Did Hitler do anything right?

[Guest Captain Foobar]

OK, this is NOT a good or evil debate.

My question is towards his Military Decisions.

Every time I read about a major battle in WW2, it is always accompanied with commentary along the lines of "against the advice of his generals...." or "made the decision, based on he assumption of 'x' , which never came to pass".

From The battle of britain, Stalingrad, Kursk, Dunkirk, The Bulge, North Africa, etc. The historical commentary ALWAYS seems to cast him as the meddling hands that his generals *feared* might get involved, and turn everything sour, with wild gambles and completely mad decisions.

As most things in history tend to fall victim to oversimplificaion , Id like to hear the opinions and findings of those present.

[All American]

The Invasion of France in 1940 was ordered by Hitler against the advice of his generals.

All American

------------------

perviously known as Kid

[Eichmann2]

Hitler was the best general the Allies had!

[Guest Babra]

He killed himself

------------------

It's "BAB-ra!"

[iggi]

Hitler had the boldness to take advantage of the lack of communications available at the time. His enemies were slow to react and thier militaries were not as mobile.

However I would also add that his generals were to blame too. Student ,for example, wanted to attack many targets at once on Crete.

The main advantage of the German airborne was surprise. The allied soldiers on Crete were using runners to send info to each other. With such a weak line of communications, Student should have attacked only one airport and quickly and decisively captured it. By the time the allies realized what had took place, reinforcements would have been rolling in.

[Guest Madmatt]

My rather simplified take on Hitler is as follows. His experiences in WWI as a Corporal affected him through out his campaigns in WWII. He always saw EVERYTHING as a Corporal. He never wanted to give up ground, he always thought that the newest gee-wiz weapon would change the balance of the conflict and he had disdain for the opinions and advice of those around him. All of these factors sound exactly like any normal Corporal in the field with a squad under his command. Unfortunately for Germany and fortunately for the rest of the free world, he was NOT a Corporal and his rather TACTICAL approach to the war helped to spell the eventual destruction of all his strategic plans. Just my opinion though and radically simplified and abridged from a much more indepth treatment I did on this very subject some time ago...

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

combathq.thegamers.net

[PanzerShark]

Well, he did give us bridges, roads AND aquducts. Oh wait, that were the Romans

[PanzerLeader]

It is mostly thanks to Hitler's approval that Guderian and some others successfully applied the Blitzkrieg tactics to the German Army. Before Hitler most of the Wehrmacht officers were very conservative and wanted tanks to have primarily an infantry support role.

Hitler very early on saw in the Blitzkrieg what he needed: a tactic that could win him the war as quickly as possible.

Here again Madmatt's point is emphasized.

[Darryl]

In my view, Hitler got lucky, in the beggining. He made some bold moves (ie; moving into the Sudetanland, Checkoslovakia, Etc.) which the German high command opposed. These gambits only worked because the Allies were afraid of another war, and sought to appease Hitler, instead of confront him in what would've been at the time an unpopular war (It's the same fear which prevents clinton from dealing with Saddam Hussein). Because these gambits worked, Hitler felt that it only proved that he was a great military leader, it also led him to believe that he knew better than the high command since he had proved them wrong in the beggining. I believe that is why he never took their counsel seriously throughout the rest of the war. That combined with the fact that he had no firm grasp on reality, or even any kind of cohesive long term strategy, led to Germany's ruin.

Of course the above isn't very detailed, but hey, this is a disscussion, not a lecture. LOL I'm interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject.

------------------

Darryl

[Major Tom]

The only thing Hitler did WRONG was to believe his own propaganda. He believed that he was the saviour of Germany (wrong!). He believed that he was a military genious (wrong!). He believed that Germany didn't deserve to survive after their defeat (wrong!).

He was a very charismatic individual. He is given too much credit for his early accomplishments. There is an entire diplomatic corps that created the political deals, such as the Annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia and the Russian-German pact. He merely chose the road to take, the only thing he was really good at. The choice to attack France through the Ardennes was not because of a plan created by himself, but, he just chose the only plan left (as the original plan got captured by the Allies).

Telling the German forces to hold their ground in the winter of 1941 was not because he had the insight to see that falling back would result in the Army's collapse and destruction, but, as mere prestige.

He started to believe that the victories up to 1941 were all because of his doing, which in reality they weren't. The German army was at its best when he left it running on its own.

Darryl:

It isn't Bush/Clinton's fear, but common sense to not remove Saddam from power. He cannot threaten anyone except those within his nation. Why destroy Iraq as the dominant military power in the Middle East? The enemy you know is better then the one you don't.

[Speedy]

A question Major Tom, why is Iraq the enemy?

