Post-Nazism

Tahuti · Jul 15, 2016

In the Netherlands, there are several institutional remnants of the German occupation that remained to this day: Arbeidsbureaus (Labour offices) helped unemployed return to work. However, this apparently was introduced as institutional framework to ship Dutch people to the factories at the Ruhr. The Nazis also introduced universal healthcare in the Netherlands - based on the Krankenkasse system - which existed in its original form 1941 to 2006.

However, this is just the Dutch experience: In Germany, many sentences of the Nuremberg trials were commuted and Nazis who avoided the spotlights occasionally got away, serving posts in the Post-War German government. West-Germany would later consider itself the legal successor state of the Nazi Germany. In France, Nazi collaborators such as Maurice Papon served official functions.
Finally, the timezone in Western Europe was synchronized to that of Germany.

How deep do these institutional leftovers from Nazi-party rule run? Both in Germany and the formerly occupied territories? What kind of influence would these facts have on post-war events such as, say, the French riots of 1968? Are right-wing populists of the likes of Wilders and Le Pen perhaps attenuated forms of Nazism, the result from subtle Nazi influence on culture on government in Western Europe?

dutchfire · Jul 15, 2016

You missed this Dutch gem:
Germans introduced the rule that cyclists had to give right of way to cars. This was only abolished in 2001.

innonimatu · Jul 15, 2016

I don't know about other countries, but in France the right wing didn't need any lessons from the nazis. They probably taught them some, actually, both directly and through Italy.

Agent327 · Jul 16, 2016

Tovergieter said:
However, this is just the Dutch experience: In Germany, many sentences of the Nuremberg trials were commuted and Nazis who avoided the spotlights occasionally got away, serving posts in the Post-War German government. West-Germany would later consider itself the legal successor state of the Nazi Germany. In France, Nazi collaborators such as Maurice Papon served official functions.
Finally, the timezone in Western Europe was synchronized to that of Germany.

How deep do these institutional leftovers from Nazi-party rule run? Both in Germany and the formerly occupied territories? What kind of influence would these facts have on post-war events such as, say, the French riots of 1968? Are right-wing populists of the likes of Wilders and Le Pen perhaps attenuated forms of Nazism, the result from subtle Nazi influence on culture on government in Western Europe?

No. Before WW II, France had the Action Française. That was quite a bit older than the NSDAP.

By the way, denazification was started by the Allied occupational governments (except the Soviet one). They weren't really interested in the small fish, of which there were probably far too many anyway. And you may have noticed that German war criminals are still being prosecuted. The only thing putting an end to that is when they will all have died.

Secondly, the reason that the (West-)German state accepted legal responsibility was the Wiedergutmachungs policy. East Germany accepted no such responsibility, did no repairs, and the remaining 'brown' support can still be seen in the popularity of right wing movements especially among Ossis. So, if you're looking for actual historical continuity, I'd start there.

Tahuti · Jul 16, 2016

Agent327 said:
No. Before WW II, France had the Action Française. That was quite a bit older than the NSDAP.

That doesn't explain the institutional leftovers from the German occupation in full, though it certainly does help in France's case.

Agent327 said:
By the way, denazification was started by the Allied occupational governments (except the Soviet one). They weren't really interested in the small fish, of which there were probably far too many anyway. And you may have noticed that German war criminals are still being prosecuted. The only thing putting an end to that is when they will all have died.

Denazification wasn't as much of a purge of Nazi elements as it was a purge of elements associated with Nazism, including those that predated Nazism. It is one of the reasons why Germany went the black-red-gold flag instead of the black-white-red of the German Empire.

Agent327 said:
Secondly, the reason that the (West-)German state accepted legal responsibility was the Wiedergutmachungs policy. East Germany accepted no such responsibility, did no repairs, and the remaining 'brown' support can still be seen in the popularity of right wing movements especially among Ossis. So, if you're looking for actual historical continuity, I'd start there.

West Germany, as well as the US, had a direct interest in Wiedergutmachungs policies: East Germany was being plundered by the Soviets, which was construed as reparations for the suffering Nazi Germany caused in Russia. Had West Germany not embarked on the Wiedergutmachungs policy, France and Israel for instance might have recognised the GDR as the sole legal representative of all of Germany instead, as East Germany was being seen as the more contrited of the Germany's.

