Hitler

[Beirut]

Been reading Liddell Hart's comments about Hitler and Captain Hart seems impressed with Hitler's grasp of grand strategy and the nature of military philosophy.

Curious what y'all think.

(My apologies if this has been done before.)

[John86]

as you probably know HItler had a very bad perversion (i wont get into detail). He was a idiot at warfare but a genius at economy and keeping his image. To show his stupity at warfare, look at his plans for stalingrad, idioticy. He placed the 5th and 6th army 300 miles apart which was protected by 1 tank division. THis basically welcomed a circling affect by the russians.

[Voigtkampf]

Oh, my dear Beirut, you open Pandora's box once again… Why, oh, why…?

[rasoforos]

Hitler was hardly a genious at the economy... Spending on weapons and making war to keep your economy growing is nothing more than a suicidical policy...

[Rosacrux]

Hitler was a fanatic, megalomaniac, ruthless dictator with a vision of monumental proportions, who managed to start off a war that resulted in 70 mi. deaths - half of them carried out by his own troops.

So, since you don't have that option in your poll, I'd pick the infamous "GAH" option. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Longshanks]

Hilter was a political genius, but militarily he was incompetent. Most of his so-called 'victories' were planned by his generals. He just claimed credit for them.

[Beirut]

Voigtkampf,

A moderator Excellent. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Apologies. I did it with the best of intentions. (Oh look... it's the road to hell.)

I was re-reading Liddell Hart's magnificient book "Strategy" and he espouses some... respect, for Hitler's ability to see the situation of a grand strategic level and then carry it out. He cites many quotations of Hitlers that came to life very clearly.

Obviously Hitler made huge blunders that cost Germany the war. But his early efforts brought Germany to the point of being able to win the war. That, I believe, is what Captain Hart alludes to.

[The Wizard]

Great strategist?

I am apalled to see that as an option. The fool lost Germany the goddamn war on his own.

Thanks Hitler, for saving us in the end



~Wiz

[FoundationII]

Hitler did very great things, but he made very great mistakes too, when he wasn't so naïve he could have won.
If he didn't attack Russia he could have finished England easily.

[Tribesman]

Foundation ; Could you tell me some of these great things that dear old Adolf did ?

[Quessa]

In fact, in the beginning Adolf was very useful to Germany (from what I can recall, my poor brains). He had new jobs for people by things like building roads.
Even things like radios came to be a very reality in the world of Germany's common folk (this I'm to check out later on). More to add, I believe that people saw him as a savior of the Old-Germany and as a builder of the new and better one. During times like those, people easily fall in every bait or take any chance that is given to them.

I've never been really interested in WW2 or Adolf, but I did my homeworks when I still read history in comprehensive school.

[Rosacrux]

Seems like few understand what excactly was Hitler - for Germany or generally.

Since there is an effort underway by some historians to de-demonize the slaughterer of millions, let's see what he did.

His assertion to power was a result of two factors:

- The German industry owners and big business were alerted by the rise of the worker movements and thus the "communist danger". They wanted someone who could guarantee them that no Spartakists would emerge again. They found that "someone" in the face of Adolf Hitler. From the very beginning of Hitler's career as fuhrer of the Nazionalsozialistisches Partei, the local capital has been extremely generous with his effort, funding him like no other. They supported his rise to power and they got back gazillions of Reichsmarks, when he started "the reconstruction" of Germany - actually, 90% of that "reconstruction" and the accompanying contracts, were in the armament field. Take a note of that.

- The deep, deep wounds WW1 has left in Germany. A mutilated country, an unwanted control by not-so-beloved neighbors, the lack of actual sovereignity (no nation is sovereign when its armed forces cannot exceed a minimum number - in our case 100.000 men - dictated by other countries), do you need more to understand the psyche of the 1930s German? Not to mention the economic downfall.

Those two main factors along with some lesser ones, aided Hitler in his assertion to power. When he got the power, he started a rather ambiguous program.

- He got a "pact" with the heavy industry, that resulted in thousands of governmental contracts (most of them for the rearmament of Germany) and the creation of houndreds of thousands of new jobs.

- He started oppresing any free voice, set all newspapers under his direct control, make sure that all the high and middle ranked state officials are loyal nazis, send every non-nazi union leader to jail, started a pogrom against the Left (communists but also socialists) and began the campaign of terror against the Jews. By those moves he tried to fully control the country, a goal he managed to accomplish quite easily.

To finance his great plans (rebuilding and rearming Germany) he resorted to lending money. Loads of money. Heaps of it. What does that mean? That he founded the growth of the German economy on loans, on loans he could never repay.

In turn, those moves made WW2 inevitable - Hitler's regime could not afford peace, for the heavy loans have undermined the economy for two generations.

That is what Hitler did for Germany.

As for his alleged strategic genious... well, he wasn't a completely incompetent strategist, he had his moments. But mostly his decisions were wrong or unrealistic, especially after his invasion in USSR became stalemate.

Also, his only chance to win the war early on - subdue UK, that is - was blown because he believed that the "brothers" English would eventually join him "against the communist danger". Tsk, tsk, tsk... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Loki]

We are are very lucky that he was an idiot. His rule was one of a cult of personality, and nothing more.

H Norman said it best (and he coulda been talking about Hitler instead of Sadam)

"He is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that he's a great military man. "

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We are lucky he thought he was a great strategist if he had left the war to his generals Germany might well have been victorious.Just look at how he held up the ME-262 for instance with his insistence that it be able to dive bomb.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 06 2004,12:43)]Voigtkampf,

A moderator Excellent. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Thank you, Beirut, but it is assistant moderator, not a full one. I have no jurisdiction here.


Quote[/b] ]Apologies. I did it with the best of intentions. (Oh look... it's the road to hell.

Well, I'm not shunning you as a moderator, don't mind my comment. It is just that I exactly know what will happen next, and it's very annoying.


Quote[/b] ]I was re-reading Liddell Hart's magnificient book "Strategy" and he espouses some... respect, for Hitler's ability to see the situation of a grand strategic level and then carry it out. He cites many quotations of Hitlers that came to life very clearly.

Obviously Hitler made huge blunders that cost Germany the war. But his early efforts brought Germany to the point of being able to win the war. That, I believe, is what Captain Hart alludes to.

The problem is in the fact that the most of the people are so conditioned by their education so that they are not able to be objective, ever. If you say that Hitler was a great strategist, you might have as well go on the street and sing "Adolf Huhnlein" or some other Nazi song and declare yourself openly as a "skinhead"; yet another result of public misunderstanding and repetition of certain mistakes, the original skinheads had virtually nothing to do with the new Nazi generation. Now it reminds me of another common misled belief, that Nietzsche was a Nazi supporter. This claim comes mostly from people that refer to his "Uebermensch" philosophy (without ever have had read his work), which has been exploited by the Nazi regime (btw, his works were partially altered by his own sister, so that Hitler & co would find it more appealing) and adopted as a sort of Nazi credo. People who have actually read Nietzsche's works know that this has nothing to do with Nazis and the fact is that he hated them; actually, his deep friendship with Wagner, he respected that man beyond worship, was destroyed when Nietzsche went to the first play of "Tristan and Isolde" and was horrified with the amount of nationalistic content of the play. Nietzsche stormed out of the theater and Wagner was so enraged at him, the two men have never spoken to each other again.


I have studied history as a hobby, especially the WW2, next to my legal education, and I am able to talk objectively about any issue; I am not German, nor English, nor French nor am I a Russian, so I can depict all of the said countries and their past without any sentiment or false prejudice. Unfortunately, most of the people are so deep into that so called "political correctness" that you better don't make a mistake and say something like "Hitler was a great strategist" or you are bound for the public execution, presumably by fire on the stake. This applies not only to school children, but to historians and well educated men as well. I am not politically engaged, except the teenager phase where I, along my love for Heavy Metal music, have discovered quite some affection for Bakunin and his original anarchists (let's go, throw off the government and paint all the trees in pink; the man was awesome), I have never voted nor do I intend to so in any future, I have never been a member of any party and have never supported any political direction, I have never signed any petition nor have I taken part in any gathering. But I have a quite interest in any political movements and happenings because they greatly affect economy, and I observe these with great attention so I can act accordingly when time comes.

As for "before war" phase, Rosacrux is right, and all of his information are sound. He has forgotten to mention that Hitler played both workers and industrialists against each other, and scored high on both sides. Also, the reparations that Germany was compelled to pay after the WW1 were insanely high, which contributed greatly to the Germany's raging inflation when the time of crisis came. Also, the French marched and occupied parts of Germany, Ruhr, the high importance industrial center of Germany when the German government couldn't afford to pay the reparations on time.

Hitler was an evil person; he wasn't mad, he was evil to his very bone, far beyond any healing. It explains better why he was so if you knew his early Vienna years when he lived on the edge of starvation and had to fight his ways through the streets that were crowded with various ethnical minorities, all of them fighting for a piece of bread like he was, and he found himself fighting them for the very same piece of bread. His hate, his raging, wild, fiery hate consumed whatever he might have had of a soul, and it consumed countless lives, both of his people and many others. He hated economy and knew nothing of it; when he came to power, he assigned good economic experts from the old school, stopped any attempts of, how he said "dangerous economic experiments" of social kind (the left wing of the Nazi party was not much different from the communists, and they have demanded many things like the end of the private property, communes where people would live together, abandoning the principles of a family based society etc.), his only demand to economists was to make him "prepared for war" at any cost. He also hated any form of administration work, which explains how many people in his surrounding came to great amounts of power.


On the other side, Hitler pushed for a war with Poland and France, his generals were not. He conquered Poland in a month, applying his strategy of Blitzkrieg, the one he invented nearly himself, and for which he was intentionally building up his panzer armies as well as his artillery. He conquered France in month and a half (something the Kaiser's armies couldn't pull of in 4 ½ years of WW), adopting a plan from Manstein, who was, if I remember correctly, only a major then, a plan that was rejected by his superior generals and which Hitler went for when Manstein managed to push his plan to Hitler personally - the crossing of the Ardennes, deemed unfit for panzer movement by both German and French HQ's. Hitler recognized the value of the plan, adopted it and slightly altered it, that is true, but he had vision enough to understand the potential, while his generals had none. Hitler experienced a great series of victories in a range of the first two years, and all of his opponents where vastly defeated. Hitler's great setback was the fact that he ignored the see warfare too much and began building larger numbers of subs far too late, but they had some incredibly high results at the very beginning of the war anyway; later, when he appointed Doenitz instead of Reader for the head of the Kriegsmarine, the British were catching up extremely fast, and sea war was lost for the Germans. The reasons for this are the fact that Hitler wanted to wage war on Russia first, and he wanted to bomb England into submission, a task Goering was not up to.

Yes, thank God, Hitler messed up later, stretched his forces too far, believing himself to be invincible, but it should have been obvious that he couldn't wage a war against three most powerful nations of the world, nor could he match their resources. But there was no man in WW2, either a leader of his nation or a general that could match Hitler with his strategic abilities; odd, since Hitler never went to any military school, a reason he was constantly resented from the "old school" generals, respectable "von" soldiers that were in the Kaisers army for generations, which despised the low-ranked Hitler who was just a mere corporal in his days in WW1.

So, these are historical facts, taken out from the variety of documents as captured by the Allies as they have conquered Germany, and in all of my time I haven't met anyone who could have proven anything different; mostly the people became blatant and screaming, shouting around without any sound opposite claim. I expect nothing different now, but since you asked, Beirut, I had to say it out loud…

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hitler was evil for sure.But I to feel his genius has been over looked.He was responsible for the autobahns and the Volkswagen.As you said in the beginning he was brilliant.But I think his success got the better of him.He started to believe he was infallible.He had to get personally involved in every aspect of the war instead of leaving it up to those who knew best.I feel that he did much good for Germany in the beginning.Too bad he used his genius for such evil.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]Now it reminds me of another common misled belief, that Nietzsche was a Nazi supporter. This claim comes mostly from people that refer to his "Uebermensch" philosophy (without ever have had read his work), which has been exploited by the Nazi regime (btw, his works were partially altered by his own sister, so that Hitler & co would find it more appealing) and adopted as a sort of Nazi credo

Actually did Nietzsche have his huge change to a warrior philosopher in 1914 mostly thanks to the British who used him as some prove to the German "barbarism". This changed him in German philosophy too, from being an outsider to becoming one of the great German war philosophers.

Nietzsche himself seems to been ashamed to be a German, he made up a Polish back-round for example. And as you said, his sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, that was a huge German nationalist and a rabid anti-semite, worked hard to make it appear that Nietzshe had the same ideas as she did.
But to point out this happened during WW1 not later, but it's influences would mostly happen during the days of the Weimar-Republic.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ Mar. 07 2004,03:19)]Actually did Nietzsche have his huge change to a warrior philosopher in 1914 mostly thanks to the British who used him as some prove to the German "barbarism". This changed him in German philosophy too, from being an outsider to becoming one of the great German war philosophers.
Nietzsches "warrior's" philosophy was, IMHO, a result of his nature combined with the fact that he was infected with syphilis very early in his life, which made him even more bitter and repulsive to the "joys of life", but his war experiences might have some effect on him as well.


Quote[/b] ]Nietzsche himself seems to been ashamed to be a German, he made up a Polish back-round for example. And as you said, his sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, that was a huge German nationalist and a rabid anti-semite, worked hard to make it appear that Nietzshe had the same ideas as she did.

Indeed, he had some strange love/hate relationship to his own nationality; he wrote once in spoke "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", no exact quote, "…from the people of name that lies both heavy and pleasant on my heart".

[Seven.the.Hun]

simple, like the axis ways of the time, exceptional strategy, horrible timing...this is much like a spam milkshake, they just dont go together,
and there we have the flaw in the armour, the broken link...
good thing too, glad i was not to be born in a world conquered by those...it would be just as bad as this one, likely a bit worse...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif

[TosaInu]

Hello,

Hitler unleashes many emotions. Understandable, but not a good thing.

Hitler is said to be a monster, but how did he get there?
The WW1 disaster was not something that was just Germany's fault, but a sad result of nationalism by many countries: "We're here because we're here". The USA president (Wilson?) was trying to settle the peace nicely, but some European countries insisted on crippling Germany. Mainly (?) France, because of yet older arguments (Saarland?). I don't blame France here, but I can understand how it feeds bad feeling in Germany. Add the crash on the stock market (America was trying to help Germany ?) and there's room for extreme developments.

Hitler & co didn't had too much problems in manipulating the German population.

Voigtkampf

Quote[/b] ]Hitler was an evil person; he wasn't mad, he was evil to his very bone, far beyond any healing.
That far beyond any healing is an interesting part. I'm not sure whether Hitler was an evil to the bone person. Horrible things happened, that's for sure.
Hitler was corporal in WW1 and went through post WW1 misery.
Hitler was infected by syphilis (?). If my memory doesn't fail me, an 'incurable' (?) disease up to this day. This disease has devastating effects on the brain and may well reinforce/steer the dark thoughts he already may have had (inborn and/or developed). That madness is a progressive effect. Stalin is said to be a patient too.

I'm not a graduated historian, psychologist or medical expert, thus the flood of question marks in my post. My history knowledge is from high school and some accidental articles. Biological knowledge is a little more than that. But both subjects are long ago and I may remember the facts/stories/legends (???) all wrong. Can someone provide more information please?

Hitler and Stalin are demonised (and what happened was far beyond anything), I guess both were victim as well. It doesn't seem evil straighly spawned from a hot place, but a product of follies by mankind. Devastating consequences though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Ludens]

Voigtkampf, I am not much of a historian but I do know several things about the second world war. And I wonder how you could call Hitler a genius when he had just one trick: aggression? Because that is what characterized his plans.
I don't think he was able to value Manstein's plan properly, but he would certainly have liked it because it was aggressive. His campaign in the Soviet Union was also daring and very aggressive. Even in the end of the war, when the Germans ought to be taking up defensive positions, he insisted that his armies should attack, should advance, and should not retreat. This has hastened the end of the war.
Of course by that time he had been so blinded by his own success that he considered himself invincible, like Gawain of Orkeny said.

