As a former German private, I served in the early 90s, I strongly disagree with the concept that we were soldiers for the sake of it. I definitely served to protect the freedom of Germans and not because I wanted to be a good soldier for whatever purpose. Also, the first, the very first class we had was about that we were citizens soldiers and our first obligation was to defend the legality of the system and it would be to our personal jeopardy to execute an illegal order. There was ( I hope still is) no hiding behind a superior on the legality or action in the Bundeswehr.

@darthpatricius

3 жыл бұрын

Among conscripted soldiers i would guess that you were definitvly in the minority there. almost everyone i know who got mustered tried get "ausgemustert" or join the Zivildienst instead.

@theonlymadmac4771

3 жыл бұрын

I served in the Bundeswehr 1986/7 as a draftee and definitively wanted to go. Coming from a very pacifist family that was my way to find my own way. Furthermore having seen countries of the eastern block, I certainly didnˋt want to live like that. So I was quite motivated to defend my country. I am still proud of my service in the old „olive-drab“ Bundeswehr. It was democratic, as a draft army it had a much better vertical cohesion than the professional army of today and - it was one of the few German armies which didnˋt fail horribly. Because especially the Wehrmachtˋs main characteristic was it failed miserably and epically.

@Ninja-Alinja

3 жыл бұрын

@@darthpatricius miss understanding, I would have preferred to be “ausgemustert”, obviously, it was huge waste of one year or my life. But having been forced to participate I was resting more easy knowing my rights (my duty) to do only what the common law and the constitution would allow or demand. Also, I would also quite our oath which would ask for defending the freedom of Germans, opposed to what the NVA oath was like (not to mention the Wehrmacht one)

@aquilatempestate9527

3 жыл бұрын

You served traitors and it's even worse today. Stop kidding yourself with rhetoric.

@n00btotale

3 жыл бұрын

@@aquilatempestate9527 Quellen sind gebraucht worden. Zitaten auch.

You got Neitzel on the show? I'm impressed.

@CA999

3 жыл бұрын

I think maybe Neitzel enthusiastically wanted to be on one of the best historical KZread channels on the Web!

@bushyrho1674

3 жыл бұрын

@@CA999 Does he have a channel?

@Stanenberg96

3 жыл бұрын

@@CA999 or maybe, Neitzel is trying to advertise his newest book in the process? hmm

@CA999

3 жыл бұрын

@@Stanenberg96 maybe! Not sure how advertising a German language book on a English language channel works.... Hmm 😉

@lepathewarrior4445

3 жыл бұрын

@@CA999 then you are shortsighted. You really think this isn't gonna get translated? I am for one interested in the book and might buy it or at least loan it from library if it got translated.

As an ex soldier I would like to add that, in my experience, soldiers are soldiers for three reasons, because they are drafted, because they have no other option or because they believe in fighting for their nation. I belonged to the first and last group. I felt and still feel that in a democracy we are entitled to our rights but also have to give our best to fulfill our duties, even if we don't agree with all the decisions taken in the democratic process. It makes a huge difference to which of these groups one belongs. Furthermore I disagree that soldiers are apolitical professionals. They usually are just professional while on the job, like every other professional. A dentist isn't a communist while drilling into a tooth, even if he is a communist and an electrician isn't a Nazi while installing an oven, even if he is a Nazi. However, they still are what they are, and what they are will have an impact on some of their decisions on the job, particularly if the job is soldier. How political someone is, is a personal feat of an individual. It has nothing to do with a certain job.

@benjaminhodzic4840

3 жыл бұрын

I wish the internet had more people like you sir.

From my decades in a mixed conscript/professional army I can 100% confirm Prof. Neitzel. In the daily life of the soldier, focus is all about - daily life. First having your basic needs fulfilled, which can be quite relative - in the barracks you want top quality food, housing etc, but in the field you can accept much less - as long as you can trust "the system" do to what it can. The road to military professionalism is only to a very little degree connected to political attitudes or not, but to simply learn to cooperate with and trust your most close fellow soldiers and superiors. The political context also mainly expresses itself in trust or not. Can you trust the other soldiers, those you don't know, the leadership etc, to be as dedicated as you? Are your efforts appreciated? I think this will be common to practically any political system, but the difference comes from the attitude the leaderships shows. Like - if some units fall to the temptation of plundering - is it ignored, or even neccessary (you don't get anything but what you can take yourself) or is it punished? The sparks of crime will happen in any military, no matter the political context, that is a human factor, but the "system" decides if it spreads to a wildfire or remains some temporary bad smell.

I had three uncles who served in the Wehrmacht and an Opa who served WWI and WWII. My Onkle Georg, a Fallschrimjaeger captured shortly after D-Day, spoke a little with me. In keeping with this excellent video's theme, for him there was no such thing as "politics" as we would understand it. Growing up in the Hitler Jugend, then Reichs Arbeits Dienst, finally off to the Wehrmacht, there was only one political discussion item on the table: the Nazi party, and that quickly got boring. More pressing matters were at hand, training, fighting, surviving, etc.

@bushyrho1674

3 жыл бұрын

Hopefully you got some stories out of them. Got to keep the history alive.

@TheSonicfrog

3 жыл бұрын

@@bushyrho1674 I got lots from Onkle George, plus some amazing photos, but little from the others. Still able to recreate quite a bit about their circumstances sadly just not anything from personal recollections.

@bushyrho1674

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheSonicfrog At least you got the gist of their stories. It must feel pretty cool to be able to talk to Wehrmacht vets.

@TheSonicfrog

3 жыл бұрын

@@bushyrho1674 Quite humbling, considering all that the German side of my family endured, including the killing of my Oma by an American tank shell late in April 1945 while she was standing inside her home, while my mother and her sister were sheltering in the cellar, with my Opa having run off.

@bushyrho1674

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheSonicfrog Damn, I don't know if you live in America or not. We don't learn about the German side of the war. People like your folks caught up in regime and have to suffer losses. I wish people would also understand the difference between the Wehrmacht and the Nazis.

When I was in the bundeswehr I was always amused by how much emphasis was attempted to be put on the constitution and how little anyone really cared. Soldiers even have to participate in something akin to political study courses once a month where usually a priest (because I guess secularism is overrated) told us how important it was to follow the grundgesetz, and all authority is derived from there. We used to call it the propagandastunde and call the guy holding it "Politoffizier". Nobody cared about any of that, you have your job, you have your comrades and that's what we cared about.

@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155

3 жыл бұрын

The Grundgesetz is secular, it doesn't matter who tells you about it. An actual Priest would never tell you that all authority comes from the Grundgesetz or a Constitution but that it is derived from God. I show's the state religion is in in Germany though.

