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 » 06 Aug 2019 19:48

ljadw wrote:
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 .
You cannot 'bribe' somebody in doing his legal duty which he would do anyway without receiving bonuses.Hitler had no reason to complain.Differences of opinion on military matters are not infidelity.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2683
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

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

Post by Boby » 06 Aug 2019 20:27

ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2019 18:26
Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 11:13
ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2019 10:36

Happy return general . :lol:
xD

The return of the Panzer General :welcome:

I think it is a good question though. Why there are still so many people who believe that the Wehrmacht was "clean"? What is your angle on this matter?
Letter from Hoeppner to Eichmann ( JUly 16 1941 ) :
Not Erich.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf-Heinz_H%C3%B6ppner

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 » 06 Aug 2019 23:29

BDV wrote:
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.
What happened in August 1942? Army groups "Center" and "North" did not attack. 6 army bogged down in the battles for Stalingrad. 1 tank and 17 armies advanced in the Caucasus in diverging directions. And in vain. Sochi, Sukhumi, this site could be blocked. By the way, there are few solutions in the mountains. The terrain is clearly not suitable for maneuvering battles.

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 » 07 Aug 2019 19:43

Aida1 wrote:
06 Aug 2019 08:12

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.
You dodged the point again.

A German general likely served since 1918, right? Most were WW1 veterans.
By 1945 they would have made three oaths in their career.

One was to obey and defend the Kaiser, which they violated. You cannot defends that.

The second was to defend the constitution of the Weimar govt, which they did nothing when Hitler wiped his butt with it. You wont even touch on the fact that Hitler and the Nazis violated the Weimar constitution, because even you know its a stupid argument to make. Either way, they didn't try to protect the Republic, as their oath entailed. THEY BROKE THEIR OATHS.

But you're telling me, and everyone here, with a straight face, that their third oath to Hitler was the one that counted? That was the reason they fought on to the end? Because a bunch of war criminals (which most of the top brass were) were so focused on their honor?

:thumbsup:

Top notch debating skills!

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 » 07 Aug 2019 19:48

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?
Just a point. Before any decisions were made, the Kaiser went to see the Chief of the German General Staff (Hindenburg) and the Quartermaster general (Groener) of the Deutsches Heer and asked them to if the army would support him in the revolution. They refused, saying that the German army, and its officer corps, would NOT SUPPORT THEIR KAISER (despite their oath to obey him).

And so the Kaiser abdicated.

And so one of three oaths broken. The next was when the Nazis took a steaming dump on the constitution of the Weimar Govt, which they were to protect.

The last was to Hitler. Most kept that oath. Weird...

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 » 07 Aug 2019 19:51

Aida1 wrote:
06 Aug 2019 19:48
You cannot 'bribe' somebody in doing his legal duty which he would do anyway without receiving bonuses.Hitler had no reason to complain.Differences of opinion on military matters are not infidelity.
You most definitely can. Massive bonuses used to guarantee future loyalty are bribes.

For instance. You would probably post here regardless, but if David Irving bought you a new house for your conduct in this thread, even though its already something you're doing, he just bought you.

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 » 08 Aug 2019 08:24

Duncan_M wrote:
07 Aug 2019 19:43
Aida1 wrote:
06 Aug 2019 08:12

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.
You dodged the point again.

A German general likely served since 1918, right? Most were WW1 veterans.
By 1945 they would have made three oaths in their career.

One was to obey and defend the Kaiser, which they violated. You cannot defends that.

The second was to defend the constitution of the Weimar govt, which they did nothing when Hitler wiped his butt with it. You wont even touch on the fact that Hitler and the Nazis violated the Weimar constitution, because even you know its a stupid argument to make. Either way, they didn't try to protect the Republic, as their oath entailed. THEY BROKE THEIR OATHS.

But you're telling me, and everyone here, with a straight face, that their third oath to Hitler was the one that counted? That was the reason they fought on to the end? Because a bunch of war criminals (which most of the top brass were) were so focused on their honor?

:thumbsup:

Top notch debating skills!
You may try to explain how the warweary German army could have violently maintained the Kaiser on his throne in 1918.Impossible.And i doubt the oath could require them to do that against his own people.Hitlers government had a majority in the Reichstag and became head of state completely legally.So no breaking of the oath there either. And why would senior commanders need to be bribed years after he came to power and was very successfull and popular?You also may try to explain why the large majority of German professional soldiers who never got any donations kept to their oath to the end.
Last edited by Aida1 on 08 Aug 2019 08:46, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 08 Aug 2019 08:29

Duncan_M wrote:
07 Aug 2019 19:51
Aida1 wrote:
06 Aug 2019 19:48
You cannot 'bribe' somebody in doing his legal duty which he would do anyway without receiving bonuses.Hitler had no reason to complain.Differences of opinion on military matters are not infidelity.
You most definitely can. Massive bonuses used to guarantee future loyalty are bribes.

For instance. You would probably post here regardless, but if David Irving bought you a new house for your conduct in this thread, even though its already something you're doing, he just bought you.
You cannot be 'bribed'into doing something which is your legal duty.You can only be rewarded.You can only be 'bribed' into something you are not supposed to do.Donations to military commanders have a long tradition in military history and not only in Germany.