Also, East Germany did absorb some institutions from the Nazi German era; the national railways of the GDR was the Deutsche Reichsbahn, the same that operated as national railway carrier during the Nazi-era. This was done to ensure rail access to West-Berlin in spite of the West-East split in Germany. The remaining railways in West Germany became part of a new company called the Deutsche Bundesbahn, which later absorbed the DR after reunification.

Agent327 · Jul 17, 2016

Tovergieter said:
That doesn't explain the institutional leftovers from the German occupation in full, though it certainly does help in France's case.

It doesn't. The AF was never in power. By the way, occupation tends to have 'leftovers' in law. (The same happened after the French occupations in numerous countries after 1813-15, and those occupations were also largely viewed negatively.)

Tovergieter said:
Denazification wasn't as much of a purge of Nazi elements as it was a purge of elements associated with Nazism, including those that predated Nazism. It is one of the reasons why Germany went the black-red-gold flag instead of the black-white-red of the German Empire.

That's not what denazification meant though. In reality, as said, Nazi membership was quite widespread (no administrative function could be performed without it, for instance). It would have meant doing without any effective administration for years. Given the desperate economic situation in postwar Germany, that might quite reasonably simply not have been an option.

Tovergieter said:
West Germany, as well as the US, had a direct interest in Wiedergutmachungs policies: East Germany was being plundered by the Soviets, which was construed as reparations for the suffering Nazi Germany caused in Russia. Had West Germany not embarked on the Wiedergutmachungs policy, France and Israel for instance might have recognised the GDR as the sole legal representative of all of Germany instead, as East Germany was being seen as the more contrited of the Germany's.

I don't understand this argument at all. The GDR was never a candidate for 'sole representative of the German people' in the West. Whether the US had any interest in Germany's Wiedergutmachungs policy, I cannot say: it restored West Germany's relations with both formerly occupied nations as well as with Jews, individually and collectively. The GDR never accepted any such responsibility. As a Communist or 'people's' regime it pretended to have no connection with Germany's past crimes against humanity.

Pundit · Jul 20, 2016

Many of De Gaulle's followers had previously worked for Vichy. I can't recall any being out-and-out Nazi collaborators in the vein of Admiral Darlan or Marshal Petain though. That Vichyites influence would go some way to explaining the gradual drift of the Gaullists to the right, when they began as a surprisingly diverse party.

Many high-ranking Nazis or their sympathisers held very important positions in West Germany. Heinz Guderian was the first Chief of Staff of the West German Army. The autobahns are an obvious example of Nazi influence on engineering and architecture. Many animal welfare laws were passed by Hitler, an animal-lover, and are still on the books in several European countries, IIRC. The idea of the government rewarding mothers with cash bonuses on the births of their children was popularised by Nazi Germany, and spread far further than the Nazis themselves. Australia has a "Baby Bonus" for new mothers. Probably a lot more examples out there.

Buster's Uncle · Jul 20, 2016

-And of course US Interstate Highway System = Eisenhower knew a good idea when he saw the autobahn...

Agent327 · Jul 21, 2016

Pundit said:
Many of De Gaulle's followers had previously worked for Vichy.

Like François Mitterrand, you mean?

Pundit said:
I can't recall any being out-and-out Nazi collaborators in the vein of Admiral Darlan or Marshal Petain though. That Vichyites influence would go some way to explaining the gradual drift of the Gaullists to the right, when they began as a surprisingly diverse party.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If only because De Gaulle's Free France actively and militarily opposed Vichy. Secondly, the gaullist party always had a right wing. Sort of like any party, really.

Pundit said:
Many high-ranking Nazis or their sympathisers held very important positions in West Germany. Heinz Guderian was the first Chief of Staff of the West German Army.

Guderian was in the military before Hitler. I'm not sure how his function in the military would make him 'a high-ranking Nazi'. which leaves your suggestive claim that 'many high-ranking Nazis or their sympathisers held very important positions in West Germany'. So far, I see no examples being named.

