Am I wrong to respect the person in my avatar ... Heinz Guderian ?

No, Partisan Activities were not very successful. Not to the extent of say, Yugoslavia, or the Soviet Union.

Now, if you doubt Rommel had enough time to enact anti-partisan measures in three months how do you imagine he was able to take any action at all in the <Two weeks of the battle of El-Alemein.
Certainly if his timeframe for taking action is bumped into tri-annually, he wouldn't have time to have any part in the battle?
 
... aware of the moral errors of Nazism....
I am not in any way defending the Nazi's for their morality or serious lack thereof. Only recognising the technical ability of the some German Generals.

You do appear to be a bit one-sided ... The causes of WWII really rest in the punitive reparations forced on Germany after WWI. If there was not so much dissent in the country due to the poverty this caused, Hitler's little party would not have gathered much traction. From what I understand, they lost the valuable Rhineland, large chunks of East Germany to Poland and still had to pay $$$ to France and the rest of the Allies, for years afterward. And for what result, another WW.

Good. Less competent commanders to be utilized in an unjust war, no?
unjust war ... not from the German point of view ... again you are showing your bias ... and not imagining what it would have been like to be in Germany after WWI and some little corporal yelling "enough is enough" and getting support for his ideal of another glorious Germany.

Do you imagine a German general in 1940 would "commit suicide" or the equivalent thereof (resigning in dishonour or court-martial), when the country was riding high in a euphoria of military successes, (Austria, Czechoslavakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and even the once mighty France). That is a very naive point of view.

As to the atrocities committed in Russia, I am currently reading "War without Garlands" - Operation Barbarossa from a soldiers point of view. In it, it covers in detail the way the Russians used even their own civilians as partisans to attack the security forces behind the front line, making it very hard to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, thereby probably warranting the issuance of the "infamous order", in order to bring order behind the lines to ensure supplies, etc. could get to the front.

In addition, from what I read in this book and elsewhere, there is speculation, that the Russians may have been preparing to attack the Germans as none of there forces were in a defensive posture, and the forces were very close to the frontline. It would appear the Germans may have pre-emptively attacked Russia, without even knowing it. Who knows what was in the mind of the Stalin and the Russian leadership. We do know that their stated objective was to turn the whole of the world "communist" eventually. So your statement of an "unjust" war may also be a bit less true. If Stalin can kill 60,000,000 of his own people, and also Polish intellectuals imagine how many he may have killed once he had control of Western Europe as well. The Iron Curtain is still fresh in my mind, as he used the wall to keep people in and killed many as they tried to escape. I have no idea how many died behind the Iron Curtain, but given the fact how so far behind the West the Eastern countries are, it must have been quite a few.

So the acts of these Generals in defending the Nazi Germany we all hate, prevented an even worse "holocaust" if the Russians had taken over Western Europe.
 
You do appear to be a bit one-sided ... The causes of WWII really rest in the punitive reparations forced on Germany after WWI. If there was not so much dissent in the country due to the poverty this caused, Hitler's little party would not have gathered much traction. From what I understand, they lost the valuable Rhineland, large chunks of East Germany to Poland and still had to pay $$$ to France and the rest of the Allies, for years afterward. And for what result, another WW.
Reductionist, teleological, inevitablist drivel aimed at shifting responsibility. The Weimar Republic's demise was not predestined by the manner of its birth.
 
Reductionist, teleological, inevitablist drivel aimed at shifting responsibility. The Weimar Republic's demise was not predestined by the manner of its birth.
Don't get me wrong, "Nazi Germany" was a terrible regime it is solely responsible for it's crimes. All I said was Hitler came into power because his little party showed a glimpse of future glory.
 
Don't get me wrong, "Nazi Germany" was a terrible regime it is solely responsible for it's crimes. All I said was Hitler came into power because his little party showed a glimpse of future glory.
So did, uh, pretty much everybody else. The NSDAP didn't poll well because of Hitler's foreign policy.
 
True ... there is more to it than that ... but this discussion should be about the German Generals and the respect I have of their technical ability, not their political views or the regime they were supporting. Both of which are abhorrent.
 
Yeah so you've not responded to any of my claims with any sort of substance. Ethics are not relative, commanders are compelled by duty to ignore wicked orders, etc.
 
Ethics are not relative, commanders are compelled by duty to ignore wicked orders, etc.
I think the only honorable soldier in your eyes were the Samurai ... who commit suicide when confronted with a decision to make.

Currently US soldiers killed many civilians Iraq ... I believe they who did, should all be put on trial for war crimes. Is how they were fighting the war "ethical". If the US can't do it in the 21st century, how do you expect the same of General's in WWII.

btw: I am enjoying this debate, as it is helping me understand how others view the war. I have for many years simply looked at it from the strategic point of view and the tactics involved (i.e. a wargamer), as I always enjoy the technical side of war, as opposed to the horrendous harm it does in real.
 
