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 » 08 Aug 2019 16:04

AbollonPolweder wrote:
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.
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:
You are playing fast and loose with historical truth here as you know not many were Involved in the plot of july 1944..Only very few German officers got anything from Hitler and still they kept to their oath until the end.This whole bribery theory is full of holes.

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 16:17

AbollonPolweder wrote:
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?
1.She is .You can easily find that by googling
2.Hitler did not only give donations to some senior military leaders.Even some artists got them.Donations to military commanders go back far in history and not only in Germany.

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 » 09 Aug 2019 14:05

Aida1 wrote:
08 Aug 2019 16:04
...
You are playing fast and loose with historical truth here as you know not many were Involved in the plot of july 1944..Only very few German officers got anything from Hitler and still they kept to their oath until the end.This whole bribery theory is full of holes.
Why should I play historical truth if we have a specific dispute: there were sums of money given to some of the top Wehrmacht commanders bribes or not. Right? It is you who are referring to historical examples of financial incentives for officers. But there were examples in history when officers were given not only money and real estate, but also people. So what?
You stubbornly refuse to answer, were Hitler's payments legal or not.
Your argument that most officers fought stubbornly without being bribed is not valid. Yes, the majority did not receive such "expensive gifts" and bravely fought, but this did not prevent, and never prevents, the minority from taking bribes.
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 » 09 Aug 2019 17:56

AbollonPolweder wrote:
09 Aug 2019 14:05
Aida1 wrote:
08 Aug 2019 16:04
...
You are playing fast and loose with historical truth here as you know not many were Involved in the plot of july 1944..Only very few German officers got anything from Hitler and still they kept to their oath until the end.This whole bribery theory is full of holes.
Why should I play historical truth if we have a specific dispute: there were sums of money given to some of the top Wehrmacht commanders bribes or not. Right? It is you who are referring to historical examples of financial incentives for officers. But there were examples in history when officers were given not only money and real estate, but also people. So what?
You stubbornly refuse to answer, were Hitler's payments legal or not.
Your argument that most officers fought stubbornly without being bribed is not valid. Yes, the majority did not receive such "expensive gifts" and bravely fought, but this did not prevent, and never prevents, the minority from taking bribes.
There can only be 'bribery' if the recipient gives something in return which he would otherwise not offer.The recipients of Hitler's donations just did their duty so there is no bribery.Those that did not get donations did not act differently.

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 » 09 Aug 2019 19:48

Aida1 wrote:
09 Aug 2019 17:56
There can only be 'bribery' if the recipient gives something in return which he would otherwise not offer.The recipients of Hitler's donations just did their duty so there is no bribery.Those that did not get donations did not act differently.
They did. They stayed loyal to their oaths, when before they had broken them. They were bribed to do their duty. Like war crimes.

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 » 09 Aug 2019 19:53

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

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

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

German oaths means NOTHING. Stop using it as an excuse to why they continued to support Hitler, it was their excuse used after the war to try to provide reason for staying loyal, but it was all nonsense. All those general officers, all WW1 era veterans, could have fought and died for their Kaiser, as their oath demanded, but they let him and the monarchy be overthrow, just like they allowed the Weimar Republic to be overthrown. But suddenly, in the 1940s, when they commit war crime after warcrime, and Germany is losing the war, they decide to be honorable men? No, they fought on because losing meant war crime trials, loss of pensions, loss of positions, loss of property.
Last edited by Duncan_M on 09 Aug 2019 19:57, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 09 Aug 2019 19:55

Aida1 wrote:
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.
So on top of not having a clue about how WW1 ended, German oaths to the Kaiser, we can add the definition of the word bribery to what you are unfamiliar with:

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

Use in a sentence: Hitler bribed his senior officers to continue performing their duties by giving them massive monetary and property gifts to ensure their loyalty, despite those same individuals having in the past, numerous times, reneging on their oaths.

