hi, what do the forum users belive to be the german armies main objections during the war aside from hitlers aim of world domination!! herman
Hi, Hermann! I don't exactly get your point. What is what you're trying to ask? The main structural flaws of the German Army or the German war machine? Industrial flaws, tactical, strategical?
hi, what iam trying to get at is were the german armies objectives the same as hitlers? for example, the creationof a racial state. or did the army belive they were fighting for a better germany. i guess the main theme i am trying to address is whether or not hitler had the full support of the army during his quest? herman
I suppose the answer is a split one, parts of his army were fully behind him others were not. The main reason being what we nowadays call "spin". Those that were really aware of how the war was going in certain areas would have been cautious of Hitlers vision. For most on the ground who only really heard through German Spin that the war was being won on all fronts support would have been there. But stories would allways filter through casting doubt on soldiers minds. I dont think this would differ from World War 1 right through to current "conflicts".
I would say that the average German honestly believed that they were fighting for a better Germany, given the terrible state that WW1 left her in. Add to that the fear of Bolshivisim and strong continental anti semitisim and you have joe average happily trundling off with the Wermacht on a rightious crusade. As mentioned, the spin always lets people think that thay are right. Most Germans supported the war, especialy at the start, but not many knew the extent of the atrocities. If they did know, did they care having seen the bloodshed and anarchy that Germany had already been through during the post war period.
Hitler gained the support of the Army when he agreed to support massive rearmament and conquest of Germany's neighbors in return for eliminating the SA. After that, Hitler and the Army were basically pals...they got money, tanks, and trained men, and Hitler got a war machine that could sweep through Europe. The only problems were grumbling when Hitler started the aggression prematurely. To ensure the Army's loyalty, Hitler imposed the "Fuhrer Oath" on his officers and men, which bound them to Adolf personally. He also eliminated two of the commanders-in-chief, Blomberg and Fritsch, replacing them with pliable toadies like Keitel. The Army was mostly concerned that launching a war early would lead to defeat (which it did) and that Hitler's newfangled plans might crash (which they did, but not initially). When the war began, some Wehrmacht officers were unhappy with SS brutality in Poland, which kept Blaskowitz from getting the Field Marshal's baton he deserved. Other Wehrmacht officers didn't care or supported Hitler. After a while, Hitler had the Wehrmacht's support, based on a track record of success. He defeated everybody, so they backed the winner. When the war began to turn against Germany, and Hitler's decisions became increasingly ludicrous, he began to lose support, first from devoutly religious colonels like Tresckow and Stauffenberg, then from more high-ranking officers like Witzleben and Rommel. The Wehrmacht was also annoyed at how their deal to eliminate the SA as a rival only empowered the SS. By late in the war, the SS was a state-within-a-state in Germany, and had first dibs on the latest equipment and best men. Their high-handed behavior, including shootings of POWs was embarrassing to German officers' sense of honor (but not the exterminations of Jews) and made them fearful of Allied retaliation (which was probably the real fear). The spectre of defeat and utter destruction set off the Wehrmacht's anti-Hitler plots. The officers who launched the 1944 Attentat were more concerned with Germany being crushed by invasion than Hitler's genocidal activities.
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Sep 16 2004, 12:53 PM The spectre of defeat and utter destruction set off the Wehrmacht's anti-Hitler plots. The officers who launched the 1944 Attentat were more concerned with Germany being crushed by invasion than Hitler's genocidal activities. [post=28181]Quoted post[/post] I agree. There was some limited opposition to the Nazis in the army earlier, but no serious attempt to get rid of Hitler before it became clear that Germany was losing the war. Rommel is a good example of a soldier who initially admired Hitler, but became increasingly disillusioned.
Originally posted by angie999+Sep 18 2004, 06:15 AM-->(angie999 @ Sep 18 2004, 06:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Kiwiwriter@Sep 16 2004, 12:53 PM The spectre of defeat and utter destruction set off the Wehrmacht's anti-Hitler plots. The officers who launched the 1944 Attentat were more concerned with Germany being crushed by invasion than Hitler's genocidal activities. [post=28181]Quoted post[/post] I agree. There was some limited opposition to the Nazis in the army earlier, but no serious attempt to get rid of Hitler before it became clear that Germany was losing the war. Rommel is a good example of a soldier who initially admired Hitler, but became increasingly disillusioned. [post=28205]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Rommel was neither alone nor unique. The plotters tried to get lustrous names like Manstein, Rundstedt, Kluge, and Von Der Heydte involved. With the exception of Kluge, all were cool, but all apparently indicated that they were not happy with the way the war was going. Milton Shulman's "Defeat in the West" points out that the German/Nazi command structure made sure that commanders did not know what was going on outside of their immediate areas. That made them believe Hitler's propaganda about super-weapons and such, and they were often genuinely surprised to find out the other front was in as big a mess as they were.
