Did Hitler do anything right?

[tss]

von Lucke wrote:

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.

Actually, there was no way how Operation SeaLion could have succeeded unless the Brits decide to surrender. Failing to achieve air superiority was just about the least of German problems.

The planning of the operation is a perfect example what happens if different military branches don't cooperate in a complex operation. The Kriegsmarine supposed that the first wave of infantry would capture a port (preferably Dover) intact, but (amazingly) the Heer didn't have any such plans. The Heer supposed that Luftwaffe would perform as flying artillery blasting their way through British defences and the Kriegsmarine supposed that Luftwaffe would be committed to sinking of the Roal Navy. Neither of the branches asked Luftwaffe whether it would be possible to perform both functions.

In practice, Luftwaffe's resources wouldn't be enough for all duties allocated to it. There's no way how they could destroy RAF completely as it can withdraw North out of range of German fighters and come back only to stop the invasion. Thus, the Luftwaffe fighters have to provide constant air cover to the infantry troops and Kriegsmarine ships in addition to escorting bomber missions.

During BoB Germans had to decrease the number of bombing missions because there wasn't enough escorts so tying up a sizable portion of fighter force to CAP missions will lead to a slaughter of the bombers.

Additionally, most of German shipping was composed of river barges that needed some 18 hours to cross the Channel. The British only have to get a single destroyer through German defence screen to sink most of the flotilla.

- Tommi

[scoop88]

Hitler made lots of mistakes, but as Alan Clark points out in his book "Barbarossa," Hitler wasn't around after the war to justify his decisions. That made it easy for his generals to write their memoirs and conveniently blame Hitler for everything that went wrong. Hitler probably saved the German Army from complete disaster by his "stand fast" order in front of Moscow in the winter of 1941-42.

Also, before the attack on Russia Hitler ordered that the short-barreled main guns on PkKw III and IV tanks be switched out to long-barrel, higher-velocity guns. For some reason the order was overlooked, an oversight for which the Germans paid dearly when they encountered the T-34s and the heavy KV-1 and KV-2 tanks. The short barreled guns couldn't penetrate the armor of these Russian tanks. A case can be made that had Hitler's order been followed the Germans would have overrun Soviet Russia before the winter of 1941-42.

Hitler also takes a lot of heat for stopping Army Group Center after it took Smolensk and turning it south to encircle the Russian forces around Kiev. But put yourself in Hitler's place at the time ... the right flank of your central army group is exposed to 600,000 Russians to the south. It's easy to write after the event and say he should have pressed on to Moscow, but at the time, what would you have done in his shoes?

[PanzerLeader]

Good point Tommi, in fact the only realistic option Germany had after France'40 was to attack the British bases in the Mediterranean with the Italians: Malta, Gibraltar, Egypt, and then the Middle East. A concerted attack there, where the Brits were quite weak at the time, had every chance of succeeding, thus cutting Britain off and isolating it from its colonies, most importantly India. In addition it would have placed the German Army in a favourable starting position against the Russkies, after defeating the British(via Turkey and the Caucasus), plus Hitler could have used the oil fields in the Middle East.

At least that's what Guderian thinks.

[tss]

Panzerleader wrote about attack to Middle East via Egypt:

... plus Hitler could have used the oil fieds in the Middle East.

This would matter only in the long run. In the short run Germans would have two severe problems:

1) Neither Germany nor Italy had enough tankers to transport the Middle Eastern oil over Mediterrean.

2) Germans would have to completely rebuild the drilling equipment after the British blow them up. In addition, they have to reconstruct the pipe line leading from Persia to Syria, because it too would be in small pieces.

It took the Japanese two years before they got any oil from Indonesian oil fields after they had captured them. I don't see why Germans would manage better.

- Tommi

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Thanks Kettle! That's the last thing I want to say over there when I take my "great battlefield tour" .

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

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

[dumbo]

Scoop:

How bizzare I am reading that exact bit of Barbarossa currently Excellent book.

[scoop88]

Dumbo:

Yup, "Barbarossa" is a good one. Wait until you get to the part about Stalingrad when he describes the duel of the master snipers. Great stuff!