I attribute his success to his aggression, which he applied at the right time. But he also applied at the wrong time, and therefor I do not consider him a genius.

[John86]

Im not to clear on this subject or when the depression ended but ill give it a try. You could give the opinion that Hitler saved the modern world:
England, Germany, America, were all in a depression. 1/4 germans were out of work. This did not affect russia. When Hitler came into power he built the army past 100,000(made in the aggreement after ww1) He built an army, weapons tanks. This made many jobs, trade increased everywhere. Then the war started. Even more jobs created. The homeless were now soldiers. Some economys were starting to get back on tract. This depression did not affect Russia. If Hitler never came into power Russia could have easily became the equal of america. Ill say it again, im not clear on when the depression ended or on this subject, so please correct me.

[Cebei]

Hitler was a gorgeous man and was even more handsome than Rowan Atkinson. Man that moustache..

[Tribesman]

Many foriegn companies funded the rise of the NSDAP , all of them apart from Skoda made a good profit out of the war .

[DemonArchangel]

Jackass

[FoundationII]

Quote[/b] (Tribesman @ Mar. 06 2004,17:02)]Foundation ; Could you tell me some of these great things that dear old Adolf did ?
Rosacrux did a great job writing it all down, and I have to agree with everything he wrote.
Like Rosacrux said he wasn't an entirely incompetent strategist. (Like the battle of Stalingrad, it was a very good idea and easy to accomplish (make sure it couldn't be used as an industrial center anymore) they accomplished that with artillery fire, but then Hitler became obsessed with taking the city and didn't allow the army to retreat when it was losing was a big mistake and they lost about 250.000 men and Russia lost 500.000 men (because the Russians were losing in the beginning but overwhelmed the Germans with sheer manpower))

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ Mar. 07 2004,06:05)]Voigtkampf

Quote[/b] ]Hitler was an evil person; he wasn't mad, he was evil to his very bone, far beyond any healing.
That far beyond any healing is an interesting part. I'm not sure whether Hitler was an evil to the bone person. Horrible things happened, that's for sure.
Hitler was corporal in WW1 and went through post WW1 misery.


Hello TosaInu,

many people, mostly psychologists, represent the idea that there are no evil, only sick people. It's fashionable way to see things, and very calming for the general public, who now deals with acts of violence much easier by saying "oh, he shot someone, he must be crazy" rather than "he shot someone, what an evil person". It is a part of global move away from religion as the measure of things and shifting to the theory of "mental illness" that must be either treated or otherwise contained by putting the said person that experiences the said symptoms away.
Needless to say that I tend to agree to it only partially and that I support the position of T. Szaz in this matter, ironically also a psychiatrist, but to elaborate it into more detail would be going far off topic.

Basically, I believe not that Hitler was crazy; he was eccentric, at best, and very evil, since the Vienna streets and the WW1 years have made him so. From evil a man can redeem himself by changing himself, becoming a better person and repenting his sins, but from mental illness you can be only healed thorugh a combination of medicine and therapy treatments. Since I believe he wasn't crazy, I said he was evil beyond healing, but I shouldn't have said so. He was evil, and he never repented his transgressions. But at the end, it is all only a matter of how you look at it.


Quote[/b] ]Hitler was infected by syphilis (?).

Another rumor along with those that he was a homosexual, impotent, raped, epileptic and God knows what else. But if you were referring to my post, I spoke of Nietzsche, who indeed suffered that malaise.


Quote[/b] ]Hitler and Stalin are demonised (and what happened was far beyond anything), I guess both were victim as well. It doesn't seem evil straighly spawned from a hot place, but a product of follies by mankind. Devastating consequences though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

I cannot provide 100% accurate info on Stalin, but his life was considerably different from Hitlers, and Stalin, to my knowledge, only suffered from a prolonged state of paranoia, which was very reasonable in his case and it was what allowed him to live up so long in a ruthless, backstabbing regime he created to protect his reign.


Quote[/b] ]Voigtkampf, I am not much of a historian but I do know several things about the second world war. And I wonder how you could call Hitler a genius when he had just one trick: aggression? Because that is what characterized his plans.

Well, after depicting your statement I can't say much about it; the only alternative to an aggressive stance is a defensive stance, and saying that someone wasn't a great military leader just because he was aggressive doesn't sound all to reasonable to me. Sorry, Ludens.


Quote[/b] ]I don't think he was able to value Manstein's plan properly, but he would certainly have liked it because it was aggressive.

Again, you understood something wrong here; he has evaluated, slightly altered and adopted Manstein's plan, and yes, it was aggressive, responding to the very core of Hilter's nature.


Quote[/b] ]Hitler was a gorgeous man and was even more handsome than Rowan Atkinson. Man that moustache..

That is why only Charlie Chaplin could have depicted his character appropriately, as seen in "The Great Dictator".


WarlordMasterHiji

Quote[/b] ]If Hitler never came into power Russia could have easily became the equal of america.

Tribesman

Quote[/b] ]Many foriegn companies funded the rise of the NSDAP , all of them apart from Skoda made a good profit out of the war .

Indeed; strengthen the Nazis to weaken the communists, first only in Germany, afterwards in the upcoming and hardly hidden confrontation that was bound to happen between Germany and Russia.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Moe Howard of the 3 stooges made a pretty good Hitler also http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Mar. 07 2004,21:16)]Well, after depicting your statement I can't say much about it; the only alternative to an aggressive stance is a defensive stance, and saying that someone wasn't a great military leader just because he was aggressive doesn't sound all to reasonable to me. Sorry, Ludens.
I didn't quite say that. What I said was that aggression alone is not sufficient to make someone a great military leader. I attribute all his early victories mainly to an aggressive use of the German war machine, and not to any superior strategical insight. This was, at that point, the right thing to do. However, when Germany was retreating, and aggression wasn't called for, Hitler still wanted to advance and attack and demanded that his generals did that. German military performance at that point was less than impressive. This proves to me that Hitler wasn't a military mastermind.


Quote[/b] ]Again, you understood something wrong here; he has evaluated, slightly altered and adopted Manstein's plan, and yes, it was aggressive, responding to the very core of Hilter's nature.
No argument here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[Beirut]

Voigtkampf,

Just so you know, the only part of me that is a skinhead is the baldness on the back of my head. Also, my father was a tank commander in the Canadian Army in Italy in WWII and I feel that at least allows me to discuss these matters... intellectually.

A few quotes of Hitler's from Liddell Hart's book:

"People have killed only when they could not achieve their aims in other ways... There is a broadened strategy, with intellectual weapons.... Why should I demoralize the enemy by military means if I can do so better and more cheaply in other ways?"

"Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within, to conquer him through himself."

Quote of Hart's: "Whether by instinct or reflection, Hitler aquired an acute grasp of these strategic truths which few soldiers had recognized. He applied this psychological strategy in the political campaign by which he gained control of Germany - exploiting the weak points of the Weimar Republic, playing on human weakness, alternatively playing off capitalist and socialist interests agaisnt one another, appearing to turn first in one direction and then in another, so that by successive indirect steps he approached his goal."

On the strategy of the invasion of Norway: Hitler, "It would be a daring, but interesting undertaking, never before attempted in the history of the world." Hart - "There spoke the 'artist' of war."

Hart- "Hitler gave the art of offensive strategy a new development. He also mastered, better than any of his opponents, the first stage of grand strategy - that of developing and co-ordinating all forms of warlike activity and all the possible instruments which may be used to operate against the eneny's will."

Hart- "The airborne coups in Belgium and Holland were conceived by Hitler himself, although their brilliantly succesful execution was directed by the audacious general Student."

Now, if we can discuss Ghengis Khan without recrimanation, and he did kill as many people as Hitler, we should be able to look at Hitler's military skills without resorting to calling people skinheads and the like. Besides, it is always best to know one's enemy. Also, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

To ignore Hitler's skills as a military strategist is to ignore a crucial stage in the evolution of military art and science. Also, though not his ideas and often fought by him, his leadership of Germany at the time did foster the creation of almost every modern weapon system and art of manuevre used today.

Face it - he might have been a lucky psycho and a deranged pervert, but the guy was good at war.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 07 2004,14:38)]I didn't quite say that. What I said was that aggression alone is not sufficient to make someone a great military leader. I attribute all his early victories mainly to an aggressive use of the German war machine, and not to any superior strategical insight. This was, at that point, the right thing to do. However, when Germany was retreating, and aggression wasn't called for, Hitler still wanted to advance and attack and demanded that his generals did that. German military performance at that point was less than impressive. This proves to me that Hitler wasn't a military mastermind.
His victories lasted up to 1942, where he, at the end of the advancing phase of German troops, succeeded in holding the German frontline in the face of a major Russian counteroffensive. After that, he lost his up to that almost infallible power of judgment and answered to every inquiry with "hold the ground".

It reminded me of a true story in that war; the Gauleiter (the head in charge for a certain "province" in Nazi Germany) from Danzig came to Hitler, and while he was waiting, he spoke to Hitler's secretary. He said "We are at the very end. The Russians are coming, we have no reserves, no ammo, not enough men…Something must be done, this time he won't get rid of me with vague promises" The men entered Hitler's office and some half an hour later he went out, smiling, and Hitler's secretary stated that he said "Everything is all right. The Fuehrer has promised me few divisions and some logistical support. Damn me if I know where he will get it, but I trust him." The men went happily away, another of small examples how great the Hilter's power of persuasion was, even at the very end of his reign.

In my humble opinion, it is simply not a valid argument to say that aggressive war faring proves that he was a bad strategist. The fact that he was under enormous psychological pressure at the end and that he has lost most of his keen judgment power and started believing that he was guided by providence and that he simply cannot lose; the victory will come somehow.


Quote[/b] ]Voigtkampf,

Just so you know, the only part of me that is a skinhead is the baldness on the back of my head. Also, my father was a tank commander in the Canadian Army in Italy in WWII and I feel that at least allows me to discuss these matters... intellectually.

Sorry about the slight boldness that is creeping up, I had a tendency to shave my head in summer so I could get a sunburn easier when I was younger, but sometime down the line I figured out that it is no smart thing to do.

Since my ancestors also fought Hitler, I too feel in absolute right to judge that man objectively and without any prejudice.

I sincerely hope that you didn't get the impression I was thinking of you to be a…Nazi sympathizer or something. No, never. But I have been accused of the same when I spoke the same things I've said here, so I gave up on that. People can be so blinded with hate, they fail to see how similar they are to something they try to condemn.


Quote[/b] ]Now, if we can discuss Ghengis Khan without recrimanation, and he did kill as many people as Hitler, we should be able to look at Hitler's military skills without resorting to calling people skinheads and the like. Besides, it is always best to know one's enemy. Also, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

I agree with you completely.


Quote[/b] ]Face it - he might have been a lucky psycho and a deranged pervert, but the guy was good at war.

I second that wholeheartedly.

[spmetla]

He was an excellent politican and party leader but a lucky buffon with his early military adventures. I think he only really went "insane" when he beat France because that was his great arch enemy of WWI and felt that if France could be beaten than anyone could be.

Funny though how he considered the Brits as allies up the invasion of Poland because of the Anglo-German naval treaty of 1934. He was also a secret admirer of the British because of their Anglo Saxon heritige and the power they had in the world. Because of his supposed "alliance" he forbid the Kriegsmarine from warplanning against Britain.

Wonder what the world would be like if the Vienna Academy of Arts hadn't denied his admission for "lack of talent". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Anyone heard Eddie Izzards bit about Hitler?

[econ21]

I don't know enough about Hitler's personal role in planning the early German successes to answer this question with certainty. But I view Hitler's early military leadership as being characterised by amazing confidence and breath-taking risk-taking, but suspect that the actual strategy (and true military genius) was devised by the German staff. He was a gambler and for a while, his luck held.

I do know that when Hitler exerted detailed control over strategic decisions towards the end of the war and over-ruled his generals, his decisions were nearly all foolish - e.g. refusing to allow a withdrawal from Stalingrad; creating a vulnerable pocket in Tunisia; fixating on Calais around D-Day; ordering the Ardennes offensive etc.

I suspect that decisions over war-fighting are best done by generals, not politicians. Hitler was lucky to have at his command a fine army, but he can't take responsibility for its successes. As a war-monger, he can, of course, take full responsibility for the eventual destruction of Germany's army and with it, great suffering for its people and the peoples of his neighbours.

[Beirut]

Voigtkampf,

I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of acusing. I said it for the knee-jerkers who go ballistic with accusations the minute they hear Hitler's name without hearing the person who mentioned it call him a psycho, pervert, etc.

Simon Appleton,

In Liddell Hart's book, as well as others I'm sure, Hitler is viewed as being the archiect of most of Germany's early moves. His generals had to be cajoled into action and only after swift victories did they realize the magnitude of what was happening.

But by Stalingrad, he certainly mucked the whole thing up.

[Ludens]

Voigtkampf,

Apparently I have not properly said what I wanted to say, so I will try again.

Not being aggressive does not make one a great military leader. But neither does aggression (Custer, anyone? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ). To make a great military leader you need other characteristics or skills, and I don't think Hitler had these. I will now show why:

Hitler's two great military campaigns where against France and the Soviet Union. I don't know how close Hitler was involved in the overseeing of this operations, but they both followed the same pattern.

The invasion of France was very successful because of the superiority of the German equipment and soldiers, the speed of the German armies and the inability of the Allied commanders to grasp what was going on. When the French finally got their act together, they managed to give the Germans some stiff opposition. But by then, it was already to late.

The invasion of the Soviet Union went about the same: German speed and the superiority carried the day against Russian commanders who hadn't got a clue as to what to do. When the Russians pulled out of their bewilderment German advanced slowed. Fortunately for the Russians, this time it wasn't already to late.

There is more to military genius then just hitting your enemy when they don't expect it.

I hope I was sufficiently clear this time.

[theKyl]

I think very few of you fully understand how and what Hitler was. (I don't claim to know all about thim either http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

But as a German you are being confronted with the "Drittes Reich" issue again and again in school, in magazines etc. and I'm truly shocked about someone calling him a genious.

I find it quite scary that some of you think that he was a tactical genius or did "great things". He was an racial fanatic and Germanys worst curse. He managed to gain power because most of the Germans were unsatisfied with the political and economical situation and Hitler appeared to be the one that was able to solve the problems and he was against democracy, a fact that didn't disturb most of the population.

The "great" things he did weren't so great in the end as his financial management was a mess.

About the strategies: He was no great commander or anything like that, those were Manstein, Rommel etc. When Hitler took the post of commander in chief after Stalingrad (I think) most of his orders were foolish and he didn't care if countless soldiers were killed just because he refused to let them retreat.

[Beirut]

TheKyl,

I understand your hatred of the man and your anxiety that some would find "glory" in his actions, but this is not the intent.

But I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss a person's military accomplishment because of his nature. Hitler, being a "racial fanatic and Germany's worst curse" (doubtlessly true), does not erase the fact that in the military sphere, and under his authority, Germany reached a height of military ability, both in weapons, strategy and tactics, that were unparalled at the time. Much of which he must be given credit for.

And my remarks about his ability and talent as a grand strategist, apply to his early endevours.

Please do not mistake acknowledgement of a person's ability with admiration for what that ability wrought. Most here at this site probably have great respect for Ghenkis Khan, we discuss his accomplishments, strategies and tactics, but deep down have little "love" for a man who is listed as the leader who commited the greatest genocide in history, killing some 35,000,000 Chinese.

[octavian]

ok, lets face it, if nothing else, Hitler had talent, he turned the whole country around economically. Hitler also had talent for planing out his strategy, and knowing just how far he could push the rest of the world. if he hadn't made the move into russia the world would be far different today, a little like the battle of adrianople. of course there was a lot of absolute freak involved there as well

ps im not at all pro Hitler, my ancestors fought him and im proud of it.

