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

[MarkN]

There was no bribery as has been clearly proven.

Clearly????

Clearly it has not!

I have no problem with the principle of giving him land.

This discussion is not about the "principle" of remuneration for services rendered, this discussion is about the giving and receiving of stolen property - property that is known to have been stolen and stolen to order. That practice is quite improper and unacceptable in any decent society.

You are defending the immoral and the indecent. To what end, l know not.

[Aida1]

There was no bribery as has been clearly proven.

Clearly????

Clearly it has not!

I have no problem with the principle of giving him land.

This discussion is not about the "principle" of remuneration for services rendered, this discussion is about the giving and receiving of stolen property - property that is known to have been stolen and stolen to order. That practice is quite improper and unacceptable in any decent society.

You are defending the immoral and the indecent. To what end, l know not.

I am not the only user that has pointed out you need a direct quid pro pro for bribery which there never was.No German officer could have been prosecuted for bribery..And i do defend Guderian getting a reward.That principle i do defend.

[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 .

[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.

[Peter89]

Aida1, the only difference between you and jesk in his bad command of english.

[MarkN]

There was no bribery as has been clearly proven.

Clearly????

Clearly it has not!

I have no problem with the principle of giving him land.

This discussion is not about the "principle" of remuneration for services rendered, this discussion is about the giving and receiving of stolen property - property that is known to have been stolen and stolen to order. That practice is quite improper and unacceptable in any decent society.

You are defending the immoral and the indecent. To what end, l know not.

I am not the only user that has pointed out you need a direct quid pro pro for bribery which there never was.No German officer could have been prosecuted for bribery.

Why have you given this response to my post? Do you randomly pick a post to quote and then write whatever you want?

I have made no accusations of bribery.

.And i do defend Guderian getting a reward.That principle i do defend.

So what? This discussion is not about whether Gudarian was entitled to a reward, or whether such a reward was entitled to be given. This discussion is about whether Guderian and the German state at that time were morally and socially corrupt.

In the specific case under discussion, Guderian went out and looked for land that he wanted. The plot of land he wanted was already owned and occupied by someone. The German state then stole that land and gave it to Guderian. Both parties colluded in the act of theft. Both parties were active participants in creating the background for the theft to occur - the invasion and occupation of Poland.

I consider that to be a self-evident case of outright immoral and social dishonesty. It is most corrupt and dishonorable.

Your deliberate avoidance of responding to this directly is most telling. You too see the dishonesty, the immorality and the dishonorable nature of the transaction l am sure. But your blind devotion to defending these despicable individuals means you are compelled to divert and misdirect.

[Aida1]

There was no bribery as has been clearly proven.

Clearly????

Clearly it has not!

I have no problem with the principle of giving him land.

This discussion is not about the "principle" of remuneration for services rendered, this discussion is about the giving and receiving of stolen property - property that is known to have been stolen and stolen to order. That practice is quite improper and unacceptable in any decent society.

You are defending the immoral and the indecent. To what end, l know not.

I am not the only user that has pointed out you need a direct quid pro pro for bribery which there never was.No German officer could have been prosecuted for bribery.

Why have you given this response to my post? Do you randomly pick a post to quote and then write whatever you want?

I have made no accusations of bribery.

.And i do defend Guderian getting a reward.That principle i do defend.

So what? This discussion is not about whether Gudarian was entitled to a reward, or whether such a reward was entitled to be given. This discussion is about whether Guderian and the German state at that time were morally and socially corrupt.

In the specific case under discussion, Guderian went out and looked for land that he wanted. The plot of land he wanted was already owned and occupied by someone. The German state then stole that land and gave it to Guderian. Both parties colluded in the act of theft. Both parties were active participants in creating the background for the theft to occur - the invasion and occupation of Poland.

I consider that to be a self-evident case of outright immoral and social dishonesty. It is most corrupt and dishonorable.

Your deliberate avoidance of responding to this directly is most telling. You too see the dishonesty, the immorality and the dishonorable nature of the transaction l am sure. But your blind devotion to defending these despicable individuals means you are compelled to divert and misdirect.

If there was no bribery there was no corruption so you are not making much sense.I do not think Guderian asked the German state to steal an estate.Anyway, i am defending the principle of the reward ,nothing more.And Guderian is much more than the getting that estate which is a minor detail in his life.

[MarkN]

If there was no bribery there was no corruption....

Not correct. A person can be corrupt or be involved in corrupt practices without giving or receiving bribes.

I do not think Guderian asked the German state to steal an estate.

He spent time identifying which plot of land he wanted and asked for it to be given to him.
He was aware the land did not belong to the German state.
How do you think he expected it to be given to him by the German state when it did not belong to the German state?

Anyway, i am defending the principle of the reward ,nothing more.

Not correct. You are defending state criminality, corruption, dishonesty and dishonor.

And Guderian is much more than the getting that estate which is a minor detail in his life.

Correct. Guderian was a self-centered, selfish control freak who get very stroppy when he didn't get his own way or others refused to agree with him. He was also devious and deceitful. And worst of all for the German volk, he was one of the key architects of military delusion followed by inevitable catastrophic defeat.

[Aida1]

If there was no bribery there was no corruption....

Not correct. A person can be corrupt or be involved in corrupt practices without giving or receiving bribes.

I do not think Guderian asked the German state to steal an estate.