If you really want to get to the ground-pounder level of Barbarossa, there are two excellent books translated from the German by Paul Carrell. "Hitler Moves East" covers the campaign through Stalingrad and "Scorched Earth" continues through the destruction of Army Group Center in summer 1944. His strategic analysis is flawed -- he subscribes to the "blame Hitler for everything school," plus he wrote the books well before the revelation that the Allies had the German Enigma code machine -- but his description of everyday combat from the enlisted man's perspective is very good. I think Carrell was a correspondent for "Signal," the German Army magazine during World War II, so his stuff is drawn from many first-hand experiences.

[Major Tom]

Actually, if the British were to lose Egypt, and the Middle East, they would most probably have sued for peace. This region was EXTREMELY important to the British war effort. People don't realize how many resources were used from Africa to win the war for the Allies. Plus, North Africa was the main field of operation for the British army, and a defeat there would have SEVERELY sapped morale. So, if Rommel was successful, then the British could have been knocked out of the war.

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

Actually, there was no way how Operation SeaLion could have succeeded unless the Brits decide to surrender. Failing to achieve air superiority was just about the least of German problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I quite agree with you: Operation Sealion (if you could go so far as to call it an "operation")was a morass of miss-cues worthy of a Three Stooges movie.

Where Hitler failed was in allowing the Brits to evacuate the BEF from Dunkirk virtually untouched. He somehow thought this act of magnanimity would cause the Brits to seriously consider his peace terms. Funny, how through a singular act of humanity, the man who has become synonimous with evil managed to bring about his own eventual downfall.

But, military history is a series of "what if's" heavily influenced by luck. Had the dominoes fallen in a different way in 1940, alle wir konnten Deutsch im augenblich sprechen --- oder mindestens Fionn wurde!

[Dschugaschwili]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PanzerLeader:

Good point Tommi, in fact the only realistic option Germany had after France'40 was to attack the British bases in the Mediterranean with the Italians: Malta, Gibraltar, Egypt, and then the Middle East.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. The only realistic option Germany had after France 1940 was to make peace with the countries they had conquered so far. Then there would have been no more reason for England to continue the war and the whole of Western and Middle Europe might be speaking German now.

Of course, Hitler was NOT the man who would take the time to set up a reasonable political system to keep what he already had gotten so far. For him, war was the normal state of relationships between nations, not peace.

Speaking of Hitler as a general, he did quite well until the attack against Russia had been stalled. After that, all creativity and effort seems like blown away. I've stated that a while ago in another thread, he didn't believe anymore that he could win the war anymore after that point. In the following years, he used the army to delay the allied forces, or in other words, to buy him the time he needed to carry out the assassination of the jews in Europe. That's the reason for his "hold groung at all cost" doctrine in the second half of the war.

For a much better and more detailed description of Hitler, I recommend the book "The meaning of Hitler" by Sebastian Haffner (the German original is called "Anmerkungen zu Hitler"). The best book explaining Hitler that I know of.

Dschugaschwili

[Gespenster]

The Autobahn is fun ... hehe ...

~G

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

"It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it"

Robert E. Lee

[PanzerLeader]

Tommi, yes obviously by saying Germany could exploit the oil fields in the Middle East I was talking about the long term, after making peace with Britain(assuming Britain surrenders after losing her colonies...)

Djuga, what do you mean by "to make peace with the countries they had conquered so far"?

Germany was at peace with France, Belgium and the Netherlands I think...By "making peace" do you mean destroy all partisan activity?

[Guest Captain Manieri]

In regards to being a good military tactician....Hitler? Nope. The thing he did right was pick his generals. To put together a bunch of Generals that gave a dinky-little country like Germany so much trouble with many tough, big allied nations had to have done fairly well.

[Guest Big Time Software]

PL, I think he means creating a fair governmental system and not the one of terror that existed after about 1942/43 or so. The peoples of Western Europe were largely predisposed to be good little citizens of the Third Reich, either actively or through apathy. So if Hitler had a fair system put in place what could Great Britain do? Imagine the Allies invading and having the locals be shooting up their rear lines instead of the Germans. It could have happened if Hitler had been a totally different person, say a modern Bismark with a tad more liberal leanings. Then there is the East, which is where the Nazi's policies really backfired.