[nokhor]

about the whole invasion of britain thingy. i read manstein's autobiography, and from what i gathered, most of the german general staff were against an immediate invasion of britain and for attacking the u.s.s.r. first. it wasn't just hitler. the reason being 1) the russians had just expanded into eastern europe [eastern poland and romania] and had just moved from a fortified defensive line in russia, and were in the process of building a new line in eastern europe. they would therefore be more vulnerable to attack before they could consolidate and build up their new western border. 2) more importantly even if the german army got a lucky break and evaded the british navy while crossing the channel, the most likely scenario would be for the british navy to basically destroy any supplies going to the invasion force and it would just leave the german army stranded in england while an expanding u.s.s.r. could then attack germany with impunity.

so while nazi propaganda might claim they were trying to reach a political agreement with britain, there were sound strategic reasons why they never invaded.

[squippy]

Is this 'political genius' the same Adolf Hitler who wrote Mein Kampf? 'Cos I've read Mein Kampf, and there is little evidence of genius there. By comparison with the writings of his contemporary thinkers - Bertrand Russel off the cuff - he is very immature and politically and philosophically under-devoloped.

He was an excellent public speaker, however, and that capacity should not be underestimated. But he was no genius, and the Nazi party was not his alone, not an auteur work, but the product necessarily of many minds and hands.
Yes the German army was highly technical, but it was what, the second or third largest economy at the time. Of course it was technical, this is not the personal work of Hitler.

[starkhorn]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Mar. 07 2004,09:14)]
Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 06 2004,12:43)]Voigtkampf,

On the other side, Hitler pushed for a war with Poland and France, his generals were not. He conquered Poland in a month, applying his strategy of Blitzkrieg, the one he invented nearly himself, and for which he was intentionally building up his panzer armies as well as his artillery.


Hmmm I think it's a little much to say Hitler invented or nearly invented Blitzkrieg. From my understanding the origins of Blitzkrieg actually came from the british....believe it or not. :)

It was books written by Captian Basil Hart, General Fuller and Martell during the 1920s where mobile tactical warfare first appeared. The big difference was that the French and British high command totally ignored them(De Gaulle being an exception), whereas the German Command studied it greatly.....probably due to the fact that post-Versailles, the Germans had no tanks.

For the German army, I always believed that it was Heinz Guderian who developed Blitzkrieg. I can't quite remember but I think it was Guderian who translated the works of Hart and Fuller into german. (I think the book was called Achtung Panzer ?) It was Guerdian who organised and created the first Panzer divisions. Hitler only ordered the panzer divisions to be created in the first place after seeing a battlefield manoeuvre in which Guderian Panzer Is were dashing around the place. Hitler was very impressed by this manoeuvre and did recognise it's potential by ordering the creation of 3 panzer divisions (of which Guderian commanded the 2nd).

Hitler may have recognised the power of the panzer and Blitzkrieg but I certainly wouldn't agree that he invented Blitzkrieg.

[Rosacrux]

One thing that could be said about Hitler is that - before malady jumped in - he would use the best men available and fully recognized genious when he saw it in person - unlike many other, more reasonable and skilled leaders who were either unable to recognize the potential greatness or far to blinded by their own ability to recognize such in others.

Of course he would use some incompetent fools here and then, but even their use was dictated by reason (political, for instance) not just some sort of wicked predisposition (as in Churchill's case, who many o' times favored completely incompetent commanders who just happened to have the knack or high breed to get the position).

He would make a great project manager nowadays - as long as one keeps him far away from the financial decisions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[starkhorn]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 08 2004,16:11)]Voigtkampf,

The invasion of France was very successful because of the superiority of the German equipment and soldiers, the speed of the German armies and the inability of the Allied commanders to grasp what was going on.
The victory in France is certainly more to speed and as the panzers were able to behead the French units by overrunning their command facilities. Also of course the superior tactic of the germans and their concentration of tanks into panzer groups compared with the French spreading of tanks throughout their lines. A famous quote by Guderian was "You hit somebody with the fist and not with your fingers spread".

However it's a popular mistake that the German tank was superior to the french tanks.
Tank for tank, only the Panzer IV was a match for the French heavy Char B tank. The Panser I, II and III tanks were certainly inferior and outclassed by the French tank. It was their concentration on the lines at critical points that made the difference.

So tactics and speed but less so equipment were the main reasons for the french victory in 1940 by the Germans.

Cheers
Starkhorn

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Hitler being called a genius, I can see where the unease comes from... I think looking at the Waffen-SS gives one similar feelings of unease, because on the one hand some of their military exploits can only be admired, on the other hand, they were an essential part of one of the most criminal regimes in human history, and committed several horrendous crimes themselves... I know when modelling German armor, one gets the same feeling of unease... or at least I do at times...

Now back to Hitler..

Was Hitler an economic genius ? IMHO, no f***ing way. The German economy was alreday recovering, and many plans implemented he directly inherited from his predecessors (among them the Autobahn plans). Furher,´in order to be able to rearm his country, he disrupted the economy from an early stage onward. There are historians who argue that WW II started when it did because it was the only way Hitler could prevent the collapse of the German. Hitler staunchly refused to switch to a total war economy when the war did start, or at any point later in the war for ideological reasons (an thank God for that).

Was Hitler a military genius ? Again, IMHO no f***ing way. He basically profited from the qualities of the German military at the time... He made demanded things of the military that could hardly be called realistic, and early on could openly be fulfilled because the German army had adapted to changed technologies far better then other armies in the world. Yet from the start he made glaring mistakes, both in the production, allocation and development of new weapons (lack of heavy bomber anyone ?), and interference in military affairs as well (Dunkirk). These mistakes could be covered, sometimes with great difficulty, by the army, but they became glaringly obvious and doomed many Germans when the allies got their act together (again, thank God for that).

Hitler as a political genius ? I think an argument can be made, judging the way he gained power, manipulated people, and got most of Germany to follow him... but even then, even in the way he did this, lay some of the foundations that undermined the functioning German state, and later, the war effort. (again, thank God for that).


IMHO, Hitler can be described as one of the most evil and twisted people in human history, who, in some ways, had an uncanny, almost genius ability, to manipulate people... But in no way he can be called a economic or military genius... he just gets the credits (unjustly)...

[Beirut]

(Well, since I started this mess, I'll kick in again.)

Michiel de Ruyter,

I agree with just about everything you said. And well said it was.

I guess the only point I would take issue with was in regards to Hitler's military capabilities. I think the qualities in the German army that you said he tok advantage of where actually put in place by him. The "covert" building up of the Luftwaffe and the training of it's pilots in the Spanish civil War for example.

While Hitler himself was not a master tactician, he did have the military imagination and foresight to allow the right weapons to be used by the right people in the right way to benefit Germany's interests. How many other nations at the time were locked in "yesteray's" philosophy about how to fight a war. While Fuller and Hart pioneered modern armoured warfare with their writings years before, it was under Hitler's authority that it flourished into the state of the art warfare that it became.

Military genius, if one is to use that term, is not merely doing it yourself, but simply allowing it to be done in the first place. Napolean said "the surest path to victory is through the proper delegation of authority. Hitler, while a pure dictator in its truest form, did allow his generals to develop their weapons and tactics to their best usage. In the early stages of the war at least.

When I refer to Hitler's military abilities, I am strictly refering to his use, as defined by Liddell Hart, of Grand Strategy. Which IMHO, he was nothing less than a master of the art. For a while. (As you said, "thank God".)

[Tribesman]

Beirut ; The covert development of the Luftwaffe pre dates Hitler and the 3rd reich , as does German development of submarines and tanks . Hitler publicly broke the treaty of Versailles , but the German armed forces and armament industry had been working around the bans since they were put in place .

[Dhepee]

Napoleon said that he would rather have a lucky general than a skilled general.

Hitler was a combination of luck and skill. His skill lay in his ability to work within the context of the political "perfect storm" that was Germany in the post World War One era and to use resources that were readily available.

As far as his generalship goes, he wasn't much of a general, he just happened to have a good staff and a good army. His staff can be broken down into two categories: Nazis party hacks and traditionally trained Kriegs Academy officers who cut their teeth as junior officers in World War One.

Much of Hitler's success goes back to the German military experience in World War One and the German military tradition. When Hitler came to power there was a coterie of staff officers who had traveled the traditional career path of a German officer, they had come up through the Imperial Kriegs Academy before World War One, served on the field or on a staff during the war, and were waiting for a resurgence of German military power to go along with their ambition.

These officers provided the core of knowledge that went into Blitzkrieg, armor concentration, close air support, and mechanized infantry. This was the group that created and led the army that Hitler used in Poland and France in 1939 and 1940. Combined with those senior level officers was a strong body of non-coms and junior officers who were also World War One and Freikorps veterans that made up the nucleus of the German field army.

One study shows that after Versailles limited the number of soldiers that Germany could have, the Germans created an army that was almost all non-coms and junior officers; all of whom were some of the best veterans of the war and the Freikorps expeditions in Eastern Europe. Instead of focusing on the typical drill of an army this army of leadership focused on the problems of World War One small unit operations and command. By the time the German Army was ready to expand beyond its mandated limits there was already a strong body of leaders in place to take the new recruits; although many of the first class of recruits were unemployed veterans of World War One. This meant that the German Army of the late 1930's was in large part commanded by tough dedicated officers who had spent the last 20 years working on problems of small unit tactics and leadership. (almost everybody from the original Versailles army was promoted up so non-coms became junior officers, junior officers got company and battalion commands, etc.)

Although France had a larger army, and more tanks, than Germany the Germans had an army that was much better suited to a modern war than the French both on the staff and field level. This was the army and general staff that captured so much of Europe; Hitler was essentially along for the ride in the early years. Hitler was a self promoter and he made sure to cast himself in the role of supreme commander; even though he did not make many of the early major strategic decisions.

Whether or not he bought into his on mystique is a matter of debate, although in the Mask of Command John Keegan believes that he did and that based on that he made the decision to go after Russia. It is clear that Hitler began to take more and more control during the Russian campaigns and that it was at this point that the German successes began to disappear. He was, as someone noted earlier, obsessed with taking key cities instead of bypassing them and cutting them off as his generals suggested. This resulted, ultimately, in Stalingrad.

The end result of using so many resources to take control of points that could be contained and bypassed in exchange for the ultimate goal of destroying the Russian field army was that the tough trained army of 1939 and 1940 was used up and lost. The men that Germany lost in Russia were irreplaceable, no conscript or new officer had the experience of a man who had fought on the Western Front, in Poland, and trained for 20 years.

The other result was that the professional Generals disagreed with Hitler over his strategies but the party hack officers were more inclined to play the role of yes men. There was a subtle fazing out of some of Hitler's more experienced generals in favor of men who were closer personally to him in the period 1942-1944. This split was most clearly illustrated in the makeup of the Von Stauffenberg plot which contained many of the "old school" type of officers. The Von Stauffenberg plot only sped up the process. Hitler was not a person who needed yes men, he needed generals who could rein him in and give him sound military advice.

One of the biggest areas of disagreement between Hitler and his more traditional generals- one that John Keegan highlights in The Mask of Command- was Hitler's reliance on "western front thinking". Although the German army was most famous for Blitzkrieg by the time the allies invaded Europe Hitler had built his own Maginot lines: the Atlantic Wall and the Siegfried line. Under pressure he returned to the World War One tendency to dig in and fight it out. He ignored the fact that allied air-power gave them the ability to hit his interior lines and centers of industry in a way that was not available to anybody in World War One and in a way that made static defense obsolete. The Germans snapped out of this mentality too late in the Battle of the Bulge to save the war.

Hitler was nothing special as a general; his genius lay in political organizing and taking credit for things. I cannot say if he was mad or not but he was the embodiment of evil in Germany and a curse on Europe. It is interesting to note that as the traditional German officer class lost power in the Nazi government in the early 1940's the pace of the Final Solution increased. In many respects so much of Germany's attention was turned to that crime that it alienated some officers, corrupted many, and diverted resources and energy away from the German war effort. Even the traditional officers who belonged to the party seemed reticent about the Nazi racial programs. In North Africa Rommel refused to send some free Polish Forces prisoners back to Europe, instead keeping them mixed with other allied prisoners, because he knew what was going to happen to them. This was one of the examples of his "disloyalty" that was later used against him. Ultimately Hitler's racial obsessions and personality problems became so great that they only drew similarly flawed men to him and he drove away or demoted all of those that didn't fit his twisted plans.

[spmetla]

I'd say his biggest blunders were Operation Barbarossa, Goering, and bombing London instead of military targets. Besides that he wasn't too off militarily speaking.

[Beirut]

Excellent post Dhepee. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

The only matter I see differently was Hitler's ability, at the beggining of the war, to see the objective, the mentality of the enemy, and then seize the objective with constant regard to how the enemy might react and how he might react a dn overcome them.

Hitler was the architect of the war, and to a significant degree, the way in which it was fought. Given that the early years showed Germany to be militarily without equal, and its prowess in "bloodless" conquests so profound, it is difficult to separate the success of the nation and the man who so clearly led it.

I believe, though not an accusation to you Dheepee, that many people cannot accept the military and strategic abilities of Hitler because thay cannot view the situation dispassionately.

[Voigtkampf]

There you go, Beirut, this is simply taking no end. ::sigh::


Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ Mar. 12 2004,15:00)]Napoleon said that he would rather have a lucky general than a skilled general.



"There is no such thing as luck." Obi-Wan Kenobi


Quote[/b] ]Hitler was a combination of luck and skill. His skill lay in his ability to work within the context of the political "perfect storm" that was Germany in the post World War One era and to use resources that were readily available.

Resources already available? Oh, you probably refer to the time where an average German worker would virtually carry a suitcase full of money to the store to buy one single loaf of bread? Or do you refer to occupied Ruhr area? Or the billions that the Germany owed for reparations, plus the already rampaging inflation? Only resource Hitler could rely on were millions of unemployed and starving people that would actually walk on the street, carrying signs that said "WILL WORK FOR FOOD"?


Quote[/b] ]As far as his generalship goes, he wasn't much of a general, he just happened to have a good staff and a good army. His staff can be broken down into two categories: Nazis party hacks and traditionally trained Kriegs Academy officers who cut their teeth as junior officers in World War One.

Cutting their teeth? Huh? Where, in Berlin HQ? Well, Hitler was the one that has spent 4 ½ years in trenches, while other respected aristocratic generals rarely came around to make their shiny boots dirty on the field.


Quote[/b] ]Much of Hitler's success goes back to the German military experience in World War One and the German military tradition.

Yes, and the successes of German military staff from the WW1 can easily be recognized by the measure of their campaign vs. France in that very same war.


Quote[/b] ]These officers provided the core of knowledge that went into Blitzkrieg, armor concentration, close air support, and mechanized infantry. This was the group that created and led the army that Hitler used in Poland and France in 1939 and 1940.

Well, I know every single one of the German generals that were in for the WW2 but I certainly don't know about any group or a single individual that stepped beyond his boundaries and affected the general course of strategies by his knowledge which has been, as stated earlier, defined by WW1 campaign; the only exception is Doenitz who demanded for more U-boats and who became the next commander of the Kriegsmarine when Raeder was relieved of his duty. All of these generals were defeatists to their very core, without wanting to attack neither Poland nor France, and if it was after them, the history would have taken much different course than it has.


Quote[/b] ] Combined with those senior level officers was a strong body of non-coms and junior officers who were also World War One and Freikorps veterans that made up the nucleus of the German field army.

There is no way we can use the words of combination in this matter; the old school hated the Nazis, which they considered to be mainly unworthy low-lives and criminals (well, that didn't miss far, right?) and opposed the new generations of soldiers that were recruited mainly from the members of NSDAP. The breach between the staff officers and field commanders was never healed. The generals went for Hitler in early 30's because they wanted to use him to regain their old power, but they never could see an equal in him, or his followers, for that matter. At the very beginning they brought Hitler so far that he gave the green for the elimination of Roehm who wanted to merge his SA troops with regular army.


