How Germany could of defeated the S.U. during Barbarossa?

[JasonC]

For irrational fear of contracting cuties, a man blows his brains out. Shall we

(a) praise his excellent foresight

( pick bananas and look the other way, whistling a jaunty tune

© denounce his stupidity and warn everyone against doing the like

(d) pretend we aren't defending his excellent foresight by just defending those who praise his excellent foresight

[Richie]

(e) all of the above...

[Krautman]

Originally posted by JasonC:

And once again we see no insult to the Fuhrer can pass for 12 hours without another idiot stepping up to the plate to defend his entirely imaginary foresight and brilliance.

Sorry, but that is silly. Admitting Hitler had considerable political acumen is finding excuses for his numerous later mistakes? Joachim Fest wrote a 1000+ page biography in the 70s, which was, until Ian Kershaw's recent mammoth work, considered the benchmark, the sum and the essence of the historical research of Hitler. There is a certain air of disgust felt throughout the whole book (Fest's family had to suffer under the NS, perhaps that's why). Fest is surely no Hitler-Fan. Yet, he spends an entire chapter ("Hitler und die historische Größe") saying why Hitler was NOT a "great" person of history. Why would Fest have to write such a chapter? Because anyone who studies Hitler will have to admit that he indeed had his moments of genius, and not few of them. Fest asserts Hitler especially excelled at exploiting others' fears and weaknesses.

Hans-Ulrich Wehler, who usually says history is a sum of events NOT connected to the work of the particular acting person (politician/thinker/strategist etc.), but rather governed by over-personal (direct translation, sorry) currents and developments, asserted in his "Deutsche Sozialgeschichte 1914-1949" that Hitler is an individual of "universal historical significance" (=without him, history would have taken an entirely different path). So Hitler, to Wehler, is the one exception in his whole theory of history, is a person unlike any other who ever acted/"made" history.

You could indeed say "horsefeathers" to this opinion of Wehler and Fest. Hans Mommsen also did (not literally though. He also didn't insult Wehler by calling him an idiot). But it seems to me that a majority of serious historians realise Hitler was a monstrous genius, evil, perverted, sick in any imaginable way, but a genius nevertheless.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Hitler was stooopid. Wrap your mind around the concept. [...] Driveling, slobbering, pride rotted the brain idiotic. Your average twelve year old would have shown more sense.

My opinion on this is, if you recall the Caesar discussion, that you tend to narrow your focus on military issues and then draw general conclusions. Saying Hitler was stupid is not only overly simplifying, it is plain wrong. How long did his political career last? And when did he start making mistakes? Your focus is on the war exclusively. You underestimate Hitler. That is a very silly mistake. The radical new right movement in Germany was underestimated as well. Stupid hoodlums, that was the average German's opinion on them. Most of them actually are - the local NPD candidate was recently sentenced for rape (!)- , but recently, there are more and more academics among them. Karlheinz Weißmann e.g. is a historian who advocates the preemptive strike theory (Germany's attack on Russia was a "defensive move", already mentioned in this thread). He truly is a Nazi apologist, one of the most dangerous you could ever imagine, because he doesn't sound like one at first. You complain about people who actually are no Nazi apologists at all, they just have a diverging opinion on Hitler's political skill.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Betting on lipstick as more critical than Panzers the day you attack Russia is stoooopid.

Hitler surely didn't think lipsticks could defeat Russia. You like to twist others' words in their mouths, don't you? Again, you see only the war. Social and political issues are of secondary concern to your historical world. I think John Kettler summed it up very well:

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Hitler deliberately chose not to put the German economy on a war footing, for he feared losing the support of the German people, now accustomed to conquering whole countries in weeks without major impact on themselves personally.

Greetings

Krautman

[Philippe]

I really wish the author of this thread could correct the faulty grammar in the title. It is really annoying to be constantly confronted with an infuriatingly simple SAT Verbal section question every time I glance at the list of CMBB threads.

