Talk:Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers

Misnamed
I'm not sure the article title is quite correct for the subject covered. General corruption in Wehrmacht should cover a much wider field than is the subject of this article which exclusively focuses on the top ranking Generals. Corruption of high-ranking Wehrmacht officers might be more fitting. On another note, the subject was covered in 1999 by G. R. Ueberschär's book Dienen und Verdienen which states that the money spend annually by Hitler on his Generals went from RM 150,000 in 1933 to 3 million in 1935 and 45 million by 1945. I don't have access to the book but the review (in German) goes into some interesting detail. Calistemon (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would rather keep the title as is for now. The corruption in the upper echelons is what I had the material on (from Nazism and the Wehrmacht) and also to keep the article title reasonably short. The article could be expanded to encompass other forms of corruption if appropriate. But I'm open to other suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the title is okay, as is. Kierzek (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In its current state the article looks a lot like a point of view fork of Nazism and the Wehrmacht. While the subject in the article is certainly notable and relevant I fail to see how mentioning just one aspect of corruption could be seen as a balanced view of the subject of corruption within the Wehrmacht. Calistemon (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would not be a point-of-view fork as there is no attempt being made at avoidance of npov; a content fork would be the better argument; but, one can argue in reply that is has enough to be a stand alone article (which, I believe it does). You are welcome to add to it, Calistemon. Kierzek (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence states: "Corruption within the Wehrmacht refers to the dishonest and fraudulent conduct of high-ranking officers of the Armed Forces of Nazi Germany". The point I'm making that this can not possibly be the full extend of corruption in the Wehrmacht, there had to be much more corruption than that, given the sheer size of the organisation. The article title misleads readers into thinking this is all the corruption there was. I think the title should reflect the subject of the article, the elite group of Nazi officers, not the whole Wehrmacht. A Corruption in the Wehrmacht article should look at all levels and I personally don't have any reliable sources for that. Currently the article is POV under its current title as it covers only one aspect, the tip of the iceberg so to speak. No offence to the creator but the subject picked is to large with to narrow of an example mentioned in the article, even if it is the most prominent one. It's like writing an article on corruption in Germany and only mentioning Franz Josef Strauss. Calistemon (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Other types of corruption
To follow-up on the above discussion, the other type of corruption would be at the lower echelons such as personal enrichment of Wehrmacht personnel by looting and appropriating property in the occupied territory, especially of that belonging to the Jewish population. See for example, Marching into Darkness. It discusses instances of corruption within the 707th Infantry Division. I could create a section that addresses this aspect of corruption, and expand the lead appropriately.

Here's the full text of the dissertation that the above book is based on. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think looting falls under the definition of corruption. Looters are thieves, corruption is, as I understand it, predominantly taking bribes. This Ukrainian source (unsure whether it is reliable) speaks of widespread corruption in the occupied Ukraine. Another source about the same in Poland. For money, it seems, almost anything could be bought from Wehrmacht, police and civil administration. Two things I can see from this: Firstly, Looting is not necessarily part of corruption, it falls more under the topic of Nazi plunder. Secondly, Corruption within the Wehrmacht was not just restricted to the narrow scope of bribes from Hitler to the highest ranks as this article currently claims, it's a far larger subject than stated so far. Calistemon (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus for the proposed move. Feel free to propose an alternative though and see how that goes. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Corruption within the Wehrmacht → Corruption among senior Wehrmacht officers – The current article title insufficiently reflects the true nature of the article. As stated in the discussions above this entry corruption within the Wehrmacht was far further spread than just to the upper echelons of the Wehrmacht. The current subject of the article exclusively deals with, I quote the intro, "Corruption within the Wehrmacht refers to the dishonest and fraudulent conduct of high-ranking officers of the Armed Forces of Nazi Germany to enrich themselves through bribes from the regime." The article title should reflect the specific nature of the subject. Calistemon (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If the move is to be implemented, my suggestion is Corruption within the Wehrmacht elites. "Corruption  of ... " does not convey the same message to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about: "Corruption within the Wehrmacht Officer corps". Kierzek (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Officer corps may be to wide a span as I don't think the bribes included junior officers which would naturally have made up the fast majority of the corps. K.e.coffman's suggestion is quite good, elites describes the people involved pretty well. Calistemon (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about Corruption among senior Wehrmacht officers?Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I like Pincrete's suggestion; the word "elites" is too vague. Kierzek (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed suggestion to title proposed by Pincrete's as this seems to have some consensus. Calistemon (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting article! As the article stands now, I would use the word "bribery" instead of "corruption" in the article name. In the chronology of events, the article states, the officers were bribed into loyalty and subsequently became corrupt. The bribery was active, the corruption was passive. But this is only a minor point. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Corruption automatically implies officials. No one speaks of "corruption among burger flippers at McDonalds", and it obviously doesn't refer to "grunt" soldiers, either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about a system of rewards which applied solely to the MOST senior ranks. I wonder whether this is 'corruption' in the usual sense at all. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose current nomination and would suggest MisterBee has the right idea. The title should be Bribery of Wehrmacht officers as that is what the article content is about. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is decided that "bribery" should be used, it should be: "Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers"; that is the target group involved. Gentlemen what do you think? Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Corruption in the Wehrmacht

