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

[Krautman]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Feldtrompeter - I had not come across Haffner's analysis before (I blame Krautman for not fixing his links earlier ), so thanks for that. It makes a lot of sense, but hinges on how much rationality you are willing to grant Adolf.

All the best

Andreas

Yeah these links. I bow my head in shame.

Yet- I don't get it, my post in which the whole Haffner theory is elaborated on is on another page (4) than the post in which the links are given (5), so at least the annoying requirement to scroll rightwards shouldn't have kept you. However, nice to know not all forum members consider Haffner to be spreading Nazi propaganda.

Until then,

Krautman

[Andreas]

Hi

I overlooked that post, because I was on a week-long work trip when you posted it.

Next time, please inquire about my schedule first before making posts that you feel maybe of interest for me, to ensure I won't miss them. I will however forgive you for this time, since I am of the magnanimous type today. Do not err again and consider yourself warned.

Alles Gute

Andreas

[Krautman]

I shalt never again neglect Thine noble time schedule, my liege. Please, mighty Lord, accept Thine humble servant's apologies.

Man, that is style! "magnanimous"? I'll have to look that up. A derivate from Latin, I presume.

[Andreas]

Not showing any bounds in my magnanimity, here is the explanation you want.

magnanimous

adjective FORMAL

very kind and generous towards an enemy or someone you have defeated

I forgive you also for your youthful ignorance of the matters of language.

Alles Gute

Andreas

[Krautman]

I just love formal language. Since there actually is a "Dictionary of American Slang", probably they even sell a dictionary of formal, old-timey, or Oscar-Wildese language somewhere.

[Andreas]

I love this word ever since I have seen Italian comedians perform 'Fascisti su Marte' (Fascists on Mars), a series of sketches about a Fascist invasion of Mars on Italian TV that was squarely aimed at Berlusconi (so they cancelled it quickly, I believe). It was very funny. In the episode I saw the Captain in command plays with a football and knocks over a bust of Mussolini. The voice in the off then goes off on how desastrous it is, and the punishments awaiting the Captain, before it negates it all and says 'Il Duce is magnanimous. He forgives and forgets.', while the poor Captain is sweating awaiting his punishment for the act of sacrilege he committed.

I guess you had to be there.

All the best

Andreas

[Sivodsi]

I came across 'magnanimity' in high school english studying Shaker's Antony and Cleopatra. "Antony is Magnanimous" - now deal with it.

If nothing else it taught us one more word.

Now waht the hlle was the subject of this discussion?

[Grimly Fiendish]

Andreas

Just a comment, this time decidely off-topic though my original points were not: I assure you that the whole US is and was as racist as the American South. Just see recent books like Sundown Towns, and note the "race riots" as far North as Delaware and New York. No matter the atrocity, everyone always points to some other place where "things are worse." Apologists merely make a profession of it.

[zmoney]

Dave do you live in the US. Because if not all you say is speculation based upon what you've read. I'm not denying that racism exist in the US or else where, but to equate someones own personal stupid racism to the way the Nazi government treated the Jews is outrageous. For some reason people want to tie everything bad in the world in with the US and its tiresome. Do you honestly think that if the Jim Crow laws didn't exist that Hitler wouldn't of had the same stupid laws against the Jews?

[Grimly Fiendish]

Yes, I do. And I've tried to be careful not to equate the run-of-the-mill institutional/personal notions of racial superiority that were/are everywhere in the West with what Hitler did. What he did was to take that mythology and twist it and elevate it to another plane entirely. No one else tried it. And yes, without a model he would have come up with his own laws. But Jim Crow showed him what he could do now, today (in the early 1930s), without any resistance or protest. Piece of cake. The Holocaust he had to hide.

An interesting debate is bubbling up here, that is somewhat new to me, between (a) Hitler used racism to bootstrap himself to dominion of Europe and ( Hitler intended to dominate Europe just so he could carry out his racist programs. And © both.