@hothoploink1509

3 жыл бұрын

@@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155 If any priest told german soldiers in the two thousands that authority came from god, he'd be laughed out of the room ^^

@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155

3 жыл бұрын

@@hothoploink1509 I know that and i have good vers for it. Psalms 9:17 17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

@hothoploink1509

3 жыл бұрын

@@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155 "Didst thou think that the eyes of the White Tower were blind? Nay, I have seen more than thou knowest, Grey Fool." - Denethor II, son of Ecthelion

@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155

3 жыл бұрын

@@hothoploink1509 2 Peter 3:2-4 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that *there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,* 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Wouldn't it be more relevant to analyze soldiers' political views at the moment when they decide to join the army rather than when they are in the combat zone? I obviously mean those who are voluntarily entering the forces in the modern day, not the conscripts. Also, Bernhard, why not make a video on different stages of conscription into Wehrmacht during the war, as well as those who volunteered/deserted/objected? I know nothing on this topic and would be very interested.

@nickdubil90

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. I've played a bit too much HoI4 lately, obviously in a game you have very clearcut manpower mobilization stages. In reality it would be nice to learn about exactly when and where Volksturm was first implemented, and how it progressed throughout the remainder.

@nirfz

3 жыл бұрын

Political and ideological views (or expectations) can change quickly when people find themselves facing the reality of even basic training, let alone being on a "two way range". As for the conscription: In 1935 conscription was reintroduced in germany for every male between 18 and 45. In Austria it was reintroduced in 1936 for every male between 18 and 42. When germany annexed austria the current soldiers of the austrian army were also "annexed". Commanding personel was in most cases replaced by "real germans". (example easy to find on the internet: 2nd and 3rd mountain division) But basically conscription was used way before the war, and completely through the war. Volunteers to my knowledge often went to more ideological services. (And some volunteers were not allowed to serve what they wanted. I know of a former Austro-Hungarian U-boat guy who wanted to volunteer for U-boat duty in the Kriegsmarine, which was denied and he was put into police service in the village he was from. Until i read that i didn't know that they even could conscript you into police in WW2)

@thebunkerparodie6368

3 жыл бұрын

conscript can also have political belief though, I don't get why do peopple often exclude them and only want to take in account the belief of the volontary on this kind of stuff

@nirfz

3 жыл бұрын

@@thebunkerparodie6368 While this is true, at least in the experience i made conscription means that you get the all in the specific society available political beliefs and social and educational backgrounds mixed in your group, platoon ect. So i think people are more interested in the volunteers for if a certain political or ideological beliefsystem makes them join in big numbers, and they make up for the majority of troops in a professional body of troops, the chance of this belief/ideology to have more influence is by most considered bigger. (Same thing could happen with conscript troops, as the russian revolution showed, but the cases for this happening i think are rare. But i of course can be wrong.)

@useodyseeorbitchute9450

3 жыл бұрын

I don't know specific data for Germany, but general tendency is that people voluntary joining military are on average much more right wing than societal average.

Don't say that he's hypocritical. Rather say that he's apolitical. "Once ze rockets are up, who cares where zey come down? Zat's not my department." says Wehrner von Braun.

@alexcheremisin3596

3 жыл бұрын

A man of culture I see

Currently in Australia when you are serving in the ADF you can’t express you political views at all Still vote though (as voting is compulsory in Australia)

@AB-rv2lj

3 жыл бұрын

Looks pretty fashie to me , seems like you guys need some freedom of speech aye ? 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 merica time baby

@vihavoittamaton849

3 жыл бұрын

It is thing also in Finland. Soldiers are not allowed to take any part in politics

@GreenBlueWalkthrough

3 жыл бұрын

In the US it's more of a taboo than anything and only for active personnel... also since voting is compulsory in Australia is it illegal to turn in a blank ballot or be sick/unable to vote? Also, I have freedom, liberty, privacy, and democracy concerns... Like do you really want people who don't want to vote, voting? Like what about people being chaos advocate because they are forced to vote aka voting randomly or for the worse candidates? Or people simply letting others vote for them?

@Rokaize

3 жыл бұрын

@@AB-rv2lj What are you on about? You aren’t allowed to make political statements of any kind in the military. You basically have to remain anonymous if you want to express your political beliefs. You literally do not have freedom of speech in the US military.

@patrickd7890

3 жыл бұрын

@@AB-rv2lj no when you are serving in the Military you can’t express a political view

Professor Neitzel is one of the best in the business. Thanks for having him on the channel.

Habe Herr Neitzel's Buch grade bestellt, und dieses Video ist wie ein frühes Weihnachtsgeschenk! Sehr gut! (I have ordered the book, and this video is like an early christmas present.)

Every soldier I've ever known or met did or does the job for two reasons: the soldier next to them, and for reasons of professionalism. I'd love to read Prof. Neitzel's book, I hope it will be translated at some point.

@looinrims

3 жыл бұрын

Bernhard says that there is some kind of translation to English in the works

I love your collaborations with neitzel

3:25 Wehrmacht soldier: We live in a society

What a great combo! Love this!

Professor Neitzel is my favourite German history professor specialising in German soldiers.

@jojonesjojo8919

3 жыл бұрын

However my favorite German academic specialising in wwii history is Dr Roman Tepel

I loved the videos with Prof. Neitzel, would be great to see him more. Is the book is translated into English?

SEHR cooler Special Guest! :D

thank you for this video. very interesting interview. please do a video on recruitment phases throughout 1939-45!

I am curious; at 2:45 you describe the SdKfz 251/3 as the variant designated for towing the leIG18, but with the exception of a single reference I found online (which only lists the entry in a table, with no other details, the 251/3 is the 'mittlerer Funkpanzerwagen' radio-equipped command vehicle, and it is the 251/4 that is the 'Schützenpanzerwagen für Munition und Zubehör des leIG18' artillery tractor. Is this a case of the artillery tractor originally being designated 251/3, then redesignated 251/4 so that the SdKfz 250/3 and SdKfz 251/3 would share a variant number?

I think a lot of people in the comments are missing the point. Noone is saying that the soldiers were all good guys. The point is that JUST BEING in the army did not make them Nazis.

@axelpatrickb.pingol3228

3 жыл бұрын

Guilt by association. Their only sin is that they belong to a group commanded by and was filled with, Nazis...

@nutyyyy

3 жыл бұрын

@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 The point is more that many soldiers weren't politically active or really immersed in Nazi ideology, their reasons for fighting were simpler.

@tavish4699

3 жыл бұрын

@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 ok but how can you be guilty of things you didnt do yourself and having to stick to the group that did so because of a draft? I see no guilt there i see a shitty circumstance

@laisphinto6372

Жыл бұрын

we can open up the book of Pandora what the allies did and blame every single soldier , farmer and child. at some point it becomes stupid.

Outstanding video!

Loyalty Soldier / Officer oath / ceremony (I noticed as a common theme) Today (public ceremony)

Before watching the video, as a soldier in the U.S Army, I always think of two things: One being conscription versus volunteers, and typically the higher rank you are, the more involved in politics you are (mainly to not being on the front lines in a war, so it isn’t your first mindset).

Interesting video, shared with my folks.

