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

[Aida1]

[So you would actually require German officers to violently overthrow the legal government of Germany to keep the Kaiser in power.You clearly have strange ideas about the extent of an oath to the head of state.The head of state cannot legally order the army to overthrow the government.And there was no possibility of keeping the Kaiser in power anyway..

LOL. I'm not trying to change history. You're the one claiming that they followed their oaths, which I proved they didn't. Now your only recourse is to try to play an alternate reality scenario where had they actually followed their oaths, something bad might have happened.

Bad like what? May 1945 bad? ROFL

Also, the commander-in-chief of the army can legally order his army to support him during a revolution. Something something martial law something something. Something something oath something something.

You proved nothing except that you make overblown interpretations of An oath.The Kaiser cannot legally order the overthrow of the legal government of Germany because it has decided he must go.Officers obeying such an order would act against the constitution.

[Aida1]

You clearly disregard that the enabling law allowed the changing of the constitution by law so nothing illegal was done..The enabling law was passend by the required twothirds majority

LOL. If any law is made that flies in the face of the constitution, what type of law is that? It doesn't matter if 100% voted yes. Its illegal.

You're bad at this. Stop.

The enacting law was approved by a twothirds majority of the Reichstag and so the government could change the constitution by law and it did.All perfectly legal.

[MarkN]

Hitler was head of state and commander in chief and could perfectly decide to give perks to his senior commanders.

Nobody is disputing that German military officers received extaordinary gifts. Some call them bribes, some call them rewards and perks.

Clearly the dispute is about whether the giving and receiving of these was right and proper.

Take Guderian as an example. He received regular monthly - off-the-book - payments when he was in favour, various large lump sums of cash as well as gifts of property. The most notorious of the latter being a sizeable Polish estate.

So, in your opinion Aida1, was it right and proper that Gudarian received a Polish estate stolen from its owners after the violent and illegal invasion and occupation of another sovereign state?

[Duncan_M]

You proved nothing except that you make overblown interpretations of An oath.The Kaiser cannot legally order the overthrow of the legal government of Germany because it has decided he must go.Officers obeying such an order would act against the constitution.

So military personnel obeying an oath in 1918 is unconstitutional, even though you made that up and there is nothing to base it on. But them obeying the oath in 1944-45, to include during a war of extermination, supporting the Holocaust, committing a litany of war crimes, is completely constitutional.

Got it! Thanks for clarifying it and letting everyone know where you stand on constitutional law and ethics.

[Duncan_M]

The enacting law was approved by a twothirds majority of the Reichstag and so the government could change the constitution by law and it did.All perfectly legal.

And it still violated the Weimar Constitution, which made it an illegal law, no matter how many voted on it. And since the Reichswehr officers had sworn an oath to DEFEND the Weimar Constitution against all enemies, when they went along with it they violated their oath. A second time.

[Duncan_M]

Fundamentally you cannot 'bribe'those that are your subordinates for doing their job.

Show your work and provide a legit definition of the word bribe that defends your opinion that being rewarded for being loyal isn't bribery.

[Aida1]

The enacting law was approved by a twothirds majority of the Reichstag and so the government could change the constitution by law and it did.All perfectly legal.

And it still violated the Weimar Constitution, which made it an illegal law, no matter how many voted on it. And since the Reichswehr officers had sworn an oath to DEFEND the Weimar Constitution against all enemies, when they went along with it they violated their oath. A second time.

Nope.It is because the enacting law was approved by a twothirds majority in the Reichstag that the government could change the constitution.So everything was legal.

[Aida1]

Fundamentally you cannot 'bribe'those that are your subordinates for doing their job.

Show your work and provide a legit definition of the word bribe that defends your opinion that being rewarded for being loyal isn't bribery.

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.

[Aida1]

You proved nothing except that you make overblown interpretations of An oath.The Kaiser cannot legally order the overthrow of the legal government of Germany because it has decided he must go.Officers obeying such an order would act against the constitution.

So military personnel obeying an oath in 1918 is unconstitutional, even though you made that up and there is nothing to base it on. But them obeying the oath in 1944-45, to include during a war of extermination, supporting the Holocaust, committing a litany of war crimes, is completely constitutional.

Got it! Thanks for clarifying it and letting everyone know where you stand on constitutional law and ethics.

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.

[Aida1]

Hitler was head of state and commander in chief and could perfectly decide to give perks to his senior commanders.

Nobody is disputing that German military officers received extaordinary gifts. Some call them bribes, some call them rewards and perks.

Clearly the dispute is about whether the giving and receiving of these was right and proper.

Take Guderian as an example. He received regular monthly - off-the-book - payments when he was in favour, various large lump sums of cash as well as gifts of property. The most notorious of the latter being a sizeable Polish estate.

So, in your opinion Aida1, was it right and proper that Gudarian received a Polish estate stolen from its owners after the violent and illegal invasion and occupation of another sovereign state?

Guderian started the proceedings to get his estate in 1942 when he was not in favour.There was nothing improper about giving him one as a reward for his victories.He had earned a reward.How the specific estate was obtained by the German government is another matter.

[Duncan_M]

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.

[Duncan_M]

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.

[Duncan_M]

[Guderian started the proceedings to get his estate in 1942 when he was not in favour.There was nothing improper about giving him one as a reward for his victories.He had earned a reward.How the specific estate was obtained by the German government is another matter.

Then there are his moral claims. Hart convincingly shows that far from being a good soldier and model antiNazi, Guderian was utterly loyal to the Reich; the truly gargantuan bribes he received from Hitler to the very end of the war cemented him to the regime—and, not coincidentally, made him one of the Wehrmacht’s wealthiest officers. A single payment in the spring of 1942 amounted to 1.25 million marks—more than fifty years’ salary for an officer of Guderian’s rank. He even received a vast estate in occupied Poland; its rightful owners had, of course, been booted out into the cold. And while there are no concrete examples of Guderian ordering massacres in the East, the facts are clear: his troops carried them out with gusto and with little attempt to hide them. It is hard to imagine that he did not know of the atrocities taking place under his command. Indeed, the silence in the general’s memoir on the subject “strongly suggests Guderian’s acceptance of such brutality,” in Hart’s words.


https://www.historynet.com/wwii-book-re ... derian.htm

[MarkN]

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?

How the specific estate was obtained by the German government is another matter.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

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.

[Duncan_M]

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?

How the specific estate was obtained by the German government is another matter.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

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.

According to Aida1, it would have been unconstitutional for them to disobey unlawful orders or disobey their oath to Hitler.