Hitler's Conference after Paulus' Surrender Feb 1943 

Jeez, spoiler alert, buddy. I thought Paulus still couldve broke through in late January.

Love how you substitute "to shoot" for "to tax" or "to centrally plan"

In his memoirs Zhukov remarkked that, in his opinion, Hitler was not as bad a military strategists as the Generals made out. Pointing out that after the war the Generals were around to say whatever they wanted with Hitler not being around to challenge their assertions.

Paulus imprisonment was fairly comfortable. The circumstances of his jailing were much better than the 6th Army's rank and file.

"chose Plato's world of forms" as euphamism for suicide is absolutely genius

Arthur Schmidt was a notoriously bad prisoner. He was hated by his Soviet captors because of his bad manners and arrogant attitude, consequently he was kept as a prisoner until the last possible moment, in 1955, when he was released as a part of the Adenauer deal. Despite his 12 year captivity he was in robust health and died in 1987 aged 92.

For what it's worth, when I was in the Army I was instructed, during basic training, to obey only lawful orders. Those which do not violate national and international laws, treaties, etc. That hasn't stopped certain officers from giving unlawful orders and having them carried out, of course.

Let us not forget that Paulus wasn't just any general, he was deputy chief of the German General Staff in 1940/41. He probably knew a lot more about sensitive stuff than a regular general would. No surprise that Hitler wanted to see him dead.

"The way I see it, unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free. " -Frank Burns

Its mentioned in the video that the number of suicides in Germany at the time was around 18-22000 per year. For comparison the number today is about 9200 per year. So the rate of suicides in Nazi Germany was very high.

The Western forces had a reasonable attitude to self sacrifice...Keep fighting until it is hopeless [ militarily] and then surrender...The main exception to this were twofold: 1-When fighting a ruthless enemy that didn't take prisoners such as the Japanese. You might as well fight to the death as you are a dead man anyway. 2-Individual sacrifice for other men in your own unit. These "heroes" are fighting for their mates not for any higher belief or ideals... And most veterans would agree..You fight for your mates.

The problem with the "We should have ultimate freedom" argument is that any group that practices that will be demolished and enslaved by a group that follows orders.

Germany added millions of citizens to the population after 1935 (Saarland, Austria, Bohemia-Moravia), so the increase in self-deletions would be relative to that fact. Plus would not a certain ethno-religious group not sharing in the upturn in fortunes not be overrepresented in the figures?

I ordered that book Hitler & His Generals cause you mentioned it on a previous video you did. Great book. Anyone who thinks Hitler was just a bezerk, screaming, bad decision maker should give that a read.

Hearing Zeitzler say "RU-vid himself" is quite hilarious. Joke is sincerely on RU-vid.

The Stalingrad Pocket collapsed? Never saw that coming.

I don't think anybody really thinks of themselves as evil. Everyone is the hero of their story.

So Paulus ordered executions of soldiers for violating what was expected of them and then violated the same rules that were expected of him? And he gave himself a pass?

TIK has proven quite well that context is almost everything when it comes to communication. I've never seen the phrase "Committed/Committing S-Word" replaced with other words so beautifully, and I swear TIK didn't use the same phrase twice, I had no issue understanding what he meant, and even started smiling after a while.

Excellent analysis. Many thanks. Having studied this battle myself, being in the situation Paulas found himself in, I would have attempted a break out as soon as the Romanian rear guard collapsed. To get get over counter orders from the Riech, I would have ordered radio silence. Once the bulk of the army were out, Paulus could have surrendered himself along with the sick and wounded, saving most of the rest. I say that in hindsight of course.

Varus could also choose the option because it was common for Roman generals at that time. Marcus Antonius fell on his sword, Cassius, Scipius, Cato also. It was not so common for generals of 20th century.

I've just recently discovered your channel and I just wanted to say that the quality of the content is much, much too good for RU-vid. That being said, I am very pleased that it's here for everyone to view and become truly educated.

