Why did Guderian, Rommel et al. continue fighting when aware of Nazi evils?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sikander


Hitler executed Roehm and two generals who opposed him in 1934 and brutally put down the SA, so their fears weren't entirely ridiculous. The plotters against Hitler who were discovered fared rather poorly as well.

The reasons for 'The Night of the Long Knives' are rather different though- it's not like Roehm was against Hitler's capricious and illogical military thinking or indeed conspiring against him. He simply had (rather awkwardly for him) a 3 million strong powerbase and an uncomfortably socialist in part philosophy that the military and industrialists backing Hitler found repugnant.

There's also a difference between actively plotting against Hitler and simply disagreeing with him. It still remains true that yes, the Army hierarchy could have disagreed with Hitler on moral grounds, could all have plotted against him, et cetera.

Lots of things are possible, but not necessarily probable.

[Bosh]

a 3 million strong powerbase and an uncomfortably socialist in part philosophy that the military and industrialists backing Hitler found repugnant.

That and all the gay sex...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom



The reasons for 'The Night of the Long Knives' are rather different though- it's not like Roehm was against Hitler's capricious and illogical military thinking or indeed conspiring against him. He simply had (rather awkwardly for him) a 3 million strong powerbase and an uncomfortably socialist in part philosophy that the military and industrialists backing Hitler found repugnant.

There's also a difference between actively plotting against Hitler and simply disagreeing with him. It still remains true that yes, the Army hierarchy could have disagreed with Hitler on moral grounds, could all have plotted against him, et cetera.

Lots of things are possible, but not necessarily probable.

I really don't disagree, my post was in response to the notion that no one had anything to fear. When he (Hitler) was so willing to be ruthless with people he had been formerly close to and allied with it was bound to have a somewhat chilling effect on those who weren't close to him.

[Frozzy]

Now here is an interesting quote between Geyr von Schweppenberg, von Leeb, and Guderian after the war. It's from a bugged interview in the prisoner barracks post WWII, pertaining to:

"The talk of the three high-ranking officers reveals that they constantly thought about politics but wanted to persuade the U.S. intelligence officers that "the German officer was content in confining his interests to his own narrow sphere" (von Schweppenburg). Von Leeb then cautions his comrades not to reveal too much information because "we will be unable to prevent them from beating us in writing the history of the war"

Anyway...

Geyr: "Any objective observer will admit that National Socialism raised the social status of the worker, and in some respects even his standard of living as long as that was possible."
L (Leeb): "This is one of the great achievements of National Socialism. The excesses of National Socialism were in the first and final analysis due to the (warped) personality of the FUEHRER [capitals in the orig. script]."
GUD (Guderian): "The fundamental principles were fine." L: "That is true."

What is Guderian referring to? The Nationalism and Socialist aspects of Nazism, or the more evil nature of it? I have a feeling he supported the more reasonable political manifesto of the Nazi party (i.e. the 10/25 points which are clearly pro-labour and not "evil") but saw through Hitler's bastardisation of National Socialism.

Any other comments?

[BeBMan]

I think Guderian tries to make exactly that point, that what Hitler did was only a bastardisation of National Socialism, which as such wasn't that bad. I just disagree with him completely. I think the "achievements" for workers were just a great means for Hitler to buy loyalty. What the quote labels as "excesses of National Socialism" were - as I see it - in fact consequences of the core elements of its ideology. Calling the crimes "excesses" sounds as if they shouldn't have happened, as if it was just bad luck or so.....that's too easy IMO.

[BeBMan]

dp wrong button

Addition: I think they were just lying to themselves in that quote. Of course when thinking about the reality of the NS regime they had to rationalize and to justify their participation somehow, if only to themselves.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander


I really don't disagree, my post was in response to the notion that no one had anything to fear. When he (Hitler) was so willing to be ruthless with people he had been formerly close to and allied with it was bound to have a somewhat chilling effect on those who weren't close to him.

Yet, Guderian did not behave in a manner that suggested he feared the wrath of Hitler.