The effect of this on the stupid vs insane question is probably not of much interest to the military minds who began this thread with questions about production and oil. We know Hitler's priorities were suspect from the point of view of the General Staff. But what was Hitler's intent with Barbarossa? Did he really want a quick knockout? or did he want a long, slow, death-hump that would force the complacent German people to transform themselves into a warrior race that would perform superhuman feats against the lower orders and usher in the 1000-Year Reich, or else lead to their glorious immolation and ascent to Valhalla? Just speculating, but this Haffner guy seems to think that when Hitler saw he couldn't achieve one goal he was satisfied with the next. And yet he came closest to achieving the third, not the first or second.

In terms of the logic involved, consider the war in Iraq, where there are VERY superficial parallels to the Barbarossa summer campaign: it was supposed to be quick and easy, a lightning strike like Barbarossa but on a smaller scale that would impress the enemy into surrender. Thus the US didn't send enough men, didn't send enough Humvee armor, etc. etc., not for the long haul.

Was this because (a) the opponent and postwar situation were underestimated and optimism controlled the battle plan? or ( because the US wanted to show the world, meaning American citizens, Europe, the 3rd world, and Al Qaeda, that we could do it alone with both hands tied, that we could take casualties and still win, that the American people are not soft and squeamish and would happily accept more dead as the cost of victory?

(These speculations can be found in a number of places in the media, and are based on the neocons' own writings.)

The quesiton of stupidity vs ideology, in this case, pales beside that of error vs intent. I'm not suggesting Hitler never intended to win, but it's something to chew on.

[JasonC]

Take it out to the general forum. None of this has the least grounding in historical reality.

As for the idea that Germany needed US examples, it is a touching instance of the fixation too many in the US have on all things US, and utter nonsense. You might as well trace it to the laws of Manu.

If you want any idea of the real historical sources (which lie in indigenous European ideology on the one hand and in 19th century political practice of European empires abroad on the other), read Arendt.

As for what Hitler expected and wanted, the wonderful thing about having actual historical sources is we don't have to (nor do we get to) make these things up. He thought he would knock them out rapidly and successfully in a single season. "Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will fall to the ground". Speculation otherwise is Hitler excuse factory nonsense.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Jason, I trust you on CM advice. But you'll have to explain (a) how the work of professional historians is not grounded in historical reality (unless of course you agree with it) and ( how exploring the idea that Hitler had a death wish as well as being a drugged-up, lunatic, egomaniacal house painter in way over his head is an apology for him. Others may dribble or dabble, but for me you're rapidly becoming the least credible forum monkey on this thread, because you seem to think with your knee reflexes.

You've read carelessly and missed my point, which is that, for Hitler, Barbarossa may have held no great risk even if it led to failure. That's not irrelevant to this thread. Any normal, sane person, as you have said, would have seen the risk and prepared for it.

I've heard all the old histories. I'm interested in this thread because I want to hear new ideas. Not your silly negativism.

There goes that whistle. It's quittin time at the Hitler Excuse factory!

[LongLeftFlank]

Enough material in this thread to write a book on the subject that's much better than anything I've yet seen.

I don't post all that much on this forum, but my observations are usually along the lines of "the line between good/evil, insane/sane, brilliant/ stupid, brave/foolish, is very narrow indeed, and we're all at some risk to stray across it."

In spite of JasonC's prickly namecalling, which I suppose is the price we pay for reading his well-informed insights free here, I suspect that his bottom line assessment that "it's the megalomania, stupid" is the most accurate evaluation of Hitler's state of mind in 1940-41.

BigDuke's post and some of the others describe some of the logical constructs that Hitler might have used to backstop his prejudices (others cited seem to me as less likely to have come to his notice, even if they occurred to others around him).

On the other hand, this profoundly selfish and evil man was human, all too human and occasionally betrayed moments of rationality and even self-doubt....

Guderian: "Why does the Fuhrer want to attack in the East at all this year?"

Hitler: "I know, the idea of attacking makes me go hot and cold too."

And as described by Speer, Guderian and others, as defeat loomed Hitler was prone to fits of inertia, indifference, loss of interest in offensives that had stalled, and what's called "repair service behavior" -- an obsessive interest in micromanaging small details you can still control while ignoring the big picture that you've given up on -- to wit, the "sixteen or seventeen Tigers" anecdote from the bunker quoted by Toland.

All are situation-induced forms of "insanity" to which even well-trained professionals are prone to slip into under certain conditions; I've witnessed many in business, albeit not with millions of lives at stake.