Do you have any idea on wether or not there will be an English translation of professor Neitzel's book? I'd love to read it!

wow blows my mind, conceptually this video is incredible

@Military History not Visualized when shall this book be edited in English?

Very interesting video, thanks. Just a reference: The Red Army was indeed a political institution since it was created after the disintegration of the Tsarist Army and Navy, and was formed mainly by volunteers and members of the Communist party. With the purge and the conscription on bases of loyalty and total war, it can be said that still had a very political ground that also capitalized on national identity. Do not fotget that the Soviet Union was trying to create a new Empire from a "completely new perspective". It would be interesting to go deeper into the doctrine and war plans in the Red Army since its foundation to fully understand its character. On the other hand,The Wehrmacht kept the long prussian tradition and the war plans even developed since Frederick the Great, mainly in terms of the two-front war and the geopolitical issues that Prussia, the second and the Third Reich faced at the time. Do not forget the Moltke tradition and the many officers who fought in the two wars.

Is there english copies of the book

is there any plan for this book to be released in English? My german is conversational, but not good enough to get what i'd like out of the book

As a Soldier, my focus was on the Small Team Unit that I was part of. From there .. in order of priority and of correspondingly lesser importance, the Section / Platoon .. Company and Battalion .. although, 'Pride in the Battalion' .. the Colours, played an important role. Outside of that was was minimal importance. I cannot recall ever getting any 'Political Indoctrination'. We focused on the Job at Hand / Task to be performed in association with the relevant Motivation and Justification for such Action. Your 'Buddy / Buddies' were what counted and getting whatever done and making it through with them is what mattered.

Okay @ 7:30 what is the name of said writer?

Is there going to be an English translation of the book? I loved Citino’s German Way of War but I would love an actual German’s view on the subject.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

there is something in the works from what I know

YES! Thank you Herr Neitzel! I FULLY agree with your assessment that the problem lay with the politicians, both in WW1 and WW2. In both cases, the politicians failed before the army did. In the WW1 the army did eventually basically take over, but as far as I know because there wasn't any political resistance. The geopolitical failure was down to the politicians, the Kaiser being a politician. Hitler's rise to power was basically the result of a failure of the political system. Yes, the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht should have risen up against him and refused him their oath of loyalty, but ironically that would have meant going against the state, the law, the constitution. This is what happens when you have an apolitical army/soldiers. Unfortunately, most people are rather apolitical and more concerned with practical survival. Which is understandable, but explains why there tends to be passive cooperation/acceptance to dictatorial regimes and rather little resistance, or only after these regime has failed miserably.

@zzeegermantube

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for bringing up Clausewitz! Exactly here the German politicians of the first and second WWs failed! The Armed Forces too, but it wasn't really their main duty. Although, that's not really an excuse, IMO. But in both wars the politicians failed to align or use the war/operations to achieve political goals. The problem, as Neitzel states, is that the current German politicians are repeating this mistake. Ironically out of a stance of pacifism and desire to avoid war.

Anyone knows when Professor Neitzel's book is going to be translated in english?

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

there are plans from what I know

Look, the reality is that politics and government work require a lot of balancing, and so you can't really say for sure what a person really thinks until you are behind closed doors and are a trusted personal friend. I knew a man who worked for a national government in a variety of roles for decades. He had very strong personal political views, but he never, and I do mean never, said one word to his bosses or coworkers about his own politics because he never knew which politician would be in charge at any point. The same goes for pretty much everyone: if your personal beliefs and views may be held against you by others, you must decide for yourself if being honest with them is worthwhile. We admire the person who stands on principle precisely because it is generally not worth the hassle to incur the ire of the petty and intolerant people around.

Concluding from this and the last video with Mr. Neitzel I guess the NVA(National Peoples Army of the GDR) was not in the scope of his study/book here. Is this correct? For me that is okay, but I would like to understand it. I just constantly wonder why only the German Imperial Army, the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr are talked about.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

It was, it will be covered in an upcoming video.

@puschelhornchen9484

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thank you for clarification! and the sneak peak.

Military History not Visualized, like a famous Austrian once said: Danke schön, ganz Lieb!

Did Prof. Neitzel also research East German NVA? I am sure their attitude was quite different.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

I am rather sure we talk about the NVA in this video, unless I mixed it up with another interview.

@jurisprudens

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Sorry, does not seem to be in this video.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

sorry, than it must have been in the 4th video, we recorded 9 "snippets" for visualized videos, which were all for WW2. Then we made 4 interviews including this and I remember that the NVA was at least once mentioned.

@lovablesnowman

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized these videos are amazing. Get on more historians and just let them talk if you can. So interesting

Is his book in English at all? I've looked everywhere but can only find it in German

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

translation is likely coming from what I know

@brandond7041

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thank you, sir! Keep up the incredible work!

During my time in the army, I and neither did my fellow soldiers, give two hoots about politics, not for a second.... What we did care about, was to pay attention to what we were taught, when that was done, to always do our best and keep an eye out for the guy next to us.... Being political during the WWII in either Soviet Union, Germany or Italy, in the armed forces or anything else, I think was a question of survival pure and simple....just wonder how many excellent officers and ordinary soldiers disappeared because wrong political leanings, whether it be thanks Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini.... Crikey, it's been 31 years since I left the army....what the hell happened!? 😳😲😆😂 Keep them phenomenal videos coming!

I really found the last point about the lack of Grand Strategy and Clausewitzian thought interesting. It is true that nuclear proliferation has reduced/changed the relevance of this particular school of thought. Especially for a state like the BD, with nuclear ambitions effectively off the table, it is no surprise that a grand political/military strategy is irrelevant. One has to wonder about the lasting power of such a system, in a world where there are nuclear powers vying for influence and power globally. I'm not saying that there should be a nuclear-armed German state, but it is definitely interesting to see what drives the upper echelons of the modern Bundeswehr when there is essentially no larger focus or strategy towards supremacy. In America, the national political thought is mostly that the world should allow for American ideals to propagate with little as possible hindrance from antagonistic states. Hence all of our endless, often fruitless wars. Imagining a state which does not espouse such ideas is difficult for not only the American politician, but also those higher up in the armed forces.

"YOU'RE GOING TO BE INFANTRY! THAT MEANS YOU KILL WHO YOU'RE TOLD AND YOU DIE WHERE YOU'RE TOLD, THAT'S IT!" - Drill SGT Laboy, Ft Benning, 1986.

Here in America at least, we have a saying. “You salute the office (president) not the person” regardless of who is president, they are the commander in chief and thus they are your superior. Your thoughts on who happens to be the president is irrelevant, because you aren’t respecting them, you’re respecting the position they hold. It’s weird but it’s how a lot of people think about it.