[Dr Strangelove]

Why did R.E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson continue to support the Confederacy even though he knew it's underlying philosophy, preserving the freedom to own slaves, was evil?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, the general reason seems to be keeping the Oath all members of the German military took to the Fuhrer and the Fatherland. NOt to fight for the Nazi's would have been a case of breaking their oath.

That is the nice answer made by the Prussian officers, but it forgets that the oath was broken by Hitler when, before Barbarossa, he convoked all generals and inform them that his orders will be that rules of war will not apply to the campaign in Russia. Acceptation of this order was of course not an honorable obligation included in the original oath.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by BeBro
I think Guderian tries to make exactly that point, that what Hitler did was only a bastardisation of National Socialism, which as such wasn't that bad. I just disagree with him completely. I think the "achievements" for workers were just a great means for Hitler to buy loyalty. What the quote labels as "excesses of National Socialism" were - as I see it - in fact consequences of the core elements of its ideology. Calling the crimes "excesses" sounds as if they shouldn't have happened, as if it was just bad luck or so.....that's too easy IMO.

Well if we think about it, Germany in 1938, economically speaking, was far far far better off than Germany in 1930. To say that National Socialism achieved benefits for the workers wouldn't be too far off the mark. Perhaps this is what Guderian is referring to in the fundamental principles? First impressions, and all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lancer
Wasn't Rommel told by a friend never to go near a concentration camp? Read a tory about this once but don't have a link or anything. Anyway, he never did visit one and resisted invitations iirc.


Also, he was in France, africa, sick, and occupied France. Most camps were in Germany and Poland.

That's extremely unlikely. Rommel was seen as a personal enemy very early on by Bormann, prior to the war, and Rommel's wife, Lucie Mollin(sp?) Rommel was half-Polish. She had an uncle, a Catholic priest, who went missing early on in the Polish invasion, and Rommel made a number of inquiries to the SS/SD and was eventually told not to interfere further in SS/SD business or to make further inquiries about Frau Rommel's uncle.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Why did R.E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson continue to support the Confederacy even though he knew it's underlying philosophy, preserving the freedom to own slaves, was evil?

Because the Yankees insisted on using force and subjugation of civilians to resolve a political question. Virginia did not support secession until it was to become a marching ground for "volunteers" to go settle the political disputes in Charleston at the point of a bayonet, and until it was unconstitutionally ordered to provide, fund, and turn over to Federal control a quota of such "volunteers."

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Because the Yankees insisted on using force and subjugation of civilians to resolve a political question. Virginia did not support secession until it was to become a marching ground for "volunteers" to go settle the political disputes in Charleston at the point of a bayonet, and until it was unconstitutionally ordered to provide, fund, and turn over to Federal control a quota of such "volunteers."

All that pales against the evil that was slavery so it's not really an answer.

The answer of course, is patriotism. IIRC, Lee himself admits that he would have been a union general had Virginia not seceded. His loyalty was to Virginia first, irregardless of its moral or political stands on the issues of the day.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Moral relativism is such a nice thing. The "evil" that was slavery was only partly accepted as such then, and was replaced by the "non-evil" of laissez faire unregulated capitalism.

I have yet to hear anyone who talks about the "evil" of slavery in the context of 1860, talk about exactly what the good ol' abolitionists proposed to do about it? Create 6.6 million or so instantly unemployed citizens and educate and train them for employment at Federal (i.e. taxpayer) expense?

The entire issue for Lincoln, and the majority of the Yankee populace at the time was preservation of the Union by force - look at the documentary history.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Because the Yankees insisted on using force and subjugation of civilians to resolve a political question. Virginia did not support secession until it was to become a marching ground for "volunteers" to go settle the political disputes in Charleston at the point of a bayonet, and until it was unconstitutionally ordered to provide, fund, and turn over to Federal control a quota of such "volunteers."

States had turned over units of militia to Federal control during the war of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. It wasn't unconstitutional then and it wasn't unconstitutional in 1861.

No one questioned the constituionality of sending a military expedition to Utah to suppress polygamy nor that the suppression of polygamy could be enforced upon Utah even after it became a state.

South Carolina shot first its plain and simple.

Hey, when we talk about the causes of the civil War lets substitute the phrase "leagalized sexual molestation of children" for "slavery" and see how the debate feels.