The German General Staff was an organization above the Hitlerites, going back to the days of Bismark and earlier. The Prussians were men of honor, obedience, and military discipline. Whoever was in charge was the leader, the bossman, the top banana, the one who they swore allegiance to. Towards the end of the war, the generals finally figured out that their conscience was also to be considered, at least some of them, but it was a battle they had to fight within themself.......conscience or obediance to command.
2007-07-01 06:22:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why shouldn't they have supported conquests? The British conquered the Irish, who certainly didn't appreciate it, and ruled India, and huge chunks of Africa. The French ruled pretty much all of Africa not controlled by the Portuguese and the English. Germany's colonies were stripped and assigned to other colonial powers. In 1939, colonialism was definitely in vogue, and conquering colonies is what armies did. Rommel was a great soldier, and he had a huge ego. The Nazis started out as a paramilitary organization, and were considered as nincompoops by the real soldiers. When Hitler did what Rommel considered stupid and likely to result in another humiliating defeat by the Allies, he felt overthrowing him was the best thing to do. Hitler's worst mistake was declaring war on the Russians before finishing off the English. Every general knew about how this had destroyed Napoleon's army. Invading Russia has never been successful for anyone.
2016-05-20 02:13:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they believed in the indomitable spirit of the German people. Hitler played this uplike you would not believe. These men had hopes that everything would be returned to the way it was before WWI. Had Hitler stopped after France, it is possible that this could have happened.
Rommel and Guderian both attempted to bring Hitler around to allowing OKH and OKW to run the war. They attempted to reign in the idiot and his way of running military campaigns. Had Hitler allowed his Generals to fight as they knew how, WOW! The world would be a little different than it is now.
They fought for not only pride but also because they were military men. Rommel and Guderian followed orders as best they could, but when those orders went against what they knew could help their men, they bucked the orders left and right. Neither of them followed the "stand til the last man" or the order for killing civillians. They both treated their prisoners very well. The Brit's had to issue orders for the men not to talk so highly of Rommel, in Rommel's book on his battles in WWII.
2007-07-01 08:43:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mark S 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Great German Generals
2016-12-12 04:08:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by mitts 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm sure they did. Hitler may have been the most powerful orator of the 20th century, and he had away with words that captivated his listeners. I think his charisma and sense of purpose won over all those who supported him, and they felt like they could take over the world! They may have done better too, if they hadn't been so quick to turn on Russia. Don't get me wrong, there is no justifying their actions, in fact, it's very hard to justify any war, but a lot of German people were angry at the world and Hitler manipulated this to his own ends. So have many other charismatic leaders throughout the centuries, and I look back to other conquerors like Napolean, who even had soldiers flock to him after he returned from exile!
2007-07-01 05:43:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dan in Real Life 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
War Plan was initially drafted by German Military involving all German Officer Corps Commanders in the years between WW1 and WW2. Plan detailed 1945 invasion of Europe with
assistance of Russia. Upon rise to political domination over German generals Adolf Hitler changed plan elements (i.e, six year early start in hostilities, delayed German full resource mobilization until 1943, treaty betrayal after watching inept
Russian handling of Finnland), and other political decisions that culminated in losing WW2. All German officers were required to swear a personal oath of loyality to Adolf Hitler;
these sworn documents remain.
2007-07-01 06:17:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they were serving their Country.
Yes there were many serving the German armed forces who unfortunately commited agression, but there were those who served that were doing so to serve their Country.
It's kinda like when you look at the American Civil War, although most Slave states became Confederate, 2 great Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were not Pro-Slavery at all, they both were actually strongly against Slavery.
In fact both Generals had hoped that the Confederacy would eventually get rid of Slavery on their own.
Robert E. Lee had served the United States Army every well and it was hoped he would lead the Union Army, but back in those days, loyalty to your State was a priority and Robert E. Lee was going to be loyal to whatever Country his state decided to belong to.
There were Pro-Slavery and Anti-Slavery people that fought on both the Union and Confederate sides in the battle, and likewise in World War II (with my Grandfather and several Great Uncles fought in on the U.S. Military side) there were those who fought for their Country rather than fighting for ideals even though we know ideals got involved in World War II such as Hitlers idealogy on who was the Super Race.
2007-07-01 05:57:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by MrCool1978 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because they grew up in a Germany that expected the people's primary duty to be to the state. They grew up with a rigid discipline that said to them that when the man in charge gave an order that order was followed. By the time they figured out that Hitler was nuts, it was way too late for them. And those who tried to bring an end to the Nazi regime from within - such as Rommel - were eliminated outright or forced into suicide.
2007-07-01 06:40:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by some_guy_times_50 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
maybe because they were German and when you go to war you might as well need some good generals...
define act of aggression ? they were fighting for a cause they thought was right...
on a side note i just think history is repeating itself over and over again with regards to "act of aggression"
2007-07-01 05:41:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look at the map of germany and astria-hungry before wwi,then look at it after the war.
Act of aggresion may not have even been a notion in their brain,reclaiming what is rightfully ours may have been there instead.
2007-07-01 09:11:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