Blog powered by Typepad

« War in Whitehall | Main | In the meantime, 'WWIII' is about to commence! »

Thursday, 27 February 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, personnel is policy.

You're getting at a subject that's been studied extensively since WWII: How does authoritarianism work. Some of the earliest and best-explained work was done by Hannah Arendt:


I know you just want to add to your "to be read pile."

I read this long ago, It is still one of the standard works on the subject.

The question of how two organizations that hated each other, the NAZI party and the German army officer corp came to be intertwined is interesting.

Most of the Army wasn't that interested in the details of politics.

The political issues on which the army was interested, dumping the post war restrictions on the army, was one where they agreed.

There was a very strong tradition of the military being subordinate to civilian leadership. Not a problem under William I, some what of a problem under William II - under the Hitler a big problem, especially sine one of his first acts was to have them swar an oath of personal loyalty. To disobey orders once that oath was taken would be a major violation of the Armies internal ethos.

It took the threat of national destruction for some of officer corp to overcome the ethos in 1944.

They must have known that there would only be one outcome - utter defeat and destruction for their beloved country!

Mmm. No economic, social or political arguments for it, in fact acceptance that suffering and degradation in those things will occur, but go ahead and do it anyway for some notion of "take back control" or other.

Sounds familiar.


The comments to this entry are closed.