Quote[/b] ]One study shows that after Versailles limited the number of soldiers that Germany could have, the Germans created an army that was almost all non-coms and junior officers; all of whom were some of the best veterans of the war and the Freikorps expeditions in Eastern Europe. Instead of focusing on the typical drill of an army this army of leadership focused on the problems of World War One small unit operations and command. By the time the German Army was ready to expand beyond its mandated limits there was already a strong body of leaders in place to take the new recruits; although many of the first class of recruits were unemployed veterans of World War One. This meant that the German Army of the late 1930's was in large part commanded by tough dedicated officers who had spent the last 20 years working on problems of small unit tactics and leadership. (almost everybody from the original Versailles army was promoted up so non-coms became junior officers, junior officers got company and battalion commands, etc.)


The army you refer to were SA troopers, virtually a paramilitary NSDAP creation, used to fight the communists and play war in the woods around Munich. Once Hitler came to power, he was, as I already said, compelled to get rid of the SA troops, so he had Roehm and a good number of other leaders of SA (the assessment is some 500 people) killed, and has virtually disbanded the SA, leaving the small band of SS troops with Himmler to be his personal guard and hidden strong hand. The SS grew in numbers enormously only once the war has began, reaching eventually some 1 million members. So, very few of those people, if at all, get to fight in WW2.


Quote[/b] ]Although France had a larger army, and more tanks, than Germany the Germans had an army that was much better suited to a modern war than the French both on the staff and field level. This was the army and general staff that captured so much of Europe; Hitler was essentially along for the ride in the early years. Hitler was a self promoter and he made sure to cast himself in the role of supreme commander; even though he did not make many of the early major strategic decisions.

If that is true, then I would be very interested to find out who was the strategic mastermind that made those decisions? Or if there was a group, which group was it? What plans have they made? Have these plans been captured by allied troops once the Germany was conquered? Basically, who is the man or the group that had the saying and with whom Hitler "rode along"? Could you substantiate your claims with any firm evidence? Or, let us say, hints, at least?
As for the self-promoter role of Hitler, I think the role of cult personality would be even more fitting, upon this I agree completely.


Quote[/b] ]It is clear that Hitler began to take more and more control during the Russian campaigns and that it was at this point that the German successes began to disappear.

Yes, it's true, Hitler began taking even more control and basically interfered with the very field operations during the Barbarossa, which was the first sign of how little he trusted his generals, but to conclude that the German advance showed signs of slowing down because of his actions would be just as logical as to say "look, he is wearing a winter jacket, therefore the snow began falling".


Quote[/b] ]He was, as someone noted earlier, obsessed with taking key cities instead of bypassing them and cutting them off as his generals suggested. This resulted, ultimately, in Stalingrad.


If Stalingrad had fallen, the Russia would have fallen; Hitler indeed began to believe he and his armies could not be resisted and, frankly, after two and a half years of nothing but glorious victories, who wouldn't have thought the same? His mistake was that he went after the whole Russia at once, he didn't bother with partial conquest, he wanted to crush it in one single, historical war operation that inspired him to the point of obsession. Very few people know today how close Stalingrad was to fall, and that old comrade Stalin averted this fate by simply throwing more Russians in front of the German MG's than these could kill. Sounds awkward, but basically, it was so, human potential was something the Russia had more than enough.


Quote[/b] ]There was a subtle fazing out of some of Hitler's more experienced generals in favor of men who were closer personally to him in the period 1942-1944. This split was most clearly illustrated in the makeup of the Von Stauffenberg plot which contained many of the "old school" type of officers. The Von Stauffenberg plot only sped up the process. Hitler was not a person who needed yes men, he needed generals who could rein him in and give him sound military advice.

Von Stauffenberg should have done what he did ten years earlier; when he did it, it was because the Germany was losing seriously and they wanted to get out of it, and without Hitler they thought they would have more chances in negotiating peace with the British and Americans.

If anything, Hitler couldn't stand people who weren't of "yes, sir" type, and he mistrusted everyone, suffering from prolonged and, in his case, most justifiable paranoia. For that very same reason he has divided his empire between many of his followers, taking care that their jurisdictions would intersect at all times so he could be the supreme judge, playing one against another. He always organized meetings with the single generals or just the few of them, he disbanded every governmental body that could be a basis for organized resistance to him. He allowed only men with knowledge of economical and similar skills to important positions, but no military commanders, who could threaten him and his position.


Well, I guess I have said too much, once again, but I would like you not to see my post as a sort of heated insult, because its intention is not of that nature at all. I have studied this subject (Hitler, WW2 etc.) for a quite a while, but I would certainly always be delighted to learn more and possibly to even correct my point of view, but the approach to history for me is an objective one and I do not accept mere opinions that are more guessing than based on hard facts.

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]applying his strategy of Blitzkrieg, the one he invented nearly himself, and for which he was intentionally building up his panzer armies as well as his artillery. He conquered France in month and a half (something the Kaiser's armies couldn't pull of in 4 ½ years of WW), adopting a plan from Manstein, who was, if I remember correctly, only a major then, a plan that was rejected by his superior generals and which Hitler went for when Manstein managed to push his plan to Hitler personally - the crossing of the Ardennes, deemed unfit for panzer movement by both German and French HQ's.

I think you have confused von Manstein with Guderian.

I wouldn't argue that Hitler 'invented' Blitzkrieg either. The conceptual impetus lies elsewhere. I do think it is correct that Hitler saw early on its potential and actively supported its development over the reactionary elements in the Military.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Mar. 15 2004,19:34)]
Quote[/b] ]applying his strategy of Blitzkrieg, the one he invented nearly himself, and for which he was intentionally building up his panzer armies as well as his artillery. He conquered France in month and a half (something the Kaiser's armies couldn't pull of in 4 ½ years of WW), adopting a plan from Manstein, who was, if I remember correctly, only a major then, a plan that was rejected by his superior generals and which Hitler went for when Manstein managed to push his plan to Hitler personally - the crossing of the Ardennes, deemed unfit for panzer movement by both German and French HQ's.

I think you have confused von Manstein with Guderian.

No, I have not. It was definitely Manstein and he was a general back then, not only a major, I had that fact wrong. Check it out.

[R'as al Ghul]

Hi all

Oh my god, why is it that people are so fascinated about Hitler?
When first joining the .org I came across a similar thread as yours (as Voigtkampf says: It all comes back).
Back then and now I just cannot understand the fascination.
I'm also from Germany and, as one of the guys above stated already, in Germany it's quite a problem to have Hitler conversations/discussions. My entire school life I was confronted with the history and the results of the 3rd Reich. I reckon that I was only 12 years old when I saw the film documents of Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Piles of bony, fleshy skeletons being tossed into huge holes and the like left a deep impact on me. I was shocked It still causes gooseskin when thinking about it. Of course the movies are not the only thing shocking. It's reports of survivors, photographies, stories of American GI's liberating CC prisoners and so on, and so on. It's impossible to get your grade without sound knowledge of Hitler's death machinery.
Additionally we always had and still have problems with extreme right wing parties and of course skinhead groups. (I know the origins of skinhead culture but in Germany it means (apart from Red Skins) fashist, racist)
As a German I assume that this is common knowledge to all Germans and you may agree that it's hardly possible to speak admiringly about anything Hitler did.
And btw the "Autobahn" serves always as a good joke when being asked "What was good about Hitler?"

As you can see we still have problems with our past. This goes so far as making it impossible to criticize Israel for their politics. Why? Because they are jews You cannot say for example "The jewish politics are a danger for the middle east. They shouldn't blindfold palestines, force them into busses and drive them to places they don't know without knowing what's going to happen to them. These are SS-Methods" Why? Because there's no possible sentence containing the word jew and being critical at the same time.
Well, I'm exxagerating here but i think most Germans would agree. And we suffer from this situation because obviously we are closed out/ close ourselves out from certain discussions.

I was always fascinated with wargames/ strategy games. I think the first ones must have been hex-field table tops of WW2 scenarios. While a friend of mine always wanted to play the Germans I would never have played the Germans. Never. I would always choose the English or other allied forces. When these games were transferred to computers it remained the same. It's the same thing with sports and politics. I cannot feel the slightest patriotic feeling towards my country. I guess I can concern myself lucky to being born here and not in Sierra Leone but apart from that I don't give a shit about my country. (After finishing University I'm going to leave the country anyways.) Ever wondered why the Germans seldom fly their flags? (Well compared with the US) It's all the same problem. If you would do it, you would need a very special reason to do it -> won any sport event. If you do it on an inappropriate occasion your neighbours most likely will think bad of you.
I couldn't imagine "German flag"-bikinis as I saw in Miami (stars & stripes) to be sold or worn. LoL.

So, my point would be that everything is so overshadowed by atrocities that I cannot see anything good or even genius (even using the word is paradox imo) about Hitler. Secondly I wanted to provide a German view since this is somehow a German issue.

Cheers

P.S.: Oh, forgot one good thing about him: He's from Austria.

[Beirut]

R'as al Ghul,

I understand your position. And for whatever it means, I never play the German side in any wargame or flightsim. Just doesn't feel right.

But once again, I was in this thread, at least trying, to make a very clear and unambiguous distiction between admiration and acknowledgement.

[R'as al Ghul]

Beirut

No offense taken on my side, nor was one intented towards yours. If I'd have had the feeling that you were a nazi or would support 3rd Reich ideas I surely would've put your nose into it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I was just trying to make a "German" position understandable.
That's all.
Cheers

[Dhepee]

Interesting and good post Voigtkampf

"There is no such thing as luck." Obi-Wan Kenobi

Well no, there isn't really any such thing as luck but if you look at long term planning structures and complex analytical theory the end result can be so radically different from what was planned, predicted or expected that you can call it luck.

Resources already available? Oh, you probably refer to the time where an average German worker would virtually carry a suitcase full of money to the store to buy one single loaf of bread? Or do you refer to occupied Ruhr area? Or the billions that the Germany owed for reparations, plus the already rampaging inflation? Only resource Hitler could rely on were millions of unemployed and starving people that would actually walk on the street, carrying signs that said "WILL WORK FOR FOOD"?

Unemployment and industrial output are two different things. The fact that Germany owed reparations or was undegoing massive inflation and unemployment, peaking between 1923 and 1929, does not mean that their factories, not all of which were in the forfeited Ruhr valley, were shuttered.

Hans Mommsen and Robert Waite both make the point that despite the individual Germans' economic problems there was still a high level of potential and actual industrial output in the late 1920's.

Cutting their teeth? Huh? Where, in Berlin HQ? Well, Hitler was the one that has spent 4 ½ years in trenches, while other respected aristocratic generals rarely came around to make their shiny boots dirty on the field.

Not all German officers were in the rear areas, many of the junior and field grade officers who were on Hitler's staff spent time in the field; for instance Rommel.

The senior level officers during World War One were too old or too compromised politically to be on Hitler's staff; and they are the ones most guilty of never seeing the field.

As far as Hitler's experiences in the trenches goes, John Keegan felt that it was actually counterproductive to his generalship. Keegan felt that Hitler's trench experience, which was never augmented by formal military study, contributed directly to his tendency toward building defensive works instead of focusing production on armor and air power which could be used in a mobile warfare setting.

A good general is willing to kill his men in the service of a greater victory. US Grant and George Patton were two American generals more than willing to sacrifice lives in order to meet an objective. Both were generals who rejected the prevailing attitudes toward defensive works and argued for relentless offense. Both the Confederacy and Germany were ultimately beaten because their formerly mobile armies were tied down behind static lines of defense which gave their opponents the ability to hammer them offensively. Better for a general to risk it all on a bold move against the enemy's flanks or rear in an effort to destroy the army in the field than acquiescing to a protracted battle of defensive attrition in the hopes that the attacker wears out first.

Yes, and the successes of German military staff from the WW1 can easily be recognized by the measure of their campaign vs. France in that very same war.

Germany penetrated French territory and came very close on a couple of occasions to breaking through the French lines, August 1914, Verdun, and the 1918 Offensive. The allies never offensively penetrated German territory prior to the armistice.

The greatest blow to Germany in WWI was not on the battlefield it was in the inability to maintain their overseas commerce due to British blockading, the American embargo, and the power of Lloyds of London in the shipping re-insurance trade. No ship that was bound for Germany or found to have previously traded with Germany after the opening of hostilities was able to get shipping re-insurance and was therefore unable to get financing to sail making it financially impossible for any neutral to trade with Germany or for Germany to buy raw materials overseas.

The allies starved the German Army out but they did not decisively beat them on the field; and for that reason in World War Two the allies decided that only complete military victory was allowable.


Well, I know every single one of the German generals that were in for the WW2 but I certainly don't know about any group or a single individual that stepped beyond his boundaries and affected the general course of strategies by his knowledge which has been, as stated earlier, defined by WW1 campaign; the only exception is Doenitz who demanded for more U-boats and who became the next commander of the Kriegsmarine when Raeder was relieved of his duty. All of these generals were defeatists to their very core, without wanting to attack neither Poland nor France, and if it was after them, the history would have taken much different course than it has.

The German officers who embraced JFC Fuller and BH Liddel Hart's theories of mobile warfare, close air support, massed armor, and the mobernized maneuver sur la derriere such as Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel gave Germany the doctrine of Blitzkrieg as opposed to Hitler who husbanded his Panzers behind the Atlantic wall in June 1944 instead of falling on the allied flank before they could mass their own armor.

I'm not sure what you mean by "defeatist" because if that meant not invading Poland or France history might have been a lot more pleasant for much of Europe.


There is no way we can use the words of combination in this matter; the old school hated the Nazis, which they considered to be mainly unworthy low-lives and criminals (well, that didn't miss far, right?) and opposed the new generations of soldiers that were recruited mainly from the members of NSDAP. The breach between the staff officers and field commanders was never healed. The generals went for Hitler in early 30's because they wanted to use him to regain their old power, but they never could see an equal in him, or his followers, for that matter. At the very beginning they brought Hitler so far that he gave the green for the elimination of Roehm who wanted to merge his SA troops with regular army.

That was my point. The staff officers who commanded the "Versialles Army", the 100,000 men allowed by the treaty of Versailles, were the most experienced and the best educated in military theory and there was a huge split between them and the Nazi leadership because of class differences. They looked down on Hitler because he and many of his followers weren't upper middle class and Hitler resented them for their high handed Junker attitude.

The army you refer to were SA troopers, virtually a paramilitary NSDAP creation, used to fight the communists and play war in the woods around Munich. Once Hitler came to power, he was, as I already said, compelled to get rid of the SA troops, so he had Roehm and a good number of other leaders of SA (the assessment is some 500 people) killed, and has virtually disbanded the SA, leaving the small band of SS troops with Himmler to be his personal guard and hidden strong hand. The SS grew in numbers enormously only once the war has began, reaching eventually some 1 million members. So, very few of those people, if at all, get to fight in WW2.

We are talking about two different things. The Versailles Army was the 100,000 men allowed by the Treaty of Versailles. They were the ultra professional core of the later Wehrmacht.

The Freikorps were party militias and groups of discharged soldiers who reformed military units in 1919 and 1920. According to Robert Waite, in his Harvard doctoral dissertation and his later book and lectures, the Freikorps were involved in fighting Communists in Poland and Lithuania, were well drilled and well armed and many of them returned to regular military service when Germany expanded its army beyond 100,000 men.

The SA and the party militias which were little more than gangs of thugs were what the Freikorps devolved into in the early 1930's as their independent military and political influence waned. The SA was fairly useless, except for intimidation, but the original independent Freikorps were a potent force and influence both German and Central/Eastern European politics in the years immediately following World War One. This according to Robert Waite.

If that is true, then I would be very interested to find out who was the strategic mastermind that made those decisions? Or if there was a group, which group was it? What plans have they made? Have these plans been captured by allied troops once the Germany was conquered? Basically, who is the man or the group that had the saying and with whom Hitler "rode along"? Could you substantiate your claims with any firm evidence? Or, let us say, hints, at least?
As for the self-promoter role of Hitler, I think the role of cult personality would be even more fitting, upon this I agree completely.