"It's TIKin' time." The Incredible TIK (2023)

Hi TIKhistory, the woman he is talking about here taking her own life sounds like Inga Ley, wife of Robert Ley. She had three children and took her life just in the December before this conference. She and Hitler seemed close and Hitler even wrote a lengthy handwritten condolence note to her husband afterwards.

If I'm not mistaken, the woman Hitler was referring to that wrote him a letter asking him to take care of her children because she couldn't go on, was the widow of a man accidentally killed by the SS during the Night of the Long Knives in July of 1934 because her late husband had the same first and last name as a high ranking SA trooper that the SS wanted out of the way. When the SS and the Gestapo realized what had happened, they informed Hitler, who sent Rudolf Hess, then party secretary, to speak with the dead man's unfortunate widow to apologize and inform her she would be receiving a state pension. I'm not sure how it all ended, but she was bordering on suicide even though she had her children to take care of.

"Feelings above facts" Man that hits home in the modern age.

TY again for your amazing, work Mr. Knight 🙂

Perhaps the best WW2 RU-vid series ever presented.

Why is RU-vid censored when RU-vid Kids exists?

The whole "Heroic ideal." That was a big thing with Nietzsche. To him acting with heroism was always preferable to acting with reason. ..However Nietzsche somehow gets a pass for his huge contribution to Nazi ideology. I don't understand why, but he does.

I imagine at the start of the conference, Hitler poring over the potluck sign up and raging that he brought napkins and soda, but Zeitler didn't bring cookies and the cake that Going brought is already eaten and what the hell good is Hoth's dip if he brought no chips.

For the last question on where I stand on individual freedom VS obedience, I tend to subscribe to Hobbes' view of a society. There is a paradox known as the Paradox of Freedom, which postulates that, under anarchy, you are only as free as you are strong, cunning, or ruthless, otherwise anyone with more of those qualities than you may subjugate you, and there is nothing you can do about it. This means you are actually less free under anarchy (unless you are one of the few apex predators around, but even then you will eventually grow old and weaken), and what Hobbes argued was the basis of a state was that a group of people agreed to follow certain rules, voluntarily sacrificed some freedoms to protect all of their other freedoms, and selected someone to enforce those rules. Now, Hobbes was in favor of an auhoritarian ruler he dubbed the "Leviathan", this is where I differ from his ideas (I also differ with him on the notion that there must be a 'state monopoly on violence' to maintain public order). A multi-layered constitutional republic, where all politicians and bureaucrats have their power checked by their peers, superiors, inferiors, and the people, is, as John Adams described, the "least evil" form of government. Not the best, "least evil", that choice of phrasing is importance. All governments are capable of abusing their constituents, a decentralized constitutional republic has the most checks on state power to mitigate that, but it requires constant vigilance to maintain. Our ancestors failed in maintaining that vigilance in the first half of the 19th Century...hell, you could argue they failed while most of the Founding Fathers were still alive, the seeds of the downfall of America's republic as it was intended to be were sown by Alexander Hamilton and his Whigs. And no, the notion of a country like America being a "democracy" is false, and it's a trap. It's a lie that was pushed by socialists in the 19th and 20th Centuries, because they know what democracy really is: it's mob rule, which means autocracy with extra steps. In a government of the majority, power is ultimately concentrated in the hands of whom can be the most charming, the most deceitful, and has the most skill at throwing other people under the bus for their failures. The mob - the collective - does not think, it feels, he who who can manipulate their emotions with the most skill controls the mob, and thus the state under democracy...hmm, sounds an awful lot like Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat",, doesn't it? I would argue that democracy isn't only an undesirable system, it's the second worst system behind a theocracy (and you could argue Marxism and its off-shots are a theocracy, even if they won't admit it).

"The man has to centrally plan himself" In a Hitler voice was too funny

Per his adjutant, Adam Something, Paulus clearly understood what Hitler "expected" in return for promoting him to Field Marshall. Another outstanding presentation, Mr TIK.

The line about “centrally planned himself” cracked me, sorry 😂

"... feelings above facts, obedience above logic, obedience above logic..." That sounds ominously familiar.

