He joined the Prussian army in 1915, became first in command of the OKH in 1944 (the OKH was placed in charge of fighting the Soviets in the latter half of the war while OKW handled the other theatres), and left the German Military in 1961, so if you were looking for a guy who knew about fighting the Russians I guess he would make sense.
But all he learned was how to lose?
In wwi the Russians were the only power that lost while being on the winning side. I doubt he had much to do with the strategy though.
Learning how they lost is useful information in of itself. And even losers could probably tell you things like how quickly the other side could respond, what kind of equipment they used, basic lessons learned, etc.
Wait until you find out how USA and SSSR got their space programs so fast up and running.
Wait til you find out how they know the intricacies of hypothermia, amputation, transplantation and untreated chemical exposure effects on the human body.
Nah, his data was trash. We learned nothing. He bad at science, only good at torture.
Welp. Although true, and he was an effective military nazi leader, he was chief oft the military for weeks…
Yeah, Heusinger was Hitler’s chief of staff temporarily when the actual chief of staff got sick. This became a significant event, because Hitler’s assassination attempt happened during that time. Heusinger was suspected of being part of the plot, but no evidence was found. After that, he didn’t have a senior post in the Nazi German Army.
Also he was appointed chair of NATO in 1960s, so significantly later than WW2.
Also he was apparently never a member of the nazi party nor did he take part in nazi atrocities.
But hey, nice example of disinformation.
Heusinger accompanied the field staff and assisted in the planning of operations for the invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, and France and the Low Countries.
But hey, nice example of disinformation.
Why even link the articles when the man in question is not mentioned in any of them?
Wikipedia apparently does that by default now. Sorry. I’ll edit it.
Nobody’s disagreeing that he worked for the military, they’re just saying he wasn’t the leader of the nazis.
Who’s spreading disinformation, when you’re making up new titles like “Hitler’s chief of staff” and “Chairman of NATO” about a person who’s been dead for 40 years?
Provide links. I did!
Heusinger served as inspector general until 1961, when appointed chairman of NATO’s Military Committee—the organization’s senior military officer and chief military adviser to the secretary general. Source
I think people are mostly criticising your choice of words, The chairman of the NATO military committee does not equate to the chief of NATO. And simply labeling him as “chief of staff” implies that he was part of the executive, and not a military commander.
I could more accurately claim that Hitlers “chief of staff” Vincenz Müller became the Commander of the Soviet East German military. At least half of that statement is actually true.
There is no reason to participate in historical revisionism. We are still fighting against the"clean Wehrmacht" theory. Misrepresenting the white washing that’s already occurred just gives ammunition to those perpetuating it.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply here. He was a senior military leader prior to Hitler’s assassination attempt, of course he participated in planning military operations.
But hey, nice example of disinformation.
That he did have allegiance to the nazi party and he did take part in nazi atrocities.
I think neither your quote nor the text under the link show that. Can you elaborate?
Sure.
A declassified CIA document about the general – which was made public in 2006 thanks to the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act – assures that he could have been involved in war crimes, since some of the orders he signed sealed the fate of several Russian political prisoners and allied commanders. Source
Technically he was 3rd in command at the OKH from August 1940 to 1943 when he became second in command and finally head of the OKH when Kurt Zeitzler had a mental breakdown in June 1944.
After the war he testified at Nuremburg and became an advisor for the new West German government in 1950, officially getting a military advisor position in 1955.
So, longer than two weeks.
What is a “Chairman of NATO”?
Apparently these guys.
On 18 May 2021 NATO Chiefs of Defence agreed to the change in title from Chairman to Chair of the NATO Military Committee.
The one who arranges the seating in the conference room
Shitty superhero.
He was chief of staff of the nazi armed forces for 1 month. He testified against the nazis at Nuremberg, and then he was third in command in NATO for 2 years, he was not “the chairman of NATO”.
chief of staff of the nazi armed forces for 1 month.
They often appoint complete strangers to these positions of power.
He was literally named “CHAIRMAN of the NATO military committee”
Stop making me check facts. It’s on the NATO website.
This is a list of chairmen of the NATO Military Committee. The Secretary General is the leader of NATO, not the Chairman of the Military Committee.
Wow. It’s like Secretary-General and Chairman are two different words. Did the meme say Secretary-General?
That’s why people shouldn’t make them check facts, they’re not good at lt.
I just did. Oh look, I did again.
Don’t throw your back out moving those goalposts, because you were already told once that your “proof” doesn’t say what you’re saying it says.
This is a list of chairmen of the NATO Military Committee. The Secretary General is the leader of NATO, not the Chairman of the Military Committee.
You’d be surprised how many nazis were recycled after WW2. Unfortunately, it’s the reason we made it to the moon.
Also the main reason why we had the Cold War … I’m in Canada and from the history I’ve read about my government after the war, it was far easier to be a Nazi or a fascist than a communist or even socially minded.
It makes you realize that the second world war didn’t really end in 1945 … it lingered for many decades after to what we have today.
Idk, if either side had absorbed ideology of the nazis then wouldn’t that just bring them closer together? They probably would have had tension regardless, WWII just sped up the arms race. Also, fascism and communism in the historical context are not opposing ideologies. Sure, definitions directly contradict, but most of the historic “communisms” like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China were definitely fascisms.
Nationalistic top down systems with rigid class roles ruled by an all powerful dictator like Mao’s china or the soviet union? Just because they claimed they were advocating for a classless society didn’t make it true. There’s this thing they were doing called lying.
The links I provided disagree.
The second one said that what communism isn’t is something that ever actually existed in the real world. I think they agree with me.
Soviets apparently grabbed the better ones and won the space race.
but the soviets lost
0,16 % of Germans were in actual resistance and only 24 (!) people were charged during the Nuremberg procceses. That leaves the majority of roughly 70 million German collaborateurs to be the staff of the post-war Germany.
Hate those 5 years old collaborateurs. They’re the worst…
But you’re right. Germany had a lot of Nazis in power after WW2.
