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

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by 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.

The entire issue for the Confederacy was the preservation of slavery {now substitute the phrase legalized sodomization of small boys}. Please see my referrence for what the leaders of the Confederacy declared in their own state legislaturea when they declared secession: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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.

That was militia, not an additional levy of non-militia "volunteers" which is what Lincoln directed.

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.

The status of Utah is far different, as a territory petitioning for statehood. Congress is within its authority to grant or not grant statehood based on its own criteria. Even if nobody "questioned the constitutionality." that doesn't settle the issue of whether an act was constitutional - only that nobody questioned the act.

At the time, Utah was a territory of the United States, without sovereignty, and the force sent against the Mormons was a US Army force under Albert Sydney Johnston, later a General in the CSA. There is no basis for legal or constitutional comparison of the Utah expedition and Ft. Sumter.

South Carolina shot first its plain and simple.

And (a) induced by deceptive and aggressive acts by the Lincoln administration, Navy department and War department; (b) even less consequential in scale than the Gulf of Tonkin incident, unless one was already looking for an excuse for war; and (c), arguably within the right of the sovereign state of South Carolina to fire on an unauthorized foreign military installation within its territory, after requesting and being refused the surrender of such installation.

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

Then let's also make those adjustments in the state and colonial charters, the US Constitution, etc., but it's still frivolous because nobody likes to address the reality that (a) in 1861, the majority of the populace of the Union states didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, (b) there was never a substantive proposal from any abolitionist leader about what to do with 6 million and change ex-slaves and how to fund whatever was done.

Abolition of slavery was a desirable end result made feasible by the war. It was not a cause of war for the Yankees, nor was it specifically intended as an outcome by the decision making parties on the Yankee side when they made the decision to go to war. In fact, Lincoln sold out the slaves in the so-called Emancipation Proclamation, by a promise not to alter the status of slavery in any state which rejoined the Union prior to January 1, 1863.

Abolition is a nice word, but you're talking about millions of non-citizens (according to the terms of the Constitution) suddenly "free" - to starve, or just conveniently disappear. Nobody was interested in funding any sort of relief effort on that scale, there was no technical or legal means for doing so, and there was no sentiment to grant civil rights, citizenship, or anything that would let free blacks compete in northern labor markets on a large scale.

Tell me how the slaves were going to be free in any meaningful sense beyond waving the magic wand of the word "abolition?" If you go back to your sexually molested kids scenario, let's say that those kids will be "rescued" only to be left on the streets with no support whatever besides what a few private citizens and churches might volunteer.

In fact, let's say we'll just adopt a new immigration quota here in the US of 15% of our current population, for third-world economic refugees, and see how popular that is now?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The entire issue for the Confederacy was the preservation of slavery {now substitute the phrase legalized sodomization of small boys}. Please see my referrence for what the leaders of the Confederacy declared in their own state legislaturea when they declared secession: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

The major issue for a portion of the Confederacy, yes. The entire issue for the entirety of the Confederacy, no - unless that oft-cited page suddenly has the full spectrum of published speech and opinion of the entire Confederacy.

How about anything from the slave-holding Union state of Delaware? Or the "neutral" states?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That was militia, not an additional levy of non-militia "volunteers" which is what Lincoln directed.

The US had also raised levies of volunteers for federal forces in the past, so what's the diff?

The status of Utah is far different, as a territory petitioning for statehood. Congress is within its authority to grant or not grant statehood based on its own criteria. Even if nobody "questioned the constitutionality." that doesn't settle the issue of whether an act was constitutional - only that nobody questioned the act.

No, actually Utah declared itself independent. The Federal force was sent to re-establish Federal authority. While one could point out that Utah was then a territory and not a state it seems to me that such a distinction is splitting hairs. The fact that the Mormons did so in order to perserve the institution of polygamous marriage was an issue however. Papers, and published speeches by political figures made it very clear that outrage over this Mormon practice was a prime motive for the expedition.

At the time, Utah was a territory of the United States, without sovereignty, and the force sent against the Mormons was a US Army force under Albert Sydney Johnston, later a General in the CSA. There is no basis for legal or constitutional comparison of the Utah expedition and Ft. Sumter.

No, in the case of Ft. SUmter the Confederacy fired first.

And (a) induced by deceptive and aggressive acts by the Lincoln administration, Navy department and War department; (b) even less consequential in scale than the Gulf of Tonkin incident, unless one was already looking for an excuse for war; and (c), arguably within the right of the sovereign state of South Carolina to fire on an unauthorized foreign military installation within its territory, after requesting and being refused the surrender of such installation.

The land had been fairly procured and was Federal property. The US government was under no compulsion to sell the property, it was rightfully US soil. Furthermore common law "right-of-way" gave the US the right of access to the properties.

Then let's also make those adjustments in the state and colonial charters, the US Constitution, etc., but it's still frivolous because nobody likes to address the reality that (a) in 1861, the majority of the populace of the Union states didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, (b) there was never a substantive proposal from any abolitionist leader about what to do with 6 million and change ex-slaves and how to fund whatever was done.

There were three million slaves, not six. You must be getting them mixed up with the victims of the holocaust. I wonder why. In 1860 the people of the United States elected a noted opponent to slavery, Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. Surely the fact of his history of antipathy towards slavery must have weighed in their minds to some extent. Oh, and some abolitionist had suggested giving the slaves portions of the plantations as fair compensation for labor forcibly taken from them in the past.