"We don't want people using logic, we don't want people using their brains, or rationality, we want unthinking, irrational, obedient slaves." Sounds just like where I work.

This also shows how the nazis and in particular uncle Adolph saw the regular german people and soldiers. They were real people with lives of their own and families that needed and depended on them but were treated as disposable pawns, almost as disposable as their victims on and outside the battlefield. A regime that has no consideration for the dignity of the lives of their enemies has, not surprisingly, no respect for the lives of their own. Odious and inhumane, through and through.

Glad to see two Stalingrad episodes in a row. Take care

Blind Obedience was a general principle not only in the German military (even if most explicit there). It was the norm and principle for the majority of German people - and if I may say so: the same as around the whole world at that time. Kids were expected to obey no matter what, and if they did not, punishment was brutal. This was no exception, it was the general social norm ("how else will You keep up discipline?!"), and it leads directly to a militarized personality, to this day. Things may have become a little more relaxed after WW II in some countries, but for the rest, in too many places, it is same today.

The German officer corps of WW2 did not act unthinkingly like that. They were FAR less willing to fight to the death than the Japanese. We can also see that the (failed) assassination conspiracies were attempting to kill Hitler (and, to a lesser extent, those who would continue his policies like Himmler). In Japan the repeated disloyalty of officers was in the cause of starting wars & refusing to surrender (even after 2 nukes).

As an old guy (60+), I used to believe in the "follow the orders for your country," but lately I have realized that this is not the best intellectually and morally sound position to take. Your videos are a great source of alternative information against the normal narrative.

The concept that .gov employees wearing uniforms should not think and only obey orders is not confined to the WW2 era German army. I can assure you of that.

I mean, I get your point about the whole madman Hitler argument that is used. But his quotes dont exactly come across as the poster boy for sanity 😅 Hes a good target for Madman scapegoatery

I do love how much work you have done to refute Manstein, et al’s ‘Madman Hitler’ canard. And then because of RU-vid and internet trolls you have to use the ‘madman Hitler’ voice.

I love how informative yet subversive TIK is. The euphemisms are, excuse the pun, killing me.

Great video, TIK. Please think about doing a series after this about the Generals of Stalingrad

I worked for an Italian company as an electrical technician in the UK , they consistently demanded we perform near suicidal tasks with no regard for rules or safety ie I was asked to climb an 80 ft scaffold in very high winds - said scaffold didn’t even have a safety tag ( scaftag) legal requirement in the UK - I refused and a massive row ensued - I don’t work for them now , retired early . Didn’t see why they had the right to order me to risk death for their profits 🤷‍♂️ same thing , why die for someone else’s ideals 🧐

It is very interesting, especially to me it is interesting because my great-great grandfather fought in Stalingrad with the army of Paulus

In referring to which women Hitler may have been talking about that ended themselves when Paulus could not, I found 3 possibilities: Charlotte Lobjoie, Emmi Marre, and Mitzi Reiter - (Mitzi Reiter is the only woman I could find that was together with a "Man who later died" - 22:03).

I don't think Hitler was referring to Geli as there was a lot of controversy and taboo around her case.

Hi Tik! Thank you for the video! While I completely agree with that people should be able to always make their own choices, the unfortunate reality is that lots of people are forced to follow the orders just to survices (socially, but in many instances also physically). At the same time, the least any person could is to remember that it was not his/her own choice to do something and collaborate as little as possible without putting themselves in the immediate danger. And also to never an opportunity to do something as a human being, rather than being a part of the "system" go to waste. As much as I would like myself and others to be willing to completely stands my/their own moral ground even in the face of the most dire consequences, unfortunately, I feel like neither I, nor most people are ready for it, I would afraid for my life too much I can just hope that I'll never have to make such a choice on a grand scale

If my driver was having an affair with my neice I'd sack him too to be fair.

Every man without a wife & children should avoid death at every opportunity. At the very least you should prioritise continuing your own genetic line over ending another's.