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Read an interesting thing (I think from Stephen Ambrose) a while ago. Something to the effect that American NCOs and junior officers would take command right away while Germans needed orders froma higher level, sometimes even Hitler. Interesting.

------------------

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Major Tom]

The US and Iraq aren't really enemies, in the natural sense. Other than oil, the US could care less about the stability of the Middle East. It is mere economics which has caused the US and Iraq to have friction. Conquering Kuwait would have left Iraq controlling over twice the amount of oil it previously did (even before taking Kuwait Iraq was a major oil exporter). This would have led Iraq to have more of an independent monopoly of oil, resulting in a more centralization of profits (more money for Iraq, more weapons it can buy, possibly even Nuclear, then Iraq would become a direct threat against the US).

They are enemies by economics, and by the possibility of a world power emerging in the Middle East frightens the US, and most of the Western World.

[Speedy]

O'kay going by the principles expressed in your reply MT why did US invade Somalia, what threat did they pose to the US?

P.S.- Not having a go at you, just curious to here what you have to say?

[Guest Captain Foobar]

Speedy,

First of all,I think it is inaccurate to say that the U.S. invaded Somalia. We sent in troops in a United Nations humanitarian action, if I remember correctly. It was a glorified meals-on-wheels operation.

Webster's definition of invasion

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We did not go there, and take ground, and keep it. Prety straightforward situation

Now I've been known to veer off topic before, so I will not kill anyone here for talking about Iraq. I thought about it, but I wont.

To redirect to the posted topic,

I am interested in the ideas you guys have posted so far, and would like to hear more. A secondary to my original question, would be specifically to Hitler's intervention in localised tactical situations.

Did he ever do anything right in the tactical sense of decision making? (The recognition of blitzkrieg tactics, and encouragement of their employment in 1940 sounds like the best example so far.)

Perhaps my question itself is oversimplified. I have heard in many accounts of Hitler being a "big picture" person, with little interest in the little details. Men of ambition in the Party, etc. would attempt to gain favor with him by coming up with specific plans supporting his "big pictures'. This has been manily in the political arena, and domestic issues.

However, in the Military sense, I get the impression that he was a micromanager. Believing he was a genius, he got involved in every level of command that presented itself before him.

Was he a big picture person, and a micromanager?

(oh hell, maybe i should go buy a book...nah I'm too cheap for that... )

[Fionn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Read an interesting thing (I think from Stephen Ambrose) a while ago. Something to the effect that American NCOs and junior officers would take command right away while Germans needed orders froma higher level, sometimes even Hitler. Interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sounds like something Ambrose would pedal. It also smells like ****, just like a lot of other stuff he pedals in the popular media.

Sos, there's a recent thread which went into the whole myth of the German soldiers being "obedient automatons" vs "free-thinking and quick-acting GIs".

Basically the junior officer in US forces had MUCH LESS freedom of action than an equivalent officer in the Waffen-SS or Wehrmacht and ordinary GIs were not encouraged to act on their own initiative much (very different from the German training again.)

Of course in late 1944 the Germans were at the stage where any man who could recognise a rifle two times out of three was called a "qualified infantryman" and so the performance and daring in the field decreased in late 44.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Foobar:

I have heard in many accounts of Hitler being a "big picture" person, with little interest in the little details<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heard it the other way around. He could tell you everything you ever wanted to know about any obscure piece of military hardware, but hadn't a clue how to employ it himself.

------------------

It's "BAB-ra!"

[von Lucke]

Generally speaking, Hitler merely served as the compass by which the Reich set it's course --- up until late 1941, when he took a more direct role in things, which resulted in vast numbers of German soldiers being over-run in hopeless "stand or die" situations. Up until then, Hitler was a little in awe of the General Staff (that Corporal mentality again) and usually had to have a lot of evidence on his side before he would go against them. IIRC, Manstein's plan to invade France was thoroughly war-gamed up the chain of command (and worked every time) before Hitler would back it against his General Staff's inclinations to repeat WW1. If Hitler had disregarded Goering's advice (and who wouldn't?) and had pressed the bombing of the RAF airfields, England might have found itself as another province of the Greater Reich (war over in Oct of 40?), and people might put Adolf in the same group as Napoleon.

Sosabowski: Hmmm, I think you need to progress further up the chain of command before you start laying claims of lack of initiative on the Wehrmacht. German NCO's and officers where strictly taught a doctrine of "any action is better than none" and trained to operate at the next highest level of command. Percentage-wise, the Wehrmacht had fewer commisioned officers than any other nation because it's NCO's often acted in the same capacity. Time and again, local counter-attacks were rapidly put together on only the initiative of local commanders. Now, the operational release of divisions and above was another story...

