Von Paulus

[JudgeDredd]

Was Paulus a yes man? Was it he who lost the battle for Stalingrad by blindly putting faith in Hitler? Was it he who was responsible for the capture and ultimate death of the majority of the 6th Army?

I was watching a documentary last night (read the book...excellent reading) and it just made me think....with my time in the army, there were alot of YES men...and they tended to be the promoted people...regardless of actual military knowledge in some cases.

Seems to me he sent his men to certain capture and ultimate death by ignoring what he saw on the ground. He knew the Russians had surrounded him and, while he still had a formidable fighting force, that force was pretty useless without the ammunition to show how formidable it could be. Also, when Von Mansteins recsue mission was within 30km of the trapped 6th Army, he "apparently" refused a requeste by Manstein to fight through to them on the basis that Hitler told him to stay put.

Just wanted some more "informed" opinions on this.

I personally take the view that he put his life before that of his men (being as he knew disobeying orders from Hitler would result in his execution). That is purely based on what I read in 1 book and what I saw on a couple of documentaries...so it's in no way a definitive take on the demise of the 6th Army

[Kung Karl]

I agree mostly. He should have done what manstein said and tried to break out. But on the other hand, a military man should follow orders. If everyone disobeyed orderes they did not like then the entire army would collapse and the war would be lost instanly. One needs to have faith in ones superior.

But what we know today, he did wrong.

[EricGuitarJames]

Based on what I've read and seen, Von Paulus was out of his depth and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once 6th Army had its head in the meatgrinder of Stalingrad Paulus lacked the ability to either extricate it or break the jaws. Ultimate responsibility for the disaster has to go to Hitler though.

[Error in 0]

It cannot be stressed how deeply rooted the instinct of following orders was in Wehrmacht. They had a several hundred years of prussian tradition and ideal they followed. And for good reasons, as that usually ensured results. Such a system, however, rely on good commanders and good commands. Von Paulus was in trouble. Every instinct refused him to disobey Hitlers orders (indeed, he had sworn to follow them), and Hitler basically told him what HOUSES to attack. An unbeliviable situation for any commander. However, not breaking out to Manstein was probably just due to bad jugdement (and cowardice?). If Paulus was out of his deapths or not, I dont know. I would like to hear why you believe that Eric.


JT

[*Lava*]

Hi!

I always find it interesting reading these threads. I know it not intentional, but it seems like somehow people want to figure how the Nazi's could have done something different and won the war.

I'm glad they lost.

Ray (alias Lava)

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Lava
I always find it interesting reading these threads. I know it not intentional, but it seems like somehow people want to figure how the Nazi's could have done something different and won the war.

I don't think it's any fascination with wanting the Nazis to win, but rather belief in the myth that a few key battles could have won the war. Almost all what-ifs fall into this trap, and usually the most elaborate take no account of adjustments from the other side.

I prefer what-ifs which might have won the war sooner for the allies. The result was a foregone conclusion, so there is at least some framework of reality in postulating earlier outcomes.

[Frank W.]

i think he was the wrong man.

i read that he before had not much experienc ecommanding troops in
battle, he was a staff man on regimental + divisional level.

some other commanders were quite surprised he got the command of 6th.

one man is often overlooked in thi scase though: göring !

he lighthearted promised to hitler his luftwaffe can supply the cauldon.

this wasn´t true as first hand accounts from richthofen ( front commander
of the luftwaffe in the stalingrad section show ). but as so often the
men who knew it better were not asked....

[Error in 0]

Gøring is a story alone. That guy was more interested in glamour than in being a marshall. Im sure paulus was promised enough supplies by air, but by the time he had to consider breaking out, he must have understood that would not happen.


JT

[IronDuke_slith]

Paulus was a difficult figure to judge. He was a good Staff Officer, part of the team that examined the various options for Barbarossa. His initial handling of 6th Army before Blau was considered timid in some quarters, but his second major action at Kharkov saw him awarded the Knights Cross and help take 240 000 Russian prisoners.