Both Alistair Horne in his book on the Battle of France and John Keegan in his history of World War Two contend that Hitler was not the mastermind behind the victories in France and Poland; that he mostly gave the go ahead. I do not remember the divisional or staff generals by name (I am at work and can't get to my books), but both give great credit to Guderian for his planning and to Rommel for the breakthrough at Sedan. Horne, especially, felt that Rommel saved the Battle of France from stalemating with his breakthrough and then drive into the French heartland at Sedan.

Keegan puts emphasis on the fact that the French army was both larger and had more armor than the German army, however the German army was better trained and concentrated its armor and mechanized infantry as opposed to spreading it out the way that the French did.

The only example of the French using armor in a manner similar to the Germans is De Gaulle's counterattack at Arras, which checked the German advance. De Gaulle, however, was not able to follow up on his success because the French army was too far gone at that point and most of the armor in other divisions was destroyed or captured. De Gaulle's counterattack came at a time when the Germans had outrun their supply lines and had he been able to follow up the battle might have gone back toward stalemate.

As far as records go the going consensus is that at best we have a partial picture of what was going on in Germany during the war. Keegan and Horne both point out that the German Central Records Office was hit by allied bombs in early 1945 and caught fire and was located in the Soviet controlled section of Berlin; a historically lethal combination. The records that have come out of it are missing major chunks and we have only begun to get a clearer picture in the years following German reunification and the opening of Soviet archives both in Berlin and in the Soviet Union.

I defer to the judgment of the Keegan and Horne, seeing as I am not an instructor at Sandhurst or a fellow of the Imperial War Museum, in their judgment that Hitler played a secondary role in military planning in the Polish and French Campaigns.

His role, however, cannot be diminished because he impelled the opening of World War Two over the heads of his reluctant generals and he was able to marshal public support for war. At the time, many people were satisfied with the Sudetenland and Ruhr Valley, but he convinced the German people that war on France and Poland was justified. His cult of personality was probably more important to the war than anything else, because without it there would have been no war.

Yes, it's true, Hitler began taking even more control and basically interfered with the very field operations during the Barbarossa, which was the first sign of how little he trusted his generals, but to conclude that the German advance showed signs of slowing down because of his actions would be just as logical as to say "look, he is wearing a winter jacket, therefore the snow began falling". ... If Stalingrad had fallen, the Russia would have fallen; Hitler indeed began to believe he and his armies could not be resisted and, frankly, after two and a half years of nothing but glorious victories, who wouldn't have thought the same? His mistake was that he went after the whole Russia at once, he didn't bother with partial conquest, he wanted to crush it in one single, historical war operation that inspired him to the point of obsession. Very few people know today how close Stalingrad was to fall, and that old comrade Stalin averted this fate by simply throwing more Russians in front of the German MG's than these could kill. Sounds awkward, but basically, it was so, human potential was something the Russia had more than enough.

He probably should never have undertaken Barbarossa at all. It was established that he had to take the three pronged approach and go for the whole thing at once otherwise he would have an exposed flank or center. If he drove through the center then the salient formed by the advance would be vulnerable on its flanks. If he attacked through either the North or the South then one flank would have been open to attack. Without an all out approach there would have always been the question of protecting the flanks and rear. If Germany could not maintain the level of offensive required by the size of Russia then Germany should not have opened the war in the first place.

Ever since the Kaiser failed to re-sign the the Russian German mutual protection pact in the 1880's the German military focused on how to avoid fighting on two fronts at once. Invading Russia while still facing a threat to the West, the UK and US, while fighting in North Africa flew in the face of the belief that Germany could only fully fight one front at a time. Granted the UK was badly damaged and the US wasn't in the fight yet but Hitler, if he was a great general, should have had the awareness that even though the West was not a threat in the present it could be in the future and concluded one front before opening another.

Furthermore, if he was a good general he should have been aware that "Past performance is not indicator of future results". Yes he led a great army that was virtually unstoppable but he should have been aware that unstoppable in France and Central Europe did not mean unstoppable in Russia.

To be a great general he had to be aware that Russia presented certain new variables that previous fights had not: almost endless ability to retreat, huge amount of human resources, industrial production throughout the entire country, length of supply lines, and weather. He should also have been aware that Stalin was willing to kill his own people through a scorched earth policy that would simultaneously prevent Germans from living off the land in the event that their supply chain broke down. If all Hitler saw was a hard stab at the Russian heartland and ignored the lessons of Napoleon in Russia - like the willingness of the Russians to retreat or to burn their own farms - then Hitler missed a big chunk of the equation and wasn't much of a general.

As far as saying "If Stalingrad falls so falls Russia", that is unknowable. That predicates the entire Russian campaign on one variable, Stalingrad. Effectively Stalingrad was out of the war; so its industrial capacity was not an issue. It's usefulness as a river crossing and as an entrance to the Russian rear is also doubtful because Stalin could still fight behind the line of the river and the salient made by the force crossing the river would have two vulnerable flanks. If one of the flanks was broached and Stalin cut the communications between the river crossing and the units in the salient then they would be choked off. In fact that might have been a better solution for Stalin: allow the Germans across the river; retreat back, and then catch an entire army on the wrong side of a river right before winter. At any rate the individual value of Stalingrad was no sure thing and remember that Napoleon captured the capital of Holy Russia, and at the time one of Russia's nascent industrial centers, and still lost the war.

Of course on the other side of the coin you have a German breakthrough at Stalingrad hard and fast run around the Russian Army's rear and the Soviets collapse. It's all speculation, evidence might lean more heavily one way or another but there is no objective or rational way to analyze potential outcomes in historical events. At a certain point you must defer to complex systems analysis and realize that anything is possible, and that the seemingly impossible has occurred frequently enough to justify the assertion that forward looking analysis of historical events while not worthless must be qualified with a big "if".

Perhaps the German advance did not slow because he took control but because he committed to the plan in the first place. Perhaps neither he nor his generals, trusted or not, could have overcome Russia's seemingly limitless human resources and Stalin's willingness to use them. Or perhaps the campaign failed because he took time out to conquer Yugoslavia that summer and lost precious weeks before the onset of winter. At any rate, by the time he took control of the planning for the campaign, the campaign was in dire trouble from which he could not extricate it.

John Keegan speculated in one of his lectures on World War Two that Germany would have been best served by a strategic retreat shortening the German interior lines and allowing the Russians to advance and once again extend their interior lines. Once the Russians were sufficiently spread out again, as they were in 1942, counterattack against their lines of supply and destroy their army in the field. Keegan felt that the Germans waisted too much manpower and equipment in limited defense while unable to force deconcentration on the Russian forces and simultaneously unable to concentrate because of their exposed and long interior lines. He said that it would have worked because Stalin would have been obligated to reoccupy the Western Soviet Union to shore up his rule and that would have deconcentrated the Soviet position enough for a German counterattack. The ultimate point of the lecture was that the Germans, once their advances have stalled as in WWI and WWII, try to wear down an opponent through long drawn out defensive battles and only reconcentrate and attack when it is too late as in 1918 and 1944.

Von Stauffenberg should have done what he did ten years earlier; when he did it, it was because the Germany was losing seriously and they wanted to get out of it, and without Hitler they thought they would have more chances in negotiating peace with the British and Americans.

If anything, Hitler couldn't stand people who weren't of "yes, sir" type, and he mistrusted everyone, suffering from prolonged and, in his case, most justifiable paranoia. For that very same reason he has divided his empire between many of his followers, taking care that their jurisdictions would intersect at all times so he could be the supreme judge, playing one against another. He always organized meetings with the single generals or just the few of them, he disbanded every governmental body that could be a basis for organized resistance to him. He allowed only men with knowledge of economical and similar skills to important positions, but no military commanders, who could threaten him and his position.

Well yes, that was the overt idea behind the Von Stauffenberg plot; get rid of Hitler, create a non-Nazi government, and possibly negotiate peace with the US and UK. Behind that though you see the split between the Nazi Party and German traditionalists. It is not insignificant that the plot was named for a man with "Von" in his name.

Throughout the Weimar years the military tried to hitch its wagon to whatever party or leader would restore Germany to its former place in Europe and at that point the German military, the 100,000 man army, was dominated by a officer class that was predominantly educated at the Imperial Kriegs Academy and of a certain socio-economic class. The Nazi Party was not of that class and for that reason always encountered a subtle degree of classism from the more traditional and often Junker descended German officer corps. Hitler saw this group of officers as defeatist because they did not want to bring Germany into another war however they were necessary to Hitler because they were in command of the military in the 1930's and they had studied the work of JFC Fuller and BH Liddel Hart.

Once the Russian campaign began to falter it was a good pretext for Hitler to remove many of them from their positions of power in the German Army, many were sent to training or study units, and elevate party faithful who were in the German Army. There was a high degree of resentment because there existed two classes of officer: those from more traditional upper middle class backgrounds, the traditionalists and their descendants, and the Nazi party members who were trained and promoted in the late 1930's and early 1940's.

One famous traditional officer who served as an officer in World War One but did not attend the Kriegs Academy, was from the Prussian upper class, helped to formulate German Blitzkrieg tactics in the late 1930's, instituted them in Poland, France, and Russia, and then fell out of favor with Hitler and was sent down to a training and reserve unit was Heinz Guderian.


Well, I guess I have said too much, once again, but I would like you not to see my post as a sort of heated insult, because its intention is not of that nature at all. I have studied this subject (Hitler, WW2 etc.) for a quite a while, but I would certainly always be delighted to learn more and possibly to even correct my point of view, but the approach to history for me is an objective one and I do not accept mere opinions that are more guessing than based on hard facts.

I am sure that you have studied WWII and Hitler for quite a while. I have also studied it, in the context of my college major. One of the things that struck me most about majoring in history and studying historiography was how little you actually know about the past even something as well documented as World War Two.

For instance a lot of the discussion in this thread has to do with Hitler's motivations as a general, but what do we really know about those motivations. He didn't record his thoughts on generalship, most of the records of that era are only now being rediscovered or were lost completely, after the war people tended to blame things on him because he was dead and they didn't want to be convicted of a war crime and hung.

One school of thought on Hitler and the Nazis is that since so many of them died during the war, or were executed shortly thereafter, they were made a scapegoat in place of the German people and the German army. At the moment the war ended the US and UK needed Germany as an ally and buffer against the Soviet Union. If you look at the more recent historical work, Christopher Browning especially, you see the emphasis shift off of the Nazis and onto Germany as a whole. This has only come about since the end of the Cold War.

You talk about objective facts, well what do we objectively know about World War Two, besides chronologies and numbers? Everything that comes down to us in the historical record was subjectively recorded. Primary sources are written down for a reason, be they diaries, speeches,articles, memoirs or notes, by a writer who has a personal interest in the event. No one primary source, especially one written during a war, can objectively look at all sides of an issue. No one is completely dispassionate or able to completely observe both sides, especially during a war.

The only way to get a completely objective view of an event is to simultaneously observe it through the eyes of everybody involved. Obviously this is impossible, so we go back to the primary sources to read and compare, after comparison it is possible to find a middle ground that mostly negates the subjectivity of the primary source authors and from that you create a secondary source. However, you and I each bring our own prejudices to a secondary source, this thread for instance, and it is only by fully comprehending the entirety of both the primary and secondary source material that you can form your own conclusion, yet still based on your own preconceptions, as to a historical event. The long laborious process of historiography, almost as bad as manual shepherdizing.

The distance of time helps us to become more dispassionate and to see more of the angles in an issue. Earlier in the thread somebody said "Now, if we can discuss Genghis Khan without recrimination, and he did kill as many people as Hitler, we should be able to look at Hitler's military skills without resorting to calling people skinheads and the like," and this is a perfect example of the distance of time. I've never met anybody whose grandparents were beheaded by Genghis Khan, however I have met a few people whose grandparents were in the concentration camps. On the flip side I've also met people who feel very badly that their grandfathers were in the Wehrmacht. As we become more and more generationally removed from an event it will become easier to discuss it in a more dispassionate manner. The premeditation, hatred, and scale behind the holocaust will make it almost impossible to be viewed dispassionately, and in many ways imo it should never be viewed dispassionately.

From my point of view, however, I agree with Christopher Browning's thesis in his newest book that it was the German conquest of the Eastern Europe and occupation of parts of the Soviet Union that brought about the holocaust and not exclusively the Nazi's anti-semitic rhetoric. Based upon this, Browning concludes that military success by Germany under the Nazi regime led to predicate conditions for the holocaust and for that reason no German general or political leader can be completely forgiven for advancing the military conquests that led to those atrocities.

This is of course a "mere opinion" but unless you can truly say that you know what happened in Hitler's mind then it is the best you can do and you can also describe your own opinion. Also it happens to be an opinion from a professor at UNC Chapel Hill and a member of the joint Duke/Chapel Hill school of Peace War and Diplomacy. I would hesitate to reject anything based on "mere opinion" because anything you read is brought from a point of view and is in some reflects the writer's opinion or bias it is the task of a good historian to filter as much of the opinion out as possible and bring the best possible interpretation to history.

As far as the historians that I have read the most on Hitler and World War Two they are Alistair Horne, John Keegan, Hans Mommsen, Robert Waite, AJP Taylor, Angus Calder, BH Liddell Hart, and Christopher Browning, this is not an exclusive list and all of the works are either generally accepted by historians or have undergone peer review prior to publication.

Voigtkampf I enjoyed responding to your post. You bring up some interesting points. I noticed that you have gone to law school. I am in the process of law school. Is there anything worse than manually shepherdizing a case that goes back through a several decades of case law? If you don't mind, where did you go to school and are you practicing now? I am focusing on International Trade and Banking and am applying to an LLM program in Munich for post-grad study in German and EU securities and banking law.

[Voigtkampf]

Well, Dhepee, I must admit that I am surprised by such a great level of accurate display of your views and a fairly good presentation of facts, many of them relating to some significant historically orientated writers, and that I have too enjoyed reading your post, which I have printed out and set down to read in quite.

There is always a tendency to go far off topic, and therefore I will restrain myself from that and will try to remain focused on the issue of Hitler and the question what was he; a great strategist or "just a lucky psycho". I will only shortly refer to some of your statements which I do not agree with.


Quote[/b] ]Hans Mommsen and Robert Waite both make the point that despite the individual Germans' economic problems there was still a high level of potential and actual industrial output in the late 1920's.

I can agree with the term "potential", but resources? There are worlds in between.


Quote[/b] ]Not all German officers were in the rear areas, many of the junior and field grade officers who were on Hitler's staff spent time in the field; for instance Rommel.

Indeed, few honorable exceptions, but nothing more.


Quote[/b] ]
As far as Hitler's experiences in the trenches goes, John Keegan felt that it was actually counterproductive to his generalship. Keegan felt that Hitler's trench experience, which was never augmented by formal military study, contributed directly to his tendency toward building defensive works instead of focusing production on armor and air power which could be used in a mobile warfare setting.

Yes, that argument has been heard before, the failure of Atlantic Wall, which was actually designed as a signal towards the British to leave Germany alone to put up a new order in Europe. But I never heard any valuable alternative to the Wall, and I don't think I ever will.

In matter a fact, Hitler did invest most of the resources into building offensive forces instead of digging himself in, as most people think. Even by the time when the air war vs England was virtually lost, he kept ordering bombers to be built instead of concentrating on the defense aircraft (by that time, the most of his perception has abandoned him). So, this argument doesn't stand ground.



Quote[/b] ]A good general is willing to kill his men in the service of a greater victory. US Grant and George Patton were two American generals more than willing to sacrifice lives in order to meet an objective. Both were generals who rejected the prevailing attitudes toward defensive works and argued for relentless offense. Both the Confederacy and Germany were ultimately beaten because their formerly mobile armies were tied down behind static lines of defense which gave their opponents the ability to hammer them offensively. Better for a general to risk it all on a bold move against the enemy's flanks or rear in an effort to destroy the army in the field than acquiescing to a protracted battle of defensive attrition in the hopes that the attacker wears out first.