Wow great video. Thanks. I would love to hear an American professor with him to talk about these things. Because I would like to slightly disagree with the professor about how America feels about its military in general. I do not think that many Americans at all look at their military as a going to war to conquer but rather as a defense Force that defends America. Weather right or wrong the American public is heavily propagandized through media that our wars are defensive. Whether that is true or not. Of course I'm speaking as an American with three generations of military combat experience I have in my family. Iraq Afghanistan Vietnam world war II European theater. If a question was put to the American public whether we have a military for defense or for conquering other countries or to be on the offensive for war. My educated guess would be 80% - 90% of Americans would say it is for defense.

@axelpatrickb.pingol3228

3 жыл бұрын

Politically speaking, no army (except rogue states) are for "war", only "defense" since the adoption of the UN Charter renouncing war. That is why we get into the weird ways countries try to justify their war declarations WITHOUT actually saying they are at war like "preemptive strike"...

@briandickinson9383

3 жыл бұрын

I dont want to get to involved here with what the American public think there army is for, what concerns other people in the world is how your leaders see what the American army is for?,

@ericdulyon4601

3 жыл бұрын

@@briandickinson9383 I agree

I commented in another thread on why other nations didn't copy Rome, that each nations army was a product of that nation at that point in time. So - other nations couldn't have an army like Rome - because they weren't Rome. The American Military during the '60's and '70's was severely impacted by the changes to American Culture during that time. The thing is - this was just one period of time - and at other times the attitudes of the public were much different - and therefore the attitudes of the military personnel drawn from that public were different. During the '40's and '50's attitudes towards the military were much different than those of the '60's and '70's. Western European Youth Culture, after the cataclysms of the first half of the 20th Century - can be summed up as "war is bad - therefore the military's bad". Although - there was a difference I believe in this attitude between the youth of the Warsaw Pact Nations and those of NATO. One thing about these public attitudes is that they often are not in the least bit based on objective criteria but on popular trends of the moment. Thus - you often have an attitude that shifts from a time when there is serious devotion to the nations defense - to a preference in believing that - they didn't have to do that any more - and should just be allowed to enjoy life. To some degree this is based on generational changes that can be summed up as an attitude by a nations youth that "Oh ... that was what our parents did - and our parents are stupid ... so we shouldn't have to do that any more." The same way that a dance or type of music or type of entertainment can be all the rage - and then discarded for what ever is next - this has an effect on other things as well - such as a nations nationalism. As to professionalism on the part of those in the military - that is mostly the case in that besides pride in doing a good job there is a desire not to get in trouble with one's NCO's ... It is more rare for Political Indoctrination to be paramount - but that has happened. The Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China during the '60's and '70's over emphasized Political Attitudes. The PLA got their comeuppance though when they attacked Vietnam for having moved to remove Pol Pot from power. The Vietnamese had a large number of combat veterans in their army and the PLA suffered for their lack of practical military training. .

@ineednochannelyoutube5384

3 жыл бұрын

I can speak for the warpac conscript armies. It was a commonly accepted fact of life that you would be spending one and a half years of your life before or after university depending on how useful your degree was to the military as a conscript. People may not have liked it, but they accepted it as normal, and generally treated it as an extended vacation. They were not there to fight a war, or even defend theur country, and I doubt they even thought of themselves as soldiers. Not people outside of elite formations.

Okay! Just because the military's job is to focus on fighting wars. That still doesn't change for a fact that the military is still a political instrument of the government's will(which doesn't make them "apolitical" at all). So tell me, dude. Who's gonna decide to lead the nation into war? Who's gonna declare war upon another country? Who will control the military? If you guess, though. It's usually politicians who'll decide all of those things for the military. It doesn't matter who's in charge of the government. The military is gonna be control by whoever is in power.

While researching for a paper on Feldpostbriefe, I stumbled upon a source that dealt with censorship, both outer and inner. It literally labeled the Wehrmacht soldiers "political soldier" (politischer Soldat) - that does not mean that indiviual soldiers were political or apolitical, but that the regime itself wanted to transform the Wehrmacht into an ideologized tool, rather than a "traditional" army. Same principle with the Führereid. On the other hand: What army is not founded on political principles? I cannot think of one example. The Bundeswehr with the ideas of Innere Führung and Staatsbürger in Uniform, German soldiers today are definetly political!

Nice three-piece suit, bro.

I think another aspect that's not as much covered in studies of War Strategy, at least publicly, is Culture. Culture I mean in the broad, sociological sense of the term. Do one's people culture influence in the military? Do the military and war influence in the culture? And how? As I former sociologist myself I can say pretty much that War and the Military are topics often covered in fields like Sociology vastly. However, sociologists often lack knowledge in many aspects common to military studies and also don't have a clear definition for what war is about and why do we have wars. At least there's no consensus on the subject. So, as with culture, another important aspect in the military is the moral, moral also in its broad sense, of morality and so on. Because soldiers are also human beings, they are part of a culture, they have their own perception of the world and the reality within it and morality and the understanding for what you're actually fighting are part of it and, in my understanding, are very important strategic variables. On this regard, to some degree, I think I disagree with you guys when considering the USA military superior in terms of this cohesion with society. Just look at all the US wars which took place after WWII. They were almost all failures. Many of them hold actually some military success initially, but in the long run, as a moral fulfillment, most of them were quite huge losses. Take Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq as example. All of those wars lost their moral appeal either by the population subject to the occupation, either by the soldiers fighting on the ground against them and also by the general public on United States itself. So, my question for you guys is: could WWI and WWII for Germany, in this moral sense I was talking about, be compared somehow to the wars that took place after WWII by the US or not?

@ineednochannelyoutube5384

3 жыл бұрын

I would argue not. The us generally takes an egalatarian liberap view of the world, which only really allows for war as a tool to defend against tyranny itself waging war, but whilst the us has managed to thwart the tirants usually, they seldom managed to create a better alternative society, thus never meeting the goals of their fight. Meanwhile nazi germany was a fascist state and the culture, at least the offically accepted one unequivocally declared might as rigjt, and the goals of their wars was qonquest and subjugation of a weaker inferior, in which they have initially succeeded, thus vindicating their position, however both the british and soviets proved more resilient in the long term than initially expected, thus invalidating the entire axiom the third reich started its war based upon. If it is no longer winning, it isnt actually better than the enemy, so fighting in the first place was foolish.

@TheStugbit

3 жыл бұрын

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 I may disagree with you a little in the sense that the sole US motivation in war is altruism. But I agree with you that, in the discourse at least, Nazi Germany's were much more self oriented while the US one had a much more broad, for humanity proposal discourse. But when we start to think of WWI Germany things get more complicated. Still, though, all discourses had a moral sense within it for both the soldiers and own population fighting and the other people around them.

@ineednochannelyoutube5384

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheStugbit I absolutely agree that the practical goal of US war is rarely altruistik, however that is the communicated aim, which in turn is adopted by the populace and thus determines homefront morale. We could say the US have shot themselves in the foot with lieing about their war aims.