To answer your final question TIK. Yes, we should in fact step up for our group sometimes, and refrain from being selfish.

The problem for Hitler was that the German Army had no tradition of Seppuku, were a commander who had failed in his duty to his liege lord would ritually disembowel himself with a short sword thereby ensuring a slow agonizing death. It is worth noting that the act of Seppuku was done to demonstrate one's loyalty, bravery, and self-control, while expiating one's failure at the same time. It was also considered one of the highest demonstrations of sincerity and devotion to duty. Seppuku would have fit in well to the philosophy of the leader principle.

Great video TIK and it's very sad that Hitler viewed a mother taking her own life, leaving her children forever as bravery. What a sick and distorted view. I see a mother who throws her hands up and realistically admits, I cannot cope with this situation and I need help. A full surrender of responsibility so she can build up strength again to still be there for her children, that's bravery. That's self respect and a duty to protect you from yourself. We all have a breaking point and acknowledging it can be a sign of strength, not weakness.

Thank you for this video, TIK. Small note: At 16:17, a picture of Leonard Peikoff has the wrong caption (instead of Leonard Peikoff, it is Robert Citino). It is probably a copy-paste typo. Sorry for my OCD.

0:04: Paul McCartney!!!!!!!!

What do you mean by "after"? ARE YOU SPOILING THE STALINGRAD SERIES SEASON FINALE?

I think the evil mustache man repeatedly referring to people committing Sudoku must have caused a censorship AI supercomputer somewhere in YT headquarters to explode.