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 » 09 Aug 2019 21:45

Duncan_M wrote:
09 Aug 2019 19:48
Aida1 wrote:
09 Aug 2019 17:56
There can only be 'bribery' if the recipient gives something in return which he would otherwise not offer.The recipients of Hitler's donations just did their duty so there is no bribery.Those that did not get donations did not act differently.
They did. They stayed loyal to their oaths, when before they had broken them. They were bribed to do their duty. Like war crimes.
They did not break their oaths before as i explained before.How nice of the large majority of officers who
never got anything to be loyal for free.
Last edited by Aida1 on 09 Aug 2019 22:07, 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 » 09 Aug 2019 21:53

Duncan_M wrote:
09 Aug 2019 19:55
Aida1 wrote:
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.
So on top of not having a clue about how WW1 ended, German oaths to the Kaiser, we can add the definition of the word bribery to what you are unfamiliar with:

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

Use in a sentence: Hitler bribed his senior officers to continue performing their duties by giving them massive monetary and property gifts to ensure their loyalty, despite those same individuals having in the past, numerous times, reneging on their oaths.
Keeping to your oath is not dishonest and the contrary of illegal.Not only do you not have a clue about German political history but you have also conveniently forgotten that the senior officers in charge at the end of ww1 we're not around anymore by the time Hitler was in power so we are speaking of different individuals.And most officers never got anything.

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 » 09 Aug 2019 22:06

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

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

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

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

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 » 12 Aug 2019 22:08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proving, again, that you have no clue what you're even debating about because you're simply repeating an apologists' myth. Stop defending dishonorable people. If you do decide to defend them, at least pick your battles better than you are, and try doing at least the most minimal research beforehand.

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 » 12 Aug 2019 22:09

Aida1 wrote:
09 Aug 2019 21:53
Keeping to your oath is not dishonest and the contrary of illegal.Not only do you not have a clue about German political history but you have also conveniently forgotten that the senior officers in charge at the end of ww1 we're not around anymore by the time Hitler was in power so we are speaking of different individuals.And most officers never got anything.
I already proved numerous times that they weren't honorable because they didn't keep to their oaths, plural. They kept to ONE OATH. To Hitler. The guy bribing them. The guy they committed war crimes for.

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 » 12 Aug 2019 22:12

Aida1 wrote:
09 Aug 2019 21:45
They did not break their oaths before as i explained before.How nice of the large majority of officers who
never got anything to be loyal for free.
Just because you keep repeating the Wehraboo myth doesn't mean its true, anymore than suggesting pigs can fly makes it true.

Every single general officer who served in WW2 had served since the WW1 time frame. They took three oaths during their career in three different military branches. They broke two of their oaths by not defending the institutions they swore they would defend. You're flat out lying, absolutely positively attempting to deceive, by stating those previous incidents were excuseable but the third oath to Hitler was solid and they couldn't find wiggle room out of that one. Of course there was, you just refuse to accept it, because then suddenly Wehraboo defense strategy #1 falls flat on its face.

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

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

Post by Aida1 » 13 Aug 2019 09:36

Duncan_M wrote:
12 Aug 2019 22:09
Aida1 wrote:
09 Aug 2019 21:53
Keeping to your oath is not dishonest and the contrary of illegal.Not only do you not have a clue about German political history but you have also conveniently forgotten that the senior officers in charge at the end of ww1 we're not around anymore by the time Hitler was in power so we are speaking of different individuals.And most officers never got anything.
I already proved numerous times that they weren't honorable because they didn't keep to their oaths, plural. They kept to ONE OATH. To Hitler. The guy bribing them. The guy they committed war crimes for.
Retoric is no substitute for fact.You cannot be 'bribed' to do wat you are supposed to do anyway and most officers never received anything.Clearly you did not even bother to read anything i stated before.

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

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

Post by Aida1 » 13 Aug 2019 09:41

Duncan_M wrote:
12 Aug 2019 22:12
Aida1 wrote:
09 Aug 2019 21:45
They did not break their oaths before as i explained before.How nice of the large majority of officers who
never got anything to be loyal for free.
Just because you keep repeating the Wehraboo myth doesn't mean its true, anymore than suggesting pigs can fly makes it true.

Every single general officer who served in WW2 had served since the WW1 time frame. They took three oaths during their career in three different military branches. They broke two of their oaths by not defending the institutions they swore they would defend. You're flat out lying, absolutely positively attempting to deceive, by stating those previous incidents were excuseable but the third oath to Hitler was solid and they couldn't find wiggle room out of that one. Of course there was, you just refuse to accept it, because then suddenly Wehraboo defense strategy #1 falls flat on its face.
You are conveniently ignoring that those in charge in 1918 were not around anymore by WW2.Also no oath to the Kaiser was broken as the constitution was changed and an officer is bound by the constitution.You also ignore that the Kaiser could not be maintained.You do not even try to refute that Hitler came to power legally.You limit yourself to overblown retoric.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”