My favorite business psychologist, Dietrich Doerner, describes many of these behaviors in his excellent book, "The Logic of Failure", which I strongly recommend.

[JasonC]

"Jim Crow showed him what he could do now"

Ahistorical nonsense, leading to my "laws of Manu" comment.

"But what was Hitler's intent with Barbarossa?"

Ahistorical speculation, his intent was to win in one season and thereby remove England's last potential continental ally.

As for how Iraq is just like Barbarossa, when Zarqawi wins a battle of Stalingrad and a battle of Kursk, tell us about it. Nobody has laid a glove on the Americans in Iraq.

None of the rest of the comments are worth any reasonable person's time.

[Richie]

...drugged-up, lunatic, egomaniacal house painter in way over his head...

You know, as a former house painter who used to smoke lot's of drugs and party hard I could easily be offended by such flippant banter...

[Grimly Fiendish]

heh!

Jason, take a look at the name of this thread. Ignore the bad spelling and think hard on it. Then tell me how I'm not allowed to speculate freely here. I don't think logic is on your side this time.

We all enjoy a bit of namecalling now and then, but really, are we to believe this forum is crawling with Hitler fans and SS fetishists? That kind of namecalling we don't need so much of. Let's stick with "idiot," "pantywaist," and "chronic masturbator" . . . those are good enough for my fiancee (bah-dump).

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

Anytime you're trying to state with certainty what went on in someone's head, you're going out on a limb. That's all I'm saying.

OK - so I didnt' say "In my opinion..", but IMO everything stated on here is by default opinion anyway - I assumed the poster I was replying to was stating an opinion too!

making a statement fact on here has a high threshold to be overcome, and if I was to state somethign as a fact I would say so specifically.

I

[JasonC]

You weren't speculating on whether Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union, you were speculating on Hitler's intentions when he attacked Russia. A question we know the actual historical answer to, without benefit of your brilliant speculations about slow humping.

His intention was to defeat Russia in one season so as to deny Britain its last possible continental ally. If you disagree, have a seance and take it up with the man himself, he is the one who said it (repeatedly, in confidence privately, etc). Which is rather dispositive when the subject is "intention".

You also weren't speculating about how Germany might have defeated the Soviet Union when you alleged that Jim Crow in the US was some model or assurance for Nazis.

You also weren't speculating about how Germany might have defeated the Soviet Union when you shared your less than entirely cogent analysis of the war in Iraq, in which a rag tag militia is cast as the Red Army redux, and a few thousand causalties over 3 years of low intensity warfare is cast as the Eastern Front.

What you were doing - tendentious politics - belongs out in the general forum, not in here. It would also be balderdash out there, but that is secondary.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

Guderian: "Why does the Fuhrer want to attack in the East at all this year?"

Hitler: "I know, the idea of attacking makes me go hot and cold too."

Just to clarify, that quote refers to Kursk, IIRC, not Barbarossa. Jason is quite right that the expectation was that the campaign in the east would be over within months, if not weeks (IIRC, Halder's famous entry in his diary in early July 1941 saying that they had basically won already shows the idea it was based on quite neatly). The question raised by Haffner's explanation does only come up with the loss of the initiative in the east, the threat of destruction hanging over AG Centre, and the entry of the US in the war.

Until well into November 1941, the Nazi leadership was quite clearly believing that they had wrapped things up.

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

While I'm personally unaware of the effect, if any, of the Jim Crow laws on Hitler's antiSemitic plans, I have read that he used what the American government did, generation after generation, to the Native Americans as the model for his Final Solution.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ February 09, 2006, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[painfbat]

= = = but really, are we to believe this forum is crawling with Hitler fans and SS fetishists= = =

Yes, that's the way the "Gedankepolizei" keeps us in line and ignorent.

To bad the "Gedankepolizei" do not realize that their way of discussing drives people to places were they can speak out. And we wouldn't want them to be at those places, do we??

[Becket]

The theme here is that the Germans - at all levels, not just Hitler - were poorly informed as to the extent of Soviet reserves in 1941, 1942 and 1943. The idea that Hitler wanted to induce Gotterdamrung must rely to some extent on him having better knowledge of Soviet resources than anyone in the German army actually had.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Jason, you are tedious. But you are very good at intentionally misunderstanding other poster's remarks so you can always faithfully return to your own repetitous chant. Yes, Hitler was stupid, we know that. The funny thing you don't even realize is that all I'm doing is adding to your own argument, not trying to trump it.