Pundit said:
The autobahns are an obvious example of Nazi influence on engineering and architecture.

Actually, the Autobahne were planned before Hitler.

Pundit said:
Many animal welfare laws were passed by Hitler, an animal-lover, and are still on the books in several European countries, IIRC. The idea of the government rewarding mothers with cash bonuses on the births of their children was popularised by Nazi Germany, and spread far further than the Nazis themselves. Australia has a "Baby Bonus" for new mothers. Probably a lot more examples out there.

Hardly. You seem to miss the rather obvious fact that Catholicism was very pro-procreation. So it stand to reason that Catholic parties would support such laws. It's not like Hitler had many original ideas. In fact, except 'animal welfare' (which is rather quaint when considering how he treated humans) would be one of the few originals.

Pundit · Jul 21, 2016

Agent327 said:
Like François Mitterrand, you mean?

I was referring to De Gaulle's time in government after the war, not his service as provisional head-of-state. There were quite a few Vichyites that supported De Gaulle in the post-war period, which was an odd state of affairs. What was more odd is that De Gaulle tolerated them, even promoting a few to high-ranking positions. Couve de Murville was probably the most prominent.

Agent327 said:
This makes no sense whatsoever. If only because De Gaulle's Free France actively and militarily opposed Vichy. Secondly, the gaullist party always had a right wing. Sort of like any party, really.

Your entire post seems quite belligerent. Gaullism is a broad-based movement which drew support from across the political spectrum, even including some communists. Yet today De Gaulle's party has metamorphosed into the centre-right - at best - Republicans. Even in De Gaulle's lifetime the parliamentary party moved to the right, though De Gaulle himself tried to keep his cabinet from adopting either a left or right position.

Agent327 said:
Guderian was in the military before Hitler. I'm not sure how his function in the military would make him 'a high-ranking Nazi'. which leaves your suggestive claim that 'many high-ranking Nazis or their sympathisers held very important positions in West Germany'. So far, I see no examples being named.

Guderian was a colonel who rose to the rank of Wehrmacht Chief of Staff under Hitler. He was in the bunker until shortly before it fell. And he is only one example, from the military side. Kurt Georg Kiesinger was a member of the Nazi Party for 12 years, and later served as Chancellor of Germany.

Agent327 said:
Actually, the Autobahne were planned before Hitler.

So was an offensive war against Poland, but we don't blame it on the Weimer Republic. The autobahn may have been conceived in the 1920s, but Hitler enthusiastically endorsed the idea and pursued it with great gusto.

Agent327 said:
Hardly. You seem to miss the rather obvious fact that Catholicism was very pro-procreation. So it stand to reason that Catholic parties would support such laws. It's not like Hitler had many original ideas. In fact, except 'animal welfare' (which is rather quaint when considering how he treated humans) would be one of the few originals.

Name one single Catholic party in Australian politics. It seems like all you have done in this post is to attack my claims while offering no counter-claims, nor have you disproven anything I've said. You've simply forced me to go to Wikipedia, as you could have easily done yourself, to confirm my comments. I'm not interested in writing scholarly articles here; if I feel the need for a source I will provide it, if I think I'm making a fairly general statement about something that doesn't need evidence, I won't.

Agent327 · Jul 21, 2016

Pundit said:
I was referring to De Gaulle's time in government after the war, not his service as provisional head-of-state. There were quite a few Vichyites that supported De Gaulle in the post-war period, which was an odd state of affairs. What was more odd is that De Gaulle tolerated them, even promoting a few to high-ranking positions. Couve de Murville was probably the most prominent.

This one, you mean?

Couve de Murville joined the corps of finance inspectors in 1930, and in 1940 became Director of External Finances of the Vichy régime, in which capacity he sat at the armistice council of Wiesbaden. In March 1943, after the American landing in North Africa, he was one of the few senior officials of Vichy to join the Free French.

Pundit said:
Your entire post seems quite belligerent. Gaullism is a broad-based movement which drew support from across the political spectrum, even including some communists. Yet today De Gaulle's party has metamorphosed into the centre-right - at best - Republicans. Even in De Gaulle's lifetime the parliamentary party moved to the right, though De Gaulle himself tried to keep his cabinet from adopting either a left or right position.