And since I have an unfair advantage in noticing this kind of thing because my original native language is NOT english, the problem is that the "of" in the title should be "have". The word "of" is not a verb in any language that I am aware of. Honest.

Please do the needful before I turn into even more of a hopeless pedant than I already am.

[NameUsedBefore]

It's a typical mistake. "Could've" sounds a lot like "Could of", of course... Myself, English being my first (and only) language, I see right past it and see it as "Could've" anyway. I can see where the frustration comes from, though.

[John Kettler]

Troops,

Cuirassier could easily fix the title spelling problem, seeing as how he started the thread.

Krautman,

You are obviously a deep reader of some heavy duty books. Checked your profile to learn more, but there was nothing there. Can't complain about that, though, seeing as how I haven't listed anything on mine, either! Care to share a little bit about yourself and your background?

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Great, now we get lectures about how important and influential neo-Nazis are in the German academy, like that has any relevance.

Hitler was stupid not to order economic mobilization when attacking Russia. He failed to do so out of overconfidence, pride, blind conceit.

It is the most elementary sort of precaution and every one major power in WW II understood the need to mobilize the economy for war.

Germany was the first great power to know there was going to be a war and the last to mobilize its economy. Predictably, it therefore lost catastrophically.

This is not a sign of brilliant grand strategy, it is a sign of grand strategy my child nephew could outperform blindfolded.

"But he was good with dogs". "He didn't smoke". "He sure took care of them... no wait, shouldn't bring that up..." Irrelevant, not the subject under discussion.

The only defense put forth of this massive and entirely avoidable mistake so far, is that he "had to" for domestic popularity.

You just deliberately engineered a war of extermination grudge-match to the death with a great power spanning 11 time zones, containing 1/6th of the world's land surface, raw materials, and industial output. Which is a bigger threat? Their army of millions, or German housewives upset about baking with margarine rather than butter?

[Corvidae]

jason,, to your last sentance ,, , Hitler feared the public, Like all opportuinstic politicians ,

Like all self serving, manipulative, exploiters of human gullability. There are a few modern examples of the same thing. I could name a current head of state who would rather destroy several 3rd world countrys than face the risk of even one fat suburbanite having to give up their gas guzzling SUV, I'm sure Hitler was terrified of making a german houswife use margarine, And I've seen some of those german haufraus, GIVE HER THE BUTTER !

[JasonC]

No doubt the frau is formidable, but it was the Red Army that marched into the rubble that used to be Berlin. You people are beyond parody. Giving up 5000 tanks before Stalingrad lost the war. Butter for the home front just got millions of Germans killed, and there wasn't any of it in 1943-5 anyway. If this is genuis, what does pig headed arrogant stupidity look like? I mean, besides the denial by the Fuhrer worshippers.

[Krautman]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Great, now we get lectures about how important and influential neo-Nazis are in the German academy, like that has any relevance.

Well, sorry about straying from the topic. I just recently learned the German Neonazi movement also had supporters with an IQ of above 50, and was shocked about the amount of "think-tanking" and deviously schemed revisionism they do. I can understand if this topic is of no interest to you anglo-saxons. The relevance, however, is how dangerous it is to qualify Nazis as "stupid", which is very easily done when you see them marching in the streets. You got a false impression- usually, German university professors are staunch democrats, at least that's my impression. There is no tolerance for Neonazis at university, especially not among historians.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Hitler was stupid not to order economic mobilization when attacking Russia.

From a merely military viewpoint, you are correct. Guderian would back you up. Yet in my opinion you fail to get the larger picture. As you know, Hitler had these struggles with his Generals all the time and complained about their ignorance of politics.

Originally posted by JasonC:

This is not a sign of brilliant grand strategy, it is a sign of grand strategy my child nephew could outperform blindfolded.

"But he was good with dogs". "He didn't smoke". "He sure took care of them... no wait, shouldn't bring that up..." Irrelevant, not the subject under discussion.

Hollow polemics. Occasionally, I am slightly inclined towards the impression that you do not want to discuss, but merely to lecture, and people to nod their heads in agreement.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The only defense put forth of this massive and entirely avoidable mistake so far, is that he "had to" for domestic popularity.