Abolition of slavery was a desirable end result made feasible by the war. It was not a cause of war for the Yankees, nor was it specifically intended as an outcome by the decision making parties on the Yankee side when they made the decision to go to war. In fact, Lincoln sold out the slaves in the so-called Emancipation Proclamation, by a promise not to alter the status of slavery in any state which rejoined the Union prior to January 1, 1863.

A temporary political move remedied by a subsequent constitutional amendment. Surely no one thought that at the war's end the status of slaves in those states would have remained unaltered.

Abolition is a nice word, but you're talking about millions of non-citizens (according to the terms of the Constitution) suddenly "free" - to starve, or just conveniently disappear. Nobody was interested in funding any sort of relief effort on that scale, there was no technical or legal means for doing so, and there was no sentiment to grant civil rights, citizenship, or anything that would let free blacks compete in northern labor markets on a large scale.

Actually the freed slaves did well with respect to civil rights the first few years after the end of the war. A persistent guerilla war of terrorism, a nation weary of war, and an economic crisis however eroded their position and led to compromises that left them stranded withoput protection in a hostile region.

Tell me how the slaves were going to be free in any meaningful sense beyond waving the magic wand of the word "abolition?" If you go back to your sexually molested kids scenario, let's say that those kids will be "rescued" only to be left on the streets with no support whatever besides what a few private citizens and churches might volunteer.

In fact, let's say we'll just adopt a new immigration quota here in the US of 15% of our current population, for third-world economic refugees, and see how popular that is now?

These last statements do not even warrant answering. I'm shocked at your attitude.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kalius


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.

Yeah, but who says the economy cannot improve without an NS regime?

Seriously, I still think he is simply searching a good point of NS to rationalize how it happened as well as his participation as a leading military guy in the regime.

The fundamental principles of the so-called "Volksgemeinschaft" were never meant to be really "socialist" (in the sense of economic equality), I think there are quotes from Goebbels which say this quite clearly.


OTOH, racism, antisemitism and nationalism belonged certainly to those fundamental principles - IMO Guderian just don't want to see it that way, because it could be somehow unpleasant to admit this. This touches your original question - as long as he thinks there were some good things during NS times he can simply say he had an oath, or he did it for Germany, not for the nazis etc. Maybe he really believed that, at least for a certain time, but for me these are excuses. If he would accept that the regime was fundamentally wrong, those excuses would not work anymore.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yeah, but who says the economy cannot improve without an NS regime?

Seriously, I still think he is simply searching a good point of NS to rationalize how it happened as well as his participation as a leading military guy in the regime.

Yes exactly- downside of Nazi economic policy: must occupy bordering countries to take control of their manufacturing centres (Czechoslovakia) and their coal and ore supplies (Austria & Czechoslovakia).

Must compulsorily deprive selected German citizens of their livelihoods and businesses, with little or no compensation, exact financial penalties if they wish to leave the country and also cannibalize factories and workshops in the newly added areas of the Reich.

[Shogun Gunner]

For both the American Civil war and WW2, much of the motivation that led to actions of war was largely based in economic reasons.

The American South was a raw material export based economy. The American North was industrializing rapidly. Control over trade, tarriffs, and taxes were being debated. The South didn't have the population -- and also didn't have the votes in Congress to effect legislation favorable to their interests.

Germany in world war 2, was fueled by nationalism and a need for raw materials and economic recovery. I don't think the point can be emphasized enough that the crippling sanctions post World War I on Germany contributed strongly to the rise of Fascism.

Economics plays a huge part in almost every single conflict in Earth history.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by techumseh
Why do we keep driving SUV's, even though we know it creates climate change that will cause the deaths of millions?

That's the most intelligent and most relevant comment posted in this thread.

Forget about Guderian and Rommel, we know that we're destroying the earth's environment, but how many of us try to change our lives to reduce the amount of pollution we create?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


That's the most intelligent and most relevant comment posted in this thread.

Forget about Guderian and Rommel, we know that we're destroying the earth's environment, but how many of us try to change our lives to reduce the amount of pollution we create?

On this forum? Probably most.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
For both the American Civil war and WW2, much of the motivation that led to actions of war was largely based in economic reasons.

The American South was a raw material export based economy. The American North was industrializing rapidly. Control over trade, tarriffs, and taxes were being debated. The South didn't have the population -- and also didn't have the votes in Congress to effect legislation favorable to their interests.

Germany in world war 2, was fueled by nationalism and a need for raw materials and economic recovery. I don't think the point can be emphasized enough that the crippling sanctions post World War I on Germany contributed strongly to the rise of Fascism.

Economics plays a huge part in almost every single conflict in Earth history.

Read the speeches given by the proponents of secession before their own state legislatures prior to those state's passing their resolutions od secession posted on the site I linked in my earlier post. What they argue for most was the necessity of secession in order to protect Southerner's "property rights". Of course what they're referring to is slavery. So hgihly charged was this issue that it's most ardent proponents would not refer to by its proper name.

[kittenOFchaos]

The German military had sworn an oath to obey Hitler, more to the point turning on Hitler wasn't going to be easy and risked the label of being a traitor and allowing Germany to be defeated again. Also, Hitler got lucky on more than one occasion, be it in the outcome of diplomacy (Ruhr, Sudentenland, Austria) or when that bomb was put in the same room as him.