I think he was held by his oath (he was a religious man if memory serves) and a fascination even admiration for Hitler, who had backed the counterattacks at Kharkov that saw the Russians encircled and Paulus win his medal. Stalingrad is difficult to judge, because any breakout would have caused the Germans a number of problems even though it would have a big one. I suspect it was easier for him to believe at the beginning that help was coming, than it was to order a breakout that would end his career. When it became apparent no help was coming, breakout was impossible, and Paulus had no options left. All he had was duty, and he carried it out. I don't think we should underestimate the Prussian tradition of obediance and duty, nor the power of the oath. He may even have realised that 6th Army's predicament was helping to some degree stabilise the German position in Southern Russia.

Had he had the character of a Hausser...who knows.

Regards,
IronDuke

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

It cannot be stressed how deeply rooted the instinct of following orders was in Wehrmacht. They had a several hundred years of prussian tradition and ideal they followed. And for good reasons, as that usually ensured results. Such a system, however, rely on good commanders and good commands. Von Paulus was in trouble. Every instinct refused him to disobey Hitlers orders (indeed, he had sworn to follow them), and Hitler basically told him what HOUSES to attack. An unbeliviable situation for any commander. However, not breaking out to Manstein was probably just due to bad jugdement (and cowardice?). If Paulus was out of his deapths or not, I dont know. I would like to hear why you believe that Eric.


JT

For now I'll quote from 'Russia's War' by Richard Overy (p.182)

"General Friedrich Paulus was not the stuff of military legend. A bourgeois officer in an army still dominated by Germany's military gentry, he made his reputation as an able organiser and staff officer. He took control of the 6th Army only because of the sudden death of its flamboyant and tough commander, Walther von Reichenau, in January 1942. He was Reichenau's opposite; a quiet, subdued, unassertive individual who never lost his temper or became overexcited, loved Beethoven and hated the boorish side of military life. He was fastidious, even fussy, about his personal appearance. A fellow officer recalled a man 'well groomed and with slender hands, always beautifully turned out with a gleaming white collar and immaculately polished field boots'. Stalingrad was the last place on Earth for the tidy and the timid."

What one notices from the accounts of the battle is how few references there are regarding Paulus' command decisions up until the surrender. Whether any other general would have succeeded in his place is debatable but it seems to me that Paulus really didn't try!

[terje439]

I agree, Gøring must take his part of the blame here, he promised that he would be able to fly in the resources von Paulus needed, but he barely managed to fly in 1/10th of the resources. But again I also agree that von Paulus should have tried to link up with Manstein. However from what I have read, von Paulus was also one of the generals that believed that Hitlers instincts would come through again, which it obviously did. However Stalingrad was a disaster waiting to happen for the germans, as the flanks were held by Hungarian, Rumanian and Bulgarian troops, that although fought bravely, just did not have the equiptment to hold against a russian counterattack. So there are several factors to take into consideration when looking at the disaster at Stalingrad.

[Belisarius]

In short, Paulus was a good commander, especially at Army level where his experience and skill in handling the day-to-day administration was put to good use. What he lacked was that extra something that was needed to break out of Stalingrad (or capture it!).

Then again, he was constantly assured by OKW that he would get the supplies and resources he needed to hang on. Did he really believe them, or did he choose to believe them?

[SlapBone]

History Channel running the special about this Hitler general again.

9pm Eastern Time

[Tombstone]

If you're in charge of 250,000 of your countries best and brightest soldiers you better be lucid enough to not be described as 'too much a product of a regions traditions to do the right thing'. Paulus was a good staff officer and not a good army commander. Army commanders need to increase the decisiveness of their charge, not decrease it. It may have been Hitler's fault for promoting him, and sure... Germany was already headed for disaster, with or without the 6th army. Once you pass the winter of 1941 it was just a matter of time. Stalingrad just sped things up.