The only explanation put forth of this massive and entirely avoidable mistake so far, is that he was "stupid". The provided sources backing this up were, uh, scant. I am sure there are historians who share your viewpoint, you must have read them to develop your opinion. Why not give sources?

Originally posted by JasonC:

You just deliberately engineered a war of extermination grudge-match to the death with a great power spanning 11 time zones, containing 1/6th of the world's land surface, raw materials, and industial output. Which is a bigger threat? Their army of millions, or German housewives upset about baking with margarine rather than butter?

A big threat is inner opposition. Hitler had himself witnessed the events of 1918 and did not want to repeat this situation. In "Mein Kampf", there are iirc whole chapters on the importance of keeping up the population's will to fight, and about the mistakes Wilhelm II made in this respect. There are several social improvements the NSDAP introduced to avoid rebellion (e.g. financial aid for soldiers' families, which was not available in 1914-18), backing up this theory about Hitler's fear of inner opposition.

John - I'm a student, and will hopefully be a teacher for History and English at a German "Gymnasium" (=5th to 12th or 13th grade). The focus at our schools is basically on social/economic history (in the lower classes, of course, it's just the main events).

Greetings

Krautman

[John Kettler]

Krautman,

I'd say, then, you're off to a great start.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Overconfidence, due to pride, aka victory disease. No further explanation is necessary. He screwed the pooch because he thought he was invincible. His head swelled until his brains popped out.

[Kapitanherr]

To JasonC,

Despite the rhetoric, I agree with you more than I disagree. No one is saying Hitler wasn't inept, vacillating, and in the end an amphetamine dependent pananoiac (in part thanks to his personally chosen physician, Morell, who had a rather low professional reputation, wrote his brief notes in pencil, and gave Hitler placebo glucose injections, in addition to everything else). After the departure of Brauchitsch, and Halder Hitler appropriated their responsibility and became, ludicrously, his own Commander in Chief. However, even Hitler wasn't always wrong -- like a stopped watch which is still accurate twice a day. Citizens everywhere became enamored of their leaders, for example Franco, the Stalin cult, and in the US, FDR who probably would have been elected to a 5th term.

However, it doesn't teach us anything to stop there. How should Hitler's political and military opponents have conducted themselves in order to stave off the resulting disaster? How are we in the West to prevent another military dictatorship from likeminded intentions? The LA Times magazine lists the "20 worst" dictatorships currently in power, 3 of which are former Soviet "Republics".

Re: PAK weapons, Gudgin agrees that HEAT was developed for 75mm and 88mm use, but these were lower velocity, and less accurate at range. The Germans preferred standard high velocity AP rounds so that they could start hitting Red Army tanks at over 1000 meters. But see Biderman, "In Deadly Combat," p. 76-77. He describes close in work w/ a 37mm PAK and "special ammunition" against heaviy armour. His 132nd ID unit employed that weapon throughout much of the war.

Every military forum I've been in has these same discussions, rather heated at times. Hopefully, the best contributors stay on line, and everyone benefits.

[JasonC]

"Citizens everywhere became enamored of their leaders"

Anyone "enamored" of Adolph Hitler in this day and age is one sick pup. If you meant back then, it kinda undermines the argument that they needed lipstick and butter more than Panzer IV longs. Not that there is much to undermine.

As for how to do better, um, it is sort of the subject of the thread, and starts with "don't attack Russia without mobilizing the economy". You don't have to attack Russia. If you do, you mobilize the economy. Main argument.

Secondary ones - if you don't mobilize the economy on the day of the invasion, mobilize the economy when Typhoon stalls in front of Moscow.

Don't shoot the messengers, listen to them. Removing Guderian and Rundstadt etc was stupid. Mobilize the economy instead. (Visualize fall 1942 with Rundstadt rather than Paulus and 3000 extra tanks, including a full tank army commanded by Guderian in reserve along the Don).