I think the only honorable soldier in your eyes were the Samurai ... who commit suicide when confronted with a decision to make.

Suicide is immoral. Soldiers are supposed to disobey immoral orders. In Guderian's and Manstein's case, they were being asked to plan out wars for revenge, and thus should've refused.

Currently US soldiers killed many civilians Iraq ... I believe they should all be put on trial for war crimes.

Some of them.

Is how they were fighting the war "ethical". If the US can't do it in the 21st century, how do you expect the same of General's in WWII.

We're not talking about war-time prosecutors, we're talking about generals. How you can look at a general who callously signed off on an order to annihilate Jews because he was afraid of losing his position (or alternatively, just sadistically antisemitic), and not object at all, is beyond me.
 
How you can look at a general who callously signed off on an order to annihilate Jews because he was afraid of losing his position (or alternatively, just sadistically antisemitic), and not object at all, is beyond me.
Because, I have in no way supported that order. I only recognise the technical ability of the Generals. Like I said before, they had made 1,000's of orders and this "infamous" one, which likely originated from "Lunatic Leader" directive, was very likely simply rubber-stamped in the heat of the battle.

If it was November 1941 it was signed, I believe that was when many of the manoeuvrings were going on for the assault on Moscow, it could have very easily being one of many orders that day or week.

Imagine his assistant, saying "Here's another order from HQ, to be signed", and he simply signed it quickly, and went back to his planning. I believe he even said he can't recall signing it, which is possible given that tense period of the war.
 
You obviously don't have much regard for his technical ability, then. What if the order had been to conduct a sudden withdraw. Or an all out assault. Or to support a neighboring units flank, or in short, any order concievable.
If he was in the habit of signing orders without reading them, he would have been giving his troops conflicting orders, making a horrible muck of things all the time.
 
He may have had some level of trust in his staff that it may not have affected his overall plans. I'll rephrase it then. "Here is another 'rear-area security order' for you to sign from HQ". Yes he could have read it but in the heat of his planning did not see how it was that important, in comparison to him making a successful attack on Moscow or supporting one.

Have you ever been in a tense situation and have to make many decisions in a row ?

I think I have found a possible directive from Hitler. Directive no. 39 "3. Young workers classified as essential will be released from their employment on a large scale and will be replaced by prisoners and Russian civilian workers, employed in groups. The High Command of the Armed Forces will issue special orders in this respect." These special orders may be the ones that came down the line to the Generals to sign.

Here is another related Hitler Directive. No.46 - Instructions For Intensified Action Against Banditry In The East. Although it is dated 18 August 1942, some time after the actual order above. The General Staff must have been well aware of the problems "partisans" in the rear areas, before this directive was issued.
 
Because, I have in no way supported that order. I only recognise the technical ability of the Generals. Like I said before, they had made 1,000's of orders and this "infamous" one, which likely originated from "Lunatic Leader" directive, was very likely simply rubber-stamped in the heat of the battle.

You have two arguments you keep jumping forth between whenever I refute one: one is that you only care about Guderian's technical skill and want to keep that separate from his war crimes. When I respond to that, you suggest that he wasn't so much a war criminal, just a guy that was following orders that he had to to prevent a court martial or execution. When I respond to that, you then jump back to saying that you don't really care and that it's separate from his technical skills.

This is getting increasingly frustrating.

Imagine his assistant, saying "Here's another order from HQ, to be signed", and he simply signed it quickly, and went back to his planning. I believe he even said he can't recall signing it, which is possible given that tense period of the war.

Manstein, if not Guderian, testified at the Nuremberg Trials that he remembered signing the order. Also, your repeated assertion that this was an order that came from HQ does not hold water considering Hitler gave Manstein glowing praise for having independently sent off an extremely antisemitic order.
 
There is very definitely a difference of opinion between us. Let's agree to disagree. You come at this question from a "moral" standpoint, and I come at it from a "technical" standpoint.

I agree from a "moral" standpoint, he should not be respected, however, from a "technical" standpoint his skills could be recognised.
 
He may have had some level of trust in his staff that it may not have affected his overall plans. I'll rephrase it then. "Here is another 'rear-area security order' for you to sign from HQ".
The Same problem then arises. 'rear'area security order' for all he knew could have removed entire divisions back behind the front lines, by dozens if not hundreds of miles.
 
allright , time for a few banal cliches and shaky theses , peripherally related . The primary fault of German generals was thinking they were capable of controlling Nazism as a tool to break away from the restrictions of WW1 peace structure . The ways they failed and how the lesson was not heeded is a hot lecturing topic these days , and the hate achieved is just recommandable viewing ! The world is a "faulty" construction , people are not perfect , were not in the past , unlikely to be in the future . As such when was the German officers were expected to rise up against the evil party , when Austria was given away or maybe when Prague was ? Rhienland ? As said world is not perfect , somebody has to be ready to kill people in case things go bad and in every single step to the war , the western democracies faciliated Adolf's path to glory , German generals could only thank the good people . Their premise was simple : when Germany was strong enough to stand tall , then the tools would be kicked out as they were fools ; in turn the fools were totally into getting everything under control . The only reason the unprepared German armies won the opening rounds of the WW2 is that their opposition were even in worse shape .