In my early to late 20's, I considered myself a Libertarian, even an ancap, and I was a huge fan of Ayn Rand's work. As much as I am still fundamentally in favor of individual rights, even the philosophy's most hard line adherents must recognize that there is a limit--a hard cap, if you will--on what true Libertarians can achieve. By "true" I mean, people who actually attempt to put the philosophy into practice. Take a look at Rand herself. What did she actually achieve? It seems to me, little more than a cult of personality which essentially died with her. Piekoff was to be the "heir" to this supposed movement her work was to stir up and.... nothing really happened. Her work is certainly valuable and still influential, but it hasn't really affected any meaningful change in the culture at large. Say you take ten people, and have them each separately, individually, work towards the same goal. Then take a similarly abled sample of ten people, have them work towards the same or similar goal, but put them together into a relatively cohesive, and well managed group. Who will accomplish the goal faster? More effectively? I bet if you ran the experiment (and experiments of this nature must certainly have been done) you would probably find that the group working together is exponentially more powerful and productive than the totality of what the ten individuals working separately produce. It probably wouldn't be a linear increase. Two people working together would not produce double what a single individual produces, but more like 4-6 times as much. The more people you get together, the more this discrepancy grows. Of course, Libertarians will say that they're not against mutual cooperation, far from it. They just want people to be able to band together into groups absent any coercion, deception and delusion. Fair enough, that is a fine ideal, at least on paper. But again, how well does it truly work in practice? Absent these elements, and in particular the latter two, the only thing left as a basis upon which to build a group is the profit motive. But if you look honestly at the human psyche, even by the simplest and most direct means of sincere self examination, I'm sure you will discover that profit motive only goes so far. Here, I know studies have been done to prove as much, because I've glanced through a couple of them myself. As it turns out, for most normal people--that is, people who don't have socio/psychopathic tendencies--money increases their happiness and satisfaction in life up to a certain point of diminishing returns. This is a clear indication of the "hard cap" I'm talking about. This is fundamentally why privately owned businesses inevitably get "bought out" by public corporations after reaching a certain size. Here Libertarians might point to the initiation of the use of force, the corrupt government structure, the tax system, crony-capitalism etc. Again, these are certainly fair points, and I do not mean to dismiss them, but it seems to me that they are merely contributing factors, not the underlying cause. When a single individual, or even a family, runs a business they will only go so far before they realize it's simply not worth the effort to continue expanding, or even operating the business as is. The amount of stress they are to endure if they continue to do so is not worth the increase in the profit they stand to gain. Working through a purely rational, cost/benefit analysis, the decision to simply sell the business, "retire", and pursue other interests just makes sense. To put it simply, the difference in the quality of life between making, say $20k/year and $200k/year is astronomical, and well worth the personal cost in terms of stress, health, effort etc. But the difference in the quality of life between making $200k/year and $2 million/year is far, far smaller, and simply not worth the effort for most people. Then the difference between making $2 million and $20 million, $200 million, or $2 billion per year just isn't there anymore. You can only live in one house at a time, drive one car at a time, travel so much, eat so much, consume so much. Once you get to a certain point, and you're relying on the profit motive alone, the only motivators left are purely egotistical (i.e. delusional, narcissistic, psychopathic) in nature. To put it bluntly, it's enough to take the famous words of a certain ex-president on the campaign trail at face value to realize that at some point, it's just about proving to the world how big your dick is. To drive the point home--and this is a discussion I would absolutely love to get into with you, whether on a personal level or a more abstract, philosophical level, whether privately or publicly, in the comments or by other means--take a look at yourself and your youtube channel, TIK. You are certainly an outlier on the bell curve distribution when it comes to intelligence, productivity and communication skills. And even you, yourself, have pointed to people consistently being surprised as to why your channel is so small, relative to the quality of the content you produce. Certainly, you can point to the bias of the YT algorithm, internet censorship, the institutional brainwashing done by universities, the short attention span of so many individuals in the society at large, and so on, and so forth. But are any of these really the underlying cause of the limit of your reach? (Is this really the case? ;) ). Could it be, that you have also fallen into a type of ideological thinking, albeit quite distinct from the various flavors of socialism/totalitarianism/gnosticism, not nearly as murderous nor dehumanizing, but still limiting, nonetheless? To step back into the larger, more abstract view, and put things yet another way, I am in no way supporting or arguing for the murderous ideologies you are working so tirelessly against. I am merely suggesting something like this. Perhaps, tribalism is not simply an archaic remnant of ancient humanity that we must overcome by exercising our reason and expressing our individuality without the initiation of the use of force. Perhaps, Libertarianism, as the name suggests, is merely another flavor of Liberalism (classical, or otherwise). Perhaps, there is a fundamental flaw in the underlying philosophies out of which Liberalism has emerged. I'm sure you can clearly recognize how Liberalism is leading us right back towards what it originally purported to be leading us out of (i.e. tyranny). And you can offer up all the peripheral rationalizations and explanations you want (as you have done in multiple videos already) until you're blue in the face. But at the end of the day, don't all of these explanations of the failure of Liberalism/Individualism/Enlightenment Values, boil down to exactly the same explanation as the other side offers? That is, humans are simply not fit enough to put this philosophy into practice. It's not the ideas that are the problem, it's human nature. Alternatively, it's a few bad actors ruining the whole bunch, the "traitors" as the other side might call them. I have not yet been able to clearly identify what the problem might truly be, but I've got a certain trajectory in mind, at least. Which is why a discussion with you on the topic seems pertinent. It would be beneficial not only to myself, but also to you, to your viewers, and ultimately, to the society at large. And to state something of a positive case, what I'm suggesting might go like this. Tribalism is an essential aspect of the human experience. It's something we must learn to understand and consciously incorporate into our individual and social function; into our philosophies, personal values and social institutions. Instead of being anti-tribal (i.e. individualistic) or pro-tribal (i.e. socialistic) we ought to aim at becoming CONSCIOUSLY tribal. What that would look like, in practice, I'm not sure. But in closing, let me paraphrase one of my favorite philosophers. Life is not merely a logical argument. My heart goes out to you my friend. You are a genuine bright spot in a civilization which appears to be decaying and collapsing in on itself. Your work has helped me immensely in a very dark time in my life, far beyond the "tanks", the history, even the philosophy. I continue to come back to your work, again and again, not merely for its own sake (though that should be more than reason enough) but because your voice is so unique, so distinct despite following the tried and true western academic tradition. You have the unique ability to take an approach which is so often dull and lifeless, and make it fascinating, engaging and relatively easy to follow. I think you are on the verge of a breakthrough into something more and more people are becoming desperate for, true originality. Maybe, just maybe, a discussion between the two of us could take you, and us, another step closer toward such a breakthrough. I hope that you will read this at some point. I know I'm posting quite late on the original video which inspired this composition, and odds are you won't see it here. But I intend to repost on your newer videos, with a link referencing this video, with the hopes that you do eventually read it. Here's wishing you all the best. Even if nothing comes of this, I just want you to know, here's one person who loves and respects you for what you're doing. You're an inspiration to so many. Never let the naysayers get to you.