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Sep 20 2004, 01:20 AM Milton Shulman's "Defeat in the West" [post=28234]Quoted post[/post] Originally published in 1947 and lacking the benefit of much subsequent research, this book is still worth reading for its closeness to the events and is something of a classic. You may still find the Masquerade 1995 edition on sale, cover price £7.95.
I can't recommend the Shulman book too highly. Despite its age, it still stands up as a fascinating sociological portrait as awell as a history of the German army in WW2.
The biggest problem for any of the plotters agains Hitler was the oath taken by members of the german armed forces. it is interesting to to note that once they had heard that Hitler was supposed to have been killed on 20th july, many officers considered themselves no longer bound by the oath and where thus free to act against the nazis.
Gentlemen: As with ALL armies and military men. Power and the ability to project that power is the most important thing. Most military men will stay away from actual politics until it effects their army, as alluded to in previous posts. Joe
To ensure the Army's loyalty, Hitler imposed the "Fuhrer Oath" on his officers and men, which bound them to Adolf personally. Not really. It was general Von Blomberg the one who 'imposed' the oath on the armed forces, closely supported by general Von Reichenau and many other officers. It's in the same way that Von Blomberg, who, without any order from Hitler or any nazi, introduced the 'Arian paragraph' and nazi insignia on the armed forces.
Originally posted by Friedrich H@Dec 8 2004, 10:07 PM To ensure the Army's loyalty, Hitler imposed the "Fuhrer Oath" on his officers and men, which bound them to Adolf personally. Not really. It was general Von Blomberg the one who 'imposed' the oath on the armed forces, closely supported by general Von Reichenau and many other officers. It's in the same way that Von Blomberg, who, without any order from Hitler or any nazi, introduced the 'Arian paragraph' and nazi insignia on the armed forces. [post=30009]Quoted post[/post] In the book on Kursk by Glantz and House (University Press of Kansas, 1999), there is a picture of Kluge without the Nazi eagle badge on his tunic or cap. As, I believe, this was introduced no later than early 1934, I can only assume it was an old picture rather than showing him in 1943. Anyone know the date?
Originally posted by Friedrich H@Dec 8 2004, 06:07 PM To ensure the Army's loyalty, Hitler imposed the "Fuhrer Oath" on his officers and men, which bound them to Adolf personally. Not really. It was general Von Blomberg the one who 'imposed' the oath on the armed forces, closely supported by general Von Reichenau and many other officers. It's in the same way that Von Blomberg, who, without any order from Hitler or any nazi, introduced the 'Arian paragraph' and nazi insignia on the armed forces. [post=30009]Quoted post[/post] Blomberg was an arrogant guy with movie-star German general looks, who wore his uniform as Minister of Defense, even though he was not supposed to. He got maneuvered out of power when he married a girl who had once posed for naughty pictures and was accused of prostitution, and that was a serious breach of the Generalstab's honor code.
In the book on Kursk by Glantz and House (University Press of Kansas, 1999), there is a picture of Kluge without the Nazi eagle badge on his tunic or cap. As, I believe, this was introduced no later than early 1934, I can only assume it was an old picture rather than showing him in 1943. Anyone know the date? Yo mean this one? This photograph must be from 1933, when Von Kluge was a major general (promoted to this rank in January 1933), because he was promoted to lieutenant general in April 1934, by the time Von Blomberg had voluntarily introduced nazi insignia within the armed forces.
The average German soldier thought he was defending Germany. The officers tended to try to not believe the atroscities if they ever heard of them for a combination of reasons. Though I wish Rommel's car wasn't shot up in 44' it would've ended the war waaaaaay earlier. SInce he was conspiring to surrender the German army of the west to the allies thus opening up germany.
The average German soldier thought he was defending Germany. Indeed. But defending Germany meant defending them against the sub-human Slavs and Jews, evil communism and capitalism. German WWII foot soldiers were different than those of WWI. In this war there was a lot of individual hatred and complete disregard for the enemy, whether POW or civilian. The officers tended to try to not believe the atroscities if they ever heard of them for a combination of reasons. Maybe they did pretend they weren't happening, even if they were performing those same attrocities. Though I wish Rommel's car wasn't shot up in 44' it would've ended the war waaaaaay earlier. SInce he was conspiring to surrender the German army of the west to the allies thus opening up germany. Why? Why do you supposse the coup would have been successfull? Why do you think Rommel could have actually done something? Rommel may be very famous, but he was certainly a person with few relevance to the general German strategy.
?? He was conspiring with other notable German regular army and SS generals to surrender the ENTIRE western german army to the allies. I would indeed has shortened the war and perhaps maybe lessened the peace terms.
There were certainly no SS officers within the 1944 plot. Nor was Rommel as involved in it as people think. It was general Speidel, his chief of staff, who was trying to get the field marshal into the plot when he was wounded on June 17th. However, how could the coup have worked? And if it did, would have Ike accepted a separated peace with the Germany Army? What about the rest of the Nazi State? What about the eastern front? What about the SS?