These are all theoretical wisdoms, yet I still see no concrete suggestions on what military actions should have taken place instead the actions that have been made. And still, even if you had any suggestions, it would still be almost impossible to tell whether the alternative course of action would work or not. Time commanders all over again.

Sun Tsu said "It takes no sharp eye to see the moon, no strong hand to lift a hair." It's easy to see the mistakes in Hitler's strategy today, but it wasn't so easy to see them back then.



Quote[/b] ]Germany penetrated French territory and came very close on a couple of occasions to breaking through the French lines, August 1914, Verdun, and the 1918 Offensive. The allies never offensively penetrated German territory prior to the armistice.

The greatest blow to Germany in WWI was not on the battlefield it was in the inability to maintain their overseas commerce due to British blockading, the American embargo, and the power of Lloyds of London in the shipping re-insurance trade. No ship that was bound for Germany or found to have previously traded with Germany after the opening of hostilities was able to get shipping re-insurance and was therefore unable to get financing to sail making it financially impossible for any neutral to trade with Germany or for Germany to buy raw materials overseas.

The allies starved the German Army out but they did not decisively beat them on the field; and for that reason in World War Two the allies decided that only complete military victory was allowable.

This displays that you are a true born natural lawyer, and I salute you for it; you state the facts that are beyond questioning and circumvent the true statement.

Yet the issue is simple; WW1, Germany fights against France for 4 ½ years and doesn't win. WW2, Germany conquers France within a month and a half.

If we should measure the efficiency of the WW1 and WW2 German HQ's, and we do exactly that, what better reference we need than their success? I rest my case.


Quote[/b] ]


Well, I know every single one of the German generals that were in for the WW2 but I certainly don't know about any group or a single individual that stepped beyond his boundaries and affected the general course of strategies by his knowledge which has been, as stated earlier, defined by WW1 campaign; the only exception is Doenitz who demanded for more U-boats and who became the next commander of the Kriegsmarine when Raeder was relieved of his duty. All of these generals were defeatists to their very core, without wanting to attack neither Poland nor France, and if it was after them, the history would have taken much different course than it has.

The German officers who embraced JFC Fuller and BH Liddel Hart's theories of mobile warfare, close air support, massed armor, and the mobernized maneuver sur la derriere such as Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel gave Germany the doctrine of Blitzkrieg as opposed to Hitler who husbanded his Panzers behind the Atlantic wall in June 1944 instead of falling on the allied flank before they could mass their own armor.

Well, still no proof that these men have in any way contributed to the invention of Blitzkrieg; yet another good guess, at best. After all, Rommel was in charge for the defense of the Atlantic Wall, and he failed in this task. Guderian failed on eastern front and was pushed in background for that. Not a single document has been found where they have laid down the concepts of Blitzkrieg before Hitler, where on the other hands we have numerous plans for various military war campaigns as supplied by other commanders.

Now, dhepee, please forgive me for not going through the rest of your post, but it would mean I would spend two more hours typing here, and I need to get some other things finished first. The deadlines are always killing me. Though I liked the way you presented your issue, you may also notice that I remain skeptic, because you mostly laid a vast smoke screen, and for that skillful approach I salute you, but you probably wouldn't pass on the court with me, unless we had an American style jury, where it could be tougher for me. Basically, we might want to agree on the point that we share almost identical information upon which we draw different conclusions. Hairsplitting is the most tedious occupation of all, and I hate it to the bone, so I may be excused to do that ad infinitum and just say that I enjoyed your excessive post, but that I hardly found anything I didn't already know nor have I found any firm proof for your claims, under which I do not consider the statements of various British historians.


Respectfully,

voigtkampf

[Dhepee]

Well Voigtkampf now you've really piqued my curiosity because I was sure that I had you pegged as an American lawyer and would even have gone so far as to say that you had gone to Stanford, Boalt Hall, or a law school in the Northeast.

I enjoyed your reply very much and appreciate the criticism and praise. I see the two primary weaknesses in my argument as my reliance on British writers and my inability to directly answer every question. My third weakness is probably that I did the whole post from memory in between SEC filings, so I couldn't go to my books for references and when I couldn't find something on the web or remember it exactly I had to scrap the idea.

As to the first weakness:
I am a victim of my education in which my European focus was British history. I did most of my reading in the British authors: Keegan, Horne, Taylor and Calder. The rest was in American products of liberal universities such as Robert Waite or Christopher Browning.

I take the British point of view that is very critical of the Atlantic Wall, a bias of course, but to me that interpretation makes sense. Keegan, and the derivative but interesting Steven Ambrose, believe that the use of an established static line of defense creates a false sense of security in the defender and gives an attacker a place against which to concentrate their air power and armor.

I would also argue that using a wall to signal the British that there was a new order was a symptom of "trench thinking" because behind it lies the precept, imo, that trenches will frighten away an attacker who remembers the Somme and Ypres. The British and the Americans were not frightened away because they knew that they had the mobility and the ability to disrupt German interior lines necessary to break through the wall in a way that it was not possible to break through the trenches in WWI.

As to the second weakness:
To a certain degree I agree with you and there is no direct proof that Hitler did nor did not plan the attack through Poland and France. There is however a lot of anecdotal - and therefore biased under the precepts of historiography - evidence that he did not plan those campaigns. This evidence is mostly that he was not a) formally trained in military theory b) his traditionalist generals were well trained in military theory especially in the theories of JFC Fuller and BH Liddell Hart.

I think that Rommel demonstrates that there was a general awareness of the theories of close air support and armored concentration and penetration, however that neither confirms nor refutes that Hitler was a central planner of the campaign in France.

Rommel did however and I agree strongly with Horne on this point, save the campaign in France when he planned the breakthrough at Sedan. One of Horne's points is that the majority of German causalities occurred prior to Rommel's breakthrough and subsequent run behind the French lines and the the majority of French casualties and surrenders took place after Rommel's breakthrough.

If Rommel had not broken through and prevented the French line from solidifying there might well have been another stalemate in France. In that sense you can argue that Germany's planning was not sufficient to prevent another "miracle on the Marne" but that Hitler was astute enough to give field command to men like Guderian and Rommel who executed the armored breakthroughs.


These are all theoretical wisdoms, yet I still see no concrete suggestions on what military actions should have taken place instead the actions that have been made. And still, even if you had any suggestions, it would still be almost impossible to tell whether the alternative course of action would work or not. Time commanders all over again.

Sun Tsu said "It takes no sharp eye to see the moon, no strong hand to lift a hair." It's easy to see the mistakes in Hitler's strategy today, but it wasn't so easy to see them back then.

I agree that theoretical wisdoms are worthless and see that you noticed my little inconsistency. I said that Hitler should not have relied on past successes to predict the future and yet a theoretical wisdom relies on the past to predict either the future or an alternative and unknowable outcome.


This displays that you are a true born natural lawyer, and I salute you for it; you state the facts that are beyond questioning and circumvent the true statement.

Yet the issue is simple; WW1, Germany fights against France for 4 ½ years and doesn't win. WW2, Germany conquers France within a month and a half.

If we should measure the efficiency of the WW1 and WW2 German HQ's, and we do exactly that, what better reference we need than their success? I rest my case.

Thanks and I agree that the issue of efficiency is not resolved in my post.

I have a whole other thread that could discuss the transitional nature of WWI in terms of technology and tactics and how WWII solved many of the problems of attacking the interior line to prevent stalemate. The German plan at the outset of 1914 was an attempt to reconcile these problems but did not, but again that is another thread and completely OT.


Well, still no proof that these men have in any way contributed to the invention of Blitzkrieg; yet another good guess, at best.

What is history besides a lot of good guesses backed up by documents and pedants?

I contend that JFC Fuller and BH Liddell Hart invented Blitzkrieg on paper, the Germans practiced it, and Patton perfected it. To quote the movie Patton, "Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book."


As you said I'd do well in front of an American jury; you only need to inject reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury. All it takes is one vote. I am extremely curious as to what kind of legal system you practice in, forgive me for continuing to ask where you practice.

Typically this is the type of discussion that I like to have in person because you can get a better sense for verbal cues and you can also respond more quickly to an argument and redirect in midstream. My college education was based on very debate oriented seminars overseen and graded by a professor who kept things civil and on track. You are obviously a skilled debater and have a great command of history. I agree with you that threads too often devolve into hair splitting because two people have many facts and different opinions. I think that we have different approaches to the same question and the same data.

Respectfully,
Dhepee

[Voigtkampf]

Dhepee, as for my law education style, it's European continental, and for a long time I was dealing with the idea of going to Berlin and study law there, I was invited by few professors and have almost agreed to it, but then I received an offer to remain somewhere else, not very important where exactly, since it's no big college nor is it well known, and take over the cathedra of international trade law; another funny coincidence, concerning your own direction of studies. I may still go for some post graduate study to Berlin, it's open for debate.

In meanwhile I began working on few various areas, so my studies are being neglected, and I still must graduate and get my degree, but even now, I know I will not pursue a legal carrier. It's only for the benefit of carrying a title before my name, that's all, in matter a fact.

The next time I come around by Muenchen, I'll stop by and give you a call, so we just might sit down with a cup of coffee and continue this very stimulating discussion, the sort of I haven't had for quite a long time

Respectfully,

voigtkampf

[Nowake]

Generally, I haven't looked at any leader as to a crazy man or whatever iregardless of his deeds, but Hitler was just an obsessed lunatic with sheer luck and Germany at his side.

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Mar. 17 2004,01:10)]Dhepee, as for my law education style, it's European continental, and for a long time I was dealing with the idea of going to Berlin and study law there, I was invited by few professors and have almost agreed to it, but then I received an offer to remain somewhere else, not very important where exactly, since it's no big college nor is it well known, and take over the cathedra of international trade law; another funny coincidence, concerning your own direction of studies. I may still go for some post graduate study to Berlin, it's open for debate.

In meanwhile I began working on few various areas, so my studies are being neglected, and I still must graduate and get my degree, but even now, I know I will not pursue a legal carrier. It's only for the benefit of carrying a title before my name, that's all, in matter a fact.

The next time I come around by Muenchen, I'll stop by and give you a call, so we just might sit down with a cup of coffee and continue this very stimulating discussion, the sort of I haven't had for quite a long time

Respectfully,

voigtkampf
Good luck with your studies Voigtkampf . I also don't see myself practicing law in a traditional law firm setting or even at all. The partners are less interested in how well you practice law and more interested in how much law you can practice. I'm trying to find either a NGO or a small European-American trade private client group to work for.

I'm not in Munich yet, unfortunately, but I hope to be there for at least part of summer 2005 and then on an ongoing basis a year or two later; my wife is doing graduate work in literature so the time line is hazy. We'll see what happens. I would also like to continue this conversation over coffee; the open air market near the Glockenspiel was one of my favorite places in Germany.

Respectfully,
Dhepee

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ Mar. 17 2004,08:09)]I'm not in Munich yet, unfortunately, but I hope to be there for at least part of summer 2005 and then on an ongoing basis a year or two later; my wife is doing graduate work in literature so the time line is hazy. We'll see what happens. I would also like to continue this conversation over coffee; the open air market near the Glockenspiel was one of my favorite places in Germany.

Respectfully,
Dhepee
My bad, I thought you were already in Munich, see what happens when you do one thing and think of dozen others at the same time, not paying enough attention…

Good luck and talk you soon, Dhepee

[Dead Moroz]

http://evilkoalas.net/stuff/hitler_watermelon.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Dead Moroz @ Mar. 19 2004,06:19)]http://evilkoalas.net/stuff/hitler_watermelon.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif SUBLIME, Dead Moroz SUBLIME http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

BTW, like Dhepee and others said, Hitler never invented Blitzkrieg. It were, like Dhepee said, the officers that made their training during WWI as low-rank officers (Guderian, Rommel, etc...) I've talked already to voigtkampf about it, but was unable to have patiente to justify it. I would need to dig deep in WWI and WWII history to present him quotes by historians. But I really don't have time for GIGANTIC posts like Dhepee's...

[Voigtkampf]

ROFLMAO, Moroz, I really do But though he may look awkward and downright ridiculous, the ability of this man to influence the others through his speeches should never be underestimated, and many perceive this ability to be what made him most dangerous.

[Crash]

Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ Mar. 12 2004,15:00)]It is clear that Hitler began to take more and more control during the Russian campaigns and that it was at this point that the German successes began to disappear.
Well, the man had "vision", which is what a leader is supposed to have, but it's the execution that counts in the end. Reminds me of Al Davis, the coach of the Oakland Raiders -an ex-coach who became the team owner - he can't help meddling with his coaches. Hitler was doing okay until he started "meddling" with his generals' "game plans".

About "luck" - an ex-colleague of mine, the most successful salesman I haver personally ever known, used to say "the harder I work, the luckier I get". Hitler may have been lucky sometimes, but you usually make your own luck, and there are people who wouldn't recognize opportunity if it hit them on their heads.

He must have been good at something to get where he got, but good thing for us he wasn't "that good". I would have to agree with Michiel de Ruyter that he may have been a political genius, but not a military or economic one.

Thanks to Dhepee and Voigkampf for one of the more civil an informtive discussion threads I've seen in this forum

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ Mar. 16 2004,15:41)]Interesting and good post Voigtkampf
From my point of view, however, I agree with Christopher Browning's thesis in his newest book that it was the German conquest of the Eastern Europe and occupation of parts of the Soviet Union that brought about the holocaust and not exclusively the Nazi's anti-semitic rhetoric. Based upon this, Browning concludes that military success by Germany under the Nazi regime led to predicate conditions for the holocaust and for that reason no German general or political leader can be completely forgiven for advancing the military conquests that led to those atrocities.
I'm not too sure I understand you here.

Are you saying that due to the military success of the German army in the Eastern Front - the holocaust - the systemic extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables" could occur? Or due to the war - the holocaust - just happened to the peculiar conditions at the time?

Hitler made it very clear in his book - Mein Kampf - that he hated the Jews and wanted to get rid of them. In the 1930s the murder of thousands of Jewish people, Communists, Socialists and other people that he hated did occur.

[Beirut]

Hmmm, jjust noticed how the voting went. Over 50% of the voters think Hitler was nothing but a lucky psycho.

What does that make the people he won against?

Unlucky (but mentally stable)?
Stupid?
GAH

The question begs an answer.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 20 2004,16:28)]What does that make the people he won against?
The French had an ineffective army command.
The British were unlucky with an ineffective ally, and an apparently weak prime minister just before the war.
The Russians had an ineffective command because their paranoid leader had killed almost every good general, and preferred to hold ground in stead of strategic advantage.

Does that answer your question?

[Beirut]

Well thank you. I didn't mean to be as snotty as I sounded.

Do you think, under the assumption that Hitler was just a lucky psycho, that his timing and actions were psychotically lucky time after time in direct proportion to who his unlucky but mentally stable enemy was?

Not just lucky I think, but damn, incredibly, comsmologicaly, psychotically lucky wouldn't you say?

Imagine a coach winning his first dozen or so major league games just out of luck. Quite something.

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Mar. 19 2004,21:29)]
Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ Mar. 16 2004,15:41)]Interesting and good post Voigtkampf
From my point of view, however, I agree with Christopher Browning's thesis in his newest book that it was the German conquest of the Eastern Europe and occupation of parts of the Soviet Union that brought about the holocaust and not exclusively the Nazi's anti-semitic rhetoric. Based upon this, Browning concludes that military success by Germany under the Nazi regime led to predicate conditions for the holocaust and for that reason no German general or political leader can be completely forgiven for advancing the military conquests that led to those atrocities.
I'm not too sure I understand you here.

Are you saying that due to the military success of the German army in the Eastern Front - the holocaust - the systemic extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables" could occur? Or due to the war - the holocaust - just happened to the peculiar conditions at the time?

