiser abdicated and Hitler came to power legally.There was no overthrowing.
Wow, so opinionated and yet so ignorant of this topic. After the 1918 Revolution began, the Kaiser ordered Hindenburg and Groener flat out to support him, and the latter flat out said the army wouldn't support him in a revolution, which is why he abdicated. Not obeying an order from their emperor to save the empire, tsk tsk. Oath No. 1, broken.

I also notice you didn't even bother making up an excuse why they the officer corps blew off the Weimar Republic's constitution,which they swore an oath to. Oath No. 2, broken.

But suddenly as general officers in the Wehrmacht and during WW2, where nearly all of them were involved in war crimes at one level or another, only then did they finally all realize what their honor was worth!

Free houses, land, servants, and cash donatives courtesy of Hitler.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1330
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 06 Aug 2019 08:12

Duncan_M wrote:
05 Aug 2019 22:40
Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 20:13
Duncan_M wrote:
05 Aug 2019 19:45
Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 06:40
Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 05:29



Obviously you didn't care to read / hear any of my sources.



It wasn't a bonus. It was the price of their servitude for nazism.
Wrong..Professional soldiers served their country under different political regimes.The older ones had served under the Kaiser,the Weimar Republic and the Thiird Reich.They are loyal to their country,not a particular political system.They did take their oath seriously.Nothing you wrote here contradicts that.You are simply interpreting and making connections that do not exist.Rewards do not become bribes solely when German officers get them.
Which oath? When we're talking about senior Heer officers in WW2, they took three different oaths in their military career. The first was to the Kaiser, who they allowed to be overthrown. The second was to the Weimar Republic, which they allowed to be overthrown. So third time the charm?
The Kaiser abdicated and Hitler came to power legally.There was no overthrowing.
Wow, so opinionated and yet so ignorant of this topic. After the 1918 Revolution began, the Kaiser ordered Hindenburg and Groener flat out to support him, and the latter flat out said the army wouldn't support him in a revolution, which is why he abdicated. Not obeying an order from their emperor to save the empire, tsk tsk. Oath No. 1, broken.

I also notice you didn't even bother making up an excuse why they the officer corps blew off the Weimar Republic's constitution,which they swore an oath to. Oath No. 2, broken.

But suddenly as general officers in the Wehrmacht and during WW2, where nearly all of them were involved in war crimes at one level or another, only then did they finally all realize what their honor was worth!

Free houses, land, servants, and cash donatives courtesy of Hitler.
So you really believe that the warweary German army of which the rank and file could not be trusted anymore could have been used to violently maintain the old order in 1918.Was factually impossible.The Kaiser had to face facts.Hitler came to power legally so his gouvernement was the legal government of Germany.This whole theory of German officers not overthrowing Hitler because of socalled bribes is nonsense.With or without donations,history would still have been the same.Officers would have still stood by their oath and not throw iGermany in civil war to overthrow a government that had strong popular support.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 06 Aug 2019 14:11

Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 13:38
...
Ridiculous.Few German German officers were nationalsocialists.They swore fidelity to Hitler in his capacity as head of state and commander in chief of the Wehrmacht.They did not really like the wording of the oath.You only have to look at those purged away before ww2 to know that many senior commanders we're not trusted by Hitler including for example Von Leeb.German officers were patriots in the first place.The whole theory of bribes as the sole motivation for their loyalty is completely ridiculous and ignores how German officers really thought.Given land to a military commander goes back far in history Nothing unusual in that.
1. Can you name the country where, in the middle of the 20th century, soldiers, taking the oath, called the head of state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces by name?
2. If the dictator cannot convince the subject, he can buy it. What is so special here?
3. Are you sure that the German patriots did not take bribes?
4. You can go deep into history for a long time. To Frederick Barbarossa or to Carolingian. But what about the Weimar Constitution and the laws of the 3rd Reich? Do you think that Hitler could also dispose of the land and treasury of the state like Charles the Great?
5. Could you show at least one document in support of your “serious” statements? For example, Hitler was dissatisfied with Field Marshal List. You can read about it here on page 21.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941 ... prilozenia
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 06 Aug 2019 14:26

Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 20:13
...
The Kaiser abdicated and Hitler came to power legally.There was no overthrowing.
Yes, sir/madame! The Kaiser abdicated. It's true. But Hitler became legal chancellor. But how he became head of state? Can you provide reliable evidence of his legality as head of state?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

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

Post by BDV » 06 Aug 2019 14:38

jesk wrote: 2 German divisions against 4 Soviet. Or 10 versus 20. The ratio is the same, but the difference is big. In the second case, war becomes combinationally more difficult. More options for interaction divisions.
Or 140 Axis divisions against 180 Allied. Even if 2:1 superiority is needed to achieve success.

