25-05-2005 17:26									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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.

	25-05-2005 18:49									#32
	Remove this text

quote: 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...

	26-05-2005 12:00									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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.

	26-05-2005 15:02									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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...

quote: 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?

	26-05-2005 15:37									#35
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	26-05-2005 15:38									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

Last edited by BeBro on 26-05-2005 at 15:47

	26-05-2005 17:28									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	26-05-2005 17:36									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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?

	26-05-2005 17:42									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 00:49									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 00:54									#41
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 00:57									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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."

	27-05-2005 03:00									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 03:35									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	27-05-2005 03:36									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 03:41									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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

	27-05-2005 04:02									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

	27-05-2005 04:06									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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?

	27-05-2005 07:41									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 15:13									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 15:18									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	27-05-2005 17:45									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	27-05-2005 23:25									#53
	Remove this text

quote: 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?

	30-05-2005 17:59									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

	30-05-2005 21:29									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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.

	31-05-2005 05:21									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.