That's nothing new to me, I'm afraid.

Pundit said:
Guderian was a colonel who rose to the rank of Wehrmacht Chief of Staff under Hitler. He was in the bunker until shortly before it fell. And he is only one example, from the military side. Kurt Georg Kiesinger was a member of the Nazi Party for 12 years, and later served as Chancellor of Germany.

Let's count: 1945 minus 12 is 1933. He joined when it was required then. And Guderian was one of the few competent military whose qualities even Hitler could recognize. You are aware that as dictator Hitler made the entire military swear allegiance to him personally? Which still doesn't make Guderian a Nazi though. The reason why Guderian was with Hitler was that he was his 'chief of staff'; an empty post, as Hitler was his own chief of staff.

Pundit said:
So was an offensive war against Poland, but we don't blame it on the Weimer Republic. The autobahn may have been conceived in the 1920s, but Hitler enthusiastically endorsed the idea and pursued it with great gusto.

The war against Poland - although thoroughly prepared - was actually advised against by top military. The reason Htler 'endorsed', 'with great gusto' the Autobahne is neither her nor there. It wasn't his idea. He didn't concern himself much with practical politics, as it tended to utterly bore him.

Pundit said:
Name one single Catholic party in Australian politics. It seems like all you have done in this post is to attack my claims while offering no counter-claims, nor have you disproven anything I've said. You've simply forced me to go to Wikipedia, as you could have easily done yourself, to confirm my comments. I'm not interested in writing scholarly articles here; if I feel the need for a source I will provide it, if I think I'm making a fairly general statement about something that doesn't need evidence, I won't.

Here's two: CSP (Chrstian Social Party, pre-Anschluss). ÖVP (Austrian People's Party, post 1945).

To wit, I don't make counter-claims. I don't need to: so far you've named two or three individuals to support your claim. That doesn't quite suffice.

Pundit · Jul 21, 2016

Agent327 said:
This one, you mean?

Yes.

I notice you seem to be going out of your way to deny any institutionalised Nazi structures in post-war Europe. I don't understand why that is. No one is denying that Couve switched sides. No one is denying that many people who served both the Nazis and Vichy were secretly anti-Nazi and anti-Vichy, though precious few were pro-De Gaulle. It seems like you are trying to discredit arguments by focusing on incredibly minor technicalities, rather than the broad trends.

Agent327 said:
That's nothing new to me, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry. Next time I'll write you an innovative and original essay, full of original research and recently declassified state secrets.

Agent327 said:
Let's count: 1945 minus 12 is 1933. He joined when it was required then. And Guderian was one of the few competent military whose qualities even Hitler could recognize. You are aware that as dictator Hitler made the entire military swear allegiance to him personally? Which still doesn't make Guderian a Nazi though. The reason why Guderian was with Hitler was that he was his 'chief of staff'; an empty post, as Hitler was his own chief of staff.

It was literally never required that a person join the Nazi Party. In fact, there were several occupations - most notably the military - where it was actually illegal to join the party. No other German Chancellors after WWII were former Nazis. Kiesinger made a choice. He chose to join the Nazis, whereas Willy Brandt chose to flee the country and denounce the Nazis from afar. Hans Bernd Gisevius chose to remain in Germany, not join the Nazi Party, and join the German resistance.

Hitler never forced an oath of allegiance upon the military. That was something the Wehrmacht did on their own, in 1934, after the Night of the Long Knives. People like Von Stauffenberg swore that same oath, and still attempted to kill Hitler. Guderian could have left the military, or worked to overthrow Hitler, or simply not cosies up to the genocidal bastard so much. No one ever called him a Nazi. You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, which doesn't really surprise me, given the arguments you are making. It seems disturbingly close to Nazi Apologism.

Agent327 said:
The war against Poland - although thoroughly prepared - was actually advised against by top military. The reason Htler 'endorsed', 'with great gusto' the Autobahne is neither her nor there. It wasn't his idea. He didn't concern himself much with practical politics, as it tended to utterly bore him.