the reputation of German generalship has been much influenced by the needs of the cold war , they were to be reintagrated into west , and their effectiveness was also tilted in favour of the new order . Germans kicked the Russians so bad , Americans and British kicked the Germans so bad , ergo West will kick SU so bad ... And in cases certain events were glossed over . Guderian was rightly indignant at the suggestion of a subcomander that he should retreat in the face of Polish cavalry , yet apperantly he lost 70 panzers to Russian cavalry in front of Moscow . And of course politics were also involved .

ah yes , the Nazis are pigs , and deservedly at that and not because they merely plotted to kill anybody of Jewish origins . Yes , that is enough to be pigs but they were intent on killing far more . The world at the time failed to see that ; they took it as standart political activity , it was normal ... That is why even Adolf Hitler was still hopeful of a modus vivendi with Western Allies in May 1945 , they had done nothing out of bounds , nothing unexpected . It was the contract , right ?

so , for the initial period generals would love the results since it is good to be winning and for the late period where the sins were unhideable and the writing was clearly on the wall , really, what could they do ? It is noted somewhere that the democratic America "banned" private automobiles as soon as it entered the war , Germany went into total war mood only in 1942 or 43 , because the generals saw the warcrimes already committed made it absolute that there would be a reckoning , which certainly cooled their ardour for any toppling of the Third Reich . Since the troops they were supposed to command were totally influenced by the party and mind you , there were the Waffen SS , a really sizeable army that could be a thorn in a civil war . Allowing the Nazis to concentrate on the hideous business of conducting a war , abroad . Could not trust that they were to be hold responsible but there would be escape clauses , they had to go on . They were now trying for a draw . It would elude them . This explanation is intented for whom "honour" , oath , loyalty to the upbringing , country or comrades in arms or similar bindings are somehow hollow . Though it should not be taken as personal diminishing of any sorts , there are many examples of things &#305; would personally be sarcastic about when the said high ground moral concepts are used .

to suggest one could personally do the right thing in such conditions will taken as a honest belief , self confidence and all the good stuff . &#305; would , without any doubt , but &#305; am famous for having a starfleet . Such things are problematical in real life .

july 44 : Von Stauffenberg was so mistrusted that his explosives were tampered with , to make certain that they would go on . Don't buy too much into thick oak table legs , it is really a case of "out of range" . Don't ask what , why or how . History will one day write that Erwin Rommel was known to be leaving his compound before coming under RAF attack . While he had once commanded Adolf's own personal guard that became an SS division , he was famous , he was not involved with the East European front and so could be sold to the Soviets as "acceptable" . Not that German generals had not offered to fight the red tide , playing the same game with the party , resulting in the "party" tip . Von Rundstendt was made aware the British goverment refused a negotiaited peace on the day through a newspaper article . Von Kluge has already been mentioned . Who has ever heard of Beck , the only Beck &#305; knew before the &#305; started reading somewhat deeper , was a singer and her only hit has long been throughly butchered with a cover ...The Germans were fighting in France and there were signs of cracking . They , the German generals &#305; mean , simply could not turn on each other to ease the advance of the British Army . Western Allies thought they had a strong hand , they could wipe the floor with the Reds , though Germans had already achieved a mythical reputation , again . Somewhat startling change (?) when compared to early June , where the castration studies were hinted to prevent an all too eager response to D-Day . Understandable , Dieppe II could have been followed by a yet another miracle ; thin copper wire , hollow charge and a rocket motor work out to far too much even at 10 percent , when you fire , say , 50 000 . All would have been in vain then ; though one hastens to add certain empires were dead the moment they sold the Czechs .














principles are there to be adhered to .
 
There is very definitely a difference of opinion between us. Let's agree to disagree. You come at this question from a "moral" standpoint, and I come at it from a "technical" standpoint.

I agree from a "moral" standpoint, he should not be respected, however, from a "technical" standpoint his skills could be recognised.

I've already given my argument repeatedly about how it's impossible to dissect him into two parts like that.
 
... and I have said repeated ... that I can. I have done this for many other individuals as well.
 
... and I have said repeated ... that I can. I have done this for many other individuals as well.

You can't because it's not possible. Such is the nature of respect.
 
You win !!! ... I changed my avatar.

While not religious, I recognise this; "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14).

You seem to be able to respect your person in the avatar even though he committed adultery. In my eyes you should not respect him also. So you can separate, but I can't. The point is you seem to be able to overlook the lack of respect this individual had for his wife and still respect him by placing him as your avatar, because of his other deeds (I suspect ... not knowing the actual person as intimately as you do), but you won't allow someone else to do the same.

Don't you see the double-standard here.
 
Back
Top Bottom