 * ... that, by 1945, Hitler had more than RM 40 million available annually to spend on presents to the Nazi elite, among them high-ranking Wehrmacht officers?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2016–17 RFU Championship

Created by K.e.coffman (talk). Nominated by Calistemon (talk) at 09:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC).



Requested move 12 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. &mdash; Music1201  talk  18:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Corruption within the Wehrmacht → Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers – Renaming to narrow the scope of the article, to focus on the bribery scheme currently discussed in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The previous discussion closed without consensus. Upon further discussion with the original proposer, I'd like to put forth "Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers" as it was one of the options on the table from the prior discussion. This will allow to focus the article on the specific bribery scheme for the Wehrmacht elites. A broader article, under the current name, can be developed at a later time to reflect the scope of corruption within the Wehrmacht, from the top down. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I believe for the article in place, that is a good title for the article. Kierzek (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - The suggested title fits the current subject of the article much more precisely. Calistemon (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Opppose and strongly. Corruption was widespread within all ranks of the Wehrmacht. --Robertiki (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is its current form not about the "widespread corruption" but only a small area and type. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has references to a widespread corruption, and should be expanded, not focused to one small area. If you like to focus on the bribery scheme, I suggest to fork a new article named as was proposed in the move. If, instead, the article is renamed, the widespread corruption question would go in oblivion. I remember reading that Keitel was forced to place an order at the end of the war addressing the general problem in the ranks. --Robertiki (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see a problem with forking, and creating a new article "Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers". The only thing there won't be much left here. Does anyone have sources? If ppl are okay with the stub version of the "Corruption" article, then I'd be okay with it. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Its your baby, K.e. I will go with consensus; maybe Robertiki can beef up what is left. Kierzek (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bribe or just award?
This whole article is bunch of nonesense. Yes...we got message...you hate fasist. And now please can you rewrite whole article and make it look as encyclopedia article and not like some antinazi propaganda pamflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.127.88 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's factually correct, and that's generally known, then it is the facts that are shameful.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:491E:E4EA:4FB5:E218 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to be critical but I have to agree that this really is a poor and very biased article. The sources cited, describing the "widespread" corruption at lower levels are unavailable or apocryphal. Further, the distribution of property from a head of state to generals is never otherwise regarded as "bribery"; even when it is unfortunately taken from legitimate owners. When history is distorted to accommodate biases it's not the intended, however deserving, that suffer-it's scholarship and the integrity/credibility of the writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthishope (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. So giving generals a lavish pay and expensive staff cars and private jets, vacation time, villas, all the typical perks of high rank is just fine and dandy, normal business, "just treating your highest lieutenants well to ensure good performance", but this is "corruption"? Why did Eisenhower get a private trailer and hot personal secretary and a C-47 when the GIs didn't get that!? I smell corruption!
 * In any case corruption is to influence someone to do something against their duties and obligations. Isn't following orders and being loyal to the leadership what generals are supposed to do? Do American generals get rewarded for refusing the orders they get from the DOD? But getting incentives to do your job is an established and common practice. I consider myself a neutral party to this and this strikes me as a bunch of hogwash. Is it "fair"? No. Is it a common and widespread practice! Yes. Idumea47b (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Contradiction
"The illicit nature of the payments" is contradicted by "not technically illegal". Worse, to me, is the fact that we have a very good source (Gambetta) arguing that "bribery" is not the right word for any of this. Srnec (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)