The invasion of Czechoslovakia was advised again. An invasion of Poland was not, at least not by the majority of the General Staff. You seem to have very little actual knowledge of this period. Hitler's disdain of practical politics is legendary, but so is his attention to detail on issues in which he directly concerned himself. Architecture, engineering, automobiles, and rearmament were among those issues, and the autobahns involved all four.

If you want to go down the "it wasn't his idea" route, then Hitler wasn't responsible for much of anything. The invasion of Poland was an old Wiemar pipe dream, the treaty with Russia a Wiemar policy, the invasion of Russia something that even Winston Churchill had beaten him to decades earlier, and so on. It's a rather pathetic argument.

Agent327 said:
Here's two: CSP (Chrstian Social Party, pre-Anschluss). ÖVP (Austrian People's Party, post 1945).

To wit, I don't make counter-claims. I don't need to: so far you've named two or three individuals to support your claim. That doesn't quite suffice.

I'm beginning to suspect you're just an angry teenage boy. Please tell me, how many seats did those two parties hold in the Australian Parliament? I won't be bothering to waste my time arguing with you further, as I don't believe you are actually interested in an honest debate on the topic, but rather on simply passing the time falsely claiming to have discredited my points without actually addressing them.

Tahuti · Jul 21, 2016

Agent327 said:
It doesn't. The AF was never in power. By the way, occupation tends to have 'leftovers' in law. (The same happened after the French occupations in numerous countries after 1813-15, and those occupations were also largely viewed negatively.)

The AF may have never been in power, the point is that it's reasonable popularity for a movement of this kind of caliber ensured a solid base for Pro-German collaboration in France, provided ideological interests French nationalists and the German occupiers were more or less in line, and these were. And indeed, there is a parallel between the German legal leftovers and French legal leftovers (such as centralisation, in the case of the Netherlands and Belgium).

Agent327 said:
I don't understand this argument at all. The GDR was never a candidate for 'sole representative of the German people' in the West.

When the GDR was created, the Cold War was still in its infancy. Britain and France regularly had conflicts of interests with the US. The US, given its conflict the USSR, had a direct interest in having a strong Non-Communist German state, which was initially viewed with fear by nations who were later to become US allies against the USSR, such as Britain, France and Israel. 'The West' as a bloc wasn't it as solid in the late 1940s as it was during the peak of the Cold War and possibly even compared to the present.

And in fact, Stalin even attempted to profit from the situation in the early 1950s by proposing German reunification with demilitarized German state, although that fell through due to American fears this unified Germany would eventually become a Soviet puppet-state.

Dachs · Jul 21, 2016

Pundit said:
It was literally never required that a person join the Nazi Party. In fact, there were several occupations - most notably the military - where it was actually illegal to join the party. No other German Chancellors after WWII were former Nazis. Kiesinger made a choice. He chose to join the Nazis, whereas Willy Brandt chose to flee the country and denounce the Nazis from afar. Hans Bernd Gisevius chose to remain in Germany, not join the Nazi Party, and join the German resistance.

Hitler never forced an oath of allegiance upon the military. That was something the Wehrmacht did on their own, in 1934, after the Night of the Long Knives. People like Von Stauffenberg swore that same oath, and still attempted to kill Hitler. Guderian could have left the military, or worked to overthrow Hitler, or simply not cosies up to the genocidal bastard so much. No one ever called him a Nazi. You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, which doesn't really surprise me, given the arguments you are making. It seems disturbingly close to Nazi Apologism.

I agree, but honestly, this is kind of pulling your punches a bit. Guderian was far more culpable than just that. He became chief of staff as part of Hitler's purges after the 20 July plot with full acknowledgment that he was Hitler's man. He was one of the main military leaders during the worst months of the regime, when it turned its terror on virtually anyone and everyone it could reach without discrimination. He served on the kangaroo courts-martial for suspected plotters and sentenced men to death - a task that he claimed was done with exceeding reluctance, once he had two decades' distance from the events, but which at the time he certainly seemed to think was necessary to save the country. The only reason that Guderian didn't stay on as chief of staff until the bitter end is because he got into a fight with Hitler over rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic in Küstrin.