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 » 08 Aug 2019 09:08

Duncan_M wrote:
07 Aug 2019 19:48
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?
Just a point. Before any decisions were made, the Kaiser went to see the Chief of the German General Staff (Hindenburg) and the Quartermaster general (Groener) of the Deutsches Heer and asked them to if the army would support him in the revolution. They refused, saying that the German army, and its officer corps, would NOT SUPPORT THEIR KAISER (despite their oath to obey him).

And so the Kaiser abdicated.

And so one of three oaths broken. The next was when the Nazis took a steaming dump on the constitution of the Weimar Govt, which they were to protect.

The last was to Hitler. Most kept that oath. Weird...
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.

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 » 08 Aug 2019 13:14

Aida1 wrote:The civilian leadership had decided the Kaiser should go and even announced his abdication.
Who is this "leadership" you speak of, and does its momma know about its treasonous aktionen?

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.
Why not?

Between "Political power grows from the barel of a gun" and the success of "une bouffée de mitraille" the Kaiser just has to be careful to use Bavarians and Sachsens in Prussia and Prussians everywhere else. Where there's a will, there's a way.
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: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 08 Aug 2019 14:05

á de
BDV wrote:
08 Aug 2019 13:14
Aida1 wrote:The civilian leadership had decided the Kaiser should go and even announced his abdication.
Who is this "leadership" you speak of, and does its momma know about its treasonous aktionen?

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.
Why not?

Between "Political power grows from the barel of a gun" and the success of "une bouffée de mitraille" the Kaiser just has to be careful to use Bavarians and Sachsens in Prussia and Prussians everywhere else. Where there's a will, there's a way.
By october 1918 Germany had become a parlementary system and it was the new government composed of the majority parties in parliament that wanted the Kaiser to go as it considered this was needed to be able to negotiate with the allies and prevent a socialist takeover.The Kaisers position was untenable.If the army had tried to support him,it would have been acting against the new constitutional order.

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 » 08 Aug 2019 14:13

Duncan_M wrote:
07 Aug 2019 19:48
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?
Just a point. Before any decisions were made, the Kaiser went to see the Chief of the German General Staff (Hindenburg) and the Quartermaster general (Groener) of the Deutsches Heer and asked them to if the army would support him in the revolution. They refused, saying that the German army, and its officer corps, would NOT SUPPORT THEIR KAISER (despite their oath to obey him).

And so the Kaiser abdicated.

You conveniently left out that Germany had become a parliamentary system by then and no oath can require somebody to act against the constitution.The parliamentary government wanted the Kaiser to go so there could be no question of the army going against that.In the interest of his country he needed to go.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 08 Aug 2019 14:55

Aida1 wrote:
06 Aug 2019 15:12
...
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.
1.Specify whether Elizabeth II is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the country?
2. If Hitler did not need to buy the loyalty of the highest commanders, then why did he do this? Was he an idiot? Or was there nowhere to put the money? Did he award such sums of money or estates to ordinary soldiers?
3.
With or without donations, you cannot imagine these commanders violating their oath and deciding to get rid of Hitler, particularly when Germany was winning.
Excellent, sir/madam! That is, their loyalty to the Führer was CONDITIONAL. If Germany wins, the generals support Hitler, if the country is going through difficult times, instead of support - the Valkyrie. Bravo! Why don’t you admit that Hitler’s generals had not one, but, say, two conditions of support: winning Germany and ... money / property? :thumbsup:
4. You never answered the legality of those money and real estate rewards. :(
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 08 Aug 2019 15:22

Aida1 wrote:
08 Aug 2019 14:13
...
You conveniently left out that Germany had become a parliamentary system by then and no oath can require somebody to act against the constitution.The parliamentary government wanted the Kaiser to go so there could be no question of the army going against that.In the interest of his country he needed to go.
An empire can become a republic not before the emperor is overthrown or leaves voluntarily. Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated after the army command refused to take the oath and defend the Kaiser. The sequence is just that. Duncan_M is right. If the army supported William II, it was quite possible that Hitler would not become the Führer, and the "interests of the country" would have won.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

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 » 08 Aug 2019 15:55

AbollonPolweder wrote:
08 Aug 2019 15:22
Aida1 wrote:
08 Aug 2019 14:13
...
You conveniently left out that Germany had become a parliamentary system by then and no oath can require somebody to act against the constitution.The parliamentary government wanted the Kaiser to go so there could be no question of the army going against that.In the interest of his country he needed to go.
An empire can become a republic not before the emperor is overthrown or leaves voluntarily. Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated after the army command refused to take the oath and defend the Kaiser. The sequence is just that. Duncan_M is right. If the army supported William II, it was quite possible that Hitler would not become the Führer, and the "interests of the country" would have won.
Wrong.When Germany became a parliamentary system,the emphasis of power went away from the Kaiser to a government composed of the majority parties in parliament although It was not a Republic yet.The parties in charge decided that the Kaiser needed to go in order to be able to negotiate with the allies and avoid a socialist revolution.There is no way the army of 1918 could have kept the Kaiser in power.Given the turmoil in Germany the Kaiser needed to go.The army acted sensibly in the interest of Germany.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”