Don't declare war on the US in a futile attempt to get Japan and Russia to go to war. Oh and if you are already at war with Russia, and aren't clearly going to win in one season anymore, and in addition you gratuitously declare war on the wealthiest country on the planet? Wait for it. Wait for it. Mobilize the freaking economy already!

Don't tell Paulus to stand and get killed in the Stalingrad pocket, tell him to break out. Or just listen to the messengers again, and let Manstein run the op with unity of command, instead of overriding him without knowing a darn thing.

Listen to Guderian and don't attack at Kursk, standing on the defensive instead, with mobile reserves.

Don't tell everybody and his brother to stand and die when multiple tank corps close behind them, as though it is just weak infiltrating infantry and it will all get better if you just ignore it.

When the generals tell you to shorten the line and prepare fixed positions, shorten the line and prepare fixed positions. When they tell you to create reserves, create reserves. And don't instantly throw them away on another grandious death ride counterattack.

Don't send an extra army to die in Tunisia where it can't be supplied, bring the existing one back.

Don't divide command up into a dozen different fiefdoms so nobody can make the real military trade offs.

Don't send the last reserves you have against the Americans, stop the Russians.

Don't order the demolition of all the infrastucture of Germany, just because you are a sore loser. Don't order useless guerilla fighting to continue when you know it is lost, so much so your ready to kill yourself.

Don't waste gobs of resources on feudal baronies and burgeoning bureaucracies like Goerings LW field divisions and the SS, rationalize allocation through the Heer. Rationalize production by letting Speer run all of it, not a corner of it. Don't waste gobs of resources murdering everybody you can get your hands on. Treat conquered areas as independent states instead of slaughtering people uselessly, raising enemy will to fight to stratospheric levels.

Hitler was a nutcase in addition to evil, and the German army would have functioned much better without him. Effective intelligence equals cleverness minus self-importance, and his was negative because the second term was infinity. And no he didn't understand the economic factors the generals supposedly didn't, he just used that as an excuse to shut them up, while in fact he was screwing it up royally.

[Richie]

As Jason points out, Hitler had the direct input from 'some of' the best generals and military minds that were around at that time, in his service and at his disposal.

He stopped listening.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Krautman]

Thank you, Mr Kettler, for the kind words.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Don't declare war on the US in a futile attempt to get Japan and Russia to go to war. Oh and if you are already at war with Russia, and aren't clearly going to win in one season anymore, and in addition you gratuitously declare war on the wealthiest country on the planet? Wait for it. Wait for it. Mobilize the freaking economy already!

You are applying the measurement parameters of a sane human being and a politician with a firm populace behind him to Hitler. Hitler was different, and his early political career is full of examples that it can be an advantage acting in a way that no one can know in advance what your next move will be (=acting like no sane politician would; risking it all).

On his declaration of war against the US, there is a theory by Sebastian Haffner. [Please note: The following might sound very offensive to some, but for the sake of being objective, I put the reader into Hitler's mind, if you can say so. Hitler's National Socialism is nihilistic, sick, abhorrent, and as incomprehensible to me as his antisemitism.]

According to Sebastian Haffner, Hitler's ideology can be summed up like this:

1. History is nothing but the events within the endless struggle between races [btw, compare Marx' "Kommunistisches Manifest"- exchange "races" with "classes", then the wording will be almost exactly the same] for world domination. Only one race will prevail in the end, all others must perish or exist as slaves. Peaceful coexistence is impossible. This struggle is good, because survival of the fittest [the "master race"] is nature's intention and final goal.

2. The Jews are not taking part in this struggle, but are rather infiltrating the other races in order to weaken them and make them fight each other, which is evil. [one of the ideology's many logical errors: fighting each other was, after all, the races' purpose of existence as seen in 1.]

Therefore, the 2 "logical" aims of Hitler's reign can be inferred from the 2 main points of his ideology:

1) Since only one race will prevail, it is clear that this race must achieve world domination. Germany, therefore, must conquer and dominate the world, nothing less.

2) The Jews weaken the master race, therefore, they must be destroyed.