Lexicus · Jul 21, 2016

Dachs said:
The only reason that Guderian didn't stay on as chief of staff until the bitter end is because he got into a fight with Hitler over rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic in Küstrin.

I've read the transcript of that conversation. It's downright surreal. And you can't help pitying Guderian to an extent.

As for Guderian I admire him as a soldier, not so much as a human being. He was also involved in atrocities with the Iron Brigade in the Baltic states long before his association with the Nazi regime.

Tahuti · Jul 21, 2016

Agent327 said:
Here's two: CSP (Chrstian Social Party, pre-Anschluss). ÖVP (Austrian People's Party, post 1945).

Today I learned that Australia apparently has had an Anschluss - though it's still a mystery who annexed Australia and for how long - and that Austria confusingly enough is a synonym for Australia too. And they abbreviate A with Ö, and V with P, apparently.

Agent327 · Jul 22, 2016

Tovergieter said:
When the GDR was created, the Cold War was still in its infancy. Britain and France regularly had conflicts of interests with the US. The US, given its conflict the USSR, had a direct interest in having a strong Non-Communist German state, which was initially viewed with fear by nations who were later to become US allies against the USSR, such as Britain, France and Israel. 'The West' as a bloc wasn't it as solid in the late 1940s as it was during the peak of the Cold War and possibly even compared to the present.

And in fact, Stalin even attempted to profit from the situation in the early 1950s by proposing German reunification with demilitarized German state, although that fell through due to American fears this unified Germany would eventually become a Soviet puppet-state.

All perfectly true. But it doesn't quite add up to the GDR being sole representative of Germany.

Pundit said:
Yes.

I notice you seem to be going out of your way to deny any institutionalised Nazi structures in post-war Europe. I don't understand why that is. No one is denying that Couve switched sides. No one is denying that many people who served both the Nazis and Vichy were secretly anti-Nazi and anti-Vichy, though precious few were pro-De Gaulle. It seems like you are trying to discredit arguments by focusing on incredibly minor technicalities, rather than the broad trends.

Institutionalized Nazi structures? Do you even know what that means?

Pundit said:
I'm sorry. Next time I'll write you an innovative and original essay, full of original research and recently declassified state secrets.

That would be surprising.

Pundit said:
It was literally never required that a person join the Nazi Party. In fact, there were several occupations - most notably the military - where it was actually illegal to join the party. No other German Chancellors after WWII were former Nazis. Kiesinger made a choice. He chose to join the Nazis, whereas Willy Brandt chose to flee the country and denounce the Nazis from afar. Hans Bernd Gisevius chose to remain in Germany, not join the Nazi Party, and join the German resistance.

It was illegal for the military to be NSDAP members? I wonder where one gets such... information.

Pundit said:
Hitler never forced an oath of allegiance upon the military. That was something the Wehrmacht did on their own, in 1934, after the Night of the Long Knives. People like Von Stauffenberg swore that same oath, and still attempted to kill Hitler. Guderian could have left the military, or worked to overthrow Hitler, or simply not cosies up to the genocidal bastard so much. No one ever called him a Nazi. You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, which doesn't really surprise me, given the arguments you are making. It seems disturbingly close to Nazi Apologism.

Not really, but I can see it may appear to someone like you to be disturbingly close to historical fact. Unlike your claim that 'the military' came up with the Hitler oath.

Pundit said:
The invasion of Czechoslovakia was advised again. An invasion of Poland was not, at least not by the majority of the General Staff.

I think you are confused with the invasion of Russia here.

Pundit said:
If you want to go down the "it wasn't his idea" route, then Hitler wasn't responsible for much of anything. The invasion of Poland was an old Wiemar pipe dream, the treaty with Russia a Wiemar policy, the invasion of Russia something that even Winston Churchill had beaten him to decades earlier, and so on. It's a rather pathetic argument.

It's called Weimar. Not being responsible for an idea and approving an idea are two very different things, by the way.

Pundit said:
Australia

I though you miswrote. (There are no Nazis in Australia, you see.) It does explain your actual lack of knowledge on the Nazis though.