@TheStugbit

3 жыл бұрын

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 oh I understand. Sorry Yep, I agree, the US went too far. Not saying the alternative is any better or different but the consequences of those wars were cataclysmic and they took away the moral bound with the population as you said. Sad story.. But I wonder if this moral bound was also disrupted in Germany's discourse over both wars. During WWI it seems not, but on WWII things look like went too far there as it happened to the US.

If I may provide a bit of an American Soldier's perspective, I tend to agree regarding soldiers' tendency to put the welfare of their comrades and not being seen as a coward as a primary motivation, while the political positions of Soldiers in the American Army tend to break mostly towards Constitutionalist/Libertarian/Conservative positions, in terms of conducting a patrol in a combat zone, political concerns are hardly the first thing on their minds. I have always used Mazlow's Hierarchy as a rough framework when thinking about these things. While I have no idea what the current academic consensus in Psychology is, in regards to Mazlow's Hierarchy, I find it a useful tool to analyze why soldiers soldier on. This Hierarchy posits that humans have an inbuilt prioritization system that makes each rung or level dependant on the rung below's requirements being met before a person would be concerned with the next. The first rung on Mazlow's hierarchy is safety/security, which is, obviously, a serious concern when in a war zone. This would, according to the Hierarchy, place abstract concerns like politics and even patriotism at a significantly lower level of concern than staying alive in the here and now. A soldier, in most cases, realizes that the best chance they have of maintaining their safety and security is to work with their squad/platoon.company to do the job as best they can and keep themselves and as many of their comrades as is possible alive as well. This would make the abstract a distant concern for any soldier in any army. Politics and patriotism will get soldiers to the battle, but their comrades will get them through the battle Regarding the American populace's attitudes regarding the military. while in current times, the American population, by and large, hold service members and veterans in high regard, this has not always been the case. This was particularly acute in the time of, and in the years after the Vietnam War. From the late '60s until the First Persian Gulf War/Desert Shield/Storm ('91-'92) military service was seen as something that losers did as a last resort or did in order to avoid time in prison. The American military at large, and the Army, in particular, had a crisis of morale and will during this time. I have come across many veterans of the Vietnam War and the time after that are resentful of the public treatment I received when I returned from Iraq and Afghanistan today versus when they were greeted by spit and insults when they returned from Southeast Asia.

@ineednochannelyoutube5384

3 жыл бұрын

Partizans, revolutionaries and suicide mission volunteers sort of disprove this hypothesis. Though it must be said neither of these is very common. But it is a fact that the highest rungs on the piramid periodically do soperceed the lower ones.

@roll4initiative872

3 жыл бұрын

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Yes, I would agree that sometimes this is not the case. However, I would add that in the exceptions you mention, the individuals that do the fighting were still concerned with ensuring the safety of their village/tribe/faction, whether they had been propagandized to believe that the future of the civilization was at stake or not, once lead began flying, ideology became far less important than ensuring they did not let their team down and did the job.

@ineednochannelyoutube5384

3 жыл бұрын

@@roll4initiative872 it has happened that people in the moment sacrificed their safety for an ideological goal. Just think of something as simple as the SS Carpathia pushing its boilers far past redline to reach the sinking RMS Titanic in time. The captain and crew risked a potentially catastrophic boiler explosion to be able to assist the aurvivors. It is certainly not the common rule, but it happens often enough to be significant.

Now mention of the Reichswehr and it's relationship to the Republic? No mention of Seeckts role in the development of German soldiery and its relationship with democracy? That's bollocks

Hi Bernhard, in general most military people (army-air force-navy) fight for 1- Their unit (group, battalion, squadron...), 2- Their family & community, 3- Their country and "apple pie" if you are American (metaphor), and 4- For the politics of it, in that order. i am a career military "Baby Boomer", growing in the fifties/sixties, most American males knew that we were going to do our military service; that was part of "growing up" (Hell, even Elvis Presley did his military service - he was famous in our days!). Most of my generation's family members were Veterans, had served in WW I, WW II and/or Korea. The community, the Scouts, the 4-H, youth clubs, the schools, the church, the media reinforced the notion of "citizenship" and service to the community. On the other hand, we knew very little about the politics of it other than communism and fascism was bad at the time. When I was commissioned, the emphasis was on my "brothers-in-arm", the mission, doing one's job right, ... We were "worker bees". As I made rank, I acquired the education and the experience to be able to have an opinion on "the big picture" (government policies, international politics, etc...). I saw combat, flew 118 combat missions, what was paramount to me (and my peers, that I know of) was to pursue my mission to the best of my abilities (so that others would not have to go back), protect if not save my squadron/ship mates, eventually my unit/ship all the way to the country and/or cause we were fighting for. I would assume that this has been the philosophy of centuries of military training and developments. As other YT commenters have mentioned before me, at the lower level (enlisted and officers), you worry about the essential (survival, food, shelter, well-being of your people, ...). Only at the higher level does one have the time/knowledge to speculate of the good/bad of the war itself. Thank you for your great presentations, Ciao, L

There's good a topic about morale, propganda, and psychological health for German soldiery from WW1 & WW2. I understand that the British had evolving ideas about discipline,, malignants, and to shellshock treatment. It would be interesting to hear the German perspective.

To the soldier, authority always defines the enemy.

From the soldier's perspective there are three scenarios: Firstly, 99% of the time one is either at peace or, at least, not deployed. The focus is on training and professionalism. Secondly, 99% of deployment is a battle against boredom and the stress of waiting. Command tries to balance maintaining professionalism and preparing the soldier for combat yet individual soldier's responses vary wildly, the frequency of missing this variety only increases the further one is distanced spatially, temporally, and within the command chain. Thirdly, in the one percent of the of the one percent of time one is in combat almost all soldiers are focused on the survival of themselves and their buddies, their immediate comrades. What form that focus takes is largely down to training. A soldier rarely fights for King and country, for their God or constitution, they want to get out alive, they want their friends to get out alive, and they don't want to let down those around them. Very few maintain primary focus on professionalism or see combat through the lens of killing, those exceptions tend to gravitate to selective units often to the relief of their former comrades.

@looinrims

3 жыл бұрын

“All soldiers must hate the enemy” and many throughout history have

@Matt_The_Hugenot

3 жыл бұрын

@@looinrims That was certainly a focus of indoctrination in European/westernized armies for much of the twentieth century and in many it still is. We try not inculcate that attitude today though there are those that do anyway, when hate goes uncontrolled we see the results in atrocities and scandals.

My grandfather was a Social Democratic Party member . He was the the Wehrmacht from 40 to 45. Oma said they were never asked to or pressured to be in the Nazi party or be political in anyway.

i have both been a rifleman and a company signalier. a specialy as a rifleman you are fighting for the company and your brothers in it. that is good. because it´s easyer to give up. when their is obscure consept you are fighting for. then put your friends in trouble. after all your friends have the same experience as you.

There are political soldiers and there are those who place morals above orders, then there are a mass that are more concerned with being the best or doing their job. Now were there atrocities committed by all branches? of course but that is human nature.