These two aims were Hitler's reason to go to war. All other particular military + political reasons to go to war (Avoiding bancruptcy through plunder, conquering the SU's oil fields etc., I'm sure Jason will intervene) can be deducted from these two aims. Obviously, the most important aim is 1), because 2) can be achieved after 1), while it is not possible to do 2) without 1).

That is why Hitler went to war. Yet, in november/december 1941, he realised the war could not be won. Aim 1), world domination, was abandoned. Aim 2), the genocide, was left. Hitler went to action: During the Wannsee conference (in January 1942, immediately following Hitler's realising the war was lost!) the genocide was planned in detail, and began right afterwards. All Hitler needed now was time for the genocide. Therefore his "hold position" orders to the armed forces.

Since the war could not be won anyway, why shouldn't Hitler declare war on the US, a country basically already at war with Germany, a country he deeply resented? It was a personal satisfaction for him to do so. Don't ask for objective reasons or for smart vs. stupid when dealing with Hitler. Jason, your military science is a logical science, while National Socialism is the opposite, it's chaos and nihilism pressed into an appealing (for some) form.

Greetings

Krautman

[JasonC]

Horsefeathers from start to finish. In the summer of 1942, Hitler still thought he was winning easily. "The Russian is finished". In fact he thought the same up until the day the tank corps jaws closed behind 6th Army, and then spent the better part of a week in "command shock", unable to accept what was happening.

Moreover, they actually do order full economic mobilization after Stalingrad. The sharp difference between the reaction to the battle of Moscow - sack commanders and hold at all costs - and Stalingrad - let Manstein save AG South while ordering full economic mobilization - reflects Hitler finally recognizing that German might lose the war.

Nor was Hitler simply trying to buy time with hold at all cost orders, he was trying to replicate the success of the winter of 1941-42 with his magical formula, dating from his own front experiences in WW I and his ideological conviction that will was decisive in modern combat (for which, see Junger on Verdun e.g.).

Hitler declared war on the US in an effort to influence the battle of Moscow, which he thought at the time could win the war in one final maximum effort. Japan's entry at the battle's height occupied the US obviously. But Hitler also hoped that Japan would reciprocate his action, declaring war on Russia in return for Germany's declaration of war against the US. He hoped the threat of a Japanese attack in the Russian far east would freeze Russia's Siberian army in place and prevent it from transfering west to intervene in the battle of Moscow.

In fact, most of them had already left for the west, and others went as the train system allowed. Russia discounted the possibility of a Japanese attack not because they thought it impossible, but because they were less concerned about even a successful Japanese attack in the far east, than in loss of the battle of Moscow. They correctly sent everything they could to the decisive point. Japan declined to add to its enemy list immediately. The German army was pushed back from the Moscow approaches. Leaving Germany with nothing in return for its gift to Roosevelt and Churchill.

Hitler discounted the role of the US because he expected it to help Britain and Russia only economically, and thought it was already doing so full tilt. He also suffered delusions about supposed US "softness" and inability to conduct land warfare. None of which was remotely the case. LL expanded enourmously after formal US entry, and full US economic mobilization raised US military output by a factor of 4 in short order. Moreover, 3/4 of this output was focused on Germany. And included mobilization of 10 million men and 50 divisions sent to Europe. The Germans remained contempuous of the importance of the US army up until the defeat in Tunisia.

But thanks for sharing the Nazi ideology excuses. It is always amusing to see what pretzels the Hitler excuse factory comes up with - they might be taught in a topology course on the theory of knots.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Effective intelligence equals cleverness minus self-importance, and his was negative because the second term was infinity. And no he didn't understand the economic factors the generals supposedly didn't, he just used that as an excuse to shut them up, while in fact he was screwing it up royally.

*snort* am i the only one?

[Krautman]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Horsefeathers from start to finish. In the summer of 1942, Hitler still thought he was winning easily.