Tomo

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

If you're in charge of 250,000 of your countries best and brightest soldiers you better be lucid enough to not be described as 'too much a product of a regions traditions to do the right thing'.

Doesn't that apply to all of Germany's military commanders apart from Hitler? Doing the 'right thing' would have been to depose Hitler back in about 1938, if not earlier. The moral paralysis demonstrated by all the so-called leaders of the German armed forces before and during WWII is the absolute antithesis of true leadership and thus we shouldn't be surprised to find them unable to do the 'right thing' on a strategic and operational level either.

Regards
33

[Tombstone]

Well compared to a lot of other German field marshals paulus's performance is left wanting. I agree with the whole depose hitler thing Golf, but your comment isn't taking the spirit of the post into consideration. I meant the right thing for the army to do.

And anyways they weren't morally paralyzed, many of them were really actively doing very immoral things. Also, leadership isn't inherently good natured so being evil doesn't make you a bad leader.

All in all the germans in many cases they did quite decently at the operational and strategic levels. Not as well as your average wehrmacht glorifier might say, but still. I think the Germans had a lot of high quality training and personel so I disagree with what you're implying on that level.

Tomo

[a19999577]

ORIGINAL: Golf33

Doesn't that apply to all of Germany's military commanders apart from Hitler? Doing the 'right thing' would have been to depose Hitler back in about 1938, if not earlier. The moral paralysis demonstrated by all the so-called leaders of the German armed forces before and during WWII is the absolute antithesis of true leadership and thus we shouldn't be surprised to find them unable to do the 'right thing' on a strategic and operational level either.

Regards
33

That's quite an anachronical and/or decontextualized reading of the entire thing. German Generals could not have known, in 1938, that they would eventually be facing a multi-fronted war, with a Holocaust in the midst of it. As far as I know, planning was aimed at short war scenarios.

What I am going to say now is highly debatable [just as stating in 1938 that Hitler was going to be the ruin of Germany would have been... we have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't]: Mr. George W. Bush just might lead his country into an endless stream of wars that might lead to widespread unrest and increased 'terrorist' attacks on the US, with a 'dirty bomb', or perhaps a full-fledged A-bomb striking an important city. Now, would it be fair to state that American Generals should do the 'right thing' and depose Bush right now, while things still aren't as bad as they could be? (Think about Iran, Syria and North Korea...)

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: a19999577

ORIGINAL: Golf33

Doesn't that apply to all of Germany's military commanders apart from Hitler? Doing the 'right thing' would have been to depose Hitler back in about 1938, if not earlier. The moral paralysis demonstrated by all the so-called leaders of the German armed forces before and during WWII is the absolute antithesis of true leadership and thus we shouldn't be surprised to find them unable to do the 'right thing' on a strategic and operational level either.

Regards
33

That's quite an anachronical and/or decontextualized reading of the entire thing. German Generals could not have known, in 1938, that they would eventually be facing a multi-fronted war, with a Holocaust in the midst of it. As far as I know, planning was aimed at short war scenarios.

But they were certainly aware (or at least should have been) of Nazi moral bankruptcy and Hitler's warlike intentions yet they continued to complicity support the regime. As Golf points out, the 'moral paralysis' of the German military command prevented them doing the 'right thing'. True, they could not have foreseen the Holocaust but the systematic persecution of Jews, Gypsies, political opposition etc. was already rife in 1938.

[frank1970]

Of course the US government had to be replaced, too, because they neglected Afroamericans the same rights as whites.

Going after parts of your population was a widespread hobby of ALL societies at that time.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Of course the US government had to be replaced, too, because they neglected Afroamericans the same rights as whites.

Going after parts of your population was a widespread hobby of ALL societies at that time.

Indeed! Racism, bigotry, the 'White Man's Burden' etc. was prevalent throughout the 'civilised' ([8|]) World. But Nazi Germany was the only one where it was State policy to eradicate a whole ethnic group existing within its borders and to do so by violent means.