Zoony, perhaps you could cite a source. I’m only two hundred pages into The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, but the impression I’ve got from the narrative is that the preservation of the officer corps was key to the military action of WWII, and that the generals were quite excited about flexing their muscles.
If I finish the book tonight, I’ll cite some passages, but don’t hold your breath.
You sound reasonable…it must be time to up my medication
We also have a secret weapon. We have thousands of giant loudspeakers located strategically along the border. Our Prime Minister has a panic button he can push at any time, causing these speakers to start playing William Shatner singing “Mr. Tambourine Man”.
You have been warned.
Have you people no concept of “cruel and unusual” for god sake?
Barbarians.
–
peas on earth
Far be it from me to impugn the journalistic observations of Bill Shirer, but according to Alan Bullock’s Hitler:a study in Tyranny, as well as the biographical essays of John Toland and Robert Payne, Hitler was constantly at odds with his field Generals, especially prior to his assumption of Supreme Military Command.
To wit:
“Blomberg’s first directive to the unorganized armed forces in May 1935 had ordered the preparation of plans [to occupy the Rhineland]. None the less, it was a proposal which thoroughly alarmed Hitler’s generals. German rearmament was only beginning and the first conscripts had only been taken into the Army a few months before,
…According to General Jodl, the German occupation forces which moved into the Rhineland consisted of approximatel 1 division…”
Hitler’s own account was thus:
“What would have happened if anyone other than myself had been at the head of the Reich! Anyone you care to mention would have lost his nerve. … I threatened unless the situation eased to send six extra divisions into the Rhineland. The truth was, I had only four brigades.”
Hilter fired Field Marshals von Fritsch and von Blomberg in 1938 after the opposition they had expressed to his posturing with the as-yet untried and undertrained Army.
Also compare Churchill’s first volume of The Second World War, and E.H. Carr’s volume on European international relations between 1919 and 1939.
Lastly, the Versailles Treaty proscibed a ten division army, with no more than 4,000 officers, including supply and technical officers. A very low number for even a timy army. Many of the officers maintained their positions with the various private armies (freikorps) abundant in Germany between the Wars.
Z
Zoony - I really don’t care if Canada has an army or not. It just seems that it would be more beneficial to not have one and spend the money on the private sector.
Since the USA has to protect Canada from an invastion, why should the Canadian bother to do it. The only country that could threaten Canada is the USA. And if that happened Canada couldn’t win anyway, so what is the point.
Why do the Swiss have an Army? Good question for another thread.
The Swiss have an army because they need to protect their neutrality. From what I’ve read, they in fact have one of the best trained and equipped armies in the world, solely to make sure some other country does not invade them and violate their neutral status.
“I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
Markxxx, if it came down to a question of axing the military to save money, then there couldn’t be a worse fiscal decision. Not only does the military provide many thousands of jobs - not only within the forces, but for the many podunk towns that owe their existences to their neighboring bases and installations - it also allows Canada to pull its own weight in such important international organizations such as NATO and the UN. Peacekeeping missions and UN security forces were virtually born in Canada.
As for invasions of Canada’s sovereignty, that’s not really an issue in today’s political and technological climate. The US is about as likely to “invade” us as they are to institute socialized medicine.
And don’t get me started on Swiss neutrality.
Any country the launders money for the Nazis has some nerve claiming neutral status.
“In a struggle between Good and Evil, there is no such thing as neutrality.” - Alan Bullock
Z
abusus non tolit usus
Canada has an army because they have cleverly discovered that it provides a very safe place to house those people who are inevitably gun obsessed.They tend to keep each other occupied and it keeps them all out of the general population which just makes everybody feel a lot safer.
Ok, we’re getting off topic here, but what the hell. Granted, I’m not for laundering Nazi money, but I was speaking of neutral in a “we don’t shoot you, you don’t shoot us” status, as opposed to lending aid or whatever. The United States didn’t have any qualms saying that they were neutral as they funneled arms and money to the UK for years.
Regardless of which, the question really boiled down to “Why would a neutral country (regardless of the country) require an army?” The answer is: To ensure they stay neutral and aren’t run over by the first nation that decides a neutral country is easy taking. Hmm… this makes me think of something that applies to both the neutral countries and Canada. Why have your own army? Because after someone runs over you in two days, it’s a hell of a lot easier if you had your own army to hold them back than to wait for your allies to come in and try to run the invaders out of town.
“I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
The US didn’t turn over Jewish refugees to the Nazis either. The Swiss did.
Providing money and arms to a country under attack by an aggressor state is a little less morally represhensible than shipping arms to a regime bent on conquest and racial extermination. Something the Swiss also did.
I guess that’s neutrality in more of a “Please don’t shoot us and we’ll give you whatever you want” vein.
Oooh, I love getting off topic…
Z
abusus non tolit usus