Speedy: The same reason we got involved in Kosovo: Americans have a self-righteous air of law and order that makes them think they know what's best for everybody. Even though tribal rivalries have existed in Somalia and "Yugoslavia" for hundreds of years, we figure we'd mosie on in and declare "there's a new sheriff in town! Ya'll can just break it up and head back to the corral!" and everything will be alright. Well, suprise! what happens is that the American soldier just becomes the object of everybody's hate and frustration (read: common target), and we end up pulling out with our tail between our legs. Hell, if the NYPD can't clean up their own city, how do we expect to do it in a foreign nation? Maybe Clinton should read a little Macchiavelli...

[All American]

I habe to disagree with your opinion that the German officers had more freedom then their Allied counterparts. One example of the restrictions on German officers occured on D-Day. The regimental commander of the a panzer regiment (I think it was the 125th) was near the bridges over the Orne Canal and River. These bridges had been captured by British glider men of D Comapny of the Ox and Bucks. The German commander had his troops and tanks ready to go and take the bridges back by 4:00 a.m. but couldn't move out because onlt Hitler could order the tanks to attack. This allowed the bridges to be reinforced and when the panzers finally moved out the next day, the were chopped up by planes and naval gunfire. If the regimental commander had been allowed to take the bridges at 4:00 a.m., the entire 6th British Airborne Division would of been cut off from the beaches and eliminated by German tanks.

All American

------------------

perviously known as Kid

[Gen. Sosaboski]

NICHT SCHEISSEN! NICHT SCHEISSEN! It was just something I had read, sorry!

------------------

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[von Lucke]

All American:

That commander was Hans von Luck, and he had been chomping at the bit to launch a counter-attack from the first minute he found out about the landings. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the Panzer Divisions in the Caen area where being held in strategic reserve, so it wasn't up to von Luck to give the go order to his own regiment (a sore spot with von Luck for years after). But in the event, when the go order came down 24hrs later, he almost succeeded...

But to reinforce my own point , check out how von Luck's quick action near Cagny during the opening phase of Operation Goodwood almost single-handedly stopped the British push on Caen...

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 03-12-2000).]

[William Thiel]

Using the bullet AND the cyanide capsule were pretty right on target.

[dumbo]

Coincidentally I am just re-reading Alan Clarks "Barbarossa" (incidentally if you have not read this book then run and get it).

Clark goes out of his way to correct what he sees as a myth conjured up by the surviving German generals to blame Hitler for thier errors. Hitler in fact saved his commanders from poor mistakes several times during the Eastern front in particular during the winter of 41.

However instead of individuals Clarks emphasis details how the administration of the Reich and Military were setup as a loose confederation of semi warring tribes rather than a nations arsenal.

The luftwaffe against the waffen SS the Army against the SA etc. With personal grudges and dislikes playing a large role in the conflicts between these tribes. I dare say that the British and the Americans had a better wokring relationship than different military arms of the Reich.

The most forgotten factor in most histories is the pique the Prussian military felt at having been stripped of power by Hitler before the war. Until Hitler, they had an effective veto over foreign policy and absolute control over how a war was fought. Hitler knowing all too well the incompetence of the Prussian officer corps from his WW1 days stripped them of power by a series of masterful politcal strokes and by distracting them at key moments by giving them new toys to play with.

There is an interesting parallel here with Stalin who had a similar view to Hitler but as victory seemed more and more assured left the fighting to the generals as he was kept buzy with geopolitical tasks.

_dumbo

[Guest Kettle Black]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen. Sosaboski:

NICHT SCHEISSEN! NICHT SCHEISSEN! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If my memory of German serves me correctly, you just wrote uh... hehe "don't ****". Schiessen methinks, not scheisse hehehe, sorry...

All, IIRC von Mansteins assessment of Hitler seemed rather spot on, both the negative and the positive. Not that Manstein didn't have an agenda when he wrote it but who hasn't?Let's see if I can dig up some quotes from there.

Kettle Black

[Speedy]

Sorry for going of topic Cpt. Just on my mind at the moment as I am reading a very good book about an operation in Somalia. For anyone interested the book is called 'Black Hawk Down' by Mark Bowden isbn 0-593-04538-6 . This is quite a good book pretty much a comprehnsive collection and sorting out of the accounts of those involved on both sides. Foobar as for your comment I suggest you have a look at this book, I have never heard of Meals on Wheels basically going in and shooting everything thats black and has two legs!

Sorry again for that now back to topic. As far as I know the most important decision Hitler made in opposition to his generals was to give a no retreat order to the eastern frontin Dec41/Jan42. He later gave the same order at Stalingrad basically disallowing the 6th Army to make a breakout attempt. Must admit though that Goering had a lot to do with the second decision as he promised that the Luftwaffe could keep the 6th Army supplied by air.