@mikealpha2611

3 жыл бұрын

@Fk Ff it was intended as explanation

@tavish4699

3 жыл бұрын

I believe there is another group , the one that is most concerned with survival If he had to kill he kills

Nick Mullen has a great bit about this

so how's the bundeswehr view their role in modern germany? as defence force or as a defence with offensive capability ? or follow the wehrmacht without the Nazi idealogy attach to it?

Is there going to be an English translation?

I hate to say it like this, but the politics of the individual soldier in any substantial force, the Wehrmacht in this case, is irrelevant. Soldiers can be apolitical while at the same time carrying out the political will of the state. I think with Germany the struggle since the second world war has been understanding the military as a tool of the state and not a tool of politics, if that makes any sense.

I know this is an old video but I have a kind of weird idea after watching this and the Wehrmacht warcrimes that a culture of unit cohesion and priding oneself on being professional might have actually helped encourage participation in atrocities by people who weren't committed Nazis. This is similar to Browning's point in Ordinary Men.

@laisphinto6372

Жыл бұрын

yes more like "Befehl ist Befehl" and this is true in every army

like it . .

From what I understand, (now I must express, it’s not quite a German point of view, as my family is Pennsylvanian Deutsch) but I had family in the Wehrmacht. From speaking with family, it seemed more about fighting for the German people and pride. At least for my family who fought. Things got weird when America joined, as then I had family join with the American army. My one uncle was in the 28th infantry division, a unit made up of Pennsylvanian men. He said he never shot another german while in the American army

I'm not sure that you can so neatly separate the political from the military in German history, especially when you consider the role of Prussia in that history. I mean, just consider how strong the militarism of the Prussian ethos was. Long before the unification of Germany in 1870-71, the Prussians were already invading and occupying the Rhineland, acting as both Metternich's police force in the suppression of liberalism and democracy, which were an utter anathema to the Junkers. Would or could either of the world wars have happened if there had never been a Prussia? What sort of Germany would there have been without the Prussians? Certainly the old German Confederation would have been far more liberal once the rotten edifice of the Hapsburgs had finally collapsed under its own weight, which would have happened much sooner, ironically enough, without the role that the Prussians played from the downfall of Napoleon through the suppression of the 1848 revolutions and the 1866 war with the Austrians. Another example of the difficulty of separating the military from the political was in the American experience in Vietnam a hundred years later. While it's true that many of the American soldiers had been conscripted, many others also volunteered. Among both groups, it didn't take long for even the most "gung ho," the guys who had bought into all that domino theory, fervent anti-communist propaganda, to wonder what the hell they were doing there. Every single one of my many acquaintances who fought in Vietnam did a complete 180 once they were there, many of them becoming quite politically active for the first time in their lives. It wasn't so much a matter of what they were fighting for (the Constitution, the American way of life, etc) as it was whether it was a just war, something that absolutely came from the American experience of WWII and its aftermath. At the Nuremberg trials when the German generals attempted to defend themselves against the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity by saying that they were just following orders, that they would have been shot if they had refused to do so, Judge Robert Jackson said, "So what? Is your life more important than that of some filthy Untermenschen you exterminated?" He went on to explain what became the foundation of international law today: that every human has a moral agency, whether he is a teacher, a banker or a soldier, and that we cannot ever abrogate or escape from this agency and the responsibility it implies simply because we might suffer from retaliation, up to and including being killed for questioning orders. This was immensely consequential. It was reiterated at the trial of Lt Calley after the My Lai massacre and it continues to register with American soldiers today, all through the recent military adventures and disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I would generally consider most armed forces as little c conservative, in general. I think the authoritarian and ridged CoC, (and armed forces often are reticent to change) officer classes are often upper middle class or upper class, which greatly influences leaning; even when the middle-classes have subsumed the officers, the aristocrat (or similar ) class have laid firm foundations. And as a point the armed forces try to remove criticism of its own capabilities and (in)competency, this can create a distorted view, one which can bleed into other views.

@BobSmith-dk8nw

3 жыл бұрын

The reason, I believe, that the military and farmers tend to be more conservative - is that they want to deal with things that they are certain about. Doing things the way they have always been done - has the proof of the past. For people dealing with the uncertainties of warfare and the weather - taking a conservative approach to things is less likely to get them killed or have their crops ruined. .

@jurisprudens

3 жыл бұрын

@@BobSmith-dk8nw I'd say, also because the farmers have more time to slow down and think about the big things.

@lovablesnowman

3 жыл бұрын

Armed forces are small c conservative because lefties don't like the military to begin with let alone want to join it. It's that simple *modern European and American Armed Forces

@ineednochannelyoutube5384

3 жыл бұрын

@@lovablesnowman That is very time and space specific argument. There are plenty of militaries that had been created by, or have themselves created left leaning civil administrations. I doubt many of you woupd argue that for example the vietnamese peoples army is right wing.

@jurisprudens

3 жыл бұрын

@@lovablesnowman Not necessarily. There were left-wing armies in world history

I always thought that the soldiers were just soldiers, and any atrocities committed came from a cycle of violence (I am not going to suggest ‘who started it’, because that’s missing the point). Look - if a superior officer tells you to the execute some POW’s, then you would obviously refuse. But what if the officer told you that the opposite side executed some of your buddies? Would you just take it in stride?

@jok9342

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately many neither refused to execute PoWs nor did they need any encouragement by the officers. I'd recommend Brownings book "Ordinary men". Or look up Reserve-Polizei-Bataillon 101. Chilling stuff.

@nutyyyy

3 жыл бұрын

@@jok9342 Yep peer pressure can be a huge contributor to these situations.

Etc etc etc etc... uZw uZw... Great historian, with a slightly annoying verbal tick ;P Probably gonna order his book!

To me it has always seemed that there was a LACK of professional separation between the senior officers and their political masters during Weimar. Groener and Scheicher are the poster children for that. Many of the senior officers during the Nazi period seem even more openly political (e.g., Jodl, Reichenau, etc). I suspect that the rather apolitical nature of the junior officers and other ranks probably made them more easily manipulated by the highly politicised leadership.

I am a simple man, I saw the helmet and clicked

@arjunmadan318

3 жыл бұрын

Same that stalheilm looks Kul

Soldiers ABSOLUTELY DO care about politics. It's thier OWN PERSONAL political beliefs that brings them into the military. It's why they join these days, now that there is no draft. They might forget it in the midst of fighting. But it's thier underlying foundation. I'd say that its much stronger these days, than anytime during the draft decades.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

> It's thier OWN PERSONAL political beliefs that brings them into the military. so nobody joins the military due to economic necessity, etc.? I have a video for you: kzread.info/dash/bejne/do6jz7d6qpzKZco.html

Considering it was a conscript army the political persuasion of the avrage grunt woupd probabpy reflect that of the avrage citizen.