Steve

[JoshK]

Steve,

I think you may be underestimating the patriotism and morality of our Western European friends.

Are you suggesting that if Hitler had been a better person then the people of France, Holland, Belgium, etc. would not have resisted foreign rule, and in fact would have actively resisted liberation?

While in the context of current European political and economic integration it is easy to downplay the idea of self-determination, one could make a compelling argument that many countries value the EU because it protects them from indirect German political and economic domination. If this argument is correct, then it is safe to assume that, 45-50 years ago, there would be resistance to direct domination, even if it was more benevolent that what was the case in WW II.

[This message has been edited by JoshK (edited 03-14-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think you may be underestimating the patriotism and morality of our Western European friends. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say there would be NO resistance, just that it would be more or less a minor annoyance compared to what it was.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you suggesting that if Hitler had been a better person then the people of France, Holland, Belgium, etc. would not have resisted foreign rule, and in fact would have actively resisted liberation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and this isn't something I came up with on my own either The situation in Europe before the war was totally different than it is now. While Germany was thriving the rest of Europe was still recovering from the Great Depression, which had contributed to a lot of resentment and apathy towards their governments. The government of France in particular was very unpopular, almost having been overthrown by force in 1934. The feeling in Frace was also largely anti-British as they saw Dunkirk as a stab in the back (which it most certainly was not). The British attack on the French fleet made it even worse. So it would not have been hard for the Germans to totally turn the French if they had catered to such a plan.

As it was the majority of Western European nations that Germany occupied were largely unenthusiastic about fighting the Germans in the first place, and were even much less so after German troops entered. Many saw a union with Germany as being good in the long run. In fact the British had a very hard time getting the resistance in France and other countries doing much until after Germany started to take more without asking as the war went on. Armed resistance in Dennmark, for example, was almost non-existant until about 1943. France was much the same, as was Belgium and The Netherlands. In fact, these last three countries supplied well in excess of a hundred thousand men for frontline duty, not to mention the even larger number that were in police forces and local defense units. It took YEARS for the Germans to piss away all the good will that they could have tapped into.

The reasons for all this are very complex and extremely particular to the situation of the day. If the Germans had established a more or less EU arrangement (even if it were by force and less autonomy) only battlefield reversals in the East would have lead to the defeat of the Third Reich IMHO. And it is also my opinion (as well as others) that if the Germans treated the various conquered peoples in the East at least as good as dogs instead of the lower standard they in fact applied, there is a good case to be made that the Germans could have at least caused a stalemate in the East.

There lies the irony of the Third Reich. It took a heavy handed, totalitarian, corrupt system to create the Third Reich and to expand its borders. But this same system was at the root of every failure and botched oportunity to keep the Third Reich from falling into ruin. They really needed two totally different governmental systems, one for the aquisition of power and the other for maintaining it. Good thing for us they never figured that out.

Steve

[Guest Captain Foobar]

I hope that China never figures that out....

[Mike T]

I'd like to back up Steve's last statement with a little more factual information which is rarely commented upon.

Western Europeans supplied more troops to the German Armed Forces than they did to the 'Free' Allied forces. Neutral nations such as Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland supplied more volunteers to the Germans than to the Allies. The reason - simple - once Germany was at war with the Soviet Union a large number viewed it as a good war ie. a crusade against communism. The vast majority of the units that the Germans formed from these 'volunteers' were used solely on the Eastern Front. The reason no one seems to mention this fact is political - none of these countries want to admit to the amount of collaboration that went on.

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

'Bitter Mike'

[Simon Fox]

The problem with all these discussions is that they are inherently circular. What came first the chicken or the egg? ie If Hitler was bit more decent then he wouldn't have invaded them in the first place so the question of whether he could have managed them better just doesn't arise. In the years leading up to 1941 a lot of things fell in to place for Hitler politically and militarily in a way that was often less to do with design and more fortuituous. Subsequently he was more exposed. I think basically he was a very astute politician but a hopeless leader.

[dumbo]

Very good point Steve. The bitterness over the French Fleet actions is not just restricted to the French.