Uh, I thought you said Hitler was merely stupid. Now you award him the capacity to see into the future. The fact that he thought the war was lost in 1941 does not mean he thought the same half a year later. But 1941, he couldn't know how 1942 would be. If you read a Hitler biography, you'll notice the extreme degree of his world outlook - it is either total victory or utter doom. The latter was the case in december 1941. Half a year later - different story.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The sharp difference between the reaction to the battle of Moscow - sack commanders and hold at all costs - and Stalingrad - let Manstein save AG South while ordering full economic mobilization - reflects Hitler finally recognizing that German might lose the war.

Finally, you come up with a theory which is indeed based on evidence and really worth considering. Congratulations. However, I don't think it entirely unproves Haffner's version. Do you really believe he thought he could win the war against the whole industrialised world? This is not a rethorical question, I really wonder if Hitler believed in a German victory before Stalingrad and possibly even before Kursk, which is by Müller + Ueberschär, IIRC, called the more deceisive battle.

Originally posted by JasonC:

[...] he was trying to replicate the success of the winter of 1941-42 with his magical formula, dating from his own front experiences in WW I and his ideological conviction that will was decisive in modern combat (for which, see Junger on Verdun e.g.).

Yes, agreed. Good point.

Originally posted by JasonC:

But thanks for sharing the Nazi ideology excuses. It is always amusing to see what pretzels the Hitler excuse factory comes up with - they might be taught in a topology course on the theory of knots.

It seems to me you have not read important parts of my previous post. I can't see any positive evaluation of NS or revisionism in it. Calling the historians I quote or me and idiot and someone who talks nonsense does not offend me, I rather feel sorry for you that you are unable to expand your own horizon by ideas people much brighter than you will ever be came up with. But alluding to Wehler, Fest, Aly, Haffner or me as a Nazi is not only absolutely silly and showing ignorance of huge extent, I also take personal offense in your calling me a part of the "Hitler excuse factory". Do you actually realise what kind of people you are comparing me to? Stop that. Look at yourself: Your constant whining "O, why didn't he improve the economy? O why didn't he build more tanks, he would have won! O why didn't he listen to Guderian?" could very easily be interpreted as wishful thinking...

Obviously, besides John Kettler and me, the majority shares your viewpoint that Hitler was merely stupid and that he did not utilise social improvements to charm the populace [differing theories are Nazi apologetics, after all]. Probably, in order to gain at least something from this discussion, we might agree that Hitler was no incarnation of common sense.

No greetings this time

Krautman, the forum's Übernazi

[Edit: Fest and Haffner both had to suffer under the NS regime. In case your "pretzels the Hitler excuse factory comes up with" was an allusion to Haffner's real name, which was Raimund Pretzel: He had to change his name in order to protect his family which was still in Germany. If you didn't know that, your sentence was silly. If you did, then it was mean.]

[ January 23, 2006, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Krautman ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Krautman:

Obviously, besides John Kettler and me, the majority shares your viewpoint that Hitler was merely stupid and that he did not utilise social improvements to charm the populace [differing theories are Nazi apologetics, after all].

JasonC is intelligent and well read person who unfortunately prefers lecturing and endless prose to productive discussion. most times he is right on the spot, but sometimes he really blows it. his main weaknesses are that he can't admit to having flaws in his arguments (even when he knows he is wrong) and that he doesn't appear to have much sense of what is far too offending talk.

i myself find it funny that he calls me a neo-Nazi and i suggest you take it with a laugh as well.

his main argument on the subject is itself correct to some extent, but he incorrectly tries to make it a Final Solution that Explains It All against known facts and logic (time machine thinking).

[Krautman]

[JasonC]

Yes he thought he was winning throughout up until right after Stalingrad. All the commanders he sacked in 1941 he sacked for defeatism and losing their nerve. Maintaining nerve for him meant continued unshakable conviction that Germany was fated to win the war, which willing strongly enough would make so. Without needing such extraneous supports as actually mobilizing the economy.

If you want out of the Hitler excuse factory, all you have to do is stop making excuses for Hitler's mistakes. As long as you make excuses for Hitler's mistakes and pretend they weren't mistakes, you are by that fact a member of the Hitler excuse factory. Hitler himself never had to come up with so many convoluted excuses. "It was rational to lose the war because all he wanted to do was kill all the Jews". Talk about moving the goalposts lol.