One thing should be clear: The more politically influenced or motivated an army gets, the less effective it will be. This is because politics is usually in competition and interfering with reality rather than accepting it and working with it to achieve a goal in one's favour. So, politicians and activists of the future, take note. Know your boundaries.

German soldiers live in a society

I still think Germans should fight side to side with their European brothers, but I understand that after causing two world wars the German people are not keen on starting or participating in conflicts, as the scars of WW2 are still painful to this day.

I mean politics does play a part in the lower ranks, its just everyone keeps their opinions hush hush, and lower grunts having no idea what is going on is attributed to leadership intentionally neglecting information distribution.

I think the nature of actual combat can lead to somewhat skewed conclusions here. If your life or other's is in danger that would definitely take precedence over political ideology.

I want to call him Prof Schnitzel

I wonder how this apolitical nature of the German armed forces plays back to the earlier histories of the German military (when Germany was just a set of principalities) having had a strong mercenary tradition (often forming the elite troops in other people's wars). Even in the American Revolution, the British used Hessian Troops to fight battles in which their nation had no vested political interest.

@americanliberal09

3 жыл бұрын

The german armed forces is political by nature, because it's controlled by the german government.

@Hfil66

3 жыл бұрын

@@americanliberal09 the concept of apolitical is not about whether they are a tool of politics (ofcourse, all military are that), but whether they actually make active political judgements and political decisions. An example of the opposite situation is countries such as Thailand, Egypt, and until 10 years ago in Turkey, where the military had a formal role as guardians of the constitution. Many Latin American countries also have a history of military coups where the Military thought themselves as having a right to intervene in the political process rather than merely be subservient to that process.

@americanliberal09

3 жыл бұрын

@@Hfil66 "the concept of apolitical is not about whether they are a tool of politics (ofcourse, all military are that)" Ummmm.....apolitical is not a concept. It's rather a personal choice that anybody can do. "but whether they actually make active political judgements and political decisions." Yeah, but this is all decided by politicians who control the military to do their bidding for them. "An example of the opposite situation is countries such as Thailand, Egypt, and until 10 years ago in Turkey, where the military had a formal role as guardians of the constitution." But that makes their military a political institution, because defending the constitution of a country is very political, dude. "Many Latin American countries also have a history of military coups where the Military thought themselves as having a right to intervene in the political process" Okay, but that still doesn't disprove my point, though.

@Hfil66

3 жыл бұрын

@@americanliberal09 "apolitical is not a concept" Any term must carry a concept or it is a meaningless term. "It's rather a personal choice that anybody can do" As a private individual, ofcourse people can make choices; but the issue here was more about how the military, as an institution, makes that choice. The point here was not that individual soldiers could not have been pro or anti Nazi, but the the military as an institution did not make such choices, they just did what they perceived to be their duty and did whatever the government of the day asked of them. "But that makes their military a political institution, because defending the constitution of a country is very political, dude. " Exactly my point - in those cases the military are a political institution, and is different from those countries where the military is not a political institution.

@americanliberal09

3 жыл бұрын

@@Hfil66 "Any term must carry a concept" Nope. Not every term that you find in dictionaries are even remotely concepts. Sorry, dude. But apolitical is much of a personal preference that anybody can do. " The point here was not that individual soldiers could not have been pro or anti Nazi, but the the military as an institution did not make such choices, they just did what they perceived to be their duty and did whatever the government of the day asked of them." But it's still very political, because the military is not completely separated from the government at all. So do you understand that being political is not the exact same thing as being partisan, right? "in those cases the military are a political institution, and is different from those countries where the military is not a political institution. " Like what?

Don't say that he's hypocritical Say rather that he's apolitical "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department" say Wernher von Braun

These two speaking german must be quite a scene!

@jordanandrew2786

3 жыл бұрын

idk, it's hard to understand austrian or swiss german imo. I think they might have difficulty speaking german together.

One thing I would have liked to seen you expend upon: The relationship of politicians and generals that Neitzel sets up. I'm not sure if this really is such a dichotomy or if generals were not also politicians/engaged in politics at various points and vice versa. And if they were, the question of responsibility isn't as clear cut as Neitzel makes it out to be I think.

I'm not sure I agree with the clear distinction between politicians being bad and military being okay in regard to the outbreak of the First World War. German foreign policy was entirely tied to military planning. Marching on France in order to beat Russia was a military plan that prevented politicians or diplomats from doing anything since the political system was subservient to military requirements.

Almost no mention of the East German military. How political was the average soldier? How about the officers? Did the people scorn them as Quislings threatening the freedom of their western compatriots? Take pride in them as best of the Warsaw Pact and even as German (with the jackboots, goose stepping, ceremonial sabers, etc)? I know the regime, like all Communist states, feared the military as inherently non-political or even reactionary and tried intently to politicize it with political officers, and also to check it with a paramilitary directly controlled by the party (and another run by the secret police).

East Germany?

@drharnsaft1005

3 жыл бұрын

Paratroopers had to be party members.

Wenn ich Geld hätte würd ich mir sein Buch kaufen

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

denke mal es wird bald oder schon in den meisten Bibliotheken zum Ausleihen sein.

This should have been marked as advertisment. Next time please be more critical towards Neitzel!

No soldier at any time or any place has ever wasted a moment talking or worrying of politics in a martial Situation. All that is pursued is focused on keeping a cohesive structure, protecting their Brother's back and being aware of the current tactical situation at all times. Victors write History for their own Pleasure, according to their 'wants.' There is no dishonor in serving in a constituent Army; no matter the time, place, Origin, Race or Nationality. These things have always been as such - and they will NEVER change.

@RDR12344

3 жыл бұрын

This is not true

@charlespatterson8412

3 жыл бұрын

@@RDR12344 Please elucidate:

Most soldiers have some view on politics so to pretend a army may not be apolitical is silly . The danger comes when politics (good or bad) are the focal point of that army. The revolutionary army of the Paris commune could/have be cited as a good politics for an army, as could the Political commissars of Stalin's army's. The revolutionary army's of China are often cited as bad, Why? In all of these army's, freedom from oppression was the main motivation, yet one is held as good,one OK ish, and one as bad. Go figure

Hmmm. Nazi era. So many people were carried along on the crest of a political wave. Yes, when thrust into an environment of hardship and life/death that focuses the mind on the job in hand, and politics or ideology might be set aside. But the population knew the basics of the regime. They knew what was going to happen when the eastern front tide turned - they knew they were in for retribution because they knew what the army had done in the advance to Moscow. The extent of war crimes in the east was such that no one was unaware. There are also many accounts of German prisoners throughout the duration of the war still very full of nazi ideology, even post capture. I dispute the proposition of a clean apolitical Wehrmacht. I do accept that the Bundeswehr developed into a very different animal, just as Boomer and Gen X Germans had a very different and pretty cool outlook(certainly in the West where I grew up).

