Why No Leader (Including Trump) Would Want Hitler's Generals
Trump said he wanted Hitler's generals. The left was shocked. The right shrugged. Historians snickered.
Greetings, fellow Grim Historians, and welcome to the first official week of hellish history on repeat. This week’s gallows topic is not about how Trump emulates Hitler. (The comparisons are slim. Hitler could read.) This week’s topic is about the paper-thin loyalty that often surrounds fascist leaders. And yes, we will see this history repeat in the next four years.
Know a Grim History lover? Please share this reader-supported newsletter. Let’s find solidarity in humanity’s misery.
In one of the more surreal moments of modern politics, Donald Trump reportedly told his generals he needed “the kind of generals Hitler had” — the kind of lackeys that are “totally loyal to him, that follow orders.” As political gaffes go, it’s an instant classic — right up there with eating a taco bowl while declaring love for “the Hispanics.”
The comment was so idiotic that John Kelly, his Chief of Babysitting — I mean, staff — had to remind Trump that Hitler’s generals tried to kill him. Three times. So there’s that.
Of course, Trump’s blatant disregard for historical facts is hardly surprising anymore. Let’s not forget that this is the same man who asked why the Civil War couldn’t have been “worked out” and thought airports existed in 1776.
The truth is that no leader would want Hitler’s generals. Far from being a model of unwavering fidelity, Hitler’s generals were a motley crew of opportunists, backstabbers, and ideologues who, when the chips were down, began plotting against the very man they had sworn to serve.
Let’s unpack this historical mess, one betrayal at a time.
Backstabbing 101: The July 20 Plot
The most famous act of treachery came on July 20, 1944, when a group of high-ranking officers decided to take Hitler’s life. This wasn’t just a casual coup attempt. It was a meticulously planned assassination involving a bomb in a briefcase smuggled into a meeting by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg.
The plot was nearly successful, but a table leg deflected the blast, allowing Hitler to survive with only minor injuries. Hitler lived, history sighed, and Stauffenberg got executed faster than Trump can spell “covfefe.”
To be clear, many of the conspirators weren’t exactly moral heroes. Their grievances with Hitler weren’t rooted in opposition to Nazism’s horrors but in a desire to salvage Germany’s losing war effort (and their own careers). As the tide turned against the Reich, loyalty took a backseat to survival. It’s hard to imagine Trump appreciating this kind of “ride until it’s inconvenient” mentality.
Erwin Rommel: The Fox Who Turned
Then there’s Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the famed “Desert Fox.” Initially one of Hitler’s brightest stars, Rommel dazzled the Nazis with his North African campaigns. But as the war dragged on and Germany’s fortunes dimmed, Rommel realized Hitler’s leadership had all the foresight of a toddler building a sandcastle at high tide.
By 1944, Rommel dipped his toes in the resistance movement. When Hitler found out, he gave Rommel a choice: chomp on cyanide or face public execution. Rommel picked poison.
If this is Trump’s idea of loyalty, it’s a peculiar one. Sure, Rommel didn’t turn Hitler over to the Allies, but he also didn’t die singing the Nazi anthem. His loyalty evaporated the moment he realized the ship was sinking — and fast.
The Court of Yes-Men
If Trump wanted subservience, some of Hitler’s generals might fit the bill — at least superficially. Take Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, who earned the nickname “Lakeitel” for his servile obedience to Hitler. Keitel rubber-stamped every harebrained idea the Führer dreamed up, including the ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union. Privately, however, Keitel referred to Hitler as a “madman” and questioned his judgment.
This pattern of public obedience and private dissent was common among Hitler’s generals. Heinz Guderian, the architect of Germany’s blitzkrieg strategy, often clashed with Hitler over military decisions. He was so vocal in his opposition that he was repeatedly dismissed from his positions, only to be reluctantly recalled when his expertise was desperately needed.
These men weren’t loyal; they were pragmatic, sticking with Hitler as long as he was useful and pushing back when his whims threatened their survival. This was the Nazi management style: agree publicly, dissent privately, and pray you don’t get caught.
Tactical Blunders and Frayed Allegiances
Even before the betrayals began, many of Hitler’s generals were undermining him through sheer incompetence. The decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, known as Operation Barbarossa, was a catastrophic overreach driven by hubris. Despite warnings from some of his generals about the logistical nightmare of a winter campaign in Russia, Hitler pushed ahead, leading to one of the greatest military disasters in history.
Some generals, like Friedrich Paulus, commander at Stalingrad, blindly followed orders to hold their positions even as their forces were encircled and decimated. Others, like Albert Kesselring, privately fumed at Hitler’s refusal to allow tactical retreats that could have preserved German forces. Loyalty, in these cases, wasn’t a virtue; it was a death sentence.
Opportunism Masquerading as Devotion
Many of Hitler’s generals were less loyal followers and more self-serving opportunists. Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, was a prime example. While Göring publicly fawned over Hitler, his actual loyalty lay in his lavish lifestyle. He spent much of the war looting art and mainlining opulence. If loyalty meant a pay cut, these guys were out faster than Trump at a climate summit.
Even Hitler himself recognized the dubious nature of his generals’ loyalty. As the war turned against Germany, he grew increasingly paranoid, accusing his officers of cowardice and betrayal. His infamous Nero Decree, ordering the destruction of German infrastructure to deny it to advancing Allied forces, was openly ignored by many of his generals, who saw it as a final act of madness from a man unmoored from reality.
Loyalty or Fear?
Although Trump’s knowledge of history is on par with that of a Drunk History episode, one thing is for certain - Trump doesn’t want “Hitler’s generals.” He wants henchmen who’ll obey his every command, no matter how unconstitutional or batshit insane. Remember when he asked his generals to shoot peaceful protesters? If Trump had not slept through third-grade civics, he would know the military’s job description doesn’t entail aiming weapons at its own citizens. Not to mention, unlike Russia or China, our military pledges loyalty to the Constitution, not the President.
Trump’s dream of loyalty is more about cronyism: appointing family members, shipping off inconvenient girlfriends to Greece, auctioning off power to his billionaire friends, and treating the government like his personal QVC channel. (Who wants a gaudy presidential coin? Anyone? No?)
Here’s the bitter-sweet truth: loyalty in authoritarian regimes is a mirage. Hitler’s generals weren’t loyal. They were scared, greedy, or trying to save their own necks. And the moment loyalty became inconvenient, it vanished like a steak in front of Chris Christie.
If anything, Hitler’s generals are a cautionary tale of how blind obedience and self-interest can undermine even the most authoritarian regimes.
Carlyn Beccia is an award-winning author and illustrator of 13 books. Subscribe to Conversations with Carlyn for free content every Wednesday, or become a paid subscriber to get the juicy stuff on Sundays.
It appears he's getting exactly what he asked for. 🤔🤷♀️
"...foresight of a toddler building a sandcastle at high tide." I wanted to take exception to this, but after reflection:
When building near the water at low tide, the castle lasts until the tide comes in. When building at high tide, the castle will last until it dries out. The bigger problem is expecting a sandcastle to last in the first place.
What I'm sensing as I read these days is in tune with, let's see what happens. The Overton Window for things coming from the incoming administration encompasses almost anything, and it could easily get crazier. But people following directions will probably have second thoughts about some actions. With some exceptions, power in America is fleeting.