You seem to find it opinionated or strident - in fact I am merely amused at people like you. I find you a figure out of high comedy. You don't know when you are ridiculous. You don't know how silly you look reaching for yet another (tenth) explanation that is meant to show Hitler didn't really have a choice or didn't really make a mistake or wasn't really a terrible commander.

URC at least started by acknowledging that Hitler screwed the pooch by underestimating the Russians. He just thinks that was somehow easy to do or rational. (Twice my population, a sixth of the world's land surface, graveyard of empire builders time out of mind - sure it'll be easy!)

As though commanders always plan on their enemy's being as weak as they hope, and not adapting to the information they were wrong for over a year after it becomes apparent, is par for the course. Intel can be wrong, but it takes pride to sack genuises reporting one's errors and refuse to acknowledge them until nothing can be done.

The point in dispute, in case everyone forgot, the irrational piece of craziness I am supposedly some nutjob for maintaining, is that Germany lost the war in Russia by underestimating the Russians through entirely avoidable, pride-induced overconfidence. Why this is even remotely controversial, is the real mystery.

[Christian Knudsen]

Jason, I find your intransigence intriguing - I do not doubt or contradict your basic point that to not fully mobilize early or to prepare only for the best outcome was folly of the highest order (And a damn good thing for all of us, too!).

Yet I wonder why you are so vehemently opposed to those who attempt to discover a rationality behind Hitler's actions. I think that to dismiss Hitler as a nutcase, etc., while not too far off base in terms of labelling, is incorrect. Was Hitler a nutcase? You bet. Should that lead us to stop attempting to attempting to figure out his internal rationales and motivations? No.

I do not believe that Hitler was so far gone as a nutcase that he was operating without an internal rationale or logic system, however skewed. I don't think that suggesting possible contributing factors to stupid decisions subtracts from the validity of your original point, after all. I doubt anyone here thinks that Hitler was correct in giving primacy to societal comforts over war production before 1943-44; but to discount the idea that potential unrest and resistance to the war was a worry for the Nazis and contributed to the decision seems to limit a more developed understanding of why the decision was made. Admittedly this 'why' falls outside the scope of the original question, but that is still no reason not to try and answer it.

[Krautman]

Originally posted by JasonC:

You seem to find it opinionated or strident - in fact I am merely amused at people like you. I find you a figure out of high comedy. You don't know when you are ridiculous. You don't know how silly you look reaching for yet another (tenth) explanation that is meant to show Hitler didn't really have a choice or didn't really make a mistake or wasn't really a terrible commander.

This shows Jason is the silly one, because I said none of the above. There are those who believe in what they accept to be the truth and those who merely believe in what they want to believe, no matter what they are told. Fascists, communists and fundamentalists are also in the latter category. Apart from some members that have quickly been banned, Jason is the closest to a Nazi in this forum of whom I know of. But it's rethorics, not reason, that wins the day. Ok, not my field. Since Jason proudly mentioned the original point in dispute, this is it:

Originally posted by Krautman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

When the Germans fully mobilized their own economy, they produced just as many tanks per month as the Russians did. They just didn't get around to doing so until 1944. Why?

Because they were overconfident and dumb, and did not bother pulling out the stops until after Stalingrad, after which it took them some time to ramp output.

Probably it was not only [not ONLY] overconfidence and stupidity. Götz Aly characterises NS Germany as a "Gefälligkeitsdiktatur" (~"dictatorship of accomodation"), meaning that Hitler based his reign on keeping people at bay by offering a limited amount of luxury, social security etc. Therefore the late shift to wartime production had a certain reason from Hitler's perspective [FROM HITLER'S PERSPECTIVE].</font>

[Krautman]

Christian Knudsen, good, constructive post. I took somewhat the opposite position from Jason's. Usually, if there are two extremes, the middle way is the closest to the truth.

Greetings

Krautman