@LHoner-uw1jm

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think the argument in the Video was that the Wehrmacht was apolitical or even "clean", but that the soldiers were surprisingly apolitical during the war given the tumultuos political times they lived in and the different political and social backgrounds they had. But that doesn't mean that racist propaganda and nazi ideology wouldn't have had an impact on the thoughts and opinions of these people. Everybody knows and accepts that when talking to people of that generation you have to expect some questionable language and opinions.

@jamesmiddleton1278

3 жыл бұрын

@@LHoner-uw1jm Thank you for that reply. You are right - that was the argument. If anyone wants an example of a completely apolitical and un-motivated British soldier try Spike Milligan's books :)

wehraboos: i'm saying guy, the werhmacht was literally apolitical also wehraboos: every soviet soldier was commie

@thinkingagain5966

3 жыл бұрын

The German army was, fundamentally, apolitical. The average Soviet soldier was mostly uneducated and illiterate thereby making them apolitical in a sense

@jussim.konttinen4981

3 жыл бұрын

@Fk Ff At least the Vikings had no free time for political debates. A wounded reads the Seura magazine (@14min30s), which mostly covers articles on gossip, health issues, food, travelling. kzread.info/dash/bejne/nayl3NiGnsrVlc4.html

@roll4initiative872

3 жыл бұрын

I am not sure what credible person is proffering this position. While I do tend to think that the Red Army writ large placed a great deal more emphasis on ensuring that politics were a more prominent part of their daily life than most other contemporary militaries, when it came down to slugging it out in Stalingrad, they were the same as any other soldiers. Their priorities were to protect your friends, don't be a coward, and accomplish the mission, just like any other soldier since time immemorial.

@thinkingagain5966

3 жыл бұрын

@Fk Ff and? That definitely wasn't the case during the war!!

@nutyyyy

3 жыл бұрын

Just think about how politically informed or active the average young person in any given country is and then imagine they are conscripted. Even if they arent totally apolitical their actual understanding or ideology wouldn't be very defined.

What I say is past is not matter America and her allies need to stop China at all cost. And I'm so thankful for Germany sending a ship in the South China Sea.

Ridley Scott slid in a line into "Blackhawk Down" made things very simple & just about EVERY Vet I have discussed things with agreed. "Once Bullets start whizzing by, politics, philosophy, all that Sh!t goes out the window. The only thing that matters then is the Comrade on either side of you." EVERYTHING else becomes secondary, your Brothers & Sisters that are relying on you is all that really matters in the end. Military Action is an extension of Political Policy, not policy in & of itself. The hierarchy in the military is the tool of politicians, implementers of policy not the originators of Political Policy.

@impalabeeper

3 жыл бұрын

That's what Clausewitz said: war is politics by other means.

@ovk-ih1zp

3 жыл бұрын

@@impalabeeper I honestly think the the Continental European penance to ignore that fact is going to bite them in the ass sooner rather than later.The EU is really trying to strong arm a Sovereign nation(ALL of the EU Nations are actually SUPPOSE TO BE Sovereign FOR NOW) who has indefatigably said NO to Merkel's project. Not too Smart. But even better, A thought experiment to all of Bernard's EU Viewers. What is going to happen if Merkel or one of her successors succeeds in accomplishing through "Strong Arm Diplomacy" what the Kaiser & Hitler FAILED to do through force. Creating a German DOMINATED Europe facing a "Weakened" Russia. A Germany that has invaded with a MASSIVE lose of Russian Life TWICE in the last century plus? Exactly HOW do you think a Russia, with a MASSIVE Nuclear advantage of a "Green Revolution" Europe is going to react? Just a Thought.

@impalabeeper

3 жыл бұрын

@@ovk-ih1zp I didn't expect euroscepticism but here goes: the EU is, as a matter of fact, democratic. It is founded based on shared sovereignty between all the member states. Decisions are still made based on unanimous votes from each member. You are only hearing the strong arming of Germany-- just one country-- because the far right highlights them to promote the disintegration of the EU and return to pure nationalism by stoking tribalism. The far right also push the bs that "the EU was invented by Nazis". Excuse me, but who was the de facto leader of the then EEC? Wasn't it France? Wasn't France the one who didn't like the reunification of Germany because not only they fear of a revitalised and armed Germany, but it will displace France as the leader of EU because a reunified Germany is much richer than France? France changed her mind though and encouraged the German reunification for the sake of new found post-war European solidarity, have buried the hatchet of jingoism and at the persuasion of other European countries; despite France losing the premier status as Europe's leader. Besides, even with Germany reunified, the German army's state is atrociously poor because the German people don't have the appetite to give more funds to the military for obvious reasons. Germany is may be the economic powerhouse, but France still has the biggest and most modern army in the EU. Huge American presence in Germany would also deter Berlin for any notion of increasing German hard power to further influence the continent. Merkel is far from being adversarial on Russia. Along with Macron, she plays the diplomatic balance with Putin because Europe rely on gas and oil imports from Russia. She is lukewarm with the Russian president, unlike the Eastern European NATO and EU members, such as Poland and the Baltics, who border Russia and fear possible Russian meddling. The far right also don't mention countries other than Germany that exercised the democratic right and power to influence supranationally. They don't mention Poland and Hungary backing each other by vetoing proposed EU sanctions on each other for anti-lgbt policies. The far right also don't mention Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg-- countries that are essentially tax havens-- vetoing the proposal to harmonise European-wide tax laws. But you know, the far right don't mention them because it doesn't serve their narrative and scapegoat Germany. Be careful what you read.

Nobody understands why we were in Afghanistan, because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's almost like we were lied to or something....

@dariuszrutkowski420

3 жыл бұрын

No, Afghanistan was justified since they supported Bin Laden and gave him shelter and soldiers. It was Irak that was a lie to get us in a war so American politicos and corporations could make money of the oil and wepons sales. (Sadam was a utter bastard but he kept a tight dictatorial lid on things, Al Qaida was as much his enemy as it was ours. He did not want them in Irak stirring up trouble that would possibly overthrow him - he wanted to keep his power.)

Aren’t the germans somewhat unhappy about the castration of the Bundeswer?

Hitler was a politician, but the Generals helped him get into power. And loads of the politicians were in cahoots with the generals.

@95DarkFire

3 жыл бұрын

That does not mean that every soldier or officer was a Nazi.

@jurisprudens

3 жыл бұрын

“Generals helped him into power” - excuse me? Some details here, please?

@nebojsag.5871

3 жыл бұрын

@@95DarkFire Who said anything about ordinary grunts or NCOs? I'm talking about the higher up field-marshals and Generals.

WTF???? There are no such things as an "apolitical" soldier, because the military by its design is very political. You cannot separate politics from the military, because the budget of the military receives fiancees from the government, and the politicians have absolute control of it. If you were enlisted into the military. Then you are engaging in politics, because the soldiers are sworn in by political oath. You are not gonna tell me with a straight face that any war throughout human history hasn't been conducted without politicians getting involved, right? Case, and point. All wars are political by nature.