The 40 extra divisions can be swung around for victory once the numerically superior figures out what needs to be done (September 1918, August 1942).

At that point, the numerically inferior is toast; Dolchstoßlegende Eins (politicians lost the war!) and Dolchstoßlegende Zwei (schicklgruber lost the war!) notwithstanding. As a certain "bloodthirsty amateur strategist" put it: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1330
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 06 Aug 2019 15:12

AbollonPolweder wrote:
06 Aug 2019 14:11
Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 13:38
...
Ridiculous.Few German German officers were nationalsocialists.They swore fidelity to Hitler in his capacity as head of state and commander in chief of the Wehrmacht.They did not really like the wording of the oath.You only have to look at those purged away before ww2 to know that many senior commanders we're not trusted by Hitler including for example Von Leeb.German officers were patriots in the first place.The whole theory of bribes as the sole motivation for their loyalty is completely ridiculous and ignores how German officers really thought.Given land to a military commander goes back far in history Nothing unusual in that.
1. Can you name the country where, in the middle of the 20th century, soldiers, taking the oath, called the head of state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces by name?
2. If the dictator cannot convince the subject, he can buy it. What is so special here?
3. Are you sure that the German patriots did not take bribes?
4. You can go deep into history for a long time. To Frederick Barbarossa or to Carolingian. But what about the Weimar Constitution and the laws of the 3rd Reich? Do you think that Hitler could also dispose of the land and treasury of the state like Charles the Great?
5. Could you show at least one document in support of your “serious” statements? For example, Hitler was dissatisfied with Field Marshal List. You can read about it here on page 21.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941 ... prilozenia
The oath of allegiance in the UK mentions the monarch by name.Hitler did not need to buy the allegiance of senior commanders.With or without donations,you cannot imagine these commanders violating their oath and deciding to get rid of Hitler,particularly when Germany was winning.Hitler was certainly inspired by the donations given earlier in German history and in other countries.Given Hitler's disagreements with his senior commanders the socalled 'bribes' clearly achieved nothing.
Last edited by Aida1 on 06 Aug 2019 15:19, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1330
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 06 Aug 2019 15:15

AbollonPolweder wrote:
06 Aug 2019 14:26
Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 20:13
...
The Kaiser abdicated and Hitler came to power legally.There was no overthrowing.
Yes, sir/madame! The Kaiser abdicated. It's true. But Hitler became legal chancellor. But how he became head of state? Can you provide reliable evidence of his legality as head of state?
The two offices we're merged by law just before Hindenburg died so Hitler automatically became head of state when Hindenburg died.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

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

Post by BDV » 06 Aug 2019 16:53

Aida1 wrote:The two offices we're merged by law just before Hindenburg died so Hitler automatically became head of state when Hindenburg died.
"were merged by law." - by whom?!?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1330
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 06 Aug 2019 17:22

BDV wrote:
06 Aug 2019 16:53
Aida1 wrote:The two offices we're merged by law just before Hindenburg died so Hitler automatically became head of state when Hindenburg died.
"were merged by law." - by whom?!?
The German government which had been granted the power to make laws.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13084
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 06 Aug 2019 18:30

In 1935 Mackensen received an estate of 1250 ha
In 1942 Ribbentrop received 2 million RM
Keitel and Raeder 250000 RM,the same for Milch and Rundstedt.Kleist got 480000 RM
Hube 50000 at his wedding .Kluge 250000 at his birthday, the same for Leeb in 1941.
Leeb received in total for 880000 RM and of course ,he congratulated Hitler for the failure of the 20 July 1944 .
Guderian an estate with a value of 1.24 million RM . Speer also did not refuse money from Hitler .
As Napoleon, Hitler tried to tie his ministers and generals by bribe money . In both cases, no one refused and in both cases,after the defeat of their masters,they denied him and lied about their donations .
Lesson : those who accept your donations,are the first to abandon you . You can't buy fidelity .
One of the sources : Dienen und verdienen: Hitlers geschenken an seine Eliten .

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

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

Post by BDV » 06 Aug 2019 18:48

Aida1 wrote:
"were merged by law." - by whom?!?
The German government which had been granted the power to make laws.
"granted the power" by whom, and with what scope?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1330
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 06 Aug 2019 19:43

BDV wrote:
06 Aug 2019 18:48
Aida1 wrote:
"were merged by law." - by whom?!?
The German government which had been granted the power to make laws.
"granted the power" by whom, and with what scope?
By theReichstag with twothirds majority which meant that laws could deviatie from the constitution

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”