Hitler made it very clear in his book - Mein Kampf - that he hated the Jews and wanted to get rid of them. In the 1930s the murder of thousands of Jewish people, Communists, Socialists and other people that he hated did occur.
The thesis that Browning puts forth in his newest book, and that he made reference to in Hitler's Willing Executioners regards the transition from rhetoric to action in the Nazi's murder of European Jews.

It uses the 1942 Wannsee Conference as the turning point in World War Two and the beginning of the "Final Solution".

One of the issues that historians raise is that of nomenclature. The term "concentration camp" is used to describe all of the Nazi prison camps that housed slave laborers, civilians, and the death camps. However, there is a difference between the Nazi "concentration camp" and the Nazi "death camp."

Although murder was commonplace in the concentration camps, that was not their primary purpose. They were built prior to the 1942 Wannsee Conference to do just what their name implies; concentrate various civilian populations in one area and to serve as the holding camps for slave laborers. These camps are the ones most often wrongly used as evidence by the Holocaust deniers because the majority of deaths in these camps came from disease, neglect, overwork, and exposure. Murder by camp guards, while commonplace, did not kill the majority of inmates. The ghettos in Eastern Europe were essentially urban concentration camps.

In the 1940's the Nazis' plan was to purge Germany and Eastern Europe of "undesirables" and repopulate it with "pure Germans". At first deportation was suggested. There was a plan to send Jews to Madagascar; until the British victories in the Mediterranean made it impossible. There was also a plan to dump the unwanted populations in central Russia. What became clear to Heydrich, and others in the SS, was that no deportation plan or plan of cocentration in ghettos or camps would sufficiently contain the so called undesirable populations in the long term. Coupled with this was Germany's inability to deal with the sheer numbers of so called undesirables in Eastern Europe. There were a variety of solutions offered, however the Wannsee Conference was meant to find a "final solution", the execution of all undesirables, starting with the Jews and then the non-German inhabitants of Eastern Europe.

"The Final Solution" called for the organized deportation of large populations, primarily of Jews at first, to "death camps" for immediate murder. The "death camps" were different from the "concentration camps" in that they were only intended to hold their inmates until such time as the Nazis could murder them. The ultimate intent of the "death camp" was different from the ulitmate intent of the "concentration camp". It is also notable that several "cocentration camps" were converted to "death camps". This reflects the differing purposes between the two varieties of camps and the change in Nazi policy. Browning notes that the majority of the killing in the death camps or by the Einsatzgruppen were done away from Germany or at the least far enough away from German population centers so as not to give alarm to "ordinary Germans."

It is Browning's thesis, and the thesis of others, that the Wannsee Conference marked a change in Nazi Policy from one of deportation, neglect and isolated murder to one of deportation and planned mass murder done in an organized and industrial fashion. The midpoint of this escalation is seen as the establishment of the Einsatzgruppen to carry out "field liquidations" in occupied Eastern Europe and Russia. Browning cites to Nazi documents that refer to the increased difficulties of managing the increasingly large populations of "undesirables" after the capture of Eastern European and Russian territory. Heydrich and Eichmann both said that the concentration and ultimate deportation of Jews was not enough, so they established Einsatzgruppen, and then they felt that those field units were not enough and the Wannsee Conference was called.

The intent was always there with the Nazis, but up until a certain point it did not express itself fully in the form of the "death camps". Browning is trying to point to the factors that led to the decision to open the death camps, use gas chambers (which were tried earlier), and build the crematoriums. Instead of looking at the Holocaust as one single event he is attempting to analyze it in light of Nazi policy and its reaction to the increased number of people under the Nazi fist in Eastern Europe.

[Crash]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 21 2004,13:58)]
Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 20 2004,16:28)]What does that make the people he won against?
The French had an ineffective army command.
The British were unlucky with an ineffective ally, and an apparently weak prime minister just before the war.
The Russians had an ineffective command because their paranoid leader had killed almost every good general, and preferred to hold ground in stead of strategic advantage.

Does that answer your question?
I think Beirut brings up an excellent point here. Many people would be luckier if only they recognized opportunity when it jumps in front of them. Hitler's "luck" was mostly a case of recognizing the weaknesses of his rivals and exploiting them. His run of luck was over when his opponents stopped presenting him with opportunities and started playing his weaknesses as well.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 22 2004,02:46)]Do you think, under the assumption that Hitler was just a lucky psycho, that his timing and actions were psychotically lucky time after time in direct proportion to who his unlucky but mentally stable enemy was?
There are always psycho's, but you only hear about the lucky ones. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Seriously, it is a bit of a red herring to assume that Hitler was either a lucky psycho or a strategic genius. Real life is never as simple as that.

I think that Hitler's luck or genius lay in the fact that he used aggression when his enemies were not prepared for it and the German army was capable of accomplishing his orders. The main question is whether this aggression came forth out of a genuine appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of both the German army and Hitler's opponents (which would make him a 'genius'), OR out of a belief of German (national or racial) superiority (which make him 'lucky').
Later on in the war, it was the belief in superiority that moved Hitler, but was it so in the beginning? That's why we are trying to establish who was responsible for the plans in the early German campaigns.

Anyway, I can think of only two major occasions in which Hitler was either lucky or genial: the invasion of France and the invasion of the Soviet Union. Which others did you have in mind?

[Beirut]

Ludens,

Always happy to read your posts.

There are several events prior to and during WWII that show Hitler to have certain strategic abilites.

His audacious "bluff" of retaking the Rhineland for one. He gained territory, boosted the morale of Germany's civilians and military, and proved his enemies were unprepared for conflict. All this accomplished with minimal forces, no bloodshed and no resulting war. No doubt he was lucky here, but he was just as audacious.

Likewise, by sheer power of will, he was able to gain the Sudatenland and outmanuever his opponents with psychologiccal weapons instead of armed conflict. Again, he aquiired territory without bloodshed or an ensuing war. It would be hard to say that his opponents gave in because Hitler was a lucky psycho. On the contrary, he forced the issue and won the fight without fighting. This is were Hitler remarked, "I have seen my enemies and they are worms."

His attacks on the Belgian forts. Landmark military actions by anyone's standards. Though planned out by another, they were Hitler's idea and showed that he had a mind attuned to flexible, highly mobile, highly motivated forces and their use, and a grasp of tactics as well as strategy. Many other leaders at the beggining of WWII still had static WWI attitudes.

There are many examples like this. But the point is made. There is a difference between luck and skill. Though it is a fine line - being lucky is simply an art of war. When the Mongols feigned retreat, then cut the opposing army to pieces when they pursued, was it not luck that the enemy pursued? Was it not a calculated risk with no guarantee? That could be defined as luck. But who on this board would define Ghengis Khan as "lucky"?

Likewise, I believe it is more due to emotions than fact that Hitler is viewed the way he is. If we want to paint his as a raging psychotic, a demented rascist, a one testicled sexual pervert, fine. But we should at least have the historic and intellectual honesty to say that, for a time, he was damn good at making war.

[Ludens]

I feel such an idiot now. I should have know those events. Beirut, you are absolutely right. However, it raises an interesting point: wasn't Hitler repeating the same trick over and over? Continually believing his enemies wouldn't attack him?
He was right, but is being right about one thing enough to mark him a genius?


Quote[/b] ]Likewise, I believe it is more due to emotions than fact that Hitler is viewed the way he is. If we want to paint his as a raging psychotic, a demented rascist, a one testicled sexual pervert, fine. But we should at least have the historic and intellectual honesty to say that, for a time, he was damn good at making war.
Again, you are right. But it is naive to think that one can judge Hitler with something approaching objectivity until all the wounds he caused have been healed.
And those wounds still hurt.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 22 2004,16:12)]But we should at least have the historic and intellectual honesty to say that, for a time, he was damn good at making war.
Not him. His commanders... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

Seriously, he was great at political intrigue and at influencing the people's oppinion. He also had a very flexible mind, more concerned with results than dogmas. However, he wasn't a good strategist nor a passable tactician. His very practical approach to things, organizative and political skills, was what allowed him to benefict from the great habilities of the men and means at his disposal...

[Beirut]

Aymar de Bois Mauri,

I'm inclined to give him a proportion of the credit. Your comment that he had a flexible mind is both true and, to some degree, proof of his skils. So was his ability to take advantage of the men and means about him.

I would quote Napolean as I did before in this thread: The surest path to victory is through the proper delegation of authority.

Hitler, at the beggining, was willing to allow his commanders enough free reign to gain decisive victories. That in itself is a quality (a military one at least).

I don't think I would call him a military genius, perhaps a politcal one, but his military skills, strategic and grand strategic ( I use that term as Liddell Hart defined it, as the symbiosis of military and political action) were obviously good enough to play a leading role in bringing Germany from bankrupt, in morale and well as finances, to being at the cutting edge of technology and military thought.

I well understand the wounds left behind from the war, but again, I would submit that not to acknowledge Hitler's skills is to doom us to historic revisionism which helps no one. For if we do that, we are underestimating our enemy and putting ourselves in a dangerous position.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 23 2004,16:03)]I don't think I would call him a military genius, perhaps a politcal one, but his military skills, strategic and grand strategic ( I use that term as Liddell Hart defined it, as the symbiosis of military and political action) were obviously good enough to play a leading role in bringing Germany from bankrupt, in morale and well as finances, to being at the cutting edge of technology and military thought.
I agree about the fact that he was at is best when he let the men under his command think for themselves. But that does not make him a great strategist. In fact, I do not agree about the definition: "Grand Strategy". That itself falls within political thinking. Strategy is a far more specific term. So, accordingly, as I've said, he was a very talented politician but not a strategist.

Just as an example: A men that owns a large farm and hires a good administrator to deal with it, can't in itself be called a good steward. The administrator in itself can.

With Hitler, it's just about the same thing. He was a good politician that got the best Strategical Results when he didn't interfere. When he started doing it, things started to slip...



Quote[/b] ]I well understand the wounds left behind from the war, but again, I would submit that not to acknowledge Hitler's skills is to doom us to historic revisionism which helps no one. For if we do that, we are underestimating our enemy and putting ourselves in a dangerous position.
I've never underestimated him. In fact, I think that, throughtout History, in terms of charisma, cunning, comunication and energy, there aren't many guys who can compare to him...

[Voigtkampf]

Oh, here we go again…

Dear and respected Lord Aymar, I don't how much you exactly know about management and leadership; perhaps you were a squad commander in army or you have run your own company at some point or have otherwise practiced executive leadership? I can't tell, but some of your statements rather puzzle me.

First of all, you said that Hitler wasn't a good strategist, his commanders have been, yet all the time you bring no straightforward proofs for your claims, you just say what you mean to be true. I am, reluctantly, forced to conclude that you, my dear friend, are a victim of political correctness, unless you bring something to backup your claims. We have discussed this matter in another forum thread, but after you began making posts that actually had nothing to backup your statements, I was inclined to stop a pointless discussion.

Let me go a step further and give you an example of a proof for someone's strategic wisdom and brilliance; Manstein suggested the plan of crossing the Ardennes, Rundstedt rejected it and Hitler embraced it, altering it to some degree and making it his own. After the war, Manstein's documents that were saying about Manstein's plan have been captured by the Allies and used in Nurnberg trials, and I am inclined to take these documents for true, since they are, after all, only evidence that we have that these things have ever happened. Ergo, there is a proof that Manstein designed the plan, and therefore, based on those documents, I say that Manstein was a good strategist.

But that is about it. Aside of great accomplishments of able generals like Guderian and Rommel, there are virtually no proof that some other strategic genius stood behind the Blitzkrieg designs except Hitler himself. Please, submit evidence that show different and I will stand corrected, I won't even feel bad because I was wrong, but you cannot just state a claim and end it up on it. Historians and lawyers do not work that way, as you might well know.


Evidence, my dear Watson, show me facts I hope you will not understand this reply as a sort of offence, since I otherwise value your opinion highly and would like to discuss this issue on a level appropriate to grown up and seasoned men.


Respectfully,

voigtkampf

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Oh, here we go again…"...all the way from the stars..." http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-guitarist.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-singer.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-drummer.gif (crappy band, I know... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif )



Quote[/b] ]First of all, you said that Hitler wasn't a good strategist, his commanders have been, yet all the time you bring no straightforward proofs for your claims, you just say what you mean to be true. I am, reluctantly, forced to conclude that you, my dear friend, are a victim of political correctness, unless you bring something to backup your claims. We have discussed this matter in another forum thread, but after you began making posts that actually had nothing to backup your statements, I was inclined to stop a pointless discussion
Political correctness? LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif That's one accusation I never sufered before

As I've told earlier in this thread, I had no patiente or time to reply with massive posts, but what I said was based on lots of analyst's writtings that I've read throught the years. If they are prestigious or not, I really don't know... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif



Quote[/b] ]Let me go a step further and give you an example of a proof for someone's strategic wisdom and brilliance; Manstein suggested the plan of crossing the Ardennes, Rundstedt rejected it and Hitler embraced it, altering it to some degree and making it his own. After the war, Manstein's documents that were saying about Manstein's plan have been captured by the Allies and used in Nurnberg trials, and I am inclined to take these documents for true, since they are, after all, only evidence that we have that these things have ever happened. Ergo, there is a proof that Manstein designed the plan, and therefore, based on those documents, I say that Manstein was a good strategist.

So, you're agreeing with me. Manstein made the plan, Manstein was the good strategist... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]But that is about it.
Preciselly. That is only what is needed to prove my point.



Quote[/b] ]Aside of great accomplishments of able generals like Guderian and Rommel, there are virtually no proof that some other strategic genius stood behind the Blitzkrieg designs except Hitler himself.
By the same reasoning there isn't proof that Hitler was behind it either. You can't prove he was, by not knowing if any other was responsible. That's a logical fallacy...



Quote[/b] ]Evidence, my dear Watson, show me facts I hope you will not understand this reply as a sort of offence, since I otherwise value your opinion highly and would like to discuss this issue on a level appropriate to grown up and seasoned men.
What facts? I don't have a time travelling machine So, accordingly, it's all a matter of interpretation, even concerning Nuremberg's papers. They can generate several conclusions...


Also respectfully,

Aymar

[starkhorn]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Mar. 16 2004,20:46)]
Well, still no proof that these men have in any way contributed to the invention of Blitzkrieg; yet another good guess, at best.

Guerdian wrote a book called Achtung Panzer which was published in 1937.

This was the result of Guerdian's study of the works of Fuller and Hart which basically spelt out the strategy of Blitzkrieg, (although infact this term isn't used in the book as Blitzkrieg was a journalists term).

Infact you can still buy this book from amazon if you want definite proof.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec....2431656 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0304352853/026-3898442-2431656)

Cheers
Starkhorn

[Voigtkampf]

Lol, my dear Aymar, if Hitler didn't push for war on virtually every front, designed plans for "Case White" and "Case Yellow", as well as for "Barbarossa", then I don't know who did Logical fallacy, right
You said his commanders were doing that, so I asked you to state any sort of facts that would back up your claims, but instead you say "I don't have time for massive posts" And if you go as far and dismiss the Nurnberg papers, then we can dismiss the very existence of WW2 as well since, hell, we can't travel back in time (but we can travel back to the future, lol) to prove it has actually happened

I am actually sitting here, LMAO, because this was sooo lame Laaaaaame C'mon, you can do better than that

Very, very, very respectfully (but still ROFLMAO)

Voigtkampf

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Manstein had the Plan.

The General Staff did not like the Plan.

Manstein went around them and directly to Hitler, who liked the Plan.

The Plan was put into effect on Hitler's order and France fell.

//BW

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Mar. 24 2004,13:25)]Lol, my dear Aymar, if Hitler didn't push for war on virtually every front, designed plans for "Case White" and "Case Yellow", as well as for "Barbarossa", then I don't know who did Logical fallacy, right
If you go to a tobbaco vending machine to get a pack of cigarretes, you still have to insert the coins for the machine to give you the pack, right? That doesn't deviate from the fact that it was your brain and body that thought and issued the order to buy the cigarretes, right?