He spent time identifying which plot of land he wanted and asked for it to be given to him.
He was aware the land did not belong to the German state.
How do you think he expected it to be given to him by the German state when it did not belong to the German state?

Anyway, i am defending the principle of the reward ,nothing more.

Not correct. You are defending state criminality, corruption, dishonesty and dishonor.

And Guderian is much more than the getting that estate which is a minor detail in his life.

Correct. Guderian was a self-centered, selfish control freak who get very stroppy when he didn't get his own way or others refused to agree with him. He was also devious and deceitful. And worst of all for the German volk, he was one of the key architects of military delusion followed by inevitable catastrophic defeat.

Very colourful retoric but not much substance.Being corrupt without being bribed.That is a good one.And i think that Guderian will mostly get a better judgment from history than yours.

[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.

Hitler said to Engel that he wanted to buy the loyalty of his generals, and he failed .
Napoleon also wanted to buy the loyalty of his generals, but he also failed .He knew that he could not trust hem,but still he tried to buy their loyalty .They abandoned him, but kept their titles and their estates .Hitler's generals did the same .After the war, Halder wrote "" Hitler als Feldherr and blamed him for everything,but kept hidden the fact that he received a lot of money from Hitler .

[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 .

[MarkN]

If there was no bribery there was no corruption....

Not correct. A person can be corrupt or be involved in corrupt practices without giving or receiving bribes.

I do not think Guderian asked the German state to steal an estate.

He spent time identifying which plot of land he wanted and asked for it to be given to him.
He was aware the land did not belong to the German state.
How do you think he expected it to be given to him by the German state when it did not belong to the German state?

Anyway, i am defending the principle of the reward ,nothing more.

Not correct. You are defending state criminality, corruption, dishonesty and dishonor.

And Guderian is much more than the getting that estate which is a minor detail in his life.

Correct. Guderian was a self-centered, selfish control freak who get very stroppy when he didn't get his own way or others refused to agree with him. He was also devious and deceitful. And worst of all for the German volk, he was one of the key architects of military delusion followed by inevitable catastrophic defeat.

Very colourful retoric but not much substance.Being corrupt without being bribed.That is a good one.And i think that Guderian will mostly get a better judgment from history than yours.

I notice in your attempt to discredit my non-grey words as lacking substance, you offer nothing to refute or rebut my comments. NOTHING: the perfect example of substance vacuity.

Guderian was a, perhaps the, leading light in deep penetration armor warfare: theory, doctrine and practise. Much credit goes to him for the military victories in Poland and Western Europe. However, it was the delusion of the Heer derived from those victories, a delusion born from hubris and a poor understanding of how those victories were acheived, that lead to the disasterous invasion of the CCCP and the ultimate destruction of Germany itself.

Guderian was not a defender of Germany and the German people. That was a role that fell upon him BECAUSE OF his earlier actions and efforts. Guderian was a keen advocate for German hegemony of Europe through military conquest. That in itself is enough to place him below the bar for entrance into the league of respected military figures.

[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.

Hitler said to Engel that he wanted to buy the loyalty of his generals, and he failed .
Napoleon also wanted to buy the loyalty of his generals, but he also failed .He knew that he could not trust hem,but still he tried to buy their loyalty .They abandoned him, but kept their titles and their estates .Hitler's generals did the same .After the war, Halder wrote "" Hitler als Feldherr and blamed him for everything,but kept hidden the fact that he received a lot of money from Hitler .

You are again making blanket accusations against Napoleons generals whom he rewarded for what they achieved on the battlefield.Hitlers generals do seemed to have remained loyal but loyalty does not include agreeing with him on military matters.They had the perfect right to disagree with him and repeat these opinions after the war.

[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.

[Aida1]

If there was no bribery there was no corruption....

Not correct. A person can be corrupt or be involved in corrupt practices without giving or receiving bribes.

I do not think Guderian asked the German state to steal an estate.

He spent time identifying which plot of land he wanted and asked for it to be given to him.
He was aware the land did not belong to the German state.
How do you think he expected it to be given to him by the German state when it did not belong to the German state?

Anyway, i am defending the principle of the reward ,nothing more.

Not correct. You are defending state criminality, corruption, dishonesty and dishonor.

And Guderian is much more than the getting that estate which is a minor detail in his life.

Correct. Guderian was a self-centered, selfish control freak who get very stroppy when he didn't get his own way or others refused to agree with him. He was also devious and deceitful. And worst of all for the German volk, he was one of the key architects of military delusion followed by inevitable catastrophic defeat.

Very colourful retoric but not much substance.Being corrupt without being bribed.That is a good one.And i think that Guderian will mostly get a better judgment from history than yours.

I notice in your attempt to discredit my non-grey words as lacking substance, you offer nothing to refute or rebut my comments. NOTHING: the perfect example of substance vacuity.

Guderian was a, perhaps the, leading light in deep penetration armor warfare: theory, doctrine and practise. Much credit goes to him for the military victories in Poland and Western Europe. However, it was the delusion of the Heer derived from those victories, a delusion born from hubris and a poor understanding of how those victories were acheived, that lead to the disasterous invasion of the CCCP and the ultimate destruction of Germany itself.

Guderian was not a defender of Germany and the German people. That was a role that fell upon him BECAUSE OF his earlier actions and efforts. Guderian was a keen advocate for German hegemony of Europe through military conquest. That in itself is enough to place him below the bar for entrance into the league of respected military figures.

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