The sinking of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir was regarded as a "painful task" by Churchill and found utterly repugnant by the Royal navy commanders its worth remembering that this was not a surprise attack. The French admirals were given the choice of joining the Free French, scuttling thier ships or sailing to the French West Indies. The answer was "non", a sure sign that this fleet was destined for germanys uses and the attack commenced.

Those ships which did agree to the terms set out by the Royal Navy (such as those docked at Alexandria) sat there at French insistence throughout the entire war while Britian hung on by a thread. The sight of a pristine French battle group sat in Alexandria harbor was a slap in the face to the battered convoys which came into dock.

Not only that but these French sailors took paid holidays (paid for by Britain) in Alexandria , Vichy ruled Syria and Lebanon during the period when Rommel was ploughing his way through North Africa.

The damage to the already rock bottom Anglo French relations was substantial, but by that time the British were in little mood for French sensibilities as they had thier own backs against the wall and the French were a German possession.

I revised this becuase it seemed to come across as anti french which is was not designed to be Just a breif history recap with no offense intended to our French cousins

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 03-15-2000).]

[Dschugaschwili]

Thanks for making my point clear Steve! I'm not a native English speaker, so I sometimes have trouble picking the right words...

By the way, did you read the book I was talking about in my above post? Most points sound quite familiar to me.

Dschugaschwili

[This message has been edited by Dschugaschwili (edited 03-15-2000).]

[JoshK]

There are several points made here that, I believe, are correct.

- There was dissatisfaction with pre-war governments, especially France.

- There were elements of the occupied countries that were sympathetic to the Nazi's

- There were even larger elements of these societies that were willing to "go with the flow" and offer no passive or active resistance to the Nazis.

- Both of the above groups could have been enlarged if Nazi occupation was more benevolent.

However, I was not really questioning these assumptions. What I was reacting to was the claim that, under different circumstances, there would have been armed resistance to allied liberation troops. It is here that I think that Steve oversold his case. IMHO, few people (even in W. Europe) are cosmopolitan enough not to chafe at armed foreign occupation, no matter how benevolent. It is one thing not to like your government, it is entirely different to welcome foreign domination to the point that you will take arms against your liberator.

The only way that this would have happened is if there was nothing to liberate. In other words, if Hitler had said to his newly conquered W. European neighbors - "Whoops, I goofed. I really wanted to kill Russians, but I invaded you instead. I will leave now and let you carry on as you see fit." However, if that had happened, there would have been no need to liberate these countries in the first place.

Anything short of that, the large majority of Danes, Dutch, French, etc. wanted self-determination. The allies were the agents of self-determination. To fight them, would have meant that you preferred German occupation to such a degree that you would do something in support of your occupiers (take up arms) that you would not do in defense of your freely elected government. That behavior, I think, would have been absurd.

[tss]

Josh K wrote:

It is one thing not to like your government, it is entirely different to welcome foreign domination to the point that you will take arms against your liberator.

That depends on definition of "liberation". For example, between 1940-44 Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were:

1) "liberated" from their "fascist dictators" by "the Invincible Red Army" in 1940;

2) "liberated" from "bloodthirsty bolsheviks" by "noble German crusaders" in 1941; and finally

3) "liberated" from "barbaric Nazi invaders" once again by the "heroic Red Army" in 1944.

After each of these "liberations" quite a lot of people took arms and started shooting their liberators.

(And to make my own position on the Western situation clear: I don't think that Germans could have won enough support to have Frenchmen shooting Western Allies in large degree.)

- Tommi

[Speedy]

Josh- Have a close look at the Syrian campaign, The Vichy French troops in Syria actively resisted "Liberation" by Commonwealth troops.

[JoshK]

Tommi,

I totally agree that in the East this question of "liberation" is turned on its head several times over.

My god, look at the poor Ukrainians. They actually did, to a large degree, welcome Nazi liberation in June, 1941. After Stalin starved 3 million Kulaks, Hitler could have very conceivably had armed Ukrainian support. However, to adopt the necessary policies would have meant that he wouldn't have been Hitler, and therefore would not have invaded the USSR in the first place. The internal justification for the invasion was to eradicate the Jews, and for living space free of Slavic sub-humans. It is hard to accomplish those two tasks without devastating the occupied population.