Plotinus · Jul 22, 2016

Moderator Action: Please keep the tone respectful. I'm really tired of reading endless personal put-downs on these threads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

innonimatu · Jul 22, 2016

Pundit said:
It was literally never required that a person join the Nazi Party. In fact, there were several occupations - most notably the military - where it was actually illegal to join the party. No other German Chancellors after WWII were former Nazis. Kiesinger made a choice. He chose to join the Nazis, whereas Willy Brandt chose to flee the country and denounce the Nazis from afar. Hans Bernd Gisevius chose to remain in Germany, not join the Nazi Party, and join the German resistance.

Hitler never forced an oath of allegiance upon the military. That was something the Wehrmacht did on their own, in 1934, after the Night of the Long Knives. People like Von Stauffenberg swore that same oath, and still attempted to kill Hitler. Guderian could have left the military, or worked to overthrow Hitler, or simply not cosies up to the genocidal bastard so much. No one ever called him a Nazi. You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, which doesn't really surprise me, given the arguments you are making. It seems disturbingly close to Nazi Apologism.

All this is absolutely true. The military had the power to topple Hitler at least right until the successful invasion of Czecoslovakia. They chose instead to back the nazis. The change of the oath was made by Blomberg, who at the time (night of the long knives) was powerful enough to force Hitler to sacrifice the armed branch of the nazi party in order to appease the military, represented by Blomberg.

Pundit said:
The invasion of Czechoslovakia was advised again. An invasion of Poland was not, at least not by the majority of the General Staff. You seem to have very little actual knowledge of this period. Hitler's disdain of practical politics is legendary, but so is his attention to detail on issues in which he directly concerned himself. Architecture, engineering, automobiles, and rearmament were among those issues, and the autobahns involved all four.

Also true. I would only change "disdain of practical politics" to "disdain of diplomacy" when caution collied with Hitler's fixed idea of a conspiracy against Germany.

That Hitler succeeded in seizing power and starting wars that even the german generals were hesitant about is because he was carrying on very popular ideas among the german people and especially its ruling elite. The disagreements were not about conquering lebensraum, they were about where, when, and who to do it.

Pundit said:
I won't be bothering to waste my time arguing with you further, as I don't believe you are actually interested in an honest debate on the topic, but rather on simply passing the time falsely claiming to have discredited my points without actually addressing them.

Welcome to the club!

Agent327 · Jul 23, 2016

innonimatu said:
All this is absolutely true. The military had the power to topple Hitler at least right until the successful invasion of Czecoslovakia. They chose instead to back the nazis. The change of the oath was made by Blomberg, who at the time (night of the long knives) was powerful enough to force Hitler to sacrifice the armed branch of the nazi party in order to appease the military, represented by Blomberg.

Once again, no. What Munich did is rob those in the military plotting to overthrow Hitler in the case of an invasion of Czechoslovakia of the pretext to do so. Secondly, Blomberg never 'forced' Hitler to 'sacrifice the armed branch of the nazi party'. The NSDAP had several of those, and the Night of The Long Knives got rid of one of them, in favour of the other, more dependable one: the SS. 'Appeasing the military' was not really a consideration. Unless you also consider making the SS an integral part of the military appeasing the military.

innonimatu said:
Also true. I would only change "disdain of practical politics" to "disdain of diplomacy" when caution collied with Hitler's fixed idea of a conspiracy against Germany.

Such an idea would not really interest Hitler - unless the conspiracy were Jewish.

innonimatu said:
That Hitler succeeded in seizing power and starting wars that even the german generals were hesitant about is because he was carrying on very popular ideas among the german people and especially its ruling elite. The disagreements were not about conquering lebensraum, they were about where, when, and who to do it.

Hitler did not gain votes or subsidies from industrialists by promoting Lebensraum. In the depression years that would be a nonsensical political message.

Post-Nazism

Writing Deity

Deity

the resident Cassandra

Observer

Writing Deity

Observer

Chieftain

AC2 Owner

Observer

Chieftain

Observer

Chieftain

Writing Deity

Hero of the Soviet Union

Deity

Writing Deity

Observer

Philosopher

the resident Cassandra

Observer

Similar threads