How could Barbarossa have succeeded when it was ordered by someone who could accept glorious defeat almost as easily as glorious success? It could not have succeeded, because the very things that made it possible doomed it. That means potential alternative military decisions may not be as central to the discussion as you insist. I have to wonder even about military intelligence. If the General Staff had told the Fuhrer flat out, There are 10 extra tank armies out there waiting for us, would he have listened? We can't know the answer, but we can have fun SPECULATING.

When he dreamed up Barbarossa, he saw glorious victory. When defeat loomed, he saw glorious defeat. This is not the thought process of a winner. The timing of events is not critical to this "analysis."

Similarly, Jason, my comparison of Barbarossa to Iraq was not what you think it was. It was meant to illuminate how easily even people who are not demonstrably insane can be tempted by ideology to do really stupid things with other peoples' lives. If we can do it, imagine how easy it was for Hitler to be "stupid." There is a context to his "stupidity."

You are correct that my comment about Jim Crow was not speculation.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

Jason, you are tedious. But you are very good at intentionally misunderstanding other poster's remarks so you can always faithfully return to your own repetitous chant. Yes, Hitler was stupid, we know that. The funny thing you don't even realize is that all I'm doing is adding to your own argument, not trying to trump it.

Hitler wasn't stupid, his decisions were. He was a gambler, and a social Darwinist, and probably a nihilist, but I don't think he was an idiot.

How could Barbarossa have succeeded when it was ordered by someone who could accept glorious defeat almost as easily as glorious success?

Hitler accepted defeat? And called it "glorious"? Why did he kill officers who lost battles, then?

It could not have succeeded, because the very things that made it possible doomed it. That means potential alternative military decisions may not be as central to the discussion as you insist. I have to wonder even about military intelligence. If the General Staff had told the Fuhrer flat out, There are 10 extra tank armies out there waiting for us, would he have listened? We can't know the answer, but we can have fun SPECULATING.

Beating one's head against a wall is fun for some people too...has it left a mark yet?

When he dreamed up Barbarossa, he saw glorious victory. When defeat loomed, he saw glorious defeat.

Where do you get this from? When the SS divisions in Austria refused to attack, he stripped their cuff titles from them. When the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen was captured, he executed the officers in charge without a fair trial. Where is the glory? He ordered the extinction of the German people because they had failed him; Speer thankfully disobeyed.

This is not the thought process of a winner. The

timing of events is not critical to this "analysis."

Similarly, Jason, my comparison of Barbarossa to Iraq was not what you think it was. It was meant to illuminate how easily even people who are not demonstrably insane can be tempted by ideology to do really stupid things with other peoples' lives. If we can do it, imagine how easy it was for Hitler to be "stupid." There is a context to his "stupidity."

Hitler wasn't insane, nor stupid.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Thanks, Michael. Yes, it is starting to hurt!

Essentially, I agree with you: "insane" and 'stupid' are insufficient to end the discussion. At best (from the perspective of the stupid/insane argument), he was both but in a fascinating way. At worst, he was a gifted amateur with very interesting thought processes and ideological blinders to those processes.

i admit that to go too far down the psychoanalytic road risks making too much of him. But i do think the same facts can be intelligently interpreted in different ways. For example, punishing his officers suggests a personal frustration with people who could not accomplish an impossible task he thought was easy, but it is not out of line with a disgust with the German people for being soft and needing only to be driven harder to achieve victory. If both interpretations are confirmed, we have a fuller picture than if we satisfied ourselves with one.

So I don't think that the original question can be entirely answered by military history, as though it's just a matter of processing the mountains of hard evidence and analyzing his decisions from a rational perspective. That's just a beginning.

(BTW, this thread is getting long, but Feldtrompeter was quoting Haffner a while back. That's where I got the Gotterdammerung from. Plus, if Hitler did consciously shift his priorities from battlefield victory to the Final Solution, then, rationally, that's a kind of acceptance of defeat whether he raged at his officers or not.)

Also, SO, I apologize if I overreacted to your intial comments.