TIK, you and your content are wonderful. God bless dude.

Answer to the last statement depends on where you live. If you live in USA, which has the strongest military in the world and has weak non threatening neighbours, it completely makes sense to form your military from volunteers rather than forcing fighting age men to conscript as there is no immediate threat to your country and way of life. Then we have nations like Finland, which has aggressive expansionist neighbour that dwarfs them in manpower. In these kinds of countries, where the threat of military invasion is a real one, it makes perfect sense to have a mandatory military service in order to guarantee the sovereignty of said nation. So there ya go. The boring answer, aka it depends.

Model didn't shot himself because he was obey the Fuhrer or because he refused to think. I cannot imagine that, as a field Marshal, the one who out of conviction in victory for my country am responsible for the deaths of hundreds of my soldiers, should now emerge from these woods to approach Montgomery, or the Americans, with my hands in the air and say 'Here I am. Field Marshal Model, I Surrender.' Don't know if it is 100% true but it seems more like a last glimpse of honor.

Those questions are best answered in fiction. Paul Verhovens film version of Starship Troopers is a good one. Dune books also explores the theme of what happens when you establish a war religion and has to keep up with it.

Funny how the people demanding loyalty usually aren't in any danger

This is the best politics & history channel

German High Command: "...gee, why would a guy we left out hung to dry for 2 months, let his fighting spirit not be crushed by the enemy, but by our lack of effort, in the end, didn't do what we desired of him?"

I’ll say it again…. I really enjoy your videos. I love learning about history and your videos are a real jewel of knowledge. They are priceless in their value. Thank you.

Quality. In my dotage, I've come to the conclusion that no hills are worth dying on.

If Paulus had disobeyed orders earlier he would have withdrawn when they had the chance. Instead he waited until he had to surrender to disobey Hitler.

Of course Hitler didn't think he was evil, TIK. ..In hindsight that WAS the problem wasn't it? He couldn't afford to even consider it, Love you Lewis. Keep it up.

USMC MOS023 Ground Intelligence Officer retired and IS delegate. Let’s not forget Paulis was Deputy Chief of the German staff 1940-51. He probably knew a lot more sensitive documents, than the regular Field Marshall-General

Tik could retire after the Stalingrad battle storm series and he would be undisputed top 3 historian content creators of all time Thank you for everything you do tik If I get some extra money I'ma take care of u

and..... TIK breathes a sigh of relief. What an epic telling of history! What a journey!

I would love to see a documentary about the Bolshevik revolution and who was behind that, you should focus more on pre WW2 to understand the world we live in today.

Hi Tik, could you maybe do a video on the Bosnian Muslim 13th SS Division, would be interesting to get an explanation of it. Just been studying the Ustasha regime and they came up. Apparently Himmler had some kind of obsession with Islam?

At about 17:43 we see a pretty good assessment of the USA, beginning about 1993.

Well, the ideal soldier should always obey the order coming from above. If we are looking from the Army's stand point. As you have shown how the OKH has messed up reinforcement priority and ultimately led to the collapse of the 6th army. However, Dunkirk is the best counter example where following order has led to Britain keeping herself in the fight...

Actually Hitler may have been referring to Stalin’s wife, who after being insulted, locked herself in a room and did the deed.