Manstein implemented a plan (get the cigarretes), but he still had to get the approval of Hitler (vending machine), right? The fact that he had to get approval, doesn't mean that the vending machine (Hitler) was responsible for the making of his plan (get the cigarretes), does it? By your logic, the vending machine (Hitler) is responsible for issuing you (Manstein), a order to buy tobbaco...



Quote[/b] ]You said his commanders were doing that, so I asked you to state any sort of facts that would back up your claims, but instead you say "I don't have time for massive posts"
Read starkhorn's post... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif



Quote[/b] ]And if you go as far and dismiss the Nurnberg papers, then we can dismiss the very existence of WW2 as well since, hell, we can't travel back in time (but we can travel back to the future, lol) to prove it has actually happened
Don't be silly. I didn't dismissed them. You just said I did. I also, didn't dismiss the fact that WW2 happpened either. I said that interpretation is paramount here...



Quote[/b] ]I am actually sitting here, LMAO, because this was sooo lame Laaaaaame C'mon, you can do better than that

Good to know you're happy. It's healthy to to be happy... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Mar. 24 2004,16:58)]
Quote[/b] ]You said his commanders were doing that, so I asked you to state any sort of facts that would back up your claims, but instead you say "I don't have time for massive posts"
Read starkhorn's post... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
I did. The Guderian's book "Achtung, Panzer" deals about a segment of panzers and their usefulness for fast advancement on the battlefield, and that is in itself nothing new; after all, design idea for tanks during WW1 was to make them able to cross all the obstacles made for infantry and the trenches themselves. And I also believe that he mostly described WW1 engagements, with some references on how it can be done in future, but to say that he invented the blitzkrieg… That would be little...bold, say we?

Guderian handles panzers in that book; reasonable, since it was his expertise, but panzers are just a part of blitzkrieg tactics, and all other forces, ground and airborne units must be used in coordination to make this risky, yet extremely effective form of warfare work.

I get the feeling from reading the posts here that most of the people think that blitzkrieg is virtually the dumb C&C "tank rush", mass armor and go for it, which is not. It also got me wondering just how many people now how exactly the blitzkrieg tactics work?

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Hitler didn't smoke.

Which is short-hand for saying that the Vending Machine analogy is as far off base as could be.

Here is an anology that is on point:
====================================
The patient is lying on the table with some strange problem that will very quickly take his life. Use of Item A would give him a 50% chance of surviving the surgery and a 4 week recovery time. Every doctor in the hospital points at Item A. Evey school teaches the use of Item A. Doctors in other countries would use Item A.

The lead surgeon is about to use Item A when an intern says, "man - Item C is the way to go". An idea flashes in the lead surgeon's head; and he sees light.

The lead surgeon says, "Brilliant By Jove, you are correct, sir" and uses Item C.

The patient is cured, hops off of the operating table, and runs a Marathon that afternoon wherein he sets a new world record for speed.
=====================================

Morality has nothing to do with genius. To think it does would be to underestimate your opponent. The number one cause of defeat is underestimating your enemy.

//BW

[discovery1]

Quote[/b] ]It also got me wondering just how many people now how exactly the blitzkrieg tactics work?


Basically isn't it mass armour with fast infantry support combined with an air offensive against the target area?

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (discovery1 @ Mar. 25 2004,14:25)]
Quote[/b] ]It also got me wondering just how many people now how exactly the blitzkrieg tactics work?


Basically isn't it mass armour with fast infantry support combined with an air offensive against the target area?
Well, basically, yes, but that implies also for, say, the last war in Iraq; but have the Allies used the Blitzkrieg tactics there? No, they haven't.

[starkhorn]

Voigtkampf,

Well I am certainly not going to pretend to be a military nor history expert but what I know of Blitzkrieg is mainly from casual reading. I found the www.achtungpanzer.com site really good and from this site I got the below description of the concept of Blitzkrieg which is how I view what a Blitzkrieg tactic is all about.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/blitz.htm

On this same page, they state that it was Guerdian who organised the panzers divisions in close support with artillery, motorized and non-motorized infantry and air which are the main components of the blitzkrieg force.

Are you saying this site is untrue ?

Cheers
Starkhorn

"The Concept of Blitzkrieg.
Airforce attacks enemy front-line and rear positions, main roads, airfields and communication centers. At the same time infantry attacks on the entire frontline (or at least at main places) and engages enemy. This restrains the enemy from knowing where the main force will attack and makes it impossible to prepare any defenses.

Concentrated tank units breakthrough main lines of defense and advance deeper into enemy territory, while following mechanized units pursuit and engage defenders preventing them from establishing defensive postions. Infantry continues to engage enemy to misinform and keep enemy forces from withdrawing and establishing effective defense.

Infantry and other support units attack enemy flanks in order to link up with other groups to complete the attack and eventually encircle the enemy and/or capture strategic position.

Mechanized groups spearhead deeper into the enemy territory outflanking the enemy positions and paralyzing the rear preventing withdrawing troops and defenders from establishing effective defensive positions.

Main force links up with other units encircling and cutting off the enemy."

[Voigtkampf]

Interesting stuff, thanks starkhorn, I'll make sure to have it a good, thorough read before I post any replies

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (BlackWatch McKenna @ Mar. 25 2004,13:44)]Hitler didn't smoke.

Which is short-hand for saying that the Vending Machine analogy is as far off base as could be.

Here is an anology that is on point:
====================================
The patient is lying on the table with some strange problem that will very quickly take his life. Use of Item A would give him a 50% chance of surviving the surgery and a 4 week recovery time. Every doctor in the hospital points at Item A. Evey school teaches the use of Item A. Doctors in other countries would use Item A.

The lead surgeon is about to use Item A when an intern says, "man - Item C is the way to go". An idea flashes in the lead surgeon's head; and he sees light.

The lead surgeon says, "Brilliant By Jove, you are correct, sir" and uses Item C.

The patient is cured, hops off of the operating table, and runs a Marathon that afternoon wherein he sets a new world record for speed.
=====================================

Morality has nothing to do with genius. To think it does would be to underestimate your opponent. The number one cause of defeat is underestimating your enemy.

//BW
So, what do your conclusions have to do with the analogy?

Nothing...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Mar. 25 2004,01:16)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Mar. 24 2004,16:58)]
Quote[/b] ]You said his commanders were doing that, so I asked you to state any sort of facts that would back up your claims, but instead you say "I don't have time for massive posts"
Read starkhorn's post... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
I did. The Guderian's book "Achtung, Panzer" deals about a segment of panzers and their usefulness for fast advancement on the battlefield, and that is in itself nothing new; after all, design idea for tanks during WW1 was to make them able to cross all the obstacles made for infantry and the trenches themselves.

And I also believe that he mostly described WW1 engagements, with some references on how it can be done in future, but to say that he invented the blitzkrieg… That would be little...bold, say we?
No. That's preciselly the point. It is new in implementation. He does not use the classical WWI breach tactics. They used slow-moving, extremelly armoured "infantry-protection" tanks, to breach trenches and proceed. French and British tank doctrine didn't move past that dogma, until well within the 2nd world war. Amongst the French, only De Gaulle had seen the need for something different.

What Guderian speaks is different too. He speaks of fast breaches and advancements of supported tanks. Not the slow-mowing game of Anglo-French doctrine. What he was trying to implement was, in a very specific way (tanks), a tank solution to the problems that German WWI late period breaches tryed to achieve, but failed: the famed late-war German Sturmtactics. Fast Panzer (tanks) advancement is a fulcral component of Blitzkrieg tactics. In fact, the book concerns specifically about the compound use of close-support aircraft (like dive bombers), fast tanks and mechanized infantry to saturate and break a fragil area in the enemy front. So, as you've mentioned, even if he was a tank specialist he is talking about some very important factors of Blitzkrieg. What is pertinent to see is that his example is only one amongst others, in many areas of the German Armed Forces in pre-WW2 years. So, it was essencially a change of tactical and strategical doctrine happening in the German command. When all of that was put together, Blitzkrieg appeared.

BTW, do you know what was his knickname?

"The Fast"

I wonder why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

[VikingHorde]

Hitler was not a grand strategist, did a lot of stupid things, so I say Psyco

[Rosacrux]

Aymar

Funny facts:

- Guderian's brilliant strategy for using the tanks in the way they used them, was conceived by a Brit (anyone remember his name? it escapes my memory now) but remained pretty much unnoticed until seen in action by the German armoured divisions.

- the word "Blietzkrieg" is a non-German invention. The word the Germans used was bewegunskrieg (movement-warfare)

- the basic differences between French-English and German use of tanks, were mirrored in their organization as well: the Germans had armored divisions (enforced with mechanized infantry) as the spearhead, while the Allies had basically armored batallions as organic supplements of regular divisions. And when they had armored divisions, their tactical dogma was that of supporting the infantry and fighting other tanks - no good.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 31 2004,04:30)]Aymar

Funny facts:

- Guderian's brilliant strategy for using the tanks in the way they used them, was conceived by a Brit (anyone remember his name? it escapes my memory now) but remained pretty much unnoticed until seen in action by the German armoured divisions.
But the brits never used it, until after WW2... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]- the word "Blietzkrieg" is a non-German invention. The word the Germans used was bewegunskrieg (movement-warfare)
Sorry, Blitzkrieg. The word yes, the concept was theirs in itself.



Quote[/b] ]- the basic differences between French-English and German use of tanks, were mirrored in their organization as well: the Germans had armored divisions (enforced with mechanized infantry) as the spearhead, while the Allies had basically armored batallions as organic supplements of regular divisions. And when they had armored divisions, their tactical dogma was that of supporting the infantry and fighting other tanks - no good.
Preciselly what I've said about Infantry support. Different organizations to different uses of the same vehicles.

[Crimson Castle]

Shouldn't we be looking at the big picture here?

We can't single out Hitler's efforts in 1939 and 1940 and then say "WOW HE WAS A GENIUS".

Hitler is like this gambler who goes to the casino - he bets using a strategy he learnt from a seminar and wins a million bucks in a week. WOW What a genius Then he goes and borrows money from everyone he knows and runs back to the casino and tries the strategy again. But this time he loses, then loses some more - but he keeps using the same "lucky" strategy. In the end he loses EVERYTHING. He then steal from his family and friends and goes back to win it all back using the same "lucky" strategy. He loses, shoots his wife and kids, burns the house down, blames everyone else for his misfortune, then commits suicide. (Sounds familiar??)

I'd say that Hitler had certain gifts

- he was "the man of the moment". Germany was facing a terrible financial and psychological crisis in the 1930s. Hitler came along and provided them with "THE ANSWER". If we Germans work together we can get out of our problems. And the fault is with the Jewish international conspiracy (today we would blame the multinational corporations, the evil America etc..)

- he had the power to sway the masses. Most Germans didn't know what he was saying half the time due to his rantings and ravings - but somehow it sounded good.

- he had the power to bully people to do what he wanted. (You see these sorts of people at work or in the playground)

- he had 1000% complete faith in himself and his personal beliefs. He thought he was right and everyone else was wrong - he thought his opponents were losers and he could walk all over them. Well, it sure worked from 1933-1942. The French and English had plenty of chances to knock him off prior to September 1939. And most of his own German Generals were just dying to see him trip up so they could start a coup to kick off this upstart corporal. But whatever he did from 1933-1941, all his opponents gave in to him.

- he wanted a quick war and looked to new flashy revolutionary ideas. He was fortunate and met up with excellent tacticians like Guderian and Manstein. They came up with the brilliant Blitzkreig plan that kicked ass in 1939 and 1940. Imagine if he had entrusted the entire war plans to Goering who had a novel idea about the use of airpower.

BUT... when things didn't go his way - he didn't change his plan or beliefs. Like the "lucky gambler", he kept on using his same old tricks.

When he invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, practically the whole country welcomed him. They hated Stalin and the stupid communist party had killed millions of its own people in civil war and stupid agricultural programs. But then what does he tell the German Army to do? Show no mercy. Rape, pillage, loot, slaughter. Everyone else is scum - treat them like filth. Just brilliant Adolf, one hundred million people in Eastern Europe want to kill German soldiers now.

Any sane leader would have seen in 1942 that Germany was in dire straits. Facing war on two fronts, being completely ill-prepared for a long war... etc.. But what does Hitler do? He still thinks ONLY HIS WAY is the solution. He tries to micro-manage his troops in Stalingrad - down to the squad level. He also blamed all his problems on the Jews and "other people" - and hurries up his GENOICIDE program. He shoots, imprisons, or fires anyone who disagrees with him.

Then when his stupid ally - Japan - attacks the US, he declares war on America. Why not? Hitler believes that Americans are racial impure, run by Jews, and make mass produced crap. And besides, Hitler says that Japan hasn't lost a war in 2000 years.

So what does that tell you about the old bugger. Was he a genius?

[Crash]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 31 2004,04:30)]- Guderian's brilliant strategy for using the tanks in the way they used them, was conceived by a Brit (anyone remember his name? it escapes my memory now) but remained pretty much unnoticed until seen in action by the German armoured divisions.
Starkhorn already mentioned his name - JFC Fuller.

"Speed, and still more speed, and always speed was the secret……..and that demanded audacity, more audacity and always audacity." (Major General Fuller)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Hitler wasn't evil, he was merley severly tramatized and left psychotic as a result. I'm not defending him, some of the thing he did was evil, but was it really his fault? If the guy has a mental condition, he can't really be resposibel for his actions, unless he's in texas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif . Anyway, he did some good, got Germany out of the depression, but really screwed up when he invaded Russia (damn, I wish he had conquered Russia, and then got his ass handed to him by the Brits and the Americans). I mean, the real reason for WWII was WWI and the U.S. WWI was over a serbian revolution in Austria (one fo my ethnic backrounds)that started when a serb killed the Archduke of Austria. Then Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia on Austria, Germany on Russia, Britain on Germany etc. The the Americans come in and defeat the Austro-Germans because they were defending there land from the Serb-Ruskies. I should know, one of my Great Grandfathers fought the Russians for Austria and was captured, but that's a long story. Then Germany was poor as crap, and then the National Socialist Party of German Workers (Nazi) took over and BAM Blitzcrieg. And a traumatized Sociopath was at the head of it all. And he could have won if he didn't kill his best generals.
-Capo

[bighairyman]

If Hitler had waited for a couple of years, and sent divisions to the Afrika corps to punch through the English lines and invaded the middle east. Then attack Russia, he might had been successful. The oils from Iraq and middle east, plus divisions invading north (from Iraq/Iran, combine with those invading from the west from Poland http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
This could be done, when the afrika korps were fighting the British in Egypt, that was a local uprising by Arabs for the Germans. But with no support, he was quickly crushed. The middle Easterners at that time were sick of the British who were their colonial masters.

Second, Hitler shouldn't have declare war on America, as far as i know the Japanese never requested him to help them. so that was stupid, it is clearly shown that sooner or later Hitler would have to deal with America, but they should have let US declare war on them, that will be an act of aggression, and we will look like the bad guys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
another plus side is that Hitler could just sit there and wait, Even if US defeats Japan, we will be weak, and require a year to recoup, that will be the time to attack. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Crimson Castle]

Yeah but then Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if he didn't.

He could have not persecuted the Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities.

He could have not got his Army to antagonize the local populations - esp. in Russia - with horrendous brutal treatment.

He could have contained himself with the simple goal of eliminating Communist Government in the East - instead he wanted to kill every single Slav.

He could have not surrounded himself with stupid idiots like Goering, Himmler, and other Nazi brown-nosers.

He could have created a government and military system that was efficient and not filled with dual agencies and confusing hierarchial systems.

He could have not devoted resources towards insane idea of The Final Solution - esp. towards the end of the war.

But he didn't. Why? Because he was

[Apocalyp$e]

Hitler was one crazy guy. He was also a genius. Because of him we made some of the world's most significant technologies & medical discoveries-even if it was only because he endorsed the use of living human test subjects. He also had a weird interest into the paranormal... He spent a lot of time and resources on very strange things- all those stories you hear about the Nazis in Indiana jones have more truth to them than you think.... He even held the spear of destiny...