by Dugald » Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:00 am
Apollo, I understand what you're saying about the "German psyche/training/indoctrination" (let's, for brevity, call it the "Teutonic attitude", or "TA") prevalent during the Third Reich; and I appreciate further, what you mean by "from family associations". I agree "TA" was a factor that no doubt played an important role in driving the Wehrmacht. It is my feeling however, that the "TA" was only one factor. There were other factors too, the most important of which, was undoubtedly the circumstance in which the "TA" factor was expected to play it's role. Stalingrad was such a circumstance.
How well did the "TA" factor perform at Stalingrad? Oh yes, it worked up to a point, we need only note the frequent requests by Paulis to withdraw from the cauldron, and his subsequent refusal to do so, without the approval of Hitler ( an aside...once Stalingrad was surrounded there was no way Hitler's relief column was going to break into the cauldron). We could say exactly the same thing regarding Paulis's wish to fight his way out. My belief is however, that a point was reached in the Stalingrad "circumstance", which transcended the "TA" oath. This is a fact beyond question... Paulis did, fully cognizant of its implications, surrender, in contravention of his oath (as any sensible person would have done!). I think Hitler expected Paulis, driven by his "TA" oath, to take his own life; but the oath, notwithstanding its Teutonic bolstering, was transcended.
Yes, I question just how significant was this "TA" oath. Oh yes, it has been presented countless times to explain situations similar to Stalingrad, but how sound is it as an explanation? I notice Apollo, your use of " next to impossible" in describing disobedience with respect to the oath...not impossible, just " next to impossible". I go along with this... oh maybe I'm a wee bit further away from the "impossible" than you.
We might take a look at the suicide of Captain Langsdorf of the Graf Spee. I don't know whether he was fulfilling the demands of his "TA" when he scuttled his ship rather than endanger the lives of his crew. Either way, he saved the lives of his crew. I do wonder if the "TA" played any role here. What of Count von Stauffenberg's "TA"? What of Rommel's?
My point is that Paulis was a damn fool! He could have broken out, he could have surrendered earlier than he did. His "situation" transcended "TA" by miles! What kind of General for example, thought an army of nearly 300,000 men could be adequately supplied by air... did his "TA" lead him to believe it was possible? Utterly absurd! The man was a nut!
" It only takes one fanatic in charge to make everyone else look mad. ".
I don't think this is true, unless they just look mad, but still have their wits about them. There was one Nazi, a veritable fantic in charge, yet there were lots of Germans in the Third Reich who were neither "mad" nor had the appearance of being mad... Stauffenberg, Langsdorf, and Rommel are just some of the examples.
I had a nosey about Rommel too, and it looks to me as if his betrayal of Hitler in withdrawing may not have led to him being shot, but he certainly wasn't any sort of favourite afterwards, being replaced and passed over afterwards, perhaps settling on a back-burner in today's terms.
Apollo, I'd hesitate to call being in charge of the "Atlantic Wall" as being put on a "back burner". I feel Rommel was still okay in Hitler's books until after the attempted assasination of Hitler. I still feel Rommel got away with overlooking his "TA" while in Tunis and Libya.
of and over-analysis made by comfortable armchair general decades later. Opinions formed with on the results of decisions (right or wrong)
I feel very much like one of your 'navel gazing' types with a bit of visual impairment rather than the 20/20 hindsight. Cheers, duigald.