00:04 📅 On February 1, 1943, a conference was held with Hitler and the German High Command to discuss the dire situation on the Eastern Front after Paulus' capture. 01:23 🗣 Hitler expressed strong opinions about soldiers who chose surrender over self-sacrifice in desperate situations, referencing Paulus and the 6th Army's surrender at Stalingrad. 02:40 💔 Hitler's comments about self-annihilation may have been influenced by personal experiences, potentially involving his half-niece Geli Raubal or a secretary of Hermann Göring. 05:20 ⚖ Hitler believed he had authority over Strecker's northern pocket and was concerned Paulus might order its surrender, showing discrepancies with Paulus' claims to his Soviet captors. 08:05 💪 Hitler emphasized the importance of unwavering courage and strength of character in soldiers, emphasizing obedience and sacrifice for the greater good. 11:47 🔄 The capture of Paulus challenged Hitler's narrative, leading him to shift towards a Total War footing and reconsidering promotions of field marshals during the war. 15:25 🤔 Hitler valued unthinking action over intellectual acumen, seeking soldiers who would unquestioningly obey orders for the sake of the Volk. 18:35 💔 Hitler viewed self-sacrifice as a means to free oneself from suffering, aligning with his ideology of struggle and sacrifice for the greater good. 20:28 ⚔ Hitler emphasized the idea of fighting to the end and resisting surrender, even in the face of overwhelming odds. 21:54 🤔 Hitler expresses disbelief in Paulus' surrender, questioning why he didn't choose death over captivity. 22:50 😢 Hitler regrets promoting Paulus to field marshal and vows not to make another during the war. 23:15 🤯 Hitler finds it ridiculous that Paulus chose capture over self-sacrifice for the nation. 24:14 💭 Hitler emphasizes the importance of "strength of character" over intellect, echoing German philosophy. 25:12 ⚖ Hitler questions whether it's right for higher ranks to demand self-sacrifice from soldiers. 26:10 🤔 Debate arises on the extent of duty to follow orders, especially when they involve extreme actions. 27:07 🗣 Hitler discusses differing viewpoints on duty and personal decision-making in extreme situations.

Oddly enough, the culture of "shoot yourself with the last bullet" was also the norm in Imperial Japan. They were both fundamentally fatalistic in that respect and it should be noted the men actively encouraging this would also eat their guns.

And about the question at the end about self sacrifice years ago I had people who by then I considered my friends. Thing is these friends by the time started to show more and more their true colors and narcisistic behaviour to the point of demanding me and others to follow blindly not only their ideology but their orders over the most mundane and stupid things and to force me to agree with them about said things plus some self sacrifice on my regard (wich they never reciprocated, it was and is always about themselves). It even got to the point in wich they attacked me on regard of personal issues I was having to the point of even claiming that I want to take advantage of others (wich is the opposite). It recently got to the point of even wanting an excuse to attack me because I didn't agree with unions or see them as the greatest thing with what was happening with the strikes in Hollywood even when I said that I had issues at my job and what was happening there reminded me of said issues or that days before that I wanted to help my friend's dad who was also having problems at his job. As the time goes on I see more and more similarities in them with fascism (lets remember that unionism is key in fascism) and nazism and it is not worth it. This kind of people who demand others to sacrifice themselves are usually just narcisists who want to gaslight others into doing their biding under the extorsion of moral disaproval when not only this help no one nut themselves but then don't give a fuck about said others or what they are going through even if they know perfectly the damage they are doing. This will only make you rot and when you lose sense of value about yourselve, the things on the world and even thinking, logic, rationality and common sense losses value then what is the point? Then there is no point is sacrificing for something just at the expense of others and if they claim that common sense is something to oppose in order the fullfil their narcisistic wishes then everything is said. Don't allow yourselfs to lose sense of you as it happend with me

Are we even aloud mention that word in comments? Statistics for that final act vary between the Catholic and protestant parts of Germany. For Catholics it is considered a Mortal Sin and is seriously taboo. Paulus was Catholic, did this have any bearing on his decision?

Do you think people in Ukraine should not defend their nation? What about the people invaded by Hitler? Should they just surrender? Based on your words im curious how you would answer this question

TIK....This would be interesting to link in with the Japanese who seemed to embrace self sacrifice and "youtubing" themselves!

Congratulations Tik on another outstanding video. However, it may be your most important one yet, as it summarizes the madness behind the Nazi ideal so eloquently, and shows us WHY Germans were fighting and dying on the steppes of Asia for an insane cause.

thanks TIK or a new instructive video...

Good evening TIK & thanks again for a wonderful explanation of that conference! As authoritarians,I believe Nazis never saw themselves as public servants. Nor do so many democratically elected officials nowadays. I would say the liberal point of view is that public servants (including the military) work for us. And therefore, if I do not agree with their assessment then I'm entitled to ignore it. Whatever the consequences might be.

When you're in the military you have to obey orders because an army can't consist of thousands of soldiers going around doing what they think is best. Paulus, being a high-ranking military officer, did have the obligation to not surrender. Maybe not suicide, but by Soviet hands in the battle lines. That's what I was taught to do as a member of the US military many years ago, it's called the Code of Conduct and it's drilled into every soldier during training.

"Chose plato's world of forms"

Thanks for all this totally superb, professional-class work TIK - hugely entertaining, informative, educational and enjoyable. One thing that comes out of this is the person of General Paulus himself. A but like Lucas at Anzio, he may not have been a charismatic flaming sword but equally he was nothing like the inert 'wet lettuce' so often portrayed. He was being tricked and hoodwinked by manipulative Manstein, had poor communications to control the forces he did have, was party to incomplete info and was - however clumsily - trying to make the correct calls in view of the dire situation of his troops. Like you say - the shortcomings of the airlift plus disease were killing his men far more effectively than Russian offensive action and he had to do something about it. As @jangelbrich7506 has stated, the whole relationship between Authority and the Individual, in the world (but especially germany - and the German Military) was totally different what what we understand today.

Well, I wish we could make our own decisions, but as long as the majority of our population votes for parties that don't represent that, it will be difficult. The thing is, the free market will never gain popularity among people because people believe they need a government to intervene. When I look at our society, I get the feeling that for an average citizen it sounds more tempting to encourage more taxes for the rich than not having to pay any taxes themselves and nothing being taken away from the rich. I mean, who builds the roads? Dear TIK :)

In WW1 my grandpa was kidnapped by the Germans at age 13 and was forced to fight. There’s no way he would have volunteered to be shot 5 times, shattering his jaw for the sake of the Kaiser. His brother faced the Soviets and both armies were expected to kill each other to the last man. Trouble is most had families and farms and that’s where their loyalties lie.

I think I would do terribly in the army, If there is something I despise it is being ordered around. Also the fact that they viewed self deleting yourself as heroic is insane to me, sounds to me like a cowards way out

It’s the same demented logic behind Japanese banzai charges against fortified US positions on Guadalcanal. They gave their lives for Japan and the Emperor, But actually, US forces were so undermanned that less wasteful attacks could have prolonged Japanese resistance.

Personally, I think that a soldier should be willing to follow orders from their superiors, but that those superiors only derive authority by way of consent of the soldier. The soldier gives authority over themselves to the superior because they trust their leadership skills, not because they are required to by force, and if a soldier is to be ordered to sacrifice themselves for the lives of another, that needs to be a consensual agreement that they are willing to do beforehand, after all, they are fighting to potentially sacrifice their lives for the lives of their families, not for the lives of some guys with metal stars on their suits. Just as a government gains power by the consent of the governed, a good king gains power by the trust of his subjects, a military leader of any kind, king, chieftain, commander or other, is just the same. At the end of the day, self-sacrifice is done on the ideals of the sacrificed, not their superiors, and anything less is murder.

16:51 This is so spot on. I appreciate the comparison to current-day events/life. I'm no partisan either, I can simply follow the evidence and let the conclusions be and accept what they are.

Fresh off the press!